All Metro Team 2007

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

hockeygod wrote:I still don't like the idea of the co-ops because when there successful, as all involved would hope they would be, then it smells to much of an all star team. Maybe coops should only be allowed when installed with a no cut rule...I just think co-ops open a can of worms that the MSHL is not prepared to deal with.
A coach needs to be able to "cut" kids even in co-op scenario as to pick a true Varsity (edit: CHANGE THIS TO HS - instead of "Varsity") team - and also you would like to enable a coach to send U14 and U12 eligible kids back to those respective levels as you would hope such a co-op woudl make those teams viable too. A no-cut policy would rob those teams of players they need to be viable.
hockeygod wrote:As for coaching stability, coaches need support, but in the past 4 years of watching girls hockey I have seen some aweful bad coaches that really do more harm to a team than good and I have seen some incredable coaches. I think it is just going to take time to weed out the bad ones and find proper fits for some of the good ones....
Do you sacrifice all the good for a few bad? That's the question. I think I'd take the few bad with proper evaluation and dismissal procedures in place than lose all the good ones we've lost!
Last edited by ghshockeyfan on Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Goalie35
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:38 am

Post by Goalie35 »

ghshockeyfan wrote:A coach needs to be able to "cut" kids even in co-op scenario as to pick a true Varsity team - and also you would like to enable a coach to send U14 and U12 eligible kids back to those respective levels as you would hope such a co-op woudl make those teams viable too. A no-cut policy would rob those teams of players they need to be viable.
Isnt this what a JV team was created for? Why do teams need to co-op and cut girls to sacrifice the opportunity for girls to come out and play JV hockey and just have fun? Isn't High school sports meant to be for the kids to have fun anymore? Or is it all about winning?
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

Goalie35 wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:A coach needs to be able to "cut" kids even in co-op scenario as to pick a true Varsity team - and also you would like to enable a coach to send U14 and U12 eligible kids back to those respective levels as you would hope such a co-op woudl make those teams viable too. A no-cut policy would rob those teams of players they need to be viable.
Isnt this what a JV team was created for? Why do teams need to co-op and cut girls to sacrifice the opportunity for girls to come out and play JV hockey and just have fun? Isn't High school sports meant to be for the kids to have fun anymore? Or is it all about winning?
I think you're missing the point entirely, or you simply believe that 7th, 8th, 9th graders that are U12 &/or U14 eligible should be playing JV. This is the dilemma that we're facing with U14/JV considerations that are making the transition difficult between Youth & HS. And, for clairification, I consider a CUT when you cut a kid entirely from JV & V... Maybe I should have clairified this earlier... my wording was unclear I know...

HS V is about being competitive I believe, but participation is still paramount in HS athletics in general.
hockeygod
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:07 am

Post by hockeygod »

If there are so many kids trying out that they have to cut players then they shouldn't need a co-op. by cutting players your just disuading alot of girls from playing hockey and as a coach you tend to see things in a world where kids will be in the proper program for them but if you look at what really happens is when a girl gets cut from hockey she goes into theatre, or dance, orsomething else, they usually won't take the step down to u14 after being cut from the high school team.
Goalie35
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:38 am

Post by Goalie35 »

ghshockeyfan wrote:I think you're missing the point entirely, or you simply believe that 7th, 8th, 9th graders that are U12 &/or U14 eligible should be playing JV. This is the dilemma that we're facing with U14/JV considerations that are making the transition difficult between Youth & HS.
Why can't 8th and especially 9th graders play? If you are cutting upperclassmen out of the program entirely that's one thing but if you need girls from a co-op you shouldn't also be fielding a U14 team, you should be pulling them up to play JV if your problem is not having a JV team
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

hockeygod wrote:If there are so many kids trying out that they have to cut players then they shouldn't need a co-op. by cutting players your just disuading alot of girls from playing hockey and as a coach you tend to see things in a world where kids will be in the proper program for them but if you look at what really happens is when a girl gets cut from hockey she goes into theatre, or dance, orsomething else, they usually won't take the step down to u14 after being cut from the high school team.
The problem is that we wrongly count kids IMHO. Do you count every U14'er eligible? How about the U12's? Of course not, but many do, and saying that you can't "cut" these kids and have them play where 90% of them belong - youth - is EXACTLY the reason why you need a co-op IMHO.

The other big problem that many girls hockey programs have is that there is no competition for spots. What does this teach our kids life lesson wise? But beyond that, what does this say about the fragile nature and issues with G Hockey in general?
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

Goalie35 wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:I think you're missing the point entirely, or you simply believe that 7th, 8th, 9th graders that are U12 &/or U14 eligible should be playing JV. This is the dilemma that we're facing with U14/JV considerations that are making the transition difficult between Youth & HS.
Why can't 8th and especially 9th graders play? If you are cutting upperclassmen out of the program entirely that's one thing but if you need girls from a co-op you shouldn't also be fielding a U14 team, you should be pulling them up to play JV if your problem is not having a JV team
I think you're wrong. That's the problem - it's a huge difference in opinion. Truly, ideally, we'd see kids start at mini-mites, move to U8, play U10, move on to U12, play a year at least of U14, and then as 9th or 10th graders move to HS JV or up to V. This is like what the boys do usually. Not that we should aspire to emulate the boys, but we should aspire to have solid youth program offerings at all levels if at all possible. In that we're throwing out U14 and saying those kids should all skate JV is proof enough that there are major flaws in the current set-up. I'm all for JV's, but JV's should be populated by HS kids (i.e. at least 9th, if not 10th-12th). Of course, there are exceptions due to short-term decline in #'s, but year-after-year the HS team shouldn't be comprised of predominantly non-HS aged players.

IMHO we have way too many HS teams right now as a result of many U14 & even U12 kids playing HS hockey to keep these teams viable. Now, short-term that's fine, but if it's an ongoing phenomenon, which it is in some programs, then that's a problem in my mind. Again, just my opinion.
hockeygod
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:07 am

Post by hockeygod »

bringing kids up to play with the varsity has been common when sports are in there infancy, it happened in the early years of boys hockey, it happened in alot of girls sports in the early 80's and it's just one of the growing pains that the girls hockey has to endure. As a coach you can't say we'd rather be a co-op than have younger girls fill out the JV or go without a team because you may have to work harder on skating skills than you want. If the sport is going to grow it has to all inclusive, make everyone feel welcome and worry about how to teach them later. once a team has the numbers then the u12's and the u14's will fill out but until that happens we will have to endure haveing young players coming up and the coaches that win will be the true teachers out there because those will be the ones that will draw the interest o fpotential players. and future fans
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

hockeygod wrote:bringing kids up to play with the varsity has been common when sports are in there infancy, it happened in the early years of boys hockey, it happened in alot of girls sports in the early 80's and it's just one of the growing pains that the girls hockey has to endure. As a coach you can't say we'd rather be a co-op than have younger girls fill out the JV or go without a team because you may have to work harder on skating skills than you want. If the sport is going to grow it has to all inclusive, make everyone feel welcome and worry about how to teach them later. once a team has the numbers then the u12's and the u14's will fill out but until that happens we will have to endure haveing young players coming up and the coaches that win will be the true teachers out there because those will be the ones that will draw the interest o fpotential players. and future fans
I've never cut a single kid and I've probably recruited more non-hockey players at the HS age bracket than many coaches I believe. Participation is important, but how do we address that we have too many spots for too few kids? I don't believe that when participation counts are done that we should just neglect the fact that U14 hockey exists. Growing pains? Yes - but you will never have the numbers at 12's or 14's if you always have to take them to HS - JV or V. The "if you build it, they will come" mentality was great and is the reason why we have girls hockey today. However, if over time the numbers become constant you can't continue to employ a model that assumes that they'll continue to increase and eventually fill in underneath the top-heavy too many HS team setup that we currently have that has no choice but to pull youth eligible kids up year-after-year to populate its ranks.

What we need is to reevaluate and adapt to the truth. We're not creating solid top youth level opportuntities as a result of too many HS teams.

What are the options?

1) Do away with U14 or JV, but not have both.

2) Co-op HS V (and JV teams) to try to keep U14 level hockey stable.

3) Use some arrangement of 1 & 2 to ensure that there is a more 1-to-1 relationship between HS teams and youth programs - i.e. one youth program should not feed 2+ HS V teams, etc.***

***And we also need more co-op work by youth programs to field A & B teams at each age level (age & ability appropriate teams as cited before)


What I think we would see if we first forced youth assn's to co-op to have age & ability appropriate teams is that the number of such youth assn's would mean less youth assn's standing alone, and subsequently if you then say that there should be a 1-to-1 relationship between youth programs and HS programs, then, you would see less HS teams too obvioulsy.

Where does this NOT work? Anywhere outside the Metro where maybe they can't co-op due to distance, etc. In the metro though there is no excuse for why HS & Youth programs shouldn't be able to co-op when they can't A) offer age and ability appropriate youth teams and B) have their HS teams (JV &V) predominantly comprised of HS aged players.

Exceptions - 1) when youth players being needed to play up is short term vs long-term or ongoing issue, and 2) when teams have a player so gifted & talented where (as has been done forever) they should then be elevated due to their individual talent. Note - 2) is not a situation where the kid is being elevated for continual team need for young players, but instead about the individual talent warranting early participation at the HS level.

I say all of this having had programs/teams that have both been the exception and also some that weren't. I've had some of the youngest HS teams ever. I just think that there are some programs that aren't the exceptions that may benifit from working together.
hockeygod
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:07 am

Post by hockeygod »

Alot of people have so much respect for you (including me) because of the recruiting and teaching that you have done, and the girls that you brought up this year are going to be with you for a long time and you'll see that the u14s will fill up next in your area then the u12's...part of the problem with hockey compared to other sports is the commitment that it takes not just from the participants but from the parents and the coaches, you can not be passive and be a good hockey player, and so many coaches are passive in the way they coach, to be a good coach you have to be constantly teaching and recruiting and it's not a simple thing to do. If the sports going to grow we need more coaches like you who do not just go through the motions, do people think that it's a coincidence that the teams with the consistantly better programs (not the winningest) also have the better youth system. it's all about the people. and if the sport is going to grow we have to keep kids interested.
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

I think you're right about my program youth wise. The younger levels will fill in IF we can keep those young kids in the program at the HS level that came up as 7th/8th graders. If they stay then the numbers will fill in below. If they don't, then the cycle of taking young kids will continue. My situation may be an exception to continually taking sub-HS players however as the numbers appear more stable at the younger levels.

I think the better example that I see of where this is a problem is when a youth program is losing half its U14 eligible kids to OE/privates and then half have to move up to the HS team each year to keep it viable. In this scenario, a co-op may be best if you're only developing a small number of kids that stay in a home HS program each season. A similar situaton (where a co-op may be best) is where the numbers are extremely volatile at the 12's/14's over a 3-5 year projection and the peaks won't offset the valleys enough to keep you from having to take young kids year-after-year. Some work needs to be done though to see if building the youth ranks U8 wise couldn't eventually mean that a co-op woudl have too many kids and then be broken up. That would be the ultimate goal of any co-op, is to be a short-term solution and evaluated each year to see at what point it has the numbers to break-up and have the teams stand alone...

I believe that all of this is not just a "HS" or "Youth" issue alone. It needs to be a joint effort to address the transition period from U12/14 to JV/V. This is the biggest problem area I believe.
ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan »

Bensonmum wrote:The big question is: What are they doing behind Katherine Chute's head in this picture?
I think it's probably Nixon being Nixon... she's a funny kid and can always get others to laugh. I don't think that it's meant at all to be negative toward's Chute.
Bensonmum
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:22 pm

Post by Bensonmum »

ghs wrote:
I don't think that it's meant at all to be negative toward's Chute.
ghs, I said that with tongue in cheek. It's a cool picture seeing all that talent having a laugh together.
You know, at the beginning of the season most people on this forum were still celebrating last year's senior class, and the feeling was that this year's class was inferior. But it turned out to be a pretty good group after all. It sounds like Nixon might be the best goalie to come out of the Blaine stable, and isn't Paige Thunder another standout? Chute and Cody are outstanding and I'm positive they'll thrive at the next level. I'm not real familiar with the other 3 but it sounds like they're exceptional as well. And from what I saw this weekend, Trunzo is outstanding and she didn't even make this team. And you can't forget Stoa, Laura May, and your own goalie, Mel Gerten.
Post Reply