LOG IN
SIGN UP

Category: Coaching

Categories
2023 Coaching Girls Hockey Player Development Women's Hockey

The USA Hockey 2023 Girls 16/17 Camp Feedback Process – Part I

I have a lot of passion about feedback when it comes to hockey player development, because I think it is probably the most important factor to improve player performance.  Darryl Belfry, who is regarded as one of the best player development coaches in the world, uses actual game analysis as the primary way to provide feedback on improvement areas for players.

As the governing body of hockey in the U.S., USA Hockey understands the importance of player feedback. At the USA Hockey 16/17 Girls Camp which took place in Oxford, OH this past June, feedback was highlighted in the parent meeting as a key component of the camp.  In Part I of this post about the USA Hockey Girls Camp feedback, I wanted to focus on understanding the three levels of feedback  utilized during and after the camp.  Part II of this topic will discuss my thoughts on how effective the feedback process has been.

1. On-Ice Feedback  – During Practice and Games

Just like with their regular teams, coaches were quite consistent in talking to players individually and in groups during practices to share their thoughts on specific, tactical ways to improve a drill or situation.  Same for a player coming to the bench during one of the games after a shift – coaches would lean over to players and give advice on what adjustments could be made to improve a player effectives.  These situations are quite comfortable for all the coaches at an event like this since most were DI coaches or previous DI players.  As I mentioned in my previous post about player feedback, in-game comments are the easiest for a coach to communicate.

2. One-on-One Feedback with one of the Team Coaches

All teams had two head coaches.  On about the fourth day of week-long camp, each player had a 10-15 minute conversation with one of their coaches.  It is my understanding that most players were asked to do a self-review in anticipation of the meeting.  From talking to several parents, the coach-player conversation was then highly dependent on the coach. Some coaches were well-prepared and had video clips to show players as a way to communicate their feedback, some coaches had simple basic priorities for players to focus on while others relied on the player’s self-evaluation as the primary source of the feedback conversation.  Given the variance in feedback methods, I suspect the feedback meeting process was not highly structured by the camp organizers.

3. Letter Grade and Player Development Performance Criteria

About four weeks after the end of the 16/17 Girls Camp, my daughter received by snail mail a form letter which included an evaluation which is supposed to serve as a benchmark for a player’s performance at the camp.  This entails a letter grade and a rubric on the “Player Development Performance Criteria”.  Here are the details.

At the top of the player evaluation sheet, the players was provided a rating of A, B or C with the following explanation

“A” grade = Excellent – ranks in the top 1/3 of players at camp

“B” grade = Good – ranks in the middle 1/3 of players at camp

“C” grade = Below average – ranks in the bottom 1/3 of players at camp.

The Player Development Performance Criteria had 5 possible selections (from best to worst):

  • Excellent
  • Very Good
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Poor

Each skater then had attributes selected within two categories.  General and position-specific attributes with a selection in one of those five boxes (“X” for each attribute).  Here are those attributes:

General:

  • Makes Possession Plays (i.e. keep team on offense; limited turnovers)
  • Angling: pressure to take away time/space; dictate play with body/stick
  • Stick Positioning
  • Deception
  • Quick Transitions
  • Off-Puck Habits & Puck Support
  • Scoring Ability
  • Physicality
  • Athleticism
  • 200-Ft Player
  • Skating Ability (north/south; agility; speed)

Defenders:

  • DZone Execution First
  • Puck Retrievals
  • Good First Pass or Exit
  • Win Race Back to D-Side of Play/Net
  • Wine Board Battles
  • Deter Offensive Opportunities
  • Scan to Make Exit Play; Fast Transition to Breakout
  • Work Well with D-Partner
  • Gap Control: (North/South & East/West)

Forwards:

  • Puck Retrievals & Ability to Stay Off the Wall
  • Ability to Leave Perimeter and Gain Inside Ice
  • Owning Space with Puck
  • Scanning/Awareness of Teammates & Opponents
  • Use Teammates to Make Plays
  • Zone Entry: Ability to create depth/layers/lanes
  • Create & Maintain Offense

I don’t know the process that was used to aggregate the evaluators feedback, but am assuming they collected a populated rubric from all the evaluators for a position and then aggregated the data to take an average of the selections.  (I hope they used some online tool to aggregate this all, because there are lots of ways to simplify collecting this information).  Then I suppose this compiled data was used as the rating for each player’s Development Performance Criteria. I would then assume the average across all Development Performance Criteria was calculated and the each player was force ranked into one of the three tiers to give the letter rating of A,B or B based on which third they ranked.

Other than the rating and the rubric box selection – no other personalized information was included in the feedback. No short paragraph summary (like you would see in a student report card) from the coach or evaluators to provide additional context was provided.  

It is important to note that the ratings are based on the criteria described above.  If different criteria were used (which will be discussed in the next post), then a player’s rating might be different if those criteria were closer or further away from the capabilities of a player.

In Part II on this topic I will share my perspective on the good, the bad and the ugly of this feedback process.

Read Part II Here

Categories
Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Player Development Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Some Thoughts on the Ohio State Women’s Hockey Recruiting Strategy

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?

Source: https://gopherpucklive.com/transfer-portal/

The Impact on Underclass Players

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.

Categories
2023 Coach page Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey

NGHL NCAA EXPOSURE CAMP 2023

May 19-21, 2023 – York, Pennsylvania

Coaching Staff

JoSH FUNK

Head Coach – Hood Blazers

Jordan ott

Head Coach – Kings College Monarchs

gina mclaughlin

Head Coach – Neumann Knights

hannah nelson

Assistant Coach –
 Buffalo State Bengals

jon benchich

Assistant Coach – Lebanon Valley Duthmen

ken deming

Head Coach – Delaware Blue Hens

MICHAEL O’GRADY

Head Coach – Chatham Cougars

Tori emoff

Head Coach – Stevenson Mustangs

Categories
Coaching Player Development Youth Hockey

Does your Player Have an In-season Personal Development Plan?

You can’t depend solely on your team coach to make you a better hockey player. There, I said it.

In my experience, I haven’t seen any team coaches work with individual players to create personal development plans. Typically, I’ve seen pre-season and mid-season reviews which discuss overall player development. And I’ve seen coaches ask players to put together a list what they need to work on. But after that, it is usually up to the player to get better at those items themselves.

During the season, almost all coaches focus on team concepts like breakouts, special teams (power play and penalty kill), defensive positioning etc. They also spend time in practice on basic skill development like passing, skating, board battles and game situations like 2-on-1s.

In reality, team coaches don’t have a lot of time in practice to work on the individual, unique needs of each player.  Of course, there is always the coach who spends extra time with one or two ‘special’ players on a team and gives them more attention. But, on average, you can’t expect a team coach to be responsible for working on your player’s highest priority development needs.

To get better as a hockey player you need to be working throughout the season on the areas in your game that will have the biggest impact on your overall improvement and success.

So if you’re team coach isn’t working directly with you or your player on a personal development plan, how do you develop one?

In a previous post, I described that I am a big believer in Darryl Belfry’s methodology of tracking high frequency events and success/failure rates to prioritize what a player should work on. After a series of 3 or 4 games, you should be able to look at the video and see which areas of your game you are repeatedly under-performing. From this analysis, you should be able to prioritize 3-5 skills or attributes that you need to work on.  This is your personal development plan.

The next step is to figure out how to get better at those areas.  Of course this will depend on what your specific needs are – but it could be anything from working on skating or shooting the puck to positioning on the ice.  Some might be easy fixes and others might take months to work on to gain the required proficiency.  The key is to find someone or somehow to help you get better and to work on those areas between games. This is easier said than done, because figuring out the right person to help or how to help yourself may take some effort.

I have had many parents complain to me that their kid’s coach isn’t helping them get better at the areas that the player really needs help on.  My response is that I have learned not to expect any team coach to make my kids better. Most youth team coaches don’t have the time or interest in going that deep with every player on a team. If the team coach does do it, that’s a bonus and an indication of a high-level coach who “gets it” – but in reality they are rare to find.

Key Takeaway: You can’t only expect team coaches to make you a better player, you need to be responsible for you own development.

Categories
Coaching Development Camp Girls Hockey Minor Hockey Women's Hockey Youth Hockey

Hockey Player Feedback

One of my biggest frustrations over the last 18 months or so has been about providing feedback to players. Across many different playing environments I have been consistently disappointed in the lack of sophistication and priority on giving insightful, actionable feedback to players. This post discusses the good and bad of hockey coach feedback to players.

Here is what I’ve seen what most coaches are good at:

1. In-game feedback

For the most part, coaches have no problem talking to players after a shift and have a conversation about what just happened. Some coaches are more positive and constructive than others (e.g. “What did you see?” rather than “Here is what you did wrong…”).  I doubt there are many coaches who last a reasonable amount of time without providing this basic level of constructive player feedback.

2. Overall team style of play / team concepts

I won’t say systems – because some youth coaches do play systems and others have a type of hockey they want to play which focuses more on skills rather than set plays and rules.  In general, coaches know how to set theses expectations and work on the in practice. Thus it can be pretty easy to give this kind of feedback either on the bench or in the locker room.

However, here’s what coaches generally aren’t good at:

A. Having position-specific, age and level appropriate development  framework

What are the prioritized skills and attributes a player should be competent in? What are their biggest strengths that they can leverage? What areas do they need to level up so that they can minimize those attributes being exposed. For example, skating, puck handling, shot strength and accuracy.   From what I’ve seen, it is usually one-off feedback with the player having to work on it with by themselves or with their own skills development coach.

Having a coach show personalized clips to an individual player is very rare.  Many coaches do not have the time or resources to provide player-specific reviews.  However, it can be a shared responsibility between player, coach and parent to clip together game footage and to discuss together.

B. In-season feedback

Providing individual report cards or interim check-ins throughout the season on what strengths and development opportunities like skills and/or concepts for a player. For example, Darryl Belfry likes to look at players over a 3 or 4 game segment and track with video and basic stats (e.g. how many puck touches turn into a positive or negative play) and then discuss them with a player.  Some coaches give mid-year reviews for their players and in my experience it looks like a bullet list of 3 or items for the player to work on.  However, the onus is then on the player to figure out how to get better at those items on their own. 

C. Holistic, high level feedback

This is a tough one.

Being candid with a player about where they are with their game at the moment can be a very tough conversation regardless of the players abilities.  All players are an unfinished product. And in youth hockey they are still a long way from their peak potential – so providing the appropriate context and perspective is not always easy.

Why don’t all coaches provide holistic feedback? Some…

  • Just aren’t good coaches (or at least not as good as they think they are)
  • Don’t have a long-term development framework for players at each level
  • Don’t know how to provide feedback effectively
  • Don’t invest the time in the process (don’t have time)
  • It is not a priority for them
  • Don’t have an  incentive to put in the time
  • Don’t have a framework
  • Fear of parent/player reaction
  • Politics

Unfortunately, I have seen the above at almost every level, but most disappointing has been seeing it at the highest levels of hockey.  For example, in a rare instance of this being done well…one player who was in consideration for a national team, received lots of feedback and what the coaches wanted to them do this season.  However, what was more common are the many examples where other players attending national camps received little to no meaningful feedback, even when requested. It seems that unless a coach or organization has a vested, long-term interest in a player or team, they will not put in the time or effort that most players need.

As a parent or a youth player, it is important to be realistic on the types of feedback to expect from your team coach based on the level of play and the club/program you signed up for.  In most situations, you will likely have to go beyond the basic feedback practices of your coach and find ways to supplement them with other experts you trust.

(Note to my kids current coaches: I am not referring to you – this post was mostly written over the past summer and incorporates conversations I’ve had with parents from all over the country).

Categories
Coach page Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey

NCAA Coaches Directory

Alyssa
Gagliardi

Skills Development Coach

John
Harrington

Head Coach – Minnesota State Mavericks

Chris Donovan

Head Coach – St Michael’s Purple Knights

Kerstin Matthews

Head Coach – St Marks School

Jenna Trubiano

Head Coach – Michigan Wolverines

Cara Morey

Head Coach – Princeton Tigers

Jack Sweeney

Head Coach – Assumption University

Bethany Brausen

Assistant Coach – St Thomas Tommies

Jackie Crum

Assistant Coach – Wisconsin Badgers

Chris Baudo

Head Coach – Nazareth Golden Flyers

VICTORIA BLAKE

Assistant Coach – Sacred Heart Pioneers

BRitni Smith

Head Coach – Syracuse Orange

JoSH FUNK

Head Coach – Hood Blazers

DAVID LABAFF

Head Coach – Wilkes Colonels

JEn Kindret

Head Coach – St Anselm Hawks

Chris mackenzie

Head Coach – Connecticut Huskies

jon benchich

Assistant Coach – Lebanon Valley Duthmen

ken deming

Head Coach – Delaware Blue Hens

Mia del rosso

Assistant Coach – Trinity Bantams

Jessica Scott

Assistant Coach – Minnesota Golden Gophers

Brice Baricevic

Assistant Coach – Arcadia Knights

jess koizumi

Former NCAA Coach

max gavin

Assistant Coach – Dartmouth Big Green

Makenna newkirk

Assistant Coach – Penn State Nittany Lions

john Briggs

Head Coach – Morrisville Mustangs

megan quinn

Assistant Coach – Syracuse Orange

annie rush

Assistant Coach – Williams Ephs

Marissa O’Neil

Head Coach – Bowdoin Polar Bears

sean levin

Head Coach – Rider Broncs

Mike HinklE

Equipment Manager – Alvernia Golden Wolves

Jim
Plumer

Head Coach
Vermont Catamounts

Laura Bellamy

Head Coach – Harvard Crimson

David Stockdale

Head Coach – Franklin Pierce Ravens

Tara Connolly

Assistant Coach – RPI Engineers

Tara Watchorn

Head Coach – Boston University Terriers

Jim Scanlan

Head Coach – Bemidji State University Beavers

Allison Coomey

Associate Head Coach – Penn State University Nittany Lions

Cari
Coen

Assistant Coach – Bishop Kearney BK Selects Girls 19AAA

Katelyn Parker

Seattle Kraken Player Development Coach

DAN koch

Associate Head Coach – Wisconsin Badgers

Jackie Kooistra

Head Coach –
Aurora Spartans

Liz keady norton

Head Coach – Dartmouth Big Green

RACHEL GRAMPP

Head Coach – Buffalo State Bengals

MOlly Engstrom

Head Coach – University of Maine

Kelly Rider

Head Coach – Curry College

jeff giesen

Associate Coach – Minnesota State Mavericks

TOMMASO BUCCI

Assistant Coach – Mercyhurst Lakers

Jordan ott

Assistant Coach – Chatham Cougars

gina mclaughlin

Head Coach – Neumann Knights

Taylor ham

Assistant Coach – Connecticut College Camels

tim crowley

Assistant Coach – Cornell Big Red

Chris ardito

Assistant Coach – Union Dutchwomen

Chris wells

Head Coach – St Lawrence Saints

eliza kelley

Head Coach – Worcester State Lancers

kelly nash

Head Coach – Long Island Sharks

megan myers

Assistant Coach – Boston University Terriers

lee-J Mirasolo

Head Coach – Stonehill Skyhawks

courtney kessel

Associate Head Coach – Boston University Terriers

eric long

Head Coach – Tabor Seawolves

Matt
Desrosiers

Head Coach – Clarkson Golden Knights

Logan
Bittle

Head Coach –
Robert Morris Colonials

Josh
Sciba

Head Coach – Union College Dutchwomen

Gretchen Silverman

Head Coach – Post University Eagles

Jake Anderson

Head Coach – Bishop Kearney BK Selects Girls 16AAA

Mike
Sisti

Head Coach – Mercyhurst Lakers

Matt Kelly

Head Coach – Providence Friars

Olivia Soares

Assistant Coach – Union College Dutchwomen

Erin Hamlen

Head Coach – Merrimack Warriors

Tom O’Malley

Head Coach – Sacred Heart Pioneers

JENNIFER WILSON

Head Coach – Lake Forest Foresters

MICHAEL O’GRADY

Head Coach – Chatham Cougars

Katie zimmerman

Head Coach – Western New England Golden Bears

michael barrett

Head Coach – Nichols Bisons

KIRSTI hussey

Assistant Coach – University of Maine

justin simpson

Assistant Coach – Brown Bears

hannah nelson

Assistant Coach –
 Buffalo State Bengals

Tori emoff

Head Coach – Stevenson Mustangs

Jordin Pardoski

Assistant Coach – RIT Tigers

ashley salerno

Head Coach – Turkish National Team

Erica kromm

Assistant Coach – Yale Bulldogs

nora maclaine

Assistant Coach – Long Island Sharks

Nick carpenito

Associate Head Coach – Northeastern Huskies

MIRA JALOSUO

Assistant Coach – St Cloud State Huskies

amanda alessi

Assistant Coach – Quinnipiac Bobcats

brent hill

Assistant Coach – Quinnipiac Bobcats

mel ruzzi

Head Coach – Brown Bears

moe bradley

Head Coach – UMass Boston Beacons

eric Hench

Head Coach – York Spartans

Dave standley

Assistant Coach – Virginia Tech Hokies

Categories
Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Champs App Coaches Directory

Alyssa Gagliardi – Director of Women’s Student-Athlete Advancement – Carolina Jr Hurricanes

Jim Plumer – Head Coach – Vermont Catamounts

Matt Desrosiers – Head Coach – Clarkson Golden Knights

Laura Bellamy – Associate Head Coach – Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs

John Harrington – Head Coach – Minnesota State Mavericks

David Stockdale – Head Coach – Franklin Pierce Ravens

Logan Bittle – Head Coach – Robert Morris Colonials

Tara Connolly – Assistant Coach – RPI Engineers

Chris Donovan – Head Coach – St Michael’s Purple Knights

Tara Watchorn – Head Coach – Stonehill Skyhawks

Josh Sciba – Head Coach – Union College Dutchwomen

Jim Scanlan – Head Coach – Bemidji State University Beavers

Kerstin Matthews – Associate Head Coach – Boston University Terriers

Allison Coomey – Associate Head Coach – Penn State University Nittany Lions

Gretchen Silverman – Head Coach – Post University Eagles

Bethany Brausen – Assistant Coach – St Thomas Tommies

Jenna Trubiano – Head Coach – Michigan Wolverines

Cari Coen – Assistant Coach – Bishop Kearney BK Selects Girls 19AAA

Jake Anderson – Head Coach – Bishop Kearney BK Selects Girls 16AAA

Olivia Soares -Assistant Coach – Union College Dutchwomen

Cara Morey – Head Coach – Princeton Tigers

Jackie Crum – Assistant Coach – Wisconsin Badgers

Mike Sisti – Head Coach – Mercyhurst Lakers

Katelyn Parker – Seattle Kraken Player Development Coach

Tom O’Malley – Head Coach – Sacred Heart Pioneers

Jack Sweeney – Head Coach – Assumption University

Erin Hamlen – Head Coach – Merrimack Warriors

Matt Kelly – Head Coach – Providence Friars

Chris Baudo – Head Coach – Nazareth Golden Flyers

Francesca Giammona – Assistant Coach – Sacred Heart Pioneers

Victoria Blake – Assistant Coach – Sacred Heart Pioneers

Jackie Kooistra – Head Coach – Aurora Spartans

Jennifer Wilson – Head Coach – Lake Forest Foresters

Categories
Champs Coaching Minor Hockey Parents Youth Hockey

How Champs App helped get a AAA tryout for my kid

Tryouts

Last week, I started to explore new teams for my 14-year old son to play on next season. He has played AA hockey the last four seasons, but is ready to play AAA. At the same time, as a family we are considering moving to a new city so both our kids are playing hockey in the same area (my daughter just committed to play at a hockey academy this fall). So I looked at MyHockeyRankings to see which AAA teams were nearby and found a highly rated team.

I then visited the team’s website and found the name and email of the coach for my son’s age group. I immediately cold-emailed the coach, asking if there might be spots open on the team next year. I included a link to my son’s Champs App profile which included his personal and athletic profile. And most importantly, I had 5 videos included on the page. One 2.5  minute video of his hockey highlights from the past season and 4 recent playoff games from LiveBarn which were edited down to just his shifts (so, about 16 minutes each).

Here are a couple of sample profiles to see what a Champs App profile looks like: Girl’s Profile – Boy’s Profile

I was lucky that the coach was very responsive. Later that day the coach emailed me back and said he would take a look. A couple of days later, we scheduled a phone call.

What happened next surprised me a little bit…

To start the call, I joked with the coach that he must be getting hundreds of inquiries from parents saying their kid is the next Connor McDavid and they want their player to try out for his team. He then shared that, yes indeed, he was getting many tryout requests, but none of the parents were sending him all the information and video about their kid like I did. He had even forwarded the profile link to a couple of other coaches to get their opinion. The coach had no idea that I helped build Champs App, but what mattered was that he had all the information he needed (similar to a resume for a job interview) to invite my son to come tryout.

While all the profile information was helpful in getting the coach up-to-speed, it was the videos that were critical to him seeing my son’s level of play. There was enough in the video for him to recognize my son’s strengths as a hockey player and overall skills were at least in the same ballpark as the current players on the team.

Needless to say, the coach just made my day. Not only was my son going to tryout but it was great to see how effective his Champs App profile was in helping him and could help others.

Create your Champs App Profile

We did a lot of research asking college coaches what they wanted to see in a player’s profile for Champs App and now we are seeing it pay off.  Now we are starting to spread the word – so feel free to create a Champs App Profile for your player here and share the app with coaches and teammates.

Categories
Coaching College Hockey Recruiting Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

How Does the Number of 2023 Women’s College Hockey Commits Compare to Previous Years?

DI-Womens-College-Hockey-Commits-by-month-prior-to-starting-college

One of the questions I’ve been discussing with some hockey parents has been how have the new recruiting rules and Covid impacted the timing of college commitments for female hockey players. So I decided to analyze the commitment dates by DI college start year for those student-athletes starting in 2021 vs. 2022 and 2023.  As you can see, the rate of 2023 Women’s College Hockey commits is significantly behind previous years.

As of September 30, 2021, what the data shows is that for 2023 grads, the % of commitments expected for 2023 grads is significantly below where 2021 and 2022 grads were. To be clear, 23 months before a player would start at a DI program, only ~26% (57) of the expected available spots have been filled compared to the equivalent time period for 2021 (64% / 132) and 2022 (49% / 105) players.

Goalies

The number is even more dramatic for goalies which have only seen a single 2023 commit (Holy Cross) occur since coaches were allowed to talk to potential recruits this summer. Only 4 goalies in total have committed for 2023 compared to 16 for 2022 and 22 netminders for 2021.

Top 10 Schools are Moving Slowly

For the Top 10 Schools, more than half of the 2023 commits were made before the recruiting rules changed in 2019, and only half have had a 2023 commit announced this year.

Interpreting the Data

My hypotheses for the significantly lower 2023 commitment rate are:

  1. Many girls still haven’t had an on-campus visit yet. Many have likely been waiting until after the summer to visit DI teams when teams are back practicing and playing.
  2. There is still some ambiguity for 2023 recruiting needs due to the extra year of eligibility for all NCAA players. This can be from transfers or 5th year players.
  3. Covid has restricted or impeded on-campus visits for many prospective student-athletes     

Data assumptions:

  • Data commitment dates – source: collegecommitments.com
  • Transfers between DI programs are not included in the number of commits
  • Total number of commits for 2021 was 215
  • Please keep in mind there were no adjustments in the number of schools each year (e.g. RMU, St Michaels, Stonehill)
Categories
Coaching Development Camp Girl's Showcase Girls Hockey Women's Hockey

What I learned attending the USA Hockey 15s Girls Development Camp

Part II

USA Hockey Player Development

This post is the second in a series about the USA Hockey Girls 15’s Camp I attended from July 10-15, 2021.

At the start of camp, Kristen Wright helped provide perspective on how to think about the bigger picture for what the week was about. The 15’s Camp is really just the first step in a USA Hockey player’s journey at the national level. For many it can be a multi-year process including their college years as the they try to be included in the conversation to make the National Women’s Team.

Realistically, in the short term, for most girls, the ultimate goal of attending any of the girls camps (15,16/18 or U18), is to be invited to the Women’s National Festival which includes players from all age groups (National Team, U23 and U18) being considered for a national roster.

However, for the week of camp, unless something truly exceptional occurred, this Covid year, there would be no decision on advancing or further outcome beyond the camp for any of the players in attendance. Everyone would just head back home richer from the experience and will go though a similar process next year to make the 2022 16/17s camp or if they we one of the top players, potentially go directly to the U18’s camp.

USA-Hockey

Given the above, what did I think were the objectives for the camp from a USA Hockey perspective?

  1. Learn about the USA Hockey national program for girls/women and understand what it takes to compete and potentially make a national team (U18, U23, Women’s National Team)
  2. Get seen & scouted by USA Hockey Coaches (to help get on the radar for the U18 Camp for 2022)
  3. Get feedback on strengths and development opportunities
  4. Get a benchmark of how good a player is relative to their peer group

1. Learn about the USA Hockey National Program

During the parent meeting, Kristen Wright shared the three core values of the USA Hockey program:

  • Relentless
  • Pride
  • Together

And from what I could sense as an outside observer, all the activities for the week centered around these principles. In addition, the theme of the week focused more on helping players be the best they can be rather than solely focus on what it would take to make any of the different age-specific national teams.  Given the size of the camp, on balance, that seemed like a more realistic focus. Better to focus on the values that players would need to consistently demonstrate to make a team rather than hockey-specific attributes that may not resonate at this time for most of the girls.

2. Get seen & scouted by USA Hockey Coaches

As mentioned in my previous post, the on-ice coach to player ratio was about 1:3 with somewhere in the range of 70-100 USA Hockey representatives participating in the camp.  I am assuming that USA Hockey leadership had some type of scouting information collection capability from both on-ice and off-ice observers at both games and practices. In addition, team coaches, team leaders and interns all got to observe their players both at the rink and outside of the rink during the week of camp.  Given all these points of data, I would expect that there is some type of player tracking tool with a summary of the information that was collected on each player. There must be some type of report card (beyond the testing results) that was being kept on each player. Ideally, this database would be used to benchmark players if they return to another USA Hockey camp.

As Kristen Wright alluded to the parents on the first afternoon, roughly speaking players are group into A’s (Top 25 or Top 50), B’s (the next ~100) and C’s (the lowest ~75 players). However, the messaging was clear, it really shouldn’t matter right now for players to hear what level they were evaluated. The girls were there to learn about what it took to make it to the next level in USA Hockey and they need to take those learnings and go back and work hard and get better for next year. This year’s evaluations would primarily be used as a way to track development and improvement in a year from now.

3. Get feedback on strengths and development opportunities

Each player received some type of feedback from one of their coaches during the week. Depending on the team and coach, the feedback session occurred during the second half of camp and was a 1-on-1 meeting with one of the two team coaches. Since I was not a player, I could only gather information indirect accounts from players or parents, so my sample size may not be big enough. Evaluation was almost entirely qualitative than quantitative. However, the one consistent theme I heard was that the feedback session wasn’t that great. Comments ranged from advice being too generic (e.g. “go back home work hard, get better and come back and show us what you can do next year”) to not offering any real thoughtful insights to putting the onus on the player to self-evaluate and then mostly agreeing with the player’s evaluation. The consistent theme that I heard was that not enough effort was put into preparing for the feedback session.

In my opinion, this was an area that is an area that the camp could have had a bigger impact.

My personal thoughts are there should be some type of formal feedback process. Ideally with a standardize report card by position (goalie, defense, winger, center). Each player should have received written, detailed feedback on their strengths and key development opportunities (e.g. 3 for each) to help take their game to the next level (which would be personalized to the appropriate for that individual player). I realize this is a tremendous amount of work, requires a lot of coordination between all the coaches and has some pretty significant risks if not properly implemented. And I agree 100% with Kristen Wright the goal is build and maintain player confidence is key. However, given how much players and parents are invested (in every sense of the word) in their hockey development, having some type of tangible, standardized evaluation would be invaluable for these players. To be clear, I thought the week was exceptionally well-run and a great experience for all involved, but this was my one disappointment as a parent.

Since we didn’t get that feedback, I ended up doing it myself using footage from the games available via HockeyTV.  I’ve started break down the video and comparing them to the top players from the U18 camp who made the National Festival. Most parents probably won’t do this level of video analysis, so there will be a gap in direction for many of the players. It’s disappointing that not all the girls will get a deep dive on their performance.

4. Get a benchmark of how good a player is relative to their peer group

My impression was that while the standard deviation at the 15’s Camp was much smaller than at Pacific District camp (where the gap from top to bottom was pretty significant) you could still see big differences from the elite players to some of the marginal players. Depending on the cohesiveness of the team, it was apparent where some players focused more on showcasing their individual talents rather than trusting their teammates and playing as a team.  It was great to see multiple passes between teammates being well-executed to create scoring chances.  However, in many games missed passes and turnover-after-turnover was occurring on a frequent basis, especially for the first couple of games.

One thing that really stood out to me quite frequently after I saw a player make a great play and I would then look-up where they were from, was how often they were a Minnesota High School player from a school I had never heard of. It was the first time I saw first-hand the high level of players produced by Minnesota hockey on the girls side of things.

In terms of benchmarking, if a player was observant of their teammates, they could pretty easily see which ones were more effective than others (and why). And they could also see the ones who either struggled on the skills side of things (e.g. skating, passing, positional play) or playing a team game.  This was on the skater side of things. Since I am no expert on goalies, I am not sure how puck-stoppers would self-evaluate relative to their peers, but hopefully they could see the wide range of styles and abilities that different goalies demonstrated during the goalie-specific sessions.

These were my observations from the USA Hockey U15s girls camp and how I thought it met the objectives for the week from a USA Hockey perspective.  While I wished there was a little more direction on the path to USA Hockey success, I fully understand why this is still the top of player funnel from a national team point-of-view.

In the final post about the 15s Girls camp, I will discuss the camp from a college recruiting perspective.

© 2023 CHAMPS APP, INC. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Profile Directory

Cookie Policy - User Agreement - Community Guidelines - Copyright Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy