High Performance 16/17
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
Do they have qualified people evaluating this thing? Granted its just the 54 level & its still just a $ maker, but some of these picks...Ick, WoW, Her, Seriously. OMG, LOL! They wonder why many of the "good" kids stay home! To many "Homer" picks for this old dog...Knight7 wrote:16's
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... s-16-s-red
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -16-s-blue
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... 16-s-white
17's
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... s-17-s-red
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -17-s-blue
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... 17-s-white
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
Also, not sure what u12s angle would be in stating the above list of schools were in attendance, but everyone else who was there seems to agree there were less than 5 all weekend and only 2 at the final.
I've learned enough about this program now that I won't involve my youngest, when and if she's invited when she's old enough. My son never made it past the festival but he never expected to really. While I understand that there are 50 variables that go into evaluating whether a player is in the top 54 in the state (and anyone you asked would have a different list), to tout the turnover of these programs, to suggest/imply that how an athlete or her team performs on this single weekend really matters at all, or to brag these games are highly scouted - well we know these things are false. The selections are made by coaches (even parent coaches) and far from neutral. The players who are going to play college puck are getting looked at outside these programs. Did any one of these 22 commits get their commitments from HP participation? There may be correlation, not causation.
I don't have a kid in the midst of this now so it's not personal. Good luck to the girls who are still participating, but don't let your daughter hang her head for a single second if she didn't make it. There are many paths to college hockey.
I've learned enough about this program now that I won't involve my youngest, when and if she's invited when she's old enough. My son never made it past the festival but he never expected to really. While I understand that there are 50 variables that go into evaluating whether a player is in the top 54 in the state (and anyone you asked would have a different list), to tout the turnover of these programs, to suggest/imply that how an athlete or her team performs on this single weekend really matters at all, or to brag these games are highly scouted - well we know these things are false. The selections are made by coaches (even parent coaches) and far from neutral. The players who are going to play college puck are getting looked at outside these programs. Did any one of these 22 commits get their commitments from HP participation? There may be correlation, not causation.
I don't have a kid in the midst of this now so it's not personal. Good luck to the girls who are still participating, but don't let your daughter hang her head for a single second if she didn't make it. There are many paths to college hockey.
Great post. In all my years, never could figure out why people post what they do. Don't worry I am sure that you will have additional posts blasting you and trying to restate certain items, but reality is reality.Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Also, not sure what u12s angle would be in stating the above list of schools were in attendance, but everyone else who was there seems to agree there were less than 5 all weekend and only 2 at the final.
I've learned enough about this program now that I won't involve my youngest, when and if she's invited when she's old enough. My son never made it past the festival but he never expected to really. While I understand that there are 50 variables that go into evaluating whether a player is in the top 54 in the state (and anyone you asked would have a different list), to tout the turnover of these programs, to suggest/imply that how an athlete or her team performs on this single weekend really matters at all, or to brag these games are highly scouted - well we know these things are false. The selections are made by coaches (even parent coaches) and far from neutral. The players who are going to play college puck are getting looked at outside these programs. Did any one of these 22 commits get their commitments from HP participation? There may be correlation, not causation.
I don't have a kid in the midst of this now so it's not personal. Good luck to the girls who are still participating, but don't let your daughter hang her head for a single second if she didn't make it. There are many paths to college hockey.
-
hockeybozo
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:34 am
I need to put in my 2 cents worth. I was there all weekend, I for sure saw college coaches from RIT, RPI, UND, Williams, Middlebury, and St Cloud State. The point that I wish to make is that last weekends festival is just a prelude to the 54's and then National camp. At each level of advancement more college coaches attend and the players get more looks. It is like the US open golf tournament in some ways, in that the first 2 rounds of qualifying have little reward except the fact that you get closer to playing in the big tournament for big rewards. The players who make national camp are heavily scouted. This is not the only way to get looks, just one way. College coaches need to see players many times before they make informed decisions. This is the start of the recruiting season in Minnesota. Coaches will see the players at prospects this summer and at tournaments all over North America.
As for the evaluators, I thought that they put little importance to the names of the players. I saw some big name players not play their best last weekend and some paid dearly by not being chosen. The so called "I can't believe they picked her" players were playing their hearts out.
As for the evaluators, I thought that they put little importance to the names of the players. I saw some big name players not play their best last weekend and some paid dearly by not being chosen. The so called "I can't believe they picked her" players were playing their hearts out.
It’s sad (or comical), it’s great competition but many of the girls learn very early that valuable lesson we all say that sports is supposed to teach, “life isn’t fair”. And watching this event it is clear when in reality it could be (or much closer). Regretfully for those who advance, it doesn’t matter. But it’s certainly right and just, if we all spoke up for fairness.
Of course many of the girls who do advance do deserve it, we all know many won’t but the blatant unfairness should leave those who are in charge somewhat embarrassed. Let me be clear, I’m not disappointed at all where my kid landed but I’m shocked by others who deserved to but didn’t make it. I’m sure we all know many qualified kids who didn’t make it - there just isn’t enough room and some of us continue to wonder, how’d that happen again (how’d they make it)? Moving beyond the lobbying and politics, I wanted to share a couple observations.
2 years in a row, the Spring Festival is under represented by evaluators during game 3. Fact: 2014 Evaluators in the lobby not watching game at all as they had already made their opinions during game 1 and 2 (or they were mostly predetermined?). Oh, and how do they evaluate those not there Sat, more on that later. And, If they got an X game 2, there was no chance for redemption Sunday (evaluators go missing). Fact: Per Nevertoomuchhockey 2015 “2 evaluators at the final” (as they were mostly predetermined even if better qualified on paper, that's another story).
Evidentally it’s okay to underperform game 1 and miss game 2 completely. Only going to games 1 and 3. Goose eggs 1 and 3. So if there are no or few evaluators Sunday my other point, that person only has one day of evaluations (game 1). Others who had the same conflict Saturday morning opted to make their game with little mental preparation (as it was possible to do both as that conflict is normally done by 1130 or so). And most who would have liked to have pursued that other conflict on Saturday morning, opted to not do so in fear it could impact their evaluations were they to miss the game. Instead they chose to have that conflict in June. A clear double standard. It’s apparently obvious that this was preapproved and special treatment afforded irregardless of performance. It’s wrong that all girls couldn’t skip game 2 for the ACT – it was a choice of priorities. I’ve heard if you were a National Camper you were automatic, this wasn’t the case that I’m aware of but could be with others. Missing a game for any reason other then injury, should have automatically disqualified one from advancing when pursuing an optional opportunity. Saturday was a preferred time to take but not the only time. Choices had to be made. How many kids total missed Saturday when others went but also wanted to take ACT?
Curious on how a Madison Capitol Minnesota resident doesn’t even appear to have participated in the spring festival at all. She’s not on any the Spring Festival Rosters but still makes 54’s? WT* I will edit this post and hopefully others do the same if this get’s out of line. I’m not questioning her eligibility being a Minnesota resident but maybe, but I’m clearly indicating potential blatant unfairness to the point of fraud. Yes I said FRAUD. I’m sure she is a great kid and probably a great hockey player. Missing tryouts (Spring Festival), should automatically disqualify one from advancing and mysteriously appearing on a roster at 54's. She took a spot from someone. Someone in the know, needs to answer this and in turn maybe challenged?
We know the back alleys and smoky room deals will never stop. It happens in all sports and most tryouts. Its the obvious things I mention that are easy fixes.
To summarize, we all know how political hockey is but in order to advance to 54’s one needs to participate in Spring Festival (should be a very basic criteria - I offered 2 examples though probably more exist). For the price of participation and gate fees, the girls should expect 3 full days/games of evaluations (and honest evaluations). I hope the college coaches that were in attendance, more importantly those that weren’t realize that Minnesota Hockey is top heavy in talent (and politics) and that the Spring Festival isn’t a festival of hockey, it’s truly a staged performance (tryouts) in and of itself (politics, influence and giving the appearance of fairness). I think based on my 3 examples, the Spring Festival needs an overhaul and some common sense.
(I stink at typing thus the 27 edits)
Of course many of the girls who do advance do deserve it, we all know many won’t but the blatant unfairness should leave those who are in charge somewhat embarrassed. Let me be clear, I’m not disappointed at all where my kid landed but I’m shocked by others who deserved to but didn’t make it. I’m sure we all know many qualified kids who didn’t make it - there just isn’t enough room and some of us continue to wonder, how’d that happen again (how’d they make it)? Moving beyond the lobbying and politics, I wanted to share a couple observations.
2 years in a row, the Spring Festival is under represented by evaluators during game 3. Fact: 2014 Evaluators in the lobby not watching game at all as they had already made their opinions during game 1 and 2 (or they were mostly predetermined?). Oh, and how do they evaluate those not there Sat, more on that later. And, If they got an X game 2, there was no chance for redemption Sunday (evaluators go missing). Fact: Per Nevertoomuchhockey 2015 “2 evaluators at the final” (as they were mostly predetermined even if better qualified on paper, that's another story).
Evidentally it’s okay to underperform game 1 and miss game 2 completely. Only going to games 1 and 3. Goose eggs 1 and 3. So if there are no or few evaluators Sunday my other point, that person only has one day of evaluations (game 1). Others who had the same conflict Saturday morning opted to make their game with little mental preparation (as it was possible to do both as that conflict is normally done by 1130 or so). And most who would have liked to have pursued that other conflict on Saturday morning, opted to not do so in fear it could impact their evaluations were they to miss the game. Instead they chose to have that conflict in June. A clear double standard. It’s apparently obvious that this was preapproved and special treatment afforded irregardless of performance. It’s wrong that all girls couldn’t skip game 2 for the ACT – it was a choice of priorities. I’ve heard if you were a National Camper you were automatic, this wasn’t the case that I’m aware of but could be with others. Missing a game for any reason other then injury, should have automatically disqualified one from advancing when pursuing an optional opportunity. Saturday was a preferred time to take but not the only time. Choices had to be made. How many kids total missed Saturday when others went but also wanted to take ACT?
Curious on how a Madison Capitol Minnesota resident doesn’t even appear to have participated in the spring festival at all. She’s not on any the Spring Festival Rosters but still makes 54’s? WT* I will edit this post and hopefully others do the same if this get’s out of line. I’m not questioning her eligibility being a Minnesota resident but maybe, but I’m clearly indicating potential blatant unfairness to the point of fraud. Yes I said FRAUD. I’m sure she is a great kid and probably a great hockey player. Missing tryouts (Spring Festival), should automatically disqualify one from advancing and mysteriously appearing on a roster at 54's. She took a spot from someone. Someone in the know, needs to answer this and in turn maybe challenged?
We know the back alleys and smoky room deals will never stop. It happens in all sports and most tryouts. Its the obvious things I mention that are easy fixes.
To summarize, we all know how political hockey is but in order to advance to 54’s one needs to participate in Spring Festival (should be a very basic criteria - I offered 2 examples though probably more exist). For the price of participation and gate fees, the girls should expect 3 full days/games of evaluations (and honest evaluations). I hope the college coaches that were in attendance, more importantly those that weren’t realize that Minnesota Hockey is top heavy in talent (and politics) and that the Spring Festival isn’t a festival of hockey, it’s truly a staged performance (tryouts) in and of itself (politics, influence and giving the appearance of fairness). I think based on my 3 examples, the Spring Festival needs an overhaul and some common sense.
(I stink at typing thus the 27 edits)
Last edited by The Cynic on Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:44 pm, edited 26 times in total.
-
MN_Bowhunter
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:08 am
Seriously, you ask me a question, I give you facts and you and Coachk blast the factual answer!Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Also, not sure what u12s angle would be in stating the above list of schools were in attendance, but everyone else who was there seems to agree there were less than 5 all weekend and only 2 at the final.
I've learned enough about this program now that I won't involve my youngest, when and if she's invited when she's old enough. My son never made it past the festival but he never expected to really. While I understand that there are 50 variables that go into evaluating whether a player is in the top 54 in the state (and anyone you asked would have a different list), to tout the turnover of these programs, to suggest/imply that how an athlete or her team performs on this single weekend really matters at all, or to brag these games are highly scouted - well we know these things are false. The selections are made by coaches (even parent coaches) and far from neutral. The players who are going to play college puck are getting looked at outside these programs. Did any one of these 22 commits get their commitments from HP participation? There may be correlation, not causation.
I don't have a kid in the midst of this now so it's not personal. Good luck to the girls who are still participating, but don't let your daughter hang her head for a single second if she didn't make it. There are many paths to college hockey.
The Colleges I stated where there in addition to St. Kate's and St. Mary's:
Scanlan wore a black Bemidji jacket (was there Fri and Sat) , Frost was incognito and sat with Burke from RPI in the same row that two RIT coaches were sitting in on Friday afternoon (all wearing their jackets). The assistant at Williams was standing with the Middlebury assistant most of the weekend along the glass (both wearing their logo jackets). Don't know the name of the SCSU coach wearing the logo jacket; the two River Falls coaches had black jackets with URF on the front. Coach H wears a gray jacket with UCONN on the front. Idalski and Fabian were also sitting close to Frost on Friday, Fabian in his black UND jacket.
Not sure where this angle is coming from, but I do know you, CoachK and "everyone else there" don't have a clue about who was there.
Last edited by u12dad on Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
I wasn't coming at you u12. Sorry if it read that way.
I was only there for the final. There were 2 schools (at least not incognito.) As others have pointed out, maybe that game didn't matter to some.
My issue is the insincerity in how they promote this HP animal - especially to newbies and younger players. Fact is it matters less how you play at the festival than it does on many other factors. Girls made this 54 who didn't play all weekend. Girls made this 54 and took the ACT while others were told if they missed a game they couldn't be considered. High school coaches and other non neutral evaluators have favorites. Some kids are legends or grandfathered in. Others picked off weak sections and bad high school teams to keep the dream alive and the pipeline of paying players showing up. It is what it is.
And actually, I don't have a problem with any of it. Just be transparent about the criteria for selection and upfront about how many of that 54 are actually open spots. Fact is 160 cut to 54 means 100+ decent/good/great/amazing players didn't make it. And I promise that many can play the next level even if they never make or made the HP camps or natty teams.
I was only there for the final. There were 2 schools (at least not incognito.) As others have pointed out, maybe that game didn't matter to some.
My issue is the insincerity in how they promote this HP animal - especially to newbies and younger players. Fact is it matters less how you play at the festival than it does on many other factors. Girls made this 54 who didn't play all weekend. Girls made this 54 and took the ACT while others were told if they missed a game they couldn't be considered. High school coaches and other non neutral evaluators have favorites. Some kids are legends or grandfathered in. Others picked off weak sections and bad high school teams to keep the dream alive and the pipeline of paying players showing up. It is what it is.
And actually, I don't have a problem with any of it. Just be transparent about the criteria for selection and upfront about how many of that 54 are actually open spots. Fact is 160 cut to 54 means 100+ decent/good/great/amazing players didn't make it. And I promise that many can play the next level even if they never make or made the HP camps or natty teams.
Second chance: It's just wrong, a problem with a girl not on any Spring Festival rosters showing up on a 54 roster (not a National Camper). Hoping someone can explain? Also, some strongly discouraged from missing for ACT while other(s) wink wink (laying eggs yet advancing). Evaluations basically ceasing on Sunday. Plenty of qualified girls who did well enough to take those spots at 3 days of tryouts and on paper.Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I wasn't coming at you u12. Sorry if it read that way.
I was only there for the final. There were 2 schools (at least not incognito.) As others have pointed out, maybe that game didn't matter to some.
My issue is the insincerity in how they promote this HP animal - especially to newbies and younger players. Fact is it matters less how you play at the festival than it does on many other factors. Girls made this 54 who didn't play all weekend. Girls made this 54 and took the ACT while others were told if they missed a game they couldn't be considered. High school coaches and other non neutral evaluators have favorites. Some kids are legends or grandfathered in. Others picked off weak sections and bad high school teams to keep the dream alive and the pipeline of paying players showing up. It is what it is.
And actually, I don't have a problem with any of it. Just be transparent about the criteria for selection and upfront about how many of that 54 are actually open spots. Fact is 160 cut to 54 means 100+ decent/good/great/amazing players didn't make it. And I promise that many can play the next level even if they never make or made the HP camps or natty teams.
Last edited by The Cynic on Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
Seriously, u12 dad, take a chill pill. Just asked a simple question. I have been involved with girls hockey for 18 years and do you really think this didn't happen years ago. Like when during Lake Placid tryouts when 8 Benilde players were chosen for 16 slots of which the main evaluator was from Benilde. When the list is 30 plus schools, then I will be impressed, but until then it is just Minnesota hockey smoke and mirrors.u12dad wrote:Seriously, you ask me a question, I give you facts and you and Coachk blast the factual answer!Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Also, not sure what u12s angle would be in stating the above list of schools were in attendance, but everyone else who was there seems to agree there were less than 5 all weekend and only 2 at the final.
I've learned enough about this program now that I won't involve my youngest, when and if she's invited when she's old enough. My son never made it past the festival but he never expected to really. While I understand that there are 50 variables that go into evaluating whether a player is in the top 54 in the state (and anyone you asked would have a different list), to tout the turnover of these programs, to suggest/imply that how an athlete or her team performs on this single weekend really matters at all, or to brag these games are highly scouted - well we know these things are false. The selections are made by coaches (even parent coaches) and far from neutral. The players who are going to play college puck are getting looked at outside these programs. Did any one of these 22 commits get their commitments from HP participation? There may be correlation, not causation.
I don't have a kid in the midst of this now so it's not personal. Good luck to the girls who are still participating, but don't let your daughter hang her head for a single second if she didn't make it. There are many paths to college hockey.
The Colleges I stated where there in additional to St. Kate's and St. Mary's:
Scanlan wore a black Bemidji jacket (was there Fri and Sat) , Frost was incognito and sat with Burke from RPI in the same row that two RIT coaches were sitting in on Friday afternoon (all wearing their jackets). The assistant at Williams was standing with the Middlebury assistant most of the weekend along the glass (both wearing their logo jackets). Don't know the name of the SCSU coach wearing the logo jacket; the two River Falls coaches had black jackets with URF on the front. Coach H wears a gray jacket with UCONN on the front. Idalski and Fabian were also sitting close to Frost on Friday, Fabian in his black UND jacket.
Not sure where this angle is coming from, but I do know you, CoachK and "everyone else there" don't have a clue about who was there.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
I believe it was 1998. Tryouts were held at Eden Prairie, Marci Bydlon was the coach and the main evaluator was Bill Quinn. Anymore info? I could the names of some of the players, most were 1983 birth year. MN fan did you have a players trying out then?MNHockeyFan wrote:Any details to back this up? What year, what level, and who was the "main evaluator"?Coachk wrote:Like when during Lake Placid tryouts when 8 Benilde players were chosen for 16 slots of which the main evaluator was from Benilde.
-
boardguy1998
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:29 am
Wolfman, did she make it now, they just added a forward to each team, I guess this year it is 57, not 54.wolfman wrote:My kid did not make it again. She will keep working hard (her words) and she is happy as heck for her buds that did. I love girls hockey and when my kids are done I hope and pray I have some grandkids that play someday
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
??????????boardguy1998 wrote:Wolfman, did she make it now, they just added a forward to each team, I guess this year it is 57, not 54.wolfman wrote:My kid did not make it again. She will keep working hard (her words) and she is happy as heck for her buds that did. I love girls hockey and when my kids are done I hope and pray I have some grandkids that play someday
That's pretty shady, ridiculous, strange, bs. Pick an adjective. Who what why when HOW?
-
boardguy1998
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:29 am
-
puckdreams
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:25 pm
Here are the updated numbers that everyone has been waiting for.
Of the newly termed "Final 57", on the HP 16 side, 53 of the 57 made the "Final 102" HP 15 Summer Camp in St. Cloud last year as player, or as one of the 9 alternates. That is 93%. One could turn this around and say only 53 of the 109 made it from last year, and that's only 49%. The rebuttal to that is: What would you guess the actual percentage be if they took 102 like they do at HP 15's and not 54 or 57, or whatever they dream up?
There were 25 National Campers last year on the HP 15 side, with 7 alternates. Of that, 24 of the 25 made the "Final 57", and 5 of the 7 alternates made it. In total, that's 91% return rate. Overall, only 4 new players made it to this higher level.
Things are a little more black/white on the HP 17 side since they had a "Final 54" last year. There are 37 players on the "Final 57" that made the "Final 54" last year. That is a 65% return rate.
But of the 20 who are new to this upper level, 13 made their section HP 16 rosters at last year. Only 7 are very new to this higher level. So one could look at the return rate being 50 of 57, or 88%.
Take a look at these numbers, then look back to my post on April 1st with the first round numbers. Then look to the following MN Hockey webpage:
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... ormance-15
Right in the middle of the page it states:
Traditionally, Minnesota has had about 50% turn over in players selected to national camps from one year to the next. In 2012, there was a 56% turn over from the previous year's 15 list and 40% turn over from the previous year's 16 list. This is proof of the large talent base here in Minnesota, our dedication to a fair, non-biased evaluation process, and the continued development of our players.
Now it's up to you to decide if this is true, or misleading.
Of the newly termed "Final 57", on the HP 16 side, 53 of the 57 made the "Final 102" HP 15 Summer Camp in St. Cloud last year as player, or as one of the 9 alternates. That is 93%. One could turn this around and say only 53 of the 109 made it from last year, and that's only 49%. The rebuttal to that is: What would you guess the actual percentage be if they took 102 like they do at HP 15's and not 54 or 57, or whatever they dream up?
There were 25 National Campers last year on the HP 15 side, with 7 alternates. Of that, 24 of the 25 made the "Final 57", and 5 of the 7 alternates made it. In total, that's 91% return rate. Overall, only 4 new players made it to this higher level.
Things are a little more black/white on the HP 17 side since they had a "Final 54" last year. There are 37 players on the "Final 57" that made the "Final 54" last year. That is a 65% return rate.
But of the 20 who are new to this upper level, 13 made their section HP 16 rosters at last year. Only 7 are very new to this higher level. So one could look at the return rate being 50 of 57, or 88%.
Take a look at these numbers, then look back to my post on April 1st with the first round numbers. Then look to the following MN Hockey webpage:
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... ormance-15
Right in the middle of the page it states:
Traditionally, Minnesota has had about 50% turn over in players selected to national camps from one year to the next. In 2012, there was a 56% turn over from the previous year's 15 list and 40% turn over from the previous year's 16 list. This is proof of the large talent base here in Minnesota, our dedication to a fair, non-biased evaluation process, and the continued development of our players.
Now it's up to you to decide if this is true, or misleading.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
That was a long time ago, well before mine was high school age! Hopefully tryout evaluations are way more objective these days!Coachk wrote:I believe it was 1998. Tryouts were held at Eden Prairie, Marci Bydlon was the coach and the main evaluator was Bill Quinn. Anymore info? I could the names of some of the players, most were 1983 birth year. MN fan did you have a players trying out then?MNHockeyFan wrote:Any details to back this up? What year, what level, and who was the "main evaluator"?Coachk wrote:Like when during Lake Placid tryouts when 8 Benilde players were chosen for 16 slots of which the main evaluator was from Benilde.
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
This is pretty telling.Lace'emUp wrote:Here are the updated numbers that everyone has been waiting for.
Of the newly termed "Final 57", on the HP 16 side, 53 of the 57 made the "Final 102" HP 15 Summer Camp in St. Cloud last year as player, or as one of the 9 alternates. That is 93%. One could turn this around and say only 53 of the 109 made it from last year, and that's only 49%. The rebuttal to that is: What would you guess the actual percentage be if they took 102 like they do at HP 15's and not 54 or 57, or whatever they dream up?
There were 25 National Campers last year on the HP 15 side, with 7 alternates. Of that, 24 of the 25 made the "Final 57", and 5 of the 7 alternates made it. In total, that's 91% return rate. Overall, only 4 new players made it to this higher level.
Things are a little more black/white on the HP 17 side since they had a "Final 54" last year. There are 37 players on the "Final 57" that made the "Final 54" last year. That is a 65% return rate.
But of the 20 who are new to this upper level, 13 made their section HP 16 rosters at last year. Only 7 are very new to this higher level. So one could look at the return rate being 50 of 57, or 88%.
Take a look at these numbers, then look back to my post on April 1st with the first round numbers. Then look to the following MN Hockey webpage:
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... ormance-15
Right in the middle of the page it states:
Traditionally, Minnesota has had about 50% turn over in players selected to national camps from one year to the next. In 2012, there was a 56% turn over from the previous year's 15 list and 40% turn over from the previous year's 16 list. This is proof of the large talent base here in Minnesota, our dedication to a fair, non-biased evaluation process, and the continued development of our players.
Now it's up to you to decide if this is true, or misleading.
I'd be curious how the very first HP selections at 15s translate into who's picked at 17s. It seems very very few girls or boys are ever selected if they don't make that very first cut to 15s camp?
-
Nevertoomuchhockey
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm
This is pretty telling.Lace'emUp wrote:Here are the updated numbers that everyone has been waiting for.
Of the newly termed "Final 57", on the HP 16 side, 53 of the 57 made the "Final 102" HP 15 Summer Camp in St. Cloud last year as player, or as one of the 9 alternates. That is 93%. One could turn this around and say only 53 of the 109 made it from last year, and that's only 49%. The rebuttal to that is: What would you guess the actual percentage be if they took 102 like they do at HP 15's and not 54 or 57, or whatever they dream up?
There were 25 National Campers last year on the HP 15 side, with 7 alternates. Of that, 24 of the 25 made the "Final 57", and 5 of the 7 alternates made it. In total, that's 91% return rate. Overall, only 4 new players made it to this higher level.
Things are a little more black/white on the HP 17 side since they had a "Final 54" last year. There are 37 players on the "Final 57" that made the "Final 54" last year. That is a 65% return rate.
But of the 20 who are new to this upper level, 13 made their section HP 16 rosters at last year. Only 7 are very new to this higher level. So one could look at the return rate being 50 of 57, or 88%.
Take a look at these numbers, then look back to my post on April 1st with the first round numbers. Then look to the following MN Hockey webpage:
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... ormance-15
Right in the middle of the page it states:
Traditionally, Minnesota has had about 50% turn over in players selected to national camps from one year to the next. In 2012, there was a 56% turn over from the previous year's 15 list and 40% turn over from the previous year's 16 list. This is proof of the large talent base here in Minnesota, our dedication to a fair, non-biased evaluation process, and the continued development of our players.
Now it's up to you to decide if this is true, or misleading.
I'd be curious how the very first HP selections at 15s translate into who's picked at 17s. It seems very very few girls or boys are ever selected if they don't make that very first cut to 15s camp?