2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

[96IllinoisDad]

Here are the allocations for the 16 and 17 age group for those interested in tracking players.

Girls 17 and Under; 1996 Birth Year; 68 Players (17 per team: 6D; 9F; 2G)
Atlantic: 1D; 2F

Central: 3D; 4F
(Tryouts over - notified and posted after 4/15)

Massachusetts 3D; 4F

Michigan: 1D; 3F

Mid-Am: 1D; 1F

Minnesota: 4D; 7F

New England: 3D; 2F

New York: 2D; 3F

Northern Plains: 1D; 1F

Pacific: 1D; 2F

Rocky Mountain: 1D; 1F

Southeastern: 1D; 1F

At-Large: 2D; 5F; 8G



Girls 16 and Under; 1997 Birth Year; 102 Players (17 per team: 6D; 9F; 2G)
Atlantic: 2D; 2F

Central: 5D; 6F
(Tryouts over - notified and posted after 4/15)

Massachusetts 3D; 8F

Michigan: 2D; 3F

Mid-Am: 1D; 3F

Minnesota: 6D; 8F

New England: 4D; 4F

New York: 2D; 4F

Northern Plains: 1D; 1F

Pacific: 2D; 2F

Rocky Mountain: 4D; 3F

Southeastern: 2D; 1F

At-Large: 2D; 9F; 12G



Here are the younger years (in the past I don't recall people tracking these announcments but for allocation purposes):

Girls 15 and Under; 1998 Birth Year; 102 Players (17 per team: 6D; 9F; 2G)
Atlantic: 1D; 2F; 1G

Central: 5D; 4F; 1G
(Tryouts over - notified and posted after 4/15)

Massachusetts 7D; 8F; 1G

Michigan: 1D; 2F; 1G

Mid-Am: 1D; 1F; 1G

Minnesota: 4D; 8F; 1G

New England: 4D; 6F; 1G

New York: 3D; 4F; 1G

Northern Plains: 1D; 2F; 1G

Pacific: 1D; 2F; 1G

Rocky Mountain: 1D; 2F; 1G

Southeastern: 1D; 1F; 1G

At-Large: 6D; 12F; 0G



Girls 14 and Under; 1999 Birth Year; 102 Players (17 per team: 6D; 9F; 2G)
Atlantic: 1D; 2F; 1G

Central: 3D; 5F; 1G
(Tryouts over - notified and posted after 4/15)

Massachusetts 6D; 7F; 1G

Michigan: 1D; 3F; 1G

Mid-Am: 1D; 2F; 1G

Minnesota: 0D; 0F; 0G

New England: 4D; 6F; 1G

New York: 3D; 4F; 1G

Northern Plains: 1D; 1F; 1G

Pacific: 1D; 1F; 1G

Rocky Mountain: 1D; 2F; 1G

Southeastern: 1D; 2F; 1G

At-Large: 8D; 12F; 0G

USAH At Large: 5F; 7D; 1G

 

[ChixwithStix]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Thanks very helpful. Would you happen to have the 98 and 99 allocation too?

 

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Thanks very helpful. Would you happen to have the 98 and 99 allocation too?

I have them and will edit my post above just to see the allocations, but I don't think people posted the names of the younger kids in the past.

 

[Rightnut]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

If anyone knows - what is the difference between an at large bid and a USAH at large bid? And how are at large bids determined? I see that at the end of the 99 allocation list. Just curious.

 

[Call It]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

How are the allocations determined?

 

[Hux]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

How are the allocations determined?

Based on the ratings of player's from the previous year. If the players selected rank in the top the allotments remain, or can grow. If they do not rate well allotments are dropped.

If anyone knows - what is the difference between an at large bid and a USAH at large bid? And how are at large bids determined? I see that at the end of the 99 allocation list. Just curious.

Ostensibly "At Large" bids are for instances when a player is injured and could not make tryouts or festival. I do not know this for certain, but I would hazard a guess that the USA Hockey At Large bid would be used in a case where players have been scouted, at say Nationals, and added to the camp roster.

 

[Call It]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Based on the ratings of player's from the previous year. If the players selected rank in the top the allotments remain, or can grow. If they do not rate well allotments are dropped.

Does anyone have the allocations from last year? Curious to see who is gaining.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Based on the ratings of player's from the previous year. If the players selected rank in the top the allotments remain, or can grow. If they do not rate well allotments are dropped.



Ostensibly "At Large" bids are for instances when a player is injured and could not make tryouts or festival. I do not know this for certain, but I would hazard a guess that the USA Hockey At Large bid would be used in a case where players have been scouted, at say Nationals, and added to the camp roster.

Question and 2 comments:

- When they do the evaluations for allocation, do they look at the same birth year or do they use the previous year's birth year - i.e. for U17 level, do they use last year's U16s (who are now the U17s) or do they use last year's U17s? Hope it is the former - wouldn't want to change one year's allocation based on thre previous year's performance.
- At the U17 level they pare down from 6 to 4 teams, so part of the allocation change is a result of the reduced numbers.
- At Large bids are also used when a district has more outstanding players than their allocation allows - say they had 3 national level forwards and only 2 allocations - they could go as an At Large

 

[Hux]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Question and 2 comments:

- When they do the evaluations for allocation, do they look at the same birth year or do they use the previous year's birth year - i.e. for U17 level, do they use last year's U16s (who are now the U17s) or do they use last year's U17s? Hope it is the former - wouldn't want to change one year's allocation based on thre previous year's performance.
- At the U17 level they pare down from 6 to 4 teams, so part of the allocation change is a result of the reduced numbers.
- At Large bids are also used when a district has more outstanding players than their allocation allows - say they had 3 national level forwards and only 2 allocations - they could go as an At Large

I was told that the players are rated in their age group, and if the ratings drop for that age group from the previous year's scores, allocations are dropped. They go by the specific age group, not by their birth years. (i.e. U17 rates 3 D at A in 2009, only 2 rate at A, one at B for 2010 and so the allocation changes)

 

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

I was told that the players are rated in their age group, and if the ratings drop for that age group from the previous year's scores, allocations are dropped. They go by the specific age group, not by their birth years. (i.e. U17 rates 3 D at A in 2009, only 2 rate at A, one at B for 2010 and so the allocation changes)

This would seem to encourage a district to send their best kids (or lose spots). I wonder if the districts know what the players that they previously sent were rated.

On another point, it looks like the USAH At-Large allocations for Age 14 are just the Minnesota allocations (which are zero) - Does USAH pick Minnesota kids with these for this year for some reason? Someone from Minnesota may know?

 

[knight7]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Minnesota doesn't do tryouts or send players at the 14 level. 15-17 only.

 

[Call It]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Are the evaluations the same for every district? Who has the final say, evaluators or the District guys?

If a player receives an "A" ranking her U16 year, does that come into play for considering her for National Camp the following year?

Does this Camp really matter or is it just another showcase? I mean, in theory it is supposed to be the best players at the 96, 97, 98, & 99 birth years and yet some players who attend Camp end up going D3 and many players from Minny (or other areas) that don't make it to National Camp end up going D1.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Are the evaluations the same for every district? Who has the final say, evaluators or the District guys?

If a player receives an "A" ranking her U16 year, does that come into play for considering her for National Camp the following year?

Does this Camp really matter or is it just another showcase? I mean, in theory it is supposed to be the best players at the 96, 97, 98, & 99 birth years and yet some players who attend Camp end up going D3 and many players from Minny (or other areas) that don't make it to National Camp end up going D1.

By point:
- The evaluations referred to are the ones done at the previous year's national camp for the players that attended (not the evaluations of the players at each district tryouts). They are done by the National Camp coaches and staff at the end of the camp. The players do not get their actual rating, but usually from the end of camp verbal coaches feedback have a pretty good idea of where they stand.
- The players ranking the previous year in theory isn't considered in the evaluation for the next year, but the reality is that it is a factor. I know of one girl who was told at the end of the U14 camp by the coaches that even though her skill level was good she appeared as though she didn't want to be there (had been homesick). She never made another National Camp. Tough news to deliver but this is a top end process and the kid is still playing Tier 1 hockey and may be a D1 recruit.
- This camp REALLY matters!!! A kids performance here can get you on the radar for the national teams, particularly at the U16 and U17 levels. More importantly, every D1 and most D3 colleges are in attendance and many are coaching teams - chance to be seen, talk to, meet the coaches, be observed, and form a bond with a coach. I know of numerous players who ended up playing at colleges where their NDC coach coaches. Most U17 attendees end up being D1 recruits and a large percentage of US D1 players attend these camps at some point.
- That being said, it is not the end all and the be all. Some kids are missed in the process and end up playing D1 (some because of their skill, others because of their connections). Remember that some D1 recruits are really kids who coaches bring in as 3rd and 4th liners with no scholarship to fill out their teams with little risk to the program or expense. These are sometimes kids who want to play D1 more than anytihng and are willing to be that low impact player in exchange for being on a D1 team - they likely weren't good enough to make the national camp but are still good players.
- Some camp attendees end up playing D3 - may be an academic preference, forms a bond with a D3 coach at national camp, may be a two sport athlete, may be a legacy at an academically elite D3 school and couldn't do as well academically at a D1 school, etc. Some kids at these camps are good players but are a little small or just not quite good enough to be 1st or 2nd line D1 players or scholarship players and decide to play D3 instead where they can have a huge impact.
- The best D3 players are all good enough to play D1 hockey but most wouldn't be high impact players - they are pretty much interchangeable with the lower end D1 players. It just comes down to the opportunities you have (NDC generates these) and whether you want to be a small fish in a big pond or vice versa...

 

[Call It]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

By point:
- The evaluations referred to are the ones done at the previous year's national camp for the players that attended (not the evaluations of the players at each district tryouts). They are done by the National Camp coaches and staff at the end of the camp. The players do not get their actual rating, but usually from the end of camp verbal coaches feedback have a pretty good idea of where they stand.
- The players ranking the previous year in theory isn't considered in the evaluation for the next year, but the reality is that it is a factor. I know of one girl who was told at the end of the U14 camp by the coaches that even though her skill level was good she appeared as though she didn't want to be there (had been homesick). She never made another National Camp. Tough news to deliver but this is a top end process and the kid is still playing Tier 1 hockey and may be a D1 recruit.
- This camp REALLY matters!!! A kids performance here can get you on the radar for the national teams, particularly at the U16 and U17 levels. More importantly, every D1 and most D3 colleges are in attendance and many are coaching teams - chance to be seen, talk to, meet the coaches, be observed, and form a bond with a coach. I know of numerous players who ended up playing at colleges where their NDC coach coaches. Most U17 attendees end up being D1 recruits and a large percentage of US D1 players attend these camps at some point.
- That being said, it is not the end all and the be all. Some kids are missed in the process and end up playing D1 (some because of their skill, others because of their connections). Remember that some D1 recruits are really kids who coaches bring in as 3rd and 4th liners with no scholarship to fill out their teams with little risk to the program or expense. These are sometimes kids who want to play D1 more than anytihng and are willing to be that low impact player in exchange for being on a D1 team - they likely weren't good enough to make the national camp but are still good players.
- Some camp attendees end up playing D3 - may be an academic preference, forms a bond with a D3 coach at national camp, may be a two sport athlete, may be a legacy at an academically elite D3 school and couldn't do as well academically at a D1 school, etc. Some kids at these camps are good players but are a little small or just not quite good enough to be 1st or 2nd line D1 players or scholarship players and decide to play D3 instead where they can have a huge impact.
- The best D3 players are all good enough to play D1 hockey but most wouldn't be high impact players - they are pretty much interchangeable with the lower end D1 players. It just comes down to the opportunities you have (NDC generates these) and whether you want to be a small fish in a big pond or vice versa...

Good stuff, Thanks.

 

[FireInTheHeart]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

HockeyEast33 is right on track in his comments about the national camps. Our daughter thoroughly enjoyed her national camp experiences, and found it an excellent way to measure herself against what are arguably the best players in the country in her age group. This gave her a good sense of her D1 prospects (strong), introduced her to many girls she would play with/against in college, and gave her a chance to get to meet a large number of college coaches. Very valuable experience.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

HockeyEast33 is right on track in his comments about the national camps. Our daughter thoroughly enjoyed her national camp experiences, and found it an excellent way to measure herself against what are arguably the best players in the country in her age group. This gave her a good sense of her D1 prospects (strong), introduced her to many girls she would play with/against in college, and gave her a chance to get to meet a large number of college coaches. Very valuable experience.

This hits a point I missed - that one of the other valuable experiences at national camp is meeting the other players (which opens opportunities as well). It is pretty amazing when you go to Nationals or the NAHA Labor Day tourney or the Beantown Classic and your daughter was at the NDC and knows 2 or more kids on pretty much every US team in the tournament from around the country because of the NDC. They know who to watch for in the games they play and even end up advising/coaching their teammates. This ends up with them becoming team leaders because of their knowledge of the other players in many cases - an intangible benefit of the NDC. And college coaches pick up on that kind of understanding and knowledge.

 

[pakidnyc]

This would seem to encourage a district to send their best kids (or lose spots). I wonder if the districts know what the players that they previously sent were rated.

On another point, it looks like the USAH At-Large allocations for Age 14 are just the Minnesota allocations (which are zero) - Does USAH pick Minnesota kids with these for this year for some reason? Someone from Minnesota may know?

The allocations do change by brith year, by district year to year. I have observed one district carefully for 10 years and have seen it.

Also, there is an "unofficial" practice where in some of the smaller districts TOP girls nationally aren't awarded a slot from their district. The district basically knows that they will be given a USAH "at-large" slot. So, when that happens, they have a back door way to get more from the district. But this backfires if the players sent dont perform. Not to mention its sort of Russian roulette with a young girl's hockey career -- and they have to wait until late May to find out if they made it. I have seen this happen multiple times and the "obvious" player that wasn't picked ends up getting an at-large bid.

 

[pakidnyc]

This would seem to encourage a district to send their best kids (or lose spots). I wonder if the districts know what the players that they previously sent were rated.

On another point, it looks like the USAH At-Large allocations for Age 14 are just the Minnesota allocations (which are zero) - Does USAH pick Minnesota kids with these for this year for some reason? Someone from Minnesota may know?

Just "Minnesota Hockey". They know what's best for their players, not parents or USAH. Ie. they don't let teams declare for Nationals, don't send 14 yo to Select Camp even though its in Minn now.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

The allocations do change by brith year, by district year to year. I have observed one district carefully for 10 years and have seen it.

Also, there is an "unofficial" practice where in some of the smaller districts TOP girls nationally aren't awarded a slot from their district. The district basically knows that they will be given a USAH "at-large" slot. So, when that happens, they have a back door way to get more from the district. But this backfires if the players sent dont perform. Not to mention its sort of Russian roulette with a young girl's hockey career -- and they have to wait until late May to find out if they made it. I have seen this happen multiple times and the "obvious" player that wasn't picked ends up getting an at-large bid.

Yeah, I've sadly seen this practice at times as well. I've also seen 1 case where a district tried this and the "obvious" kid didn't get an at-large bid - VERY ugly as one of the better kids in the country in her age group was sitting at home during the NDC and everyone knew it. And it did have some impact on her college choices (still ended up fine in the end - though my definition of fine might not be consistent with her or her parents).

 

[buddie2999]

Re: 2013 USA Hockey Girls Player Development Camp 16/17

Mid Am district:
1996 Defense: returned, Forward: Morgan McKim
1997 Defense :Carolyn Menges, Forwards : Erin Langenmeier, Kasidy Anderson, Olivia Stokes
1998 Defense: Bailee Brekke, Forward: Maddie Mills, Goalie: Madelynne Smith
1999 Defense: Andrea Lindsey, Forward: Emily Sloan, Forward: Morgan Schauer, Goalie: Lyndsey Wallace