54's 17's and 16's

[Marty]

Minnesota Hockey claims over 50% turn over year to year.

My understanding that this evaluation is not done "blind". Selection committee knows the names and their stats from the HS season, etc...

[burnt toast]

At the 96 birth year the center from Blaine was the only change from 15 to 16. It was not 50%, maybe they factor in the alternates that get added but that would be some really creative math. That age group was proof last year that 54 weekend is not a tryout. They had already decided who would do best at the national camp and it did not matter if they had an off weekend. In the end it was fun hockey and cheaper then prospect s. They should just call it a national camp prep weekend rather then a tryout. The same kids would show up and nobody would complain.

[MinnGirlsHockey]

At the 96 birth year the center from Blaine was the only change from 15 to 16. It was not 50%, maybe they factor in the alternates that get added but that would be some really creative math. That age group was proof last year that 54 weekend is not a tryout. They had already decided who would do best at the national camp and it did not matter if they had an off weekend. In the end it was fun hockey and cheaper then prospect s. They should just call it a national camp prep weekend rather then a tryout. The same kids would show up and nobody would complain.

Do you mean from 16's to 17's? This year 17's represent the '96 birth year. 15's tryouts are by MN Hockey districts and 16's/17's tryouts are by MSHSL section. So trying to compare a 15 District roster to a 16 Section roster is kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Although your point is well taken. I haven't observed much roster turnover from 16's to 17's. I'd like to see the math on this too. Maybe they're quoting numbers from the boys side, but I doubt it would be even close to 50% there either.

[tarasov]

I think the truth of the matter is that on the Boys side there is closer to a 50% turnover and that is due to the obvious physical changes that take place for boys at this age. On the other hand, girls don't have the physical changes (or as many), therefore the best group of players typically won't have as much turnover.

I can't comment on tryouts because I haven't seen enough of them to give an opinion. Nevertheless, I will say that I find it hard to believe that when everything is said and done that the best 10,15 or 20 girls aren't the ones selected. Yes it is true that a player could be left off a team early on, but in the end if she isn't an obvious choice early on there is no way she is going to be in the discussion when they are selecting National Camp participants.

I'd enjoy the competition and the good hockey and if your daughter is one of the best she'll be one of the best! It won't matter if you complain about the tryout process or not!

[InigoMontoya]

I think we’re shortening the bench. If the goal is to make sure 1-8 get included in the 15 that go to the national festival, then this process is probably doing very well. However, doesn’t MN usually send 20, 30, 40 girls off to D1 hockey, plus a whole pile that will play D3 and a bunch more that’ll play club hockey wherever they choose to get educated; not to mention the young women headed back to their high school teams this winter wanting to contribute to home town success and pride. Why not provide a positive experience to 400 15 year olds, 400 high school 16 year olds, and 400 17 year olds, exposing them to others with similar interest in the sport, helping them to see their individual opportunities for improvement, and nurturing their love of the game?

[SECoach]

I think we’re shortening the bench. If the goal is to make sure 1-8 get included in the 15 that go to the national festival, then this process is probably doing very well. However, doesn’t MN usually send 20, 30, 40 girls off to D1 hockey, plus a whole pile that will play D3 and a bunch more that’ll play club hockey wherever they choose to get educated; not to mention the young women headed back to their high school teams this winter wanting to contribute to home town success and pride. Why not provide a positive experience to 400 15 year olds, 400 high school 16 year olds, and 400 17 year olds, exposing them to others with similar interest in the sport, helping them to see their individual opportunities for improvement, and nurturing their love of the game?

How would you go about providing that positive experience? What makes the experience provided now for appox 400 15 year olds not positive enough to participate at 16s and 17s?

[tarasov]

I think we’re shortening the bench. If the goal is to make sure 1-8 get included in the 15 that go to the national festival, then this process is probably doing very well. However, doesn’t MN usually send 20, 30, 40 girls off to D1 hockey, plus a whole pile that will play D3 and a bunch more that’ll play club hockey wherever they choose to get educated; not to mention the young women headed back to their high school teams this winter wanting to contribute to home town success and pride. Why not provide a positive experience to 400 15 year olds, 400 high school 16 year olds, and 400 17 year olds, exposing them to others with similar interest in the sport, helping them to see their individual opportunities for improvement, and nurturing their love of the game?

Ummmmmmmmm, I agree and exactly why doesn't the current process do this? Not quite I sure I follow?

[Hockee]

I've experienced this fiasco with and without having a daughter in the process. Girls hockey at this event and others is beyond political. It's a shame this continues. You may be surprised with the definition of evaluators...or at least the input that is highly considered when making their selections and who that is coming from. Try out camps like this should have everyone starting at zero.

[burnt toast]

I think we’re shortening the bench. If the goal is to make sure 1-8 get included in the 15 that go to the national festival, then this process is probably doing very well. However, doesn’t MN usually send 20, 30, 40 girls off to D1 hockey, plus a whole pile that will play D3 and a bunch more that’ll play club hockey wherever they choose to get educated; not to mention the young women headed back to their high school teams this winter wanting to contribute to home town success and pride. Why not provide a positive experience to 400 15 year olds, 400 high school 16 year olds, and 400 17 year olds, exposing them to others with similar interest in the sport, helping them to see their individual opportunities for improvement, and nurturing their love of the game?

Ummmmmmmmm, I agree and exactly why doesn't the current process do this? Not quite I sure I follow?

So put another way, we take the top 54 and narrow it down to 12 or so. Then those 12 get a week of the best training USA Hockey can muster, on top of that those same players are automatically in the HS Elite league. Why not take the top 54 and get them in a MN Hockey camp for a week, then have them play elite league. Time to say screw usa hockey, ignore them the same way we do for everything else. I would put the MN 54 camp competition level above the NDC from top to bottom (missing top players but fewer weak ones) As it is the whole process from 54 to national camp is a joke, this year they proved once again that how you play on the 54 weekend doesnt matter for who moves on.

[blondegirlsdad]

As it is the whole process from 54 to national camp is a joke, this year they proved once again that how you play on the 54 weekend doesnt matter for who moves on.

It was our experience that performance during the initial tryouts didn't matter much either. You can be the leading goal scorer in the scrimmages and not make the cut. All that's required is a bit more transparency.

[SECoach]

It really saddens me to hear these types of comments. My daughter experienced great success in these programs. She also experienced terrible disappointments. I'm not sure if I would rather have her learn that her successes were at the hands of cheaters and idiots, or her failures were really victories that were stolen from her. I guess it doesn't matter because I don't believe that either one is the case and I hope she knows that as well.

I've attended National Camp several times. I assure you there are no weak players and it's inaccurate that the camp would be stronger if Minnesota ran it's own. There are very good players in other parts of the country. Why do we need to take away from the success of the players that are chosen, call it cheap, say they are not deserving? To do so creates the impression that those not chosen are not quality athletes , many good players are passed over, but the final objective is to pick the best.

I strongly believe that few people that make these accusations have ever been in the position of having to make these decisions. They have never experienced the anguish of the final cuts, knowing another player may be just as good, but in different ways, and you have to decide between them. This is not track and field, where the fastest time or the longest throw wins. This is not wrestling, where a simple wrestle-off determines who will get the spot. This is hockey with human beings of varying opinions of what makes one player a better selection than another.

Heartfelt congratulations to the players selected. There will be further successes, and also disappointments along the way. To the players that weren't selected, there are future celebrations, along with additional disappointments in your future as well. May your life be more complete by experiencing them all with passion.

[InigoMontoya]

Why not take the top 54 and get them in a MN Hockey camp for a week, then have them play elite league.

I would put the MN 54 camp competition level above the NDC from top to bottom

I agree. All 54 (and then some!) of those girls will likely have an opportunity to play hockey after high school. Why wouldn't we want to improve and expand the program to include more than 15 kids? Still send the 15 to the national camp, but add something to it. I think the argument 'the accomplishments of kids that were successful in previous years would be somehow diminished by a change, so keep everything status quo' is ludicrous.

[SECoach]

Why not take the top 54 and get them in a MN Hockey camp for a week, then have them play elite league.

I would put the MN 54 camp competition level above the NDC from top to bottom

I agree. All 54 (and then some!) of those girls will likely have an opportunity to play hockey after high school. Why wouldn't we want to improve and expand the program to include more than 15 kids? Still send the 15 to the national camp, but add something to it. I think the argument 'the accomplishments of kids that were successful in previous years would be somehow diminished by a change, so keep everything status quo' is ludicrous.

Who said that? I agree that would be ludicrous.

102 players go to a week long camp at 15's. There have been, programs for years for the older players. It is very difficult to get the, (and then some!) to participate.

[hockeywild7]

That might be a little thing called MONEY. They don't do these camps for free.

[Nimrod]

Here is my two cents. Those that are very involved in the process feel its a highly scientific, objective process. Those that do not understand how it all is determined feel its all politics. I suggest the answer is somewhere in the middle but would lean heavily towards the notion that it is primarily legit with some head scratchers. For those of us that watch 80 percent of the "tryouts" we generally have a couple surprises about who does and does not make it. We are equally surprised with respect to observing how players did in their high school season vs. in the "tryouts" and how that plays out in this program.

My observation is that you cannot totally justify all the results. I have seen players make it to the final level that were out performed in HS and in the "tryouts". I don't know if its about having bad breath, a bad attitude or what. Don't even care. I will say this process can make or break some players that don't have the total package so it can carry more weight than it really should.

For what its worth, my daughter has been ignored every year but yet she has landed at a top 1 or 2 college in the country. Does that make the process flawed? Probably not. Just a reminder that nothing is perfect. Those that think its legit are right and those that think their is some mischief may have an argument as well.

[Silent But Deadly]

Here is my two cents. Those that are very involved in the process feel its a highly scientific, objective process. Those that do not understand how it all is determined feel its all politics. I suggest the answer is somewhere in the middle but would lean heavily towards the notion that it is primarily legit with some head scratchers. For those of us that watch 80 percent of the "tryouts" we generally have a couple surprises about who does and does not make it. We are equally surprised with respect to observing how players did in their high school season vs. in the "tryouts" and how that plays out in this program.

My observation is that you cannot totally justify all the results. I have seen players make it to the final level that were out performed in HS and in the "tryouts". I don't know if its about having bad breath, a bad attitude or what. Don't even care. I will say this process can make or break some players that don't have the total package so it can carry more weight than it really should.

For what its worth, my daughter has been ignored every year but yet she has landed at a top 1 or 2 college in the country. Does that make the process flawed? Probably not. Just a reminder that nothing is perfect. Those that think its legit are right and those that think their is some mischief may have an argument as well.

AMEN!!!

[luckyEPDad]

I don't think anyone involved in any kind of tryouts thinks they are a scientific or objective. Even NHL teams with millions at stake know they can do little better than make educated guesses at who will succeed.

At the HS and youth level every player is being compared not so much against their competition, but against players the coach has coached, played with or played against in the past. Their history decides which attributes they find important, and results of a few scrimmages or hours of drills have a very hard time overcoming that personnal bias.

Get a group of coaches in a room and ask what they look for in a player. Usually the first thing you'll hear are intangibles like "hard worker", "driven", "creativity", "good vision", "smart". Once you get to attributes that you can scientifically measure you begin to have a lot of disagreement. Is big better than fast? Is quick better than strong? Are skating skills more important than shooting accuracy? Is shooting accuracy more important than shot velocity?

No matter how fair we try to make it, the tryout process is always a sloppy, poorly defined mess. And the higher the skill level the messier and more poorly defined the process becomes. All players can do is work hard to be good enough to be given serious consideration. After that it is pretty much a crap shoot.

[Nimrod]

Don't mean to ruin your fun EP guy but what was said was code for those involved feel they pretty much got it right. I would hope they aren't foolish enough to think that whatever they came up with is 100 percent right. But i expect that what they came up with is something they would stand behind and that it was based on their subjective perceptions. No matter what the masses will never have total buy in. But I think we all hope that there is a somewhat objective process.

At the end of the day, we should all accept this process for what it is and move on. You don't have to participate. I for one think its still good to see how the girls compare and even when you don't agree with the results you can still apply your own opinions to how your favorite player compares to those that move on. There is ample evidence to show that the results of this process don't always mean one player is better than another when it comes to other means of measuring talent.

[leftwing]

Our experience with National Camp, Minnesota Hockey and the Elite League is similar. Our daughter went to National Camp twice, and played in the Elite League for several years. She is playing D1 hockey. She would be the first to say that playing against other girls from around the country was eye-opening, fun and lots of excellent competition. She sees many of them at the college level, and it makes games even more interesting. She would also be the first one to resist any attempt for Minnesota to withdraw from the National Camp process - who exactly would that benefit? Not the players themselves....

She and the other Minnesota girls stack up very well against the non-Minnesota players, but it's not at all true that "any of our top 100 girls would outplay any other" or some other such scenario. About 150 girls go D1 every year, and only about 30-35 Minnesota players go - those seem about the right numbers to me. It's not at all true that "any D3 player" could play D1 or that dozens of girls are somehow being overlooked for higher level opportunities. (It's also important to note that of those 150 new freshmen entering D1 programs this fall...less than 50% will graduate as a D1 player in 4-5 years from the same school)

Our daughter experienced her share of disappointments in high school hockey, and will surely do the same in college. Welcome to real life! The great thing about this athletic experience is getting a chance to toughen up (and learn to bounce back) earlier than many of their peers.

After watching several years of high school hockey at all levels here in MN, I would be hard pressed to think there are "undiscovered stars" hiding in multiple locations around the state. The top 10-15 in each year group are pretty clear, as are the next 10-20. AFter that it drops off somewhat and an argument could be made about a player being a lower level D1 player or a top D3 player. The same is true of schools. Some are clearly stronger year after year than others.

I will say that I'm sure there are girls with significant talent who do not get the off-season opportunities for development due to the expense, convenience, etc. How much of an impact this would have on any individual player is of course, open to debate. I'm sure it's kept some girls from advancing further, but couldn't guess how many. I will also say that our relationship with Minnesota Hockey was far from smooth at times, as I'm sure many other families have experienced. However, at the end of the day, I would say that the majority of the Minnesota Hockey people are trying to do the right things, and create as positive an experience as possible for as many girls as possible.

Regardless, it's an outstanding experience playing competitive hockey at both the high school and college levels. From D1 to college club hockey, what a delight that so many young women have an opportunity that previous generations never dreamed of.

It really saddens me to hear these types of comments. My daughter experienced great success in these programs. She also experienced terrible disappointments. I'm not sure if I would rather have her learn that her successes were at the hands of cheaters and idiots, or her failures were really victories that were stolen from her. I guess it doesn't matter because I don't believe that either one is the case and I hope she knows that as well.

I've attended National Camp several times. I assure you there are no weak players and it's inaccurate that the camp would be stronger if Minnesota ran it's own. There are very good players in other parts of the country. Why do we need to take away from the success of the players that are chosen, call it cheap, say they are not deserving? To do so creates the impression that those not chosen are not quality athletes , many good players are passed over, but the final objective is to pick the best.

I strongly believe that few people that make these accusations have ever been in the position of having to make these decisions. They have never experienced the anguish of the final cuts, knowing another player may be just as good, but in different ways, and you have to decide between them. This is not track and field, where the fastest time or the longest throw wins. This is not wrestling, where a simple wrestle-off determines who will get the spot. This is hockey with human beings of varying opinions of what makes one player a better selection than another.

Heartfelt congratulations to the players selected. There will be further successes, and also disappointments along the way. To the players that weren't selected, there are future celebrations, along with additional disappointments in your future as well. May your life be more complete by experiencing them all with passion.

[joehockey]

This is a great discussion and many relevant facts. As my daughter enters her senior year playing D1 Hockey I can reflect back. There is a good thread on the Class of 2010 and gives info on what you might expect if your daughter plays D1 hockey. Each year at every level is a new start.

My daughter made U15 and U16 but missed National Camp at U17. The best HS player she played against was Bethany Brausen, who was not picked as a U16. She used it to up her game make U17, win a State Tournament be named Ms. Hockey go to UM win two NCAA Championships and be named Captain as a Junior. Mistakes happen in any process the key is how does the player react and move forward.

If a player wants to play D1 it is a big training commitment all through HS - year round, not being on the ice but working to get better. You miss out on stuff but gain a great hockey experience. Looking back I would have had my daughter work on skating, speed and strength. Her shooting 10,000 pucks each summer was the cheapest investment we made though we did have to rebuild our fence a few times. She went out and did it we didn't.

Do the best players who want to play on all do spring phase? Do they participate in summer teams or prospect type programs like the one at OS? Do they play and stand out in the Elite League. A college coach can tell after a few shifts the best players on the ice and the ones that fit their program.

At D1 the year round continues with most D1 programs taking 2 weeks off after the season then going to spring conditioning, summer training program and then getting on the ice in early September. Some look at it as their part time job to go to school.

My daughter now says the ones who make it are talented but they never stop having fun...loving the game. To all of you with HS girls who aspire to move forward make sure they are laughing and finding success - when they stop that they will begin to fall behind.

Good luck to all - these are life time memories, make sure they will be good ones and not something you will regret. The greatest job of a hockey parent is helping kids obtain the keys that will help them win in the game of life with their family, work and friends celebrating success but also finding good in any outcome.

[InigoMontoya]

There is a list of 31 kids on another thread.
How did they fall as 15's, 16's, 17's?
Don't have to name names; just an aggregate would be fine.

[sinbin]

Yes, it would be interesting to see the overlap from the current and prior years if anyone has that data available.

[Lace'emUp]

Yes, it would be interesting to see the overlap from the current and prior years if anyone has that data available.

In regard to this year’s final HP 16’s selections, 13 of the 14 girls listed on the MH website made the final MN team selected to the USA Select 15 Dev Camp last year (15 players), or were alternates (15 players). Looking further into last year’s 15’s, only 4 of the 30 girls did not make the Final 54 this year as 16’s.

Regarding this year’s final HP 17’s, of the 11 players listed on the MH website, ALL made the final 16 roster last year. Thus, there might be a lot of turnover at the district/section levels, but not toward the final cuts.

[InigoMontoya]

Yes, it would be interesting to see the overlap from the current and prior years if anyone has that data available.

In regard to this year’s final HP 16’s selections, 13 of the 14 girls listed on the MH website made the final MN team selected to the USA Select 15 Dev Camp last year (15 players), or were alternates (15 players). Looking further into last year’s 15’s, only 4 of the 30 girls did not make the Final 54 this year as 16’s.

Regarding this year’s final HP 17’s, of the 11 players listed on the MH website, ALL made the final 16 roster last year. Thus, there might be a lot of turnover at the district/section levels, but not toward the final cuts.

Any info on this year's 31 new D-1 girls and where they landed in their 15's, 16's, and 17's?

[joehockey]

Yes, it would be interesting to see the overlap from the current and prior years if anyone has that data available.

In regard to this year’s final HP 16’s selections, 13 of the 14 girls listed on the MH website made the final MN team selected to the USA Select 15 Dev Camp last year (15 players), or were alternates (15 players). Looking further into last year’s 15’s, only 4 of the 30 girls did not make the Final 54 this year as 16’s.

Regarding this year’s final HP 17’s, of the 11 players listed on the MH website, ALL made the final 16 roster last year. Thus, there might be a lot of turnover at the district/section levels, but not toward the final cuts.

Any info on this year's 31 new D-1 girls and where they landed in their 15's, 16's, and 17's?

You can probably find by doing a search on this site http://board.uscho.com/search.php?searchid=359505