1 / 20

MICHIGAN GIRLS HOCKEY SUMMIT

Join the Michigan Girls Hockey Summit on August 23, 2010, to learn about building a successful program, rule changes in girls hockey, and discussing the future of the sport.

latashar
Download Presentation

MICHIGAN GIRLS HOCKEY SUMMIT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MICHIGAN GIRLS HOCKEY SUMMIT August 23, 2010

  2. Michigan Girls Hockey Summit Agenda • Introductions & Purpose • Overview of Girls Hockey in Michigan • Building A Successful Program • Rule Changes Effecting Girls Hockey • Discussion on Future of Girls Hockey • 10U & 12U Scheduling Planning

  3. USA Hockey Registration 2009-10 Division Male Female Totals % Female 6&U 39814 7026 46840 15% 7&8 42528 6841 49369 13.8% 9&10 48224 8232 56456 14.6% 11&12 49469 8402 57871 14.5% 13&14 48064 7165 55229 13% 15&16 37955 5400 43355 12.5% 17&18 27220 3270 30490 10.7% 19&Up 119706 15276 134982 11.3% Total 412980 61612 474592 13%

  4. Michigan Registration 2009-10 Division Male Female Totals % Female 6&U 3803 414 4217 9.8% 7&8 3955 365 4320 8.5% 9&10 4491 485 4976 9.7% 11&12 4821 439 5260 8.3% 13&14 4868 430 5298 8.1% 15&16 3824 446 4270 10.5% 17&18 2767 286 3053 9.4% 19&Up 18446 1564 20010 11.3% Total 46975 4429 51404 8.6%

  5. USA Hockey Girls/Women Registration 2009-10 Division MI MN MA NY IL WI 6&U 414 1674 1233 724 209 490 7&8 365 1881 1139 634 258 395 9&10 485 2277 1300 709 292 470 11&12 439 1544 1354 700 283 452 13&14 430 1544 1088 611 284 453 15&16 446 715 836 516 223 261 17&18 286 359 443 271 153 168 19 76 75 55 70 26 29 20& Up 1488 1417 1102 1029 518 478 Totals 4429 12250 8550 5264 2256 3196

  6. Female Player % Comparison State Females Players Female % MI 4429 51404 8.6% MN 12250 53450 23% MA 8550 43445 19.7% NY 5264 46389 11.3% IL 2256 24018 9.4% WI 3196 17697 18%

  7. MI Female Registration History Division 09/10 08/09 07/08 06/07 05/06 6&U 414 483 337 360 350 7&8 365 404 409 387 399 9&10 485 450 463 525 531 11&12 439 456 499 545 582 13&14 430 463 517 535 493 15&16 446 429 423 434 420 17&18 286 269 288 261 250 19&up 1564 1419 1556 1565 1380 Totals 4429 4373 4492 4612 4405

  8. MI/MN Female Player Registration Historical Comparison Season MI MN 93-94 1287 1970 94-95 1776 2940 95-96 2173 4373 96-97 2523 5098 97-98 2615 5668 98-99 3117 6517 99-00 3463 6951 00-01 3636 7352 01-02 3759 7790 02-03 3987 8330 03-04 4186 9243 04-05 4297 9443

  9. Women College Players Where They Come From StateD1D3Total MN 130 253 383 MA 66 156 222 NY 37 112 149 MI 29 37 66 IL 23 39 62 WI 16 44 60 Source – American Hockey Coaches Association Summer 2009 Stops & Starts Newsletter

  10. 2010 USA Select Teams U18 Select Team MN 7; MA 3; MI 2, CT 2; NY 2; NH 1; IL 1; VT 1; CA 1; TX 1; MD 1; U22 Select Team MN 6; IL 2; WI 2; PA 2; NY 2; ND 2; ME 1; ID 1; NJ 1; VA 1; CO 1; CT 1

  11. Tier I Organizations/Teams • 10U – LC, VH, BT • 12U – LC, VH, HB, CW, BT, BWW • 14U – LC, VH, HB, CW • 16U – LC, VH, HB, CW, BT • 19U – LC, VH, HB, BT

  12. Possible Tier II Programs & Entry Level Teams • Livonia 12u, 14u 16u & 10u rec • Mt. Clemens 12u, 14u, 16u • Michigan Icebreakers 12u, 14u, 16u, 19u & 12u, HS rec • Birmingham 10u, 14u, 19u • St. Clair Shores 12u, 14u • Grosse Pointe 12u, 14u • Ann Arbor 10u, 12u, 14u, & 12u rec • Kensington Valley 10u, 12u & rec • Rochester 14u; Allen Park 16u; Wayne 19u; Belle Tire 19u • Wildflowers (DSC)10u, 12u • Chelsea 12u; Gladwin 19u; Kalamazoo 19u; West Kent 19u • Lansing 10u, 12u & rec; Grand Rapids 12u; • Marquette, Traverse City and others

  13. High School Teams • Varsity - Northville, Plymouth-Canton, Grosse Pointe North, Cranbrook, Walled Lake, Grosse Pointe South, Ladywood, Mercy, Country Day, Bloomfield Hills, Regina, Ann Arbor, University Liggett • JV teams – Northville, Regina, Others?

  14. According to the 2007 Tucker Center Research Report, Developing Physically Active Girls: AnEvidence based Multidisciplinary Approach, there are three trends in girls’ participationpatterns within physical activity: 1. Girls and women are participating in sports in record numbers at all levels. Girls 6-17 account for approximately 44% of sports team members (11.4 million) 4.75 million participate in sport activities outside of organized team competitions 2. Girls’ participation in moderate to vigorous physical activity outside of organized sports is declining, especially in grades 9-12. 3. Girls’ participation rates and behaviors in all types of physical activity consistently lags behind those of boys. • Boys are more likely to participate in team sports, 61% of boys v. 54% of girls • Girls join organized sports at later ages than boys • Girls are less likely to have played on one or more sports teams, 62% of boys v. 50% of • girls. • Girls are twice as likely to drop out of sports and drop out at younger ages.

  15. The following factors are cited for declining participation amongst girls: • Changing interests • Pressures of early sport specialization • Intensive training expectations at young ages • Selection or funneling process that eliminates lesser skilled girls • Girls also report more barriers to physical activity participation than do boys, including time-based barriers (homework, chores, caring for younger siblings), access and opportunity motivation, physical conditioning), psychological barriers ( lack of confidence in physical skills, knowledge of sports).

  16. The Tucker Report also verifies the following important facts about girls and physical activity • Girls love physical activity experiences and through them develop important relationships. • Girls enjoy the challenges of sport and gain confidence through being physically active. • Girls like the camaraderie and fun inherent in sport, but they rely on adult physical activity leaders to create high quality, positive experiences. • Girls suffer negative psychological consequences if those leaders do not use their power wisely to meet girls’ developmental needs.

  17. Observations • There are not as many girls as there could be playing hockey in Michigan • Girls will play hockey if the time and financial commitment is reasonable, convenient and affordable for families • The majority of girls want to play on all-girls teams • There are very few “all-girls” entry level opportunities for girls in hockey • The “boys travel” model of tryouts/travel/costs creates barriers to entry • Many girls teams are single-entry or independent type teams – not part of an organization – providing no continuity for players/families • We often make decisions based on the “few best players” as opposed to the majority and sometimes bite off more than we can chew in doing so • Girls hockey lacks visibility. The girls leagues are just separate divisions in predominantly boys leagues. • The total number of girls teams in the LCAHL declined from 53 in 2003-04 to 29 in 2009-10, with only eleven 12U/10U girl teams in the LCAHL, down from 24 in 2003-04.

  18. Challenges Unique to Girls Hockey • Girls can play on youth teams and there is the perception that a girl will become a better player if she plays with boys as long as possible • Girls often play up an age group “to be challenged” • Whole teams often move up an age group even though many players are underage • Two year age group (which is necessary) and tryout/travel model - it is difficult to have a team at the next age group up unless there are second year girls remaining from the previous team. Requires organizational planning/cooperation. • When a team (or part) leaves an organization, the gap created is difficult to recover from and often decimates the organization completely • Competitive Stratification – At each age group within 2 leagues (lcahl and toehl) there are several different levels of caliber of teams . The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. • Girls hockey uses the youth travel model with a fraction of the # of players – difficult to get a team started, more difficult to sustain. • It is often difficult for teams at younger age groups to discern “where they fit” and who to and not to play • Associations and rinks do not provide opportunity for girls to play (and why should they with the lack of stability in that area?)

  19. Questions We Need to Ask • Where will the players come from to populate the various levels of hockey at the older age groups in years to come? • How to build and sustain entry level programs to provide opportunities for girls to start playing the game? • How to limit upward sucking of players that decimates the levels below? • How to get more visibility for girls hockey so more girls will choose to play? • How to create a structure that allows for the development of more higher level players? (More players = more better players) • What is the vision for the future of girls hockey?

  20. "Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success“ Henry Ford

More Related