First off, congratulations to Joe Grossman and the Assumption Greyhounds for their first non-conference win in program history (via shoot out) against UNH this past weekend. Joe predicted that the team might surprise some folks during our podcast.
Last season, I wrote about the NEWHA conference in relation to playing DIII women’s hockey. As a follow-up, I wanted to track how the NEWHA teams competed at the start of the season when playing their non-conference games. Clearly, St Michael’s is not competitive with Top 20 teams like Clarkson and Providence. As for the others, you can judge for yourself the overall level of play of the NEWHA against the other conferences. In my opinion, these results reinforce the takeaways from the previous post about making a thoughtful decision when considering NEWHA vs. DIII women’s hockey. Hopefully, some of the NEWHA teams with the necessary resources can continue to raise the level of play of the conference over the next few years to be truly competitive out-of-conference.
Updated 10/26/2024
As of the end of October, the NEWHA teams have been outscored by a 10:1 ratio. Even scoring a single goal has been a challenge in many games. These match-ups pad the stats of their opponents and help the NEWHA goalies set records for saves. However, it seems that playing non-competitive games where teams are winning by 7 or more goals does not encourage attracting top talent to the conference.
What’s the difference in level of play between NCAA DI and U Sports (Canadian University) hockey?
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 Rank
NCAA DI Team
Non-DI Team
2023-24 Rank
25
Boston University
4
1
Concordia (U Sports)
1
27
Merrimack
2
3
Concordia (U Sports)
1
26
Vermont
1
3
Concordia (U Sports)
1
18
Mercyhurst
4
0
Stoney Creek (U22)
12
36
Syracuse
6
0
Windsor (U Sports)
4th in Ontario West
16
Northeastern
4
0
Durham West (U22)
4
8
St Cloud State
4
1
U of Manitoba (U Sports)
6th in CanWest
12
Minnesota State
6
2
U of Manitoba (U Sports)
6th in CanWest
20
St Thomas
9
1
U of Manitoba (U Sports)
6th in CanWest
11
Yale
5
1
McGill (U Sports)
Last in RSEQ
17
Brown
6
0
McGill (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.
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.
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.
Labor Day weekend tournaments can be a bit of a conundrum for aspiring women’s college hockey players. On one hand, these events, such as the PIP Labor Day Girls Fest and the NAHA Labor Day Tournament, attract dozens of college scouts. On the other hand, these are often the first games of the season for many teams, so there are bound to be mistakes as players adjust to new teammates and systems.
So, how should a prospective college student-athlete approach this first weekend of hockey from a recruiting standpoint?
The answer depends on where you are in the recruiting process.
If you’re a DI-caliber player, as long as you perform reasonably well over Labor Day weekend, you’ll have multiple opportunities to showcase your skills at an even higher level in these future events. For example, if you’re a goalie and your team’s defensive structure isn’t quite solid yet, causing you to let in a few goals, don’t stress too much. Coaches understand that early-season games come with challenges, and there’s no need to be overly concerned about hitting peak performance in your first tournament.
If You’re a 2025 or 2026 Grad
For 2025 and 2026 grads still looking to secure a college spot, the stakes are higher. Many 2026 players were contacted after June 15th but haven’t received offers yet; they’ve started conversations with schools and have been told by coaches that they’ll be watched “in the Fall.” Well, these are the games where you’ll be closely evaluated.
If you’re already in talks with some teams, or at least contacting schools with open spots, this could be one of your last chances to make a strong impression. Scouts will expect uncommitted players to have worked hard over the summer and to be ready to prove they’re capable of playing at the DI level. The margin for error is smaller for players in this group, so it’s important to demonstrate that you’re ready to take the next step in the recruiting process.
Additionally, be prepared to see many DI coaches that have already made offers to players to be talking to them in the lobby. After games, DI coaches will find their potential recruits and their parents to connect. Many times they will leave the rink together to go out for a meal. Don’t be discouraged if you aren’t approached by a DI coach, many times they have their own agenda at these events – sometimes it is scouting, sometimes it is just to close players with existing offers.
The Bottom Line
In any situation, you always want to be playing at your best. If you’re on track to play DI hockey, it’s unlikely that anything that happens this weekend will drastically change your trajectory. At worst, you’ll remain on a team’s radar, but some areas for development might be noted. However, if you’re already in discussions with schools and they’re trying to decide whether to make you an offer, there’s definitely pressure to perform. You need to show that you can be a top player at a tournament against strong competition, even this early in the season.
Ultimately, Labor Day weekend is an important milestone in the recruiting process, but it’s just one of many opportunities to prove yourself. Play hard, stay focused, and remember that this is just the beginning of the season.
As we approach the end of July, players should be shifting their focus to preparing for the start of the new hockey season. How should players get the most development during their last few weeks of training?
When high-end players are asked how they became so good at hockey, many share stories about playing hockey all day at the municipal outdoor rink or in their backyard. You always hear about playing after school or on weekends until their parents called them home for dinner. These development paths might make sense in Minnesota or Canada, but it is hard to replicate them today in many parts of North America where outdoor rinks either don’t exist or no longer get as cold in the winter. As someone who grew up in a cold-weather climate but now lives in California, I’ve asked myself if there is a way to replicate many of the aspects of “pond hockey” development.
One of the concepts I used to shape my mindset on this topic is based on a magazine ad I saw many years ago which was endorsed by Tony Robbins. His philosophy is “How do you get the greatest result with the least amount of time or energy?” Tony refers to the ROM Quick Gym as the ‘torture machine’ – which is only a 4-minute workout but provides maximum results. So I have always tried to find ways to apply these principles to hockey with my kids since access to ice time is challenging where we live.
As a result, here are five player development activities that have had the highest return on investment (ROI) for our kids:
1. Hiring a Great Skills Coach
Nothing compares to a highly skilled expert teaching a player new skills. Being able to transfer insights about all the nuances of different situations combined with delivering feedback and adjustments in a productive manner can have immediate results. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many coaches who can perform at that level. Most coaches have players just running drills and giving tips that are helpful but don’t move the needle on improving a player’s in-game execution. Over the past few years, I have seen many kids of former pro players become very good hockey players. Beyond just having good genes, having someone who is an expert teach their kid the fine details of the game is certainly an advantage. Finding a coach who can provide timely, experience-based advice is invaluable.
2. Video Analysis
There is no better tool to learn from than watching exactly how a player performed in an actual game. Being able to analyze video footage as a way to improve is the best way for a player to see exactly how they behave in specific situations. This is why every pro and college team uses video with their players. The simplest concept to figure out how to use video is to find high-frequency, high-failure rate activities. Specifically, what does a player do most often and fail to execute? This allows a player to prioritize what to focus on in their training. Once again, this is a high ROI activity that should immediately raise the level of play for a player who can correct these failure activities.
3. Recreate Exact Game Situations When Practicing
There are many drills and practice plans that work on skills and simulate decision-making for a game. But in my experience, being able to practice executing a skill in essentially the exact conditions of a game is invaluable. Whether it is puck retrievals, stick handling in traffic, or shooting under pressure – being able to practice in nearly identical game environments is best. The hardest part of a game is to execute or make decisions under pressure and unpredictable opponents. A player who has practiced in that exact situation is more likely to execute successfully.
4. Strength and Conditioning
This is probably pretty obvious, but I am amazed at how many youth players do not take their off-ice training as seriously as their on-ice training. It is one of the few areas that a player has complete control over and a direct correlation to on-ice performance. An easy example is a player who is not in great cardio shape will be slower on the ice as a shift or game goes on. So, if you are an average-speed skater to begin with, you will appear to be below-average once fatigue sets in. Similarly, if you are easy to bump off the puck, that will show up as a turnover and spending more time chasing to get the puck back instead of being offensive. Physical training is a high ROI activity and becomes very noticeable when you don’t make that investment.
5. Skating Lessons
I have never regretted a single skating lesson my kids have taken. My kids have been lucky to work with skating instructors who work with top pro and NHL players. Every college coach will tell you how important skating is in the modern game of hockey. It is one of the first skills that a player is evaluated on. Continuing to invest in improving a player’s stride, agility, and efficiency will ensure that there will not be a ceiling on their hockey potential. Hopefully, these five different methods to get the most out of your hockey time and money investments provide some insights on where to focus. They can be somewhat obvious, but these recommendations are certainly better than “shooting 1,000 pucks in the backyard” or going to one more summer showcase when it comes to getting the best value for hockey development.
Hopefully, these five different methods to get the most out of your hockey time and money investments provide some insights on where to focus. They can be somewhat obvious, but these recommendations are certainly better than “shooting 1,000 pucks in the backyard” or going to one more summer showcase when it comes to getting the best value for hockey development.
Justin was a forward with the Stratford Warriors Pee Wee team that was the A/E Tournament Champions in Ingersoll, Ontario back in 2006. Most recently he was a captain at the 2024 NHL All-Star game in Toronto.
Over the past decade, my children have attended at least one hockey camp each summer. From a hockey perspective, very few of these camps significantly advanced their development. However, the true value of these camps often lay beyond mere skill improvement. These camps often coincided with family vacations, provided fun experiences, helped them regain hockey shape after a break, or offered a glimpse into a college’s environment. It’s rarely worth traveling solely for a hockey camp unless there are other compelling reasons to visit the destination.
Tips: Necessary but Not Sufficient
At most camps my children have attended, coaches tend to focus on running various drills as a means to enhance players’ abilities. There is nothing inherently wrong with emphasizing skating, stickhandling, and shooting drills. Repetitions and fundamental work can be beneficial, especially for younger players (e.g., 12 and under). However, these camps typically involve large groups, with everyone undergoing the same repetitions. Individual coaching usually consists of sporadic tips and tricks as coaches move among the campers. While tips and drills are valuable, they rarely constitute comprehensive skill instruction. The USA Hockey Development Camps epitomize this approach—featuring excellent coaches who primarily offer pointers and tweaks over the course of several days.
This is why, for the past few summers, I have preferred enrolling my children in local private or semi-private lessons with experts rather than traveling for hockey camps. I would rather invest in trusted coaches who can provide individualized attention and feedback.
Belfry Summer Camp
This summer, I decided to take a chance on a camp that promised to focus on skill development. A few weeks ago, my son attended a destination hockey camp that yielded the highest return on investment (ROI) from a development perspective. The Darryl Belfry Camp distinguished itself from other camps because the coaching staff was dedicated to adding new tools to the players’ toolkits.
The camp had 22 skaters and 2 goalies, with 7 coaches on the ice, many using iPads to record segments of the sessions. Players spent 3 hours on the ice each day, accompanied by a daily 30-minute video review with Q&A and a 1-hour professional gym workout. Notably, there was not a single whistle used during on-ice sessions. Coaches explained and demonstrated drills using their voices without yelling. Each day had a specific skill theme that built on the previous day’s lessons, ensuring that by the end of the week, players had acquired a suite of new skills applicable to game situations. Examples of these skills included making area passes, various types of steals, and explosive skating with and without the puck.
One of my favorite aspects of Darryl Belfry’s coaching is his commitment to keeping the nets in their standard positions for drills. Even in small-area games, he simply shrinks the offensive zone but keeps the nets in place. This ‘ice geography’ approach teaches players to be acutely aware of their location relative to key markers like the faceoff dot and the boards.
My hope was that my son would learn 5 or 6 new skills by the end of the week. He ended up acquiring 8 or 9 new skills, ranging from hook passes to reading the position of the defense on zone entries. This represented a significant ROI for 4 days of training, with each new tool directly applicable to game situations. The personalized feedback report, complete with links to short YouTube videos of my son demonstrating the week’s skills, was particularly valuable. I have been a big advocate of providing feedback to players after attending a camp, but feedback is only as good as the effort put into it. In this case, the detailed feedback, supplemented by video, was especially appreciated.
Setting Expectations
In conclusion, it is crucial to set realistic expectations when choosing a summer hockey camp. If a coach claims, “We will be on the ice for 15 hours this week; your child will definitely improve,” take that with a grain of salt. While this might be effective for younger children, merely repeating the same bad habits does not make a player better. There are few coaches who can both manage a large camp and teach new skills simultaneously; they need to have a background in coaching and a commitment to continuous improvement. Otherwise, ensure that your other priorities are met and view the camp as an opportunity for your child to enjoy being on the ice and having fun.
Coaching changes can occur for various reasons—positive, neutral, or negative. These may include retirement (e.g., Bemidji State, Minnesota State), a coach moving on to a new opportunity (e.g., Colgate, UMD), or a coach’s contract not being renewed due to on-ice performance or program dynamics. Often, it may be a combination of these reasons. When there is a change at the top, it can have multiple implications for potential recruits, current commits, and existing players.
Potential Scenarios from a Recruiting Perspective
Status Quo – A planned succession process is in place. Generally, the same principles or cultural philosophies will be maintained with minimal changes, aside from the new coach adding their personal touch to the team.
New Sheriff in Town – The new head coach brings in their own assistants, changing the entire leadership of the coaching staff.
Best of Both Worlds – A hybrid approach that combines the best of the old with new ideas and personnel.
Impact on Potential Recruits
If you are a player interested in a school undergoing a head coaching change, you could be directly affected. You might have built a relationship with the previous coaching staff over several years at showcases or camps, which influenced your interest in the school. With a new coach, you may need to establish new relationships and reassess your interest.
For players from the Class of 2026 who are now eligible to speak with the school, conversations might be delayed or paused due to the transition. Currently, there are a few top schools without head coaches (e.g., Colgate, Minnesota Duluth, Union), and it’s unlikely that players will commit until a new head coach is appointed.
Additionally, a “New Sheriff in Town” head coach may have their own list of potential recruits, which could exclude you. Thus, having backup options is advisable.
Impact on Incoming Recruits
Data from recent years suggests that most of the time, incoming and future commits remain unaffected by a new head coach; both the coaching staff and the recruits stay committed to each other. However, there have been instances where a new head coach implements a different recruiting strategy, resulting in commits being told they no longer have a spot. Depending on the situation, a de-committed player may have limited options for the 2024 or 2025 seasons.
Conversely, NCAA rules allow players to de-commit and seek another school if they do not favor the new coach. Essentially, both parties have the opportunity to re-evaluate the relationship and decide if they want to stay together or move one from each other.
Impact on Existing Players
When a coaching change occurs, existing players have the option, under NCAA rules, to enter the transfer portal and find a different school. The NCAA grants a 30-day immediate portal window for players whose head coach departs. Recently, I spoke with a parent of a first-year player at a top DI women’s team who expressed concerns about uncertainty. The player loved the previous coaching staff and culture, and there is nervousness about whether the same philosophies will continue under the new staff.
Similar to minor hockey, any time a player gets a new coach, they must adjust. Most players will need to re-establish their role on the team, which could affect their ice time. Each student-athlete should evaluate their situation and decide whether to stay or explore options in the transfer portal. Ideally, new coaches will take the time to get to know their team and communicate their plans for each player, allowing players to make informed decisions.
One final point to consider is that assistant coaches are also affected by a change in head coaches. They too can experience positive or negative impacts under new leadership. In some situations, most of the staff is retained, while in others, the incumbent assistants do not return, and the new head coach assembles their own team.
Each year, USA Hockey hosts a development camp in early August for the top 76 female U18 players – this year for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 birth years (40 Forwards, 28 Defense, and 8 Goalies).
Last month, the initial 63 players were named to the camp. With the final 13 players added at the end of the 16/17s girls camp which takes place a couple of weeks earlier in mid-July. It is my understanding that players from the late-July 15’s girls camp are still not eligible for the U18 camp, regardless of how they performed at the 15’s camp (much to the chagrin of many players and parents). This year, 9 15’s (2009 birth year) players were invited directly to the U18 camp (there were 5 15’s in 2023 and 6 in 2022). So, players not invited as part of the initial U18 list do not have the opportunity to prove themselves worthy at the 15’s camp.
The one key insight from the players invited to the U18 Girls Camp for 2024 is that there were a total of 6 2007 & 2008 birth year players (out of 29 total players from those age groups) who attended the U18 Camp last year, but were not part of the 54 players (from 2007 and 2008) invited directly this year. Instead, those 6 players will need to prove themselves at the 16/17s Camp and earn their invite to the U18s Camp. One way to look at it is, (according to USA Hockey evaluators) there were at least 48 other players from their birth year who showed they were better this year than the 6 players from last year. Another way to look at it is that players should understand that they cannot take anything for granted. No spot is guaranteed.
Note: This is not the first time players have had to start at the 16/17s Camp after participating in the U18 Camp the year before. Last year, at least 2 “downgraded” players did indeed get selected to move on from 16/17s to attend the U18s camp.
An analysis breaking down commits from the U.S., Canada and Europe. It also provides insight into relatively how good a player needs to be within their country at their position.
What percent of players of DI women’s college commits come from Canada vs. the U.S. and why does it matter? Well, if you are a female player who aspires to play at the highest level of college hockey, it is important to recognize that you aren’t only competing with the top players who play for a USA Hockey National Championship. You are also being compared to the top Canadian and European players.
In analyzing our new and improved database of women’s college hockey commits, we have been tracking where every publicly announced commit is from and where they play. As you can see below, almost 40% of all Division I players are from Canada.
Source: Elite Prospects, College Commits, Champs App analysis (as of May 21, 2024)
So, how good do you need to be to play Division I women’s college hockey?
There are 45 Division I college women’s hockey teams. Assuming 25 players on each team, with 25% graduating every year (once the Covid extra year expires after this year), then there should be about 280 openings each year (assuming no DIII transfers to DI).
USA
With 54% of players coming from the U.S., that means an American player needs to be one of the best 150 players in the U.S. for their graduation year. And if your goal is to play for a Top 25 team it means you basically need to be one of the best 80 players in the U.S.
Thus to be a DI player, you would need to be one of the: • Top 18 goalies in the US. • Top 42 D in the U.S. • Top 90 forwards in the U.S.
Canada
With ~40% percent of players coming from Canada, that means a Canadian player needs to be one of the best 112 players in the Canada for their graduation year.
Drilling down a little more, at the position level, it means: • Top 14 goalies in the Canada • Top 31 D in the Canada • Top 67 forwards in the Canada
It is also important to note that a large majority of Canadian players primarily go to the top 25 DI U.S. schools, otherwise they could easily stay in Canada and be closer to home. For example they could play for Julie Chu or Caroline Ouellette at Concordia University. So the competition for these top schools is probably a little higher from Canadian players, thus lower the number spots for U.S. players at these high-ranking schools.
