HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

keepitreal wrote:
However, I will stand by my assertion these results should serve as a indicator that Minnesota Hockey needs to look carefully, not so much at how we evaluate players, but at how we develop them compared to other regions in the country, especially when considering how the organization's policies move forward.

Judging by the talent from Minnesota I have seen over the past five years or so, I don't think there is anything that needs fixin'. As noted, I think the rest of the country is starting to catch up, and you can throw a blanket over a much greater pool of talent than you could a few years ago.

I would also be very surprised if there are less than 30 Minnesota girls making D1 commitments for the 2009-'10 season, especially with Syracuse in the mix, and the possibility of other schools adding varsity programs as well.

As a matter of record, the only 1991 forwards (wth the exception of BD) that were chosen for the U18 team were those that scored points in the All-Star game.

There was only one D that scored points in the All-Star game and she did not make the U18 team.

It appears that the all-star game was an important part of the selection process, at least for forwards. As others have pointed out, there were a lot of MN girls chosen for this event. They were certainly given the opportunity.

I find it interesting that there are 4 on the team from WI and the Head coach is from WI

keepitreal wrote:However, I will stand by my assertion these results should serve as a indicator that Minnesota Hockey needs to look carefully, not so much at how we evaluate players, but at how we develop them compared to other regions in the country, especially when considering how the organization's policies move forward.

keepitreal, do you have any suggestions as to what Minnesota Hockey might do to advance the development of "elite" players? It seems that their primary function right now is to coordinate the selection process as opposed to developing new strategies that would promote the advancement of players to the national level. How would you suggest they take a more active role with this, given the current system that's based on girls playing at the high school level (at least during the winter season)?

Thunderbird 77:

I think you are vastly overstating the impact of one game.

Both Dempsey and Decker are 91 forwards who made the team but had no points in the All Star game and several of the selected players had one assist hardly a key differentiator at this level.

Also the goalie on the losing All Star team was selected with a save % in the game of .875 vs the two winning team's goalie save % of 1.000 each. And the overall no. of shots for the game was fairly even.

There are many talented kids both who were selected and who were not and I suspect many factors were part of the final analysis.

Just a thought...The 90 girls, who will be seniors, have not gotten much exposure. They were always grouped with the 89s for national tryouts - girls that could be 2 grades above them in school. This year, they did not get to tryout for any of the national teams. We could see some surprises this fall.

Itsjustasport -

Let me rephrase my observation-

ALL of the 1991 forwards who got a point in the All-Star game were chosen for the U18 team. After you remove all of the players that scored points (and lets not forget assists are just as important as goals), there were two more 1991 forwards chosen for the U18 team.

It is possible that the All-Star game (and performance in this game) was not an important factor in the selection process. It is also possible that it is just a coincidence that all of the 1991 forwards that scored in this game were chosen for the U18 team. One would expect, however, that in this type of format, the best forwards would rise to the top and make an impact. Certainly the ability to score (goals or assists) is one measure of this.

Thunderbird 77:

In response to your rephrased observation:

That may be accurate but it it would also be just as accurate to suggest after the fact that the liklihood of making the team is based upon not attending Minnesota high school or by playing on a team that competes at the U19 National level as this is true for 22 of 23 and at least 20 of 23 players respectively of the kids on the team.

Also note that 2 of the 4 who scored were on last year's U18 team. Those two each got 3 points in the all star game as compared to the other two forwards who got one point apiece. Also all 4 of the 91 forwards from last year's team were asked back whether they scored in the all star game or not. And to the earlier observation if the game were so important why would they select a goalie who allows two goals vs two who get shutouts (after all while assists are important making saves is far more critical).


The reality is, at least in my view, is that we will never all the reasons why kids are selected or the critical factors involved. However there does appear to be a preference for kids who compete at the U19 level versus MN High School whether that is due to percieved ability, number of games played or level of familiarity or exposure is unclear.

MNHockeyFan wrote: keepitreal, do you have any suggestions as to what Minnesota Hockey might do to advance the development of "elite" players? It seems that their primary function right now is to coordinate the selection process as opposed to developing new strategies that would promote the advancement of players to the national level. How would you suggest they take a more active role with this, given the current system that's based on girls playing at the high school level (at least during the winter season)?

This is not an easy question. First let me say that the HS hockey system in Minnesota is a great tradition and something to be proud of. But most acknowledge it's a double-edged sword when it comes to advanced development of elite players, especially girls. There are some interesting things happening with the Girls Fall Elite League (finally) and the expansion of the NDTP evaluation with the suddenly cozy relationship of the MSHSL. Does anyone think this turn of events is a coincidence?

Minnesota Hockey has a tough job, but I think they ignored the girls so long it created a leadership void to the point where the entire off-season became hockey dad-driven AAA hell. I understand the need to put the monster back in the box now, but they have to be careful not to squeeze out elite teams and advanced development opportunities without having top level alternatives in place. At a time where the hockey academies and the club teams with their 50 game seasons are creating more players at the national and collegiate levels, will MN Hockey and their MSHSL partners become more provincial? We'll see soon enough.

Maybe we need to look at some form of sanctioned state elite development program as young as U12. Let's face it, girls aren't the same as boys; they develop sooner, peak faster and by the time the NDTP and HS elite programs kick in, girls may already be past some of their fundamental development years. And why doesn't MN Hockey participate in USA Select 14s?

As for the HS kids, in lieu of the MSHSL development camps, I think the national development model should be used to create a large multi-tiered program here, early summer and fall, with a league structure to reward the effort-- sort of a morph between CODP and a tryout-based elite league. I think MN Hockey and the MSHSL should throw all their collective weight behind a program like this and involve as many college players in the summer session as possible to push the top players. I also think the MSHSL should set aside the non-contact rule so we can involve our best HS coaches and not leave off-season hockey to privateers. As long as parents can accept and support the placement judgement of the organizers (the largest hurdle) this would be a vastly superior hockey development investment compared to AAA or even many hockey schools.

Lastly, I think it's a shame that we can't allow our best MSHSL players to compete at the national level in the spring unless a private organizer jumps though some nearly impossible bureaucratic hoops. Can the HS system and some form of sanctioned MN Hockey club teams coexist, or is this counter-productive? I'd like to see expansion of the elite HS league (which will happen) with a few coach-selected "all star" teams from the league allowed to compete at the U19 and maybe U16 national levels. Maybe this is the plan, I don't know.

It's a delicate and complex situation and it's safe to assume we don't fully grasp all of the issues. It will be interesting to watch the developments out of Minnesota Hockey.

KeepIT, great post!! I think you nailed it to be honest. There needs to be a little more organization to all of this. And maybe this is what they are trying to get at. Yet I still wonder where does this put the fringe player, especially in girls, if everything becomes Elite only, the other kids might just quit playing, and in that case are the Elite so Elite. Girls is still in it's infancy, and still need to build a base. Elite, Elite, Elite, does that really push the sport as a whole, or just that, ELITE only?

As for your question about AAA, and the pushing of Elite players out, I think you can find your answer in several other posts in this forum. One stating that many of the top players that could, chose not to participate in the International Cup. Could be wrong but I thought I read that here somewhere.

Just an example here and this would be pointed at anyone that posts, are you so sure your daughter is one of those Elite kids, or would she be left out should all go Elite, and would that change your thoughts? No offense intended, just trying to make a point in general. I hear way too often, "My kid got cut again, she won't be doing this again". That to me says, guess I should work a little harder, but the window of opportunity is very small with girls.

Rube, thanks, actually what I'm suggesting is a multi-tiered approach that could incorporate any level of skilled player into higher training; the key is grouping them by ability to get the most out of it. The topic was national level development not about development of the sport as a whole, so forgive me if I ramble on about the handful of elite Minnesota players, but I do believe there needs to be a Minnesota Hockey structure that promotes what talented players need to continue to develop.

Hand-in-hand with this, a similar structure for all players so motivated to improve could also be implemented. I think an effort like this would align well with the goals of Minnesota Hockey (goals, which interestingly might be decidedly different than those of the MSHSL).

My statement about squeezing out was poorly written; the point is that MN Hockey needs to develop acceptable development alternatives before they try to exercise additional control over off-season or private in-season elite teams. If we want to send more players to the US national teams, we might need some new and bigger ideas from the local entity.

I started a new thread - "Minnesota Hockey What Needs to Be Done to Stay on Top"

Lets return this to the great senior class.

Thanks KeepIt, that makes more sense. It just seems to me that we are all getting to caught up in the top end vs the developement end which should be as much about the middle tier, and the bottom, as it is about the top. But then again I could be wrong. After all Herb Brooks said it best, "You can't form a larger pyramid with out building a larger base."

OK, to get back to subject, is anyone hearing any more about kids commiting? Although I am slightly confused by the title of this thread, Div 1 2009-10 recruits, are we talking this graduating class or next? If this graduating year, don't the kids have to wait until HS actually starts before signing a letter of intent, not sure? If this is 2010 graduates, from what I hear they cannot be officially contacted prior to July 1 of their senior year, so not much piont in even speculating I'd guess. At this point everyone from 2010 class is still a recruit if that is what we are referring to, aren't they, or are we again narrowing this down to just the kids who are for right now THE ELITE .

They can be contacted before July 1 just not by telephone so it typically is by email and letter until then, unless the athlete goes and visits at the school. There are specific rules regarding "dark" periods when contact is prohibited or limited.

There are at least 5 local girls who are going to be seniors who have already committed: 1 in January (Gophers), 1 in May (Ivy), and 3 in July (St. Cloud State); and many more in process . . . and this is still very, very early.

hockeyrube7 wrote:OK, to get back to subject, is anyone hearing any more about kids commiting? Although I am slightly confused by the title of this thread, Div 1 2009-10 recruits, are we talking this graduating class or next? If this graduating year, don't the kids have to wait until HS actually starts before signing a letter of intent, not sure? If this is 2010 graduates, from what I hear they cannot be officially contacted prior to July 1 of their senior year, so not much piont in even speculating I'd guess. At this point everyone from 2010 class is still a recruit if that is what we are referring to, aren't they, or are we again narrowing this down to just the kids who are for right now THE ELITE .

This pertains to girls starting college hockey in the fall of '09 and playing their first college season as '09-'10. Colleges could start talking to this group on July 1, 08 and some girls have already made commitments. Here is a list of National Announcements to date. It does not include Alex Nelson of Andover and Lisa Martinson of St. Louis Park who both are committed to St. Cloud State. If you add them it would say MN is on top of the Nation in committed recruits.

USA 7: Illinois 2; Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York 1 each


CANADA 4: Ontario 2; Alberta, and Quebec 1 each

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=78395&page=3

Re: 09-10 D1 Commitments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Player....................Position...............( Current Team).......................Hometown

(Based on reliable info, but to paraphrase Yogi, "It ain't official 'til it's official.")
* Denotes commitments are official, as announced by the school

Bemidji State

Boston College
Blake Bolden....................D..............(USA U18s/Northwood).......................Stow, OH
Corinne Boyles.................G..................(Chicago Mission).......................Wheaton, IL

Boston University
Jill Cardella......................F................... .....(NAHA)............................Rochester, NY

Brown

Clarkson
Danielle Skirrow................F..................(Durham Lightning).....................Trenton, ON

Colgate

Connecticut

Cornell
Katie Allen......................D...................(Re d Deer Chiefs).....................Red Deer, AB

Dartmouth

Harvard

Maine

Mercyhurst
Stephanie DeSutter..............................(Culver Academy)........................Alymer, ON

Minnesota
Megan Bozek..................D..............(USA 18s/Chicago Mission)..........Buffalo Grove, IL
Rebecca Kortum..............F.........................(Hop kins)............................Hopkins, MN

Minnesota - Duluth
Audrey B-Cournoyer.........F..................(CDN 18s/St. Jerome).................Montreal, QC


Minnesota State

New Hampshire

Niagara

North Dakota

Northeastern

Ohio State
Paige Semenza................F.......................... (NAHA).............................Pittston, PA

Princeton

Providence

Quinnipiac

RMU

RPI

Sacred Heart

St. Cloud State

St. Lawrence

Syracuse

Union

Vermont

Wayne State

Wisconsin
Rebecca Ruegsegger..........G.........................(SSM )............................Lakewood, CO

Yale

itsjustasport wrote:They can be contacted before July 1 just not by telephone so it typically is by email and letter until then, unless the athlete goes and visits at the school. There are specific rules regarding "dark" periods when contact is prohibited or limited.

There are at least 5 local girls who are going to be seniors who have already committed: 1 in January (Gophers), 1 in May (Ivy), and 3 in July (St. Cloud State); and many more in process . . . and this is still very, very early.

I always heard the can only say as much as Hi to a family, or it is concidered an official contact, and that I thought included letters?

So you are saying there are kids signing in their junior year of HS? Interesting.

They don't actually sign anything until November but they can verbally commit anytime. Of course verbal commitments can be undone by either the athlete or the school but typically honored. The significance is that if a school only needs 3 forwards, the coach commits to the athlete that one of those forward spots is hers, subject to whatever scholarship terms are offered.

Official visits are where the student goes to visit the school at the school's expense, and this can't happen until school starts in the fall of their senior year. Unofficial visits occur when the student pays the travel expense to go visit the school but they can still meet the coaches, take the tours, etc. But most of these girls who are committing now have likely been getting lots of letters since the fall of their junior year and then lots of calls starting July 1 after their junior year. When the coaches are off of their own campus (say like during Junior Fest), they are limited to only saying hi.