Prospects/Futures

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

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

massalsa
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:36 pm

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Is this the first year they've had 4 tiers? I watched (I think) every team in the top 3 prospects brackets at least once. I don't want to call out players or teams, but after black/gray/white/red it seemed just about every team in 2nd and 3rd levels had at least 2 up to 4-5 players who really really looked out of place with the pace of play and just seeing the ice. I loved the opportunity to watch this kind of talent in one place one weekend, but at times it felt like growing the format meant settling for some kids who seemed outplayed every second. Can't be fun for them. Anyone else agree?
I think they said they had 22 D1 coaches there Sat, but there had to be just as many D3 Sat and Sun as well.
How many players do you think played down or didn't play at all since they moved the weekend up to finals/prom/grad? Looking forward to round 2.
Agree with this in many of the games that I watched (only saw the top 3 levels and some of a practice with the futures group). I appreciate that there were lots of girls that were able to participate and also that they had 2017 graduating kids along with 18/19 and a few 20's playing together across the spectrum (not including futures).

However like you said I think that there were girls at each level that could have moved up or down from their level to better fit in with similar skilled peers.

I also wonder if OS should consider one of the 3 weekends to be a weekend with all 17's playing together and the same with 18, 19, & 20's. This might allow these coaches (who also probably do most of their own recruiting) to start to see kids with their graduating/recruiting classes rather than the typical 99/00/01/02 years that is available at National & state camps/weekends. I would also have current commits mixed in to give the coaches a potential measuring stick of sorts. Even if they did 2 of the 5 games like this coaches may be interested in coaching a specific year or watching for recruitment purposes a certain year. For example the gophers may be fully committed for current 17s & 18s. Then they could look at 19's. Or BU might be looking for one more 17 D and 2 F from the 2018 class.

Anyway...it seemed slightly watered down with 4 divisions and 18 teams but how does Winny & crew make it less so without having tryouts or other to make these weekends. Or do they have graders of sorts that watch each game to see if there are any standouts that might be considered for a move up or laggers that might need to be moved down or wait listed...

titleist
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:12 am

Post by titleist » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:01 pm

massalsa wrote:
Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Is this the first year they've had 4 tiers? I watched (I think) every team in the top 3 prospects brackets at least once. I don't want to call out players or teams, but after black/gray/white/red it seemed just about every team in 2nd and 3rd levels had at least 2 up to 4-5 players who really really looked out of place with the pace of play and just seeing the ice. I loved the opportunity to watch this kind of talent in one place one weekend, but at times it felt like growing the format meant settling for some kids who seemed outplayed every second. Can't be fun for them. Anyone else agree?
I think they said they had 22 D1 coaches there Sat, but there had to be just as many D3 Sat and Sun as well.
How many players do you think played down or didn't play at all since they moved the weekend up to finals/prom/grad? Looking forward to round 2.

Agree with this in many of the games that I watched (only saw the top 3 levels and some of a practice with the futures group). I appreciate that there were lots of girls that were able to participate and also that they had 2017 graduating kids along with 18/19 and a few 20's playing together across the spectrum (not including futures).

However like you said I think that there were girls at each level that could have moved up or down from their level to better fit in with similar skilled peers.

I also wonder if OS should consider one of the 3 weekends to be a weekend with all 17's playing together and the same with 18, 19, & 20's. This might allow these coaches (who also probably do most of their own recruiting) to start to see kids with their graduating/recruiting classes rather than the typical 99/00/01/02 years that is available at National & state camps/weekends. I would also have current commits mixed in to give the coaches a potential measuring stick of sorts. Even if they did 2 of the 5 games like this coaches may be interested in coaching a specific year or watching for recruitment purposes a certain year. For example the gophers may be fully committed for current 17s & 18s. Then they could look at 19's. Or BU might be looking for one more 17 D and 2 F from the 2018 class.

Anyway...it seemed slightly watered down with 4 divisions and 18 teams but how does Winny & crew make it less so without having tryouts or other to make these weekends. Or do they have graders of sorts that watch each game to see if there are any standouts that might be considered for a move up or laggers that might need to be moved down or wait listed...

I too believe that prospects was watered down a little too much. I also believe that you should put the "Commits" on one or two teams only, and your next level should be your top "Non-Commits" playing against them. Now you can see who can play against those that are proven to be commits. It seems mixing them up and spreading them amongst the field only waters it down. But I also heard that the waiting list to get into Prospects is huge, so it could be worse if she accepted more. Overall, I thought Winny and CP did a good job of making the teams very competitive.

knights14
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:21 pm

Post by knights14 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:56 pm

$$$$$$$$$$$ Watered down? No couldn't be its all about the kids. :wink: :wink: $$$$$$$$$

itsfoilcoach
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:02 pm

Post by itsfoilcoach » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:43 pm

knights14 wrote:$$$$$$$$$$$ Watered down? No couldn't be its all about the kids. :wink: :wink: $$$$$$$$$
You got that right!

kwjm
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:51 am

Post by kwjm » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.

titleist
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:12 am

Post by titleist » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:33 am

kwjm wrote:When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.
Not necessarily....Futures are mostly 7th and 8th graders... There are still some high schools that don't want those players in their system if they have U15 eligibility. Lets face it, there aren't that many 8th graders that contribute to a Varsity team....there are a few, but not many. Does that mean they aren't good players if they can't make a Varsity team as an 8th grader (or even try out for that matter; Anoka)?

What if the Varsity coach tells them to play U15's instead of JV?? I think this is a broader scenario for "Futures" rather than the one you are insinuating of not being good enough for JV.

I've seen many JV teams that are brutal. Every association and every HS situation is going to be different and there isn't one better or worse choice for kids depending on their specific situation.

I think Winny does a great job at putting kids on teams and leagues that are comparable with skill levels. If she see's something out of whack, I've seen the changes made. Most of the time she's pretty spot on.

jg2112
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:49 am

kwjm wrote:When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.
Some school districts absolutely forbid middle schoolers from playing high school sports if the school has enough high school participants. Wasn't there a situation in Anoka-Hennepin in this regard within the past two years relating to hockey?

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:59 am

Thoughts about prospect weekend 2....

massalsa
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:37 am

zambonidriver wrote:Thoughts about prospect weekend 2....
No list of coaches on the website or email this time around.

Saw coaches/scouts from:

St Cloud
UND
MN State Mankato
RIT
Quinnipiac
U of M (Johnson and Muzzerall)
Harvard?
Cornell?
Penn State

I am sure I am missing others...

titleist
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:12 am

Post by titleist » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:44 am

massalsa wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:Thoughts about prospect weekend 2....
No list of coaches on the website or email this time around.

Saw coaches/scouts from:

St Cloud
UND
MN State Mankato
RIT
Quinnipiac
U of M (Johnson and Muzzerall)
Harvard?
Cornell?
Penn State

I am sure I am missing others...
Dartmouth

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:13 pm

Providence
Penn State

massalsa
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:28 pm

Heard many positive things about a couple of coaches from girls over the past 2 Prospects.

Kids seemed to really like:

UND coach
Joel Johnson
Mankato
Penn State (don't know if same one over both weekends but heard both weekends about that coach)
Quinnipiac
RIT
BU (first weekend)

I think that it is great even when there are coaches that are not so liked...if a coach is a grump or negative during an easy weekend like this imagine what they might be like in a pressure cooker environment over a 4-6 month school year!

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:10 am

jg2112 wrote:
kwjm wrote:When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.
Some school districts absolutely forbid middle schoolers from playing high school sports if the school has enough high school participants. Wasn't there a situation in Anoka-Hennepin in this regard within the past two years relating to hockey?
Seeing the number of 8th graders on many varsity rosters, I'd be interested to know which schools aren't allowing them.

I think the point is, how is the caliber of play better than high school, if there are some participants that weren't even selected to play high school? It's a fair question. Maybe the answer is, some of the teams are highly concentrated talent and others are not.

jg2112
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:15 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
kwjm wrote:When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.
Some school districts absolutely forbid middle schoolers from playing high school sports if the school has enough high school participants. Wasn't there a situation in Anoka-Hennepin in this regard within the past two years relating to hockey?
Seeing the number of 8th graders on many varsity rosters, I'd be interested to know which schools aren't allowing them.

I think the point is, how is the caliber of play better than high school, if there are some participants that weren't even selected to play high school? It's a fair question. Maybe the answer is, some of the teams are highly concentrated talent and others are not.
Interesting question you raise as to the second point.

As to the first question:

The Anoka-Hennepin policy states 7th and 8th graders "may participate if, and only if, no high school athlete is cut or denied from competing."

This affected an 8th grade girl in Blaine two seasons ago who rostered on the varsity but would've displaced a high school student. She was one of the leading scorers on the varsity this past season.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 am

Interesting, I wonder about the rationale behind such a rule:
Would a 9th grader be allowed on the team, if it meant cutting a senior?
If the 8th grader wasn't allowed to participate on the high school team, was a middle school opportunity provided by the school district?

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:11 pm

Girls younger than 10th grade can play U15 where as a junior or senior in HS has fewer options. Play Youth Hockey!

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:48 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
kwjm wrote:When you have "Futures" that have been cut by their HS JV team, you have to wonder about the selection criteria.
Some school districts absolutely forbid middle schoolers from playing high school sports if the school has enough high school participants. Wasn't there a situation in Anoka-Hennepin in this regard within the past two years relating to hockey?
Seeing the number of 8th graders on many varsity rosters, I'd be interested to know which schools aren't allowing them.

I think the point is, how is the caliber of play better than high school, if there are some participants that weren't even selected to play high school? It's a fair question. Maybe the answer is, some of the teams are highly concentrated talent and others are not.
There are four tiers - 3 for prospects (4 teams each) and 1 futures (4-6 teams). No way is everyone placed in the right spot but I give Winny a ton of credit for actually knowing (most) of these players and setting them up for success.
Red white gray black seem to have traditionally always been the top tier teams but it seems enough parents complained that they mixed up the colors across all three tiers on Weekend 2. Because apparently no one can tell which are the top teams just by commited asterisks or by simply watching. (Sarcasm intended.) I assume the organizers/coaches/recruiters still know which teams are which level.
As for weekend 2, lots of great hockey. Teams that were blown out generally had abysmal play in goal. IMHO MN is producing a lot more quality forwards than defenders. Some cringeworthy total zone domination. Seemed a lot more penalty shots - including a game we watched with 5 penalty goals. Reffing much more inconsistent I thought.
My fave part is watching the coach/player interactions on the bench (or non interactions as the case may be.) It doesn't seem like much but the coaches who put down their phones and get there before the puck drops and then actually watch the game and get to know the players a little bit - well I think it means something to these young athletes that the sport of hockey is invested in them and their future success. My daughter is loving this format.
That being said, the movement "mix-up" from weekend 1 to weekend 2 was very negligible. Seemed most teams just had new players filling in for those not attending and the other 15 were the same. Also wish they would divide up the players from the same high school teams.
But if they don't, it's still the greatest hockey program we have done to date. I look forward to seeing my own daughter and all of yours the next 6 years!

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:44 am

Only saw the futures Black and Grey Quite a few kids were Missing due to HP but the hockey was fantastic! Great way to end spring summer part of AAA. Speaking of Goaltending My daughter had two great weekends only allowed one goal during the scrimmages on a penalty shot. She had lots of fun and could not stop talking about a couple of the coaches. Looking forward to being away from the rink in July. :D

Post Reply