USA women's development

[hockeytalk]

The USA will not improve until they decide to truly put DEVELOPMENT of the players (girls) into the program. As I have said before, holding a one week festival up in Lake Placid where the girls are chosen by districts where parents are coaches will NEVER bring the true talents together. I'm not saying that there aren't talented girls there playing, there's just not ALL the talented girls there playing. And what purpose does a one week festival serve? Maybe we should take a page out of Canada's book (whatever that is) and do things closer to the way they do it. I'm still laughing about the so called tryouts they had at different places around the country. The "fundraiser". Did they really think they would find a player at one of these tryouts? Did any of the players that went to the tryout really feel as if they had a shot at making it? I think its pretty embarrassing for the girls who go there thinking they may get a shot. Does anyone know if there's ever been a "diamond in the rough?" Do the boys programs hold these "fundraisers" around the country for phantom spots in the national program? The camps they have are by invitation only. What is the criteria for making one of these camps? How does one get noticed? Nothing in USA hockey is ADVERTIZED. It's all by word of mouth and only certain people are "in". Is this how it is in Canada too? I've heard the U22 team mentioned. Why wasn't there one this past summer? There should be development of girls even in the years of the olympics even after the team is chosen......it's called development. It's called a feeder system. Do we have a feeder system? There has to be women somewhere in this country who could have been developed enough to be able to play in those Turin games. Skating two lines the way the USA did is unfair to the girls who's families paid countless dollars to go out there to see their daughters sit on the bench. If they were good enough to make that team, they should have played. If they couldn't play, they shouldn't be there. Simple as that. As long as the USA continues to rely on the "chosen few" development will never happen. Politics politics politics. (before you start screaming at me, the "chosen few" deserve to be there) So don't the ones who busted their arms, legs, etc for the past 6 months doing the same workouts, etc..................... WE NEED DEVELOPMENT. I say clean house, we have four years to get ready, start from scratch from top to bottom and make it right.

[uvmcats]

Whether the true talents were at the games or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that USA Hockey establishes a natural filter to assure only certain athletes make it to the top. That filter is money. The way the sport is structured hockey can only attract those athletes whose family is willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on the players development. There is no analogy in hockey to the african-american playing basketball on a playground in the ghetto getting noticed and getting a college scholarship to play. There will be no Connie Hawkins types playing high level hockey. Hockey will never have the best athletes playing the sport, it will only have the best athletes who have affluent families.

This isn't to say that money doesn't influence the process in other sports. Tennis and figure skating are very similiar, probably polo also. In hockey money buys you into the best clinics, buys you into the best clubs (oh yeah some do have tryouts but only for the kids that have money), and buys you access to the decision makers.

Hockey is a great sport. It will sell itself to the good athletes if there is a way to keep the sport accessible to average families. USA Hockey's president said the goal of USA Hockey is to grow the sport. The only way for this to happen is for the industry to work together to level the playing field by keeping cost down. You can keep the cost down by significantly reducing the emphasis on select teams (in fact no select teams until kids reach high school would be great) and increasing emphasis on skill development and local leagues at the younger ages (mites, squirts and pee wees, U14 and below for girls). Doing this will expand the numbers in all youth levels of the program. Building a better base, treating the base fairly will yield better national teams and will create lifetime recreational players to buy the ice time to make rinks profitable.

[gotice]

I would say there are a lot of blue collar families out there that scrape together the funds to support their child's hockey dreams. Not every hockey family is afluent. Lots of families give up other luxuries so their daughter or son can play this great game at the highest level possible for their skill.

It is true that Hockey is not like basketball, where a kid f can just go out and play on the playground, develop skills, and go onto college. Maybe that is because Hockey reguires more equipment and a specific surface to play the game. It is real hard to play pond hockey in Texas or any of the other southern states, so that would eliminate the concept of a pick up game on the playground. Lots of southern kids develop their pond hockey skill on the hard tops with rollerblades. A pair of rollar blades is relatively cheap as is a street hockey stick.

I don't think hockey is any more cost prohibitive at the playground level than basketball. I think the interest level is what prevents more inner city kids from playing the sport. Having grown up in an inner city with a NHL team across town, I didn't even know hockey existed. It wasn't televised and nobody in my neighborhood was talking about it. I discovered hockey as a young adult and have been hooked ever since.

The difference between the USA and Canada, is that Hockey is televised everyday in Canada. They televise the youth hockey every Saturday morning. There is a channel dedicated to hockey 24/7. The rinks are funded by the neighborhood and almost every neighborhood has one. Minnesota is one of the only states that follows the example of Canada so it is no surprise that they have a huge amount of talent coming out of that state. From my understanding, the New England states are also fairly similar in their set up. The rest of the USA is based on privately owned rinks which in turn cause the price of ice to be higher. There is very little coverage of hockey in most areas so there is very little exposure to the game to a vast majority of the population.

I think the lack of exposure is more of a problem than the cost of playing. Almost, without exception, at every association there is scholarship money available for families who's child wants to play the game but can't afford the cost. Prep Schools offer financial aid to any family that qualifies. I know several kids playing at the top prep schools, who are anything but afluent.

[Radar3535]

Whether the true talents were at the games or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that USA Hockey establishes a natural filter to assure only certain athletes make it to the top. That filter is money. The way the sport is structured hockey can only attract those athletes whose family is willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on the players development. There is no analogy in hockey to the african-american playing basketball on a playground in the ghetto getting noticed and getting a college scholarship to play. There will be no Connie Hawkins types playing high level hockey. Hockey will never have the best athletes playing the sport, it will only have the best athletes who have affluent families.

This isn't to say that money doesn't influence the process in other sports. Tennis and figure skating are very similiar, probably polo also. In hockey money buys you into the best clinics, buys you into the best clubs (oh yeah some do have tryouts but only for the kids that have money), and buys you access to the decision makers.

Hockey is a great sport. It will sell itself to the good athletes if there is a way to keep the sport accessible to average families. USA Hockey's president said the goal of USA Hockey is to grow the sport. The only way for this to happen is for the industry to work together to level the playing field by keeping cost down. You can keep the cost down by significantly reducing the emphasis on select teams (in fact no select teams until kids reach high school would be great) and increasing emphasis on skill development and local leagues at the younger ages (mites, squirts and pee wees, U14 and below for girls). Doing this will expand the numbers in all youth levels of the program. Building a better base, treating the base fairly will yield better national teams and will create lifetime recreational players to buy the ice time to make rinks profitable.Lets add solving world peace and a cure for Cancer.Open your eyes to the real world.How do you know that there are better athletes with less money.Stop promoting racial bias.Because someone has money that means they are not a good athlete.I have not heard about too many basketball players playing on the playground and being offered college scholarships.They usually play HS ball,then play AAU summer ball and probably attend scouting camps like the ABCD camp.How do those poor kids get to do all of that traveling?Anybody can have the best of the best as far as coaching at young age and that doesn't guarantee them anything.They either have the talent or they don't.All the money in the world can't buy you size or physical talents.Don't fault us for not living in a climate that would provide free ice for a good portion of the year.The last I heard there were a lot of good hockey players coming out of MN(at least that is what Brookyone says :D ) and I don't think money has anything to do with it.Don't disrespect the parents who do make sacrifices to help their children reach for their dreams.

[whfan]

I would say there are a lot of blue collar families out there that scrape together the funds to support their child's hockey dreams. Not every hockey family is afluent. Lots of families give up other luxuries so their daughter or son can play this great game at the highest level possible for their skill.


Amen to that Gotice! My experience has been that this is the situation for most of the families I know - and it's not just giving up luxuries either. In my family, it's getting the most mileage out of everthing dollar we spend, whether it's cars, clothes, whatever - we don't throw it out, we wear it out.

[BKDad]

From my understanding, the New England states are also fairly similar in their set up. The rest of the USA is based on privately owned rinks which in turn cause the price of ice to be higher.

In New England, there aren't municipal rinks in every town. Far from it. Massachusetts has the largest infrastructure of publicly supported rinks. The MDC built a number of rinks throughout the state some time ago, as did local towns especially around Boston. So, no surprise, there's a lot of hockey programs and players in the area. Elsewhere in the area, there is no pattern of consistency. There are some municipal rinks in Connecticut, but very few by comparison to Massachusetts. As a result, the cost of ice in Massachusetts is considerably less than it is in Connecticut. Connecticut is typically over $300 per hour.

[binnyrus]

I haven't been reading all the posts in this thread so sorry if this doesn't quite fit in . . . but here in Duluth there are many outdoor rinks run by the city parks department. Plenty of opportunity to play "pick-up" hockey games. All you need are skates and a stick. Also, my understanding is that many of the youngsters play in leagues where the games are all outside . . . I also understand that at some of the rinks a few parents maintain the rinks (at their own expense) to have better surfaces than the city can afford to maintain.

Of course, this is all only in the Winter. It's always reminds me of all the baseball games I played as a kid . . . not "organized" per se. I'm just thinking that these are the kinds of venues where if kids could come, use skates for free and have a stick that it would be a cheap and free way to be introduced to the game.

Okay, all you other Duluth folks out there will write to say I'm all wrong about this . . . or to clarify.

I also love the UMD games that have the little girls teams play during the intermission. Usually the fans stay to watch, to cheer, to laugh but more than anything else to encourage them on with huge applause at the end. Isn't it the kind of experience that builds dreams - you can't tell me there weren't plenty of young girls at the 2003 FF here - to hear that loud roar of 5000 fans when the game winning goal was scored - that didn't get the seed of a dream planted. Exposure's half the battle.

[kustomice]

The level of athletic ability required to play at the highest level of any sport is something that cannot be taught no matter how much time and money is spent. It is something innate and any one who has ever been involved with such athletes would recognize this in a second. Limiting the pool of athletes that you select from greatly reduces your likely hood of finding this level of athlete.

The player development programs offered by USA Hockey are quality and world class, but unfortunately the raw materials are not the 'best' athletes the country has to offer. This is not a knock on the current selection process, but the fact that access to the game in general is so limited.

How many young female athletes are there in the US? How many have the opportunity to compete in ice hockey? (Actually, after the past two world juniors, I think you can include the male side too).

For the US hockey programs to be "the best they can be" they need to focus on increasing the positive profile of the sport. Until more young female athletes aspire to be the next big hockey star the US will always be behind countries such as Canada (and possibly Sweden and Finland in the very near future).

How to do this? Well, IMHO making the sport more affordable would be a great place to start, followed closely by limiting the development of elite programs during the initial years of play (until bantam anyway).

Those already involved in the sport need to become less selfish and redirect more of the current resources towards developing and sponsoring the less developed or facility and financially strapped areas.

[brookyone]

The last I heard there were a lot of good hockey players coming out of MN(at least that is what Brookyone says :D )
There are a number of indicators to suggest ECACHL & HE coaches agree.

[SAMMEE]

Unfortunately most of the existing "powerhouse" clubs have no reason to ask USA Hockey to make any change. There is a lot of money and prestige in being National Champions - it brings in a lot of players at tryouts and it is easy to entice a player to leave their existing club. Many USA Hockey districts have less than 4 girls/women's teams competing to go to the Nationals and you can sometimes tell who will probably go before the season starts. They should discontinue National Championships below the 16U level.
We all know what the costs are and that clubs are flying players around to get their 14/10 games in so we have to make it so there are more teams at the lower age brackets. It will never be an inexpensive sport but everyone should have options other than the elite travel team to play on with an extensive travel schedule. I coach at the younger levels and we can easily have a five hour round trip drive for our "local" league games not even an away tournament.
If we are content to be a niche sport - USA Hockey should admit it and stop trying to act as if they want to be for everyone. If they want to expand they have to think differently and act accordingly. In my own district which has a large number of boys' teams and clubs; nobody really cares if girls' hockey even exists.
Best wishes to everyone

[BLW]

Up here in Canada, the only consistent "national" championship for females is the Senior "AAA" where the likes of Wick, Campbell, Sunohara, etc. play for their club teams.

The U18's have been of an all-star variety for Provincial teams and was every two years but now has become a yearly thing.

[daffee]

The USA will not improve until they decide to truly put DEVELOPMENT of the players (girls) into the program. WE NEED DEVELOPMENT.
For what it's worth, my thoughts on what is done to develop players in other skating sports -- not saying it is the answer -- but something to think about.
If a club team is one of the top four finshers at nationals at the under-16, Under-19 or Under 22 level there is an extensive evaluation done by sports medicine (I have helped conduct the evaluations). It includes cardio, strength, conditioning, flexibility, nutritional status, and a thorough physical exam. Individual recommendations are give to the skater, a comprehensive team summary to the coach. For instance the skaters have a cardiac monitor, do intervils, then sprints, then laps and their results are compared to other teams at their level. So for instance, Coach Smith noted the next USA team needs speed and conditioning. USA hockey would know, which clubs are on the right path. Those that fall short, the federation sends a sports medicine specialist to the club and provides a conditioning program, then returns and evaluates the outcomes. Is this expensive, no, because the sports medicine personnel have the skaters sign an informed consent and use the data for research. Elite skaters who go to Colorado Springs have the same type of evaluation, what I am talking about is a broad based sports medicine evaluation that includes probably 10 clubs and hundreds of skaters.
My other observation is that at the level below high school there is way too much emphasis on games, and not enough on skill development. The under 14 hockey players should be doing power skating 1 to 2 times a week, edge/skating skills class at least once a week, and hockey skills once a week -- ideally some of this out of season too. All these games not only don't develop skills and conditioning, they put the younger player at risk for injury.

My last word on this subject. I do think we need to give the USA/NCAA credit at the collegiate level for doing an exceptional job of developing women hockey players. Let's face it, the stars on all these international teams are playing in US colleges. Collegiate coaches and staff are doing a great job of continuing to develop the skills and talents of the best players in the world. I will even include prep school coaches because a lot of these players spent their high school years in US prep programs.

[salisbury55]

The fact of the matter is that the US woman's hockey program is a joke. The olympic team lost convincingly to the Salisbury boys jv team that was hardly trying. The one game I watched in the Olympics I saw girls who couldn't even lift the puck. It is an embarassment that you get 50 odd shots and can't score. Not to mention some of the girls can't even skate. The US should recognize this and develop their players accordingly if they even chose to go down that path.

[lordsontheboards]

Please do not compare speed and strength with the girls versus the boys.
It is two totaly different games from the boy/girl stand point. I would hope the boys team would have won. They probably did this to play against more speed. Salsbury55 to call the program a joke means I don't respect your opinion and obviously you know little about hockey. Since it's your very first post I'm going to let you slide. I'm glad we had this talk.

[Cargo]

HCs development begins at the tender age of their under 15 program of excellence to their under 18 within each province. The female players are put through extensive fitness testing, mental preparation, chalk talks, and logging diaries and training for about a 5 month period. I would agree with daffee this is key to HCs success.

[MNhockeyfan09]

The fact of the matter is that the US woman's hockey program is a joke. The olympic team lost convincingly to the Salisbury boys jv team that was hardly trying. The one game I watched in the Olympics I saw girls who couldn't even lift the puck. It is an embarassment that you get 50 odd shots and can't score. Not to mention some of the girls can't even skate. The US should recognize this and develop their players accordingly if they even chose to go down that path.

Considering you were only 14 when the US woman's team won a Gold Medal
I won't really consider your opinion worth while.

[camman15]

The fact of the matter is that the US woman's hockey program is a joke. The olympic team lost convincingly to the Salisbury boys jv team that was hardly trying. The one game I watched in the Olympics I saw girls who couldn't even lift the puck. It is an embarassment that you get 50 odd shots and can't score. Not to mention some of the girls can't even skate. The US should recognize this and develop their players accordingly if they even chose to go down that path.

can't shoot and can't skate?,.....really?,.....I guess I, along with many, many others, have to disagree with your analogy of this team or the program based on some exhibition game vs. some boys JV team,.....friend, watch about 100 more years of women's hockey before you make anymore "off the wall" statements like the above,.....your analysis is the joke, to say the least,.....

[rpi_fan03]

Maybe he is just upset...maybe he got cut from the Salisbury JV team... :p

If you watched any women's hockey game and saw that the players "couldn't skate" and "couldn't lift the puck" then I would say you probably need glasses...and maybe a lobotomy :D

[Hux]

My other observation is that at the level below high school there is way too much emphasis on games, and not enough on skill development. The under 14 hockey players should be doing power skating 1 to 2 times a week, edge/skating skills class at least once a week, and hockey skills once a week -- ideally some of this out of season too. All these games not only don't develop skills and conditioning, they put the younger player at risk for injury.

I am sure that a lot of folks would agree with you, and ironically this is one of the major reasons club teams flourish. Without the club teams, a youth player has little or no hope of receiving this kind of instruction. Right now any town team is lucky to have two 50 minute practices a week prior to the start of the high school season. Once the high school season starts, those teams eat up a lot of ice time, and the youth teams are cut back to one practice a week.

In my town we have four teams for every level from Mites to Bantams, and three at Midgets. We then have U10, 12 and 14 teams and next fall a 19. Add to that 75-100 kids in two divisions in the Skill Development Program. There is no way you can get the kind of ice time you are talking about without having four pads in town, or having practices start at 4am before school. (All our practices are in the evenings, starting at 5PM for mites, and running to 10 for Midgets)

I agree that there are too many games. We started our Squirt season on September 6, had a second practice two days later, and the first game on the 10th, with another on the 11th. I would prefer that those weekend hours were used for power skating and skills, with the season starting a month later. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, that isn't how it works.

My niece plays on a mixed Squirt team, as well as my U10 team. The Squirt team follows the standard practice of skating lines, and circles, and then the usual drills in practice. There is waaaaaaaay too much time spent waiting to do the drills, and often way too little coaching of what to do and not do.

The girls teams in town follow a different program. We are fortunate to have former D1 players Val Bono (Providence '00) and Kristen Thomas (UNH '03) as high school coaches who spend a lot of time working with the youth girls. (Recognizing a great thing when we see it, we old fart coaches have let them run the practices when they are there, and follow their lead when they are not.) They have brought a whole different approach that involves a predominance of power skating and edgework drills rather than the standard practice fare. They have also pushed off ice training, including synthetic ice workouts as well as conditioning and nutrition. As a result we are seeing girls that have a more "elite" mentality as to how they approach developing their abilities. It has begun to pay dividends, and should really pay off in the seasons to come.

I would disagree with your comments regarding injury however. I have been involved with youth hockey in town for five seasons now, and in all the practices and games, at all the levels below Midget during all that time there has been just one injury: a broken leg.

[Skate79]

If you want to ensure a consistent flow of talent, start early and work with them through high school. Krissy Wendell started when she was five and had the benefit of a hockey hotbed in Minnesota. There are only a handful of areas in this country that will commit to hockey for both boys and girls whereas in Canada, hockey is the national pasttime (well, lacrosse but we all know it's hockey) and available for women year-round across the country. Same will most likely be the case for Finland and Sweden.

Angela Ruggerio and Chanda Gunn have been great ambassadors for the women's game. USA Hockey needs to support their efforts by creating a national developmental program and start a skills program when these girls are old enough to skate and hold a stick. Otherwise, it will be more of the same in 2010.