Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

[bbtt]

So, it is 3 weeks till the hockey season starts and since there isn't anything to really discuss (other than the best player in college hockey), I wanted to start a discussion that I was thinking a lot about over the weekend.

First off, let me assure you that I am in no way knocking any of the girls who made the team. They are all admirable choices and I am not saying that anyone else should have made it over them so that isn't what I want to discuss. However, of the 13 players that played college hockey last year, 9 of them came from two teams, both in the WCHA. The other players (2 from BC, 1 from UNH and 1 from RMU) were from either Hockey East or CHA.

Seeing that such a disproportionally large number of players came from two teams in the WCHA one could argue that familiarity breeds confidence and that if you want to get recognized, then you need to play in the WCHA. This, in turn, is what is driving my statement that these selections could hinder the growth of hockey. Being from a district that has only had one viable team at the National Level, I have seen other contenders get squashed out of existance because their talent pool was so diluted. This has stymied women's hockey in this area.

Do we run this risk at the national level? Should there be attempts to more level-base the teams (not sure how)? Thoughts?

 

[rinkrat890890]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

So, it is 3 weeks till the hockey season starts and since there isn't anything to really discuss (other than the best player in college hockey), I wanted to start a discussion that I was thinking a lot about over the weekend.

First off, let me assure you that I am in no way knocking any of the girls who made the team. They are all admirable choices and I am not saying that anyone else should have made it over them so that isn't what I want to discuss. However, of the 13 players that played college hockey last year, 9 of them came from two teams, both in the WCHA. The other players (2 from BC, 1 from UNH and 1 from RMU) were from either Hockey East or CHA.

Seeing that such a disproportionally large number of players came from two teams in the WCHA one could argue that familiarity breeds confidence and that if you want to get recognized, then you need to play in the WCHA. This, in turn, is what is driving my statement that these selections could hinder the growth of hockey. Being from a district that has only had one viable team at the National Level, I have seen other contenders get squashed out of existance because their talent pool was so diluted. This has stymied women's hockey in this area.

Do we run this risk at the national level? Should there be attempts to more level-base the teams (not sure how)? Thoughts?

What if the next Olympic hockey coach is from Hockey East, or ECAC. Do you think more players will come from there? Also, do you think if Mark Johnson wasn't the Olympic coach this year, the team would look very different? I don't!

 

[bbtt]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

What if the next Olympic hockey coach is from Hockey East, or ECAC. Do you think more players will come from there? Also, do you think if Mark Johnson wasn't the Olympic coach this year, the team would look very different? I don't!

I am in the camp of believers that say while I think Mark Johnson has some say in the roster, he doesn't have complete say. I would guess that it is more of committee decision. That being said, given the fact that he is from the WCHA and the Training Center is in Minnesota, I would say that the selection committee does have ample access to the players that were chosen.

 

[ARM]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

This, in turn, is what is driving my statement that these selections could hinder the growth of hockey. Being from a district that has only had one viable team at the National Level, I have seen other contenders get squashed out of existance because their talent pool was so diluted.

This could be a chicken/egg situation. Is the problem that so many selections were made from a couple of teams, or that so many selectable players played on the same teams? One thing that feeds into the ratio is that other prominent teams feature many foreign-born elite players. For example, Harvard has traditionally been represented, but last season, the Crimson's best players were Canadian.

 

[rinkrat890890]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

This could be a chicken/egg situation. Is the problem that so many selections were made from a couple of teams, or that so many selectable players played on the same teams? One thing that feeds into the ratio is that other prominent teams feature many foreign-born elite players. For example, Harvard has traditionally been represented, but last season, the Crimson's best players were Canadian.

Good point! I'm of the belief that the right team has been picked and that they have a great chance of winning it all on Canadian soil. How can one argue with that?

 

[spike]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I think the heavy weighting of WCHA players on the national team is a reflection of the domination that this league has had in the NCAA's. I don't think your question is about who got picked, but whether having one league be so dominant could end up stifling the growth of women's hockey at the college level?

I believe one of the byproducts of the growth that has occurred over the last ten years is the impact on ECAC, where the lack of athletic scholarships has a much greater impact today than it did a decade ago. This does not explain why HEA and CHA cannot keep up with WCHA. If I were to guess, I would think that Midwestern girls tend to stay in the Midwest to attend school, and the Eastern girls tend to go all over, thus diluting their talent base. If true, this would provide the WCHA with a pretty good annual head start on talent.

 

[ARM]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I believe one of the byproducts of the growth that has occurred over the last ten years is the impact on ECAC, where the lack of athletic scholarships has a much greater impact today than it did a decade ago. This does not explain why HEA and CHA cannot keep up with WCHA.

During the NCAA era, I'd estimate that Wisconsin, Minnesota, and UMD have been three of the best funded programs at the national level. UMD has released numbers in the past that make it look like their program doesn't get much funding, but from what I've seen of their operation, a lot of money is spent to produce the product on the ice. Going forward, you can probably add North Dakota to that list. The WCHA success has not been a case of doing more with less, but doing more with more.

 

[bbtt]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I don't think your question is about who got picked, but whether having one league be so dominant could end up stifling the growth of women's hockey at the college level?

That is exactly my question. Thanks, Spike!

2009-2010
Wisconsin*
Brianna Decker..................F..................(USA 18s/SSM)...........................Dousman, WI
Breann Frykas...................F............(CAN 18s/Little Caesars)...................E. St. Paul, MB
Alev Kelter.......................D................(USA 18s/Chugiak).......................Eagle River, AK
Stefanie McKeough............D..........(CAN 18s/Ottawa Senators).........Carlsbad Springs, ON
Saige Pacholok..................D.........(CAN 18s/Edmonton Chimos)..................Edmonton, AB
Rebecca Ruegsegger..........G..................(USA 18s/SSM)...........................Lakewood, CO
Lauren Unser....................F................(Madison Capitols).......................West Salem, WI

2010-2011
Wisconsin
Brittany Ammerman.................F..................(USA 18s/NAHA)...........................River Vale, NJ
Madison Packer......................F.............(USA 18s/Little Caesars)....................Birmingham, MI
Alex Rigsby...........................G..........(USA 18s/Milwaukee Admirals)...................Delafield, WI

Again, I am not picking on any one school, but you have to admit that they are predominantly a national team. What is the risk of having this many top-end players on one team? Anything?

To some degree, it is a natural selection process. You pair a great coach with a highly visible playing arena and you will attract a certain type of player. I am just wondering if there is anything that can be done about it (or should). Or do we just say, yeah, Wisconsin will probably win a majority of the National Titles and just accept it?

 

[brookyone]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I am just wondering if there is anything that can be done about it (or should). Or do we just say, yeah, Wisconsin will probably win a majority of the National Titles and just accept it?

Well...this is not something I would ever just accept, personally.

I think for any one team to be dominant in an extended, ongoing...or very consistent fashion would indeed hurt the sport eventually.

You've got to have competition as such that at least a handful of teams (the more the better) have a realistic shot at NCAA titles to enhance the sport and hopefully the directly related interest...and potential for growth of that interest (fan base) in my view.

 

[ARM]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I am just wondering if there is anything that can be done about it (or should).

There have been rule changes made by the NCAA in the past in an attempt to increase competition. For example, the number of scholarships for football were reduced years back so that a few teams wouldn't stockpile all of the best players. I doubt such a move would help the women's hockey situation much. It would make the sport less attractive to perspective players because there would be fewer scholarships available to the talent pool. I'd expect such a change to be made for financial reasons rather the reasons of competition.

As high as Wisconsin has set the bar, it isn't like other programs have no chance to beat them. UMD managed it on consecutive championship weekends in March of 2008. The Lam's transfer to UND, while a blow to Minnesota, should ultimately help the depth of the WCHA. Players want to play for top teams, but they also want to play in competitive games.

It'll be interesting to see what impact Johnson's absence has on the Badgers this year, particularly for a young team.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

It'll be interesting to see what impact Johnson's absence has on the Badgers this year, particularly for a young team.

Ditto for Vetter's absence.

 

[gojackets]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

That is exactly my question. Thanks, Spike!



Again, I am not picking on any one school, but you have to admit that they are predominantly a national team. What is the risk of having this many top-end players on one team? Anything?

To some degree, it is a natural selection process. You pair a great coach with a highly visible playing arena and you will attract a certain type of player. I am just wondering if there is anything that can be done about it (or should). Or do we just say, yeah, Wisconsin will probably win a majority of the National Titles and just accept it?

I think the best teams are going to attract the best players. If you were being recruited by Wisconsin and lets say Dartmouth, if you are chosing your school based on hockey...you are going to go to Wisconsin. I'm not saying there is something wrong with Dartmouth's program, but WI has shown that it can and will win at the national level. If thats what you want you will go there...and its a pretty darn good school on top of it.

You see this in every sport. Why do you think USC continuously gets the top football players in the nation. Why does North Carolina continue to get the best men's bball or Tennessee, UCONN the best women's?

 

[scores]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

USA Hockey has selected there players at the u12 level. It is kind of crazy for girls because that is the only route.

Men the pro's are involved so they have many different ways to achive this goal.

They need a way to get more kids involved and that will only come if they get rid of regional selections and bring in the people from the top to make the selections.

They should have a tournament with west <> east canada/usa now you have
four teams more games??? and then select from that bunch of kids for the two teams.

I also allows for more kids to get involved.

Break it up even futher u22 east/west canada/USa now you have eight teams.

I bet the competition would not change much at all.

JUST a thought foe the women;s side of things.

 

[Travelingman]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

I think the heavy weighting of WCHA players on the national team is a reflection of the domination that this league has had in the NCAA's. I don't think your question is about who got picked, but whether having one league be so dominant could end up stifling the growth of women's hockey at the college level?

I believe one of the byproducts of the growth that has occurred over the last ten years is the impact on ECAC, where the lack of athletic scholarships has a much greater impact today than it did a decade ago. This does not explain why HEA and CHA cannot keep up with WCHA. If I were to guess, I would think that Midwestern girls tend to stay in the Midwest to attend school, and the Eastern girls tend to go all over, thus diluting their talent base. If true, this would provide the WCHA with a pretty good annual head start on talent.

Personally, I think the sport is growing in leaps and bounds. There is a significant increase and better players both from US and Canada. Goaltending has improved 10 fold in the last 5 years. I think where players go to college depends on many things. Take a look at Wisconsin they are going to attract players that want to go to win a national championship because that is what they have done 3 out of the last 4 years. So they figure that is where they should go to school. Then you will have some players that want to go to a particular school and become part of building a program. It is nice to win but remember someone has to be part of building the program too. Obviously Wisconsin has done that and done it well. It all depends on the player, how far they want to live away from home and how they feel while they are visiting campus. Look at all the great players that came out of Providence at one time. I think it comes and goes in waves. It is the program that can consistantly recruit the best players, the best goaltending and continue the success of developing players that will constantly stock pile talented players. But, there will always be talented players sprinkled in other programs just maybe not in numbers.

Let me remind the poster that started this thread. Hillary Knight, Meagan Duggan, Kacey Bellamy, Molly Schaus and Erica Lawler all played against eachother and developed at Prep Schools in the east, and are from the east. 3 players chose Wisconsin, one chose New Hampshire and one chose BC. They all ended up in the same place. They were all standouts in prep school and all were recruited D-1 schools of their choice. Then I may add that Julie Chu, Angela Ruggerio and Karen Thatcher played in that prep league before any of the above did and chose Harvard and Brown then Providence. My point is that players choose the school they go to based on many different things, not just I have to go play in the WCHA or I will never make a national team.

 

[bbtt]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

Personally, I think the sport is growing in leaps and bounds. There is a significant increase and better players both from US and Canada. Goaltending has improved 10 fold in the last 5 years. I think where players go to college depends on many things. Take a look at Wisconsin they are going to attract players that want to go to win a national championship because that is what they have done 3 out of the last 4 years. So they figure that is where they should go to school. Then you will have some players that want to go to a particular school and become part of building a program. It is nice to win but remember someone has to be part of building the program too. Obviously Wisconsin has done that and done it well. It all depends on the player, how far they want to live away from home and how they feel while they are visiting campus. Look at all the great players that came out of Providence at one time. I think it comes and goes in waves. It is the program that can consistantly recruit the best players, the best goaltending and continue the success of developing players that will constantly stock pile talented players. But, there will always be talented players sprinkled in other programs just maybe not in numbers.

Let me remind the poster that started this thread. Hillary Knight, Meagan Duggan, Kacey Bellamy, Molly Schaus and Erica Lawler all played against eachother and developed at Prep Schools in the east, and are from the east. 3 players chose Wisconsin, one chose New Hampshire and one chose BC. They all ended up in the same place. They were all standouts in prep school and all were recruited D-1 schools of their choice. Then I may add that Julie Chu, Angela Ruggerio and Karen Thatcher played in that prep league before any of the above did and chose Harvard and Brown then Providence. My point is that players choose the school they go to based on many different things, not just I have to go play in the WCHA or I will never make a national team.

While I agree that there has been a significant growth in the skill of hockey players in general, there has also only been one college added to the D1 circuit in the last few years. It would be silly of me to say that this is due to Wisconsin winning 3 of the last four championships and the WCHA winning all of the national championships. However, I have also witnessed first hand how prolonged domination just drives people away from the sport (heck, this is true in business too).

I understand that there is a difference in funding between schools, some have scholarships and some don't or they aren't fully funded. This fact does have a significant impact on who they get. I also believe that players should have the right to choose where they go to school so I think somehing like a draft would be crazy. Just wondering if there are other ways to make it more competitive?

 

[spike]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

Let me remind the poster that started this thread. Hillary Knight, Meagan Duggan, Kacey Bellamy, Molly Schaus and Erica Lawler all played against eachother and developed at Prep Schools in the east, and are from the east. 3 players chose Wisconsin, one chose New Hampshire and one chose BC. They all ended up in the same place. They were all standouts in prep school and all were recruited D-1 schools of their choice. Then I may add that Julie Chu, Angela Ruggerio and Karen Thatcher played in that prep league before any of the above did and chose Harvard and Brown then Providence. My point is that players choose the school they go to based on many different things, not just I have to go play in the WCHA or I will never make a national team.

Not that it matters but Hillary and Molly are from Illinois. Both moved East for prep school and the families followed.

 

[D2D]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

My 2 cents on the original question, "Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?" (and specifically girls/womens hockey).

I personally don't see much, if any, correlation because where the national team members played their college hockey simply isn't an important factor for young girls who are deciding whether or not to start playing the sport. The same can be said for their parents who may be either encouraging them or discouraging them from giving it a try.

Much more important from a young player's perspective are first of all do they have the opportunity to play (local team or club) and if they have other friends who are playing or who are also showing an interest. Certainly here local community organizing can play a big role, just getting them to give it a try. Once they are given the chance and the environment is right, the majority have fun and stick with it until something changes, which can be any number of things but it's not related to the National team of where the members played their college hockey.

From the parent's point of view it's more about economics (almost everyone knows it's expensive!), whether or not they want to make the commitment (odd hours, sometimes having to drive long distances), and their perception of how dangerous hockey is, especially for their girls where they tend to be more protective.

Bottom line is that I think all of these factors play a much larger role when it comes to expanding or limiting the number of female hockey players, which by definition starts at the youth level.

Again, just my 2 cents -

 

[gojackets]

Re: Does the Current National Team Roster Hurt the Growth of Hockey?

Men the pro's are involved so they have many different ways to achive this goal.

Didn't that change? I remember something after the last olympics with the NHL saying they weren't going to allow their players to play anymore?