Jr Elite League for Women?

[Hux]

HUX-

You are a well respected member of hockey posting boards. Your opinions are well thought through and spot on. It is clear you speak from a high degree of east coast experience.

I thank you, kind sir.

It would be helpful to me to understand why an expert in what happens on the east coast makes posts about hockey training that happens in Minn.

See above. ;o) Because what I am involved in here requires a great deal of insight into what goes on elsewhere (One of the reasons I frequent this fine forum), and in turn I will oft share that insight should others be lacking in that area.

To my knowledge, no one at CODP this summer ever saw either Krissy Wendell or Jack Blatherwick. They are no longer involved with the day-to-day operations of the program, if at all.

As we all know, the new Mrs. Pohl was preoccupied with other matters this summer, and was retired. However, she has, in the past spent considerable time and energy training at CODP which is a far cry from playing pick-up hockey.

The good Dr. Blatherwick is no longer involved in the day to day of CODP, being occupied with the Washington Capitals. However, he handed the "keys" to his non-profit which oversees the CODP to Len Vannelli, which I would consider a rather strong vote of confidence. I know this because Dr. Blatherwick told me this himself.

The program is run by Len Vanelli, a former HS coach from Totino Grace HS. There are lots of stories about why he is no longer coaching there, but that is not salient here.

Then why mention it?

CODP is a fine program. At one time (when Jack was running it), it was the only program around for elite hockey players. Fortunately, today, there are a lot more options available.

Actually the mission of CODP is to identify and train athletes with the potential to become elite. As has been pointed out in this very thread, the word elite is used a little to freely. Elite applies to those who are members of the National or Olympic team.

Frankly, it is unfortunate that the the CODP program is allowed to retain the word Olympic.

Why? It does what the USOC wants it to do. Unfortunately the NGB has not made use of the program as was intended when the CODP was formed as a result of the work of Dr. Blatherwick and the late Mr. Brooks. I would expect that to change shortly.

However, CODPMN and CADP train other athletes, and their NGBs fully utilize the program.

CODP is as much a commercial endeavour as any other.

Not really. It is a non-profit, with more flippin' paperwork, flaming hoops and red-tape than you can imagine. If you think for one minute that anyone is getting rich off CODP (in the current incarnation and with current management), you haven't a clue about the microscope you are under being involved with the USOC. And if you begrudge those involved receiving compensation, try writing a few grant requests, or doing demographic breakdowns of participants vs. general population including such gems as languages spoken, or the oh so much fun monthly financial reports.

It is not THE pathway to the Olympics. That pathway is paved by consistent training, a hard work ethic and some talent. To this end, there are many, many programs in Minn that are every bit as "Olympic" as CODP.

True enough, and it would be nice if there were even more. Again, what the NGB does is beyond the control of CODP. As I said though, I suspect things will be changing in that regard in the not too distant future. However, I can guarantee that CODP provides a more complete skating, skills and s&c package than any other program available. It is also why the powers that be at the NGB are pushing for CODPs in other areas.

[Bensonmum]

ghs wrote:

IMHO what the rest of the nation/world does may not be best (i.e. non-community based "club" hockey), and we may actually be doing it right here in MN as is with a few minor changes (B&AGEL)??? I'd prefer to create a TON of players though community based hockey rather than focus on the select few that can afford the non-community model.

Amen brother! Only 11 years after the first Girls' HS state tournament Minnesota leads the nation (by a lot) in number of Girls/Women playing hockey and more importantly in number of girls 18 or under playing hockey. The HS model works, and partly because of the tradition inherited from the boys. Here are some numbers from the USA Hockey website (as of 2005):
MI (pop 10,095,643) / 2,443 girls 18 or under registered with USA Hockey
MA (pop 6,437,193 / 5,525
CO (pop 4,753,377) / 739
WI (pop 5,556,506 / 2,846
MN (pop 5,167,101) / 6,801
US National team coaches may not like the style of play of our 20 or 30 top players, but any Minnesota girl who wants can play (without shelling out $10K for a U19 or U16 club team or attending a prep school with $30K tuition. That doesn't mean there isn't room for the club model (T'Breds) or a prep team (SSM). But for the vast majority, the local HS team is the catalyst for getting girls involved when they are 5 or 6 yrs old and for continued involvement and the expansion of the pyramid.
Obviously people like Hux and Mark Johnson are concerned with the US National team beating Canada again someday, and it would be helpful if the outstanding talent coming out of Minnesota played the correct style to advance that cause. But for Minnesota parents, 6,750 of the 6,801 players, and the majority of Minnesota youth and HS coaches, the continued success and expansion of affordable youth and HS girls' hockey is where it's at.

[puckfan11]

Bensonmum Posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:02 Post subject:
....That doesn't mean there isn't room for the club model (T'Breds) or a prep team (SSM).....

I appreciate all of the honest and thoughtful feedback regarding this topic. In no means, when I first posted this thread did I think HS hockey should be eliminated, nor do I want to shell out thousands of dollars in the "hope" that someday my daughter may be able to play at a higher level than HS. I do agree with what ghs has written that there probably is room for both HS and the BAGEL league (gotta love the name). However if a player is preparing to play at the College or National level, we need to continue to encourage the CODP, OS and other programs to train at a level that more closely resembles this higher level of play (both on and off the ice).

MNHockeyFan Posted: 11 Sep 2007 03:03
At the same time you would hope the MSHL would not put up unnessary roadblocks to the truly dedicated and talented player who wants to advance to D1 and maybe beyond.

Also agree with MNHockeyFan about making sure there are not any unnessary roadblocks.

[izmore]

Juniors for women is already happening, with NAHA, BC Steelers, Washington Pride, and Warner School in Alberta. Soon there will be a team in Boston, and one would expect others to be added in Canada such as the Toronto Rattlers, which are a NAHA like organization

http://www.jwhl.org/wjuniors/.

And who's paying for this and to what end? It's absurd to pay for this kind of travel. Enjoy your high school years.

[OntheEdge]

Bensonmum Posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:02 Post subject:
....That doesn't mean there isn't room for the club model (T'Breds) or a prep team (SSM).....

I appreciate all of the honest and thoughtful feedback regarding this topic. In no means, when I first posted this thread did I think HS hockey should be eliminated, nor do I want to shell out thousands of dollars in the "hope" that someday my daughter may be able to play at a higher level than HS. I do agree with what ghs has written that there probably is room for both HS and the BAGEL league (gotta love the name). However if a player is preparing to play at the College or National level, we need to continue to encourage the CODP, OS and other programs to train at a level that more closely resembles this higher level of play (both on and off the ice).

I agree with you that the system isn't broke in Minnesota. Our numbers show how popular hockey is for girls. Our community system isn't perfect but it is inclusive rather than exclusive. In my opinion, trashing the community system will reduce the numbers which may be good for a few but bad for the rest.

Another Minnesota sport is taking a different approach. I don't know all of the facts but it is my understanding that Fastpitch has decided to abandon the community model for U16 and above with the intention of creating super elite level club teams that will play year round (lots of travel and dome play). The fastpitch people think that this will help Minnesota girls better compete nationally. I think they are misguided in that it cuts out the majority of girls that just want to play fastpitch in the summer and not play year round. I think many will abandon the sport if they don't keep some sort of community system for the girls that don't want to play club. It will be interesting to watch what I call a risky experiment.

[izmore]

ghs wrote:

IMHO what the rest of the nation/world does may not be best (i.e. non-community based "club" hockey), and we may actually be doing it right here in MN as is with a few minor changes (B&AGEL)??? I'd prefer to create a TON of players though community based hockey rather than focus on the select few that can afford the non-community model.

Amen brother! Only 11 years after the first Girls' HS state tournament Minnesota leads the nation (by a lot) in number of Girls/Women playing hockey and more importantly in number of girls 18 or under playing hockey. The HS model works, and partly because of the tradition inherited from the boys. Here are some numbers from the USA Hockey website (as of 2005):
MI (pop 10,095,643) / 2,443 girls 18 or under registered with USA Hockey
MA (pop 6,437,193 / 5,525
CO (pop 4,753,377) / 739
WI (pop 5,556,506 / 2,846
MN (pop 5,167,101) / 6,801
US National team coaches may not like the style of play of our 20 or 30 top players, but any Minnesota girl who wants can play (without shelling out $10K for a U19 or U16 club team or attending a prep school with $30K tuition. That doesn't mean there isn't room for the club model (T'Breds) or a prep team (SSM). But for the vast majority, the local HS team is the catalyst for getting girls involved when they are 5 or 6 yrs old and for continued involvement and the expansion of the pyramid.
Obviously people like Hux and Mark Johnson are concerned with the US National team beating Canada again someday, and it would be helpful if the outstanding talent coming out of Minnesota played the correct style to advance that cause. But for Minnesota parents, 6,750 of the 6,801 players, and the majority of Minnesota youth and HS coaches, the continued success and expansion of affordable youth and HS girls' hockey is where it's at.

GHS and Bensonmum are right on. USA Hockey's focus on the select few is coming at the expense of girls hockey development. It's become all about the individual trying to showcase herself. That's not a catalyst for anything but spending by those who think there is some holy grail playing women's hockey and disenfranchisement in others.

[MNHockeyFan]

GHS and Bensonmum are right on. USA Hockey's focus on the select few is coming at the expense of girls hockey development. It's become all about the individual trying to showcase herself. That's not a catalyst for anything but spending by those who think there is some holy grail playing women's hockey and disenfranchisement in others.

One other comment in defense of the high school system that we have here in MN is the attention and publicity that the girls (and boys) get. You can actually read about the teams and players in the local papers and newscasts. By narrowing the focus down further to "elite" club teams would the local media even bother to follow girls hockey? Even if high school hockey isn't generally up the same level of play as the the club and prep teams, it does get noticed by the general public (state tournament especially), the girls appreciate it and it promotes participation of younger girls who aspire to it.

[northwoods oldtimer]

One other comment in defense of the high school system that we have here in MN is the attention and publicity that the girls (and boys) get. You can actually read about the teams and players in the local papers and newscasts. By narrowing the focus down further to "elite" club teams would the local media even bother to follow girls hockey? Even if high school hockey isn't generally up the same level of play as the the club and prep teams, it does get noticed by the general public (state tournament especially), the girls appreciate it and it promotes participation of younger girls who aspire to it.

I know quite a few college age young men from around the country that happen to catch regional and state high school games when playing the UMD Bulldogs and Gophers that are absolutely amazed at the skill level and the crowds that Minnestoa High School athletes draw. Anyon who doubts the system works needs to here comments made by Bob Gainey and Doug Riseborough with regards to the Minnesota high school athlete. Needless to say you do not need to tweak the system because a few parents want an elite program. Ask any grown man who played in the State tournament what it was like and for most it was the best experience ever. The price paid in blood sweat and tears to get there are priceless do not let the elite moniker fool you on that regard. Elite Fall league for girls...absolutely a must but if you remove amature high school athleteics you remove one of the greatest high school events in the country and the girls programs are just getting started!

[Hux]

I don't think anyone here is advocating a change in the high school or town based system. To the contrary, we are all saying that the just over the horizon bloom of "junior" hockey for girls is anathema to the things that make the game great, and will adversely effect growth, rather than promote it.

[Bensonmum]

Hux wrote:

...bloom of "junior" hockey for girls is anathema to the things that make the game great, and will adversely effect growth, rather than promote it.

It sure is working adversely for the boys. As more and younger 'elite' players opt for juniors, the HS game is losing its luster, and youth numbers have actually declined 2-4% per year over the last 5-6 years (while girls numbers are rising by the same percentages). The causation is debatable, but it can't be helping matters.

[ghshockeyfan]

My understanding is that the Boys Elite League was an attempt to keep top talent in their home area HS vs leaving for Juniors. Many believe that the bigger issue for the girls right now is stopping the transfers, although the MSHSL has worked their magic on that with the new rules whether one agrees or not with it. Bottom line, B&AGEL is the BEL equivalent with a Spring component that allows the girls to compete with the SSM & T-Breds teams. Nothing wrong with that. Good set-up, etc. I'm not sold that decimating MSHSL girls hockey for a junior non-MSHSL program will create more top players, as the adverse impact of this could in actuality kill the sport entirely... I expect that we'll see the TBreds become more of a post-grad like "junior" team akin to boys juniors and maybe eventually the need will necessitate another team like this in the area for kids that may want to go JuCo for a year and get better looks from D1 schools via this route.

[Hux]

Juniors for women is already happening, with NAHA, BC Steelers, Washington Pride, and Warner School in Alberta. Soon there will be a team in Boston, and one would expect others to be added in Canada such as the Toronto Rattlers, which are a NAHA like organization

http://www.jwhl.org/wjuniors/.

And who's paying for this and to what end? It's absurd to pay for this kind of travel. Enjoy your high school years.

Ah, the well heeled. Though a program like what they have at the World Hockey Center/Toronto Rattlers is relatively inexpensive at $8K, compared to NAHA which runs in the mid $20K, or a prep that can run to $40K a year.

As to what end? Given the track record of NAHA placing kids in D1 programs, I would say the lure of a free education and the chance to play at a higher level. If you spend $50K for two years at NAHA, and end up with a full ride to Boston College or Boston University at $40,000 a year, you end up "saving" over 100 grand.

[xwildfan]

The only way to get more top female players is to have more young girls play the game. It is really quite simple. If you have a larger pool to draw from, you will get more top players. The solution really lies at the bottom of the pyramid. The base has to get much larger. This is what should be addressed by USA Hockey. Make it as enticing as possible for young girls to play; lure them away from basketball, volleyball, gymnastics; you get the idea.

The so-called elite training programs and leagues are limited to what they can do to raise the level of play. It's more like an icing on the cake effect.

The girls game needs more players to draw from. Take the old NHL for example. The star players that immediately come to mind are Orr, Hull, Beliveau, Mahovolich, Gretzky, Howe, and countless others. All Canadian. Don't know the exact figures; but Canada had many more players in the game as compared to the US. Likewise, if you take basketball; the same is true in the reverse. US have many more stars than Canada. More players play basketball in the US.

Another somewhat unmeasurable factor is the "hunger factor." By this I mean that hockey can be used as an escape to a better situation. In men's hockey, this is the NHL. This is easily seen when looking at the backgrounds of many eastern European players. Also, can be seen in looking into the backgrounds of many Canadian players, who come from the hinterlands of Canada.

A typical US girl player does not have anything to escape from. There is typically no desperation to improve one's position in life through hockey.

And a final factor is that the US provides so many opportunities for a young person to succeed in other activities, that it becomes a real challenge for a young hockey player to stay focused on excelling at hockey.

[Hux]

The only way to get more top female players is to have more young girls play the game. It is really quite simple. If you have a larger pool to draw from, you will get more top players. The solution really lies at the bottom of the pyramid. The base has to get much larger. This is what should be addressed by USA Hockey. Make it as enticing as possible for young girls to play; lure them away from basketball, volleyball, gymnastics; you get the idea.

There in lies the rub. As USA Hockey President Ron DeGregorio told me, "The biggest deterrent to growing the game isn't the cost, or the availability of ice, though they are factors. Our research has shown that the time commitment is the thing that keeps kids and parents from trying or staying with the sport."

When pressed on this he stated that it isn't so much the actual time spent in the rink, but the travel time to and from games (which can be lengthy in more rural areas) and the length of the season. In particular the fact that the hockey season starts the first of September and runs until mid April, often resulting in conflicts with other sports and activities in the fall and spring.

I think this is borne out by the increases I generally see in the Learn To Play programs once the football and soccer seasons end. If we want to grow the game we will need to make it more accessible and user friendly by reducing the conflicts with other activities that little Janey is likely to want to participate in. At the very least U10 and below ought not to start before November and end by March. If they have a fun time, and look forward to coming to the rink, it won't be hard to keep them hooked.

Be that as it may, as far as the girls game iis concerned, I think the biggest inhibitor is the mindset of many people about the "violence" of the game and the risk of injury. While a parent has no problem sending a kid out to figure skate in little more than a few millimeters of nylon and sequins, sans helmet, in a sport that requires a certain degree of acrobatic acumen, they cringe at the thought of Jr. partaking of a sport in which she is fully encased in foam, plastic and wire face protection.

I've found that it is not until I point out that I have ice packs in my bag that are several years old, while the figure skating instructors use up a case a week, that it dawns on them that their ice princess is far more at risk with toe picks than a stick.

[MNHockeyFan]

As USA Hockey President Ron DeGregorio told me, "The biggest deterrent to growing the game isn't the cost, or the availability of ice, though they are factors. Our research has shown that the time commitment is the thing that keeps kids and parents from trying or staying with the sport."

I know that in many of the middle class areas of the Twin Cities, at least, the biggest deterrent to growing the game IS the cost. And the older/better they get, the cost grows exponentially as the better ones get invited to "select" and "elite" tournaments, "AAA" teams, camps, etc. Relative to softball, soccer, etc. hockey is a VERY expensive sport and this discourages wider participation IMO. For the upper middle class family and above it's not the biggest issue, but for average working class families it has become a real obstacle.

[xwildfan]

Agree with MNHockeyFan,

To the uninitiated hockey parent, the start-up cost of hockey can be overwhelming; skates, shinpads, hockey gloves, etc. Then the hockey fees. Definitely closes the door on a lot of potential players.

Also agree with Hux about the perceived potential for injury in the sport. Unfortunately, to the average non-hockey parent, hockey is equated with fighting and hitting. The really tough girls are the figure skaters who do their thing without any protection.

Interesting that soccer is viewed in such a positive light as far as injuries go. My daughter (knock on wood) has never been seriously injured playing hockey. She has torn ligaments in her ankle that had her in a cast for six weeks; result of a soccer injury. Many of her soccer playing friends have also suffered serious injuries while playing soccer; ACL, broken wrists, fractured femur, and so forth.

Another thing I just noticed while looking at some of the team pics of my daughter. Around ninety percent of the players had dads who played hockey. And it seems like the other ten percent wished they had played hockey. So, it seems obviously the challenge is to somehow convert the non-hockey playing parents to sign their kids up for hockey. Have no idea how to accomplish that.

[Hux]

Agree with MNHockeyFan,

To the uninitiated hockey parent, the start-up cost of hockey can be overwhelming; skates, shinpads, hockey gloves, etc. Then the hockey fees. Definitely closes the door on a lot of potential players.

Also agree with Hux about the perceived potential for injury in the sport. Unfortunately, to the average non-hockey parent, hockey is equated with fighting and hitting. The really tough girls are the figure skaters who do their thing without any protection.

Interesting that soccer is viewed in such a positive light as far as injuries go. My daughter (knock on wood) has never been seriously injured playing hockey. She has torn ligaments in her ankle that had her in a cast for six weeks; result of a soccer injury. Many of her soccer playing friends have also suffered serious injuries while playing soccer; ACL, broken wrists, fractured femur, and so forth.

Another thing I just noticed while looking at some of the team pics of my daughter. Around ninety percent of the players had dads who played hockey. And it seems like the other ten percent wished they had played hockey. So, it seems obviously the challenge is to somehow convert the non-hockey playing parents to sign their kids up for hockey. Have no idea how to accomplish that.

All very true. I think that the NHL, USA Hockey, and the equipment manufacturers really need to make better use of the One Goal program. It has great potential, but right now the actual numbers of complete equipment sets is so low as to make it practically inconsequential. In New York the NYSAHA affiliate has a small trailer with 50 complete sets of equipment and skates. To put on a free clinic with equipment, all one need do is pick-up the trailer and take it to the event.

Given the actual costs of (made in Asia) youth equipment, it wouldn't kill Nike Bauer etc to pony up 100 sets of equipment per the geographically smaller districts, and 300 sets for the bigger districts, and let One Goal and the NHL and USA Hockey affiliates start putting on more free clinics to get kids to try the sport.

We ran a free clinic for five weeks in my town and had 35 girls who had never played come out and try the sport, 11 of whom signed up for the Learn to Play program this fall. Each came with their own full set of equipment that they had rounded up from family and friends. So if you can get that kind of turnout without having equipment available, you should be able to get more when you provide it.

The Put The Biscuit in the Net program of the Girl Scouts has also been very successful, and don't ya know there is one coming up in your neck of the woods soon. More effort in this regard will bring in more youngsters to the sport.

[Hux]

Agree with MNHockeyFan,

To the uninitiated hockey parent, the start-up cost of hockey can be overwhelming; skates, shinpads, hockey gloves, etc. Then the hockey fees. Definitely closes the door on a lot of potential players.

Also agree with Hux about the perceived potential for injury in the sport. Unfortunately, to the average non-hockey parent, hockey is equated with fighting and hitting. The really tough girls are the figure skaters who do their thing without any protection.

Interesting that soccer is viewed in such a positive light as far as injuries go. My daughter (knock on wood) has never been seriously injured playing hockey. She has torn ligaments in her ankle that had her in a cast for six weeks; result of a soccer injury. Many of her soccer playing friends have also suffered serious injuries while playing soccer; ACL, broken wrists, fractured femur, and so forth.

Another thing I just noticed while looking at some of the team pics of my daughter. Around ninety percent of the players had dads who played hockey. And it seems like the other ten percent wished they had played hockey. So, it seems obviously the challenge is to somehow convert the non-hockey playing parents to sign their kids up for hockey. Have no idea how to accomplish that.

All very true. I think that the NHL, USA Hockey, and the equipment manufacturers really need to make better use of the One Goal program. It has great potential, but right now the actual numbers of complete equipment sets is so low as to make it practically inconsequential. In New York the NYSAHA affiliate has a small trailer with 50 complete sets of equipment and skates. To put on a free clinic with equipment, all one need do is pick-up the trailer and take it to the event.

Given the actual costs of (made in Asia) youth equipment, it wouldn't kill Nike Bauer etc to pony up 100 sets of equipment per the geographically smaller districts, and 300 sets for the bigger districts, and let One Goal and the NHL and USA Hockey affiliates start putting on more free clinics to get kids to try the sport.

We ran a free clinic for five weeks in my town and had 35 girls who had never played come out and try the sport, 11 of whom signed up for the Learn to Play program this fall. Each came with their own full set of equipment they had rounded up from family and friends. So if you can get that kind of turnout without having equipment available, you should be able to get more when you provide it.

The Put The Biscuit in the Net program of the Girl Scouts has also been very successful, and don't ya know there is one coming up in your neck of the woods soon. More effort in this regard will bring in more youngsters to the sport.

[Bensonmum]

I witnessed a One Goal-type program finishing up at a St. Paul arena last year (it might have been One Goal for all I know) and the one thought I had coming away from there was that it was not a typical youth hockey crowd. I'm not even sure how to explain it--it wasn't a racial thing or even socio-economic. It was just the feeling I got, vibes or whatever, from the adults and kids. They all seemed to be bursting with excitement over what they had just done (the kids) or seen (the adults). The usual hockey crowd (even at the youngest levels) is usually more.....something. Jaded is a word that comes to mind. Uptight. High-strung. Worried about how the kid compared talent-wise to the 'competition'. The contrast of my daughter and her teammates to these kids was striking. The 'program' kids I saw that day were all hopped up by the experience and their parents shared in the joy. It was a party atmosphere. That is not 'usual' in most arenas' lobbies after a youth hockey game or practice. I didn't realize what was going on at the time, but since then I've learned a little about these programs--in my opinion, USA Hockey should spend every penny they can scrounge up to support them. And of course, anybody at Bauer/Nike/CCM/Koho/Easton with a brain would know that supplying programs like these with equipment is win-win.

[puckfan11]

Hux Posted: 13 Sep 2007 05:06 Post subject:
Given the actual costs of (made in Asia) youth equipment, it wouldn't kill Nike Bauer etc to pony up 100 sets of equipment per the geographically smaller districts, and 300 sets for the bigger districts, and let One Goal and the NHL and USA Hockey affiliates start putting on more free clinics to get kids to try the sport.

Our local youth program has worked with a couple of local equipment vendors and local companies to purchase new equipment and run "learn to skate" programs. We also have the local Girls HS team provide the on ice instruction, which is good for community service. We generally have enough skates donated to fit the potential players with the correct size and try the game of hockey before they put too much money in to an experiment.

Once the session is over, if the player signs up for hockey, they can purchase the equipment package for a reasonable cost ($50).

We have had great success in bringing in and keeping the players that try the game.

[Hux]

Our local youth program has worked with a couple of local equipment vendors and local companies to purchase new equipment and run "learn to skate" programs. We also have the local Girls HS team provide the on ice instruction, which is good for community service. We generally have enough skates donated to fit the potential players with the correct size and try the game of hockey before they put too much money in to an experiment.

Once the session is over, if the player signs up for hockey, they can purchase the equipment package for a reasonable cost ($50).

We have had great success in bringing in and keeping the players that try the game.

I hadn't even thought about that type of situation, which is fantastic for the neophyte player and parent, and certainly is a plus for branding by the companies involved. As pointed out, this is really where USA Hockey and the NHL need to focus their outreach efforts and dollars to build participants and the fan base.

[keepitreal]

There are some very valid observations here. We DO have a great HS system that is the envy of other areas. We have a ton of girls playing and logic would suggest that we would turn out the most elite/Olympic and D1 level players. However, it is a major concern when National and college coaches suggest that our system creates players who can't translate their individual game to the upper levels because they're unconditioned to playing the team game.

I think BAGEL will be an excellent step toward fixing this.

But I'd also like to see USA/MN Hockey get off their high horse and allow amateur/U19 hockey to cooperate more freely with the MSHSL. Relaxing of the rostering red tape for instance to permit the Shattuck's and T-Breds of the world to play local all-star teams and create more challengers for the USA-H Regionals. Or allowing double rostering so a player can work with their amateur or club team during a portion of the high school season like they do on the East coast. This would ratchet up the competitive experience of many good HS hockey players, reduce the travel expense for those seeking higher competition, and hopefully result in better "team players" at the HS level and beyond. Again, BAGEL should help this situation, but we could do more if there was more cooperation between the governing hockey bodies.

Hux, what are the operational differences between the East and Minnesota hockey experience? Between Canada and Minnesota? It seems criminal that Shattuck and T-Breds are essentially the only Minnkota contenders for Nationals unless a team jumps through a series of flaming hoops to roster themselves and qualify.

[joehockey]

BAGEL is a great step forward - if coaches hold teams/players to playing a team game it will make a difference - if it is just an extended summer season of opening the gate then it changes nothing except the number of games.

Some good hockey people are involved and took it to Minnesota Hockey who was really supportive and helped get this in place and made the registration pretty simple. It looks like affiliate agreements might be in place until 2010 which allows time for teams and structure to grow and adjust. This league will make it hard for a HS Elite League like the boys side to be developed but maybe it doesn't need to be or can't be......many of the teams involved already have some natural geographic boundries the players are from. It is great to play SSM and if league is successful T-Breds, CODP and others will make league stronger next year.

This is one part of the puzzle on great on ice competition - you don't get better only playing games. To compete with SSM or T-Bred programs, teams will need good team coaching, practice/development time, off ice strength and conditioning. The Herb Brooks Training Center is tied into the Elite II boys league this fall - to give the boy players training, development and feedback where they stand versus all other players in league - it has evolved and clearly is development focused.

Like I say I think this is a huge step forward and platform that can yield greater results to further develop players and it appears to be fall sport friendly. Its evolution will make it a good competitor to the forces Hux has identified.

[xwildfan]

Another big obstacle to the team game is the quest for scholarships. And unfortunately, the players that get the most attention in this area are the players who put up the most points. Not exactly conducive to team play. Everyone knows of players and parents whose team has won a game but are still unhappy because their child didn't have a big night on the scoresheet.

[Hux]

Hux, what are the operational differences between the East and Minnesota hockey experience? Between Canada and Minnesota? It seems criminal that Shattuck and T-Breds are essentially the only Minnkota contenders for Nationals unless a team jumps through a series of flaming hoops to roster themselves and qualify.

Well, with the exception of NAHA, and the MWEHL teams found in the Atlantic District, the B&A club team is the predominant non-scholastic set-up in the east. While they are B&A, the Polar Bear tourney during Christmas break is a staple, and other than Nationals, the focus of the season as it is a major showcase event attended by a majority of college recruiters.

Most of the players on these teams attend Prep Schools, or come from schools without a team. The Prep kids have classes on Saturdays, so game and practices tend to be on Sundays. With a tourney or two in the fall they cram in 20 games in 11 weeks.

In Massachusetts a public high school player is not allowed to participate in more than one sport during a season, or play for any team other than their high school team, or they are suspended for two weeks. The season starts no earlier than the first Monday after Thanksgiving, and is capped at 20 games. The Prep season starts earlier, and usually involves around 26 games, plus tourneys and playoffs. Preps require all students to participate in a sport each season, so those 10 weeks in the fall are pretty much taken up with academics and athletics on campus, leaving no time for practice with the club team during the week.

One of the reasons that Massachusetts public school hockey is behind Minnesota is that a coach is not allowed contact, other than in a peripheral sense such as at a fundraiser etc., with players during the off-season, cannot run skill or conditioning programs, and cannot be in any camp or session where more than 50% of candidates for the coach's team are present. Massachusetts also does not allow captain's practices, though they do occur, but usually only to the extent that the girls pick up a sheet of ice on Thanksgiving night when there is no youth practice or games at the local rink.

In Canada the situation is more like what you have with the T-Breds, where the club teams like Steelers, Bluewater, Mississauga, Stoney Creek etc. play full season schedules with several practices and conditioning sessions each week. Canadian girls also play for their local high schools. Canada also has several Shattuck like institutions, as well as some NAHA type programs (World Hockey Center/Toronto Rattlers).

One of the keys to the success of these programs is their ability to train, practice and play together for an extended period of time. While the season may be "long," running from September to April, they do interval practice and training, with time off, whereas your typical high school team practices continually for the length of a shorter season, with little time for rest and recovery. (not to mention study, or pursuits outside of the rink)

As has been noted, the "team" play concept is often lost on our best players for a number of reasons, primarily because the lack of depth results in one or two players carrying the team. And as noted, the "showcase" element comes into play with a relatively limited schedule with which to put on a show in the hopes of garnering a coveted D1 ride.