HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Year ago I enjoyed reading Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers," which starts with a fascinating description of a phenomenon in the NHL in which there is a strong statistical leaning in Canadian players towards those with birthdays closer to the start of the year. The insight being that because all Canadian hockey is organized by birth year, January kids have a huge advantage over December kids. This advantage is the opposite of meaningful, obviously (those kids aren't actually better athletes), but it becomes self-fulfilling - older kids end up better because they grew up more confident, with the puck on their stick more, and benefiting from more attention from coaches.

I more recently enjoyed Stat Shot - a fascinating tour through modern hockey analytics. That book describes (in small part) how critical it is to adjust statistical performance on the basis of age for draft eligible players, or professional prospects, generally. Older kids within a cohort (whether birth year or high school class) are competing against kids younger than them, and younger kids are competing against kids that are older. To fairly evaluate players, both groups have to have their performance adjusted.

I would have thought that Minnesota girls hockey would be somewhat insulated from these phenomenon - January kids get those benefits in AAA hockey and USA hockey experiences, but the later birth months have an advantage through youth hockey and high school (since birth cutoffs are between July and September in those). However, because of the greater role USA hockey and birth year tournaments play in talent evaluation of college prospects, it seems both of these factors are likely significant in girls hockey recruiting, and I wonder if these talent evaluation mistakes have become systemic.

As an example, I've been hearing about not-yet disclosed 2004 birthyear commitments to programs (including the Gophers). All but one of these are rising 9th graders - older 2004s, (the other a very old rising 8th grader). I also noted that of the 6 kids that have committed in the rising 10th grade class to the Gophers, all are older 2003s (young for their grade, old for their birthyears), except the one from Chicago. But even if you dismiss the 2004 commitments (call them rumors for now) - any thoughts on this? Is this a phenomenon that's widespread in girls hockey recruiting (a weighting towards early-in-the-year birth months)? Is it just the Gophers doing this? Or are these simply anecdotes, and there isn't a pattern?

If it is a pattern, I think coaches are making a transparent (exploitable) recruiting mistake. Building a team this way will prove a losing strategy.

I mean no criticism of any of these players - I've seen all the 2003 and 2004 Minnesota kids play, and they are all terrific players regardless of any adjustments. But I thought this was worth getting a discussion started (especially given how dull things have been around here).

All of the above, of course, is ignoring the mistake of continuing to take 14 year old commitments at all. I'm a fan of Gopher hockey, but I don't know why the Gophers have chosen to lead in the wrong direction on this. I know it's exciting for the dad's involved, I know some of the 14 year olds have dreamed about it, and I know the Gophers have more competition for recruits than they used to, but I don't understand why the Gophers feel the need to take the youngest recruits in the country. They should be approaching this from a position of strength, but are acting like they are in a position of weakness. They should also be helping kids (and dads) understand that a 14 year old isn't ready to choose a college.

I like the U - I think it's a good school, but I also wonder if there won't be some some father-daughter conversations in 10 or 15 years that start out "you mean I could have gone to Harvard/Princeton/Yale?"

Thoughts?

Two thoughts. USA has surpassed Canada with regard to development for the last several years now up to and including the U-18 level. This has been done with great help from Minnesota girls. I would say most Minnesota girls who compete at a high level have played against girls a year older or more throughout their youth hockey. If you have a late Birthday, say June, July August it doesn't seem to affect girls as much as maybe the Boys. My opinion, we shouldn't try to be like Canada if we don't have to. I'm not saying that's what your suggesting but just hammering in the point that whatever we are doing it's working so far on that front. As far as the recruiting is concerned I don't think you can say that people in 10 or 15 years will say dang it Dad or Mom you should have sent me to Harvard or Yale instead of U of M. For one It costs a lot of money to go to an Ivy and No they do not give out scholarships. So sometimes it's easy to say Free Minnesota education instead of paying 30k per year for an Ivy and that would be a favorable tuition with grants. IF your a good parent the discussion you should be having with your kid should be what interests them education wise. If you are hellbent on being an attorney or a business mogul then Harvard or another Ivy will have no equal. However If your kid might want to be an engineer or something then the U might be a better place for that. Bottom line is the vast majority of good MN girls hockey players will have no regret over the school they choose weather it be the U of M or any Minnesota college. Are there girls who have regret? Sure it happens and they change schools, rarely but it happens but it's almost never involves an Ivy and the U of M. And yes 14 is too young, that's why the U and other MN schools have been pushing for the new rules for quite a while.

All good points - I appreciate you responding.

I didn't mean to criticize USA hockey - I like what they have to offer, and they make an effort to be thoughtful about these issues. And I think the combination of community/high school, along with USA hockey options, make for a whole in Minnesota that's greater than the sum of the parts, and greater than anywhere else, especially on the girls side.

I also take your points about an Ivy league education not being for everyone (though two points: it's more like $70k/year, not 30, but also the top Ivies have financial assistance that make it affordable for almost any family). But it is a very powerful catalyst for professional success, and guiding your 14 year old away from it before they have some basis to appreciate that seems... misguided.

Finally, I am glad to hear the U is a leading advocate for recruiting rule changes - their behavior seems to be at odds with it. And they are in a unique position to change things - many, many kids want to play for the Gophs, and if they delayed commitments, they'd still have leading recruiting classes.

Yes on all your points. In full disclosure I mentioned the 30k figure for Ivy's because that seems to be where most end up after grants. (middle class families) however if you have the money and you are a good but not great D1 player you will most likely be paying the 70 . One other Note to keep in mind. Four years at the U and grad school at an IVY also equals the professional success you talk about, With the added bonus of local ties. I hope you are mulling this discussion because your daughter has had any of the opportunities we are talking about. That would be very cool for your family and congrats would certainly be in order no matter which way is chosen