Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

[brookyone]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Would much rather watch summer AAA hockey than Minnesota High school hockey. No comparison.

I would imagine for many fans of the sport in Minnesota there's less motivation to choose one over the other. For many who enjoy and attend high school hockey it's often a matter of closely following and supporting the extracurricular activities of their former high school, and or their community, long after their own high school days are over. Complete with many fairly intense decades long rivalries with neighboring communities and high schools. Many of those that attend MSHSL competition, including girls hockey are far less obsessed with the developmental aspect and more about pure entertainment...and that community support aspect.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

MN is probably the only state with enough girls playing hockey to actually have "local" teams...I would equate MN more to Canaduh in that respect.

For the rest of us, you need to find a team for your kid...wherever that might be...and the closer the better in my view. As for the "Super Teams" [Assabet, NAHA, Team Pitt, etc] which are a collection of players from far and wide....and the nutjob parents and coaches who create these monsters....they are almost universally bad for the sport on multiple levels.

You're really inaccurate in lumping Assabet, NAHA, and Team Pitt into one bucket (talking U16 and U19 here). Here is the (rather significant) difference between these three different styles of club/AAA hockey:

- Assabet - All of the girls in this program either live in or attend prep school in New England and it is largely a supplemental program to their prep/high school team. It is effectively a requirement for the girls to be within reasonable driving distance as the teams practice/play every Sunday and missing a practice is not allowed on a regular basis. It is true that a few girls on each team travel over an hour to get to practice/game every Sunday, but the VAST majority live within an hour of Concord. Don't be fooled that they have a girl from MI on team, for instance - she goes to school in New England somewhere. The area happens to have a wellspring of hockey talent and can support multiple strong programs (Assabet, Wizards, Spitfires, Polar Bears, etc.). that can compete on a national level. These kids get the benefit of their own school and the high level of hockey that Assabet plays.

- NAHA - This is a junior team where all of the players live at the program's house from August to April and actually receive their schooling through the program. It is effectively a boarding school even though they don't bill themselves as such and the diplomas are granted by the kid's local HS. It is an outstanding hockey development experience with a schooling approach that makes it harder to get into more elite academic division 1 and 3 programs (it's possible, but difficult, to go from here to Yale, Harvard, Middlebury, etc.). It's an all-in experience and the kids almost always are better hockey players. Really no different than boarding prep school except that the hockey is better and academics weaker.

- Team Pittsburgh - This is a team that effectively only plays tournaments. They have an occasional practice in Pittsburgh, but more generally they gather the day before a tournament, practice once or twice, play the tournament, and go home. These girls come from ALL over the country - Arizona, Florida, New England, PA, Mid-Atlantic, etc. - to have a chance to play on a competitive high end team. In my opinion, the Team Pittsburgh approach is the least constructive for long term growth. It's hard to develop skills when you play intensely for a long weekend and then do nothing for almost a month. That being said, some good players in the program and a good placement occurring. I would suggest the players were good before they got here, maintained that level in the program, and got some good visibility.

With respect to nutjob parents and coaches, they exist in all three of these different styles of club hockey..... and in local teams all over the country. Some of the worst I have seen are on Tier 3 town teams. I don't think these teams have any monopoly on this.....unfortunately.

 

[Hockeydad4two]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

There's a fine line between striving for excellence and winning at all costs. I read CrossCheck as saying that when parents shun relatively convenient options for a burdensome one, there's an enhanced risk of the latter. While I'd reject the phrase "universally bad" for the super teams, there's something to that thought.

At the same time, I can understand Hockeydad4two's objection. Since 90 miles away is, in fact, the closest team, what is his family supposed to do? Drive even further in search of a less competitive option? Make that demand and there's a risk his kids would drop our sport instead. Now there's an outcome I might agree was universally bad.

Just to add some clarity to this. My daughter is the one that chose/tried out/made the team. It was her decision and we always told her when she wasn't happy, finish the season and we were done.

Yes, we had a 3 hour round trip (and missed only 1 practice in 4 years). She graduated with high honors and is playing D1 while getting an engineering degree. She'll tell you college is even harder both academically and athletically!

 

[ARM]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

There's nothing wrong with putting these type of teams together. From Minnesota and I'm not much of a fan of HS or hometown teams other than local friends play together. My daughter played AAA in the summer and if I/she had to choose it would have been summer. 10 times better hockey. In my opinion most Minnesota girls would not play D1 hockey without the high level of summer AAA teams. Hat's off to the girls and parents who travel for the chance to play a great game. Very dedicated to the sport.

Would much rather watch summer AAA hockey than Minnesota High school hockey. No comparison.

They are two totally different entities. One is an an extracurricular placed on top of schooling. In most cases, the other exists for the purpose of playing hockey. From that standpoint, the hockey sure should be better. Ten times better? Of course not, just like D-I hockey is not ten times better than D-III. Even with the better caliber of hockey, AAA has some drawbacks. The atmosphere is often lousy, feeling more like glorified scrimmages. High school game day more closely resemble that of a college game in terms of pre game, intermission, etc. It is good that both exist, and that players have options.

 

[Hux]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

You're really inaccurate in lumping Assabet, NAHA, and Team Pitt into one bucket (talking U16 and U19 here). Here is the (rather significant) difference between these three different styles of club/AAA hockey:



- NAHA - This is a junior team where all of the players live at the program's house from August to April and actually receive their schooling through the program. It is effectively a boarding school even though they don't bill themselves as such and the diplomas are granted by the kid's local HS. It is an outstanding hockey development experience with a schooling approach that makes it harder to get into more elite academic division 1 and 3 programs (it's possible, but difficult, to go from here to Yale, Harvard, Middlebury, etc.). It's an all-in experience and the kids almost always are better hockey players. Really no different than boarding prep school except that the hockey is better and academics weaker.

Except that players have gone from NAHA to Harvard, and Dartmouth, and Yale, and Princeton etc. No matter where you go to school, it all comes down to you get out of it what you put into it.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I'm not sure where the D1 to D3 comparison came from. I do believe a top D3 team would play a middle to lower D1 team close in most games. And not as large of a gap.

As far as HS hockey I do believe AAA is 10 times better. Other than a few HS teams every year AAA teams would beat most high school teams by at least 10 goals on most nights. Would I rather watch summer AAA hockey now rather than a HS game yes, by a large margin. I'll be honest though and say when my daughter was playing HS hockey of course it was great.

I do like the Minnesota model as it gives more girls the opportunity to play hockey. I don't like the way the rankings are in sections and feel it's too political. In my opinion you want to have the best teams in the state tournament. I don't feel like it's happening now. Example: I would rather see two or even 3 top ten teams from let's say section 6 or 4 than to see a 15 or 20th ranked team make it through a section that didn't have a top 10 team in it. I also think teams like Blake, Warroad, Breck etc should have to play at the top level. Why? it would make the game/competition better and get more coaches to see our Minnesota girls. Just think how great tournament that would be. You'd always see a underdog upset a top team and get there. Just not 3 or 4 every year.

Let's also be honest. Unless your daughter is on a Minnestoa AAA summer team it is very hard for her to play D1 hockey. Unless of coarse she's scoring 3, 4, 6 goals a game on her high school team. And I really don't like watching that type of individual game. It amazes me to see games where 2 girls score 4 goals and have no assists and her team wins 8-1. Just don't like it. Some of those same girls play AAA in the summer and have trouble scoring goals?

 

[giwan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I'm not sure where the D1 to D3 comparison came from. I do believe a top D3 team would play a middle to lower D1 team close in most games. And not as large of a gap. As far as HS hockey I do believe AAA is 10 times better. Other than a few HS teams every year AAA teams would beat most high school teams by at least 10 goals on most nights. Would I rather watch summer AAA hockey now rather than a HS game yes, by a large margin. I'll be honest though and say when my daughter was playing HS hockey of course it was great. I do like the Minnesota model as it gives more girls the opportunity to play hockey. I don't like the way the rankings are in sections and feel it's too political. In my opinion you want to have the best teams in the state tournament. I don't feel like it's happening now. Example: I would rather see two or even 3 top ten teams from let's say section 6 or 4 than to see a 15 or 20th ranked team make it through a section that didn't have a top 10 team in it. I also think teams like Blake, Warroad, Breck etc should have to play at the top level. Why? it would make the game/competition better and get more coaches to see our Minnesota girls. Just think how great tournament that would be. You'd always see a underdog upset a top team and get there. Just not 3 or 4 every year. Let's also be honest. Unless your daughter is on a Minnestoa AAA summer team it is very hard for her to play D1 hockey. Unless of coarse she's scoring 3, 4, 6 goals a game on her high school team. And I really don't like watching that type of individual game. It amazes me to see games where 2 girls score 4 goals and have no assists and her team wins 8-1. Just don't like it. Some of those same girls play AAA in the summer and have trouble scoring goals?

I rarely get to watch MN HS hockey but I do see much of the top AAA teams play during the summer and you comments seem spot on.

 

[Hux]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

As far as HS hockey I do believe AAA is 10 times better. Other than a few HS teams every year AAA teams would beat most high school teams by at least 10 goals on most nights.

Well I would hope so. The so called AAA teams amount to a roster full of the best players in the state, pretty much all of whom will go on to play D1. It is an apples to oranges comparison. As Brooky noted, the allure of Minny high school hockey is the relatively high level of play (those AAA players spread out among the teams, in some cases several of them on the same HS roster) and the rivalries between various schools and the way the communities support those programs.

Let's also be honest. Unless your daughter is on a Minnestoa AAA summer team it is very hard for her to play D1 hockey. Unless of coarse she's scoring 3, 4, 6 goals a game on her high school team. And I really don't like watching that type of individual game. It amazes me to see games where 2 girls score 4 goals and have no assists and her team wins 8-1. Just don't like it. Some of those same girls play AAA in the summer and have trouble scoring goals?

And this goes to the point I was trying to make about players leaving to go a hockey school. Getting out of the "player carries the team" mode and going to SSM, or a JWHL or PWHL team to improve their overall game can make the difference in their playing at the next level.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Except that players have gone from NAHA to Harvard, and Dartmouth, and Yale, and Princeton etc. No matter where you go to school, it all comes down to you get out of it what you put into it.

As I noted it is true that a few NAHA players make it to the schools you mention (around 1 a year out of 10 or so). You'll quite possibly see less and less of this from the Ivies however - the minimum academic index at the Ivies was raised this past year and several coaches (including at least 2 of the schools you list) have told me that they won't actively recruit at NAHA anymore because the admissions departments at their respective schools think very little of the NAHA approach academically and it is not a revenue producing sport (unlike men's hockey) that they are willing to reach for.

Totally agree though that you make any experience what it is based on your outlook and effort and definitely expect the occasional NAHA player to continue to go to an Ivy league school (particularly Harvard, although they seem to have settled in on the Nobles/Assabet route for their players).

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Ten times better? Of course not, just like D-I hockey is not ten times better than D-III. Even with the better caliber of hockey, AAA has some drawbacks. The atmosphere is often lousy, feeling more like glorified scrimmages. High school game day more closely resemble that of a college game in terms of pre game, intermission, etc. It is good that both exist, and that players have options.

Hux...

This is the reason for my last post about 10 times better.

Also is it just me or did Minnesota hockey seem much stronger 4-5 years ago? I feel after the 2011-12 class it's taken a little dip. Have watched the U14's this year and feel it will jump back up with many talented players.

 

[giwan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Hux...This is the reason for my last post about 10 times better.Also is it just me or did Minnesota hockey seem much stronger 4-5 years ago? I feel after the 2011-12 class it's taken a little dip. Have watched the U14's this year and feel it will jump back up with many talented players.

I think when you say 14U you have to try and be more specific. Larger age range then you may think, sometimes even one or two above that limit with tournament or showcase approval.

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

There's a real battle going on in Minnesota regarding Community-Based Hockey (Tier II at youth and High School Hockey) and Tier I based hockey. On the girls side, there are at least 4 Tier I based teams for girls (Shattuck, T-Breds, the Crunch and now Duluth Marshall). Most of the discussion is about inexpensive access to hockey and the best way to develop players. Most in favor of community based hockey think that Tier I hockey is a threat to the community based infrastructure and will lead to the downfall of broad based hockey. Most in favor of Tier I talk about the best way to develop talent and believe that Tier I and community based hockey can coexist. I have friends that were in the Tier I system out of necessity and they did not like the long drives and the expense. They loved the fact that their daughter could play on a community team at a relatively low cost and smaller time commitment. I also have friends that have players that play or played at Shattuck, T-breds and the Crunch. They liked the higher level of hockey and the opportunity for better development by playing more games at a higher level of hockey. The question really is whether or not Minnesota should open the flood gates and permit more Tier I hockey, and if it does can Tier I and community based hockey co-exist in Minnesota. I'm posting links to two articles and people can make up their own minds. Personally I see both sides and I don't have a strong opinion either way. At this point, I think its nice that parents and players have options.

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/russo/932-the-last-of-community-based-hockey.html
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/946-lph-inbox-refuting-russo.html

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I think when you say 14U you have to try and be more specific. Larger age range then you may think, sometimes even one or two above that limit with tournament or showcase approval.

U14 is girls under 14 years of age and under A is the top level or U14A. Saw about 10 game this year and play was good. Usually this level are for girls in 8th and 9th grade who get to play 40+ games. Some high school teams don't allow 8th graders to play and some prefer to play here rather than be a 4th line HS player or JV.

Just for the record. I do like the fact that Minnesota offers both HS and AAA and don't want this to change. HS is affordable and girls get to play with their classmates which is wonderful. Then play summers on their AAA teams and other family. My comments are in hope HS changes so that more of the top teams go to state and college coaches make it a must to attend and more Minnesota player play college hockey. I realize quite a few do now. Allways want as many Minny girls as possible.

 

[Hux]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

There's a real battle going on in Minnesota regarding Community-Based Hockey (Tier II at youth and High School Hockey) and Tier I based hockey. On the girls side, there are at least 4 Tier I based teams for girls (Shattuck, T-Breds, the Crunch and now Duluth Marshall). Most of the discussion is about inexpensive access to hockey and the best way to develop players. Most in favor of community based hockey think that Tier I hockey is a threat to the community based infrastructure and will lead to the downfall of broad based hockey. Most in favor of Tier I talk about the best way to develop talent and believe that Tier I and community based hockey can coexist. I have friends that were in the Tier I system out of necessity and they did not like the long drives and the expense. They loved the fact that their daughter could play on a community team at a relatively low cost and smaller time commitment. I also have friends that have players that play or played at Shattuck, T-breds and the Crunch. They liked the higher level of hockey and the opportunity for better development by playing more games at a higher level of hockey. The question really is whether or not Minnesota should open the flood gates and permit more Tier I hockey, and if it does can Tier I and community based hockey co-exist in Minnesota. I'm posting links to two articles and people can make up their own minds. Personally I see both sides and I don't have a strong opinion either way. At this point, I think its nice that parents and players have options.

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/russo/932-the-last-of-community-based-hockey.html
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/946-lph-inbox-refuting-russo.html

I think the way it is right now works just fine since the state has averaged about 30 D1 players a year coming out of the HS ranks and another five to six from SSM and the T-Breds. (the Crunch are now defunct) However don't be fooled by the "community based" tag. The way it is set-up in Minny isn't really much different than what you see in New England. You have before and after teams playing around the Prep/New England or High School/Minny seasons. And don't be fooled by the "affordability" factor of high school hockey for those high end players in Minny. When you factor in the off-ice training, the fall elite league, and the AAA summer hockey with local and long distance travel, they have equaled or exceeded the cost of the majority of the Tier 1 teams. Minnesota, Michigan and New England benefit from a large number of high end teams in "relatively" small areas, and consequently playing isn't as expensive. The rest of the country is left with few teams spread out across greater distances and there is no way around the expense of travel. It is what it is.

 

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I think SSM is anything but a AAA alternative for Minnesota girls. They simply don't go there.

 

[123hockey]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

NAHA - This is a junior team where all of the players live at the program's house from August to April and actually receive their schooling through the program. It is effectively a boarding school even though they don't bill themselves as such and the diplomas are granted by the kid's local HS. It is an outstanding hockey development experience with a schooling approach that makes it harder to get into more elite academic division 1 and 3 programs (it's possible, but difficult, to go from here to Yale, Harvard, Middlebury, etc.). It's an all-in experience and the kids almost always are better hockey players. Really no different than boarding prep school except that the hockey is better and academics weaker.

You obviously know not of what you speak. Look at the Hockey East Website. 10 of the 89 players listed on the 2010-2011 WHEA All Academic team are graduates of the NAHA program. Must be the weaker academics!!

 

[ARM]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

And don't be fooled by the "affordability" factor of high school hockey for those high end players in Minny.

I think the affordability is more for the player that wants to play HS hockey period. They want to play HS hockey because they enjoy the game, but they don't have any illusions of playing competitively after HS or their main sport is softball, golf, soccer, etc., so HS hockey still lets them play. Granted, even in this form, hockey is still going to be more pricey than the average sport.

I still don't like the "10 times better" assertion. What does that mean? The range of HS teams and AAA teams is so great, that it may be more true at some points of the range, less at others. Minnetonka was likely closer to the bottom end of the AAA range than it was to the worst HS team. When Eden Prairie had it's most recent State Championship team they scrimmaged a S-SM team that had the Lams, Decker, and Kessel; if memory serves, the score was like 6-1. Obviously Shattuck was much better, but I don't know that one would say 10 times better and be able to support that argument with any conviction. Beating a team 10-1 doesn't necessarily make someone 10 times better. UND defeated OSU 11-1 in one game. Was NoDak 11 times better that day? I hope not. I realize that you said the hockey, not the teams, was 10 times better, but for my money, I'd rather watch Minnetonka and H-M play a competitive game than see the Thoroughbreds get outclassed by a superior AAA team. I'll watch AAA to watch certain players, but I prefer the atmosphere of a HS game. I guess we agree to disagree on that one.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

ARM,

I also want/wanted to believe HS hockey is better than it is or was. That being said I do believe a U19 IceCats or Jr Whitecaps would beat a Mtka team by 6 or 7 goals nine out of 10 times. Not taking anything away from anyone. They were the best of the best. (I did say 10 times better than MOST HS teams and not all) and yes HUX they should be. Keep Minnesota HS hockey the way it is just change the playoff State tournament format a little. Get as many of the best teams there as possible.

I myself didn't believe HS hockey was that much different from AAA when my daughter was HS age. But I remember taking our best Minnesota girls out to NAHA thinking we would handle any team only to see that there were at least 10 teams from the East, Canada etc that were just as good. And I do believe it was ten times faster/better hockey. It was amazing and the best hockey I'd ever seen non college. I also thought that these teams were like watching college hockey only to find out there was also another huge jump at the college level.

And Shattuck isn't much of an option at $30,000 a year. Crazy!

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I think the way it is right now works just fine since the state has averaged about 30 D1 players a year coming out of the HS ranks and another five to six from SSM and the T-Breds. (the Crunch are now defunct) However don't be fooled by the "community based" tag. The way it is set-up in Minny isn't really much different than what you see in New England. You have before and after teams playing around the Prep/New England or High School/Minny seasons. And don't be fooled by the "affordability" factor of high school hockey for those high end players in Minny. When you factor in the off-ice training, the fall elite league, and the AAA summer hockey with local and long distance travel, they have equaled or exceeded the cost of the majority of the Tier 1 teams. Minnesota, Michigan and New England benefit from a large number of high end teams in "relatively" small areas, and consequently playing isn't as expensive. The rest of the country is left with few teams spread out across greater distances and there is no way around the expense of travel. It is what it is.

I see what you are saying and I agree that most of the high end players do spend a lot of money on training during the offseason. For a select few other high end players and the rest High School hockey is very affordable. Believe it or not there are some high end players that don't do much offseason hockey specific training. They prefer to cross train by playing other sports.

Many high schools charge an activity fee and there is typically another team fee but its peanuts (I don't know about all of the communities but I believe it is less than $500 total) compared to what most parents spend for youth hockey and I would guess that what most pay for Tier I hockey. For the high end player and her parents, the high school season is more of a fun break from the expense and the intense training which occurs during the offseason. For the girl that just wants to play High School hockey and has no ambition to play college hockey its a fantastic deal. Yes Minnesota produces about 30 D1 players a year but the argument is that our D1 players could be better with more quality development that is offered by a Tier I system. The question is whether Minnesota can open up the floodgates to Tier I hockey without harming High School hockey. Right now Minnesota has numbers and the proponents of community based hockey say that a change to a Tier I system might or might not increase quality but it will definitely hurt the numbers as the expense will go up and players will drop out when they either can't afford the Tier I team or are disillusioned with the quality of the community based system without its stars. I don't know the answer to this question. Personally I like having SSM and the Tbreds as alternatives for parents and players that want a different experience. I would like to see a few more Tbred type teams but I don't know about completely opening up Minnesota to a Tier I system. I'm sure that there are D1 players out there that would not have played hockey if it weren't for the affordability of our system.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

You obviously know not of what you speak. Look at the Hockey East Website. 10 of the 89 players listed on the 2010-2011 WHEA All Academic team are graduates of the NAHA program. Must be the weaker academics!!

An un-necessarily harsh start, but the follow-on info is interesting. I found the list, but I don't have the time to correlate NAHA to names - I'll take your word for it. But a couple of points:

- College GPA performance (which is what all academic teams are primarily based on) can be manipulated by taking summer courses, a weak courseload, the overall quality of the college student body, etc. Let's face it - Hockey East largely consists of big state schools (Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire) and big private schools (Boston U, Northeastern). These schools, by virtue of their mission and size, are just generally average to slightly above average academically. A 3.5 here is just not the same as a 3.5 at Princeton, Colgate, or even Middlebury. Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments. BC is an exception.

- Because of the above, I was focusing on academics directed at college entrance, not performance in college. The truer measure of academic performance in high school is college placement (that's not my opinion, but that of 1000's of college counselors). I could attach the list of NAHA graduates/colleges over the last 5 years, but 1-3 of 10-15 every year go to elite academic schools - that is lower than the Assabet/prep school approach - look it up on the Assabet website. The NAHA approach doesn't place kids in as academically challenging schools as the Assabet/club style approach - the numbers are what they are. So NAHA is weaker academically by that measure .... not necessarily weak, but weaker.