USA National Select teams 14,16,18

Hux · Post by **Hux** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:56 pm

ghshockeyfan wrote:
Hux wrote:Of interest: The 90, 91 and 92 players going to NDCs will be eligible for the U18 National team that will compete against a Canadian squad in Canada in late August, and then in the World Championships next January and Febuary (location to be determined but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in Canada as well). The National team will be picked from NDC camp attendees, and will be part of the Women's Festival with the U22 team in Lake Placid in early August.
I think this fact helps us put the whole process in the proper perspective. This is truly an identification process. Some think it's something more or less than this, or different. But, it isn't.

Well, the purpose has always been, first and foremost, about player development. If an exceptional talent emerged, and had the capability to play at the National team level, that was a bonus. With the addition of a Women's World Junior Championship identification and centralization of younger talent is now a more important aspect of the NDCs.

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:16 am

This perhaps could be its own thread. Just curious about the reasons for the Canadian dominance over the USA in the World Championships & Olympics. Does Canada have vastly superior numbers of female players?; or better selection process for their national team?; has women's hockey in Canada been around much longer and the US just needs time to catch up? Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about it.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:23 am

Hux wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:
Hux wrote:Of interest: The 90, 91 and 92 players going to NDCs will be eligible for the U18 National team that will compete against a Canadian squad in Canada in late August, and then in the World Championships next January and Febuary (location to be determined but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in Canada as well). The National team will be picked from NDC camp attendees, and will be part of the Women's Festival with the U22 team in Lake Placid in early August.
I think this fact helps us put the whole process in the proper perspective. This is truly an identification process. Some think it's something more or less than this, or different. But, it isn't.
Well, the purpose has always been, first and foremost, about player development. If an exceptional talent emerged, and had the capability to play at the National team level, that was a bonus. With the addition of a Women's World Junior Championship identification and centralization of younger talent is now a more important aspect of the NDCs.

I may be misunderstanding this, but I would say that proper identification of the top talent is first and foremost. Then comes the "development" component that is deemed necissary or appropriate once those top players have been identified (i.e. participation in various events/camps, etc. at the national team level or above). I'm not believing that the actual NDP selection process itself is geared towards development at each phase or level.

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:36 am

nothernewguy wrote:So when are the Phase 3 rosters released?

The flyer about the camp says a list of the selected players will be posted on the Minnesota Hockey website by April 22, 2007 and the girls were also told this.

Good luck to the participants! The evaluators have their work cut out for them.

Hux · Post by **Hux** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:38 am

This perhaps could be its own thread. Just curious about the reasons for the Canadian dominance over the USA in the World Championships & Olympics. Does Canada have vastly superior numbers of female players?; or better selection process for their national team?; has women's hockey in Canada been around much longer and the US just needs time to catch up? Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about it.

A number of reasons. Canada has some 20,000 more players to draw from, and while Sweden showed that numbers don't mean much in a single game, over time it makes a difference. The bigger advantage is the support Hockey Canada has given the women's side of the game, and the mindset they take in competing at the International level.

Hockey Canada has had a dedicated administration and scouting staff, and has used specific and consistent testing, evaluation and training methods. They have preferred to centralize their team, and do so much earlier than when the US squad has. They are subsidised by the government, while USA Hockey is a non-profit reliant upon membership dues and fees, merchandising, and corporate sponsorship.

And maybe more importantly, Canadians buy into following Hockey Canada's lead. In the US we tend to be much too independant in how we go about doing things, with myriad ways of running, and evaluating players in the district NDC tryouts and festivals. In addition, the entrepreneurial aspect of player development creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to having everyone on the same page, particularly in regards to training.

You can then add in a better set-up for maintaining or improving player skill at the senior level with the NWHL, which limits foreign player involvement.

However, now that USA Hockey has a Director of Women's Hockey Operations in Michele Amidon, and full time support staff including strength and conditioning coach Teena Murray, I think we will see considerable change in how things are run, and ultimately in the results.

Hux · Post by **Hux** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:13 am

I may be misunderstanding this, but I would say that proper identification of the top talent is first and foremost. Then comes the "development" component that is deemed necissary or appropriate once those top players have been identified (i.e. participation in various events/camps, etc. at the national team level or above). I'm not believing that the actual NDP selection process itself is geared towards development at each phase or level.

It is something of a chicken and egg process, but I think that the key, as far as our discussion, is "proper identification of top talent is first and foremost." As we know the NDC tryout system is flawed, and is obviously not part of the development component. As we have seen, the best players aren't always identified. And frankly, the onus was never there to really identify the best players. Were that the case, the standards for testing and evaluating players would be much more involved than skating around cones, doing a few drills, and playing a game or two. As many have stated here, the regional set-up doesn't always put the 60 best players on the ice, and a lower ranked player from one region might well be "better" than a higher ranked player from another region.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:57 am

We agree that there is no real development in a tryout process. Great to get some high level experience, but how much you develop as a player from this is probably minimal. The development from this may be more mental in that you see how good others are and just how hard you have to continue to work.

That aside, I still think there may be some misunderstanding with the regional complaint - although I understand the rationale. In theory, it is a correct statement, but the point is moot overall. Again, as an identification process, to have kids left out at the current phase (P2) that belong at the next phase (P3), the argument would have to be that in one region all the players advance at a certain position to the next phase. This has not yet happened. Thus, the "flaw" is maybe not quite what it may appear when looked at in the proper context.

In fact, we could really take this "regional" complaint one step further and look at it on the national level based on the allocation of slots to each US region. I would argue again that no US region can claim every one of its kids at a certain position & birth year graded "A" and thus they must have left a ton of "A" or top players at home...

Remember too - we have the "at large" picks, and these are for those that may not have participated or belong that were indeed "left out" along the way...

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:19 pm

Hux wrote:It is something of a chicken and egg process, but I think that the key, as far as our discussion, is "proper identification of top talent is first and foremost." As we know the NDC tryout system is flawed, and is obviously not part of the development component. As we have seen, the best players aren't always identified. And frankly, the onus was never there to really identify the best players. Were that the case, the standards for testing and evaluating players would be much more involved than skating around cones, doing a few drills, and playing a game or two. As many have stated here, the regional set-up doesn't always put the 60 best players on the ice, and a lower ranked player from one region might well be "better" than a higher ranked player from another region.

If the goal is to identify the top players for the U.S. National teams, I don't believe the regional flaw in the NDC system will result in a top-20 player to be overlooked, at least not by the time the final teams are selected. If a gifted player's family has made any effort to be identified, chances are, at least the very top players will not be missed.

I will say this in defense of the current system. Given the sheer numbers of participants, the current system is probably one that is the most practical to implement and as such, encourages the most participation by virtue of convenience and low cost for early rounds of evaluation. It also gives more players a taste of the experience which may motivate them to improve. Expanding the depth of the early process and/or centrailizing the location to New York or somewhere like Colorado before the field has been significantly parred down would hurt participation as more families would be forced to invest more money and travel for longer periods of time. I believe many would choose to pass if this were the case.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:34 pm

That was kind of what I was trying to say - some of it anyway - but it was much better said/worded by keepitreal!

boblee · Post by **boblee** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:35 pm

I know the girls can't wait to find out who made it. Neither can I. It is really hard to even begin to think who might make it. The talent pool is so deep. It may be hard to get the number down.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:16 pm

I would hate to have to select these teams with so many great players!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:04 pm

The selections have been posted:

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/

Minnkota Dev. Camp National List - 1989-1990s (PDF)
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ... 89-90s.pdf

Minnkota Dev. Camp National List - 1991s (PDF)
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ... %2091s.pdf

Minnkota Dev. Camp National List - 1992s (PDF)
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ... %2092s.pdf

Congrats to ALL!!!

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:20 pm

Agreed. Congrats to All!

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:41 pm

Great groups

15 Camp
St. Cloud, MN - July 21- 27, 2007
Brausen Bethany Roseville F
Bona Rachael Coon Rapids F
Buie Corinne Edina F
Colin Amanda Burnsville F
Henning Corinne Culver Academies F
Hirsch Casey Maple Grove F
King Kristina Stillwater F
Lorence Meghan Irondale F
Mason Kaitlin Eagan F
Story Brook Warroad F
Alleva Rose Red Wing D
Borer Melissa Benilde-St. Margaret's D
Hanmer Audrey Forest Lake D
Marcotte Madison White Bear Lake D
Pendleton Margaret Cretin - Derham Hall D
Piche' Francie East Grand Forks D
Billadeau Kallyn Hopkins G

16 Camp
Rochester, NY July 7-13, 2007
Christofferson Jessica Bemidji F
Dahl Callie Stillwater F
Gilbert Megan Andover F
Komarek Sally The Blake School F
Kortum Rebecca Hopkins F
Lundquist Sadie Cloquet F
McDonald Gina Irondale F
Nelson Alexandra Andover F
Stenerson Ashley Moorhead F
Zrust Lauren Blaine F
Buchite Hannah Proctor/Hermantown D
Gleason Ellen Edina D
Haller Janessa Anoka D
Martinson Lisa St. Louis Park D
Romatoski Kelsey Academy of the Holy Angels D
Schendel Christine North St. Paul D
Bellamy Laura Duluth G

17-18 Camp
Lake Placid, NY June 23 -29, 2007
Anderson Alecia North Metro Stars/ Park Ctr. F
Bacon Kate Benilde - St. Margarets F
Chute Margaret The Blake School F
Erickson Sarah Bemidji F
Feste Melissa Eden Prairie F
Ketcher Kelsey Eden Prairie F
Keys Kaylee Cretin - Derham Hall F
Ludwigson Nicole Eden Prairie F
May Laura Mahtomedi F
Smith Lauren Academy of the Holy Angels F
Stoa Maria Eden Prairie F
Trunzo Amanda Benilde - St. Margarets F
Weber Monique Elk River F
Welch Danielle Hastings F
Williams Abby Alexandria F
Dronen Anne MN Thoroughbreds D
Lambert Ashlan Eden Prairie D
Lewis Kelly MN Thoroughbreds D
Peterson Kirstin Hill - Murray D
Reilly Shannon Benilde - St. Margarets D
Schleper Anne St. Cloud Icebreakers D
Secord - Holmes Ashley Alexandria D
Seeler Kelly Eden Prairie D
Wild Kelly Cretin - Derham Hall D
Thunder Paige Cloquet G

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 pm

My intent is most definitely NOT to open a Can 'O Worms, but after watching some of the action at the SuperRink, I am surprised...just surprised the GRG Erickson girl (sorry, I get her and the Erickson from Bemidji confused) was not selected.

hawkyfan · Post by **hawkyfan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:22 pm

brookyone wrote:My intent is most definitely NOT to open a Can 'O Worms, but after watching some of the action at the SuperRink, I am surprised...just surprised the GRG Erickson girl (sorry, I get her and the Erickson from Bemidji confused) was not selected.

Yes, I absolutely agree! I am surprised Emily didn't make it also. A bit disappointing, not one of the GRG girls made it at any level.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:09 pm

Let's hope she gets an "at-large." She is deserving of that consideration I think.

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:56 pm

If you want to really appreciate how 'wow' this group is, compare the Phase 2 teams

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted/16-17s.pdf

to the Phase 3 list

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ... 89-90s.pdf

and notice who didn't make it. Wow! Two years from now you could assemble a very good DI team from those left out.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:43 am

Bensonmum wrote:If you want to really appreciate how 'wow' this group is, compare the Phase 2 teams

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted/16-17s.pdf

to the Phase 3 list

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ... 89-90s.pdf

and notice who didn't make it. Wow! Two years from now you could assemble a very good DI team from those left out.

Think what this really says about the level of girls hockey in MN. It is outstanding!!!

hawkyfan · Post by **hawkyfan** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:44 am

After looking over the list of girls who made it, I am scratching my head after seeing 6 girls from Eden Prairie on the team....6 girls! So the coaches who chose this team can honestly stand up and say there aren't any other girls in the northern half of the state worthy of a spot over some of those EP girls? Hmmm....So who in the NDP program has ties to EP?

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:18 am

hawkyfan wrote:After looking over the list of girls who made it, I am scratching my head after seeing 6 girls from Eden Prairie on the team....6 girls! So the coaches who chose this team can honestly stand up and say there aren't any other girls in the northern half of the state worthy of a spot over some of those EP girls? Hmmm....So who in the NDP program has ties to EP?

Maybe there's a reason why they won 57 games in a row...

Plus, if what you're hinting at were true, why would EP have been totally shut out in the '91 and '92 selections?

hawkyfan · Post by **hawkyfan** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:34 am

MNHockeyFan wrote:
hawkyfan wrote:After looking over the list of girls who made it, I am scratching my head after seeing 6 girls from Eden Prairie on the team....6 girls! So the coaches who chose this team can honestly stand up and say there aren't any other girls in the northern half of the state worthy of a spot over some of those EP girls? Hmmm....So who in the NDP program has ties to EP?
Maybe there's a reason why they won 57 games in a row...Plus, if what you're hinting at were true, why would EP have been totally shut out in the '91 and '92 selections?

They may have won that many games, but that doesn't mean there aren't other girls talented enough to make the team!

Edited to add....after looking over the phase 2 list, EP only had one girl trying out at the 15 level, none at the 16 level...but 6 at the 17 level and all 6 made it out of p2...to question being shut out at the 91's and 92's is mute, there wasn't anyone to 'shut out' except one girl! JMO!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:48 am

hawkyfan wrote:
MNHockeyFan wrote:
hawkyfan wrote:After looking over the list of girls who made it, I am scratching my head after seeing 6 girls from Eden Prairie on the team....6 girls! So the coaches who chose this team can honestly stand up and say there aren't any other girls in the northern half of the state worthy of a spot over some of those EP girls? Hmmm....So who in the NDP program has ties to EP?
Maybe there's a reason why they won 57 games in a row...Plus, if what you're hinting at were true, why would EP have been totally shut out in the '91 and '92 selections?
They may have won that many games, but that doesn't mean there aren't other girls talented enough to make the team!

Edited to add....after looking over the phase 2 list, EP only had one girl trying out at the 15 level, none at the 16 level...but 6 at the 17 level and all 6 made it out of p2...to question being shut out at the 91's and 92's is mute, there wasn't anyone to 'shut out' except one girl! JMO!

Let's put this in the proper context. 3 of those 6 are from Kennedy and they went to Lake Placid when they played at Kennedy too. One is from Mound/Woodbury. I believe the other 2 are EP residents. So, I don't think it's about who they know, but instead that they are this level of player. You don't often see 6 players go to Lake Placid in the oldest age classification from one community. But, I would say this is a unique situation.

As to N MN kids, there are some very deserving kids there that I assume may get top consideration for an at-large if not already selected.

As a side note, I think there are good odds that we could see a 7th EP player added at large to the 89/90 camp, but I don't believe she resides in EP either but does play there.

boblee · Post by **boblee** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:10 am

brookyone wrote:My intent is most definitely NOT to open a Can 'O Worms, but after watching some of the action at the SuperRink, I am surprised...just surprised the GRG Erickson girl (sorry, I get her and the Erickson from Bemidji confused) was not selected.

As am I. But she does play a spring sport, and puts a lot of focus into that. I am not sure how the at-large works, but I am betting she gets one.

boblee · Post by **boblee** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:08 pm

Could anyone give a solid explanation of the at-large process.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

USA National Select teams 14,16,18

Re: Phase 3 rosters?

post 7751

post 7777

post 7790