Every hockey association wrestles with the same question every fall: how do you build a youth hockey tryout evaluation process that’s fair, consistent, and something families can actually trust? Michael Lavine, who spent three years running hockey operations for Eagan Hockey Association and remains involved with the Spartan girls’ co-op program, recently walked through exactly how his organization answers that question — and the lessons apply to associations of any size.
From Spreadsheets to a Centralized System
Where It Started
Like a lot of associations, Eagan’s tryout process began with a heavily customized Excel spreadsheet — one built with intricate formulas and macros to calculate scores and generate groupings. It worked, but it required constant manual upkeep and lived entirely on one person’s hard drive, with little room for anyone else to step in and run it.
Why Centralizing Matters
The bigger shift for Eagan wasn’t just moving off spreadsheets — it was consolidating a process that used to bounce between Excel, Word, and other separate tools into one centralized system. That consolidation reduces the risk of losing institutional knowledge when a board member’s term ends, since the process itself doesn’t live on any single volunteer’s laptop.
How the Evaluation Process Actually Works
Skills Day First, Then Live Play
Eagan structures tryouts around an opening skills day, evaluating individual technical skills in a focused, controlled setting rather than trying to capture too many data points at once. From there, the process expands to include small-sided gameplay — starting with half-ice 3-on-3 — to see whether a player is purely a skills performer or also brings hockey IQ and game sense to the ice, before progressing into full 5-on-5 scrimmages.
Multiple Evaluators, Averaged Scores
Rather than relying on a single evaluator’s opinion, Eagan uses a panel of paid evaluators who each score players independently, with those scores averaged together to build groupings from one day to the next. Evaluators also have the flexibility to score a standout player higher than the group average when appropriate, flagging that a player may belong with a higher level than their current grouping suggests.
Coaches as a Second Layer of Accountability
Coaches are invited to watch evaluations and submit their own scores, but those scores aren’t weighted into the official evaluator rankings. Instead, they function as an internal check — a way to evaluate the evaluators and catch any blind spots, while still preserving a small number of coach picks in the final roster decisions.
Level Labels Instead of Raw Numbers
One adjustment that’s worked well for Eagan is using level-based labels — like “B1” or “solid B1” — rather than a raw one-through-seven score. These labels still translate to a numerical value underneath for averaging purposes, but they give coaches and evaluators a shared, intuitive language for talking about where a player fits, including whether someone is a clear fit for a level or sits in the bubble between two groups.
Lessons Learned Along the Way
Perfect Isn’t the Goal — Consistency Is
No tryout process is an exact science, and there will always be families who feel their player was slighted. Eagan’s approach isn’t built around achieving a perfect outcome every time — it’s built around getting as close as possible using a consistent, evaluator-driven process, with clear guidelines for handling the natural subjectivity that remains.
Communication Calms Nerves
One of the most consistent lessons from Eagan’s experience is that organization and communication with parents and players does more to smooth out tryout week than almost anything else. Nerves around tryouts are universal, and a well-organized, clearly communicated process goes a long way toward easing that anxiety for families.
Involve More Than Just the Board
To build trust beyond the people making final decisions, Eagan brings general association members and even their boys’ high school coach into parts of the evaluation process. That transparency lets non-board members see firsthand that the process is legitimate, and it gave their high school coach — who was initially skeptical of how long and involved the process seemed — a firsthand look at just how carefully the organization tracks and evaluates players.
Ask for Feedback Every Year
Eagan makes a habit of gathering feedback from parents, players, coaches, and evaluators after tryouts wrap up. Not all of it is easy to hear, but that ongoing feedback loop is exactly how the process keeps improving year over year, rather than staying frozen in whatever system worked five seasons ago.
Why This Approach Works
What stands out about Eagan’s process isn’t any single tool or technique — it’s the combination of centralized data, multiple evaluators, transparent communication, and a willingness to keep adjusting the process based on real feedback. That combination is what turns a stressful tryout week into a system families can trust, year after year.
TeamGenius helps hockey associations like Eagan run consistent, transparent tryout evaluations — from scoring and groupings to bench reports and jersey check-in — all in one centralized system. Visit teamgenius.com to learn more.
Leave a Reply