HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:56 pm**

Before tryouts, we were going to be fair and changed from last year. But they weren't and the same girls went again. Most of these girls have gone before, and also have scholarships. Where is the fairness in that. I am really sick of paying $200 dollars every year. It doesn't make sense. Can someone explain this to me. Thanks

Posted: **Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:53 pm**

playfair wrote:Before tryouts, we were going to be fair and changed from last year. But they weren't and the same girls went again. Most of these girls have gone before, and also have scholarships. Where is the fairness in that. I am really sick of paying $200 dollars every year. It doesn't make sense. Can someone explain this to me. Thanks

From what I know, this is the process:

All coaches (U14 & HS) must nominate players by Jan 1.
All coaches that nominate are sent a ballot with nominated players on it.
Top vote getters get invited to Phase 1.
College Coaches/Evaluators select players based on Phase 1 tryout to move on to Phase 2.
College Coaches/Evaluators select players based on Phase 2 tryout to move on to NY. *Olympic coach can select "At-Large" players or players can be replaced due to injury.

Next year this may change a bit due to the move to individual birth-year groups with some birth years, but I would imagine that it will have many of the same components.

As to the perception of things being unfair, I will say that I don't always agree with all the decisions made either, but then I have to remember that I too am biased towards certain players, and also have the luxury of looking at a player's career vs a single tryout performance. My understanding is that the tryouts are based on the tryouts, not a player's resume before the tryout. That, to me, seems pretty fair in many respects - unless you are a top player that is ill/has a bad tryout...

I will say that all the players going to NY deserve to be. And, as is often said, we leave many at home that likely could compete there as well. This is not a sign of the NDP being "unfair" in any way in my mind, instead it just illustrates the strength of MN Girls' Hockey.

It doesn't surprise me that many of the players going this year are repeat players. I don't know exact numbers, but as the age groups get older, the number that we are allowed to send by USA H decreases I believe. This being said, it gets harder and harder to be a "first time" participant I believe just from the mathematics of the situation. Also, it seems the true superstar standouts are "discovered" by the time they start the NDP program - so there aren't too many surprises that elevate their game to this very top echelon between 10th & 12th grade. Some may crack Phase 2 that hadn't done so before, but to go from being unknown to NDP NY? I'd say that is not common to say the least, especially with decreasing slots as kids age.

Beyond that, we DO see a number of kids that went last year that ARE NOT returning this year. Primarily this is due to an amazing 88 birth year class of kids, and many outstanding 89's suffered the same way the 87's did a year ago when they were paired with what I believe to be the best birth year crop of G Hockey players yet out of MN (the 88's). Also - the 89's seem to be strong on top D, but not so much that way Top F wise. Almost the opposite of what is common with many top F's and not as many D.

As for the 90's & 91's - I honestly don't know these birth years that well, so I can't say too much.

Should be interesting to see how the process evolves and hopefully the birth year changes will result in a few more players making it to the next level (NY).

My suggestion to any player that gets close and is upset about not making it to NY - use that as motivation to train harder than ever and come back stronger next year. Prove them wrong.

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:50 pm**

First off I agree witha lot of what you are saying. Just a few that I don't agree with. The nominations are not an issue. You talk about change next year, what happened to the changes that were supposed to take place this year? I would love for Joan to respond to that question. I am not biased towards just one player, this is about more than one. I totally disagree about the resume part, they know all about the returners, and I was told from a very reliable source that certains players were grandfathered in because they were there last year. Your comment about the superstar/standouts is sad. Yes there are players that are superstars at a young age and continue to be and there are also those that other players catch up to, and there are those that are late bloomers. So that comment is ridiculous. So you are saying that because you are a stud at 8 you will be forever? Sounds like the Blades mentality. Kids peak at different ages. It seems to me that players that don't skate year round get punished. Why is it that hockey thinks that you have to do that to make it, you don't. Athletes are born not made. The politics are what ruin kids. Now on your comment about the 89 having stronger D, well where are they on the team. I do believe that the only 89 is a forward. I could be wrong. Why is it that to make it you have to play individual hockey? Isn't this a team sport? It seems you get punished for playing team hockey and playing your position. Last but not least I strongly feel that if they are going to do a roster it should have numbers only and no names. Yes obviously some evaluators will know the player anyway, but they should all have to wear the same colored equipment, none of this multi colored socks and yellow gloves etc. I agree the 88 are strong, but there are some strong 89 who never stood a chance and that is wrong. Out of couriosity, how many girls that make it go on to play in the Olympics?

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:26 pm**

playfair wrote:Yes there are players that are superstars at a young age and continue to be and there are also those that other players catch up to, and there are those that are late bloomers. So that comment is ridiculous. So you are saying that because you are a stud at 8 you will be forever? Sounds like the Blades mentality. Kids peak at different ages. It seems to me that players that don't skate year round get punished. Why is it that hockey thinks that you have to do that to make it, you don't. Athletes are born not made.

Sorry to tell you but, a hockey player that works on their game year around should be mentally and physically superior than a part time player that puts their skates on a week before a major tryout. So if you don't
skate year around "why would you think that you are as qualified as the
athlete that is prepared". To get to the "next level" you have to work that hard. Thats how Athletes are made not born, Today!

I know all about NDP tryouts, my daughter went three years in a row
and made it to phase 2 every year and ever year we came back and
tried harder to make it LP, never happened. We know about the politics
but I always encouraged my kid to keep working hard and she is better for it today and playing the game that she loves in college and preparing for life after hockey.

So either get serious about it and encourage your daughter to work harder and quit whinning about the politics or quit trying out and save your money for the other things your kid does when she's not playing hockey.

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:19 pm**

playfair wrote:You talk about change next year, what happened to the changes that were supposed to take place this year?

What changes were supposed to be made?

playfair wrote:I am not biased towards just one player, this is about more than one.

It is possible to be biased about more than one player. I've coached quite a few that I'm biased about, and some of them aren't going to NY this year. I believe I mentioned this once before, but they are still great players, that I feel are more victims of circumstance (amazing 88's), declining spots available, etc.

playfair wrote:I totally disagree about the resume part, they know all about the returners, and I was told from a very reliable source that certains players were grandfathered in because they were there last year.

I see where there is some confusion here. I believe the following is true: ALL PLAYERS THAT MAKE IT TO NY THE YEAR PRIOR GET AN AUTOMATIC INVITE TO PHASE 1 THE NEXT YEAR. There is not an automatic to Phase 2 or NY - unless Olympic Coach makes an "At-Large" pick.

The idea behind this is to allow coaches that are voting to NOT vote for those players again, and instead try to vote for the best remaining players in hopes of giving others a shot at Phase 1 that may not have received votes due to others getting them before.

As to the resumes, I've yet to see those handed out with jersey #'s (or names) for the tryout. But, you can't fault coaches that know who the best kids are in the state. What I've even found sometimes is that kids with big reputations DO NOT always live up to their "resume" at an elite tryout (one thing to dominate against the average player, another thing entirely at this level against the best) and so that can actually hurt them more than help them if the coaches do actually know who they are... I would say that we've seen the evaluators cut kids with some very good "resumes" as of late even out of Phase 1 due to poor tryout though. So, I highly doubt that resume alone will get a kid through - and like I said it may even hurt them if they are identified and don't live up to their "hype." Bottom line - you have to have a tryout that justifies selection - not just a name, some hype, or a good resume.

playfair wrote:Your comment about the superstar/standouts is sad. Yes there are players that are superstars at a young age and continue to be and there are also those that other players catch up to, and there are those that are late bloomers. So that comment is ridiculous.. So you are saying that because you are a stud at 8 you will be forever? Sounds like the Blades mentality. Kids peak at different ages.

Ask the D1 coaches as to what grades they are first watching kids at. Also, remember - NDP is essentially at the end (Spring) of a kid's Freshman year. How many kids have you seen burst on the scene that were never noticed before their sophomore season that went D1? I would say it's unusual.

I did not say that mite phenoms will always make NHL players to take it to the extreme. That's entirely different. My point is that the very top talent (read as NY NDP caliber) usually is identified by the end of their Freshman year, and from there due to the mathematics of the declining slots, the odds are stacked against you to explode on the scene and become a very top player if you were unknown.

Who are the Blades? - the boys AAA team?

playfair wrote:It seems to me that players that don't skate year round get punished. Why is it that hockey thinks that you have to do that to make it, you don't. Athletes are born not made. The politics are what ruin kids.

Players that don't skate year round are sometimes bypassed by lesser talented players that work year round. I'd guess that most of the NDP P2 kids are year-round players - or at least cross-train with other sports/etc., and I think that's why we rarely see someone bypass them after initial selection (along with declining slots available in subsequent years)

playfair wrote:Now on your comment about the 89 having stronger D, well where are they on the team. I do believe that the only 89 is a forward. I could be wrong.

You may be right on this one as to who the only 89 is, etc. I'd have to examine the roster closely to be able to tell. I believe this is all a product of the amazing 88's as I explained above. And, let me clarify: The 88 Class is known to simply be amazingly superior to any other that has come through before or may likely come through in the near future. The 89 class is known for an amazing amount of top D, but I believe it is lacking proportionally in the F position. But, I am also a little overwhelmed by all the great 88's & F's in that 88 group (not to take anything away from the 88 D as there are some AMAZING D too!). It is for this reason - 88's being so great - that not many 89 D made it - if any.

playfair wrote:Why is it that to make it you have to play individual hockey? Isn't this a team sport? It seems you get punished for playing team hockey and playing your position.

You don't. You just have to be the best at the tryout.

Unfortunately, there is a deeper issue here - and that's the lack of recognition that we have for true "stay-@-home" D that play their position very well, never get beat, have great shot, read the rink well, move the puck well, but simply are not a puck-"rushing"-D (that are sometimes a F in disguise I think). The truth is that some of those rushing-D are simply some of the most talented kids around and when they get-up-and-go we are quick to criticize. Orr was a great D that revolutionized the position I hear. Maybe someone can tell me if he was a big puck-rusher, but I would imagine that G HS hockey is a little different than the NHL of any era too so maybe we really can't compare these two!

I guess I'd like to see LPH award a Ms. D, Ms. F, and Ms. G - and then pick a Ms. Hockey from the 3 finalists. Why? Because I think that a D deserved more credit, and also I believe that "Ms. Hockey" could be a G - (i.e. Ellison of CEC a couple years ago deserved consideration).

playfair wrote:Last but not least I strongly feel that if they are going to do a roster it should have numbers only and no names. Yes obviously some evaluators will know the player anyway, but they should all have to wear the same colored equipment, none of this multi colored socks and yellow gloves etc. I agree the 88 are strong, but there are some strong 89 who never stood a chance and that is wrong.

I understand your concern about the names. I don't think it influences the choices as much is believed though (if at all). Hard to force kids to buy all new neutral color equipment, but I honestly don't believe that that either influences the choices as much is believed though (if at all). I do believe that there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about these things though. As for the yellow gloves - those are likely my fault if they are the former/current Kennedy kids - as that was the team color that I mandated, and many bought their own. I believe Kennedy (yellow gloves) sent 5 kids to 2005 NDP P2 - but only 1 in 2006. While 3 of those kids made it in 2005 to NY, only 1 is a repeat and I don't believe that she was wearing yellow gloves this year. Note that some of this commentary is skewed by the transfer of some players too so they are now wearing different colors and playing for different HS teams in 2006 & beyond vs. 2005 & earlier.

playfair wrote:Out of couriosity, how many girls that make it go on to play in the Olympics?

Very few, if any, I would imagine. The odds must be stacked against this, but I would think that the 88 Class could produce at least 1 Olympian potentially.

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:47 pm**

Okay mnhockeyfan09 you are so wrong. My daughter plays other sports and has received all conference in multipule sports every year. She does not skate in the summer and ONLY puts her skates on for try outs. She also has received 6 letters from D1 schools for hockey. She is mentally and physically prepared and works very hard. The most important thing she does in the summer is lift weights, and if you ask the pros, thats exactly what they did when they were on strike, they didn't skate. Oh and by the way my daughter is young and being sent letters from the top schools. I am not whinning, I am stating the truth. I come from a family of athletes and mark my words that in the future there will be girls that have burned out and also girls that have ruined knees and etc injuries. So wake up and quit being your typical hockey jerk who is playing the game or played the game. If my daughter makes it, it will be because she has what it takes, not because I played the political game. Oh and if your daughter played college hockey it was because she was born to play, not made to play.

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:58 pm**

All I have to say is hockey is messed up and so different than other sports

. It is sad, had I known I would not have put my kids in it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:12 pm**

The birthyear breakout of the players at lake Placid are:

1988 - 12 forwards (11 + 1 At-Large), 6 Defense(a 7th was injured and unable to attend), and 1 Goalie for a total of 19

1989 - 6 forwards (2 + 2 At-Large), 3 Defense (2 + 1 At-Large who replaced the 88 who was injured), and 2 goalies (both At-Large picks who had been at Lake Placid last year as part of the 15/16s) for a total of 11

Total Players from Minnkota - 31 (29 from Minnesota and 2 for North Dakota)

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:40 pm**

playfair wrote:All I have to say is hockey is messed up and so different than other sports . It is sad, had I known I would not have put my kids in it.

Hockey is political all too much, that I will agree with. Congrats on your daughter getting all the attention, and she's obvioulsy very deserving of this. ALl the workout stuff is important, but there is value in getting some ice time too. Burnout has happened a lot already, and I think that ALL sports are just as guilty of this as hockey is. I think that some of the Soccer & Softball that I've seen are worse in some ways, but better in others, etc. And, I think that the reason that Hockey gets such a "bad name" is due to the great investment (financial & otherwise) that other sports may not have - and with that sometimes comes additional vicarious situations I believe.

But - I have met some great people who are hockey parents too...

Posted: **Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:27 pm**

Fairplay wrote "Why is it that to make it you have to play individual hockey? Isn't this a team sport? It seems you get punished for playing team hockey and playing your position."

I know from watching the 90-91 P2 tryouts that a majority of the selections came from the team that played the BEST team game. No super flashy individual players but a bunch of kids stuck together who played awesome TEAM hockey. I think in this case NPD rewarded TEAM players

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:42 am**

playfair wrote:
She does not skate in the summer and ONLY puts her skates on for try outs.
Maybe she should if going to LP is a goal of her's.

She also has received 6 letters from D1 schools for hockey. She is mentally and physically prepared and works very hard. The most important thing she does in the summer is lift weights, and if you ask the pros, thats exactly what they did when they were on strike, they didn't skate.

Thats very nice, I hope she finds the best school for her academically and athletically.
Lifting weights is only a part of training stickhandling, dryland and skating are the things that most of the girls that are at Lake Placid right now, do year around.

The pros were enjoying their time off!

I am not whinning
You are!

I come from a family of athletes and mark my words that in the future there will be girls that have burned out and also girls that have ruined knees and etc injuries.
Sometimes that happens in sports, all sports. The burnout usually comes from a kid getting pushed and not living their own dreams/goals.
In the future? It has been happening for years.

Bottom line is (back to topic) this: Life's not always fair and neither is NDP tryouts always fair. I chose to help my daughter use the exprience as a life lesson and we didn't whine around the dinner table about it.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:18 pm**

The fact is not all of the best players choose to play in NDP or many of the other programs offered because they are committed to other sports in the off season of hockey. Frankly I think this is a good thing. These young athletes should be encouraged to play other sports and take time off from each one to avoid burnout. Everyone feels if they dont play they will get left behind. This is a vicious cycle most parents get wrapped up in. The fact is some kids could play 24/7 and still never achieve upper level ability because they are not athletes. As a parent/coach I would encourage my child to broaden their horizons and get involved in different sports.

Posted: **Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:50 pm**

Hockeywild7 great post, it is nice to know that there is a reasonable parent out there.
MNhockeyfan09 where do I start with you? There are some of us that don't push our daughters, and certainly don't talk about hockey at all. Playfair doesn't sound like they are whinning, but stating facts, you just don't see it, because obviously you are caught up in the all the misconceptions of the sport. It sounds to me that playfairs daughter is a true athlete. And as far as your comment about the pros, yes they were enjoying their time off, but I know some pros and they said that the best thing was to take their skates off and lift. You have definitely fallen into the hockey crap.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:21 am**

hockeydad3 wrote:Hockeywild7 great post, it is nice to know that there is a reasonable parent out there.
MNhockeyfan09 where do I start with you? There are some of us that don't push our daughters, and certainly don't talk about hockey at all. Playfair doesn't sound like they are whinning, but stating facts, you just don't see it, because obviously you are caught up in the all the misconceptions of the sport. It sounds to me that playfairs daughter is a true athlete. And as far as your comment about the pros, yes they were enjoying their time off, but I know some pros and they said that the best thing was to take their skates off and lift. You have definitely fallen into the hockey crap.

One question. How many Pros took off their skates and didn't skate at all during the lockout? I doubt that any didn't skate at all, unless they were injured. Maybe some didn't train on-ice 7-days a week, but it's all relative. They are typically on the ice all the time - so to say that they spent the majority of their time off-ice still doesn't mean that they did nothing on ice I'm going to guess...

That aside, I know MNhockeyfan09 personally, and I consider him a friend and honestly about as level-headed a sports parent as anyone I have met. It's almost comical for this reason to read the commentary about him being lumped in with a group that I would never even associate him with! His daughter is a very good hockey player. It appears that she gave (and got back) a lot from the game, and she is having a great college hockey career & getting a good education. What more can a parent ask for for their child? Her experiences with NDP are life lessons that I'm sure helped make her the outstanding young woman that she is today. Isn't that what it's all about?

Specifically relative to multi-sport athletes, cross-training, weight room/lifting/plyos, etc. - I'd rather see a multi-sport athlete than one that is dedicated to only one sport - BUT there are some off-season opportunities for each sport that may be things that kids should want to consider if they can do them. NDP for hockey is one. (C)ODP for Soccer is one too I hear (although to be honest I'm not sure if the "True" Soccer season is Summer or Fall in MN as "school soccer" doesn't seem to be what "HS Hockey" is as far as the premier season...)

Just a note - while I believe in the multi-sport athlete (or even giving kids some time off to be kids) - it's also OK to actually skate 1 or 2x a week in addition to playing other sports/lifting/etc. Too much of anything is not always a good thing, and parents need to be certain that their kids are wanting to do those things that they are signing them up for.

Burnout rarely happens for passionate kids that want to play all the time - instead, burnout happens far more when you have passionate parents that aren't considering their players's wishes...

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:53 am**

My issue is not with you ghshockeyfan. I am sure that hockeywild7 is a great guy, that's great and it's awesome that his daughter is playing college hockey. I still don't agree with some of his comments and opinions and that's ok too. The future will hold the real truth.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:22 pm**

hockeydad3 wrote:My issue is not with you ghshockeyfan. I am sure that hockeywild7 is a great guy, that's great and it's awesome that his daughter is playing college hockey. I still don't agree with some of his comments and opinions and that's ok too. The future will hold the real truth.

I believe you meant me, Mnhockeyfan09 and not hockeywild7, although
he is a great guy and a level headed hockey parent.
We are all entitled to our opinions and that's all I was saying.
No misconceptions here!
Thanks, GHS for your support.

Posted: **Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:16 pm**

Thanks for clarifying MNhockeyfan09. And I also agree that we are all entitled to our opinions. Its interesting to see where everyone is coming from. We all have our own perspective and unique situation to form our opinions.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:35 pm**

playfair wrote:Before tryouts, we were going to be fair and changed from last year. But they weren't and the same girls went again....

As I was told growing up, "Life isn't always fair. If you want "fair" it's on Snelling Avenue at the end of August"

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:50 pm**

If you want to see an unfair situation; look at Kelly Wild. She made the 90-91 NDP team. She then suffered an ankle injury playing soccer at the State Cup in May. She saw a physician who after viewing her MRI, told her that she had no chance of recovering before Sept., 2006. The physician ordered her to immobilize the ankle for a minimum of eight weeks. Kelly then notified the NDP people that she could not attend and her place was given up. Now, the unfair part. After a couple of weeks her ankle started feeling better and she went to another physician who said there was no reason that she could not play at the NDP camp in New York. Her ankle would be protected by her skate and the risk of further injury was minimal. Kelly is back playing CODP and in the South Metro League at almost 100%. But she will not go to NY because her spot is now taken.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:23 pm**

xwildfan wrote:If you want to see an unfair situation; look at Kelly Wild. She made the 90-91 NDP team. She then suffered an ankle injury playing soccer at the State Cup in May. She saw a physician who after viewing her MRI, told her that she had no chance of recovering before Sept., 2006. The physician ordered her to immobilize the ankle for a minimum of eight weeks. Kelly then notified the NDP people that she could not attend and her place was given up. Now, the unfair part. After a couple of weeks her ankle started feeling better and she went to another physician who said there was no reason that she could not play at the NDP camp in New York. Her ankle would be protected by her skate and the risk of further injury was minimal. Kelly is back playing CODP and in the South Metro League at almost 100%. But she will not go to NY because her spot is now taken.

I give her credit for letting the NDP people know right away that she was injured. Some wouldn't have done that in hopes of a faster return than would be expected. I assume the NDP people know that she is now OK???

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

When is NDP going to be fair?

When is NDP going to be fair?

Re: When is NDP going to be fair?

Changes needed

Changes needed/more work in preparing

Re: Changes needed

You are wrong

Wow

Re: Wow

Why is it that to make it you have to play individual hockey

NDP tryouts

Typical hockey parent

Re: Typical hockey parent

I agree

Rebuttal

NDP

Re: When is NDP going to be fair?