Girls Prep Hockey

[coolsports]

The other message of stunting the growth of women's hockey with the super clubs as Coolsports is totally backwards. The super clubs are actually driving the Developement in the women's game. Getting the best players together and having them compete against other super clubs as she puts it drives those players to higher and higher levels of play. It's the same on the men's side where the junior clubs in the US and Canada produce most of the talent that plays Div 1 hockey. Call the men's junior teams super clubs or whatever you want but quality players, competition and coaching is the route to Developement. Not sure what coolsports is trying to say other than some kids do not play in areas that have super clubs, which is another issue all together. But that's why you'll continue to see more programs like NAHA, Shattuck ect in the future in my opinion.

My point was simply this; taken as a whole the trend is to focus on a select few (at the super clubs and preps) while pushing the rest of the players to the side. IMO by spreading the talent around you help to drive the overall skill level higher.

I do support taking the very best and developing them at a higher level. Just do it at an appropriate camp once a year. ODP if you will then they return to their respective teams.

[vas]

The reason I jumped into this discusion in the first place was to displace some thoughts that the prep model is a great developer of talent, it simply is not. There are some programs that do do a great job of developing, but in general the preps are much better at bringing in good talent than actually nurturing it. The preps were mainly the only avenue out east a few short years ago, but like the boy's preps where the junior route has taken over in college placement, the girls are simply headed in that direction, as well.

This is exactly what I was afraid of, that the preps bring in talent and do not "nuture" it as you say.

I have been asking about prep schools now for the past three days on this thread, which coaches are better, which programs are better, which develop, why play on club if you have prep????? (I am just referring to hockey, I know which excell academically and in other ways, so please posters, DON"T attack me about not caring about it, this is a hockey site not an education site).

Anyway, now I understand why most of the parents on this thread could not really give me a straight answer. Once you've commited to the prep school thing, its gotta be hard to pull your kid out, mostly for the kid, and go to a "better" prep school for your kid. I guess parents are forced to accept the level of coaching skill these teacher/coaches have without being able to say much about it without fear of reprecussion.

[vas]

My point was simply this; taken as a whole the trend is to focus on a select few (at the super clubs and preps) while pushing the rest of the players to the side. IMO by spreading the talent around you help to drive the overall skill level higher.

.

i agree, i saw it with my own eyes on the Pomfret team and especially the Choate team, Berkshire although a little deeper, does the same.

[dumpitin]

Vas and Coolsports,
Be careful what you wish for. By spreading out the talent you actually hamper development. Thoses model is called intrumurals or club hockey. I know it's very tough on some familys to make the difficult decision to send you child away or travel a great distance to be on a select team. In Canada, boys have been leaving home for years to play at the highest levels of juniors and sometimes even younger. The women's game cannot go back to having 2 talented players on each team who carry the puck coast to coast against weak talent and think that players will learn the subtle team play neseccary at the highest of levels. It was that way a few short years ago and thank god we've grown beyond that. The other thing to remember is that these top players, when on the ice generally had the puck much more than the others who simply stood around and watched the skill players do all the work. Not really a good think for either end of the talent spectrum.

[vas]

Vas and Coolsports,
Be careful what you wish for. By spreading out the talent you actually hamper development. Thoses model is called intrumurals or club hockey. I know it's very tough on some familys to make the difficult decision to send you child away or travel a great distance to be on a select team. In Canada, boys have been leaving home for years to play at the highest levels of juniors and sometimes even younger. The women's game cannot go back to having 2 talented players on each team who carry the puck coast to coast against weak talent and think that players will learn the subtle team play neseccary at the highest of levels. It was that way a few short years ago and thank god we've grown beyond that. The other thing to remember is that these top players, when on the ice generally had the puck much more than the others who simply stood around and watched the skill players do all the work. Not really a good think for either end of the talent spectrum.

I was only agreeing with the statement below, not the one about speading talent around.

Originally Posted by coolsports
My point was simply this; taken as a whole the trend is to focus on a select few (at the super clubs and preps) while pushing the rest of the players to the side.

[ref11]

Vas and Coolsports,
Be careful what you wish for. By spreading out the talent you actually hamper development. Thoses model is called intrumurals or club hockey. I know it's very tough on some familys to make the difficult decision to send you child away or travel a great distance to be on a select team. In Canada, boys have been leaving home for years to play at the highest levels of juniors and sometimes even younger. The women's game cannot go back to having 2 talented players on each team who carry the puck coast to coast against weak talent and think that players will learn the subtle team play neseccary at the highest of levels. It was that way a few short years ago and thank god we've grown beyond that. The other thing to remember is that these top players, when on the ice generally had the puck much more than the others who simply stood around and watched the skill players do all the work. Not really a good think for either end of the talent spectrum.

Dumpitin & VAS

Don't disagree with your quest for the best hockey program and how to make the NDP better. I think I (and possibly coolsports) have a philosophical difference. To what end are we pushing the girls?

My bias is education comes first. I have had the benefit in my civilian job of hiring three employees who graduated from Middlebury, one from Colby, one from Connecticut College. All athletes. They are all great employees and well paid. Maybe the answer as some hinted is there will be a dual track. NAHA, NSA SSM and others who feed the NDP. Ultimately I think not. I think talent will continue to develop in the club, high school and prep level who will continue to feed the NDP as well as the speciality schools. As the Taft Coach identified, the talent pool is getting deeper and not all of the NDP bound kids assending to D1 programs.

Philosophically I think hockey 24 / 7 is not the most effective way to develop kids. They need downtime and the opportunity to play an ocassional different sport. If we start tracking kids at 10, 12, 14 years of age, don't we start stereotyping them, rather than developing them? My one pet peeve is we have a dearth of skilled skating instructors at the lowest levels. Kids who have talent have to re learn ingrained poor habits once they get to the higher levels, if they want to progress. It would be good if USA hockey could develop qualified skating instructors at the lowest level. :cool:

[BKDad]

It would be good if USA hockey could develop qualified skating instructors at the lowest level.
How about figure skating lessons? Short track speedskating lessons?

Not so much for teams, since moving that ship goes slowly, but for individual kids.

[coolsports]

Vas and Coolsports,
Be careful what you wish for. By spreading out the talent you actually hamper development. Thoses model is called intrumurals or club hockey. I know it's very tough on some familys to make the difficult decision to send you child away or travel a great distance to be on a select team. In Canada, boys have been leaving home for years to play at the highest levels of juniors and sometimes even younger. The women's game cannot go back to having 2 talented players on each team who carry the puck coast to coast against weak talent and think that players will learn the subtle team play neseccary at the highest of levels. It was that way a few short years ago and thank god we've grown beyond that. The other thing to remember is that these top players, when on the ice generally had the puck much more than the others who simply stood around and watched the skill players do all the work. Not really a good think for either end of the talent spectrum.

Dumpitin,

Could not disagree with you more. The model I refer to is currently being used by US Soccer. In this model you indentify and then track the best kids in the Olympic Development Program. You give them select training and bring them together during the off-season. BUT, these kids go back to their orginal clubs and impart not only what has been taught but now the other players are pushed to raise their game. I don't profess to know everything about this approach but IMO it does a couple of things.

First you are identifying and tracking the best talent at an early age. (And, from what I see doing a much better job than US Hockey).
Second you are still attempting to get the most out of the remainging talent pool. Just because a player doesn't develop until they are a bit older should not put them into the "club" track.
Third, It helps with bringing more players in. How? By keeping the entry into the game less stressful for the player.

A coach once told me. The easiest thing to do is spot the star. (He said anyone could do that) The hardest is to identify untapped potential and then find a way to bring that out.

[dumpitin]

Coolsports and ref11
I agree in some of what you are saying and the soccer analogy is a good one. However, at this time in the women's hockey game developement we simply do not have the wide base of talent to have the best players go back to home club team all over the country. Someday, probably not though as hockey is a much more regionalized sport than soccer, we might have numbers to do this, but it won't be for a long time in my mind.
Having been around soccer and hockey, I've witnessed the incredible growth in the women's game and there are great numbers of club teams playing at a high level which helps many to play at a high level. In hockey the gaps between the top players and middle to low end of the spectrum is just to large for this to work effectively.
Yes it would be great to have an ODP situation like soccer in the summer, but whereas in Minnesota where they have a great number of kids around surrounding Minneapolis, most areas don't have that base. The other thing to consider is that with the long hockey season at our access we must do a better job of developing our players with all that time. This logic goes back to my original premise, that players need to be trained with better models than the preps limitations.
I'll also share with you a message I recieved from a former prep coach now in administration at a prep. He said " wether you agree with specialization in one sport or not agree, the reality is that most athletes that want to play at the highest levels need to specialize if they want to maximize there chance to grow in their chosen sport. Unfortunately, the preps are stuck with the Knute Rockne model of playing multiple sports and with the long traditions we have, that probably won't change".
I will say that it is important for overall athletic development to play multiple sports, but around the age of 15 you need to focus in on one if you show a potential to play at a high level. An arguement can be made that some athletes can get by playing multiple sports, but they are a small group of athletes. By also keep in mind that their hockey development will be somewhat comprimized if that's the route they take, again not all but most in my opinion.

[vas]

Coolsports and ref11
This logic goes back to my original premise, that players need to be trained with better models than the preps limitations.
I'll also share with you a message I recieved from a former prep coach now in administration at a prep. He said " wether you agree with specialization in one sport or not agree, the reality is that most athletes that want to play at the highest levels need to specialize if they want to maximize there chance to grow in their chosen sport. Unfortunately, the preps are stuck with the Knute Rockne model of playing multiple sports and with the long traditions we have, that probably won't change".
I will say that it is important for overall athletic development to play multiple sports, but around the age of 15 you need to focus in on one if you show a potential to play at a high level. An arguement can be made that some athletes can get by playing multiple sports, but they are a small group of athletes. By also keep in mind that their hockey development will be somewhat comprimized if that's the route they take, again not all but most in my opinion.

Can you comment on what role the skill level of the current prep coaches has in providing "better models" for training?

Does it seem to you that Boys hockey attracts better coaches than girls hockey at the prep level?

Should girls hockey demand the same quality of coaches as the boys get?

[nut_case]

One of the things which I think is often overlooked in this type of discussion relates to the general idea of exposure to sports of all types and a philosophical view of the role of participation in athletics as part of a well-rounded overall educational experience. I suspect that for every person who suggests specialization in one sport at an early age(15 is very early) I would be able to find others(including former NHL players involved in club hockey) who recommend participating in several sports. What about a talented kid who loves hockey and is also a great soccer and lacrosse player? Many of our best players had years of enjoyment in other sports before specializing in college. Is the goal to find the best few dozen players who might do a little bit better at the international level? What does that do for everyone else? By the way, while I have enjoyed watching the NAHA and NSA teams in the past, and suspect that those models work well for a particular kid, what does it mean for this thread that the numbers on these teams are not overwhelmingly large each year? I recognize that there will always be significant differences of opinion on any topic, including the topics raised in this thread. I simply happen to disagree with the idea that there are significant limitations to the prep school experience as a whole, at least for those kids who want that experience and are able to pursue it. Yes, some coaches are better than others. Yes, the gap between the best players on a team and the weakest players on a team can sometimes be significant. Yes, a team which is essentially an all-star team playing 70 games per year will probably do better than most prep teams, or better than a club team which doesn't play together as much. So what? Hockey in the US is still largely regional, which creates inherent limitations in terms of options. Yes, we could probably organize teams for international play along the lines of the old Soviet model, identifying kids at a very early age and ultimately fielding a team which played 11 months of the year. What does that do for us, or for all the rest of the kids who should be participating in a sport at (hopefully) the highest level which their talents and effort will lead them to.

[BKDad]

Yes, we could probably organize teams for international play along the lines of the old Soviet model, identifying kids at a very early age and ultimately fielding a team which played 11 months of the year. What does that do for us, or for all the rest of the kids who should be participating in a sport at (hopefully) the highest level which their talents and effort will lead them to.
I have a close friend who grew up at the end of the Soviet era sports system. She was a speedskater who went through the whole process, even through college.

She explained to me that the sports she saw, and that included hockey, did identify kids at a relatively early age through gym class at school. But, the training up through the early teens was mostly based around very fundamental skill development. For example, the hockey boys worked on skating and dry land type exercise. Building a foundation first, as she described it. Very often her dry land activities were done along with hockey players, rowers (scary big she pointed out), and other athletes.

In the summer, they headed off to sports camp for a few weeks for more focused dry land activity. Otherwise, with the exception of the competition season (about two months long at that time), she did all her practicing after school.

Imagine being a high school freshman or equivalent at one of these summer athletic camps. You're at the bottom of the age range, so like most freshmen, you're kind of intimidated by the older students there. In this case it's even worse, because many of the older ones training there aren't just four years older than you - they could be 15 years older.

So, one morning at breakfast in the cafeteria (aren't cafeterias the places where all the frightening social interactions occur?) she was carrying her tray past a table to be with some of her friends. Somehow, she dropped her tray. On someone. Her breakfast slid right down his back. It was one of the heavyweight wrestlers. One who had been world and Olympic champion a couple times over. He stood up and was the size of a medium garage. She gulped, figuring that was it. One move and he could make her indistinguishable from the oatmeal on the floor. Instead, he smiled very nicely, asked her if she was okay, and helped her clean up the mess.

[CLS]

I have a close friend who grew up at the end of the Soviet era sports system. She was a speedskater who went through the whole process, even through college.

She explained to me that the sports she saw, and that included hockey, did identify kids at a relatively early age through gym class at school. But, the training up through the early teens was mostly based around very fundamental skill development. For example, the hockey boys worked on skating and dry land type exercise. Building a foundation first, as she described it. Very often her dry land activities were done along with hockey players, rowers (scary big she pointed out), and other athletes. . . .That IMO is the thing that we should learn from the Soviet system. Not so much the kids leaving home to go to sports camps. But the fact that the most important thing is to build skills. Instead, at relatively young ages, kids have as many or more games than they have practices. Games are a terrible use of ice time, even worse if you consider the $$. In games, the players sit on the bench for at least a half or two thirds of the game. There is one puck for ten skaters, so players get relatively few touches. Goalies face maybe twenty shots a game, some of which are clear ins from the blue line, and may not see some types of shots at all. Players tend to play conservatively, because they don't want to make the mistake that costs their team a goal. The coach can't stop the game to make a point. The coach can't give instruction, they have the players practice it while it's fresh in their minds.

In a well run practice, players are constantly skating. There's a puck for every player. Goalies face hundreds of shots of all types. The coach can teach something, then run a drill to reinforce what they just taught. Players can try things, fail, and try again until they get it right without the fear of hurting their team.

A lot of hockey theorists (mainly on the men's side) have theorized that the fact that a disproportionate number of "skills" players are European and a disproprtionate number of muckers, grinders, and goons are North American is because of the European emphasis on skills training and the North American emphasis on playing games.

I have no doubt why. I don't think it's the kids, and I don't think that it's the coaches who truly enjoy teaching. It's the parents who get personal enjoyment watching games (or worse, who live their failed fantasies through their kids) and the coaches who are more driven by competition than by teaching.

[BKDad]

I have no doubt why. I don't think it's the kids, and I don't think that it's the coaches who truly enjoy teaching. It's the parents who get personal enjoyment watching games (or worse, who live their failed fantasies through their kids) and the coaches who are more driven by competition than by teaching.
Unfortunately, hockey is a group activity both because it's a team sport and because of the economics of ice time. Whether you like it or not, right or wrong, you have to go with the program that is dictated by the customer base (aka parents).

I understand that USAHockey has set some pretty ambitious guidelines for the ratio of practices to games, heavily in favor of practices. Based on the adherence to the guidelines, it sounds like nobody listens to USAHockey. Maybe if USAHockey added some hard rules to add some muscle what they believe in, things might change. Like in addition to every player having to have played 10 games (or whatever) to be eligible to participate in the National championships, the team must equally demonstrate that for every game the team played there had to have been three practices. If USAHockey really is firm behind the guidelines, they should have no problem being firm behind them being adhered to. If teams don't want to follow these rules, there is no problem. Just no tournament possibilities.

[dumpitin]

Nutcase,
Inderstand that me jumping into this discussion is not to promote that the prep experience is a bad one and not an alternative that fits many kids well. There are numbers of talented players that come thru that system and do very well in the college ranks. My points are that, like the boy's prep the landscape is changing as better teaching models are popping up. If you have been reading this thread, there's great evidence by the #ers alone that we in the East where a disproportionate number of players play prep hockey, are losing ground. Just using common sense alone will have you arrive at the conclussion that having almost 1/2 the hockey season alone puts these kids at a disadvantage.
The preps are a great fit for many familys that need to find good hockey and a better educational experience than most public high schools. They are also a great opportunity for a kid whose family lives an an area that doesn't have the base of talent around them to keep growing in the game thru the 16 and 19 age levels. However, as I've pointed out below, there are better models for hockey development than they provide and my guess is that you will see more of these being created in the near future.
Regarding the specialization at the age of 15, while i do agree with you that athletes need to play other sports to increase their overall athleticism at the younger ages, if they want to maximize there chances to improve to play at a high level, specialization is important for most at that point. You or I can both point out athletes that did not take that route and have had great success playing multiple sports. However, those athletes generally are a select few with special athletic talents that not all athletes possess. The 15-16 range of committing to a higher level of hockey training is not something I've made up rather an age that most of the European national governing bodies direct their athletes to commit to. I for one see it being a huge mistake when kids age 10-12 make the commitment at that age, besides the lack of athletic overall development, I think you also run the risk of burning the athlet out at a later stage.

[Hux]

That IMO is the thing that we should learn from the Soviet system. Not so much the kids leaving home to go to sports camps. But the fact that the most important thing is to build skills. Instead, at relatively young ages, kids have as many or more games than they have practices. Games are a terrible use of ice time, even worse if you consider the $$. In games, the players sit on the bench for at least a half or two thirds of the game. There is one puck for ten skaters, so players get relatively few touches. Goalies face maybe twenty shots a game, some of which are clear ins from the blue line, and may not see some types of shots at all. Players tend to play conservatively, because they don't want to make the mistake that costs their team a goal. The coach can't stop the game to make a point. The coach can't give instruction, they have the players practice it while it's fresh in their minds.

In a well run practice, players are constantly skating. There's a puck for every player. Goalies face hundreds of shots of all types. The coach can teach something, then run a drill to reinforce what they just taught. Players can try things, fail, and try again until they get it right without the fear of hurting their team.

A lot of hockey theorists (mainly on the men's side) have theorized that the fact that a disproportionate number of "skills" players are European and a disproprtionate number of muckers, grinders, and goons are North American is because of the European emphasis on skills training and the North American emphasis on playing games.

I have no doubt why. I don't think it's the kids, and I don't think that it's the coaches who truly enjoy teaching. It's the parents who get personal enjoyment watching games (or worse, who live their failed fantasies through their kids) and the coaches who are more driven by competition than by teaching.

Actually it is the leagues, and their insistence on starting the year as soon as possible, and dragging it out as long as possible. I know that my association was part of a move to have the season start in October rather than the first weekend in September. But all of the various leagues in the area were insistent on starting as soon as school started. I am sure a great "facilitator" in this is the rink owners (usually municiplaities) that want the revenue that these rinks produce when they have a full slate of practices during the week and games on the weekend.

In the case of my town owned rink, the oversight commitee will not allow the management company to shut down the rink to take out the ice for painting of the concrete below, or a realigning of the boards. The place is open from 6 AM to 1 AM Monday through Saturday, and 6-10 PM on Sundays every day of the year except Christmas and July Fourth.

The place is an absolute cash cow. We have the cheapest ice around and the leagues schedule 90% of the association's games here. Various hockey camps and clinics keep the placed booked solid throughout the summer. The town has been paying off a bond that was used to buy it from the original owner 20 years ago, and once that is paid off the rink will clear between $250-300,000 a year.

The owners of one of the leagues, and recent host of the Pee Wee National Championships, is putting in a very fancy two sheet building in Haverhill Mass to meet the demand for ice. And you can be sure that THAT league won't be decreasing the number of games.

[BKDad]

Actually it is the leagues, and their insistence on starting the year as soon as possible, and dragging it out as long as possible.

(more good comments)

And you can be sure that THAT league won't be decreasing the number of games.
Three observations:

1. If you look at the NEGHL site, you see that the most games played by any team is in the low 20's. That includes Assabet Valley, who has additional games because of inter-divisional games between different Assabet teams. But, many of the teams in that league actually play over 50 games; even as many as 70 plus. So, in this case it's not the league.

2. Practice ice on a Saturday costs just as much as game ice on a Saturday. The rinks get the same revenue regardless, at least due to ice time. Concessions may be a different story.

3. You have to wonder how long these rinks will continue to be so attractive financially as energy costs continue to rise. They will have to raise rates, and you'd think that eventually customers would cut back. I might be wrong about that last part, though.

There just seems to be an idea that games are where it's at. It's justified in many ways, but that's the bottom line. (I guess that's a fourth comment. :) )

[SAMMEE]

My observation is that in my district and some of the surrounding ones there has not been a significant increase in the number of girls playing hockey over the last five years. I can question how USA Hockey arrives at some of their numbers as some girls are on two or three teams. Some of the age brackets have 2 or 3 teams competing to go to Nationals so all you have is a consolidation of talent in the district and one team clubs. There is no effort to increase the number of recreational girl players. MN; Canada and maybe Mass are dominating the college ranks because they have a much larger base of players in all age brackets and it gives a girl a chance to develope their skills in a competive environment. Most other places if you have made the National Camp at 14 you are on for life.
Prep School - I think it is more a matter of marketing than anything else. Some parents think it is the only way for D1 Hockey and will pay. Several girls over the years who have played for me have attended D1 Schools and were third line B team players with 1500 plus SAT's. The fact that they went to the school did not mean they played. I would rather hear from college coaches or admissions officers whether or not prep school helps rather than parents. Almost everyone I hear from has their child going on a scholarship. Doesn't anyone pay tuition?
Long term we have to expand the base of girls playing not just consolidate the top. If the goal is the Olympic Team only - let the sponsors pay - not the rest of the USA Hockey membership subsidize them. I see WalMart lists themselves as a sponsor of Women's/Girls Hockey. I wonder how many WalMart "associates" families can afford to play hockey.

[futurestar]

I would rather hear from college coaches or admissions officers whether or not prep school helps rather than parents.

I agree, that would be a more accurate measurement than parents comments.

An un-scientific browse through team rosters seems to show the following population spread:

1) Canadiens
2) Prep players
3) Minnesota HS
4) Other clubs/public HS

I suppose a lot of the team mix depends on the coaches philosophy and where they want to recruit.

[SAMMEE]

I just hope in never gets like some of the boys' teams. We have parents that are ashamed their child got an "academic" scholarship instead of an "athletic" one. One of the boys is getting a research mathematics scholarship to attend St. Lawrence - he would have trouble making the intramural squads - father is disappointed.
I wish my kids could have gotten any scholarship. Ahh - the boat; the sportscar; the world cruises - all went to tuition.
Let us all get the best for our children and spoil them - whether they are on the A or the Z team.