HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Homer wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

Melvin44 wrote: Let's see. Boys have WAY more options and not even close to being the same situation. I think it's more impotant to give these girls a chance to keep playing hockey and being a part of a team.

Really? Girls have U19 programs (equivalent to Junior Gold for boys), as well as the WHAM league .... There are more and more girls/woman's leagues forming all the time. Does the XL league allow girls to play? If not, they will probably soon. If the girl wants to keep playing hockey, she will have options available to her.

I don't think that girls need to be any more coddled than boys. Like I said before, being able to handle the results of a tryout is a valuable experience for these kids to experience...it helps prepare them for the real world when they might not get that job they interviewed (tried out) for, or might not get into that college they applied (tried out) for. Getting cut from a HS team is not the end of the world and has happened to literally millions of students as some point.....I don't believe that girls are somehow less able to deal with being cut than boys are..

Junior Varsity should be considered a developmental program for future varsity players and should be restricted to 9-11 graders..IMO, seniors shouldn't be on that team, unless the numbers are so small that they need the seniors to fill out the team.

C'mon muck,comparing Jr.Gold to the 8-9 team 19u league is a little ridiculous, right now. I hope it becomes a more equal comparison.

When you compare the number of boys players to girls players, overall...I don't think it is ridiculous...plus there is the WHAM league and other leagues...The opportunities are out there if the girl wants to play.

Again, as long as that senior is not taking up the roster spot of an underclassman on the JV team, than I don't have an issue with a senior playing JV.

OnTheEdge said:

Again I have to say that every situation is different and unique

My daughter is a senior and we've seen many different situations involving JV. I've seen several examples of Seniors put on Varsity, as a "reward" for the effort and leadership they have given to the program, with the understanding that they would never play (or only if there was a huge lead). These "practice" players ended up being a good addition to the teams based on their enthusiasm and support of pursuing a bigger goal (team wins). To this end, this life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment. As an aside, more than one D1 college coach we spoke to through the recruiting process had these types of "practice" players involved with their college programs.

I've also seen examples of Seniors on JV where these seniors were "Captains". Their contribution to the program is their leadership and mentoring of younger players, some of who are now potential D1 prospects. This life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment.

Most recently, I know of a Senior who got cut from the HS program (V and JV) as a sophmore, played U19 and then tried out again for the HS team as a Senior, and made JV. I have nothing but respect for this Senior and her family. Life Lesson: If at first you don't succeed....

The answer to this question really boils down to perspective and how you define success in HS hockey. Is success playing Varsity, a winning team or a D1 scholarship? All of these things are good, but there is much more to be gained from the sport.

Thunderbird77 wrote:OnTheEdge said:

Again I have to say that every situation is different and unique

My daughter is a senior and we've seen many different situations involving JV. I've seen several examples of Seniors put on Varsity, as a "reward" for the effort and leadership they have given to the program, with the understanding that they would never play (or only if there was a huge lead). These "practice" players ended up being a good addition to the teams based on their enthusiasm and support of pursuing a bigger goal (team wins). To this end, this life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment. As an aside, more than one D1 college coach we spoke to through the recruiting process had these types of "practice" players involved with their college programs.

I've also seen examples of Seniors on JV where these seniors were "Captains". Their contribution to the program is their leadership and mentoring of younger players, some of who are now potential D1 prospects. This life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment.

Most recently, I know of a Senior who got cut from the HS program (V and JV) as a sophmore, played U19 and then tried out again for the HS team as a Senior, and made JV. I have nothing but respect for this Senior and her family. Life Lesson: If at first you don't succeed....

The answer to this question really boils down to perspective and how you define success in HS hockey. Is success playing Varsity, a winning team or a D1 scholarship? All of these things are good, but there is much more to be gained from the sport.

Well said Thunderbird. I personally struggle with this question for a number of reasons. I think having a senior on the team that demonstrates class and leadership even though she doesn't play is wonderful but the other side of it is, is it fair to keep a more talented or hard working underclassmen off varsity for another year for a feel good reason? Hopefully that isn't the tradeoff when the senior is chosen but I have seen this very result.

In boys sports, its pretty much about picking the best players. There's some argument on what qualities make the best player but in general its about filling out your roster with the best players to make the best team.

I think that womens' sports is sometimes disparaged because there is more talk about relationships, feelings, etc. and maybe women's sports would be taken more seriously if they are more serious about winning.

OR... maybe the girls have it right, that sports should be more than just winning. Maybe there should be room for a friend, good kid, lockerroom leader or someone with just good qualities.

For me, its a difficult issue to resolve one way or the other. However, I lean more to making womens' sport as competitive as the boys. I think the lessons learned from choosing the best warriors and going to battle is something girls don't get enough. Even though its cutthroat its more like what girls are going to experience when they try for that first job or the second one. In the real world, there aren't too many decisions made where a more talented employee is bypassed in favor of the person that has been around longer or is well liked. Typically businesses that make such decisions aren't around too long.

HS sports aren't the real world and maybe it should be kinder and gentler but I'm not sure. I personally like the lesson learned by the kid that works so hard that she earns her way onto the team with her play. If that's the senior great. However, too often I see the following situation: Senior has never been good enough to make varsity, she's a good kid but hasn't really worked very hard to achieve her goal of making varsity. Coach appreciates the fact that she has stuck around all 4 years so gives her a spot. The senior is happy, her friends/teammates are happy and her parents are happy, however, in this situation there is often a kid that shot pucks every day in the summer, skated and worked out diligently and doesn't make varsity because the spot is given to the senior because it is thought the underclassmen can wait another year. In such a situation I don't think its right (unless we are talking about a 7th or 8th grader, then I say they can wait).

So again I say its not black and white and each situation is unique.

OntheEdge wrote:

Thunderbird77 wrote:OnTheEdge said:

Again I have to say that every situation is different and unique

My daughter is a senior and we've seen many different situations involving JV. I've seen several examples of Seniors put on Varsity, as a "reward" for the effort and leadership they have given to the program, with the understanding that they would never play (or only if there was a huge lead). These "practice" players ended up being a good addition to the teams based on their enthusiasm and support of pursuing a bigger goal (team wins). To this end, this life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment. As an aside, more than one D1 college coach we spoke to through the recruiting process had these types of "practice" players involved with their college programs.

I've also seen examples of Seniors on JV where these seniors were "Captains". Their contribution to the program is their leadership and mentoring of younger players, some of who are now potential D1 prospects. This life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment.

Most recently, I know of a Senior who got cut from the HS program (V and JV) as a sophmore, played U19 and then tried out again for the HS team as a Senior, and made JV. I have nothing but respect for this Senior and her family. Life Lesson: If at first you don't succeed....

The answer to this question really boils down to perspective and how you define success in HS hockey. Is success playing Varsity, a winning team or a D1 scholarship? All of these things are good, but there is much more to be gained from the sport.

Well said Thunderbird. I personally struggle with this question for a number of reasons. I think having a senior on the team that demonstrates class and leadership even though she doesn't play is wonderful but the other side of it is, is it fair to keep a more talented or hard working underclassmen off varsity for another year for a feel good reason? Hopefully that isn't the tradeoff when the senior is chosen but I have seen this very result.

In boys sports, its pretty much about picking the best players. There's some argument on what qualities make the best player but in general its about filling out your roster with the best players to make the best team.

I think that womens' sports is sometimes disparaged because there is more talk about relationships, feelings, etc. and maybe women's sports would be taken more seriously if they are more serious about winning.

OR... maybe the girls have it right, that sports should be more than just winning. Maybe there should be room for a friend, good kid, lockerroom leader or someone with just good qualities.

For me, its a difficult issue to resolve one way or the other. However, I lean more to making womens' sport as competitive as the boys. I think the lessons learned from choosing the best warriors and going to battle is something girls don't get enough. Even though its cutthroat its more like what girls are going to experience when they try for that first job or the second one. In the real world, there aren't too many decisions made where a more talented employee is bypassed in favor of the person that has been around longer or is well liked. Typically businesses that make such decisions aren't around too long.

HS sports aren't the real world and maybe it should be kinder and gentler but I'm not sure. I personally like the lesson learned by the kid that works so hard that she earns her way onto the team with her play. If that's the senior great. However, too often I see the following situation: Senior has never been good enough to make varsity, she's a good kid but hasn't really worked very hard to achieve her goal of making varsity. Coach appreciates the fact that she has stuck around all 4 years so gives her a spot. The senior is happy, her friends/teammates are happy and her parents are happy, however, in this situation there is often a kid that shot pucks every day in the summer, skated and worked out diligently and doesn't make varsity because the spot is given to the senior because it is thought the underclassmen can wait another year. In such a situation I don't think its right (unless we are talking about a 7th or 8th grader, then I say they can wait).

So again I say its not black and white and each situation is unique.

Excellent post....I don't think it can be stated any better than that.

[/thread]

muckandgrind wrote:

OntheEdge wrote:

Thunderbird77 wrote:OnTheEdge said: My daughter is a senior and we've seen many different situations involving JV. I've seen several examples of Seniors put on Varsity, as a "reward" for the effort and leadership they have given to the program, with the understanding that they would never play (or only if there was a huge lead). These "practice" players ended up being a good addition to the teams based on their enthusiasm and support of pursuing a bigger goal (team wins). To this end, this life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment. As an aside, more than one D1 college coach we spoke to through the recruiting process had these types of "practice" players involved with their college programs.

I've also seen examples of Seniors on JV where these seniors were "Captains". Their contribution to the program is their leadership and mentoring of younger players, some of who are now potential D1 prospects. This life lesson would seem a better one than learning to live with disappointment.

Most recently, I know of a Senior who got cut from the HS program (V and JV) as a sophmore, played U19 and then tried out again for the HS team as a Senior, and made JV. I have nothing but respect for this Senior and her family. Life Lesson: If at first you don't succeed....

The answer to this question really boils down to perspective and how you define success in HS hockey. Is success playing Varsity, a winning team or a D1 scholarship? All of these things are good, but there is much more to be gained from the sport.

Well said Thunderbird. I personally struggle with this question for a number of reasons. I think having a senior on the team that demonstrates class and leadership even though she doesn't play is wonderful but the other side of it is, is it fair to keep a more talented or hard working underclassmen off varsity for another year for a feel good reason? Hopefully that isn't the tradeoff when the senior is chosen but I have seen this very result.

In boys sports, its pretty much about picking the best players. There's some argument on what qualities make the best player but in general its about filling out your roster with the best players to make the best team.

I think that womens' sports is sometimes disparaged because there is more talk about relationships, feelings, etc. and maybe women's sports would be taken more seriously if they are more serious about winning.

OR... maybe the girls have it right, that sports should be more than just winning. Maybe there should be room for a friend, good kid, lockerroom leader or someone with just good qualities.

For me, its a difficult issue to resolve one way or the other. However, I lean more to making womens' sport as competitive as the boys. I think the lessons learned from choosing the best warriors and going to battle is something girls don't get enough. Even though its cutthroat its more like what girls are going to experience when they try for that first job or the second one. In the real world, there aren't too many decisions made where a more talented employee is bypassed in favor of the person that has been around longer or is well liked. Typically businesses that make such decisions aren't around too long.

HS sports aren't the real world and maybe it should be kinder and gentler but I'm not sure. I personally like the lesson learned by the kid that works so hard that she earns her way onto the team with her play. If that's the senior great. However, too often I see the following situation: Senior has never been good enough to make varsity, she's a good kid but hasn't really worked very hard to achieve her goal of making varsity. Coach appreciates the fact that she has stuck around all 4 years so gives her a spot. The senior is happy, her friends/teammates are happy and her parents are happy, however, in this situation there is often a kid that shot pucks every day in the summer, skated and worked out diligently and doesn't make varsity because the spot is given to the senior because it is thought the underclassmen can wait another year. In such a situation I don't think its right (unless we are talking about a 7th or 8th grader, then I say they can wait).

So again I say its not black and white and each situation is unique.

Excellent post....I don't think it can be stated any better than that.

Clearly, OntheEdge is the new MNHockeyFan who replaced ghshockeyfan!

Your insight is priceless!

P.S. I know MNHockeyFan & ghshockeyfan are alive and well...just not as active!

The only solace I can provide to OnTheEdge regarding the situations I've seen is that it doesn't take away from a younger player if a coach gives a V spot to someone who is likely not to play. This younger player is better off playing JV than sitting the bench. Often, coaches will have a promising player who is not yet up to Varsity level practice with the V and play with the JV. The reality of HS hockey for girls is that you ony need 2.5 lines of F and 3 D. This is not the case with boys. I've seen teams be successful with playing just that. In the future, as the talent base continues to rise, the Girls programs will face the same decisions as the Boys. Perhaps we'll look back at that time and lament the good old days....Girls hockey isn't less competitive than Boys because Seniors are on JV that don't play. Girls Hockey is less competitive because of the difference in skill level between the first and third line. Look at how many top teams are winning early season by double digit. Look at how many points the top players are getting on these teams. If anything is keeping Girls Hockey from being as competitive as thet boys, it is this.

On a real world basis, where I work, it is more than technical skills that makes someone a valued employee. Their ability to work in teams, their ability to lead a group and their hard work and effort count just as much (and sometimes more) than technical skill as Herb Brooks told us, it wasn't about finding the "best" players, it was about finding the "right" players.

Thunderbird77 wrote:The only solace I can provide to OnTheEdge regarding the situations I've seen is that it doesn't take away from a younger player if a coach gives a V spot to someone who is likely not to play. This younger player is better off playing JV than sitting the bench. Often, coaches will have a promising player who is not yet up to Varsity level practice with the V and play with the JV. The reality of HS hockey for girls is that you ony need 2.5 lines of F and 3 D. This is not the case with boys. I've seen teams be successful with playing just that. In the future, as the talent base continues to rise, the Girls programs will face the same decisions as the Boys. Perhaps we'll look back at that time and lament the good old days....Girls hockey isn't less competitive than Boys because Seniors are on JV that don't play. Girls Hockey is less competitive because of the difference in skill level between the first and third line. Look at how many top teams are winning early season by double digit. Look at how many points the top players are getting on these teams. If anything is keeping Girls Hockey from being as competitive as thet boys, it is this.

On a real world basis, where I work, it is more than technical skills that makes someone a valued employee. Their ability to work in teams, their ability to lead a group and their hard work and effort count just as much (and sometimes more) than technical skill as Herb Brooks told us, it wasn't about finding the "best" players, it was about finding the "right" players.

Nice thought Thunderbird but just a few things about what you wrote.

First, its just my opinion but I don't think its better if a younger player plays full time JV rather than practice and play part time V. I think a younger player that is good enough to be on varsity will get her shifts and practice at a higher level. Also putting a senior on V and telling the senior she won't play much can be a problem. In telling a senior that she can be on V but she won't play is a problem in that invariably the senior is unhappy not playing. Sitting through a game with your uniform on and not playing can be very difficult and it takes a very special person to have the strength to deal with such a situation. If the sitting player becomes very unhappy I've seen the coach, being a caring human, start playing the senior more than just at mop up time. I think this can hurt the team.

I agree with your real world example. Its about getting the best employee (or if you will, the right employee) whether its because of their technical skills or something else. An employer wants someone that will contribute to the bottom line of the company and not just be there. I'm just not sure that being a practice player is enough to contribute to the bottom line. It takes a strong person to be satisfied with just practicing. I think it depends on the player and whether or not she can truly be happy to not play in games is a special person. Also, can the coach and the team be strong enough to ignore the feelings of one and do what's best for the team. Its an interesting dynamic that could either make a team stronger or be a problem in your locker room.

As far as your Herb Brooks' quote, I'm not sure that Herb actually said that. I could not find any direct quote attributable to Herb Brooks that said this but I know that the guy in the movie said it. Even if Mr. Brooks said it, I think the key to this quote is that he said the right "players". Brooks also said, "You're looking for players whose name on the front of the sweater is more important than the one on the back. I look for these players to play hard, to play smart and to represent their country."

I think the key word in this quote is "play". Do you really think Herb Brooks would have taken a player and told him, you aren't going to play but I like you and like the fact that you have been with me so long so you can come along for the ride. I don't think so. I think Herb was more like his dad. As a player, Brooks was a member of the United States National Hockey Team and he was cut. Herb went home and sat with his dad watching the US Hockey team win the gold. Herb Sr. told his son, "looks like Coach Riley cut the right guy".

Silent But Deadly wrote:Clearly, OntheEdge is the new MNHockeyFan who replaced ghshockeyfan!

Your insight is priceless!

P.S. I know MNHockeyFan & ghshockeyfan are alive and well...just not as active!

Still a frequent lurker to this site and will continue to be a fan of the girls' game, but like you've pointed out I'm not nearly as active posting here as my daughter has moved on.

The forum now needs a volunteer to pick up the "Big Games" and prediction threads plus a more complete and more timely updating of the scores!

P.S. I happen to know a guy from Buffalo who should be up to the challenge.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

Silent But Deadly wrote:Clearly, OntheEdge is the new MNHockeyFan who replaced ghshockeyfan!

Your insight is priceless!

P.S. I know MNHockeyFan & ghshockeyfan are alive and well...just not as active!

Still a frequent lurker to this site and will continue to be a fan of the girls' game, but like you've pointed out I'm not nearly as active posting here as my daughter has moved on.

The forum now needs a volunteer to pick up the "Big Games" and prediction threads plus a more complete and more timely updating of the scores!

P.S. I happen to know a guy from Buffalo who should be up to the challenge.

Definitely not as active but am still a fan/supporter of the girls'/women's game... I hope to maintain the "KRACH" Power Rankings for 2009-10 as in past seasons:

2008-9:
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18448

A younger girl getting cut from the High School program is not always a terrible thing. They play twice as many games at the U14 level. Sometimes this could help them in their development. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about this whole process.

MNHockey2199 wrote:A younger girl getting cut from the High School program is not always a terrible thing. They play twice as many games at the U14 level. Sometimes this could help them in their development. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about this whole process.

Not all associations have U14 teams....Given a choice, I would rather put the younger girl on the JV team over the senior. The senior is probably not going to get any better, but the younger one will by skating with the older varsity girls in practices and games.

It's a tough deal for the senior girl, I understand. But that's life. Most of us have been there. Unless you end up playing in the NHL, at some point, EVERY player will come to realize that they've hit the end of the road. Some realize it on their own, some are told. Either way, it's hard....but everyone gets over it.

If you want to keep playing hockey, there are women's leagues everywhere...just need to look and ask around.

muckandgrind wrote:

MNHockey2199 wrote:A younger girl getting cut from the High School program is not always a terrible thing. They play twice as many games at the U14 level. Sometimes this could help them in their development. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about this whole process.

Not all associations have U14 teams....Given a choice, I would rather put the younger girl on the JV team over the senior. The senior is probably not going to get any better, but the younger one will by skating with the older varsity girls in practices and games.

It's a tough deal for the senior girl, I understand. But that's life. Most of us have been there. Unless you end up playing in the NHL, at some point, EVERY player will come to realize that they've hit the end of the road. Some realize it on their own, some are told. Either way, it's hard....but everyone gets over it.

If you want to keep playing hockey, there are women's leagues everywhere...just need to look and ask around.

Stillwater one of the stronger Association and HS programs in the State for Girls Hockey appears to support Sr on JV. Last night at the HM game they handed out 4 color programs that had 11 seniors but people posted only 6 played in the Varsity game - so they have 5 of the JV spots allocated to Seniors it would appear.

muckandgrind wrote:

MNHockey2199 wrote:A younger girl getting cut from the High School program is not always a terrible thing. They play twice as many games at the U14 level. Sometimes this could help them in their development. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about this whole process.

Not all associations have U14 teams....Given a choice, I would rather put the younger girl on the JV team over the senior. The senior is probably not going to get any better, but the younger one will by skating with the older varsity girls in practices and games.

It's a tough deal for the senior girl, I understand. But that's life. Most of us have been there. Unless you end up playing in the NHL, at some point, EVERY player will come to realize that they've hit the end of the road. Some realize it on their own, some are told. Either way, it's hard....but everyone gets over it.

If you want to keep playing hockey, there are women's leagues everywhere...just need to look and ask around.

One of my favorite quotes is: "Every one ends up in adult (beer) league hockey, some sooner than others, but eventually thats where everyone ends up"

I dont think the grade should have anything to do w/ the selection process. Take your top players and place them accordingly. Can you really say a younger girl will definately develop into a varsity player? No you cannot, throw out the crystal ball and take the best players at tryouts. That is why we have tryouts in the first place. A senior has every right to play HS hockey as well as a frosh or younger.

Homer wrote:I dont think the grade should have anything to do w/ the selection process. Take your top players and place them accordingly. Can you really say a younger girl will definately develop into a varsity player? No you cannot, throw out the crystal ball and take the best players at tryouts. That is why we have tryouts in the first place. A senior has every right to play HS hockey as well as a frosh or younger.

Well said!

Maybe even more right, but...

Coaches seem to like the young new players. Maybe to start to develop a future core. Some seem to like to take 2-3 from the younger grades. Maybe they're tired of some of the kids they're familiar with and the new player doesn't have a track record. Maybe promises were made? Parents, attendance, a number of reasons and issues that are difficult to translate from the outside.

Some very interesting moves on the boys side as well where there are even more bodies and even more eye opening decisions. Overall I see more high level players everywhere. More players working on their game year round. That means a harder to define bubble and players cut with better skills than previous years.