Do we really care where the girls come from, as long as we are growing the girls game?
No, and it has nothing to do with my original question which was for an explanation of how youth hockey is managed in Canada where there are so many more players. Apparently my phasing hurt someones feelings and the whole thread went to 4311Originally Posted by DDad16
So, Minnesota has less than 20% of the girls registered with USA Hockey nationwide, fewer than 100% of whom play in the high school system, but this system contributes about a third of the best D1 players from the U.S. (accepting your measure for the sake of argument). And you consider this to be an indictment of the Minnesota high school approach?
As I've said before, math is harder than people think.
Got it!
You're working hard here, so I'll acknowledge your point. I have made this argument before, in a different context, but I'll throw it out here: the MN model produces large numbers of very good players, but it is not so great at producing elite players. Minnesota produces about 18% of the total rosters in NCAA women's hockey, but as you say, a slightly lower percentage of the top players.
The reason seems clear to me: the MN youth programs provide high-quality development opportunities for a large number of players, and many players who would otherwise not continue playing, if the travel and expense of club hockey were factored in, are getting the opportunity to play college hockey. Players such as this are actually critical to the development of the elite players who will go on to play on the national teams, as nobody can get better if they don't have competitive teams to play against.
If, as you say, Minnesota moves to the club model for development (and I don't see the evidence for this), it would be a loss for women's hockey, as you would see possibly more elite players coming from Minnesota, but many fewer players in total. That would mean fewer NCAA teams, or degraded quality.
half your brain apparently ...
cherry picking stats from one year means nothing
1) the player you are referring to as the best incoming Gopher was not produced by the JWHL, it was merely a one year stop along the way
2) you are implying since there are 4 players that scored more points than her, there are 4 players who are even better, no need to argue this point, we can wait and see what happens next year, how they stack up against the rest
3) oooh, almost lead WCHA freshman in scoringmaybe you should have included that one JWHL alumni almost made first team All-American and almost won an NCAA championship
not almost, #1, 1st team, champions, numerous times
4) the top scoring freshman you are referring to played in the CHA, LOL The ECAC top freshman this year, where did she come from? The previous year, where did she come from? Most if not everyone here would say freshman of the year in the ECAC is more impressive.
maybe you should try again
Last edited by pokechecker; 04-11-2017 at 08:11 PM. Reason: fishing season never ends in MN
Democrats are making a big deal out of the Russian involvement in our elections to deflect attention away from all the Messicans and other non citizens who vote in our elections.
well, you have me convinced, a state that comprises 1% of the US population, and has 1/9th the population of Canada produces *only* 14% (that's 1/7th for the math impaired) of the top players
yup, the sky is falling
Democrats are making a big deal out of the Russian involvement in our elections to deflect attention away from all the Messicans and other non citizens who vote in our elections.
From the separate "College Hockey & Scholarship Opportunities" thread I posted earlier in the day...
"By a wide margin Minnesota was the home state listed by the most players competing on men's and women's NCAA I hockey teams during the 2016-17 season - fair to say the US hotbed for producing college players. Louisiana topped our list of NCAA I basketball hotbeds, but is clearly not a big state for producing college hockey players."
All the statistics in that piece are about participation levels and hockey scholarship numbers - not which players are considered the most elite of the elite, or where the national team members hail from. Realistically, about 95% of the U.S. women playing D1 hockey won't go on to wear the Red, White and Blue in the World Championships or the Olympics. For the vast majority, earning that athletic scholarship - or getting accepted to a prestigious college that recruited them to play hockey - is a really big deal. And for us observers and fans of the game, it's another way to look at the "big picture" instead of just focusing on which players had the best stats in high school or juniors.
Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey
She averaged 1.5 goals per WCHA game last year.
and zero against top ten teams
maybe you should pick your cherries from a different tree
Democrats are making a big deal out of the Russian involvement in our elections to deflect attention away from all the Messicans and other non citizens who vote in our elections.
What if she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and we gave her a mulligan on the Sconnie game?...
Whoa...Then she averages 3 goals per WHCA game!
being open minded, I have given some thought and now realize Eastfan1 and HockeyEast33 are correct.
UND dropped hockey 'cuz they know the supply of MN players is going down the shidder, in fact hockey is dying across the midwest, and the entire conference will be lucky to win more than a couple of non-conference games a year
UND is ahead of the game, they are getting out early to avoid the embarrassment
Democrats are making a big deal out of the Russian involvement in our elections to deflect attention away from all the Messicans and other non citizens who vote in our elections.
I agree. And ending the pipeline of mythical Minnesota players to Division One will be good for the game, I'm certain.
And the health and growth of women's hockey is so obviously assured that gleefully anticipating the demise of mythical Minnesota high school hockey is perfectly justified.
I have nothing against club hockey. There are many parts of the country where it is the only model that makes any sense. You need a critical mass of players in one area for the HS model to work at all, because you can't travel hundreds of miles every other weekend to play several games. You have to be able to have two teams play on a Tuesday or Thursday evening and not miss much school before or after.
Still, I don't think HS sports are dying. Much as we love hockey, there is more pressure to make it big in sports like football and basketball. If high school athletics was going to die, it should die there first. I don't see any indication that it is.
The edge that HS sports have over club sports is more people care about who wins or loses. Club sports are built around developing individuals. That's fine. But it produces a situation where some of the best players for that age group can get together and play on a weekend, and hardly anyone cares. Even the 30 parents in the stands are mostly interested in how much their son or daughter gets to play and how he or she performs. For pure entertainment value, give me a HS section final between less-talented teams in a full building every time over watching Shattuck play Balmoral Hall or the Pacific Steelers take on NAHA. Similarly, I'd rather watch an NCAA game where the teams might have less talent but there is something tangible on the line rather than see the US and Canada play in Four Nations.
Others feel differently. I can understand that. But it doesn't make one model better than another. They are just trying to achieve different things for different groups of athletes.
"... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
Is this the first time me and ARM ever agreed wholeheartedly on something?
No. We agreed that maroon & gold is >>> than red and white.
"... And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;" -- Rudyard Kipling
That's right we do!
Wait...what? Is there somewhere below us that is freezing over?
ESPN, the NYT and AP all had folks in house for every US game. I did coverage for Sports Illustrated. The Detroit Free Press and USA Today used AP wire copy.
The NYT writer is based in Ann Arbor and is usually their auto writer. If they didn't already have someone local, I'm not sure they would have covered it, but I guess we won't know. The AP writer is out of Detroit. It appears ESPN flew Johnette Howard in.
Most folks only showed up for the US games, but it is definitely unusual for that many "big name" US outlets to send people
It's a great day for hockey!
Isn't it sad that some people are brainwashed into thinking the most deplorable things are good? I really feel bad for you 2.
I suspect your parents are to blame for the brainwashing. I do own 1 piece of clothing that is actually those putrid colors, a Mustang T shirt. A Mustang is the only thing I can think of that would make those colors tolerable.
Let's be real also, the rodent and eagle colors aren't the same. The eagle gold is really gold, whereas the rodent gold is a urine color. But it bothers me none to have you folks combine them into the same pallet, my distaste for both teams is rather high. At least I can go all summer with a smile thinking UW got the chance to dispatch BC and did so using one of the most cruel circumstances. And the 8 goal ***-whipping of the rodents make me smile too, I'll be watching that on dvr again this summer.
Wisconsin Hockey: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 WE WANT MORE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
"Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote