Anytime there is a choice about talent, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. This year as in years past, there are many very talented and deserving kids that will be missed and some that will get through based on their mythos. It is what it is...
Suggestions for future improvement
In phase 1, the evaluators should have to be from outside the section at least. If you run spring for profit skills program/league and know a bunch of the kids that you are looking at, don't be an evaluator in that section. The MGHCA use of the same evaluators is a great model, since any biases get consistently transferred to everyone they look at, it obviously doesn't work for the 8 section model.
Give the kids the criteria they are being judged on. The kids are not all coached to be the same (and/or duh).
If your going to have the disparity in numbers from section to section in the phase 1, you need to move some kids around to even the numbers. A section where everyone that walks in there door effectively makes it, is not a good result.
All 8 sections need to have the same numbers of players at phase 2. As an example, you cannot have as they did this year, section 7 with only 3 defense. There were other players watching from other sections that should have been given their chance to fill those D spots.
mnb327 - the rest of the posts were mostly from earlier phases. Its easy for folks to remain positive in phase 2.
The new and improved (?) NDP tryouts
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Around the boards
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:41 pm
I think the penalty shots were exciting for the fans, but not good for the goalies..I would guess if they got scored on, that was used against them in the evaluation process. Also I think the player who committed the penalty should have to go off the ice for at least two minutes. They need to be accountable for their play...I saw some stay on the ice after the penalty shot.
LOL. People can write what they want because this is a hockey forum. Differences in opinions tend to be one of the things that drives this board and gets interesting conversations going.mnb327 wrote:Who are you that you would take this amount of time on a chat line to bash system that certainly from rest of posts was positive.
Sounds like sour grapes from someone.
-
hockeyrube7
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:29 pm
This really is the big question, and agree with chickendance, it is odd that coaches did the ratings of their own players and players in their conference, this should be judge by people with out bias, but I would guess that is hard to find. Even in youth, coaches generaly only get to pick the last three or so kids.xwildfan wrote:Does anyone know why the high school coaches took over?
I think High school coaches took over because people complained about last years process and wanted it like the boys.
You'll never get 100% , 90% or even 80% satisfaction on any evaluation process. I thought this years process was pretty good. I was a little nervous when I heard that only High school coaches were grading this year at phase 2 but found out that college coaches were involved along with coaches from the bench. That made it more fair.
One of the few things I would have liked to see different this year was to make it mandatory for coaches to switch up lines every game/period as good players look better when you have a top player on your line. Good players also don't look as strong with weaker linemates. Some teams kept the same lines every game. Switching lines might have made a difference for a few girls.
That said the 54 girls selected are all very good. It will be very difficult to cut it down to 18-20 players.
You'll never get 100% , 90% or even 80% satisfaction on any evaluation process. I thought this years process was pretty good. I was a little nervous when I heard that only High school coaches were grading this year at phase 2 but found out that college coaches were involved along with coaches from the bench. That made it more fair.
One of the few things I would have liked to see different this year was to make it mandatory for coaches to switch up lines every game/period as good players look better when you have a top player on your line. Good players also don't look as strong with weaker linemates. Some teams kept the same lines every game. Switching lines might have made a difference for a few girls.
That said the 54 girls selected are all very good. It will be very difficult to cut it down to 18-20 players.
-
14all all41
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:52 am
always enjoy your posts chickendance, hockeyrube 7, central and xwildfan. You keep the questions stirring and the mind thinking.
Control of this process is about money, around $100,000 in stipends, and influence over lucrative training opportunities and consultant jobs. More people need to attend Minnesota Hockey meetings to follow the money and discussions. Impressively, several old timers like Odell, Bullard and Lynn Olson have courageously raised the issue of conflict of interest.
Want to kick this one around? If the high school coaches believed so strongly in inclusion, why did they cut the number of teams for Juniorfest down to 4 from last year’s 8? Folks on this board just said it took 8 teams of 91s to produce a fun, encompassing event. Now, add the 90s who are juniors back in. Lots of great talent there, a class even larger than last year’s graduating group. Why stop at 4 teams?
Lastly, if the mission of Juniorfest and the Senior Classic are to showcase Minnesota talent, then why invite teams from other states to participate? Why not fill all the teams with Minnesotans first? Does it convey the message that we simply do not have enough of our own talent?
Control of this process is about money, around $100,000 in stipends, and influence over lucrative training opportunities and consultant jobs. More people need to attend Minnesota Hockey meetings to follow the money and discussions. Impressively, several old timers like Odell, Bullard and Lynn Olson have courageously raised the issue of conflict of interest.
Want to kick this one around? If the high school coaches believed so strongly in inclusion, why did they cut the number of teams for Juniorfest down to 4 from last year’s 8? Folks on this board just said it took 8 teams of 91s to produce a fun, encompassing event. Now, add the 90s who are juniors back in. Lots of great talent there, a class even larger than last year’s graduating group. Why stop at 4 teams?
Lastly, if the mission of Juniorfest and the Senior Classic are to showcase Minnesota talent, then why invite teams from other states to participate? Why not fill all the teams with Minnesotans first? Does it convey the message that we simply do not have enough of our own talent?
-
Around the boards
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:41 pm
-
HockeyIsLife30
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:46 pm
?
In Phase3, i know that there's a practice and 2 scrimmages. Are the evaluators looking at the practice and the scrimmage? If so, what would they be looking for in a practice??
After recovering from the sticker shock of having to pay to enter the "festival", and parking a half of a mile from the arena, I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised with how it all was run. They did a very good job in evaluating the talent, and getting the top talent to phase III.
A couple of observations...one negative that was overheard was the lack of player profile books for the college coaches. These have been provided in the past, and were not available this year. Not a big issue for the upper level talent, as those players are already known by the scouts, but could be a perceived issue for the next tier players, thus the profile books importance.
On the positive side, the competition level was very good amongst the 8 teams, with some girls from different parts of the state that may not have been seen in the old process now getting that chance. It seemed that all of the girls had good experience.
I also did see inconsistencies from the bench coaches of each section. Some did the correct thing in switching lines every period, and running them out the doors consistantly, while others had the same kids playing together for most of the games. I believe that they were given specific lines for the final games to evaluate the bubble kids.
Again...the ultimate goal is to have the top players advance, and I think this was accomplished. Are there things that can be tweeked to make this process better? I believe so, but overall I was pretty satisfied.
Good luck to all of the girls in phase III!
A couple of observations...one negative that was overheard was the lack of player profile books for the college coaches. These have been provided in the past, and were not available this year. Not a big issue for the upper level talent, as those players are already known by the scouts, but could be a perceived issue for the next tier players, thus the profile books importance.
On the positive side, the competition level was very good amongst the 8 teams, with some girls from different parts of the state that may not have been seen in the old process now getting that chance. It seemed that all of the girls had good experience.
I also did see inconsistencies from the bench coaches of each section. Some did the correct thing in switching lines every period, and running them out the doors consistantly, while others had the same kids playing together for most of the games. I believe that they were given specific lines for the final games to evaluate the bubble kids.
Again...the ultimate goal is to have the top players advance, and I think this was accomplished. Are there things that can be tweeked to make this process better? I believe so, but overall I was pretty satisfied.
Good luck to all of the girls in phase III!
I agree on shocked we had to pay to get in, food prices were a little high for what you got also.Rentley wrote:After recovering from the sticker shock of having to pay to enter the "festival", and parking a half of a mile from the arena, I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised with how it all was run. They did a very good job in evaluating the talent, and getting the top talent to phase III.
Good luck to all of the girls in phase III!
One other thing that would be nice is if you could pay the via the minnesota hockeywebsite for each phase online so you could could use your debit , credit or check cards.
-
Marty McSorely
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:01 am
Price
Any idea what the gate fee's will be this weekend? What were the last?
Phase III -
Admission is $5 for the weekend.
Seemed to be more scouts in the building this morning.
U16
Blue 7 Red O - (one penalty shot goal - only 2 penalty shots total I think) Williams (Chaska) scored penalty shot she also scored 1 or 2 more. Olson (Roseau) also had 2-3. Bona (CR) 1. Billadeau (Hopkins) and Sobczak (Stillwater) both played very well in goal to shut out Red. Play was very fast and very impressive and no real penalties as compared to last week.
U17
White 2 Red 2
Admission is $5 for the weekend.
Seemed to be more scouts in the building this morning.
U16
Blue 7 Red O - (one penalty shot goal - only 2 penalty shots total I think) Williams (Chaska) scored penalty shot she also scored 1 or 2 more. Olson (Roseau) also had 2-3. Bona (CR) 1. Billadeau (Hopkins) and Sobczak (Stillwater) both played very well in goal to shut out Red. Play was very fast and very impressive and no real penalties as compared to last week.
U17
White 2 Red 2
Play was a very big step up from PII to PIII, fewer penalties, less time and space for players to move and very good goaltending. As always in these types of things it is a very tough decision. Thought the people in charge did a great job prepping girls - not sure they shared exact criteria but did share that everything was open and that the whole weekend would be evaluated.
U17 - I didn't see many whole, just parts so there had to be good players I missed seeing.....only one whole game Red U17 vs. U16 Blue today.
Forwards: Dahl, Harren, Lundberg, MacDonald
Defense: Wheelock, Dumass, Romatowski, Gleason
Goalies: ?
U16 - saw all three teams in games against the Blue team - great play by all very narrow range of talent - but thought these players had good games from what I saw.
Forwards: Williams, Story, Brausen, Bona, Lorence, Ramsey, Anderson, Hirsch, Olson, Barnes, Saxon
Defense: Alleva, Marcotte, Pendleton, Borer, Illikainen
Goal: Billideau, Laden
U17 - I didn't see many whole, just parts so there had to be good players I missed seeing.....only one whole game Red U17 vs. U16 Blue today.
Forwards: Dahl, Harren, Lundberg, MacDonald
Defense: Wheelock, Dumass, Romatowski, Gleason
Goalies: ?
U16 - saw all three teams in games against the Blue team - great play by all very narrow range of talent - but thought these players had good games from what I saw.
Forwards: Williams, Story, Brausen, Bona, Lorence, Ramsey, Anderson, Hirsch, Olson, Barnes, Saxon
Defense: Alleva, Marcotte, Pendleton, Borer, Illikainen
Goal: Billideau, Laden
-
Stillh2ofan
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:56 am
- Location: Stillwater,MN
-
Marty McSorely
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:01 am
Rumor or Truth
Rosters are 12 forwards, 5 D and 1 goalie? If so that's stupid, take another D and a goalie.
Joe picked some very good players and there are so many other deserving. I would hate to be a grader! 20-30 deep easy. I do want to add Turri (Still) 16's who I thought played great in our game (great motor).
My daughter loves to play with goalie Sobczak (Stillwater) she had a great game against Red. Say's she's a great talker (rare) and would have loved to have her on her team. She also likes Billadeau (Hopkins). I also liked Gustaffson from (Cloquet). Too bad they only pick 1 goalie.
17's White I thought were all great and whom I noticed most were Kortum (Hopkins one of the best players overall), Komarek (Blake), Arola (GR), Christofferson (Bemidji) Zrust (Blaine). Crosssover games were great and made 16's pick it up a couple of notches.
My daughter said players were told before games that there has been a 50% change for selections so far. She metioned they said 10F, 6D, 1G at 16's?
My daughter loves to play with goalie Sobczak (Stillwater) she had a great game against Red. Say's she's a great talker (rare) and would have loved to have her on her team. She also likes Billadeau (Hopkins). I also liked Gustaffson from (Cloquet). Too bad they only pick 1 goalie.
17's White I thought were all great and whom I noticed most were Kortum (Hopkins one of the best players overall), Komarek (Blake), Arola (GR), Christofferson (Bemidji) Zrust (Blaine). Crosssover games were great and made 16's pick it up a couple of notches.
My daughter said players were told before games that there has been a 50% change for selections so far. She metioned they said 10F, 6D, 1G at 16's?
Great comments and picks all great players! Sobczek is clearly a top goalie only girls HS player you can hear directing from the stands. Going to have to see Kortum play sometime....Tuuri always hardest worker on the ice.Melvin44 wrote:Joe picked some very good players and there are so many other deserving. I would hate to be a grader! 20-30 deep easy. I do want to add Turri (Still) 16's who I thought played great in our game (great motor).
My daughter loves to play with goalie Sobczak (Stillwater) she had a great game against Red. Say's she's a great talker (rare) and would have loved to have her on her team. She also likes Billadeau (Hopkins). I also liked Gustaffson from (Cloquet). Too bad they only pick 1 goalie.
17's White I thought were all great and whom I noticed most were Kortum (Hopkins one of the best players overall), Komarek (Blake), Arola (GR), Christofferson (Bemidji) Zrust (Blaine). Crosssover games were great and made 16's pick it up a couple of notches.
My daughter said players were told before games that there has been a 50% change for selections so far. She metioned they said 10F, 6D, 1G at 16's?
There will be two different numbers different at each level U17 have less due to less teams:
U16: maybe 12 F 6 D and 1 G
U17: maybe 9 F 5 D and 2 G (only 4 teams at Lake Placid)
Guess we will know exact numbers only when announced.
-
PlayYourGame4
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:24 pm
Great group of girls with huge potential. It was fun to see Blue 16 team bump off the 17 Red team. After what I saw of the 16's, here is what I am thinking:
Forwards(10 is what they were told)
Rachael Bona
Stephanie Anderson
Brooke Storey
Casey Hirsch
Bethany Brausen
Meghan Lorence
Lauren Barnes
Jordyn Burns
Dani Williams
Rachel Ramsey
Defense(they were told 6)
Audrey Hanmer
Maggie Pendleton
Rose Alleva
Madison Marzario
Maddie Marcotte
Catie Ladner
Goalie (1)
Kallyn Billadeau
Best of luck to everyone!
Forwards(10 is what they were told)
Rachael Bona
Stephanie Anderson
Brooke Storey
Casey Hirsch
Bethany Brausen
Meghan Lorence
Lauren Barnes
Jordyn Burns
Dani Williams
Rachel Ramsey
Defense(they were told 6)
Audrey Hanmer
Maggie Pendleton
Rose Alleva
Madison Marzario
Maddie Marcotte
Catie Ladner
Goalie (1)
Kallyn Billadeau
Best of luck to everyone!