HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Sparlimb wrote:

jg2112 wrote:

pepperpot wrote:Don't hold your breath great one. Privates will clean up again in both A and AA. That article in Mpls about Richfield spells it all out. The girls game is dying and the state is watching it happen. More coops means more team dying. Evenetually it will be the wealthy suburbs and the privates. Force the Blakes, Brecks, Uniteds Benildes to move up. They can petition to move down if their recruiter took a leave of absence.

Hill-Murray and Benilde deserve kudos for already moving up. All other private schools should do the same.

While Benilde was in the championship 2 years ago, they have fallen mightily. HM will be a top 10 team next year, but no where near this year. This is likely the high point for them for the next number of years (going undefeated is the high point for anyone). So my guess is public schools will take back the title in 2017. Blake and Breck are a tough case. I'm not sure why they enjoy dominating at A (much like STA in boys did for so long). Blake could easily win the AA title this year (that with an undefeated AA team out there). If you are going to make the argument to leave private schools in with the public ones (which I think we should), it's best the private schools play the top level they can without getting hurt.

zooomx wrote:
The problem with HS and Youth Girls Hockey is apathy around the state.

Co-ops only make sense when a community does not have the economic capacity, nor the passion for hockey to support a strong boys program.

It's really that simple. If you have a strong boys program and a weak girls program, you are not trying.

thegreatone99 wrote:of the 19 games played yesterday 78% or 15/19 games were won by 3+ goals

only one game .05% 1/19 was a one goal game.

I guess I am wrong, there is tremendous balance within the state and no "haves and have nots" don't change anything, these numbers show tremendous growth and progress

I apologize for all the misrepresentation of facts

Jeffy95 wrote:

zooomx wrote:
The problem with HS and Youth Girls Hockey is apathy around the state.

Co-ops only make sense when a community does not have the economic capacity, nor the passion for hockey to support a strong boys program.

It's really that simple. If you have a strong boys program and a weak girls program, you are not trying.

Is it possible that maybe there just aren't as many girls as boys that want to play hockey? Have the differences between Boy's and Girl's interests just magically vanished because Girls Hockey popped onto the scene? We are a Hockey family and my daughter has no interest in playing. She loves Dance and Gymnastics though.

zooomx wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

zooomx wrote:
The problem with HS and Youth Girls Hockey is apathy around the state.

Co-ops only make sense when a community does not have the economic capacity, nor the passion for hockey to support a strong boys program.

It's really that simple. If you have a strong boys program and a weak girls program, you are not trying.

Is it possible that maybe there just aren't as many girls as boys that want to play hockey? Have the differences between Boy's and Girl's interests just magically vanished because Girls Hockey popped onto the scene? We are a Hockey family and my daughter has no interest in playing. She loves Dance and Gymnastics though.

That's why I am saying an association that supports 3-4 boys teams should be able to support 2 girls teams at any level. Naturally, there may be the case that not as many girls are interested in hockey than boys. But don't tell me that 2 communities fielding 3-5 boys teams at each level have to co-op at the girls level to survive. That's just lazy and not trying. Grow the game.

Also, in terms of the upside down pyramid from grey beard's notes. I would be interested in seeing how many U12 teams there are. A lot of skaters move straight from U12 to varsity in communities. It's all a matter of recruitment.

Lastly, I do not apologize for the decisions the privates make, and my kids will never skate private. I am just saying it's out of our control, so grow your program and try to beat dem' privates![/quote

In a word.... Naive

itsfoilcoach wrote:

zooomx wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote: Is it possible that maybe there just aren't as many girls as boys that want to play hockey? Have the differences between Boy's and Girl's interests just magically vanished because Girls Hockey popped onto the scene? We are a Hockey family and my daughter has no interest in playing. She loves Dance and Gymnastics though.

That's why I am saying an association that supports 3-4 boys teams should be able to support 2 girls teams at any level. Naturally, there may be the case that not as many girls are interested in hockey than boys. But don't tell me that 2 communities fielding 3-5 boys teams at each level have to co-op at the girls level to survive. That's just lazy and not trying. Grow the game.

Also, in terms of the upside down pyramid from grey beard's notes. I would be interested in seeing how many U12 teams there are. A lot of skaters move straight from U12 to varsity in communities. It's all a matter of recruitment.

Lastly, I do not apologize for the decisions the privates make, and my kids will never skate private. I am just saying it's out of our control, so grow your program and try to beat dem' privates![/quote

In a word.... Naive

If its naive to take responsibility for what I can control, and try to make the association I belong to better, and not sit for hours on a hockey forum whining about fairness... then yes... I guess I am naive.

Some of you have dozens of posts on this board, and have obviously done hours of research looking for numbers and articles to support your argument. Pour some of that energy and time into your program. Do I think Blake and Breck should move up to AA? Sure. Can't control that.

Still think the bigger problem is bigger associations letting their girls programs slide, and then moving into a co-op instead of rolling up their sleeves and building their girls program back up. I have to think that it is harder to recruit and retain younger girl skaters in a co-op situation.

thegreatone99 wrote:7 games last night

6/7 games 85% were won by 3+ more goals

1/7 games 15% were won by one goal

Lots of discussion how to move the girls game forward, it's the product and apathy. There are only a few elite teams out there both public and private and the majority of the top end programs continue to get stronger through recruitment or move-ins.

All of you have you been to one of these games lately? Usually consists of one or two players rushing end to end, very few passes, playing every other shift including PP and PK and rarely coming off. You might as well as call it the "Suzie Show" After awhile it gets tired watching Suzie all over the ice, every other shift.

Only gets worse in Sections when it is all hands on deck, or should I say, for half the team it's all hands on deck. This isn't college or the NHL were winning is mandatory.

"Improve the product and they will come"

jg2112 wrote:

thegreatone99 wrote:7 games last night

6/7 games 85% were won by 3+ more goals

1/7 games 15% were won by one goal

Lots of discussion how to move the girls game forward, it's the product and apathy. There are only a few elite teams out there both public and private and the majority of the top end programs continue to get stronger through recruitment or move-ins.

All of you have you been to one of these games lately? Usually consists of one or two players rushing end to end, very few passes, playing every other shift including PP and PK and rarely coming off. You might as well as call it the "Suzie Show" After awhile it gets tired watching Suzie all over the ice, every other shift.

Only gets worse in Sections when it is all hands on deck, or should I say, for half the team it's all hands on deck. This isn't college or the NHL were winning is mandatory.

"Improve the product and they will come"

LOL. Wait a minute - in Sections winning IS mandatory or the season is over. Only the least competitive player in the world would not realize the importance of winning a Sectional game. Anyone playing high school sports realizes the best players will play.

No basketball team is going to rotate in the 11th and 12th players on the bench in a regional game in the name of "development." No football team is going to make sure the 3rd string lineman gets a few snaps when they are trying to move onto the next round. No. They want to win so the best players play.

Yesterday I watched Mounds View play Tartan/North. T/N led 1-0 until midway through the third. Brodt scored two goals, including the game-winner with :45 to go. The N/T goalie was marvelous and stopped over 50 shots. She didn't deserve that result but this is hockey.

Brodt played at least half the game, but what rational coach WOULDN'T play her every other shift? She's one of the top 5 players in the state, an electric skater with sublime skill and great conditioning. Had she not played as much, her team might not be preparing for WBL on Tuesday.

I get the arguments about competitive balance. Arguing about playing time in win or go home situations isn't rational.

jg2112 wrote:I get the arguments about competitive balance. Arguing about playing time in win or go home situations isn't rational.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

jg2112 wrote:I get the arguments about competitive balance. Arguing about playing time in win or go home situations isn't rational.

I recall former Breck standout Milica McMillen, now a senior at Minnesota, never leaving the ice in a game a few years ago.

jg2112 wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote:

jg2112 wrote:I get the arguments about competitive balance. Arguing about playing time in win or go home situations isn't rational.

I recall former Breck standout Milica McMillen, now a senior at Minnesota, never leaving the ice in a game a few years ago.

Of course. I recall Anna Barlow playing at least half of games at State last year as well. I also recall Hannah Brandt double and triple shifting at the regional finals against Roseville in 2012.

And in the game when DeForrest stopped over 110 shots this week, one of her defenders played 90+ minutes in a row!!

thegreatone99 wrote:The fact there is no checking allows for this to happen. This type of play rarely happens in a boys game as the players would be immediately checked off the puck.

thegreatone99 wrote:

jg2112 wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote: I recall former Breck standout Milica McMillen, now a senior at Minnesota, never leaving the ice in a game a few years ago.

Of course. I recall Anna Barlow playing at least half of games at State last year as well. I also recall Hannah Brandt double and triple shifting at the regional finals against Roseville in 2012.

And in the game when DeForrest stopped over 110 shots this week, one of her defenders played 90+ minutes in a row!!

All good points, just saying it creates apathy for the game when it is the same player time and time again making rink long rushes only to shoot into a goalie or finally get stopped. Or the only one scoring the goals.

Might be a goalie dominated year this year for the girls. When you see the Hopkins score. Shots 39-9 Hopkins, but lose 2-0 (one open net) AV outshout by 60 shots and only loses in OT.

The fact there is no checking allows for this to happen. This type of play rarely happens in a boys game as the players would be immediately checked off the puck. D are much harder to contain in the girls game, but if I was a coach and the team was going to send a Brodt or some other forward like at B & B out there every other shift, simply take your best skating forward and tell her to shadow her the entire game and then see what happens. These long rushes would disappear.

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Not sure which teams you are watching "great one"... The best metro teams are deep as hell with multiple scoring threats on at least two line.

thegreatone99 wrote:I think you can look at your so called "deep teams" and see there is one or two players with all the goals and the rest are single digit points.

MNHockeyFan wrote:
And I'm sure there are more "deep teams" out there - these are the first five that I looked up! Also, these are just the regular season stats, not including sections.