HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Silent But Deadly wrote: For many of us the issue has alot more to do with our daughters getting a chance to tryout...I think that's the real issue!

Agreed. Especially when one sees a player on the Elite League roster that didn't make it past Phase II of the NDP tryouts.

Silent But Deadly wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote: Don't most high school soccer coaches prohibit their players from participating in other sports (especially hockey) during their season anyway? And even if they gave their players permission, wouldn't there be conflicts with Saturday soccer matches and the elite games that are scheduled on Saturdays? This may help explain why some excellent hockey players could not participate in this league.

Some prohibit extra-curricular activities...some don't know!

For many of us the issue has alot more to do with our daughters getting a chance to tryout...I think that's the real issue!

It is a hand picked league, so I guess they can do what ever they want. That's life.

Would open try-outs lead to a different outcome if the participants are predetermined any way as some are indicating?

Central wrote:Would open try-outs lead to a different outcome if the participants are predetermined any way as some are indicating?

Presuming the tryouts were "open" and "fair" then the participants wouldn't be predetermined since the raters wouldn't know who was who on the ice.

I think the selection of players was handled the way it was to make it easier for those putting the teams together....in all fairness, I have difficulty blaming volunteers for wanting to do it that way.

Only two '93 birth year players. Julie Friend of Minnetonka, who played in the 1993 Advanced 15 Festival and Hannah Brandt, who is only going to be a 9th grader. I don't know how she was invited to try out if 8th and 9th graders are not eligible for this league. Also, I wonder if she had soccer scrimmages that day and missed part of the tryout or not. Hmmm.

unbelievable wrote:Actually the SSM Boys U18 (aka Prep) plays in this league each year. The roster for this team is set after tryouts mid-September.

Sorry, I looked at the boys forum where they had the 6 teams listed and SSM was not in there.

Silent But Deadly wrote:

Central wrote:Would open try-outs lead to a different outcome if the participants are predetermined any way as some are indicating?

Presuming the tryouts were "open" and "fair" then the participants wouldn't be predetermined since the raters wouldn't know who was who on the ice.

I think the selection of players was handled the way it was to make it easier for those putting the teams together....in all fairness, I have difficulty blaming volunteers for wanting to do it that way.

I would have to guess that "fair" and "open" tryouts would come out differently. Who knows, those in charge of this league may all know better on who belongs and who doesn't. Maybe it is all "fair" after all.

To be honest these are all good lessons and are fairly true to life. If you apply for a job can you say, "Well, I have this other interview that day, can't we do a tryout another day?", or, "How come I didn't get an interview (try-out), I'm just as good as so and so?"

hockeyrube7 wrote: If you apply for a job can you say, "Well, I have this other interview that day, can't we do a tryout another day?", or, "How come I didn't get an interview (try-out), I'm just as good as so and so?"

Ya....but nobody told me that it was a promotional position and that outsiders wouldn't get to apply!

How does the guys' version of this work? Is it a similar selection process, too, that the girls' version is being modeled after?

Interesting to read that one girl made it even without a full try-out (as a young one besides) as I know at least one outstate junior gal who was unable to make the try-out due to famiy event and was not considered then.

As someone else said though it is nice addition to options for girls and it is a hand picked league so they can do what they want.

The power of the forum! Looks like this discussion enticed the league to alter their web site. Tisk..Tisk.

Before

Eligible Players:
High School Seniors, Juniors, or Sophomores in the 08/09 school year. 8th & 9th graders are not eligible.

After

Eligible Players:
High School Seniors, Juniors, or Sophomores in the 08/09 school year. 9th graders may be considered on a case by case basis.

Hard work and dedication mean nothing to the heads of this league. It's all about who they know and has nothing to do with how the kids play. I heard it was gonna be this way from the begining and it detered some fine players from even trying out. They have shown how corrupt they are by breaking their own rules then changing them after the fact. I see this on every level of hockey for both sexes. When a small group is given absolute power it corupts everytime.

Rules "must" have been changed before they just did not tell any one, other than the case by case 9th grader(s).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or so they say. It is kind of sad that you have to win the favor of certain people to be considered "Elite", but then again, this is how life works also. So I'll say it again, these are all good life lessons for the kids, I suppose.

The percentages of those who are going to make the cut in these sorts of things is small. The percentage of those who make the cut to the next level gets even smaller. So what is it all about, being "Elite", maybe for some but not all, as a matter of fact very few really. Forming bonds and friendship with kids you will know a long time, memories you'll treasure for a lifetime, priceless. Every year or so they seem to interview the Bloomington Jefferson Jaguar boys teams of the glory years during the state tourney. Even as good as those teams were, most of the boys, now men, never won a scholarship, most never played D1, less in the NHL, yet those boys/men get together every year, around state tourney time, and recall everything they did together. These leagues and things like them are all fantastic, and we should promote them and those who "make the cut".

Sorry to go so nostalgic, but please stop complaining and whining. Some one or even several people are at least trying to make girls’ hockey better, right or wrong. Besides it is their league and they can run it however they choose, even if they change the rules to suit their needs. And no I don't agree with this, but at least they are trying.

hockeyrube7 wrote:Besides it is their league and they can run it however they choose, even if they change the rules to suit their needs. And no I don't agree with this, but at least they are trying.

Hockeyrube7,

I stand corrected (mixed up the MGHCA Fall Dev League and the Elite League). Although this is a 501c3 and in part sponsored by Minnesota Hockey, they are entitled to run it the way they want to.

I still think the selection process was flawed but they are free to do as they choose.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it. In my opinion, a lot of things about it are wrong, yet at the same time I don't think complaining about it will do any good.

"THEY" are who we thought "THEY" were!

Silent But Deadly wrote:While this is not the MSHSL....the MGHCA represents MN Girls High School Coaches and the schools where they are employed. Now if Minnesota Made or Showcase was putting this together I would agree, they can write the rules and change them too! If it wasn't fair, their customers would hold them the accountable. This is different and while I agree the MGHCA should be applauded for trying, the effort failed hockey's smell test miserably. They blew it and someone from their association should step up and admit it.

I believe you are incorrect in saying this league is being put together and run by the MGHCA. The MGHCA is forming their own Fall Development League which is the subject of another thread here. This Elite League's website says they are "run by and modeled after the Upper Midwest HS Elite Hockey League, a non-profit 501c3 organization". Even the name "Upper Midwest" implies they did not intend to limit player selection to just Minnesota high school players, and most of the coaches who'll be on the bench are not MN high school coaches.

Therefore I would say that they are in no way trying to represent the high school coaches and this falls totally outside the jurisdiction of the schools. And if you look at the coaches of the three teams (plus Shattack) almost all of them do not coach high school now. So I would have to agree with hockeyrube7 that they can organize and run this league however they want. It's a free country so anyone else can voice their opinion or offer suggestions to make it better.

MNHockeyFan wrote: I believe you are incorrect in saying this league is being put together and run by the MGHCA. The MGHCA is forming their own Fall Development League which is the subject of another thread here. This Elite League's website says they are "run by and modeled after the Upper Midwest HS Elite Hockey League, a non-profit 501c3 organization". Even the name "Upper Midwest" implies they did not intend to limit player selection to just Minnesota high school players, and most of the coaches who'll be on the bench are not MN high school coaches.

You are correct (I confused the MGHCA Fall Dev. League and the Elite League). I have edited my comments and apologize for ripping into the MGHCA.

Please keep in mind though, that they have also worked with MN Hockey, who is listed as a partner. This is not just a stand alone venture. It was originally touted as having been passed through the MSHSL and MN Hockey.

On the other note, the MGHCA is simply copying the same model and using the same lists of kids. The bottom line is that they also have a narrow view of the talent pool. It's simply unfortunate.

I again am glad that the girls are starting to see more opportunities. However, these organizers should not get a free pass on how they sell it. If they want to be Elite, thats one thing, but quit acting all pious about it then. If they want to make sure that the best are getting pushed by the best, then they need to open up more and go looking for those kids.
But that takes effort and time, its not going to be easy.

hockeyrube7 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it. In my opinion, a lot of things about it are wrong, yet at the same time I don't think complaining about it will do any good.

"THEY" are who we thought "THEY" were!

I will have to agree with you that complaining never really gets you any where. However, this is a forum utilized by…for a lack of a better description… “Stakeholders”. That means we all have a stake in what happens in this small hockey community of ours, and if we see injustice, it is our obligation to expose it for the greater good.

This is better illustrated by completing your statement (under the assumption that you are quoting Coach Green);

"THEY" are who we thought "THEY" were!

...and the next line was:

“And WE let THEM off the hook!”

I don’t think the stakeholders were complaining as much as they were trying to keep everyone involved with this program accountable.

chickendance wrote:Please keep in mind though, that they have also worked with MN Hockey, who is listed as a partner. This is not just a stand alone venture. It was originally touted as having been passed through the MSHSL and MN Hockey.

On the other note, the MGHCA is simply copying the same model and using the same lists of kids. The bottom line is that they also have a narrow view of the talent pool. It's simply unfortunate.

I again am glad that the girls are starting to see more opportunities. However, these organizers should not get a free pass on how they sell it. If they want to be Elite, thats one thing, but quit acting all pious about it then. If they want to make sure that the best are getting pushed by the best, then they need to open up more and go looking for those kids.
But that takes effort and time, its not going to be easy.

BINGO!

Right on! So how about a solution?

Honestly, and in my opinion, here are the rights and wrongs of this. Give your views on how to fix things to work even better.
The goods…
1) It is a league of who the Proprietors see fit to be in it. Yes this will leave some out. So what, it is just their opinion, does not mean these kids are all Elite, nor that others are not, just their opinion. Is there a way to do an anonymous try out, maybe not, girls hockey is a pretty small community.
2) The League. Great idea, and is only the first year, maybe second if you count last fall, which was much the same thing, and formed by some of the same people or so it would seem, but more of a secret. It will improve with time, but if we do nothing but crush it over your kid not getting invited, it will fall apart.
3) Elite. This is fine, and tends to make it a draw to top players. Why the word “Elite” means so much to everyone, I don’t know. I’m Elite because I’m the only me there is.
4) MGHCA. Good that they are not involved with this one and it looks like they are working with these folks to form another option to those left out. Only draw back is that they seem to be being selective also, shouldn’t at least that one be an open try out?

The bads… How would you fix these going forward?
1) Letting 8th/9th graders in. Again in my opinion, this is a big mistake for many reasons, whether they can compete or not. Too young to be around 18 year olds, Getting over their heads at too young of an age, possible burn out, not fully developed, and on it goes.
2) Several kids that get over looked. There are several kids that are not on the leagues list as Elite, and can compete just the same, and may even fit better than some younger kids.
3) Tryouts. A one day, or one time try out, rarely means anything, and most of this is not judged by that any way. Leaving out kids that 6 months ago got missed for what ever reason, and not allowing them to try out is a bad thing. Shouldn't there be an open try out some where, not just what happened 6 months ago? And in my opinion, those tryouts were tainted also.

Don’t know if any of this will help or not, just an opinion.

hockeyrube7 wrote:Honestly, and in my opinion, here are the rights and wrongs of this. Give your views on how to fix things to work even better.
The goods…
1) It is a league of who the Proprietors see fit to be in it. Yes this will leave some out. So what, it is just their opinion, does not mean these kids are all Elite, nor that others are not, just their opinion. Is there a way to do an anonymous try out, maybe not, girls hockey is a pretty small community.
2) The League. Great idea, and is only the first year, maybe second if you count last fall, which was much the same thing, and formed by some of the same people or so it would seem, but more of a secret. It will improve with time, but if we do nothing but crush it over your kid not getting invited, it will fall apart.
3) Elite. This is fine, and tends to make it a draw to top players. Why the word “Elite” means so much to everyone, I don’t know. I’m Elite because I’m the only me there is.
4) MGHCA. Good that they are not involved with this one and it looks like they are working with these folks to form another option to those left out. Only draw back is that they seem to be being selective also, shouldn’t at least that one be an open try out?

The bads… How would you fix these going forward?
1) Letting 8th/9th graders in. Again in my opinion, this is a big mistake for many reasons, whether they can compete or not. Too young to be around 18 year olds, Getting over their heads at too young of an age, possible burn out, not fully developed, and on it goes.
2) Several kids that get over looked. There are several kids that are not on the leagues list as Elite, and can compete just the same, and may even fit better than some younger kids.
3) Tryouts. A one day, or one time try out, rarely means anything, and most of this is not judged by that any way. Leaving out kids that 6 months ago got missed for what ever reason, and not allowing them to try out is a bad thing. Shouldn't there be an open try out some where, not just what happened 6 months ago? And in my opinion, those tryouts were tainted also.

Don’t know if any of this will help or not, just an opinion.

Great suggestions and we have to work from the Leagues outlook give top players a chance to develop by playing top competition in the month before the season. NDP players were slected and a field was invited to tryout - then a second League was Launched to try and give more kids top competition.

Next year look at the field size but the end result is fixed this year it was 60 players in the "Elite League" - the top 30 HS players might be easy to pick (we spent a month in Phase tryouts trying to determine just that) - the next 30 is probably tough there are on any given day 200 that might fit. If you are trying to create the top competition is that limited to only Jr & Sr players - look at any set of stats you will see some top 8,9,10 graders - are we trying to develop the best players or only limit field to Jr & Sr - girls hockey has and will continue to go through an evolution of many underclass players who are better than jr & sr. I agree league limited age I only wonder what the exception was made and why less than 50 tried out - the organizers worked very hard to get 60 to the tryout.

Again we have made a huge step forward with these two Leagues. 120 Girls will have a better situation of competition than they did last fall.

One of the challenges is kids do work hard and get better - how do you take snapshots in time to make tryout pools - some kids are working very hard to improve and deserve the opportunity. A one day tryout of 500 kids may not result in a lot of change but I don't know?

All of these comments and more to come can help the process.

Good stuff Joe, but one thing stands clear in all the comments here, no one is happy with the younger kids, and your comments suggest young is OK, as long as they can compete. So I ask, if a 10 year old can skate as well if not better than an 18 year, does that kid belong? Stats are a poor indidcator and a sucker bet for poor coaching. I have no care on any of this, but one thing I have seen in all my years is, "WOW, look at that kid, and he/she is only a 7th grader", then you never see that kid again, in boys and in girls. Isn't there a point where we need to cap these things, and sure why not reward the Junior or senior that has put in 7 or 8 years of effort, and can skate with these kids.

I am completely behind this league and all it's intensions, but it sure seems there are a few common themes here that could easily be taken care of, would the EGO's allow for it that is.

Is this league truly all the top talent as you claim? Seems there are varying differences on that. I guess that's all a matter of opinion and perspective, yet I can tell you that I know kids that can compete at the same or higher level, and never seen as much as a sniff at this.

hockeyrube7 wrote:Good stuff Joe, but one thing stands clear in all the comments here, no one is happy with the younger kids, and your comments suggest young is OK, as long as they can compete. So I ask, if a 10 year old can skate as well if not better than an 18 year, does that kid belong? Stats are a poor indidcator and a sucker bet for poor coaching. I have no care on any of this, but one thing I have seen in all my years is, "WOW, look at that kid, and he/she is only a 7th grader", then you never see that kid again, in boys and in girls. Isn't there a point where we need to cap these things, and sure why not reward the Junior or senior that has put in 7 or 8 years of effort, and can skate with these kids.

I am completely behind this league and all it's intensions, but it sure seems there are a few common themes here that could easily be taken care of, would the EGO's allow for it that is.

Is this league truly all the top talent as you claim? Seems there are varying differences on that. I guess that's all a matter of opinion and perspective, yet I can tell you that I know kids that can compete at the same or higher level, and never seen as much as a sniff at this.

Agreed and I don't have a strong feeling either way either.....I don't know right answer but if HS is 7-12 grade is that the measure I think a 10 year wouldn't yet be in 7th grade but maybe could be?

There are many kids (to many?) who play HS early and peek early never fully meeting early projections (by all/many). It appears the League took a U19 approach originally but altered which appears to be most concerning to all? The one '93 is a top kid but I don't know the rational for the change to include a U16 or if there were any others that should have also been considered.

The Boys process is heated every year but I think all would agree the League has helped many kids in the Upper Midwest (including MN, WI and ND) get better....I hope the same will hold true on the girls side over the next 8 years for both of these new emerging Leagues.