NATIONAL U-18 CAMP-LAKE PLACID

[WFR]

ANYONE KNOW IF MASSACHUSETTS HAS POSTED ITS PARTICIPANTS FOR THE NATIONAL U-18 CAMP. IF THEY HAVEN'T I WONDER WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG. I SEE MINNESOTA, NEW ENGLAND AND MID AMERICA HAVE POSTED.

[videohockey]

ANYONE KNOW IF MASSACHUSETTS HAS POSTED ITS PARTICIPANTS FOR THE NATIONAL U-18 CAMP. IF THEY HAVEN'T I WONDER WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG. I SEE MINNESOTA, NEW ENGLAND AND MID AMERICA HAVE POSTED.

Central District tryouts are April 30th.

[fobwh]

The festival was completed last weekend and we were told the selections would be posted in about 10 days on the Mass Hockey website so they should be up this week.

[moxie]

The importance of making it to Lake Placid has been the topic of discussion in the past so as we approach another festival season I thought I would provide some statistics from last year's 17/18 festival:

Of the 136 participants, 40 graduated in the class of '05, 76 are graduating this year in the class of '06, and 20 are in the class of '07.

From the class of '05, every player went to a DI school.
From the class of '06, 62 are going DI, 1 is going DIII and 13 are unknown.

Of the 100 US players on the D1 recruit thread, 62 participated in the 17/18 festival and 38 did not.

[BKDad]

Does this suggest that the path to D1 is through Lake Placid? Or is it that the girls who are likely oriented toward playing at the D1 level also happen to be qualified for and interested in going to Lake Placid?

I am not questioning the value of the Lake Placid experience, only the connection between it and D1 hcokey.

[brookyone]

Or is it that the girls who are likely oriented toward playing at the D1 level also happen to be qualified for and interested in going to Lake Placid?
My guess is that would be the case primarily, with this...

Does this suggest that the path to D1 is through Lake Placid?
...being more or less a natural occurring byproduct or correlation. I'd certainly expect that a pretty high percentage of LP participants would attract the attention of, and ultimately progress to D-I. It would be interesting and perhaps more telling to know the number of division I rostered players that never attended any LP camps / festivals. No idea what that might be. Another initial thought would be players that never attended any LP events would be well represented on D-I rosters...could be mistaken.

Just taking a cursory look at the team I'm most familiar with, which had 17 US native players rostered last season there are five that have attended LP camps (I'm nearly 100% sure of all five). I strongly suspect others on that same roster have also participated at LP (or Rochester) events in the past but with my memory, I'd need some assistance with that.

I'd guess with the knowledge possessed by members of this forum alone we could get a pretty accurate count for all D-I programs. That would be interesting...to me.

I think there has to be more than five on the roster in question. :confused:

[ARM]

I think there has to be more than five on the roster in question.I count 15 of 17 who have participated in USA hockey development camps at some point (such that I found it documented). Maybe you meant at a certain age, and that would be more work to find.

[brookyone]

Maybe you meant at a certain age, and that would be more work to find.
Nope, just overall / at any time. Fifteen is certainly more what I would have expected before looking into it. I could only recall some of those from the last two years...and one senior.

[Sweden]

Mass selections are posted


The festival was completed last weekend and we were told the selections would be posted in about 10 days on the Mass Hockey website so they should be up this week.

[WFR]

Does anyone know how they allocate spots for the u-18 camp. I was looking on the website and for an example, Minnesota and Massachusetts are sending 9 Defensemen each while Michigan sends 5 and New England is only sending 2. It seems to me that there should be more than 2 New England defensemen worthy of going to Lake Placid if Mass is sending 9.

[BKDad]

There's two criteria usually quoted.

One is the number of female players registered to USAHockey in that age group for the district. That one you can pretty well figure out from data on the web pages.

The second is a little more squishy. It's based on previous experience with players from that district.

You can see how those two translate into a number of overall players from each district. You could envision how districts like Massachusetts and Minnesota, with so many registered players, would get more than places like the southern part of the country where women's hockey hasn't caught on quite as quickly.

How that breaks down into positional allocations is beyond me. You'd tend to think it would be proportional, but I guess not.

A little off the topic - From reading some of the regional web forums centered around girl's hockey, you get the idea pretty quickly that the process as it stands doesn't reach widespread popularity and acclaim.

[futurestar]

A little off the topic - From reading some of the regional web forums centered around girl's hockey, you get the idea pretty quickly that the process as it stands doesn't reach widespread popularity and acclaim.


BKDad -- you get the understatement of the year award!!!

[ref11]

[QUOTE=BKDad]There's two criteria usually quoted.

The second is a little more squishy. It's based on previous experience with players from that district. (From BKDad)

Players get rated 1-4 (4 being the best) at camp. If you continue to send players getting rated 1 or 2, you are likely to lose slots to districts sending players who are getting rated 3 + 4. :cool:

[BKDad]

I've seen a suggestion posted on the Massachusetts oriented forum that makes some sense to me. The idea goes like this.

Each district would have a district wide camp for each birth year. Right now, it's done by a different grouping, but there are some rumors that perhaps USAHockey will go to birth years to add more girls.

How each district chooses to select girls for the district camp is up to them, but USAHockey would supply recommendations.

At each district camp, some kind of neutral set of evaluators would rate each and every player based on what they see in the games, the practices, and what not.

These scores would be tabulated and posted somewhere. Each girl would get a more detailed evaluation along with the usual evaluation that they get from their coach. This would tell them what they do well, and what they need to work on.

USAHockey would tabulate all the scores from all the districts. The top kids from across the country would be invited to the national camp. Of course, this pre-supposes that there is a uniform evaluation applied across all districts, which may be possible with independent evaluators "trained" by USAHockey.

These measures would get around a couple problems. One is the idea that the evaluations from last year's camp partially determines future admissions for different kids. The second is that independent evaluators would be less subject to the charges of favoritism that always pop up each year. Third, the evaluations would be more uniform. Finally, this would allow for years when the talent level in one division may be unusually high at one age level at one position, or the opposite where it might be down.