Categories
2024 Coaching Player Development Women's Hockey Youth Hockey

Summer Hockey Camps – Skills vs. Drills vs. Tips

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.

Categories
2024 Coaching College Hockey Recruiting NCAA DI Commits Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Women’s DI Hockey Head Coaching Changes – Implications on Recruiting

(Updated June 29, 2024)

Since the end of this past season, at the NCAA DI women’s hockey level, there have been nine head coaching changes, along with the announcement of Allison Coomey as the first Head Coach at Delaware.

SchoolOld CoachNew Coach
AssumptionJack SweeneyJoe Grossman
Bemidji StateJim ScanlanAmber Frykland
ColgateGreg FargoStefan Decosse
DartmouthLiz Keady NortonMaura Crowell
DelawareN/AAllison Coomey
Minnesota-DuluthMaura CrowellLaura Schuler
Minnesota StateJohn HarringtonShari Dickerman
PostGretchen SilvermanPat Bingham
St Michael’sChris DonovanMeghan Sweezey
UnionJosh ScibaTBD

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

  1. 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.
  2. New Sheriff in Town – The new head coach brings in their own assistants, changing the entire leadership of the coaching staff.
  3. 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.

Categories
2023 2024 Coaching Women's College Hockey Women's Hockey

Tracking Progress: The Evolution of Female Coaching Representation in NCAA DI Women’s Hockey

Back in 2020, when Champs App first started, we tracked the female representation in the coaching staffs at NCAA DI and U Sports women’s hockey.  Now, 3 years later, it is time to compare how the number of female coaches has changed during this time.

Over the past three years, there has been a notable increase in the representation of female head coaches within Division I women’s college hockey teams. In the 2020-21 season, female head coaches accounted for 14 out of 41 total coaching positions, comprising 34% of the total coaching cohort. However, by the 2023-24 season, this number has risen significantly, with 21 female head coaches out of a total of 44 coaching positions, representing an increase to 48%. This upward trend highlights a positive shift towards greater gender diversity and inclusivity within the coaching landscape of women’s college hockey, indicating a growing recognition of the value and expertise that female coaches bring to the sport.

While the ideal number is probably not 100% for female head coaches at the NCAA women’s DI level, it is nice to see the numbers continue to climb. Having spoken to so many male DI women’s coaches, it is clear that in most cases they are doing a great job in their roles. However, the much bigger opportunity is in increasing the number of female coaches on the men’s side of the game, where female coaches still represent significantly less than 1% at the men’s college level.  There have been inroads made over the last few years, with NCAA DI head coaches participating in NHL development camps. This season, Kim Weiss is an assistant with DIII Trinity and Jessica Campbell is an assistant coach with the AHL Coachella Valley Firebirds. But when it comes to full-time roles, I am still waiting to hear about female coaches even being considered for a DI or DIII men’s team head coaching job. 

From 2020 to 2023, there has also been a significant increase in the number of assistant or associate head coaches in NCAA Division I women’s hockey teams due to teams now being permitted 3 assistants. In the 2020-21 season, female assistant or associate head coaches accounted for 52 out of a total of 79 coaching positions, representing 66% of the coaching cohort. This number has seen a significant rise by the 2023-24 season, with 65 female coaches out of a total of 98 coaching positions, equaling the same 66% of the coaching staff. Conversely, the number of male assistant or associate head coaches also increased from 27 to 33 during this period, but their overall proportion remained constant.

During the time there has been significant increases in female coaches at the NCAA DI women’s hockey level for both head & assistant coaches, there has been no change in the number of female coaches in Canada U Sports women’s hockey. In fact U.S. teams surpassed Canadian schools in terms in percent female representation. Note: no data was collected for U Sports assistants back in 2020

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

Elizabeth WULF

Assistant Coach – Connecticut Huskies

Brian Idalski

Head Coach – St Cloud State Huskies

Peter Elander

Associate Head Coach – Ohio State Buckeyes

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

dave flint

Head Coach – Northeastern Huskies

maura crowell

Head Coach – Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs

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

mark bolding

Head Coach – Yale Bulldogs

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