Girls Prep Hockey

[whfan]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to Prep vs Club hockey and I don't think playing one over another is going to get you a scholarship to a D1 school. The girls simply have to have the talent, and if they do, they will be noticed by the scouts no matter who they are playing for.

The best thing to do to encourage development will be different for any given girl. Finding the right fit on a team for their talent level is probably most important. If they're one of the most talented, then they're not likely not to be pushed to improve and, conversly, if they're one of the least talented, they will be riding the bench. The best situation of all is to have the most talent on an already talented team. If you have that type of situation on a club team close to home, then save yourself the ton of money that you would spend on prep school and play club hockey. That way, if the scholarship doesn't come, you have the money that you saved by not going to prep school to pay for college.

If the prep education is a priority, then make the school visits with your daughter early. Give yourself plenty of time to visit a number of campuses, to meet and get a feel for the coaches personalities, and talk to current players.
Watch some of the practices and games too - that will tell you volumes about both the team and coach. And after observing all of that, trust your gut feeling about the school and the hockey program the school offers. More than likely, you and your daughter will end up being happy.

[puckster]

That
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.

Here's some videos of what's being taught in Finland's club systems:

Dryland puckhandling with a Swedish wooden ball or golf ball
http://www.hockeycoachingabcs.com/filemgmt_data/files/Dryland%20Finnish%20Puck%20Handling.wmv

This is an on ice demo
http://www.hockeycoachingabcs.com/filemgmt_data/files/Finnish%20on%20ice%20Puckhandling%20Skills.wmv

[vas]

So I can't believe that no one has anything to say about Prep school girls hockey!!! since April 5th!

I heard that there is at least one prep school coach applying for the limited open D1 coaching postions from another thread on this forum.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[NHDad]

I heard that there is at least one prep school coach applying for the limited open D1 coaching postions from another thread on this forum.

OK...I'll bite...who is (are) the prep school coache(s) and for which D1 openings?

Oh, btw, it's nice to see this thread back at the top of the list!

[vas]

OK...I'll bite...who is (are) the prep school coache(s) and for which D1 openings?

Oh, btw, it's nice to see this thread back at the top of the list!

Both Dartmouth and UVM for sure are looking. Although I don't know if they are filled yet.

I would like to see the prep school "college coach wannabes" move on to where they think they belong.

I don't want to be so forward as to name the coaches, but since my search for a prep school for my kid, I have realized that, a FEW and I mean just a FEW, are really bad for 14-18 yr old girls because they think they really want to coach college girls. I say this as it refers to how college girls should already be 90%FULLY DEVELOPED HOCKEY PLAYERS, whereas HS girls are still developing.

I realize now that for the MOST part prep is really for education and not for hockey exposure or hockeytraining, I fully understand why the better players MUST play on club teams to get exposure and go to nationals and prep teams just to get the daily ice time.

[BKDad]

Dartmouth?

[Black Bear]

Both Dartmouth and UVM for sure are looking. Although I don't know if they are filled yet.

I would like to see the prep school "college coach wannabes" move on to where they think they belong.

I don't want to be so forward as to name the coaches, but since my search for a prep school for my kid, I have realized that, a FEW and I mean just a FEW, are really bad for 14-18 yr old girls because they think they really want to coach college girls. I say this as it refers to how college girls should already be 90%FULLY DEVELOPED HOCKEY PLAYERS, whereas HS girls are still developing.

I realize now that for the MOST part prep is really for education and not for hockey exposure or hockeytraining, I fully understand why the better players MUST play on club teams to get exposure and go to nationals and prep teams just to get the daily ice time.

Could not disagree with you more on your "MOST" and "MUST" points. If I start making an argument against them, I'd be typing all night and I don't feel like it tonight. Another day.

[nut_case]

Although I do not by any means think that prep school hockey is the ultimate in all cases, I believe quite strongly that kids playing prep hockey have plenty of opportunity to develop all aspects of their game since they are on the ice 6 days a week during the season. I also believe that they receive more exposure than many people realize because this particular universe is still quite limited. Most of these coaches know which of their players are D1 level or D3 level. The coaches and(in some ways more importantly) the guidance people at the schools are able(at least when kids and/or parents are listening) to make useful suggestions regarding colleges which might be a good fit. The kids and their parents can initiate the search(just as every other kid who is looking at college can). The idea of waiting to be seen or waiting for some contact from a college coach(many times coming as little more than a form letter) would, in my opinion, be the least important part of the college choice process.Of course kids who play on a club team can follow the same approach.

[hockeyyfan]

If you select a prep school for hockey only, you're missing 95% of the value.

[notfromaroundhere]

If you select a prep school for hockey only, you're missing 95% of the value.

I can agree with this statement. As much as we want our girls to "win" on the rink, I think most of us (club or prep) are trying to open up as many doors to our girls as we possibly can.

Finding a school/team/living environment where our girls can develop into the best adult they can be is the goal of any hockey parent.

Sometimes that is at home at a superior public or day school playing club hockey.

Sometimes that is boarding at a prep school when the local schools available or the local club teams (if there are any) are not as good.

And the key word in that statment is "value".

Ultimately our choice of where our girls learn/play has a lot to do with the financial resources available to us as parents.

Hockey is one of the winter sports of the well off, as we have all invested substantial money in ice/travel/equipment over the years. Joe Truckdriver's daughter is not generally seen on the hockey rink.

But when it comes to the high school years, the cost goes way up with the level of competition. The top club teams travel extensively and Prep schools cost as much as private universities.

So many of us without as many resources (educational and financial), look at the value of a prep school education (with substantial financial aid) and prep school hockey and decide that it is the best "value" for our daughter. Plus those of us who are geographically challenged can also solve a logistical problem.

Of course, going the prep route has its costs - especially when you are both geographically and financially challenged. When you are geographically challenged, just getting coaches to see you daughter to evaluate her talent can be difficult - coaches have only so much scouting time. And as much as financial aid does make many schools affordable, needing FA puts your daughter at a competitive disadvantage when applying to the most competitive (hockey or academic) schools.
Let's face it, talent level being equivalent, a school will always take the player whose parents can pay cash.

So often, if you come from the hinterlands or don't have the bucks to pay full fare, your choices are limited. You select schools where you know your daughter will get a lot of ice as a freshman, because they need her talent level next year. Those are typically teams that haven't been as competitive recently. And even if these are not the "favorites to win the championship" it does not subtract from the educational improvements that you daughter gets. And playing "against the best" as opposed to "with the best" isn't necessarily a bad option.

So "value" is truly judged on the options available. A geographically challenged player of modest means who attends mediocre public schools gets a lot of "value" from attending/playing at a prep school with substantial Financial Aid. More value than the daughter of a wealthy family who attends a prestigous day school and has a top club team in her backyard. Their choices are unlimited.

[Black Bear]

Could not disagree with you more on your "MOST" and "MUST" points. If I start making an argument against them, I'd be typing all night and I don't feel like it tonight. Another day.

While I can agree with you that the primary purpose of attending prep school should be the education, when you say that it is not the venue for hockey training or exposure I have to disagree with you. I can only speak firsthand for my daughter's team and, as she was just a freshman, I only have one year of experience following prep hockey. This past season I was lucky enough to be able to see probably 15 or 16 games, including the Deerfield Tournament. There were college coaches or assistants at almost every game that I attended. College coaches, mens and womens sports, get a bang for their buck when they scout prep games because they know ahead of time that virtually every player on the ice is likely to move on to college. You aren't going to find too many non-qualifiers. That is not neccessarily true for club teams.

As for the "MUST" play club hockey, I also strongly disagree. This past season my daughter started with a club team but decided that the level of play wasn't worth the effort to get to games and instead just focused on her school team and used her Sundays to work out and study. Just be a kid and spend some time with her friends. Yes, almost everybody is doing the two or three teams, showcase after showcase, year round routine, but I would ask how many do it just because of the, unjustified I think, fear of falling behind? The herd mentality. Everyone else is doing it so I guess I have to do it too. Again, only speaking for my daughter, who played no club hockey last season, her coaches were contacted by several college coaches who wanted to start a file on her, including her "dream" college. If she chooses to play club hockey next year it will be because she would like to try and earn a trip to California for Nationals not because she feels that she isn't getting the hockey training or exposure with her school team.

As an aside, this past week I attended the Moving Up Day at my daughter's school. For everyone who thinks that admissions offices, at least good ones, don't spend time looking for well rounded student/athletes, this ceremony was an eyeopener. Valedictorian of the graduating class, four year hockey player. Two inductees into the National Honor Society, hockey players. Upper school Excellence in English award, hockey player. Lower school Excellence in English award, hockey player. Scholarship to the student "who exemplifies enthusiasm, determination and dedication in keeping the human spirit alive in every one she meets", hockey player. Upper school Science award, hockey player. And, there were several more. My point is not to blow the horn of my daughter's school, or her team, but just to illustrate that if your dream is to excel as a student/athlete, you have to get into an arena that fosters your growth as both.

[vas]

I was really only talking about the poor quality of coaching in SOME of the preps. They are teachers first or perhaps they played in college. None of this qualifies them for coaching positions. Some do not know how to coach. Playing the same lines over and over again late in the season is the sign of a poor coach. Running them ragged while others sit on the bench in Feb and March is a really bad coaching strategy.

What did they do with those girls in Nov, Dec, Jan?Thats why I say there is no developing going on in SOME preps. They just happen to be lucky to have the talent they have when they win.

So thats what I meant about preps being all about education (which is what it should be) and not for hockey. But since this is a hockey forum, people talk hockey.

I will be applying to prep schools for my kid, but now I have narrowed down the list. And guess what, only 2 of the top 10 are on my list.

[notfromaroundhere]

I was really only talking about the poor quality of coaching in SOME of the preps. They are teachers first or perhaps they played in college. None of this qualifies them for coaching positions. Some do not know how to coach. Playing the same lines over and over again late in the season is the sign of a poor coach. Running them ragged while others sit on the bench in Feb and March is a really bad coaching strategy.

What did they do with those girls in Nov, Dec, Jan?Thats why I say there is no developing going on in SOME preps. They just happen to be lucky to have the talent they have when they win.

So thats what I meant about preps being all about education (which is what it should be) and not for hockey. But since this is a hockey forum, people talk hockey.

I will be applying to prep schools for my kid, but now I have narrowed down the list. And guess what, only 2 of the top 10 are on my list.
Ok Vas, I'm curious... What are the top 10 and if you care to go further which 2 are you looking at for your daughter?

I can assume coaching has to do with narrowing the selection, but beyond that what factors are you using - location, religious affiliation, school size, urban/suburban/rural, test score ranges, availability of scholarships?

There are so many things that go into a school decision besides the coach. Yeah, there are a couple of coaches I've heard stories about who give me pause as to whether they have the right temperament to work with young ladies (screamers).

Beyond that, if they make bad game decisions (shortening the bench too early in a game, poor line management, etc.) that shouldn't affect the development of the player. The question is can they teach the game, motivate the girls to their maximum effort, and get them to function as a team (do the girls on the sitting on the short bench buy into the decision or not?)

If making bad decisions shortening the bench is a criteria for declaring a coach bad, you will find it in the club arena as well as the prep arena. I can remember the 2005 12U National Championship game between Assabet and Wisconsin Wild. Manon Rheume was coaching for the Wild and had a 1-0 lead going into the 3rd period. She shortened her bench going to 2 lines and during the 3rd Assabet ended up tying the score. So in the 3 OT periods only 7 players touched the ice IIRC. Now granted 3 of them were the top 3 scoring players in the entire tournament(and probably the 3 best players too!), but with Assabet rolling lines, they just wore down the Wild until they made a small mistake and they cashed it in for the win.

I think that shortening of the bench ultimately caused the team to blow up (it literally vaporized in August), so they did not field a 14U this season. A few players did not buy into the extreme shortening of the bench especially considering that the players at the end of the bench gave up no goals during their time on the ice.

I guess you've had the time to size up these coaches at these schools. I'd just be curious for your input on some of their issues. BTW my daughter will start school at a place that is not amongst the powerhouses this fall, but that school will provide what we feel is an environment that she will be able to excell in academically, socially, and athletically.

If she has the talent to move on and is playing where she will be seen, things will take care of themselves. She seems to like the coach. The coach seems to know the game and how to motivate (from my conversations).

Of course, I work with very limited information as I'm notfromaroundhere.

[vas]

I'm back! I was referring to the teams which finished the season in the top 10, actually I'll narrow it down to the top 6, with the exception of Nobles.

So how about predictions for the 2006-2007 season? I say

1. Lawrence
2. Loomis
3. Nobles
4. Hotchkiss
5. Choate
6. Berkshire
7. Taft
8. Westminster

The top teams seem to have strong offensive players. I know we don't have rosters yet, but this is just a guess, I'm sure I'll be surprised mid-season!

[Redhead'sDad]

I've been lurking on these sites for many months. This seems like the right thread to inquire about the Pre-Prep Showcase, and event held annually north of Boston. It just concluded, and I'm curious if anyone here has been to it, and whether it was helpful for young female hockey players. Thank you in advance for your replies.

[Hux]

The Pre-Prep seems to be well regarded by the coaches as a true showcase for the players since they get decent ice time compared to some of the other showcase events. The Pre-Prep is unique as it is geared to getting looks for the younger girls interested in going to Prep School, rather than the typical event which is about exposure to college coaches.

[Black Bear]

I'm back! I was referring to the teams which finished the season in the top 10, actually I'll narrow it down to the top 6, with the exception of Nobles.

So how about predictions for the 2006-2007 season? I say

1. Lawrence
2. Loomis
3. Nobles
4. Hotchkiss
5. Choate
6. Berkshire
7. Taft
8. Westminster

The top teams seem to have strong offensive players. I know we don't have rosters yet, but this is just a guess, I'm sure I'll be surprised mid-season!

Brewster moves up to D1 this year and they only lost one player from last year. They won the Deerfield Tournament as the only D2 team in the field and overall against D1 opponents they were something like 8-2. Should make some noise with a couple of quality recruits coming in.

[finalapprch]

I would put Loomis at the top. They seem to be really stacked this year. My only question mark would be the new coach.

[NHDad]

I don't see any mention of Andover....

[vas]

I don't see any mention of Andover....

So we if add in Andover and Brewster which 2 would you remove to make it 8? I think it's definitely tough to say at this point.