The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard
Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page
Yeah your right. Your kid is right there. It's just no one can see it but you.
Well as far as the U18 states go, the team with the most "commits" didn't win a single game. Committing to a D1 college indicates a players ability compared to his peers correct? And as a previous poster stated the team with the best players wins. Then that team should have won the whole thing as they had the most committed "best players" but they couldn't muster a win. I guess those experts who do it for a "living" must either be really bad at what they do or using some other criteria for judging players. Other than the team that won it all that had 3 to 4 elite players, that anyone could see were the best, I don't believe the other three semi finalists had 3 or 4 commits combined.
The team that had the most commits were all 2000's. The other teams were majority '99s. Made a difference in a couple of the games. Don't feel bad for the 2000's, though, as many of them will be playing high-end D1 hockey in a few years.
Not to be a contrarian but the Lil Bruins were mostly 01s and 00s. 8 of the 12 skating in the final were 01 or 00. just saying
All 8 teams had top end 2000s. At u18, the extra year means less than it does when they are younger. At u16 you can see the older kids stand out, but not as much, if at all, at u18.
The Eagles did fine, as did other teams where 2000s were prominent players.
River Rats' best forward was a 2000, who scored 4 goals against Whalers. Senators had several 2000s who could arguably be their best players. Same with Rifles, who were missing their best 1999 forward due to injury.
Eagles did great.. didn't win a game. I guess thats the point of previous comments. The best kids, those with commits, should win games espentially against peers.