Girls Prep Hockey

[toots]

Gotice, I couldn't agree with your post #119 more. I was composing a long post about many issues (especially those raised by Teresa Greene regarding higher level of competetion at club vs. prep. That may have been true 10 and maybe even 5 years ago, but the competition is at the prep level now. How many times a season should Assabet or Polar Bear teams beat up on the Coyotes or Lady Reds or Lady Monarchs? These teams only get quality competition at tourneys. The preps have their strong teams and weaker teams, too, but there are at least 10-12 quality teams and when they have a battle, the outcome is up-for-grabs. Nothing better!
Also, what system best prepares a player for D1? SSM and NAHA seem to have a good thing going in that regard, IF that is the goal. The preps do a great job preparing a kid academically for the rigors of college, but I don't see the New England club system doing much standing alone, either athletically or academically.)

But gotice summed it up best (in #119 - not really sure what coolsports and gotice are arguing about now :confused: ). The situation up here is dense with quality players with two competing systems that run the players ragged, to what end? One thing I will say in the preps' defense is the quality competition in the 3-sport calendar. Year-round hockey has its detractors and athletes seem to benefit from other pursuits. And parents, stay the hell out of it. Don't pay for a prep education to get your kid seen or a scholarship. There are so many other benefits from the prep experience. Do what is best long-term, not so you can boast. (Gosh, think I've been burned by the attitude at the rinks around here a bit too much ;) ? Thanks for reading my rant)

[coolsports]

toots, I will agree on one point. Don't just send your kids to the preps in the hope of a D1 ride. This experience is much more for the kids.

As far as Gotice. Again the point is missed. And to me it had been a very simple point.

The questions is simple. Based on time put into the program by the girls are SSM and the Polar Bears really on a level playing ground. Total time together, practice time and game time. It seems like Gotice seems to be dodging the heart of this question.

[coolsports]

So based on your theory of fair, the only teams that should be allowed to participate at Nationals are the Northest programs. All other club teams in the USA practice together all year long, have more than one practice a week as a team, and do not have the "rigorous" schedule, as you put it, that the Northeast girls do. Therefor all other club teams outside of the Northest, should not be allowed to participate at Nationals.

With regards to the demands of a student, this is all relative. Who are you to say that a girl attending a public school in the midwest while playing for her local club team, participating in school club activities, holding down a part time job, or doing community service is any less under pressure than the girl who attends prep school in the east. You assume too much. While in most cases the academics of the northest prep school may be more rigorous, to say that a student not attending a prep school has less pressure is just naive on your part.


I think the real issue, is that the Northest club teams are losing the image of the Powerhouses of girls hockey in the nation and don't like it. The northeast has more than SSM and NAHA to worry about when it comes to Nationals. There is also Honeybaked, Team Illinois, The Wisconsin Wild, Cal Selects, and Colorado to contend with, just to name a few. They all play as a team all year long, recruit from all over the nation, and practice 3-4 times a week.

It is interesting you quote me but I don't recall saying "only northeast teams should be allowed to play at the nationals". You find those exact words in any of my post!

My position has been and always will be that with regards to SSM and NAHA the ice is not level compared to the other club teams. ( By the way I think NAHA is a great program for a girl looking for that experience.)

And my friend you were the one to suggest that the prep school is just like any other school. Those who never knew will never know.

At the end of the day you really sound like you have issues with the northeast programs. It is about the girls!

[teresa greene]

IMHO, I do not see the depth in the prep school rosters to be as competitive as the national level club teams at the Polar Bear tournaments. The club team rosters like the Polar Bears and Assabet have many different prep schools represented with players from all over. .Those prep schools who are competitive are dominated by impact players who raise the level of play because of their development from playing at the competitive club level. Most of the top players listed on this thread are well known from playing on competitive club teams, and not just from playing high school. Like the chicken and the egg, which comes first? Skill scouted from the club team that is recruited for the prep school or prep school talent that is recruited for the club teams??

The issue is whether they should be dependent or independent - the choice of one or the other instead of both helping to develop the skill level and potential for future college opportunities

[BKDad]

There is an assumption here that isn't really accurate. That is that prep schools are all more challenging academically than public schools.

They are different, but it's hard to say one is always better than the other. It depends on the kid and on the schools.

A member of my family is an elementary school teacher and she learned early on that different kids respond to different approaches. Her first teaching partner had an approach entirely different from hers. What she found was that some kids thrived under that partner and others bombed. The same was true for her students. When the struggling kids were exchanged between teachers, very often they got back onto a successful track.

The same is true at higher levels. One member of my family is at a public high school. Some of her team mates go to prep schools. She finds she has as much or more home work than many of them and the course material is more challenging. That's not true for all the prep school courses, but it turned out to be so in this case.

Obviously, just as with hockey teams, not all schools public or private are equal.

In addition, different kids have different desires. One of the positives of a prep school is that you enter a new community, almost like a new family. Indeed, most prep schools promote that as a major advantage of a prep school. But, some kids aren't in as much of a hurry to enter the "adult" world, so that that might not appeal to them.

One major advantage of a prep school is that there is usually closer monitoring of each and every student. Often there are mandatory study halls and even tutoring. You can't "hide" in the back of the class. At most public schools you have to step up on your own to get what you need. There may be advantages to each approach.

The same could be true of the hockey programs. In many club programs, as has been mentioned, you are often on your own when it comes to skill development, training, and so forth. That could be considered a positive or a negative depending on the kid and the situation.

[gotice]

Coolsport, I havenothing against the Northest programs, I think that they have done a fine job in developing girls to play at the higher level. I am simply taking your argument against programs like NAHA and SSM and pointing out the flaws of your argument:

Here are my points based on your comments:Your original comments are in Bold and my original responses are in Blue

Post #118 you stated and I quote:"The Bears practice once a week versus your example of 4-5 for SSM. In addition the PB's rarely have anywhere near a full team (Yes, most play on the Preps). Usually, 5-8 girls per practice.

Games, roughly enough to make the minimum for USA National's. And if they do play it in the practice slot. If a game is played then no practice for the week. For the games, they are lucky to have two lines. I happen to see a PB's game this year where they only had a line and a half with 3 D. I'm guessing SSM and NAHA plays more than that."
My comments to that were and I quote:" There are top club teams outside of the Northeast like Honeybaked, Team Illinois, CYA and others, that have more practices than once a week. The advantage that the Assabet. and Polar Bear clubs have over these teams, is that the majority of their players do have ice practice every day at their prep school in addition to practicing with their club team. (up to 6 practices a week)." and also from post #121 "There is also Honeybaked, Team Illinois, The Wisconsin Wild, Cal Selects, and Colorado to contend with, just to name a few. They all play as a team all year long, recruit from all over the nation, and practice 3-4 times a week."
With regards to academics you wrote:
"Outside the ice most of these girls I believe go to the Prep's. Which means they are going to class 6 days a week and being driven hard to overachieve on the books. During finals that means testing 7 days. Yes, they do practice at the preps during the season but not as a club team."

My response was from post #119 "All hockey players have school 5 days a week, plus homework, jobs, and other high school sports, so that is not a viable excuse or justification for not allowing some teams to participate in Nationals." to which you responded on post #120 "Regarding student pressures and demands, I can only say you have never experienced the prep academics first hand. If you did you would not have suggested that there is not a difference in the demands of the students from the eastern prep schools."
in post #121 I again responded with "With regards to the demands of a student, this is all relative. Who are you to say that a girl attending a public school in the midwest while playing for her local club team, participating in school club activities, holding down a part time job, or doing community service is any less under pressure than the girl who attends prep school in the east. You assume too much. While in most cases the academics of the northest prep school may be more rigorous, to say that a student not attending a prep school has less pressure is just naive on your part. "


Your final commet in post #118 "So to be fair let's acknowledge the difference. Practice 1 per week vs 4-5 per week. Games, maybe 12 vs 30+?. Total team interaction minimal vs every day.

This is why I see a big advantage to SSM or if included NAHA." and my response is and always will be "I think the real issue, is that the Northest club teams are losing the image of the Powerhouses of girls hockey in the nation and don't like it. The northeast has more than SSM and NAHA to worry about when it comes to Nationals. There is also Honeybaked, Team Illinois, The Wisconsin Wild, Cal Selects, and Colorado to contend with, just to name a few. They all play as a team all year long, recruit from all over the nation, and practice 3-4 times a week."

In your last response you stated "It is interesting you quote me but I don't recall saying "only northeast teams should be allowed to play at the nationals". You find those exact words in any of my post! I never said that you specifically said this, but based on your argument of a level playing field, this is the only way for you to feel that there is a level playing field.

Why do you feel that SSM or NAHA should not participate at Nationals, yet have no problem with all of the other Club teams in the USA that recruit from everywhere, play as a team all year long, and practice 3-4 times a week? That is the real question?

If it is truely all about the girls, then why do you have an issue with these two programs that are offering an alternative to the Dual Rostering that the Northeast programs have in place to meet the needs of the Elite female athlete who want to compete at Nationals?

[coolsports]

gotice, to be fair I have not read your long comments. You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

I'm sure they were will thought out and presented.

We do not and will not agree.

Good luck to you and your daughter at nationals.

[gotice]

gotice, to be fair I have not read your long comments. You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

I'm sure they were will thought out and presented.

We do not and will not agree.

Good luck to you and your daughter at nationals.
My daughter won't be at Nationals. But I agree that we will agree to disagree.

And like you, I have the same amount of time on my hands. You be the Pot and I will be the Kettle.
See you around the boards

[whfan]

[Quote
Why do you feel that SSM or NAHA should not participate at Nationals, yet have no problem with all of the other Club teams in the USA that recruit from everywhere, play as a team all year long, and practice 3-4 times a week? That is the real question?

Gotice, Why should SSM or NAHA be the only 2 high schools in the U.S. to be allowed to play in nationals? Why shouldn't Minnesota high schools or the other New England prep schools be allowed in as well? What about girls who didn't make the Cal selects or Colorado teams, getting together to make a run at Nationals as well? At some point, a line has to be drawn somewhere. USA hockey has already drawn the line at club teams and, unfortunately, have already crossed their own line by allowing SSM in. To allow NAHA in would take them even further down the wrong path. I don't see how they could possibly let another high school in, and still have grounds to deny any other school the right to compete in nationals. And why stop at girls hockey - after all, if the girls can have high school teams in nationals, then why not the boys too. If USA changes the rules, they could be setting a precident that has far reaching consequences down the road.

[gotice]

[Quote
Why do you feel that SSM or NAHA should not participate at Nationals, yet have no problem with all of the other Club teams in the USA that recruit from everywhere, play as a team all year long, and practice 3-4 times a week? That is the real question?

Gotice, Why should SSM or NAHA be the only 2 high schools in the U.S. to be allowed to play in nationals? Why shouldn't Minnesota high schools or the other New England prep schools be allowed in as well? What about girls who didn't make the Cal selects or Colorado teams, getting together to make a run at Nationals as well? At some point, a line has to be drawn somewhere. USA hockey has already drawn the line at club teams and, unfortunately, have already crossed their own line by allowing SSM in. To allow NAHA in would take them even further down the wrong path. I don't see how they could possibly let another high school in, and still have grounds to deny any other school the right to compete in nationals. And why stop at girls hockey - after all, if the girls can have high school teams in nationals, then why not the boys too. If USA changes the rules, they could be setting a precident that has far reaching consequences down the road.

The original argument had nothing to do with the fact that these were high schools, but that they had more ice time together, as opposed to the Polar Bears and that was unfair. To that I argued that most club teams outside of the northeast have more ice time together as well.

With regards to high schools playing in Nationals, I would say that you are correct. However USA has already opened the door and unless they are now going to turn back and disallow Shattuck from future National competitions, what justification do they have for disallowing NAHA or any other school that is applying to compete. Shattuck currently has both girls teams, and three boy's teams that compete at Nationals for this year. In the past they have had the 19U girls team and 3 boys teams at the Nationals.

Perhaps the answer to the problem is to have a National tournament at the High School level, that would include prep schools and public schools and leave the club nationls to the clubs. But keep in mind that a player can only play for one National bound team, so this would eliminate two problems at once. No Dual Rostering, No before and after teams, and no high school teams at the club nationals.

As a side note, I find it funny that someone would complain about SSM and NAHA competing with an "unfair" advantage at Nationals, but have no problem taking their money, and others like them, to "unfairly" compete in the Polar Bear tournament.

[whfan]

T

Perhaps the answer to the problem is to have a National tournament at the High School level, that would include prep schools and public schools and leave the club nationls to the clubs. But keep in mind that a player can only play for one National bound team, so this would eliminate two problems at once. No Dual Rostering, No before and after teams, and no high school teams at the club nationals.



This is probably the only fair solution at this point, unless USA hockey does, in fact, rescind their decision to let SSM in. Is it a good solution for girls hockey? Probably not. There just simply aren't enough talented girls to field a whole new network of high school teams - the result would be watered down teams.

If I were a prep school coach I would love it though. Now you could recruit girls with an offer of not only a great education, but to play hockey for the school with the possibility of going to nationals as well. There would bound to be at least some quality players who would be interested in this, or even for staying home and playing for their local high school without giving up their option of having a chance to compete in nationals. Either way, club teams would undoubtedly suffer, as would girls hockey in general.

The better solution would be to simply rethink letting SSM be eligible for nationals in the first place, and then do what is best for girl's hockey. In my opinion, that would be to have USA hockey follow their own rules and again make SSM ineligible.

[BKDad]

How about "anybody who qualifies" can go to the National Championships? Prep school, high school, or club team - it wouldn't matter.

The only requirement might be no dual rostering. That would prevent multiple teams from getting together to make an All-Star team just for the tournament.

Just imagine the politics and turf wars over that one...

[whfan]

How about "anybody who qualifies" can go to the National Championships? Prep school, high school, or club team - it wouldn't matter.

The only requirement might be no dual rostering. That would prevent multiple teams from getting together to make an All-Star team just for the tournament.

Just imagine the politics and turf wars over that one...

Yes - and it may take 2 months to get to the championship game! :D

[BKDad]

Hey! Almost like the Stanley Cup!

[whfan]

Hey! Almost like the Stanley Cup!

LOL! :)

[NEHockey]

There is another school that is eligible, just hasn't been able to win - NSA in Lake Placid.

[toots]

There is another school that is eligible, just hasn't been able to win - NSA in Lake Placid.

Is this true? I know a mere two years ago, the NY District refused to allow them to compete because, according to Coach Bill Ward, they recruited and had Canadians on the team.

Anyone shed any light on a change in policy?

[gotice]

after thinking more about the whole thing, the biggest difference between NAHA and the rest of the prep programs including Shattuck, is the full year program for academics. NAHA girls only attend NAHA during the hockey season. They continue to do their schoolwork through their home base school with the help of tutors. They remain enrolled in their primary school while attending NAHA for the most part. With regards to a hockey team, NAHA is more like a club program with tutors to assist in your academics. Shattuck and NSA on the other hand are high school programs with a full year hockey program.

With the argument of having a Public and Prep school National championship, you open a whole other can of worms. The argument on behalf of the public schools is they can not recruit girls from all over, while the prep schools can. As stated by someone else on the board, to have a seperate National championship would also deplete the Club teams to a certain extent as girls would opt to play for their high schools or go away to prep schools.

I like BKdad's idea, any one who wants to compete can, just no dual rostering. Problem solved. You still could have the play downs in each state, then district, to get down to the 12 teams. For states with a lot of High School hockey or prep hockey, you could go further and have a play down to get into states by dividing the teams by regions within the state.

Another option to trim down the number of teams that would end up competing for a spot at Nationals, is to have a Tier I and Tier II Nationals, like the boy's programs. This would assist all of the girls programs, especially in the smaller markets that have a hard time scraping enough girls together to field even one team at each age group. Tier II programs would be for teams that have the majority of their team from their state in the smaller markets and from their city in the larger markets, also based on the number of first year girls VS second year girls of any age group. So a state like Texas could choose to compete at the Tier I or II depending on the number of out of state girls on their roster and the age of the girls. A team from Minnesota, would have to register based on the number of players from out of "District". A team like Shattuck would have to register Tier I while a team from Edina could register Tier II dependant on the number of second year girls they have on the roster. However it must be noted that because MN does not currently follow the birth year rules for USA hockey, Shattuck and the MN Thoroughbreds are the only eligible teams to compete in the state, unless another team opts to use the new birth year cut off rules from USA hockey.

[BKDad]

You could also speculate that not allowing dual-rostering, and putting the prep schools on the same competition plane as club teams, might deplete the prep schools as well.

[OhiohockeyDad]

Maybe I can jump in here and offer a little insight into both sides- living both sides of the talk (prep and club)-
First to BK Dad- have you seen any MWEHL teams play? Take the prep players off the PBs and Assabet, then those districts are a free for all, then send the winner to the slaughter at Nats, except for NAHA, which plays there.....Got off track

We have to realize that everywhere is different, as far as the NAHA/SSM thing, yes they are schools, they have started their own USA Hockey assns, play a club/school schedule and have declared for Nats- as have others- Gilmour Academy has always done this too (registered through USA Hockey)as there is no girls ice hockey in OHSSA , yet this year they declared for Nats as was their right, so I assume any school could do it, if they wanted to.
Every district is also different in their rules- sometimes from the USA District, sometimes from the HS athletic ruling body- like here in Ohio where some National gymnastics team members were forbidden by the state to go to a competition over Xmas a few years ago, or they would lose the rest of their senior year of HS competition- you think you guys have problems out east- at least they can go play with the clubs if they wish!! MAHA says - no HS players, so there it is the USA District making the rule!!
In the Midwest/West, it is normal to play and/or practice hours away(sometimes plane rides-talk to Cal Select parents sometime!!), so that should make up the difference between all the extra time the prep girls have to put into therir studies (which as somebody else pointed out, isn't always the case). Sometimes prep girls- that is their only chance to get somewhere where they can be seen, and once there, they also play club, because they find out that only prep doesn;t do it for you, but it's still better than home.
Prep is primarily for the education- get a girl ready for the education grinds of college (and help get her in!!), the sports are a great by-product.

Both systems produce great college bound kids and athletes-like it or hate it- it is so..