Categories
2024 Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

How does the level of DI NCAA women’s hockey compare to U Sports and Girls Hockey

A couple of questions many folks have are:

  1. What’s the difference in level of play between NCAA DI and U Sports (Canadian University) hockey?
  2. How different is NCAA DI women’s hockey from top U22 Canadians (or U19 in the States) girls hockey? 

Well, the NCAA DI pre-season provides an opportunity to do a little triangulation to compare these different leagues.  This month several Canadian U Sports and U22 Girls teams play exhibition games against DI women’s hockey teams.  Here are the results:

2023-24 RankNCAA DI TeamNon-DI Team2023-24 Rank
25 Boston University41Concordia (U Sports)1
27Merrimack23Concordia (U Sports)1
26Vermont13Concordia (U Sports)1
18Mercyhurst
40Stoney Creek (U22)12
36Syracuse60Windsor (U Sports)4th in Ontario West
16Northeastern40Durham West (U22)4
8St Cloud State41U of Manitoba (U Sports)6th in CanWest
12Minnesota State62U of Manitoba (U Sports)6th in CanWest
20St Thomas91U of Manitoba (U Sports)6th in CanWest
11Yale51McGill (U Sports)Last in RSEQ
17Brown60McGill (U Sports)Last in RSEQ
Updated 10-15-2024

A few notes to keep in mind – since the data may not be exactly comparable to real games:

  • Keep in mind that these are the first games for the NCAA DI teams, while all the U Sports teams have already played at least a couple of games beforehand. So , the NCAA teams might be still adjusting to each other and new systems
  • These may or may not be the regular season line-ups for the NCAA DI teams, because this is the first time to watch their freshmen in action.  So the NCAA line-ups may be below their regular season quality
  • Games vs U22 teams may not be a full 60-minutes – so the goal differential may be less than a normal game
  • U of Manitoba played St Thomas 15 hours after their game vs. MSU. Their 3rd game in 43 hours.

The data is only directional, but a couple of trends:

  • Given how strong Concordia has been the last few years, it seems the top U Sports teams would be in the middle of the pack (15-25) if they played a DI NCAA schedule
  • There is still a pretty big gap between a good DI team and a top U22 Canadian girls junior team

As more games are played, the final scores will be added to this post.

Updated 09-29-2024

Categories
Parents Player Development Youth Hockey

Parent Power: Key Factors in Raising College Hockey Players

This past week, my kids played their first games of the season. We’re approaching the end of their time in youth hockey, and I’ve been reflecting on their journey to playing at the highest levels in recent years. One realization I had is just how much work it takes as a parent to help them get to where they are. So, I thought I’d capture my thoughts on the key factors that parents enable to improve their kids’ chances of success in hockey.

Many of these attributes may differ between high- and low-density hockey areas. We live in a low-density hockey area in Northern California, which means relatively limited access to ice time, insufficient high-quality coaching, and few high-level local teams for both boys’ and girls’ youth hockey. In high-density hockey environments, players may be less dependent on their parents to access the resources and competition they need to be successful. If you live in Minnesota or the Greater Toronto Area, it’s much easier to put your player in a position to reach their full potential.

Additionally, if your child is exceptional at a young age, like Sidney Crosby or Connor Bedard, they will likely have no problem finding success. But most kids aren’t prodigies, and parents play a crucial role in helping them develop and find opportunities in youth hockey.

Here are the biggest ways parents enable their child’s hockey success:

1. Getting them to the rink

I know this is as obvious as it gets. But beyond just signing the kids up and paying their fees, waking up at crazy hours or traveling long distances for practices and games is no small task. Often, it means parents need to make sacrifices like missing work, losing sleep, or spending hours in traffic. All of these are frequently overlooked aspects of the vital role parents play in ensuring players simply show up. This summer, I calculated that I drove at least 250,000 miles over the past 10 years just getting my kids to their sports events. That’s a lot of car time. Additionally, the car ride home is a critical experience in ensuring your child continues to love the game. If they begin to dread the car ride because it’s filled with criticism (e.g., being told everything they did wrong), parents can ruin their child’s hockey experience and destroy their motivation to continue playing.

2. Signing them up for multiple sports

There is so much written about how many professional athletes played multiple sports growing up before focusing on a single one. But that doesn’t happen without parents buying into the philosophy and registering their kids for a variety of activities. It’s not just about exposing them to different sports; it also involves managing practice and game conflicts, navigating tight schedules, and rushing from one sport to another. Parents also have to negotiate with coaches who may not be sympathetic to players participating in another sport when there are overlaps. These are additional challenges parents must face to help their child succeed.

3. Finding the best team or coach for their development

Parents play a critical role in determining where a player should play and which team or skills coaches they should trust to develop their child. For the most part, there are no Yelp or Amazon reviews for teams and coaches, so parents need to talk to other parents, synthesize information from social media, and use other online resources to find the best opportunities. Most parents aren’t familiar with all the nuances of youth hockey at each age group, so they spend a lot of time and effort making the best decisions. While Champs App is trying to provide a lot of this information, every journey is unique, and parents invest significant time and energy in making informed choices about which hockey path to take.

4. Financial investment

Hockey is an expensive sport. Candidly, with the professionalization of all youth sports, the average player requires their parents to spend a lot of money on team fees, equipment, travel, and private lessons. Only a few players have their hockey development subsidized through scholarships or municipalities that provide locally-owned rinks with volunteer coaches. For most, playing youth hockey easily costs thousands of dollars each season. As a parent, you are investing in your child’s overall development and should not expect a direct return on investment from hockey.

5. Hockey-specific development

Most parents don’t have the hockey expertise to coach their kids. If they do, it’s a tremendous advantage—assuming the parent handles it productively (which isn’t always the case for over-zealous parents who can inadvertently harm their child’s development). However, any parent can provide access to video (e.g., LiveBarn or other streaming services) at a young age, allowing the player to watch their own shifts. Teaching your child self-awareness and the ability to learn from mistakes using video at an early age is an invaluable asset that parents can nurture, even if they know very little about hockey.

I’m sure I’m missing other key roles that parents play in their son or daughter’s development, but these were the most salient ones for our family. Of course, my kids put in the work—both on and off the ice—to get to where they are today. However, the effort we invested as a family to enable their success was significant, and parents should be recognized for the essential role they play.

Learn More on CHAMPS+

CHAMPS+ Subscribers can read more detail on the role parents play on the path to playing women’s college hockey in our age-specific Women’s College Hockey Playbook

Categories
2024 2025 College Hockey Recruiting Men's College Hockey Women's College Hockey

The NCAA’s New Scholarship Model: A Double-Edged Sword for Women’s Ice Hockey

As part of a recent settlement agreement, the NCAA will be expanding scholarships across all sports, replacing previous scholarship restrictions with roster size limits. This new structure option will take effect in the 2025-26 academic year, coinciding with another significant change: the sharing of revenue with student-athletes.

Old Model: 18 Flexible Scholarships

Under the current model, Division I ice hockey teams can offer up to 18 scholarships, which can be divided among as many players as the coaching staff sees fit. There is no limit on the number of roster spots, allowing teams to carry an unlimited number of non-scholarship players.

New Model: 26 Fixed Scholarships

The new option presents a different approach: teams must roster exactly 26 players, each of whom will receive a full scholarship. No partial scholarships are allowed, and teams are required to maintain 26 players throughout the entire season. If revenue-sharing dollars are available, they would be distributed among these players.

The Dilemma for Men’s and Women’s Hockey

For men’s ice hockey, where the average roster size last season was around 30 players due to frequent injuries, limiting the roster to 26 spots could be problematic. Teams may find it difficult to maintain a full squad throughout a grueling season.

On the women’s side, the new structure might offer more scholarships than necessary. Last season, Division I women’s teams averaged about 25 players, a number slightly inflated by graduate students taking advantage of a fifth year of Covid eligibility. Most coaches suggest their ideal roster size is between 24 and 25 players, including three goalies. Typically, teams only need 20-22 skaters and two goalies for the season unless a significant number of injuries occur.

Key Considerations

1. Financial Viability: Many programs, especially in women’s ice hockey, may struggle to afford 26 scholarships. Women’s hockey is not a revenue-generating sport for most schools, and increasing scholarships from 18 to 26 could significantly raise operational costs.

    2. Top Programs’ Advantage: Schools with large athletic budgets, like Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, are most likely to consider adopting the new scholarship model. These programs benefit from substantial revenue streams from TV deals and their football and basketball programs.

    3. Optimal Roster Size: Most women’s teams only require 22-24 players, making the new 26-player requirement potentially excessive. Even last season’s national champions, Ohio State, had just 24 players, while runner-up Wisconsin primarily utilized 22 players.

    4. Playing Time Concerns: Elite players might opt for programs where they are more likely to play, rather than sitting in the stands as the 24th, 25th, or 26th player on a top team. This trend has already been observed with the current transfer portal, and it may intensify under the new scholarship model.

    5. Impact on Ivy League and Smaller Programs: Ivy League schools, which do not offer athletic scholarships, and other programs unable to afford 26 scholarships, could find it increasingly difficult to compete for top talent. This could further widen the gap between the elite and less-funded programs in women’s hockey

    The Road Ahead

    While the new scholarship model has the potential to increase opportunities for women’s ice hockey players, the actual impact will depend on how many schools can and will adopt it. The coming months will reveal which programs opt for the expanded scholarships and how this change will shape the future of collegiate women’s hockey.

    Learn More on CHAMPS+

    CHAMPS+ Subscribers can watch former DI coach, Harry Rosenholtz from College Hockey Showcases discuss the new scholarship rules during the August CHAMPS+ Webinar: