54's 17's and 16's

Knight7 · Post by **Knight7** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:45 pm

Rosters and schedule info:
Excellent hockey this weekend at Plymouth Arena
Good Luck to all the Ladies.

April 26 – 28, 2013
Plymouth Arena
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -16-and-17 - Schedules info

17's RED TEAM

NO. FIRST LAST POS. HGHT Shot SCHOOL GRADE
21 Emma Terres D 5'7" Left Armstrong/Cooper 11th
22 Lauren Norgren D 5'9" Left Fergus Falls 11th
23 Lynn Astrup D 5'6" Right Warroad 11th
24 Amy Schlagel D 5'7" Left Blaine 11th
25 Jessica Hammer D 5'2" Left Eastridge 11th
26 Mary-Kate Hallett D 5'8" Left St. Paul United 10th
27 Jordan Chancellor F 5'4" Left Blake 11th
28 Alexis Joyce F 5'5" Right Lakeville North 11th
29 Emily Stegora F 5'8" Left Red Wing 11th
30 Maliya Rodgers F 5'4" Right Hopkins 11th
31 Katy Fuller F 5'5" Right Minneapolis 11th
32 Maddison Jewell F 5'6" Right Buffalo 11th
33 Samantha Donovan F 5'2" Right Irondale 11th
34 Alexandra Toupal F 5'7" Left Irondale 11th
35 Nicole Schammel F 5'5" Left Red Wing 11th
36 Abigail Larson F 5'3" Right Maple Grove 10th
63 Erin O'Neil G 5'9" Right Hopkins 11th
64 Abigail Miller G 5'8" Left Benilde-SM 11th

Coach Mark Johnson

17's WHITE TEAM

41 Sydney Baldwin D 5'8" Left Minnetonka 11th
42 Megan Hinze D 5'7" Left Chaska/Chan 10th
43 Anna Barlow D 5'6" Right South St. Paul 10th
44 Isabella Sutton D 5'6" Right Mounds View 11th
45 Kennedy Houge D 5'5" Left Hill-Murray 10th
46 Emma Wittchow D 5'9" Right Burnsville 11th
47 Sarah Bobrowski F 5'4" Left Hill-Murray 11th
48 Reagan Haley F 5'6" Right Red Wing 10th
49 Mikayla Goodin F 5'5" Right Andover 11th
50 Hannah Erickson F 5'4" Left Northern Lakes 11th
51 McKenna Brand F 5'6" Left NAHA 11th
52 Alexia Klaas F 5'3" Right Duluth 11th
53 Kiersten Falck F 5'4" Left Blaine 11th
54 Emily Antony F 5'5" Left Rogers 10th
55 Amy Auran F 5'5" Right International Falls 11th
56 Ellie Tabaka F 5'6" Right Tartan 10th
65 Hannah Ehresmann G 5'7" Left Minnetonka 11th
66 Emma May G 5'6" Left Cretin-Derham Hall 10th

Coach Rachel Solgon

17's BLUE TEAM

1 Emily Gunderson D 5'8" Left Dodge County 11th
2 Rachel Skoglund D 5'2" Right Forest Lake 11th
3 Dani Sadek D 5'7" Right Lakeville North 11th
4 Lainie Baldwin D 5'2" Right Maple Grove 10th
5 Amanda Kimmerle D 5'8" Left Anoka 11th
6 Kelsey Crow D 5'4" Left Minnetonka 10th
7 Brittany Wheeler F 5'6" Right Benilde-SM 11th
8 Katlin Swanstrom F 5'4" Right Blaine 11th
9 Alicia Praus F 5'10" Left Benilde-SM 11th
10 Abilene Turpin F 5'4" Right Andover 11th
11 Taylor Williamson F 5'6" Left Edina 10th
12 Corbin Boyd F 5'7" Left Hopkins 10th
13 Erica Power F 5'5" Right Apple Valley 11th
14 Alev Baysoy F 5'8" Left St. Paul United 11th
15 Rachel King F 5'6" Left No Wright Co 10th
16 Sam Swanstrom F 5'4" Right Blaine 11th
61 Alex LaMere G 5'8" Left No Wright Co 11th
62 Rebecca Sonnek G 5'2" Right Edina 11th

Coach Chuck McQuillan

16's RED TEAM

21 Lauren Boyle D 5'4" Left Eden Prairie 10th
22 Paige Sorensen D 5'8" Left Wayzata 10th
23 Taylor Ramthun D 5'4" Left Eagan 10th
24 Rachel Herzog D 5'6" Right Hill-Murray 10th
25 Emma Schatz D 5'9" Right Edina 10th
26 Annie Magnusson D 5'9" Left Fergus Falls 9th
27 Dana RasmussenF 5'3" Right Dodge County 10th
28 Paige Voight F 5'5" Left Cretin-Derhall Hall 10th
29 Karlie Lund F 5'8" Right Blake 10th
30 Ashley Effertz F 5'6" Right Buffalo 10th
31 Rebecca ZarembinskiF 5'4" Left Hill-Murray 10th
32 Brook Schugel F 5'7" Left New Ulm 9th
33 Sylvia Marolt F 5'7" Right Thief River Falls 10th
34 Rachael St. Clair F 5'2" Right Hopkins 10th
35 Annelise Rice F 5'5" Right Minnetonka 9th
36 Carlie Hart F 5'6" Right Stillwater 10th
63 Maddie Rooney G 5'5" Right Andover 10th
64 Paige Press G 5'3" Right Park/Cottage Grove10th

Coach Natalie Darwitz

16's WHITE TEAM

41 MeKenzie Steffen D 5'6" Right Benilde-SM's 9th
42 Taylor Flaherty D 5'8" Left Lakeville North 10th
43 Marielle Martini D 5'5" Left Orono 10th
44 Haley Nielsen D 5'4" Left Orono 10th
45 Ellen Carter D 5'10" Left Roseville 10th
46 Anna Zumwinkle D 5'10" Right Breck 9th
47 Charly Dahlquist F 5'6" Left Eden Prairie 10th
48 Sophia Shaver F 5'10" Right Wayzata 10th
49 Annie Boekers F 5'2" Right Cretin-Derham Hall 10th
50 Leah Schwartzman F 5'6" Right Breck 10th
51 Rebekah Kolstad F 5'10" Right Mankato East 10th
52 Janna Haeg F 5'3" Left Lakeville South 9th
53 Courtney Ketola F 5'4" Left Cloquet 9th
54 Hannah Currin F 5'1" Right Blmtn Kennedy 9th
55 Abigail Hanscom F 5'2" Right Eden Prairie 10th
56 Riley Tousignant F 5'2" Right Lakeville North 10th
65 Melissa Zinser G 5'7" Left Roch John Marshall 9th
66 Mary Dingman G 5'5" Left Mounds View 9th

Coach Andrea Nichols

16's BLUE TEAM

1 Grace Bizal D 5'4" Left Hopkins 10th
2 Katie Robinson D 5'10" Right Dodge County 9th
3 Claire Mancheski D 5'7" Left Breck 10th
4 Isabelle Brosseau D 6'1" Right Eden Prairie 10th
5 Andrea Olson D 5'5" Left St. Paul United 9th
6 Samantha Meister D 5'4" Left Wayzata 9th
7 Demi Gardner F 5'8" Right Warroad 9th
8 Jessica Bonfe F 5'9" Right Hill-Murray 10th
9 Kippen Keller F 5'4" Left Benilde-SM's 9th
10 Morgan Morse F 5'4" Right Lakeville South 10th
11 Emily Bergland F 5'8" Right Thief River Falls 10th
12 Haley Ravndalen F 5'6" Left Lakeville South 10th
13 Jacie Hoehn F 5'7" Right Dodge County 10th
14 Sidney Portner F 5'5" Left Andover 9th
15 Katherine Scheibner F 5'2" Left Eastridge 9th
16 Victoria Holman F 5'4" Right Chaska/Chan 10th
61 Brianna Storms G 5'6" Left Moorhead 10th
62 Logan Knip G 5'9" Right Totino-Grace 10th

Coach Krissy Pohl

Hock3 · Post by **Hock3** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:41 am

Very good hockey and very good coaching, to bad the evaluators weren't as good. We knew our daughter was a long shot, so her not making it wasn't to disappointing. What was disappointing is who else did and didn't make it. It is amazing to me how 2 sections out of 8 accounted for 27 of the 54 girls who made it and neither of those sections made it to the finals. I know it doesn't matter who wins the games, but that does show the caliber of players that were on the team and how they learned to work together in a short period of time.

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:03 pm

I agree on the first two points. As for the evaluators, its a tough thing and they will never make everyone happy. I would assume there were a lot of girls very equal when it came down to the final 10 or 15 and perhaps the next 10 or 15 that didn't make it could have been inserted instead and it wouldn't have made much difference. My observation was that in the games I saw, there would typically be 2 or 3 D and 2 or 3 Forwards that stood out and the rest kind of blend in. I am not smart enough to look for the smaller things that give one an edge over the rest; nor was I looking for that when it came to the masses. I only focused on the ones I knew; I assume the evaluators put a lot more thought into this than us average parents.

And, if you are referring to the 17s (maybe it applies to 16s as well), to be fair, Section 6 lost on a late game penalty shot in the first game so had the luck gone the other way, they could have won out so I do agree that you can't go by wins alone. Also, and obviously, a goalie having a bad stretch could sink an all star team when you have this much talent on the ice. And, Section 6AA had 6 teams ranked in the top 15 last year with two of them running 1st or 2nd all year. Many of the Section 6AA girls return so if they have a little more representation than the rest it really shouldn't be a shock. I also noticed Section 5 had a few make it as well. However, I can't say I was surprised there either.

D6 Girls Fan · Post by **D6 Girls Fan** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:25 pm

I don't think the cuts at level 2 were all that bad. We were just surprised at the cuts they made at level 1. When we got to the cuts at 54, it was much more in line with what we saw on the ice. Being very familiar with at least 3 of these sections, they really took the right kids for the 54 as far as we could see. The first 108? Not so much.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:38 pm

There are a number of evaluators that also run camps and leagues and also advertise the fact on their web sites. So probably the evaluators picked rather than who was better but who attends their camps. Last year evaluators could be overheard stating she skates for me and attends my camps. The problem starts at the top of the HP program. Ask your self why college scouts for the women do not attend or why the players sent to the national camps scored low last year.

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:58 pm

I am not going to pretend to know how the evaluators make their decisions or how much politics play in this. But, one slight correction Greybeard. There were several college coaches watching last weekend. Some i saw and others claimed to have watched the girls play. I suppose they could be just saying that but it seems to be a silly thing to fabricate.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:06 am

Statistically you'd think that a team with 3 full lines of the best players in the state should probably win a couple games against teams that only have a couple players.

Hock3 · Post by **Hock3** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:09 pm

I guess I just believe for the most part the final 54 is preselected.

36Guy · Post by **36Guy** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:41 pm

Hock3 wrote:I guess I just believe for the most part the final 54 is preselected.

Not going to lie..Priceless! I hope Hock is under the age of 15..lol

36Guy · Post by **36Guy** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:54 pm

Greybeard,

The college scouts were all over...you actually have to know them to recognize them.

Since when do we need explain the process to parents? The "final" 54 or 108 is not for the parents ego or some list to post on the fridge. They are not looking for the top 108, 54, 32 or even top 20. This process is to actually find the top 1 to 8 players maybe! The are looking for future Olympians, world players and National team players. The emotional fallout is the result of parents not understanding where their player falls.

Yes, college coaches take advantage of getting a peek at the narrowed down field. I certainly hope that most parents are doing this and investing the time and money is because they feel their player has a realistic shot at making this special final 15 not the 54. I highly doubt these "biased" evaluators put 39 kids above some girl because they attend there camps.

As far as scoring low at National Camps....Huh??? Half of the World 18U team was from Minnesota.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:13 am

Since when do we need explain the process to parents?

Wow. I think that confirms what those parents are feeling.

Last time I looked, 15,16,17 were still minors, needing their parents along the way. There are already a pile of parents telling parents of younger kids that this is a waste of time. Need to be careful you're able to scrape together the first 160 - I've heard some of the 15's districts didn't have to cut any girls to get to 20.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:44 pm

Plenty of young ladies playing college hockey (at least D3) that never attended a 16 or 17 evaluation.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:26 pm

When Mn Hockey changed the format for the Girls 15, 16 and 17 programs, the reason at the time was to bring the girls process similar to what the process was for the Boys. Unfortunately this change also brought with it people that had their own private agendas and those agendas instead of identifying the best female players in the State of Minnesota were basically promoting either their own players or those players that participated with certain summer programs or summer/fall leagues.

To get to the top 1 through 8 players you start with the best 160 players in the state then in the case of the 16 and 17 then the best 54 then the best 20 plus 1 alternate at each position. This does not happen, not all the best players are invited to start with and along the way the best are not all selected to the next level. There have been occasions where the evaluators have listed the players in the order of their numerical scores only to have one of the program managers erase those names and place others on the final list and yes this did happen.

At the 15’s instead of 54 their next camp is 102 then the final 20 plus 3 alternates. Last year all the best players did not get selected to advance to the camp of 102 therefore not the final 20 either. The said fact was that at last years for the first time at a 15 national camp not one Minnesota player was graded at the “A” level.

The result of the improper selection and not inviting the best has been, the word from USA Hockey at the National camp is that the quality of players from Minnesota has declined. The result is also that the number of slots allocated will be reduced thus denying more Minnesota players a chance to attend.

Problems arise when camp or summer/fall league owners or coaches end up as evaluators or High School coaches end up either coaching or evaluating their own players. A conflict of interest must be filled out and all connections disclosed.

As for your statement that half of the players on the national team are from Minnesota the facts are the on the Under 18 team a roster of 22 contained 8 Mn born players 2 defense and 6 forwards 3 short of half (36%) and the Under 22 team had 5 Mn players 3 defense and 2 forwards 6 short of half (22.7%) and if you total both teams then 44 rostered players with a total of 13 players (29.5%) a far cry from 50%, with Minnesota having such large number of female players as compared to other areas this low number is unacceptable.

To be honest I do not really care who does get selected just so the complete process is open and above board and completely honest with integrity, the best have a chance and the best advance no matter where you play or who you play for, where you live either in the metro area or a small outstate community all should have an opportunity if they are good enough.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:31 pm

greybeard58 wrote:When Mn Hockey changed the format for the Girls 15, 16 and 17 programs, the reason at the time was to bring the girls process similar to what the process was for the Boys. Unfortunately this change also brought with it people that had their own private agendas and those agendas instead of identifying the best female players in the State of Minnesota were basically promoting either their own players or those players that participated with certain summer programs or summer/fall leagues.

To get to the top 1 through 8 players you start with the best 160 players in the state then in the case of the 16 and 17 then the best 54 then the best 20 plus 1 alternate at each position. This does not happen, not all the best players are invited to start with and along the way the best are not all selected to the next level. There have been occasions where the evaluators have listed the players in the order of their numerical scores only to have one of the program managers erase those names and place others on the final list and yes this did happen.

At the 15’s instead of 54 their next camp is 102 then the final 20 plus 3 alternates. Last year all the best players did not get selected to advance to the camp of 102 therefore not the final 20 either. The said fact was that at last years for the first time at a 15 national camp not one Minnesota player was graded at the “A” level.

The result of the improper selection and not inviting the best has been, the word from USA Hockey at the National camp is that the quality of players from Minnesota has declined. The result is also that the number of slots allocated will be reduced thus denying more Minnesota players a chance to attend.

Problems arise when camp or summer/fall league owners or coaches end up as evaluators or High School coaches end up either coaching or evaluating their own players. A conflict of interest must be filled out and all connections disclosed.

As for your statement that half of the players on the national team are from Minnesota the facts are the on the Under 18 team a roster of 22 contained 8 Mn born players 2 defense and 6 forwards 3 short of half (36%) and the Under 22 team had 5 Mn players 3 defense and 2 forwards 6 short of half (22.7%) and if you total both teams then 44 rostered players with a total of 13 players (29.5%) a far cry from 50%, with Minnesota having such large number of female players as compared to other areas this low number is unacceptable.

To be honest I do not really care who does get selected just so the complete process is open and above board and completely honest with integrity, the best have a chance and the best advance no matter where you play or who you play for, where you live either in the metro area or a small outstate community all should have an opportunity if they are good enough.

There are several inaccuracies in your statements. For example, there are not 20 players chosen plus alternates for National Camps. It's a misconception that a list of finalists make up a "team" to represent Minnesota. The number of players from each District are allocated by USA Hockey. The total number for Minnesota at the 15 age level this year is 15 and I believe it is the largest number of any district in the country. It is a smaller total number at 16 camp, therefore a smaller allocation to Minnesota. It is smaller yet at the 17 level.

As far as the allegation that top players did not make the final 102, I'd be interested to know what "top" player did not make the 102 (yet to be announced), let alone the final 20 plus 1 alternate (which does not exist). 180 players just competed at the Spring Festival. I will go out on a limb and say it is highly unlikely that a player that was not selected to participate at the District level, would have qualified to move on to the summer camp in St Cloud (102 players). In the end, other than very close picks that could go either way, the best players end up in St Cloud regardless of what clinics they attend or what school they play for. I'm not sure you are, but if you are saying that there is a player or players sitting at home that did not make the 180, and then the 102, but should have been selected for National Camp, I think that's ridiculous.

I think it's also possible and likely that there is not a lot of quality off season training for girls and that the top players tend to end up training in a few good programs. They don't make the finals because they go to a certain clinic, the go to a certain clinic because they are good and want to get better.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:04 pm

Interesting takes on the HP program.

Greybeard, I think there is always a bias when it comes to tryout evaluations. Familiarity gives those evaluators confidence that what they are seeing is who the player really is. On the flip side, if you have never seen a player who has national camp skill....you could pick them out in warm-ups. I have always wondered why people want evaluators that don't treat hockey as their year-round career and know the players inside out.

You might be right about the MN girls as whole not grading the highest at the camps. What we noticed was the rest of the country will have a few select girls that have trained and played on the boys side out of necessity. They tend to score out higher in the short term. You also will hear from those same players that our MN girls have much more depth and as the week goes on start to take over the pace. And speaking of depth...

Montoya, The numbers are a concern. Our Section 2 had 23 tryout for the 16's. It seems we are not getting the 3rd and 4th line varsity kids at the HP section tryouts. Not sure about the solution here.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:51 am

Of 15 2A/2AA teams, 23 girls showed up?

That's not even 2 kids from each team. Assuming there is a chance that one or more of Edina, Eden Praire, Chaska/Chan, Shakopee, Mankato East, Mound sent 3 or more players, that means as many as half of the schools didn't send anybody at all. It doesn't seem like those programs feel vested in what you're trying to do here.

If PJ is right, and the idea is to find 1-8, then maybe SECoach is right, 3 evaluators should just pick 15 kids they know, because they are good and want to get better, and be done with it. If, however, the idea is to involve all the girls involved in MNHockey or the MSHSL, to work toward a goal that involves more than making the local varsity team, then I think it's failing.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:23 am

There are several reasons why the number are low at 16s and even lower at 17s. First and foremost, is that the players, or families cut themselves. Players that try out at 15s, but don't make the District team and play in the Spring Festival rarely attend tryouts at 16s. Even players that play in the Spring Festival but don't move on to the final 102 tend to not participate the next year. Some will even pass if they make the 102, but are not selected for National Camp. Some say they stop because the tryouts are unfair, some pass because they feel if they didn't make it all the way last year, why would they the next year.

It's unfortunate that it's hard for many to look at each level as an opportunity to play with the best of their age group, rather than only feeling it's worth anything if they get the end prize.

Many enter the 15 HP Program with dreams of playing D1 college hockey and they take their placement in this program as the end all. It's not, but some see it this way. For some, it's their first chance to see what the really good girls look like. I think it would be nice if they looked at it as an opportunity to play the game, get some very good competion, meet some new friends, and have some fun. Unfortunately, it's become all about the prize at the end.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:31 am

So...
is it about the 1-8?
Or...
using the 16's as an example, is it about providing an additional opportunity for all of the roughly 1300 sophomore and junior girls, born in 96, to set goals to distinguish themselves as one of the top 160 (or 102, or 54, or 20, or 15) in a competitive environment against the best of the best?

Is the current program serving the 1300?
Is it serving the 160? (or 102, or 54, or 20, or 15)
Or is it only serving the 1-8?

demongoed · Post by **demongoed** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:25 am

I know a number of families that decided against the 16's after their experience at the 15's last year. If it is clear that your daughter will not make the final cut, it is a lot of time and money to "play the game, get some very good competition, meet some new friends, and have some fun." Unless you have unlimited resources, for many, I would even venture to say for most, that time and money might be better spent on a good camp.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:34 am

demongoed wrote:I know a number of families that decided against the 16's after their experience at the 15's last year. If it is clear that your daughter will not make the final cut, it is a lot of time and money to "play the game, get some very good competition, meet some new friends, and have some fun." Unless you have unlimited resources, for many, I would even venture to say for most, that time and money might be better spent on a good camp.

Another valid reason why the numbers drop at 16s and again at 17s. Once they get a feel for where their daughter falls in the mix, they make different choices the next season. I think the program serves those that want what it provides. It's clearly not for everyone, nor can or should it be.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:46 am

For whom can and should it be?

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:53 am

InigoMontoya wrote:For whom can and should it be?

It can and should be for those that find value in what it provides. Whatever value means to them, if it provides it, then it's for them.

D6 Girls Fan · Post by **D6 Girls Fan** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:04 am

Spoke with a parent of a girl who tried out at the 16 level in D6 (on our same AAA team). He knows his daughter is not one of the top 54 players at this level. His hope was a good weekend of hockey at the festival level and then get cut. His girl was cut at the 108 level, despite her statistical superiority over a school teammate who was kept. A year of playing on a better line, scoring more, being relied on by her coach, but a teammate who most thought was less effective was kept instead. Apparently there was no shortage of players at the D6 tryouts.

He then gets a letter from the program saying that "If you didn't get as far as you would have liked, why not sign up for our development camp." I'm not connecting the lines, but...

On the other hand, we don't participate in any of these camps and our daughter did fine, albeit in another district and different age group. I just think it's caveat emptor here. And agree that everyone needs to have realistic expectations. I don't think this program is just for players 1-8, as there's something to be gained at each level. I would like their selection to be slightly more transparent and objective, but who wouldn't like that in any situation?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:23 am

SECoach wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:For whom can and should it be?
It can and should be for those that find value in what it provides. Whatever value means to them, if it provides it, then it's for them.

Is that in line with:

The Reebok Minnesota Hockey High Performance 15, 16 and 17 programs are designed to identify the best players in Minnesota and to provide the top players from each district or section a chance to play with and against the best players in the state.

I won't ask if it adds value to those that find it valuable.
I will ask, if players are choosing not to participate, does it:
identify the best players in Minnesota?
provide the top players from each district or section a chance to play with and against the best players in the state?

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:31 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
SECoach wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:For whom can and should it be?
It can and should be for those that find value in what it provides. Whatever value means to them, if it provides it, then it's for them.
Is that in line with:

The Reebok Minnesota Hockey High Performance 15, 16 and 17 programs are designed to identify the best players in Minnesota and to provide the top players from each district or section a chance to play with and against the best players in the state.

I won't ask if it adds value to those that find it valuable.
I will ask, if players are choosing not to participate, does it:
identify the best players in Minnesota?
provide the top players from each district or section a chance to play with and against the best players in the state?

I believe it does. The best players continue to try out at 16s and 17s. The mid to lower end players tend to drop out. Do some players that have improved or were on the bubble stop participating because of the results from previous years? Yes. Are there good players that don't participate at 16s and 17s? Yes. Are there National Camp contenders that don't participate? Surely not many, and if there are, it's their own choice not to.