What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

9 of 22 US Under 18 members from Non-D1 states

Re: 9 of 22 US Under 18 members from Non-D1 states

Ralph Baer said:
Those from traditional hockey states have more options, so some choose not to even try out for the USNTDP.
Click to expand...

There’s a lot of truth to that. However, if the “non-trad 9” are from the 2nd or even 3rd ring of talent across the country, perhaps their presence on the team is an indicator of growth outside the hockey belt. Too early to say but it’s something worth watching.
 
Re: 9 of 22 US Under 18 members from Non-D1 states

I saw a comment on this trend on a youth hockey message board. To paraphrase: "In Minnesota we are more worried about winning titles at each age level and less about player development. The non-traditional hockey areas do not have the depth to form strong teams and have less opportunity to play lots of games. As a result they have been focusing more on player development and this is the result."

Don't know how valid it is, but I do know my local association is too concerned with wins and losses and not concerned enough with player development. If it were not, we would have more A and B1 teams and fewer C teams. (It still produces lots of high end players just because of numbers.)
 
Re: 9 of 22 US Under 18 members from Non-D1 states

goldy_331 said:
I saw a comment on this trend on a youth hockey message board. To paraphrase: "In Minnesota we are more worried about winning titles at each age level and less about player development. The non-traditional hockey areas do not have the depth to form strong teams and have less opportunity to play lots of games. As a result they have been focusing more on player development and this is the result."

Don't know how valid it is, but I do know my local association is too concerned with wins and losses and not concerned enough with player development. If it were not, we would have more A and B1 teams and fewer C teams. (It still produces lots of high end players just because of numbers.)
Click to expand...

I would say this is pretty accurate in Massachusetts, too. I played youth/public hockey from age 5 to 15, and there was definitely a lot more focus on the team than individual development. Practices were almost entirely team drills outside of the usual conditioning drills. I think a big part of that, though, at least in Mass, is that we didn't have the resources/coaches to devote the necessary time to helping each player develop. There's plenty of summer camps that focus on player development, though. Of course they cost money, but youth hockey isn't exactly cheap in the first place.
 
Goldy, that was more true several years back across the state but dating back at least a decade I saw first hand several communities that returned to placing an emphasis on player development by reducing the number of games played and adding practices. Given the lenthening of the period in h.s. and adding the elite league in the spring (among other opportunities for playing time), there’s not as much of a need to try and cram as many games as possible at the youth levels. Results can be seen by the quality of talent that has again begun emerging from the state as witnessed at the Div I and NHL level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top