Should the girls Play with the boys?

Discussion of Minnesota Girls Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)

bulldog3
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:30 pm

Should the girls Play with the boys?

Post by bulldog3 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:43 pm

Do the girls need to play with the boys to develope at a high level?

Homer
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:45 pm

girls playing with boys

Post by Homer » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:43 am

History seems to support that theory. Darwitz, Wendell, the Brodts. I am sure there are many others. Obviously the boys are more aggressive and stronger. I read some where that, a High School boys team is about the same as the womens national teams. Women aren't going to be as big or strong as there male counterparts. Just nature.
I guess I would leave it up to the girl, if she can be comfortable in the boys world of hockey, if she can keep up with the boys as far as skills and playing time. Why not, she will assimilate to the skills of her teammates and we she does switch to girls, I believe she should be ahead of the curve, so to speak.

nmnhockeydad
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:12 am

Girls Vs. Boys

Post by nmnhockeydad » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:18 pm

I also believe that girls playing boys hockey can be a learning experience for some girls. The Darwitz's, Wendell's, and the Brodt's of the world are a minority. Most girls I believe eventually get lost in the world of boys hockey, particularly at the PeeWee and above levels. The girls tend to direct the play less and play more of a supporting role. As the coaching opportunities for women grow as do the playing opportunities girls they may find themselves growing more playing with girls hockey. I do not think you can make a blanket statement either way as to what is best for all girls. I do think that the coaching that girls get is as big as part of the decision making as anything else.

joehockey
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:22 am

Post by joehockey » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:23 pm

I don't think this is an either or question do both.....I have a daughter who is now a Junior in HS and has made 2 NDP camps in 2007 and 2008. Looking back I wish she had played more against boys to develop speed and a little more competitive fire - boys play at a faster pace.

She has had a great experience in girls hockey and learned competitiveness and made great friends. One of her summer teams the St. Croix Saints play against boys teams and she plays against/with boys in CODP. Many girls who play on the boys sides get pigeon holed at D - three great seniors in HS Kelsay Romatoski, Jess Harren and Casey Knadjek played boys A hockey in Woodbury through Pee Wee all three played D - they all three have D1 potential. There are many programs and ways for girls to get the benefit of playing with and against boys

- if your Assoc has shared ice time lobby to have girls and boys teams on the ice at the same time and get the coaches to do some combined skating and flow drills - all will work hard.
- have your daughter (and a friend or 2) do summer hockey camps on the boys side
- sign up and play in 3x3 leagues Velocity in EP has a great one
- schedule summer girls team scrimmages with boys teams on a no check basis - but warn the boys beacasue the girls will drill them.
- go to the outdoor rink and get in the fast games with the older kids at first you may not get the puck but you will earn the right.

Mac15
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:48 pm

Post by Mac15 » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:50 pm

While reffing, I have seen a number of girls playing peewees or bantams this year. With very few exceptions they are the defensemen or corner muckers. They do not seem to be used on PP situations or surprisingly on PK. At peewees the girls generally are among the 3-4 largest players on their teams and they can win a lot of the puck battles. What I have not seen very much is a lot of great stickhandling from the girls. Some of the other refs were talking about a girl center on a peewee A team last weekend but that is the only one I've heard of all season. I think the best way to develop may be to skate with boys in outdoor pond hockey and in the offseason but play girls hockey in season.

Regarding the mention of Darwitz, Wendell and Brodt - think about how many years ago they were youth aged and how much the girls game has improved since then. The girls game has progressed so far in the last 10 years that it is no longer necessary for a girl to play with or against boys unless your association is really weak in girls hockey.

mnhcp
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:48 pm

Post by mnhcp » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:57 pm

I hate this question and the fancy answers you'll get. Every situation is different. Don't listen to others that's the biggest mistake. Make the decision that best fits your situation!

royals dad
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:41 pm

Post by royals dad » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:18 pm

No fancy answers but alot of the parents on this board have been through it so there might be some experiences that can be shared.

We were living in the Johnson area of St Paul, there was no girls program so my daughter skated with the boys. It went well for her they all just played together from mites on up. Finaly in 5th grade she noticed they were all changing in the locker room and they were in thier underwear. That was it for her, she switched to girls.

I know in our case we saw a speed and competitive edge on the boys side. The social aspect on the girls side has been a great thing that she missed for the first bunch of years.

There is no right or wrong and there are examples of girls going D1 that I know came up all the way through the girls side. There are also examples of girls who went through the boys side and have done great. When to switch is a hard call too.

It was really funny watching my daughter play in her first girls game she got a hug after she gave up a goal, she almost decked her teammate.

jBlaze3000
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:25 pm

Post by jBlaze3000 » Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:22 am

Unless a girl is head and shoulders above the other girls on her team she should stick to the girls league. There is no point in taking an average girl player and putting her on the boys team only to have her be one of the lesser players.

mnhkylvr
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:04 pm

Post by mnhkylvr » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:20 pm

Playing boys hockey worked very well for our daughter through PeeWee level. This was entirely directed by her wishes. She always had very supportive coaches and teammates (as well as her teammates parents...) I believe it helped build her as a very aggressive, heads up hockey player. But I do I think it should be driven by the player's motivation as it can get tough out there.

EHSHack
Posts: 717
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:09 pm

Post by EHSHack » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:54 pm

Paige Turner played a year on the Duluth East boys JV before making teh Duluth Northern Stars Varsity squad.
Go Hounds.

OntheEdge
Posts: 666
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:43 am

Post by OntheEdge » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:45 am

Everyone has an opinion on this topic and I'm no different. I think its a decision that is made on a case by case basis but overall I think girls develop better if they play with the girls provided that the girls team is talented enough. If a girl plays with the boys I think for most its best that they switch over to the girls side after squirts.

I've seen many girls play with boys through Peewees and most of the time such girls end up playing defense. They don't touch the puck or shoot as much as they would have in girls hockey and generally are playing a different game of hockey. The girls game is different. There is more stickhandling than in the boys game. I've seen many girls that were considered super stars because they played with the boys struggle in the girls game because they had a hard time adjusting to the girls game. Yes Darwitz, Potter and Wendell played with boys (Brodt played with the girls) but girls hockey in those days wasn't a good as it is today. To me its the same as the old axiom, its better to be the first line of a B team than the third line of an A team, or in this case, in my opinion its better to be a star with the girls A team than just a player with the Peewee B1 or A team. Playing with the girls will give a player a different role and teach different skills than playing with the boys. If a girl is good enough to play with the best boys she will in all likelihood develop great leadership skills with the girls.

I think the only exception is if you have an A player and your association doesn't have an A team at the girls level. In this instance I would put the girl in the boys program.

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

Post by kwjm » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:48 pm

I think the only exception is if you have an A player and your association doesn't have an A team at the girls level. In this instance I would put the girl in the boys program.

I suggest that another exception would be the situation where the association chooses to field an A team at the girls level even though they don't have the depth to do so. I do not believe better girls will develop by being the best players on a B level talent-wise team playing in an A league. It likely reinforces a selfish playing style and it is no fun to loose every game.

leftwing
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by leftwing » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:27 pm

Our daughter played boys hockey up to this year and would have kept on going if she hadn't been selected for the high school team (8th grade).

Although she started playing boys hockey because there weren't any girls teams in our area, she kept playing even after that option became available.

She did play defense (although she's a great center and wins most of the face offs she takes), and was consistently used on the PK and PP up through and including this year.

She's been not only one of the bigger kids (up to last year), but also one of the savviest players on the ice. She reads the play so well, has a very fluid skating style and isn't afraid to go on the boards with anyone...and about 70% of the time comes up with the puck. She's also one of the faster players on the team, and she will tell you this came from boys hockey (and CODP).

As for the locker rooms, about 2 years ago she started slipping off to the bathroom to change - no big deal for her or the team.

She definitely would encourage other girls to continue with boys hockey...as long as they feel comfortable doing so. She thinks she's benefited from it - and I'd have to agree.

Each family needs to do what is in the best interests of their child - no one knows your child better than you....

royals dad
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:41 pm

Post by royals dad » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:48 pm

Every situation is different but don't think you have to go boys to be a top player. Watch Becky Kortum from Hopkins this week in the tourney she came up through the Hopkins Girls Youth Program. Never was on dominant teams at the girls youth but moved to the HS team in 8th grade and worked really hard to become an awsome player. Fun to watch her and Cara Johnson work the offensive zone.

theref
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:52 pm

Post by theref » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:15 pm

haha, I always have to jump into this conversation on any level and here is my question.........

If a good girl joins the boys, does a lesser boy get to play with the girls? It's all about opportunity. We give females the chance to play either boys or girls, but guys only have one choice. Now I realize that not many boys want to play with the girls, but I think of it in this situation........

When Michelle Wie goes to play on the Men's tour and the last man loses a spot in that tournament and the potential to make money that weekend, is he allowed to go play on the woman's tournament in her spot and make that money there? Of course not.

Now I realize we are talking about development and not about money opportunities, but even still, it is an unfair situation for guys. A girl on the team means less playing time for someone else when she could be and should be playing in her leagues, since that is why they starte women's hockey.

Of course, maybe women are just trying to make up for all the years of unfair advantages men had...........:)

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

Post by kwjm » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:44 am

It is ignorant to even suggest that a boy should get a spot on a girls team when a girl gets a spot on a boys team. The underlying concept on why girls play on boys team is to enhance their development. If a boy is not good enough to beat out a girl, how is playing on a girls team going to enhance his development?

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:45 am

the ref,
this is a common, but weak argument. You used golf as an example. The PGA is not the MPGA. It is for the best players - period. If you don't make the cut then you have to look at other options. For example there is the LPGA and Senior PGA. There are other pro golf circuits as well. And of course there are the local community links. Just because you qualify for one of the others should not preclude you from trying out for the best.

It is the same way with youth teams. If a boy doesn't make the A team cut then he has to look for the next best option (B1, whatever to play on). Boys obviously don't fit in the girls category just as a 20 something golfer can't play the Senior tour. It doesn't matter if the kid that beat you out is a girl, recent move in, younger age playing up, or whatever. If you don't make the cut, you don't make the cut.

If the playing level of girls A was the same as boys A then there might be a valid argument. I haven't seen a girls A team that can compete with their association's youth A team.

Go Gophers
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:36 am

Post by Go Gophers » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:53 am

Women have fought for years for equal rights and I couldn't be more apreciative or sympathetic to the cause - fair is fair. But, equal rights means equal opportunities. The optimum word here is "equal", not the one side privelage girls should have OVER boys - esentially that's what it boils down to. With the advent of girls hockey, it has created those "equal" opportunities, therefore IMO girls should be playing with girls unless the numbers just aren't there in an association to fill out a complete girls team. There are very few, if any, instances left in the state of MN where a girl can't play girls hockey at the JV and Varsity level - like I said, I can understand numbers from the U12's on down in some cases. What's good for the Goose I guess.

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:16 am

Go Gophers wrote: But, equal rights means equal opportunities. The optimum word here is "equal", not the one side privelage girls should have OVER boys - esentially that's what it boils down to. With the advent of girls hockey, it has created those "equal" opportunities
Equal in name only. Check out 45 this weekend and in 2 weeks. Not even close. By your same logic Roseau should be happy and restricted to class A.

Having Roseau compete AA or a girl make the "boys" team is a great storyline.

I do agree that having the best girls playing on "boys" teams makes it hard for the girl teams to gain respect and grow. Should girls be encouraged to play with the girls? Yes. Should they be forced? No.

Go Gophers
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:36 am

Post by Go Gophers » Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:56 am

spin-o-rama wrote: It is the same way with youth teams. If a boy doesn't make the A team cut then he has to look for the next best option (B1, whatever to play on). Boys obviously don't fit in the girls category just as a 20 something golfer can't play the Senior tour. It doesn't matter if the kid that beat you out is a girl, recent move in, younger age playing up, or whatever. If you don't make the cut, you don't make the cut.
That statement is on the teeter totter of reverse discrimination.

Go Gophers
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:36 am

Post by Go Gophers » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:04 am

spin-o-rama wrote:
Go Gophers wrote: But, equal rights means equal opportunities. The optimum word here is "equal", not the one side privelage girls should have OVER boys - esentially that's what it boils down to. With the advent of girls hockey, it has created those "equal" opportunities
Equal in name only. Check out 45 this weekend and in 2 weeks. Not even close. By your same logic Roseau should be happy and restricted to class A.

Having Roseau compete AA or a girl make the "boys" team is a great storyline. [Surely not for the girls team wishing that girl was playing with them]

I do agree that having the best girls playing on "boys" teams makes it hard for the girl teams to gain respect and grow. Should girls be encouraged to play with the girls? Yes. Should they be forced? No.

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:14 am

Go Gophers wrote:
spin-o-rama wrote: It is the same way with youth teams. If a boy doesn't make the A team cut then he has to look for the next best option (B1, whatever to play on). Boys obviously don't fit in the girls category just as a 20 something golfer can't play the Senior tour. It doesn't matter if the kid that beat you out is a girl, recent move in, younger age playing up, or whatever. If you don't make the cut, you don't make the cut.
That statement is on the teeter totter of reverse discrimination.
There are 2 ways to look at this. 1) if women aren't allowed to play with the guys then there has to be full equality in the programs. Women's golfers would deserve equal pay and tv coverage. And people could win a lawsuit to have the girls hs tourney at the X. 2) if women can play with the men then the free market will determine LPGA purse size and tv coverage. We'll have great stories of a Wie type athlete who is breaking the physical barrier. And there cant' be excuses when the youth teams have it a bit different.

We both agree that girls should be encouraged to play with the girls. To make this possible it is important to provide similar experiences (ice time, coaching, championships, etc). But why force them? Nature will do it for free. The Warroad boys team beat the US womens Olympic team in 2006.

Go Gophers
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:36 am

Post by Go Gophers » Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:11 pm

In your Golf analogy, the free market is in fact predicating the size of the purses and tv coverage in both the PGA and the LPGA. Purses and tv coverage are paid for by corporate sponsors. In most golf related corporate sponsor cases 70 to 80 percent of sales are to men. If you owned a business with this in mind and had a 10 million dollar advertising budget, how would you allocate it. Obviously 80/20 and maybe even 90/10 to try and generate a higher market share. Thus the lower purses and tv revenue for the LPGA. It's only a sound business decision.

I think the girls programs are improving, gaining respect and exposure exponentially. I've talked to a ton of Parents, Grand Parents and friends this year that are amazed when watching girls hockey this year. The speed and abilities of the girls today versus the girls from 10 years ago is night and day. Girls hockey is gaining momentum, but will there ever be a WNHL........... I'd watch it.

"The Warroad boys team beat the US womens Olympic team in 2006." Now there's your storyline - LOL

hockeyheaven
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:42 pm

Post by hockeyheaven » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:15 am

Include me on the side that believes that girls should not be restricted from choosing the path that they feel is in their best interest…this is America, is it not…you know equal opportunity for all. However, my experience has shown me that the girls can and do develop at the same rate whether they play boys hockey or girls. My daughter has played at the elite level so I have had the opportunity to see all of the top players (in a 2-3 year age range) up close. Some have come up through boys programs, but most through girls. The only difference I see…and this is truly a generalization… is in regards to their aggressiveness, which some cases can border on belligerence. This can be a problem since they tend to be the ones who consistently rack up the penalty minutes. I love the parent’s explanation “my daughters just can’t adjust to a game with no hitting”. Which is crap…because if you watch these girls (when playing with the boys) they tend to be the ones avoiding the corners. The thing I don’t know is if this trait was learned or was it a pre-existing characteristic that played a factor in their desire and decision to play boy’s hockey. Any way, IMO, either way you go you will probably end up at the same level, so if you have a quality girls program to go to, why not play with your friends… since a large percentage of sports are intended to meet social needs

theref
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:52 pm

Post by theref » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:44 pm

kwjm wrote:It is ignorant to even suggest that a boy should get a spot on a girls team when a girl gets a spot on a boys team. The underlying concept on why girls play on boys team is to enhance their development. If a boy is not good enough to beat out a girl, how is playing on a girls team going to enhance his development?
Nice to see that my argument went right over your head along with Spin. Have a good day boys. :roll:

Post Reply