HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

ghshockeyfan wrote:FWIW the IceCats have long been stacked. They are supposed to win. Like the Team MN Elite before them, and a few years of Walser inbetween, and then a year of the Lightning... It's tough to compete with these teams. It will be fun to see what the ever changing AAA landscape brings this season with an influx of young talent with some teams, etc.

I see Walser has 3 teams in this. Do they have any players that can make an impact? Plus there are ther Saints, Eagles and blues. Any top players there as well?

Should be a good weekend at least to get things rolling. Do girls stay with each other or do the teams change throughout these tourneys like the Meltdown and some of the others that I have seen on the Swans web sight?

I know many questions fo a newby, lol.....

"B&A" or "before & after" teams now dominate the landscape. Everyone is working to lock down players for the Fall tourneys, trips all over the US & Canada, etc. As a result, many of these teams play through Spring (mainly Stick-it & Meltdown) with their "old" rosters, and then they transition as early as the "Wild" tourney but most by Int'l Cup in Aug.

The big "new" B&A team on the block is the "Jr. Whitecaps" - an off-shoot to some degree of former older-U19 IceCats and others. Walser will be having teams again I'm sure, and I would imagine the younger former U17, but now only, U19 IceCats team will travel east this fall as well???

The end result is that many rosters will change over the course of the Summer. This is nothing new in many respects as not all kids can play all events, etc. even the local stuff.

As far as local based teams that aren't in this to travel all over, the Blues are one of the few. They are more a local event group that is more true U19 age players vs. younger players. There are some other younger highly talented teams playing U19 level that are traveling quite a bit this Summer and I woudl assume next fall too, but I don't know as much about them.

ghshockeyfan wrote:The big "new" B&A team on the block is the "Jr. Whitecaps" - an off-shoot to some degree of former older-U19 IceCats and others.

LINK

keepitreal wrote:

ghshockeyfan wrote:The big "new" B&A team on the block is the "Jr. Whitecaps" - an off-shoot to some degree of former older-U19 IceCats and others.

LINK

This roster does not look at all like last year's U19 Icecats team.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

keepitreal wrote:

ghshockeyfan wrote:The big "new" B&A team on the block is the "Jr. Whitecaps" - an off-shoot to some degree of former older-U19 IceCats and others.

LINK

This roster does not look at all like last year's U19 Icecats team.

My bad. Can you compare it to the older 19 IceCat team sent to NAHA last Fall (VT)? I thought there were some (at least a couple) similar names. Many of the past U19 from last Summer are College Fr now I believe... But they picked up some different gals for NAHA I thought, and those are some of the ones that I think we see now in the Jr Whitecaps? There is a very good U19 IceCat team now too obvioulsy - the younger of the two from last Summer, that may have been known as a U17 at some time?

ghshockeyfan wrote:My bad. Can you compare it to the team sent to NAHA last Fall (VT)? I thought there were some (at least a couple) similar names. Many of the past U19 from last Summer are College Fr now I believe

I just remember the U19 team being absolutely loaded, with most of the Ms. Hockey finalists and other well known seniors (who would be freshmen right now) and a few outstanding juniors. Names like Megan Pezon, Anna McDonald, Allie Thunstrom, Catlin Hogan, Chelsey Jones, Christina Lee, Amanda Trunzo, Jenna Kilpatrick, etc. I believe were all on that team, plus more all stars that I don't remember.

Sorry I don't know who was on the NAHA team last fall but I imagine many of the U19 Icecats girls who were incoming freshmen by then would have had conflicts. It would not have been a good time for them to get injured either -

MNHockeyFan wrote:

ghshockeyfan wrote:My bad. Can you compare it to the team sent to NAHA last Fall (VT)? I thought there were some (at least a couple) similar names. Many of the past U19 from last Summer are College Fr now I believe

I just remember the U19 team being absolutely loaded, with most of the Ms. Hockey finalists and other well known seniors (who would be freshmen right now) and a few outstanding juniors. Names like Megan Pezon, Anna McDonald, Allie Thunstrom, Catlin Hogan, Chelsey Jones, Christina Lee, Amanda Trunzo, Jenna Kilpatrick, etc. I believe were all on that team, plus more all stars that I don't remember.

Sorry I don't know who was on the NAHA team last fall but I imagine many of the U19 Icecats girls who were incoming freshmen by then would have had conflicts. It would not have been a good time for them to get injured either -

Exactly. I should have clairified. There was a distinct difference between the U19 Summer IceCats & that team that went to VT minus the College Fr but with some additional "new" outstanding players... My bad!

Now that its been a week since I saw the Meltdown, I wonder about a couple things. I can understand and mostly agree with those who believe that AAA teams need to have truly AAA caliber players to play in the U19 division of these tournaments. That leads to a few issues.

First, if there are only the top players on these (lets say eight) teams and they only play each other in the tounaments, over the course of the spring-summer, how soon does this get old? Sure, rivalries come into existence, but isn't it going to be a lot of deja vu? My guess is that Icecats win them and the interest becomes "who places 2nd?" And how many tournaments do they play if its the same teams every time? Five or six or ten? Not to mention that they scrimmage each other occasionally. Maybe this isn't a problem to some, but it sounds to me like it can only create a limited amount of interest and value to the players.

Next, if the best players are grouped into the "elite" 8 teams, will there be any interest or opportunites for the girls who don't make these teams? If there is enough interest, could there be a "AA" or "Tier 2" division? If there isn't enough, then there could be a lot of girls with the desire to play, but no opportunity.

Also, how many girls tournaments will disappear if only 8 AAA teams exist? Maybe there are too many summer tounaments, or maybe the Wild tournament, Duluth tournament and Alexandria Hockey Festival become tier 2 tournaments.

Finally, if its decided (officially or unofficially,) that only 8 AAA teams will exist, aren't we talking about a league instead of tournament teams? If thats the case, then the entire structure of summer hockey could be reorganized. There might as well be a season opening tournament, 14 weeks of games and a season ending tournament. This, however, essentially kills most of the girls tournaments.

Or it goes on as it is now. The best teams play each other in most of the tournaments, and an occasional guest team plays, without all-state or college players on every line and goes 0-4. The guest team knows its coming, and the small victories come about by hanging in there with the best. This is probably the way it'll be for a long time, and its going to stay that way, because a tournament coordinator won't tell an applying team, "sorry, your team can't play, its only for the elite AAA teams." They also won't hear, "but there's other tier 2 teams and tier 2 tournaments out there." Until that happens, there will be U19 teams occasionally appearing in tournaments where some deem "they don't belong." Maybe not, but they have to be allowed to play somewhere.

I don't think it will change in the foreseeable future because the real problem isn't structure or identifying the top kids or politics.

Getting a group of top-level teenage girls from different parts of the state to show for more than 1-3 off-season tourneys is incredibly hard. Any more than that and it starts to be a crapshoot to see if enough show up due to LAX, soccer, softball, track, prom, etc. Not to mention the folks in the outstate that won't commit to extensive travel.

Once you take the top talent, and then subtract those unwilling to pay/travel in the offseason, subtract out those involved in off-season activities, subtract out injuries, etc. - I don't know if you have enough talent/willing participants to create an "elite league."

An elite league is entirely doable. Problem is that most believe that you can't be creative to get it done. Obvioulsy the Can-Am or 2 nations groups pulled it off to some degree - and it can be done. I don't believe we need to travel all over to accompish this, and it could be done locally, but the set-up is flawed currently. All tourneys could go away, as could the need for all travel, if the "AAA" groups worked together. If you think about it, what could your entry fee for the main tourneys buy just ice time & refs wise? Probably quite a bit, but, then there isn't the attraction I suppose for college coaches... Or is there??? There are ways to address all these concerns, but, as long as we're fighting each other vs. working together on an elite league we'll never have the best solution.

And, I should add, there could be a 2nd tier as well...

I agree with the observations made here, but we certainly have to recognize the differences between an elite LEAGUE and and elite TEAM (AAA) to understand why things are the way they are and why it will be difficult to change. The primary obstacle is the various goals of offseason hockey that don't always align by virtue of one thing: self-interest.

In a league, one run by a single governing body whether the MGHCA or whomever, it would be in the league's best interest to distribute the top talent to ensure a reasonable degree of parity, thus ensuring multiple games against the same teams continue to hold interest over the schedule. Seems like a worthy idea, no? I'd expect a coach like GHS who holds development in the highest regard to favor this; I respect his opinion and goals.

Of course, parity is not first and foremost in the minds of people when it comes to off-season hockey. It might be about winning, but I don't think it's the major thing. It's more about the combination of recognition, exposure and the desire to see how a player stacks up against others at the highest levels. I suspect some feel they can only perform when surrounded by others of their caliber, but most feel they've earned it.

Let's be clear-- superteams aren't usually formed with the goal of dominating the Stick It or the Meltdown. Their goal is to compete among other elite teams nationally and internationally when they travel. Other local teams might only come together for one tourney. Some teams might be the tier II players who seek a full schedule of practices and tourneys for the purposes of development. Some super-elites who have tired from years of their services being in demand might skip it entirely or choose to skate only in events that yield maximum competition or exposure. Mix in NDP, advanced camps, spring sports, elite soccer, and ah yes, school-- and it's arguable whether one size fits all as far as a league vs a freelance team.

Perceptions about whether this is good, bad/flawed or something between, the goals of offseaon hockey are different as night and day for players, parents and coaches. And as long as offseason hockey is driven by self-interest there will always be contrasting notions about what is "best". The truth really lies approximately where it does now; with people given the freedom to shape the experience they desire, even to the point of forming their own team, or league. There is certainly room for a HS elite league; just don't expect 100% out of the gate or try to mandate it. AAA is the wild west, but over time people begin to figure it out and can usually identify the best route for their daughter.

As always - very well said. And, I agree.

keepitreal wrote:Mix in NDP, advanced camps, spring sports, elite soccer, and ah yes, school-- and it's arguable whether one size fits all as far as a league vs a freelance team..... AAA is the wild west, but over time people begin to figure it out and can usually identify the best route for their daughter.

I agree too with this (as I do with nearly everything keepitreal has ever said on this board).

As he said here the thing that the existing "freelance" system allows is flexibility (varied options) for the girls. I've seen many hockey guys voice the opinion and explain why kids benefit from being more than one sport athletes. One thing about the present system is that it allows them to do just that. If they want to play soccer or softball in the summer, lacrosse or golf in the spring, etc, they can build their hockey schedule around those committments, choosing those hockey camps and programs that work best for them. Then in addition, time permitting and expense considerations taken into account, some AAA teams are more loosely organized, and some are more expensive than others, due to how many practices they have and how much travel is involved. The point is that the current system, despite its flaws, does offer a great deal of flexibility which is probably the main reason why it's evolved the way it has.

Any elite league with a long, set schedule where the teams are formed based on expected attendence for pretty much every game would force the multi-sport athlete to make some tough decisions. In particular I've noticed that as girls get older their interests get more varied and their schedules get busier, so it becomes more difficult to get consistently good attendence with set schedules.

Just some additional thoughts to consider....

MNHockeyFan wrote:

keepitreal wrote:Mix in NDP, advanced camps, spring sports, elite soccer, and ah yes, school-- and it's arguable whether one size fits all as far as a league vs a freelance team..... AAA is the wild west, but over time people begin to figure it out and can usually identify the best route for their daughter.

I agree too with this (as I do with nearly everything keepitreal has ever said on this board).

As he said here the thing that the existing "freelance" system allows is flexibility (varied options) for the girls. I've seen many hockey guys voice the opinion and explain why kids benefit from being more than one sport athletes. One thing about the present system is that it allows them to do just that. If they want to play soccer or softball in the summer, lacrosse or golf in the spring, etc, they can build their hockey schedule around those committments, choosing those hockey camps and programs that work best for them. Then in addition, time permitting and expense considerations taken into account, some AAA teams are more loosely organized, and some are more expensive than others, due to how many practices they have and how much travel is involved. The point is that the current system, despite its flaws, does offer a great deal of flexibility which is probably the main reason why it's evolved the way it has.

Any elite league with a long, set schedule where the teams are formed based on expected attendence for pretty much every game would force the multi-sport athlete to make some tough decisions. In particular I've noticed that as girls get older their interests get more varied and their schedules get busier, so it becomes more difficult to get consistently good attendence with set schedules.

Just some additional thoughts to consider....

I agree that the present system provides a great deal of flexibility and choices; however, I don't see anything wrong with attempting to start an elite league. Its another choice and if it works I believe it could be a great alternative to the present system. If it works parents, coaches and managers wouldn't necessarily have to go through the mad scramble of forming dominant teams for the primary purpose of winning. Such a new system if done right would probably be better for development and be a better competitive system. If the new system isn't working there will be nothing preventing people from joining the elitest teams again to go their own way.

From the perspective of a parent, I wish more than even having an Elite league (or leagues – various skill levels) like the boys do, that program sponsors would think ahead a little and map out their offerings ahead of time.

Whether it's OS or CODP, or any number of other programs, there is a constant stream of "can't miss this type" new opportunities being created. If these were all known, say like in January, as consumers we could make rationale trade-offs. However, it's like one program hears that another is thinking of something new, and so they immediately jump in (and vice versa). The notice for one program is in Jan, another in March, another in May, etc. – even for programs all being held this summer. The same thing has been happening in the fall. Plan the program 4-6 months ahead of time. Communicate details 3-4 months ahead of time. Confirm ice times at least 3-4 weeks ahead of time. etc.

There are some great opportunities, that had we known about them ahead of time, we might have selected program differently. Maybe that's not the way it will ever work, but it is frustrating.

Regarding an Elite league, the boys have had this in place for what – 5 years now? It frankly is kind of amazing that girls can’t get the same type of thing going, instead of programs competing with each other. At the end of the day I think the two worst offenders are OS and CODP – it’s obvious that they’re both competing against each other. The challenge I would like to present those two organizations is to talk to each other – the pie is big enough for both organizations – and get an “Elite League” going this fall. They could do it. Unfortunately, however, if history holds true, they will compete with each other instead. Too bad!

hshockeyfan91 wrote:Unfortunately, however, if history holds true, they will compete with each other instead. Too bad!

On the other hand competition can be good in that it drives innovation and helps keep prices down.

I do agree 100% with your point about these programs giving more advance notice.

I agree this is very confusing for both parents and players. Again however we have to distinguish between programs that are oriented toward TRAINING, and AAA teams oriented toward PLAYING-- these are two different things with different goals. We also see hybrids of one form or another. I believe OS has had some teams in recent tournaments.

Excuse my trademark long rant

The brutal yet non-surprising truth is that many, many parents and players alike, wish to surround themselves with only the most talented players in off-season hockey--whether for tournament or training purposes. Like the elite boys teams past, this mindset has permeated every age level all the way down to the youngest players. This is done for a number of reasons-- a "greater challenge", affirmation of talent, acceptance, ego, friendships, recognition, "visibility", etc., and is accomplished either by playing at an older age level than the player's peers, or by trying to land on the most elite team/program that will have her, or both. Players who aren't quite at that caliber also seek to play with the top players thinking it might help them develop, i.e. "challenge" them.

For the most part I suppose this is neither right or wrong, nor ideal or inherently evil. There are good and bad things about it to be sure, but we as parents might believe it's the right thing to "take our kid to the next level". A great player on an average high school team might need to work with top players to improve. It's classic self-interest and when it's your dime, that's fair right?

There's so many choices for parents because we continue to throw money at organizers and professional trainers/coaches, though well-intentioned they (and we) may be. Because they honestly believe in what they do and there is money to be made with a willing audience, off-season opportunities have flourished for a relatively small number of participants-- creating pressure to participate in more and more programs and events. The same is true about other sports, though hockey parents seem to exhibit a more profound degree of madness

And because of vastly fewer numbers in girls hockey, herein lies the difference between the boys elite and the girls from a league standpoint. The caliber of the top to bottom players in an 8-team league is a wide gulf compared to the boys, and many of the true elite (D1 level) players probably don't feel this is worth their time compared to other opportunities.

In my opinion the closest we get to a true elite league are one or two short spring leagues squeezed in between the end of the HS season and NDP phase I. After that, top players are scattered to the winds and you're unlikely to get them all in the same place until fall. Agree if CODP and OS could work together a fall league would work. Or maybe they should each put in four teams against each other wow would that be a recruiting firestorm...

BUT, there is a place for a summer HS summer league-- I imagine it to be more tier II varsity, JV players and for U14's coming into HS hockey, with a healthy dose of coaching and training built-in to the experience. Maybe even allow some higher level players or graduating seniors to skate at no charge to provide "the challenge". Just a thought.

In all this, I don't think we have to worry about the true elite players, they're gonna be okay

The truth is that there are a lot of options. That's great if you have all the $$$ in the world. Have you ever coached a kid who is good enough to be an elite athlete but can't afford what it takes to make them one (or so we believe...)???

I wonder if any of the parents on here would be willing to honestly ballpark what they've invested in the past year, few years, career, for their child to play hockey. What events, training, etc. have they done? I'm sure there are the obvious costs for the programs, but what about equipment & transportation/trips, etc. I'm guessing nearly all youth programs run $1k+ per year for traveling teams now? I bet some parents spend 5K+ maybe more a year for everything?

I think someone should just sit down with the major parties and ask when they will be offering their programs well in advance, look at the schedule for the other major events (tourneys, NDP, MGHCA events, etc., etc.) and then map out a schedule, appropriate offerings, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't know that a joint effort would work in the sense that there may not be enough profit to go around for all the groups and who gets how much would become the biggest issue I bet.

As a HS coach my first concern is keeping the cost low, the events local (in MN metro), accomodate multi-sport athletes as best you can, and the schedule reasonable with plenty of notice.

I've seen some of the coaches assn proposals, and one in particular is quite well thoughtout and all are actually very good. The coaches assn is in the brainstorming stage if not further and they won't rush into this without a well thought out plan. I don't think the goal in any of this is to ever put private businesses out of business - but instead expand the options and maybe creating something that actually compliments what else is out there in an affordable fashion...

I think we all basically agree that there are pro's and con's on how the off season opportuities setup. I do agree with GHS that it would be great if we could do stuff in Minnesota, without lots of travel dollars. It's also hopeful to hear that the MGHCA is coming up with some kind of plan. However, last fall, both OS and CODP launched "elite" fall teams. I assume that they'll both do that this year too. I think they tried to play teams like the Thoroughbreds and SSM. I don't know if OS and CODP officially cooperated or not - I don't think so - and I know that there were lots of moving parts at the last minute for both.

The MGHCA plan might be great, but if CODP and OS get the jump, it's going to be hard to initiate something else in a year or two. As I said, I think there's space for both programs to field teams, along with entries from nearby areas (Wisconsin, ND/SD maybe). While there is not the depth of the boys, you could put two CODP, two OS, a Wisc team, a Dakota team and add the Throughbreds and SSM. Would that be a pretty competative offering? Maybe some other entity would want to sponsor a team. It seems like most AAA teams are done by Labor Day. All of this could be done with cooperation, but it doesn't appear like people want to cooperate. Could the MGHCA association setup a league and invite organizations / areas to submit teams?

I have not been surprised with the Ice Cats multiple victories but my only concern is if there is a bench in the state big enough for that many egos?

sure when you win every game by about 5 goals it's not bad but when it's a tight game in the third and every player is used to being the "go-to-girl" in that situation, feelings may get hurt and fights may break out

This hasn't happened yet and it may not but having a team full of genuine All-Stars could just cause problems because everyone one of them KNOWS they are an All-Star and most likely feel they need to be treated like one

Just my two cents and this may not even apply to this group of girls, it just does in most cases

Tigerpower, I get the drift of what you're saying, and to some degree I'm sure there's truth in it. However, more often I think players recognize other good players around them.

For example, if you take one of the IceCats players you're referring to and put her on a team of relatively weak players, I think there would be major issues if she wasn't a goto player at the end of a close game. On the other hand, if you put that same player on a team of many strong players, most of these players do see the ability of girls around them and recognize playing time decisions are going to be slightly different.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think it's unfair to look at the whole team as a bunch of "big egos" just because they are good players. There can be just as many - maybe even more - ego type issues on a weaker team as there is on a very good team. Not all of the better players (and their parents) are jerks demanding a #1 position on a team!

I watched about five periods of the Icecats playig the Eagles over the last couple weekends. I didn't see any ego problems on the Icecats. They played well as a team. I didn't see any prima donnas on the ice. Just a bunch of good players. The games were pretty competitive and not chippy. Good hockey.

ghshockeyfan wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote:

keepitreal wrote: LINK

This roster does not look at all like last year's U19 Icecats team.

My bad. Can you compare it to the older 19 IceCat team sent to NAHA last Fall (VT)? I thought there were some (at least a couple) similar names. Many of the past U19 from last Summer are College Fr now I believe... But they picked up some different gals for NAHA I thought, and those are some of the ones that I think we see now in the Jr Whitecaps? There is a very good U19 IceCat team now too obvioulsy - the younger of the two from last Summer, that may have been known as a U17 at some time?

Rosters from NAHA tourney last summer.

MN ICE CATS BLACK
1 Altmann, Allie G 5/25/90 11
2 Seeler, Kelly D 5/18/90 11
4 Erickson, Sarah F 3/28/90 11
7 Kilpatrick, Jenna F 7/4/88 12
8 Yungner, Sara D 11/15/88 12
9 Reilly, Shannon D 7/11/89 12
10 Trunzo, Amanda F 8/30/89 12
11 Bauerfeld, Anne F 1/4/89 12
13 Cody, Erin F 8/17/88 12
15 Ambroz, Kacy F 2/22/90 11
16 Horner, Katie F 11/16/88 12
19 Green, Andrea F 5/23/90 11
20 Thunder, Paige G 4/4/89 12
21 Anderson, Alecia F 1/1/89 12
22 Windmeier, Malee D 9/12/8 12
33 Feste, Melissa F 3/28/90 11

MN ICE CATS WHTE
7 Kate Bacon F 90
91 Liz Burg F 90
20 Kali Dohl F 91
3 Ashley Duffy D 90
9 Sally Komarek F 91
18 Colleen Lermbtich D 89
17 Anna McNally D 89
15 Alex Nelson F 91
14 Elsa Perushek D 89
2 Sam Press F 90
12 Anne Schlepper D 90
8 Jill Vandergrift F 89
16 Monique Webber F 89
19 Brenna Webber D 89
1 Emily Klatt G 90
22 Maddie Burlee G 90
21 Kayiee Keys F 90
COACH: Mike Perushek

hshockeyfan91 wrote: Regarding an Elite league, the boys have had this in place for what – 5 years now? It frankly is kind of amazing that girls can’t get the same type of thing going, instead of programs competing with each other. At the end of the day I think the two worst offenders are OS and CODP – it’s obvious that they’re both competing against each other. The challenge I would like to present those two organizations is to talk to each other – the pie is big enough for both organizations – and get an “Elite League” going this fall. They could do it. Unfortunately, however, if history holds true, they will compete with each other instead. Too bad!

You have two entities that are competing, to be sure, but with different sturctures. CODP is a non-profit adjunct of the USOC, while OS is check-book hockey. Obviously it is a free enterprise world, but OS "undermines" (in the sense of being a for profit operation) what CODP is about. OS is a CODP knock-off, as far as training, without the requirements that CODP has from the NGB and USOC (can we get any more acronyms in here?).

While I have no knowledge of what grass roots efforts Ms. Brodt does, I do know that CODP reguires extensive outreach efforts, and that CODP spends a fair amount of time and resources doing these programs to fulfill the USOC's mission. As such, anything that OS does, be it with training or running teams weakens the purpose and intent of CODP.

I don't see how OS 'undermines' or 'weakens' CODP. CODP has a tryout and only accepts a certain percentage of the applicants. Would you rather have those not deemed worthy by the CODP judges be left out and have no training program available to them so they can improve and one day be 'worthy'? If Winny and Ronda can offer the same training for a better price and accept everyone who registers, good for them. I think CODP is/was great for my daughter, but what's the difference to the player where the money is going? The coaches and trainers are obviously as good as CODP. If OS makes CODP look bad, and players are choosing OS without even trying out for CODP, that's CODP's fault.
And how much 'outreach' does CODP do? I never heard of it before a friend recommended it. I've never seen a flyer posted in an arena or a pamphlet anywhere. I see OS stuff all over the place.