U19 or HS Hockey

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:20 pm

With all the controversy regarding transfers,OE, etc., it begs the question: would girls hockey be better off playing at the MN/USA Hockey U19, U16 levels? It would eliminate a lot of the perceived problems associated with HS hockey.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:37 pm

Yes. But, there would be no funding. That is what keeps HS the way to go, and is the reason why we need to find ways to be creative to work together to continue with HS hockey.

A "play for your home area HS team" approach would accomplish the same thing as U16/U19 and have public funding through the schools. All residents pay taxes, so I don't think there would be an issue with a kid playing for home area HS team but going to a private or another OE HS. Also, the problem with U16/U19 is that that would force kids that are too old out of the JV equivalent (U16) and that would be a HUGE problem unless you just went U19 A = HS V and U19 B = HS JV? Either way, I think the solution is still HS hockey.

Wildwillwinthecup · Post by **Wildwillwinthecup** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:06 pm

The biggest mistake girls hockey made was going U14 instead of U15. I would have liked to see U8, U10, U13, U16, U19 age levels and give more older girls just starting out a chance to play instead of taking a spot on HS team (deserving 8th graders can't try out for most HS teams because of it).

It's hard to ask a 13 year old to skate with a U19 player not to mention locker room banter if you know what I mean. What the heck do I know.

What do others think?

ruprecht · Post by **ruprecht** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:09 am

The boys high school game , in my opinion, should teach a lesson about what might be coming for the girls if the new OE transfer rules are approved. The top male players now head to Juniors, etc, as soon as their Sophomore year, to the point that the quality of the HS game has greatly diminished over the last 10 years. And if you look at the numbers, the participation in youth hockey for boys is actually dropping in Minnesota.
If the new transfer rules are enacted, I see more U19 teams popping up as well as B&A teams like Walser, Ice Cats, etc, becoming elite season long teams to join Shattuck and the T'Breds in AAA. Likewise, they will offer U16 to feed the U19. For certain girls, this would definitely be the best option available, and nobody would blame them for wanting to shop around for the best situation and top competition. But what would that do for the big picture of Minnesota girls' hockey? Would the HS game become something totally different than it is now, and something totally different than what most involved intend it to become?
My daughter is a typical U10 player. In the last 4 months her instructors in training programs have been Winny and Chelsea Brodt, Kris Scholz, and Laura Slominski. Last year, her coach in a 4-week warmup was Ronda Curtin. That's like a boy being coached by Neal Broten, Phil Housley and Paul Holmgren. These exceptional women have either a) put careers on hold to stay involved and help build the thing they've created or b) started careers but stayed involved in hockey in more than just a part-time way, even at the lowest levels. And I trust them to know what's best for the game, and they seem to believe 100% in the HS game.
My fear is that if the OE rules slowly cause the shift to U16 and U19 it would diminish the HS game and the effect would trickle down eventually to the youth level--independent U19's have no way to support youth hockey the way that a communty's HS program can. I love watching the T'Breds--it's an exciting brand of hockey. But does their existence make numbers grow in U8 or U10? Is there natural progression from any U10 or U12 program to the T'Breds? If the HS game diminishes the way the boys has, will pioneers like those I mentioned still have the desire to stay involved? I'd be afraid of implementing any rules that would drive away anyone from the HS game, much less the most talented players.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:06 am

A couple points for clairification:

1) Most instructors are paid VERY well that run those clinics. More than most of us that work normal jobs per hour I hear. I would say that they are paid somewhere between 100 to 100,000 times more per hour than a HS coach.

2) Your concerns are the same as mine re: transfer rule. It could get real interesting and a "Girls Elite League" Before & After offering is critical to off-set the boys like concerns re: juniors. That was a big reason why the boys elite league was formed - to give elite players high level games so they didn't have to leave HS for juniors and to make the boys HS game the place where the top talent usually stays.

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:57 am

I don't follow the point about learning a lesson from the boy's game and OE. How does OE affect a player's decision to play juniors or Ann Arbor?

There is OE and according to your post, the top HS boy players leave. So, what does it mean if new restrictive OE rules are implemented? The players will stay?

I think players / parents will almost always do what they think is best for themselves individually. Laura May is one of the very few exceptions.

Related to the top players mentioned; what careers have they put on hold to stay involved with the youth game? I agree with GHS, these folks are making or attempting to make a ton of money running their clinics.; nothing wrong with that. But they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Regarding new OE rules causing AAA teams to be formed. I don't see much of a difference between a top Icecat team and the current EP team, past SSP teams, HA, BSM. All these HS teams are all star teams.

Regarding the HS teams supporting youth hockey; I have not seen all that much support in the past. You mention the natural progression of U10 to U12, etc. to the local HS team. Is this progression present in EP?

In conclusion (sorry for the long post). I think the boy's game was much more interesting and better in the pre-OE era. Better rivalries; much more community interest in the games.

I think the results of more stringent OE rules will be one of the following: (1) more community-based public HS hockey teams (2) exodus of top players to the top private and public powers at an earlier age.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:13 am

Well said - and I agree with much of what you said as well.

Some thoughts -

1) A player may choose to make a bigger leap to NDTP (Ann Arbor?) if they would have to sit a year under OE to find a "better" (in their perception) HS situation. Difference is in G HS we ahve no NDTP obvioulsy. ALSO how many boys really get offered the NDTP option? Very few.

2) I think privates will end up with a loophole - and the end result will be more movement to privates - and then those privates should go AAA like SSM then I believe and remove themselves from the MSHSL. That would be bad for losing top talent to prep schools, but it is what it is if it happens. I'm not anti-private anymore, I'm not anti-OE, and I can see both sides of all of this - and recall I'm a small-school class A metro school coach of a team that has historically lost all its best players to neighboring powers (until recently)... I also believe that all class A privates should go AA if they were .500 or better the year prior - but still then you need to look at their "power ranking" I think to guage SOS and impact on record. This is why Tiers failed for boys but would be good if using a power ranking to create a top half tourney and bottom half tourney based on power rank vs. record or school size.

3)

xwildfan wrote:Regarding the HS teams supporting youth hockey; I have not seen all that much support in the past. You mention the natural progression of U10 to U12, etc. to the local HS team. Is this progression present in EP?

In conclusion (sorry for the long post). I think the boy's game was much more interesting and better in the pre-OE era. Better rivalries; much more community interest in the games.

Would "play at your home are HS" not return us to those rivalries and renew the sense of community while not compromising the educational goals of kids? Yes, to some degree, but it still doesn't solve the situation when a kid wants to seek out athletic opportunities that are better (unless they go to a prep school like SSM and others may become under such a setup). I think that there is some merit to this "crazy" thought as then youth programs and communities would ahve a much greater reason to invest themselves in creating something that everyone in the community would benifit from through HS reguardless of where they went to HS for school.

4)

xwildfan wrote:I think the results of more stringent OE rules will be one of the following: (1) more community-based public HS hockey teams (2) exodus of top players to the top private and public powers at an earlier age.

I agree - but it could be even worse than that. If this rule change upsets the delicate ballance too much, we could see community based youth girls hockey crumble as the HS teams are what keep kids coming out for hockey in most communities. That desire to one day aspire to play at their home HS in front of their friends, family, etc. is critical. Believe it or not, I think that those that know the value of youth/HS working together work very hard at tying the two together, mentorship, fostering natural progression to home HS from youth, etc.

hockeyrube7 · Post by **hockeyrube7** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:19 am

Everyone talks about OE as the only source for the boys game going the way it has, IE: Juniors and so on, but let us not forget the 2 tier system, now AA and A, and what it has brought also.

ruprecht · Post by **ruprecht** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:22 pm

xwildfan wrote:
I think the results of more stringent OE rules will be one of the following: (1) more community-based public HS hockey teams (2) exodus of top players to the top private and public powers at an earlier age.
I agree - but it could be even worse than that. If this rule change upsets the delicate ballance too much, we could see community based youth girls hockey crumble as the HS teams are what keep kids coming out for hockey in most communities. That desire to one day aspire to play at their home HS in front of their friends, family, etc. is critical. Believe it or not, I think that those that know the value of youth/HS working together work very hard at tying the two together, mentorship, fostering natural progression to home HS from youth, etc.

This is the point I was trying to make--I just made it badly.
About the boys: the talent drain to juniors is big even with OE. Doesn't it follow that it would be even bigger without all the choices provided by the current liberal transfer rule?
About the girls: the T'Breds already take 20 top level players out of the TC area high schools. If the new transfer rules take effect, the choices of top players diminish, that creates a demand for more T'Bred-like AAA teams. Imagine if there were 4 T'Breds in the cities instead of 1. That's 80 top players instead of 20. Could the HS game survive that? And then could the youth programs survive it?
About making the privates move to U19AAA: that's interesting but does it do anything to stop the talent drain, or does it accelerate it? And it can't do anything to help the grass roots youth programs.