During my time in Oxford, Ohio at the USA Hockey Girls 16/17 Camp I had the opportunity to ask a non-Top 10 DI Head Coach a bunch of Class of 2025 recruiting questions. Specifically, I wanted to better understand the specifics of how the coaching staff actually went about securing commitments for the incoming class of 2025. Here is a summary of what I learned about that school’s recruiting efforts…
Over a the first few days that coaches were allowed to talk to the Class of 2025 (beginning on June 15th) the coaching staff reached out to ~15-18 players and offered them spots on the team.
These players would be considered the highest rated players for 2025 according to the coach.
The coach explained that the top players are likely getting multiple offers on June 15th (or thereabouts) and in order for many schools to be competitive with these in-demand players, the teams need to make offers immediately.
The coach told me that most of the players had never contacted their school – so the school was being proactive in reaching out to the players without knowing if the players had any interest in their school.
In addition to the players that received immediate offers, the coaching staff reached out to another set of 15-18 players to express an interest in those players and to understand if the players interest reciprocated.
During the weeks following June 15th, the staff is continuing to have conversations with this second tier of potential recruits. Based on how many commits the school receives from the top tier players, then conversations and visits are likely to progress deeper with the next level of recruits
Once again, the way I understood it, a large number of the next level of recruits that were contacted had not necessarily reached out to the school directly prior to June 15th.
The coach then explained that their recruiting efforts are likely to progress into the fall and winter. If there were spots still open after working through the first two levels in the funnel of potential recruits, then again, they will continue to scout and reach out/respond to individual players that might meet the requirements for the remaining roles on the team. This might be by position or specific type of players (e.g. goal scorer vs. puck-moving D).
The coach also reinforced that the coaching staff was recruiting heavily in both Canada and the U.S. and that one of the challenges was being able to calibrate players between the two countries. This is likely because there are only a few events that in-season teams from both side of the border compete against each other (e.g. Stoney Creek, PIP Labor Day Fest and USA-Canada Cup).
Note: To-date I have not heard of any 2025 players publicly announce committing to the school in question
Rather than engage in a subjective discussion on who was selected, I thought it might be helpful to collect some analytical data and metrics to understand how top players performed at the camp.
WHY?
The purpose of this post is not to say who did or did not deserve to be selected to the U18 Camp. Instead, it is to help provide perspective and context to other players and parents the types of metrics that demonstrate the level of play needed to be selected. And ideally, individual players do their own self-analysis to see how they compare.
HOW?
I watched and coded specific attributes for every shift in all 4 games for every player in this analysis using the USA Hockey TV footage. I collected more metrics than are listed below, but I feel that the attributes shown, provide the right amount and level of data to gain an understanding of the level of play for this position. Note: Sometimes the live stream footage didn’t always focus on the area of the ice where the play was taking place, so it is very likely the odd play may have not been accounted for.
For D analysis, I included the 3 players selected plus another ‘top D’ player who was not selected. I am not identifying the names of any players because singling out any individual player is not my objective. However, I can say, that I personally do not know any of the players or their parents that were included in this analysis.
SO WHAT?
Based on my analysis, I don’t have any issues with the D selections since measuring defense is not an exact science. I am sure there were other players for whom there is an argument they could have been selected instead – but the differences are hard to discern in just 4 games and I don’t expect the selection committee to be perfect in only picking players based on their game performance.
All selected players made several really good plays (both offensively and defensively) in their four games – many of which were ‘highlight worthy’. At the same time, these same players made multiple, significant turnovers/mistakes which resulted in high scoring chances for the other team. This goes to show you that none of the D were anywhere close to being perfect. But overall their consistency over 4 games is what you can see in the metrics.
THE ANALYSIS
Note: Players 1-3 were selected to go to the U18 Girls Camp – Player 4 was not selected
Some notes on the tracked attributes:
Offensive Shot Attempts does not mean the shot made it to the net – as mentioned in my previous post, I estimate almost 80% of all point shots were blocked or missed the net.
Turnover = full change of possession to the other team (e.g. a missed pass, dump in/out, rim or redirected puck)
I am not including the point stats or PIMs for any player since they can already be found on the USA Hockey website
Note: With only 4.1 goals per game combined between both teams, all the top players played strong defensively and were not on the ice for many goals. This can be seen in their “On-ice goals for/goals against ratio” (this is different from the traditional +/- stat).
There were additional attributes I tracked like offensive zone entries and good defensive plays. In addition metrics like pass attempts or turnovers could be segmented further by situation – however, given the outcome based of the measurements presented here, I feel they are a good representation of how each player played.
Finally, yes, I did a similar analysis for my daughter’s games (for her eyes only). And we are using the results to prioritize her summer development plan.
NEXT ANALYSIS
I have already started working analyzing the Forwards who were picked for the U18 Camp. This is a little more complicated since there were 5 forwards selected. I will not be doing goalies, because I don’t feel qualified to do so – and as mentioned previously, from what I’ve been told by goalie experts, there is a huge weight given to one-on-one time spent with an evaluator to judge goalies.
I wanted to get this our right after the camp, but didn’t have time before taking a week-long vacation. But here are some additional thoughts that I compiled during my time in Oxford:
The operational excellence of the camp was consistent the entire week – kudos to the organizers for such a well-run event. Especially when compared to many other camps, showcases and tryouts I have seen on both the girls and boys side of hockey
Unlike the previous camp I attended, I now appreciate all the different paths to hockey excellence there are in the U.S. I could now see where all players came from that I learned about over the last couple of years – hockey academy, top clubs, prep and Minnesota
The last two days of games brought a whole slew of additional DI and DIII coaches to Oxford. I personally saw coaches from just about every school (over 30 DI teams) – however there were some top programs where I didn’t see a representative (e.g. Wisconsin, UMD, Colgate, Northeastern) and several NEWHA schools (note: they may have been there, but I just didn’t see them).
One DI coach did tell me that some of the players looked tired for the fourth game – while another thought there was better team play the last two games compared to the first two games.
7 players who were at 16/17 camp this year were at 18s camp last year. 1G , 2D & 4Fs. Two of them were players who were selected from the 2022 16/17’s Camp to go the 2022 18’s Camp – the other 5 went direct to 18s last year.
5 of those 7 2022 18’s Camp players were selected to return to the 18’s camp this year from the 16/17s Camp
In general, I noticed a big difference between the average 2006 and average 2007 player. seemed to be weaker. That one extra year of development is noticeable not just size, but hockey IQ
Interesting stat – the Girls 16/17 Camp averaged 4.1 goals per game (combined both teams) while the Boys 17 Camp averaged 10.0 goals/gm and the Boys 16 Camp averaged 8.6 goals per game. Significantly less scoring on the girls side.
Unofficially, I estimated that about 80% of point shots were blocked/never reached the net – surprisingly low for this level of play
It seems that just watching games isn’t sufficient to judge players – while important – there really are a lot of nuances you can get from practices that you can’t see from a live stream that likely factored into players selected for the 18s camp
Depending on position and length of shifts, most players only had between 40 and 50 shifts to demonstrate their abilities over the course of 4 games. Which isn’t a lot, all things considered.
Based on talking with multiple parents and players there was certainly a mix of perspectives on the selections for 18’s camp. I will hold off judgment on skaters until I spend more time reviewing video of the players selected in comparison to other top players who were not selected. I do not feel qualified to analyze goalies, especially based on past conversations with expert goalie coaches – but I do know that you can’t just rely on game performance in goalie evaluations.
I can’t include everything I want to discuss in this post, so I am going to publish additional posts sourced from the camp including:
A candid conversation with a DI coach on their detailed recruiting process for their 2025 recruiting class
Applying some analytics to the players selected from the 16/17 camp for the 18’s Girls Camp
My thoughts on the 16/17 Camp feedback process – which is dependent on receiving the official player feedback report via snail mail expected sometime this week.
Champs App lets players create beautiful, free hockey resume that facilitate the college and prep hockey recruiting process.
“How do I know coaches will remember me after the PIP 617 Boston Harbor Style Showcase?”
By connecting directly with coaches, players can know that coaches will continue to follow them after the PIP event during the regular season (see their schedule, video & profile updates). Coaches can not only get more details about each player, but also see their upcoming schedule, regular teams and coaches.
Step 2: To make it easier for the PIP 617 Showcase coaches to find you – add your 617 PIP Showcase team as your current team to your Champs profile and make sure to include your jersey #
Step 3: Review the list of the 617 PIP Showcase coaches above to connectwith and then send connection requests to the coaches/schools you are interested in from within Champs App.
How I helped create a summer training plan for my kids
Since both my kids returned from school, I have been very focused on helping them figure out what to work on this summer. Each of them has a big tryout that they need to prepare for – in addition to continued development for next season. My kids are completely different players. One is a forward, the other defense. One is above average in size, the other is slightly under-sized. One is a lefty, the other a righty.
After re-watching 4 or 5 games for each kid from mid-to-late season I was able to identify several key areas that they had a pattern of underperforming. But then, since I am not really a hockey coach, I needed to figure out how they could improve their performance in those areas. Specifically, I followed the methodology I previously discussed about tracking high-frequency events and success rates based on the teachings of Darryl Belfry.
I am not sure we figured out the secret sauce, but I wanted to share my research methodology and how it translated into an action plan.
For each of my kids, I chose 2 or 3 players who I knew were clearly more successful in those key areas. All of them would be considered top players at the USA Hockey national level. As a result, finding historical video from those players either on HockeyTV, LiveBarn or from the recent USA Hockey Nationals was not difficult. Once again, I watched 3-5 games for those benchmark players to see how they handled the same key situations as my son or daughter. What I learned was enlightening.
To provide one specific example, I watched video via HockeyTV of Caroline Harvey (Olympic medalist and recent rookie of the year at Wisconsin) way back during her time at Bishop Kearney Selects through to her games at the U18 USA Hockey Development camp in 2019. Seeing how she handled similar game situations provided excellent contrast to my daughter’s play. The way KK could handle the puck and find time and space at that young age was truly impressive – and makes it very easy to understand why she is a generational talent.
For each player under analysis, patterns and insights emerge after 2 or 3 games. Each player is different, and I found there was at least one attribute for each player that made them special and worth emulating.
Note: this was not a one-day exercise watching all the games and collecting video snippets to review/ edit at a later time. It took several days to watch the video for each player.
I then spent time individually with my kids over the course of a few days discuss with them the areas I recommended they focus on (most of them they already knew). This included showing them video of themselves not succeeding (which they did not enjoy) and then showing them clips of the benchmarked players completing similar situations successfully. We are still early in the summer, but both kids have been working on these areas by themselves and with their skills coaches.
We shall see how effective this whole process is when we get to the fall, since I have no expectations that my kids will see immediate results. But one of the key learnings for me about this whole exercise was not to depend on my kids’ team coaches for their development plans and how to implement them (as I have alluded to in a previous post about hockey development plans).
The new location at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio is superb. Arena is outstanding, campus is beautiful and facilities are all close to each other. Big upgrade from St Cloud.
Camp seems very well organized and excellent use of technology to keep players and parents informed
Parent meeting with Kristen (Wright) Sagaert discussing the process of player feedback and letter grades sounded very promising. Hopefully the execution delivers on the expectations that were set.
Jerseys are pretty nice. Still no names on the girls jerseys, but boys 17s camp going on concurrently have them
Playing on NHL sized rink this year – noticeable difference in time and space for players compared to the Olympic sized rinks in St Cloud
Quality of hockey is a little more team oriented and a slightly higher pace than what I saw last week at the showcase in Rochester.
Different experience watching in person than via streaming, games seems much faster in person.
Many college coaches watching the first day, but not as many as I expected.
Saw at least a couple of DI head coaches who don’t normally go to tournaments or showcases, but are here.
Delayed offsides were permitted on the first day. Interesting that they aren’t following USA Hockey rules.
First day averaged a little under 5 minutes of penalties per game, which is only about 10% of the game time (46 minutes). So far that seems quite reasonable compared to past years
Earlier this month my daughter attended the USA Hockey Pacific District Camp for the third and final time (she’s aging out of the U18 events). Now that the results have been posted, I am posting my thoughts on this year’s event. Feel free to read my previous summaries from the 2021 camp and 2022 camp to understand the three year experience.
Overall, operationally speaking, this was clearly the best run district camp of the three she attended.
Just like previous years, there were three practice/skills sessions and three games. The practice/skills sessions were well organized and structured – and in my opinion, allowed the evaluators to see how players performed both offensively and defensively beyond just the games.
More Teams
There were some significant changes from previous years. First, the number of teams for the 16/17 age group was increased from 4 teams to 6 teams (the 15’s age group had 4 teams similar to last year). There are arguments to be made on both sides about the pros and cons of increasing the number of players invited to attend. However, on-balance, as we try to grow the girls game on the west coast, I think it worked out just fine. The overall level of play may have been a little diluted, but the goodwill from attending the event works for me. Plus, the extra money it generated allowed more USA Hockey staff to attend from all over the country.
More Coaches
Unlike the last couple of years where it seemed to be only 2-4 coaches watching from the stands while another 2 coached from the bench. There seemed to always be at least ~6-8 coaches scouting from the roped-off coaches section in the stand. Another big change, as referenced above, was not only the number of participating coaches, but also the list of coaches and their role during the weekend was shared with all attendees via email. In the past, I had to work hard to identify who all the coaches were and decipher the role they played. The day after camp ended, we were emailed the full list of coaches, where they were from and what role they played (evaluator, volunteer, USA Hockey Staff) – which was awesome. No more guessing.
The only complaint I heard via several parents (from their daughters) was that it seemed that some of the coaches were over-coaching on the ice. There were lots of times coaches would stop drills and call everyone over or a coach would give detailed feedback to a specific player. Feedback is good – I love player feedback – but at an event like Districts, players don’t want to get drill-related feedback from every coach they interact with. What players really want is feedback on how to improve their overall game.
Same Number of National Camp Spots
I am not sure what players and parents expected in terms of realistically making the USA Hockey National Camps, but the odds aren’t good for most players. Here are the numbers of National invites (based on % of registrations of girls in the Pacific District):
Notes:
Only 1 2008 forward was selected to go straight to the 18s Camp (last year 1F and 1 D went straight to 18s)
Goalies are selected at the national level and not dependent on the proportion of district registrations
So hopefully, most players, especially those who were invited from the alternate lists (or not even originally selected) understood they were long shots to make it National Camp and were just happy to go to Las Vegas.
Goalie Development
Another positive from the event was when I talked to the goalie coaches for the district and she explained how they evaluate goalies, the process of providing goalies feedback and tracking their development from year-to-year. I wish they would have done something similar for skaters – because in the 3 years we’ve gone, there has been no pro-active mechanism to receive feedback from the event for skaters.
A few other points:
Games were two 32 minute running-time halves – which was 2 minutes more than last year
The refs were less noticeable this year compared to last year. Which is a good thing.
The jerseys were 100 times nicer than previous years (not embarrassing to have mismatched jerseys and socks like last year) – with a number scheme which made it clear who were 2006s and 2007s.
It would have been nice to also have the jersey #s included in the roster lists that were sent out so parents didn’t need to try to figure who the players were by themselves
Everyone had to travel to Vegas for the weekend, with many coming from out-of-district. I hope parents and players felt that the total cost of the weekend was worth it. Unless you were driving from California, the weekend had to be super-expensive.
Ohio State women’s ice hockey head coach Nadine Muzerall is a winner. Muzerall, who won two national championships as a player and four as a coach with the University of Minnesota, has instilled a winning culture at Ohio State. She has a proven track record of success in her seven years at OSU. With Muzerall at the helm, Ohio State women’s hockey team has made the Frozen Four the last three years, won the National Championship in 2021-22 and appeared in the finals again this past March.
Coach Muzerall Wants to Win Every Year
A key ingredient in OSU’s ability to compete these last few years for a National Championship has been to add high-end, experienced talent from other schools via the transfer portal. In 2021-22, OSU had 8 upperclass players transfer from other schools n their roster (including 3 from Robert Morris University which had just folded). In 2022-23 there were 5 players who came to OSU via the transfer portal including Makenna Webster (from Wisconsin who finished 4th in scoring on the team), Lauren Bernard (D from Clarkson who played in all 41 games) and Kenzie Hauswirth (from Quinnipiac who finished 8th in team scoring). So these players were significant contributors to the team’s success this past season.
Want to Win Before Your Career Ends? Transfer to OSU
With as many as 8-10 players leaving the program this spring, Coach Muzerall’s strategy is not to rebuild, but to reload. Over the past few weeks, Coach Muzerall has reloaded with more experienced high-end talent via the transfer portal by adding Olympian defender Cayla Barnes from BC , Patty Kaz Top-10 Finalist Kiara Zanon from Penn State, BC’s leading scorer Hannah Bilka, Kelsey King from Minnesota State and D Stephanie Markowski from Clarkson. Needless to say, a very talented group of transfers.
While there may be multiple reasons for these transfers to move on from their previous schools (e.g. graduated, no longer a fit etc.), the appeal of winning a national championship is pretty clear. For these new players, they know there is a very high probability they will be competing at the Frozen Four next March – while they may not have had the same opportunity if they stayed with their previous program. Why not go for it?
At the same time, there were at least 5 OSU players who entered the transfer portal this spring, all with multiple years of eligibility left. Most notably, Sydney Morrow, a first-year D who tied for team scoring with USA Hockey at the U18 Women’s IIHF tournament in scoring last summer, transferred to Colgate. From what I could tell watching the Frozen Four, while dressed for the last two games, Morrow saw little-to-no ice time as the 7th D.
Implications for Incoming Recruiting Classes
With the increased number of transfers, potential recruits must recognize that freshmen may find themselves in a more competitive environment at schools like OSU and may struggle to find playing time early on. Furthermore, coaching staff may give priority to more experienced players over freshmen, and this may impact player development. As a result, incoming freshmen may have to consider the challenge in earning their spot on the team and how hard it would be to make a meaningful contribution to the program in all four years of eligibility. While the transfer portal provides more opportunities for players to explore their options and find the best fit for their needs, it also creates a more challenging environment for incoming freshmen to establish themselves in the team.
Creates an Environment Between the “Have” and the “Have-Nots” Hockey Programs
The women’s hockey transfer portal has essentially created a two-tier system between the top talented schools and everyone else. The portal has provided top-tier programs with the ability to attract and acquire the best players in the country, leaving other schools having to figure out to replace the top talent they lose to these programs. The top schools have the resources and coaching staff to offer a highly competitive environment and the opportunity to compete for national championships, which makes them attractive destinations for talented transfers. On the other hand, smaller or less successful programs may struggle to keep up, which creates a divide in the quality of play between the top programs and everyone else. While the transfer portal has created new opportunities for high-end players to explore and find the best fit for their needs, it is creating an uneven playing field in women’s college hockey.
It will be interesting to see if other Top 10 schools begin to copy the Ohio State strategy of picking off several top players via the transfer portal in order to better compete with the top recruiting schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northeastern and Minnesota-Duluth who have not yet adopted this strategy (even though all schools have the occasional top talent transfer).
What Happens When No More 5th Year (Covid) Eligibility?
It will be interesting to see how things go with the 2025 recruiting class for Ohio State. The last class of Covid year grad students is 2024, so the pool of 5th year transfers will be much smaller and potential players would likely need to be move prior to graduating from their current schools. Will the top players from the incoming class of 2025 be concerned about transfer portal players at OSU and thus look elsewhere? We will find out this fall.
Implications For Potential Recruits and Which Schools to Consider
As a high school player trying to figure out which program is right for you, it would be important to be realistic about your own talents and where you might fit in the line-up over all four of your years. Even if you are a national U-18 team member, you might still struggle to get ice time at a top tier program that brings in experienced top talent with 1 or 2 years of eligibility left.
During the recruiting process, understanding the coaching staff’s player development process over 4 years and ice time philosophy is an important conversation to have before a decision is made.
This is an update to a previous post from December, 2022 on “Q4 2022 DI Women’s College Hockey Commitment Rate Update”. The number of announced commitments for 2024 continues to lag all previous recruiting years despite 2 new teams coming on board this fall.
DI Women’s Hockey Commitment Rate by Months Prior to College
2023 Commits
2023 commits are tracking at about 20-25 less announcements than the last two years (~12% less commitments). Between the transfer portal, 5th year eligible players this is consistent with our recent analysis on forwards and goalies. There are probably only a handful of spots remaining at the DI level, mostly related to unexpected roster changes from players leaving their current schools.
2024 Commits
The 2024 commits continue to be even further behind the 2023 commitment rate as of mid-April, 2023 by about 15% (85 2024’s vs 102 2023’s at this time last year). While there should be at least another 70 spots that haven’t been announced, many schools have been telling players they are full at the moment.
2025 Commits
The first few commits for 2025 have been announced. With June 15, 2023 quickly approaching, by the end of the summer, this number will grow dramatically.
Goalies
There are only 16 2023 commits and 10 2024 commits that have been publicly announced. In a “normal” year there should be about 33 freshman goalies per year (44 teams x 3 goalies per team / 4 years). As mentioned above, the extra year of eligibility or red-shirting has provided a glut of goalies already at the NCAA level who are filling spots that would normally be filled by the incoming classes. Very tough for all goalies these last two years. And even if they get an offer, there is no guarantee of playing time. Note: No goalies from (re-)starting programs RMU and Assumption, which should have 3 incoming goalies each this fall, have been publicly announced, but surely have commits.
