CODP Festival / Blatherwick Impact

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Post Reply
hshockeyfan91
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm

CODP Festival / Blatherwick Impact

Post by hshockeyfan91 »

I have watched a few games at the CODP festival the past couple of days. I am impressed with the overall quality of girl’s hockey. In the past often there would be a few players significantly better than most - a wide skills differential. Clearly there will always be some gap between girls and their skills/impact, and yet I think it's great to see how the "mass" of girls hockey has improved.

There are no longer just a handful of good girls – there are MANY good players. There are many players, including younger players, who have excellent skills - great skating, good hands, nice shot, good hockey sense, etc.)

I think it's also exciting to realize that while there are many outstanding players participating in the CODP festival, there are many other excellent Minnesota kids that don't do CODP, and so were not at the festival.

I think there are lots of reasons why girls hockey has continued to improve, but I would submit that Jack Blatherwick's influence is the #1 reason, at least in Minnesota, but probably wider than that. The CODP program, that he was largely responsible for starting, has year by year been a key factor in skill improvement for hundreds of girls. CODP, based on what I saw this weekend, is still a formidable force in player development. Also, programs like OS have also grown from the CODP root - from Blatherwick's vision a decade ago. Now there are many early CODP alums sprinkled throughout Minnesota (and probably nationally) hockey - in youth, high school and college programs - who are able to teach some of their CODP developed knowledge to others.

Surely there are many, many people who have contributed countless hours to girls though hockey programs. But it seems to me that Blatherwick's influence is unique. Do you agree with my opinion about Blatherwick’s influence? Are there other "founders" of girls hockey that have had similar influence?
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

CODP/Blatherwick have impacted a large amount of girls hockey as we know it today. I think another person who has worked with the development of many kids is Len Fricke who runs a STP program out of Highland Arena in St. Paul. Len worked with some of the same kids that CODP has and he's helped many girls at all levels develop. Also some of the HS-specific STP programs that take outside players like SSP/Palmquist & EP/Morris have helped develop other teams HS level players too.

What is probably missing out there is a development program for the non-elite player. I think that we miss developing a HUGE amount of kids unfortunately and some of them may not do anything as a result of the focus of development being "elite" player related. Kind of ironic/counter-intuitive as you would think that the players that need the most development may not have anywhere to go for it (in theory - unless their HS coach offers a HS-specific STP). I'm not sold that the average to worse players have no desire to develop.
Hux
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Burlington, MA

Post by Hux »

ghshockeyfan wrote:CODP/Blatherwick have impacted a large amount of girls hockey as we know it today. I think another person who has worked with the development of many kids is Len Fricke who runs a STP program out of Highland Arena in St. Paul. Len worked with some of the same kids that CODP has and he's helped many girls at all levels develop. Also some of the HS-specific STP programs that take outside players like SSP/Palmquist & EP/Morris have helped develop other teams HS level players too.

What is probably missing out there is a development program for the non-elite player. I think that we miss developing a HUGE amount of kids unfortunately and some of them may not do anything as a result of the focus of development being "elite" player related. Kind of ironic/counter-intuitive as you would think that the players that need the most development may not have anywhere to go for it (in theory - unless their HS coach offers a HS-specific STP). I'm not sold that the average to worse players have no desire to develop.
I think Blatherwick has had a profound impact on the game, as far as those coaches and players who really listen to what he has to say, and follow his teachings. However, there are a lot of people who can't grasp his concepts, and tend to be stuck in old school ways, particularly as applies to skating instruction.

I agree that more needs to be done at the grass roots level to attract players to the sport, and then to build their fundamental skills from day one. One of the missions of CODP is to do just that, though the primary goal is to identify and develop elite players.

However, In most cases the kids who enter CODP, and OS, at 13, 14 or even 15 are average to above average players. I have recently seen several CODP players, and as good as they are, they are not elite players. Not yet.

While these girls may have been above average when they started the program, they were by no means elite. I think "elite," like AAA, is a term that is bandied about a little to easily, and quickly regarding players. The dictionary defines elite as "the best or most skilled members of a group." Sure you may have a few kids that stand out from their group, but in women's hockey terms that group, in my mind means all players. As such elite, and AAA, only applies to Olympians.
finance_gal
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:58 pm

Post by finance_gal »

CODP is awesome for girls that make the program, and STP if run properly is another awesome way for the girls to develop. To often the girls that really need the coaching and could really benefit from the intense training these programs can offer are left by the wayside because the coaches that run the programs only want to work with kids who have advanced to a certain level. We went through this last year with the STP program at our high school, only certain kids were given any coaching the others were left to pick up what they could. We were able to get a new coach at the end of the season last year and this summers STP program involved everyone and it didn't matter what skill level they were at. All the girls were allowed to take part and it made a world of difference. Basicly what I'm saying is that summer programs should be all inclusive and not just be geared to the so called elite players. The very good players are the ones who have the opportunities available to them. it's the girls that only play a few of shifts per game that really can benefit from the extra help and overall this will raise the quality of girls hockey.
hshockeyfan91
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm

It's not about the elite...

Post by hshockeyfan91 »

It’s interesting how this thread has shifted a little to focusing on the “elite” vs “non-elite” discussion and the training opportunities for each.

First of all, I don’t necessarily consider CODP a program for elite players only. With the gold, silver and bronze type session designations I think the vast majority of players who are even at a minimal skill level can probably get into some CODP program. I think that is also true for OS, STP and probably 99.9% of the programs available. In other words there are many programs to select from, even if a player has even a minimum of skill (as long as they have the money!!).

Secondly, my original point had nothing to do with the elite vs non-elite discussion; in fact logically it was just the opposite. My key point is that as of now there are many VERY GOOD players involved in Minnesota girls hockey. I don’t know if today’s truly elite player (whoever thy might be, and whatever program they are participating in) is really any better than yesterday’s elite player. However, what is obvious is that the “bottom” (for lack of a better term) has improved dramatically. The overall mass of players – the pool from which a HS team can be formed – has WAY more depth than a few years ago.

Again, I think that a key reason for that is the impact CODP has had over the years. I think it really was one of the first, if not the first, program in Minnesota to really try to push female players. Now that many young women have gone through that program over the years, they are able to teach others (whether today they are officially part of CODP or not).

Also, a question – when I look at the CODP site the claim is that Herb Brooks and Jack Blatherwick together somehow got CODP going. I guess I really didn’t know that Brooks was a significant part of CODP’s start. Does anybody know how those two collaborated to start the program; was Herb’s involvement significant beyond that of a visionary?
Hux
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Burlington, MA

Re: It's not about the elite...

Post by Hux »

hshockeyfan91 wrote: Also, a question – when I look at the CODP site the claim is that Herb Brooks and Jack Blatherwick together somehow got CODP going. I guess I really didn’t know that Brooks was a significant part of CODP’s start. Does anybody know how those two collaborated to start the program; was Herb’s involvement significant beyond that of a visionary?
I have spoken at length with Jack Blatherwick on several occasions, but I never thought to ask which came first, CODP as their vision, or CODP, and then their vision to have women's ice hockey be part of it.

I do know that they went before Congress to plead the case for funding, with Mr. Brooks using his standing, status and celebrity to get the folks on Capital Hill to pay attention. Mr. Blatherwick told me there is no way the program would have got off the ground without his impassioned testimony. Eventually they awarded each of the four CODP programs 1 Million dollars, to be paid out over four years. The stipulation was that the program had to be self-supporting at the end of that four years. (And you all know what happened with that money, so I won't go on about that here)
hshockeyfan91
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm

I don't know...

Post by hshockeyfan91 »

Actually I didn't know they went before Congress for anything. Interesting. Where are the other three sites, and are they still operating?
Also, I don't know what happened to the money. Was it put to good use, or wasted?
SportsMa
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:13 am

Post by SportsMa »

Interesting about the Congress piece. I was not aware of that either. In our area we really wish COPD satellite would have been continued. We are non-metro and their northwestern site's participation was not renewed by the headquarters a couple years back with an abrupt notice from the headquarters. Never did hear what had happened as there was good participation.

The youth programs and associations in our area have really been the supporters to our girls with area camps, dryland training opportunities and such.
Hux
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Burlington, MA

Post by Hux »

The original four programs have expanded to 10, and I'm hopeful that within the next year or so New England will have the 11th.

Each of the programs is self-supporting and receives absolutely NO financial help from the USOC. Some of the programs are part of large regional sports commisions, and benefit from corporate funding. Others like CODP in Minnesota rely soley on tuition. As for the original funding, lets just say it wasn't spent the way it was intended, which is why that group is no longer operating the program. The Northwest Satellite had other issues which resulted in the program being shifted to Duluth.
SportsMa
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:13 am

Post by SportsMa »

Thanks for the additional information.

Good Luck in New England.
hshockeyfan91
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm

Are these the sites....

Post by hshockeyfan91 »

I found this under the Springfield, MO CODP Site:
The Greater Springfield Community Olympic Development Program (CODP) held a news conference today (Sept 12, 2006) to announce details of the addition of ice hockey to the program. In a teleconference call with United States Olympic Committee official Alicia McConnell and USA Hockey Senior Director of Operations Jim Johannson, Springfield joins Minneapolis, Minn., as one of two cities to offer ice hockey sanctioned under the CODP.

Springfield is one of 10 cities across the United States chosen as a CODP site. Since its inception in 1997, the CODP has developed athletes from 15 different sports who have competed at several levels of play, including more than 140 at the Junior National Team level; more than 85 at the Senior National Team level; and 13 at the Olympic level. The program is represented by 38 National team athletes, and has collectively hosted 64 competitions with 189 top-three finishes.

Other participating cities include: Atlanta, Ga.; Flagstaff, Ariz.; Lake County, Ind.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Moorestown, N.J.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; Harlingen, Texas; Gainesville, Ga.; and San Antonio, Texas.
So is it fair to say that there are 10 CODP sites, with two (Mpls and Springfield, MO) offering Ice Hockey?

Also, it looks like the original four were Mpls, Atlanta, San Antonio and Salt Lake City (http://www.usoc.org/19578_19081.htm). Of these, it looks like Salt Lake City is the one no longer listed as a CODP site, so did that site go down in flames as a result of the 2002 Olympics - is that where the money was misspent?
Hux
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Burlington, MA

Re: Are these the sites....

Post by Hux »

hshockeyfan91 wrote:I found this under the Springfield, MO CODP Site:
The Greater Springfield Community Olympic Development Program (CODP) held a news conference today (Sept 12, 2006) to announce details of the addition of ice hockey to the program. In a teleconference call with United States Olympic Committee official Alicia McConnell and USA Hockey Senior Director of Operations Jim Johannson, Springfield joins Minneapolis, Minn., as one of two cities to offer ice hockey sanctioned under the CODP.

Springfield is one of 10 cities across the United States chosen as a CODP site. Since its inception in 1997, the CODP has developed athletes from 15 different sports who have competed at several levels of play, including more than 140 at the Junior National Team level; more than 85 at the Senior National Team level; and 13 at the Olympic level. The program is represented by 38 National team athletes, and has collectively hosted 64 competitions with 189 top-three finishes.

Other participating cities include: Atlanta, Ga.; Flagstaff, Ariz.; Lake County, Ind.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Moorestown, N.J.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; Harlingen, Texas; Gainesville, Ga.; and San Antonio, Texas.
So is it fair to say that there are 10 CODP sites, with two (Mpls and Springfield, MO) offering Ice Hockey?

Also, it looks like the original four were Mpls, Atlanta, San Antonio and Salt Lake City (http://www.usoc.org/19578_19081.htm). Of these, it looks like Salt Lake City is the one no longer listed as a CODP site, so did that site go down in flames as a result of the 2002 Olympics - is that where the money was misspent?
I do not know what happed regarding the St. Lake City CODP. The money problems were with the original operator of the the Twin Cities CODP.
Post Reply