Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

There are more than 250 AAA/HS teams (>5000 talented girls) competing in the US and Canada at the Prep, HS, 16U/19U and 17U/20U levels. The pool of talent continues to grow but many on this board say that only the Top 5-10 NCAA D-I programs compete at a high level. What is the right amount of teams? Is there room for more?
From my vantage point the growth of girls hockey in both the US and Canada in the past 10 years in numbers and talent warrants further review. The growth in Canada alone is a beautiful hockey stick graph _/ Also are the current schools who offer Varsity hockey the "right" schools?
Go

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

There are more than 250 AAA/HS teams (>5000 talented girls) competing in the US and Canada at the Prep, HS, 16U/19U and 17U/20U levels. The pool of talent continues to grow but many on this board say that only the Top 5-10 NCAA D-I programs compete at a high level. What is the right amount of teams? Is there room for more?
From my vantage point the growth of girls hockey in both the US and Canada in the past 10 years in numbers and talent warrants further review. The growth in Canada alone is a beautiful hockey stick graph _/ Also are the current schools who offer Varsity hockey the "right" schools?
Go

Great questions; there's a lot to sort out here. I'll make a point or two to get the ball rolling.

Certainly there are more participants these days, which is great. Love the "hockey stick graph" image, btw.

Similarly, there are more players who can be competitive at the D-1 level, meaning teams have more depth across the board. But being competitive and being able to seriously contend for championships are two different levels of excellence. It's one thing to stock 30 teams of competitive players. It's quite another to stock 30 teams of star players.

Part of this conversation is our tendency to use negative language as we evaluate athletes. This is true across the sports world generally; it's not unique to Women's Hockey. But if a team isn't winning enough to impress, or a player isn't scoring as much as we'd like, the tendency is to denigrate. Family-friendly versions are phrases like not in the mix, not a serious threat, and so on. As we all know, it gets much worse from there.

The truth is, anyone who earns a D-1 scholarship is "competing at a high level." If that "lost in the pack" athlete suddenly showed up at your open hockey session, she might just be the best player on the ice. Perhaps more to the point, if she transferred to a D-3 program she might still be the best player on the ice. But let her go a month without scoring for her D-1 team and the harsh criticism flies...

Now I'm not trying to make an argument that losing is acceptable. But at the same, the 25 or so teams that haven't been Frozen Four regulars don't owe anyone an apology. It's pretty rare these days to see players/teams that simply don't belong on the ice. So I see no need to reduce the number of teams.

But should the number of team be increased? Perhaps the guiding principle should be slow, sustainable growth. If the goal is more parity, too much growth too soon might send things in the opposite direction.

Other takes?

[Sieve1]

Great questions; there's a lot to sort out here. I'll make a point or two to get the ball rolling.

Certainly there are more participants these days, which is great. Love the "hockey stick graph" image, btw.

Similarly, there are more players who can be competitive at the D-1 level, meaning teams have more depth across the board. But being competitive and being able to seriously contend for championships are two different levels of excellence. It's one thing to stock 30 teams of competitive players. It's quite another to stock 30 teams of star players.

Part of this conversation is our tendency to use negative language as we evaluate athletes. This is true across the sports world generally; it's not unique to Women's Hockey. But if a team isn't winning enough to impress, or a player isn't scoring as much as we'd like, the tendency is to denigrate. Family-friendly versions are phrases like not in the mix, not a serious threat, and so on. As we all know, it gets much worse from there.

The truth is, anyone who earns a D-1 scholarship is "competing at a high level." If that "lost in the pack" athlete suddenly showed up at your open hockey session, she might just be the best player on the ice. Perhaps more to the point, if she transferred to a D-3 program she might still be the best player on the ice. But let her go a month without scoring for her D-1 team and the harsh criticism flies...

Now I'm not trying to make an argument that losing is acceptable. But at the same, the 25 or so teams that haven't been Frozen Four regulars don't owe anyone an apology. It's pretty rare these days to see players/teams that simply don't belong on the ice. So I see no need to reduce the number of teams.

But should the number of team be increased? Perhaps the guiding principle should be slow, sustainable growth. If the goal is more parity, too much growth too soon might send things in the opposite direction.

Other takes?

Maybe schools with strong men's teams and pride in athletics could jump into the women's game: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame just to name a few. I know Title IX is always a factor when discussing expansion, but I can't help but think that top schools with elite athletics wouldn't be able to produce winning programs once they are up and running.

[shelfit]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Maybe schools with strong men's teams and pride in athletics could jump into the women's game: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame just to name a few. I know Title IX is always a factor when discussing expansion, but I can't help but think that top schools with elite athletics wouldn't be able to produce winning programs once they are up and running.

Agreed. Too many teams joining in the same year would not be good, IMO. On a related note to Sieve's post, I'd also like to see a school like Syracuse add men's hockey. What other D1 or D3 (or D2) schools have women's hockey but not men's hockey?

[KTDC]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

It looks to me that Illinois is developing more good women's hockey players. It would be nice to see more coming from Ohio and especially Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh has had some Stanley Cup champs and has Sidney Crosby to raise the profile of hockey in western PA, but it doesn't seem to have caught on yet amongst large numbers of girls to play. We've seen some good players from California and with Arizona State adding D1 Men's Hockey, maybe the southwest can develop some more women's hockey players.

I think the biggest obstacle to the growth of the game in an already developed place like Minnesota is the high expense of playing, and to a lesser extent the danger of concussions and the time commitment expected.

It's an expensive sport for schools also, so that is a serious obstacle to more schools adding D1 women's hockey. If more girls from around the country start to play the game that would add to the pool the D1 schools have to choose from. Could help competitive balance in the NCAA and that combined with more kids playing could create an environment where more schools would consider adding women's hockey.

Oh, and isn't the fact that schools can no longer go D1 in just one sport another obstacle to more schools adding a D1 team?

[ne7minder]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

There are more than 250 AAA/HS teams (>5000 talented girls) competing in the US and Canada at the Prep, HS, 16U/19U and 17U/20U levels. The pool of talent continues to grow but many on this board say that only the Top 5-10 NCAA D-I programs compete at a high level. What is the right amount of teams? Is there room for more?
From my vantage point the growth of girls hockey in both the US and Canada in the past 10 years in numbers and talent warrants further review. The growth in Canada alone is a beautiful hockey stick graph _/ Also are the current schools who offer Varsity hockey the "right" schools?
Go

MN has something like 62 HS girls teams, few have a full roster and they are producing 4 or 5 actual blue chip players a season (several more very good ones but the very best some years there may only be a couple). Having been going to girls HS games for 20 years I can tell you that there are a lot of kids that couldn't play D-III but are on the team because there are not enough bodies. With short benches kids don't need to be better to make varsity. The good side it gives more kids who have not dedicated their youth to only hockey a chance to play. So its not just the number of teams but the competition for a place that makes a difference.

But even the hockey factories like SSM, Mission or that ham team from Detroit might produce 2 stars a year so there just are not enough to feed the 30 some teams at D-I. There are a lot of decent kids but still not enough. After that there is a pretty steep drop off IMO.

I saw the progression in boys hockey with state championships. One star could win it 60 years ago, then you needed a line then 2 and now you need 3 solid line to compete for the title. Girls are at the 'line' stage with some teams demonstrating they have two lines so there is a lot of progress, just not fast enough to staff all the D-I teams with comparable talent.

[brookyone]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

MN has something like 62 HS girls teams, few have a full roster and they are producing 4 or 5 actual blue chip players a season (several more very good ones but the very best some years there may only be a couple).

62?

What am I missing? Are you talking Just A or AA?

[Leather helmet]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I believe the count is 64 AA teams and 55 A teams.

Recall 12-14 years ago, Natalie Darwitz was scoring more than 4 goals per game. If Natalie played today, she would still be a dominant player, but would probably score half as many goals - the level of competition has come that far. I think the skills of the second and third line players is much better than their counterparts from years past, even if the number of truly elite players has not increased. I'm not sure, however, that we aren't seeing a bubble in numbers right now at the HS level. My impression (not based on facts, mind you) is that girls numbers are not increasing at the youth levels.

[OldDave]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I believe the count is 64 AA teams and 55 A teams.

Recall 12-14 years ago, Natalie Darwitz was scoring more than 4 goals per game. If Natalie played today, she would still be a dominant player, but would probably score half as many goals - the level of competition has come that far. I think the skills of the second and third line players is much better than their counterparts from years past, even if the number of truly elite players has not increased. I'm not sure, however, that we aren't seeing a bubble in numbers right now at the HS level. My impression (not based on facts, mind you) is that girls numbers are not increasing at the youth levels.

Not sure where the MN High School League gets their numbers: http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/news/Participation.pdf?ne=11, but they say for 13-14:

Girls’ Ice Hockey
245 participating schools
3,784 participants
2 Championships
Nationally:
612 participating schools
9,150 participants
Minnesota leads the nation in number of participants

Since it is the high school league, they probably don't count the SSM's of the world, but the count probably includes each school in joint teams.

[knight7]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Not sure where the MN High School League gets their numbers: http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/news/Participation.pdf?ne=11, but they say for 13-14:

Girls’ Ice Hockey
245 participating schools
3,784 participants
2 Championships
Nationally:
612 participating schools
9,150 participants
Minnesota leads the nation in number of participants

Since it is the high school league, they probably don't count the SSM's of the world, but the count probably includes each school in joint teams.

It is about 120 teams in Minnesota. Many teams are made by cooping with other schools to form one team. Dodge County for example coops with several schools to make one team. That is why you see 245 participating SCHOOLS not teams.

[D2D]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

The various sections were just re-drawn:

http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/SectionAs...p?activity=460

Total teams participating for next season are:
Class A - 56 teams (8 sections, each with 7 teams)
Class AA - 63 teams (8 sections; 7 of which have 8 teams, one with 7 teams)
Total: 119 teams

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I'm loving the responses so far. Before I posted the first post, I reviewed both USA and Canadian Hockey data and a few additional resources to verify the theory that the overall quantity of players have increased significantly. In 2000 the US girls enrollment was 39,693 and in 2014 was 67,230. For Ontario (not all of Canada) 2000 was approximately 23000 - 2014 39000. What is missing and difficult to gather data on is the numbers of girls playing HS in states that do not register players with USA Hockey. But it does give us a general idea of the growth since 2000 which is the year that 25/35 D-I teams officially entered the NCAA.
So my next quest was to investigate if the quality or talent level has increased across North America.

My only thought on how to capture this data is to look at how many registered teams at the 16-20 aged group (HS, 16U/19U AAA, Prep Schools, 17U/20U AA) are playing at a Elite level of hockey. This does not include MN A HS Hockey, USA AA and Canadian A or below hockey.
There are >250teams- probably closer to 350 teams playing at these levels. So to ensure that I am accounting for players who may play on more than one team and to account for a more realistic roster of 15- my math gets me to Somewhere between 4000-5000 girls playing at a high level of hockey.
Then to break it down even further divide this by 4 to establish how many girls are graduating each year for recruiting purposes (1000-1250)
Now how many recruits are needed to fill 35 D-I teams?
35 multiplied by 25 (avg. roster) divided by 4= 200

I have not been able to establish Team information for the year 2000 to compare.

So why am I doing all of this? I've been watching this board closely for the last year and I value the input from this long established group. Additionally I am trying to establish a need. Is there room? I think so. Where should more teams be added? Michigan State, University of Michigan, Miami University are obvious to start.

I would love input on how to make that happen. I am willing to help things move forward. And I would love to get the ball rolling and make some noise!

And btw- Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Ontario are a perfect recruiting ground for these schools.

Thoughts??

[Rightnut]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

I'm loving the responses so far. Before I posted the first post, I reviewed both USA and Canadian Hockey data and a few additional resources to verify the theory that the overall quantity of players have increased significantly. In 2000 the US girls enrollment was 39,693 and in 2014 was 67,230. For Ontario (not all of Canada) 2000 was approximately 23000 - 2014 39000. What is missing and difficult to gather data on is the numbers of girls playing HS in states that do not register players with USA Hockey. But it does give us a general idea of the growth since 2000 which is the year that 25/35 D-I teams officially entered the NCAA.
So my next quest was to investigate if the quality or talent level has increased across North America.

My only thought on how to capture this data is to look at how many registered teams at the 16-20 aged group (HS, 16U/19U AAA, Prep Schools, 17U/20U AA) are playing at a Elite level of hockey. This does not include MN A HS Hockey, USA AA and Canadian A or below hockey.
There are >250teams- probably closer to 350 teams playing at these levels. So to ensure that I am accounting for players who may play on more than one team and to account for a more realistic roster of 15- my math gets me to Somewhere between 4000-5000 girls playing at a high level of hockey.
Then to break it down even further divide this by 4 to establish how many girls are graduating each year for recruiting purposes (1000-1250)
Now how many recruits are needed to fill 35 D-I teams?
35 multiplied by 25 (avg. roster) divided by 4= 200

I have not been able to establish Team information for the year 2000 to compare.

So why am I doing all of this? I've been watching this board closely for the last year and I value the input from this long established group. Additionally I am trying to establish a need. Is there room? I think so. Where should more teams be added? Michigan State, University of Michigan, Miami University are obvious to start.

I would love input on how to make that happen. I am willing to help things move forward. And I would love to get the ball rolling and make some noise!

And btw- Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Ontario are a perfect recruiting ground for these schools.

Thoughts??

Write a $30 million dollar check to one of those schools and it will happen. See ASU.

[HappyGilmourCaddy]

Write a $30 million dollar check to one of those schools and it will happen. See ASU.

Will let you know when the "GoFundMe" site is up and running.

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Unofficial Survey: correlation of talent growth = to D-I teams?

Will let you know when the "GoFundMe" site is up and running.

When I first read this it looked to me like something slightly different...