Upper Midwest High School Girls ELite League

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:43 am

You guys are awfully spoiled to say that the back rinks aren't spectator friendly. What are we talking about here, maybe 75 people? Right now the competition for ice time is at it's highest with tryouts going on, etc.

Isn't Shattuck basically south Metro? What is it, 20 minutes from Burnsville and an hour and a half from White Bear?

It's nitpicking like this that drives organizers of any event crazy. Sorry you can't watch the games sitting on a bar stool sipping your Latte'.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:21 pm

Bensonmum wrote:You guys are awfully spoiled to say that the back rinks aren't spectator friendly. What are we talking about here, maybe 75 people? Right now the competition for ice time is at it's highest with tryouts going on, etc.

Isn't Shattuck basically south Metro? What is it, 20 minutes from Burnsville and an hour and a half from White Bear?

It's nitpicking like this that drives organizers of any event crazy. Sorry you can't watch the games sitting on a bar stool sipping your Latte'.

Actually don't like Latte's
Actually it would be about 1/2 hr from Bville if I lived In Bville to Faribult But from my place it is about 50 minutes to Faribult and and about the same to 50 Minutes to SuperRink depending on traffic.
So yes, I would rather go to any of the S Metro places.
Besides Don't you need a passport to go to Faribult

hockeyrube7 · Post by **hockeyrube7** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:05 pm

For myself, with no kids involved, I’d like to see these as a fan, yet if I can go watch a younger game for free, minus gas costs, and would enjoy that just the same, why pay for these. Guess I’ll save my money for games that count, like HS games, or college games. Doesn't the MIAC season start soon?

As far as the Super Rink goes, perfect venue for these types of games, back rinks or not. I’ve watched the boys version of this for years, and never find them in a much better venues than the Super Rink. That and most everything hockey has been held in the south end of the metro in the recent past, nice to see some things moving north and around. How about rotating locations through out the state, oh wait, they already are, St Cloud, Shattuck, Super Rink.

Joe, did they try to get a northern out state location also?

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:44 pm

I don't really care where they have the games and think it's a good idea to move them around to different places. I also don't mind the small gate fee as $5 is a small price to pay for good hockey. All I was saying that if you're going to be playing at Schwan's it would be nice to have them on Rinks 1-4 because they ARE more spectator friendly. But as hockeya1a says ice time at this time of year is at a premium. I would guess the main rinks were probably already reserved by the time these games were scheduled.

In any case we'll survive just fine, as long as the concession stand is open and the latte machine is working!

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:44 pm

I would have to agree the gate does seem a little silly. Granted we are talking about the top players (not all) but most of these players you could see for free when they participated in the 2 nations league, Os fall league, AAA tournaments, etc. Since it will most likely be only parents and some scouts who will probably get free credentials, watching so why not just (as someone posted) just charge a little extra.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:04 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:I don't really care where they have the games and think it's a good idea to move them around to different places. I also don't mind the small gate fee as $5 is a small price to pay for good hockey. All I was saying that if you're going to be playing at Schwan's it would be nice to have them on Rinks 1-4 because they ARE more spectator friendly. But as hockeya1a says ice time at this time of year is at a premium. I would guess the main rinks were probably already reserved by the time these games were scheduled.

In any case we'll survive just fine, as long as the concession stand is open and the latte machine is working!

I will bring my own Bar stool then!

hockeyrube7 · Post by **hockeyrube7** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:08 pm

hockeya1a wrote:I will bring my own Bar stool then!

Now were talking, got my $5 bill ready.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:57 pm

Well first games were tonight - great crowd and a number of scouts/schools.

West Metro 7 Outstate 2
Shattuck Prep 12 East Metro 2 (Decker 6 G, Kessel 2 G, Rogalsky 2 G) - Shattuck was to much for East D and goaltending though both played hard - East Metro generated 24 shots while Shattuck generated 34. First period shots were 14-15 but score was 5-0)

Will be interesting to see if games are better tomorrow and what teams can do against SSM over the next three weeks.

Game Stats will be posted to the league site on Monday.

hshockeyfan91 · Post by **hshockeyfan91** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:56 am

The East vs SSM game had to be one of the strangest games I have seen in a long time. The score really did not reflect the play. The #1, #2 and #3 stars of the game were Breanna Decker, Breanna Decker and Breanna Decker - 6g and 4a - 10 of the 12 goals were directly created by Decker. Without Decker SSM is a nice team, but far from dominant. She was simply outstanding - a superb shot, nice stickhandling. The East had no one to match her, although it will be interesting to see how they play her in the next couple of weeks.

The East had many chances. No doubt SSM was better tonight, but more by a margin of 5-3 or something like that. Of course that's not the way it will go in the books!

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:23 pm

Sunday Morning Games:

East Metro 4 - Outstate 0
SSM U19 5 - West Metro 2 (0-0 after 1 when we left very even play)

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:39 pm

hshockeyfan91 wrote:The East vs SSM game had to be one of the strangest games I have seen in a long time. The score really did not reflect the play. The #1, #2 and #3 stars of the game were Breanna Decker, Breanna Decker and Breanna Decker - 6g and 4a - 10 of the 12 goals were directly created by Decker. Without Decker SSM is a nice team, but far from dominant. She was simply outstanding - a superb shot, nice stickhandling. The East had no one to match her, although it will be interesting to see how they play her in the next couple of weeks.

The East had many chances. No doubt SSM was better tonight, but more by a margin of 5-3 or something like that. Of course that's not the way it will go in the books!

Who was in the net for East on this game.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:53 pm

Sunday Afternoon & First Weekend:

SSM U19 4 Outstate 1 - this game was 1-1 after 2. Decker again took over scoring two shorthanded goals.

East Metro 5 West Metro 2 - Hannah Brandt had three goals in this game (she also had 2 in the the morning game against Outstate a 5 goal day for a talented young player)

Standings after one weekend:

SSM 3-0-0 GF 21 GA 5
East Metro 2-1-0 GF 11 GA 14
West Metro 1-2-0 GF 10 GA 11
Outstate 0-3 GF 3 GA 15

Brianna Decker of SSM is the clear star of first weekend, she is a part of most of the SSM goals. The MN HS girls do not yet understand how to defend her nor the goalies stop her but they are working on it. The SSM Goalies and D have largely handled the HS girls - a lot more puck control and creative play will be needed. SSM on rushes all finish at the net and forwards backcheck to the post on the D end and hustle on and off the ice in quick shifts the HS girls will need to do more of the same to have greater success - MN HS girls will need to play a full 60 minutes. The SSM coaches are really pushing their teams - Gord Stafford is in constant coaching mode and his teams seems to respond - you don't loaf on that team. The other big difference is the HS players dump the puck and then change - SSM carries the puck deep as 4 change and then after they are on pass and get off - they never just surrender the puck........Last the HS girls take a lot of needless penalties giving SSM power plays - to many lazy hooking penalties taken deep in the offensive zone - who does that benefit - only SSM as they are really deadly on the Power Play.

There is hope against SSM and I believe the HS girls will close the gap - East had a bad first night - have to play better next week against SSM and should be motivated especially D and goalies Newstrom of Cambridge and Press of BSM - they both played very well in Sunday games. West lost 5-2 but it was 0-0 after one and 3-2 with under 5 minutes to play - until Decker scored 2 late goals. Outstate was tied 1-1 with SSM after 2 periods.

It was a great opening weekend and a great opportunity - a number of girls subbed in due to Homecoming or injuries. The League was keeping stats and I would guess they will post to website - all score sheets were to be turned in by 8 PM Sunday night.

finance_gal · Post by **finance_gal** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:39 pm

[quote="joehockey"] The SSM Goalies and D have largely handled the HS girls - a lot more puck control and creative play will be needed. SSM on rushes all finish at the net and forwards backcheck to the post on the D end and hustle on and off the ice in quick shifts the HS girls will need to do more of the same to have greater success - MN HS girls will need to play a full 60 minutes. The SSM coaches are really pushing their teams - Gord Stafford is in constant coaching mode and his teams seems to respond - you don't loaf on that team. The other big difference is the HS players dump the puck and then change - SSM carries the puck deep as 4 change and then after they are on pass and get off - they never just surrender the puck........Last the HS girls take a lot of needless penalties giving SSM power plays - to many lazy hooking penalties taken deep in the offensive zone - who does that benefit - only SSM as they are really deadly on the Power Play.

quote]

One of our daughters friends plays for SSM so I have had the opportunity to spend some time down at Shattuck watching some practices and games. I think the thing that makes them so good is that the kids are there not because they're the best players, but because they're the most motivated, every drill is a contest and every practice is a coaching session, and the kids respond because they are the kids for which hockey means more than anything. In high school it's difficult to get a group that loves hockey this much and coaches are sometimes forced to coach to the majority so what you see are a handful of the most motivated on each team then a second teir and then a third teir. If you could ever get a group that all pulls in the same direction all of the time you would have a team that could dominate like SSM.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:31 pm

Stay tuned 3 more weeks of play in this League I think you are going to see improved play every game out of the HS teams.

Melvin44 · Post by **Melvin44** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:33 pm

Shattuck's is a good team because they have been practicing for what 4 weeks maybe 2-3 hrs a day. They do things very well and it comes with PRACTICE. They kill penalties, they have a great power play, and they breakout well. Most important they are very good because of Decker and their goalie/'s. If you take Decker away they might lose 2 out of 3 games. I've seen Shattuck's play 4 games now and she has scored what 13 out of 21 goals and assisted on 6 of the others. She see's the ice and can hit the top shelf better than anyone.

The HS girls have had 1 or no practice! The games were close and believe it or not even the 12-2 game was closer than it seemed.

Obviously Shattuck's has many very good players and would play competitively and win some games against the HS girls even without Decker. I also feel the HS girls would win more than half of the games if they were to practice 2-3 times a week.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:18 am

So I hadn't looked at the rosters by class year - here is (I think) the break out:

Team Senior Junior Soph. 9th

East 10 7 2 1

West 7 11 2

Outstate 12 6 2
-----------------------------------------------
Totals 29 24 6 1

talkhockey · Post by **talkhockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:35 pm

After you lay this out and look at the numbers (thank you Joe), and then after stepping back and looking at the full scope of it, what would have been the harm in subtracting those 7 sophomores and freshmen (a mere 12%), and keep it as advertised? Granted you may not have assembled the best teams possible, but then again you probably would have been close. Actually if you were looking to assemble the ultimate roster(s) there are other players (younger) who could have been included. However, that’s should not have been the point. This league should have been about providing an option, for players (juniors and seniors) who are in the running for post high school playing opportunities, a last chance to impress someone or at least make it onto someone’s radar before the start of the last or next to last HS season. Those undergrads have 3 if not 4 more years in which to impress (or fade). For some of these players, this may be their last chance to get noticed. I don’t have a horse in this race so it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other; I just think they may have missed the mark on this one.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:03 pm

It will be interesting to see the League evolve over the next three weeks and then for next year.

They will learn a lot and continue to try and get the very best kids in with the focus of Sr, then Jrs and maybe a few younger. I don't know all the sophs though two are goalies. The one freshman Hannah Brandt had 5 goals and will likely be the leading HS player not at SSM when the stats are posted. Heck maybe that will mean more younger talented players in the League if she continues to score at that pace versus other older players? Audrey Hanmer and Rachel Ramsey are two '92 players who are very talented 2 yr NDP players who are not in the League - both sophomores.

I give the coaches and managers Eric Johnson and John Russo a lot of credit they were at the games and very interactive with parents - they were open to questions and input. My comment was make sure to communicate how a player can get into the League because it is great hockey and everyone will want in next year. Like anything it is hard to get it right the first time out. But this is the best program going with the top players from across MN getting a chance to show how they compete against SSM....it make not/does not have all the best players but it has a concentration of the highest number of the best players.

talkhockey · Post by **talkhockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:40 pm

Point well taken, and please take my comments for what they are. I am no way suggesting that these 7 players don’t have the skills to be in this league. Obviously they do by the production. I just feel that this could be a nice platform for the upper classman. The younger players will get their chance soon enough. After all SSM prep team is pretty much limited to these two classes (for a reason).

hockeyrube7 · Post by **hockeyrube7** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:41 pm

talkhockey wrote:After you lay this out and look at the numbers (thank you Joe), and then after stepping back and looking at the full scope of it, what would have been the harm in subtracting those 7 sophomores and freshmen (a mere 12%), and keep it as advertised? Granted you may not have assembled the best teams possible, but then again you probably would have been close. Actually if you were looking to assemble the ultimate roster(s) there are other players (younger) who could have been included. However, that’s should not have been the point. This league should have been about providing an option, for players (juniors and seniors) who are in the running for post high school playing opportunities, a last chance to impress someone or at least make it onto someone’s radar before the start of the last or next to last HS season. Those undergrads have 3 if not 4 more years in which to impress (or fade). For some of these players, this may be their last chance to get noticed. I don’t have a horse in this race so it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other; I just think they may have missed the mark on this one.

Great stuff Talkhockey! Unfortunately it has never been about these things. It would be nice to see! Maybe that would be one more thing that needs to get in line with the boys side. Yes it will be interesting to see how the league developes, but I'd say that Talkhockey makes a GREAT point here to take note of, maybe juniors and seniors should be the ones highlighted? Why does this one 9th grader deserve that shot over all the others? Or even just the few 10th graders for that matter? 4 years is a long time! And by the way, there is no horse in this race here either.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:27 pm

By joehockey's count 53 out of the 60 players (88%) are either juniors or seniors, so I'd say that the upperclassmen ARE the ones being highlighted. The league's first communication said that "eligible players are current High School age and will be entering 10th-12th grade in the Fall of 2008". So the only exception they made was to allow just one 9th grader in out of 60 players, which shouldn't be viewed as any big deal. Plus it's their league and they worked very hard in organizing and getting it off the ground, and for this you have to give them a whole lot of credit. Then again as joehockey points out they show up at the games and go out of their way to interact with everyone in attendance, being very open to ideas and input, that's even more admirable. I'm sure they'll take all this into consideration when deciding what changes might be good for next year.

P.S. My only suggestion would be to open up the tryout process a little more, so more kids get a legitimate chance to participate.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:01 pm

talkhockey wrote:Point well taken, and please take my comments for what they are. I am no way suggesting that these 7 players don’t have the skills to be in this league. Obviously they do by the production. I just feel that this could be a nice platform for the upper classman. The younger players will get their chance soon enough. After all SSM prep team is pretty much limited to these two classes (for a reason).

I agree with Talkhockey and Rube. I think it should be Juniors and Seniors but more importantly I think they should be more objective in the eligibility rules. "case by case basis" just means we can do what we want and there are really no rules. I think you either open it up to all or have a firm rule on who is eligible. I also wonder if it might not have been better to have 4 HS teams instead of involving SSM. I think the league could have easily filled a 4th team with all the good players I see missing from these rosters. In my opinion SSM is getting a nice benefit at the expense of 20 more Minnesota HS hockey players.

Oilers08 · Post by **Oilers08** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:19 pm

talkhockey wrote:After you lay this out and look at the numbers (thank you Joe), and then after stepping back and looking at the full scope of it, what would have been the harm in subtracting those 7 sophomores and freshmen (a mere 12%), and keep it as advertised? Granted you may not have assembled the best teams possible, but then again you probably would have been close. Actually if you were looking to assemble the ultimate roster(s) there are other players (younger) who could have been included. However, that’s should not have been the point. This league should have been about providing an option, for players (juniors and seniors) who are in the running for post high school playing opportunities, a last chance to impress someone or at least make it onto someone’s radar before the start of the last or next to last HS season. Those undergrads have 3 if not 4 more years in which to impress (or fade). For some of these players, this may be their last chance to get noticed. I don’t have a horse in this race so it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other; I just think they may have missed the mark on this one.

With reasoning like this maybe they should axe the 9 plus players that have commited D-1 already, to make room for more exposure? I don't think this venue was intend for a last chance look. IMO the creators have hit a direct bullseye.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:22 pm

OnEdge I know you are a big hockey fan and watch a lot of games did you see a HS vs. SSM game over opening weekend? The HS girls were really pressed playing against SSM - they were forced to play team hockey and defend team hockey. These HS girls all have a story to tell about playing Decker and Kessel when they see them in college our watch an Olympic event maybe as soon as 2010 or 2014. Every girl hockey player HS or Youth should watch one of these games - the girls who played them said Decker was just sic (really good)!

The HS vs. HS games are good HS hockey but you see both the good and bad things you see in every MN HS game. I am hopeful the HS teams evolve and beat SSM as they will be playing better team hockey.

The stated plan is to expand the League to 4 and then 5 HS teams. One of the discussions I heard on expansion was on inviting other guest teams - Balmoral Hall, Little Caesars, NAHA.....to play a weekend each as teams increase. This would give great new competition MN girls seldom get to play and attract scouts to come and see multiple weekends.

Last weekend I saw Harvard, Minnesota, Mankato, Bemidji, Mercyhurst - I am sure there were others - but this was not NAHA with every D1 and D3 present we need to compete against the best if we want scouts to continue to recruit MN hard and give girls a chance to play at the next level.

talkhockey · Post by **talkhockey** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:29 pm

Ok Oilers08, maybe they didn’t miss the mark but they defiantly strayed a little from center. Passages from the original “Let’s Play Hockey” article;
The Upper Midwest High School Elite League was formed in 2001 to help the top elite players reach their optimal development by the end of their high school competition. Sufficient games against elite players of similar abilities has been the model since inception. It will continue to be the model for both boys and girls.
“The girls program will operate basically the same as the boys,” Brodt said. “We want the girls to get that extra development that they seem to now be missing in their junior and senior years.”
The league expects to have large numbers of DI and DIII coaches at league games looking for prospects.

Don’t get me wrong I think this league is great. It’s the next step in the evolution of the Girls game here in Minnesota. I just believe that they can accomplish their objective with juniors and seniors, that’s all.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Upper Midwest High School Girls ELite League

East vs SSM

Re: East vs SSM