Girls Playing On Boys Teams

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Intheslot
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:19 pm

Girls Playing On Boys Teams

Post by Intheslot » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:03 pm

I wanted to throw this topic out for discussion. I know this is prominently a boys forum, but would appreciate honest opinions from both sides of the fence. The angle I'm looking at is individual girl player development with boys versus not playing with girl team, thus hurting team/association development. This seems to be hot topic and I would appreciate the views of this community. I want to disclose I have a girl playing on a boys team.
Last edited by Intheslot on Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:56 pm

There is no such thing as boys teams.

There are youth and girls teams.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:01 pm

If your daughter does not mind being the only (or one of few) girl on a team with boys then it is fine.
For the most part she has to play and practice at a higher speed in a more physical atmosphere.
On the other hand she is not gaining the experience of playing in a 'girls' environment which at some point she will have to adapt to.
As long as the girls program is not being hurt by her absense no one should care and the decision becomes her's to balance bewteen what she gains versus loses.

Gain - generally higher speed, more physical and more competitive.
Lose - the girls game stmosphere, smarter, more disciplined and the social part of playing anything.

IMO

yeahyeahyeah
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:12 am

Post by yeahyeahyeah » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:22 pm

elliott70 wrote:There is no such thing as boys teams.

There are youth and girls teams.
AND THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Mind you I am a fan of girls hockey as well as boys and I have been an administrator over both. I just cannot understand why the girls are allowed to have the right to chose between one or the other.
Girls hockey is strong enough today and should be allowed to stand on its own. The skill level is high enough that most girls will be challenged in girls hockey.
Some of the best girls playing at the highest levels or are about to play at the highest levels in a year or two have played girls all the way through.
I know for a fact that 99% of the states top scoring girls high school players played with the girls in youth hockey.
I guess that sums up my opinion.

Anyone ever really ask the girls what they want to do? I feel sorry for the girls in the locker room that have to go elsewhere to change. It is an uncomfortable feeling. Last week a woman played with a group I skate for, she came right into the mens locker room and started dressing. Of course none of us oculd really tell she was female.
Seriously what girl would want to sit with a bunch of smelly farting burping boys or well a bunch of smelly girls? haha
I am sure I know which one the boys would choose.

minorleagr
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:00 am

Post by minorleagr » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:24 pm

Hot Tater! How would a U10A parent feel if a boy beat out their daughter?Would it be said that he should be playing boys? I have no cares either way but we all know the arguments.

VicKevlar
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:47 pm

Post by VicKevlar » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:26 pm

I just cannot understand why the girls are allowed to have the right to chose between one or the other.
Simple. Because in ALOT of places/associations there are no girls teams.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:42 pm

yeahyeahyeah wrote:
elliott70 wrote:There is no such thing as boys teams.

There are youth and girls teams.
AND THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Mind you I am a fan of girls hockey as well as boys and I have been an administrator over both. I just cannot understand why the girls are allowed to have the right to chose between one or the other.
Girls hockey is strong enough today and should be allowed to stand on its own. The skill level is high enough that most girls will be challenged in girls hockey.
Some of the best girls playing at the highest levels or are about to play at the highest levels in a year or two have played girls all the way through.
I know for a fact that 99% of the states top scoring girls high school players played with the girls in youth hockey.
I guess that sums up my opinion.

Anyone ever really ask the girls what they want to do? I feel sorry for the girls in the locker room that have to go elsewhere to change. It is an uncomfortable feeling. Last week a woman played with a group I skate for, she came right into the mens locker room and started dressing. Of course none of us oculd really tell she was female.
Seriously what girl would want to sit with a bunch of smelly farting burping boys or well a bunch of smelly girls? haha
I am sure I know which one the boys would choose.
This is a USAH issue. MH has no say in how it is handled.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:44 pm

Girls hockey is not strong enough to stand on its own. Even in the metro, girls cross association lines to play on an A team and co-ops are everywhere. Outstate a girl often has the choice to play girls' B hockey, drive an hour or more to play on a girls' A team, or play with the boys - a 10UB team may have 3-4 or more mite girls needed to have 10 skaters. Opportunities have improved for the girls, but there is a long way to go.

Also, regarding the argument that a girl will take a boys spot on the A team - if your boy didn't make the A team, he needs to work on getting better - that's the nicest way to say it.

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:54 pm

minorleagr wrote:Hot Tater! How would a U10A parent feel if a boy beat out their daughter?Would it be said that he should be playing boys? I have no cares either way but we all know the arguments.

The highest level (A) girls teams don't offer a higher level of play than the respective youth levels (U10A<Squirt A), so there is no real reason to allow boys to play on girls teams.

Question for Elliott: MH hockey is unique to usah as a whole because of the # of girls playing. Has there been discussion for MH to place limits on allowing girls to play on youth teams (Only when low girl numbers, only if making youth A team, etc)?

Question for all: what youth/boys level equates to the various girls levels? The last Olympics the USA womens team lost 2-1 to Warroad HS boys. They have played HS and Junior Gold teams this go around. I don't know any results. Does D1/Olympic women = HS boys?
How about HS girls, U14A, U12A, U10A, etc? (It is hard to compare because boys and girls play very different styles.)

Because of their #s, Edina has one of the most competitive tryouts for their A teams. There are 2 girls on this year's Squirt A team. Anyone hear complaints out of that camp? We all know the complaints from 2 years ago.

inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:14 pm

I also have a girl playing, but she played on girls teams all the way through. Now she is on the high school team. She is playing with a girl that played boys hockey throughout youth.

There is a significant difference in playing styles, as well as skill development. Girls play a different game, and learn different styles while going through the youth programs. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, but if you play with the boys in youth, and then switch over to girls, there are striking differences in play. Playing with the boys may leave gaps in the girls game.

My "opinion", if a girls program is offered, they should play with the girls. If they don't the girls programs will forever be a numbers dilema that could be solved, but isn't. I never really thought about "taking" a place on the boys team. If you can earn a spot on a hockey team, play hard and have fun. There is something to be said for being "part of the team", and that is a difficult spot for girls on a boys team. IMHO.

Coachk
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:27 pm

Post by Coachk » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:15 pm

Hey Yeahyeahyeah
Fact every girl on the USA team played with boys at one point.

Also as a friend of 2 members of that team, recently they expressed concern over the talent level of the girls playing todate. When a player has not been challanged by playing with the boys they are not prepared to play at a higher level. If you have ever seen the girls play on the east coast or Michigan you will see what I mean. I have been involved in girls hockey for 15 years and the best I have seen are the players who played atleast through squirts with the boys. Every couple of years there is someone like you that crabs about this. Complaints the same, just different faces.

It is youth hockey, not boys deal with it. Must be a girls on your sons team that is showing him up.

elliott70
Posts: 13668
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:20 pm

spin-o-rama wrote:
minorleagr wrote:Hot Tater! How would a U10A parent feel if a boy beat out their daughter?Would it be said that he should be playing boys? I have no cares either way but we all know the arguments.

The highest level (A) girls teams don't offer a higher level of play than the respective youth levels (U10A<Squirt A), so there is no real reason to allow boys to play on girls teams.

Question for Elliott: MH hockey is unique to usah as a whole because of the # of girls playing. Has there been discussion for MH to place limits on allowing girls to play on youth teams (Only when low girl numbers, only if making youth A team, etc)?

MH does not have the power to do that.

Question for all: what youth/boys level equates to the various girls levels? The last Olympics the USA womens team lost 2-1 to Warroad HS boys. They have played HS and Junior Gold teams this go around. I don't know any results. Does D1/Olympic women = HS boys?
How about HS girls, U14A, U12A, U10A, etc? (It is hard to compare because boys and girls play very different styles.)

Because of their #s, Edina has one of the most competitive tryouts for their A teams. There are 2 girls on this year's Squirt A team. Anyone hear complaints out of that camp? We all know the complaints from 2 years ago.

yeahyeahyeah
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:12 am

Post by yeahyeahyeah » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:27 pm

spin-o-rama wrote:
minorleagr wrote:Hot Tater! How would a U10A parent feel if a boy beat out their daughter?Would it be said that he should be playing boys? I have no cares either way but we all know the arguments.

The highest level (A) girls teams don't offer a higher level of play than the respective youth levels (U10A<Squirt A), so there is no real reason to allow boys to play on girls teams.

Question for Elliott: MH hockey is unique to usah as a whole because of the # of girls playing. Has there been discussion for MH to place limits on allowing girls to play on youth teams (Only when low girl numbers, only if making youth A team, etc)?

Question for all: what youth/boys level equates to the various girls levels? The last Olympics the USA womens team lost 2-1 to Warroad HS boys. They have played HS and Junior Gold teams this go around. I don't know any results. Does D1/Olympic women = HS boys?
How about HS girls, U14A, U12A, U10A, etc? (It is hard to compare because boys and girls play very different styles.)

Because of their #s, Edina has one of the most competitive tryouts for their A teams. There are 2 girls on this year's Squirt A team. Anyone hear complaints out of that camp? We all know the complaints from 2 years ago.
Yeah but the USA beat a bunch of 50 year olds 10-2 the other night apparently so they must be polished.

I feel for teh families fo girls that reside in locations that do not have girls teams however, if an association offers A and B level girls teams why do we allow them to play over?

A relation could be made to allowing a high level boy to transfer to another association just because their A team is better than that of the home association.

No my boy has not been beaten out by a girl in tryouts but our association, more importantly High School, has suffered from girls being placed on the A team.

It could be argued 6-7 years ago the first real training kids got was first year Squirts. Most mite programs were the equivelant to rink rat hockey. I realize there is plety of time to catch up prior to High School but many studies show that fine motor mechanics are developed at this age, it is the age you can impact the most and it is the age that many players work habits are created. Not to mention girls mature earlier than boys so they have that leg up.

By allowing a girl to have the spot over a boy, especially 3, you are bound to be doing your association/high school a disservice.....Our association is small in comparison to many we currently have 4 sqt teams back then we had 4-5. We do not have the depth to draw on. Last thing in the next couple years our girls HS program will be very good because of said girls (congrats) but our boys will be horrible (due to the negligence of administrators).

yeahyeahyeah
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:12 am

Post by yeahyeahyeah » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:49 pm

Coachk wrote:Hey Yeahyeahyeah
Fact every girl on the USA team played with boys at one point.

Also as a friend of 2 members of that team, recently they expressed concern over the talent level of the girls playing todate. When a player has not been challanged by playing with the boys they are not prepared to play at a higher level. If you have ever seen the girls play on the east coast or Michigan you will see what I mean. I have been involved in girls hockey for 15 years and the best I have seen are the players who played atleast through squirts with the boys. Every couple of years there is someone like you that crabs about this. Complaints the same, just different faces.

It is youth hockey, not boys deal with it. Must be a girls on your sons team that is showing him up.
Deal with it?

So you like your girl dressing with boys smelling thier farts hearing their jokes? As a parent I would "air" (pun intended) on the side of safety and just let her be a girl but that is just me.

I too know some girls that will be considered for future Olympic teams I am sure, never played boys. I have watched girls national camps and I have watched Minnesota Girls do just fine.

You champion your cause and I will champion mine; it is kind of a little Rascals club, you remember the he-man woman haters club?
Well I don't hate women/girls or anything close to it but at some point boys need to be boys and girls need to be girls.

I am just glad I added a little fire to this thread! Speaking of Fire they have a program for girls you know.

inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:02 pm

We should probably talk about the 99.5%, girls not likely to play on the olympic team, instead of the .5%.

If the competition and or coaching levels aren't up to speed in some girls programs, how do those same programs get there if the girls decide to play with the boys? When I say girls, in most cases we are really saying the parents are making the decision.

There are those few that can play at the highest level, but that is not the general rule.

nickel slots
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: Northern Southern Minnesota

Post by nickel slots » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:12 pm

I come from a community that has an up-n-coming girls program (i.e. some years they don't have teams at every level, some years they do, and some years they have enough for two teams at certain levels, but rarely). We are constantly having to move girls up a level to field teams. Sometimes, the "top end" girls are forced to play with girls that are far inferior and they may suffer. On the same token, sometimes one of the younger girls is one of the better players on the older team. It's happened both ways.

We had a situation this year where we had too many girls for one team at the 12u level, but not enough for 2. We kicked around lots of ideas for finding places for all these girls to play (options included some girls playing boys hockey, some 7th graders moving up to high school, co-opping with neighboring communities, and moving girls up from 10u - and subsequently moving girls up to 10u from 8u to fill teams), but the common theme from the girls and their families was that, no matter what, the 2nd year 12u girls wanted to stay together. Kudos to them. It's a tight-knit group and they wanted to finish out their youth careers together (there is no 14u in our community at this time). It would have been easiest to have only 3 or 4 of those girls try out for pee wees (our association desperately wanted this to happen as we were just a few skaters short of ideal numbers for pee wees), but the girls would have none of it. We ended up moving girls around and having a 12ua team that competes but doesn't win many games, and a young 12ub team that struggles. The core group of girls playing 12ub will be together for 3 years of 12u, so they'll be fine in the long run.

Point being, if associations can get creative and be flexible, they can usually find a place for all the girls to play with their competitive peers... even the top end girls. Sometimes that means playing with the boys, but I'd be willing to bet that in most cases it doesn't have to mean that.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
It's all small stuff.

hockeyoldtimer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:47 pm

Post by hockeyoldtimer » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:18 pm

How about the girl goalie wanting to face faster, harder shots to improve
herself? There is definitely something to be said for that. An elite U-14
girl goaltender would very often practice everyday with faster, more accurate shooters if she played PeeWee or Bantam than if she played on a girls U-14 teams. She should be allowed to do so if she makes the team.

redlightclub
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:14 pm

Post by redlightclub » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:53 pm

In the slot- I too have a daughter on a boys team (peewees). She had played on the girls side for the past 5 years but chose this route for this year. She had the final say. The local association chose to play 12U B this year. She has learned to play the physical side of the game this year which I believe is different from the checking aspect. Being strong on her skates with contact and battling for the puck in the corner and in front of the net.
I also have a son playing squirt A's with a girl on his team.
I have not seen any problem's on either team with the coed atmosphere.
If some of these girls were not playing with the boys we would be discussing the running up the score in games on the girls side.
I would say the real issue starts at the high school level allowing the 7th graders to play which depletes most associations numbers.

Dave's a mess!
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:21 pm

Post by Dave's a mess! » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:10 pm

Coachk wrote:Hey Yeahyeahyeah
Fact every girl on the USA team played with boys at one point.

Also as a friend of 2 members of that team, recently they expressed concern over the talent level of the girls playing todate. When a player has not been challanged by playing with the boys they are not prepared to play at a higher level. If you have ever seen the girls play on the east coast or Michigan you will see what I mean. I have been involved in girls hockey for 15 years and the best I have seen are the players who played atleast through squirts with the boys. Every couple of years there is someone like you that crabs about this. Complaints the same, just different faces.

It is youth hockey, not boys deal with it. Must be a girls on your sons team that is showing him up.
You know, I'm ALWAYS amazed at guys like Coachk! Seems like there are endless amounts of people that think just like him on just about EVERY developmental subject on this board. People like Coachk think like this: "Well, this is the way it worked in the past, it's going to work the same in today's world. Why change anything?" I'm sooooo sick of that attitude. You must still get up and walk to the TV when you need to change the channel!

Well Coachk, let me fill you in on a little secret. . .THE HOCKEY LANDSCAPE IS NOT THE SAME AS IT USE TO BE! I guess I could go on and on to prove my point about how much better girls hockey has gotten or about how kids are involved in hundreds of hours of specialized training at much younger ages but those points may be wasted on you or any other "old timer" on this board. I'm not disputing your fact that all the ladies on the USA Olympic team played YOUTH (Boys) hockey at some point (once again though - most of those girls played with boys team over 10 - 15 years ago, heck like 20+ years ago for Potter!). I'm saying that single minded opinions like the one that you seem to hold that girls need to have the opportunity to play at YOUTH (Boys) levels is just very, well, let's call it, not very forward thinking. If anything, continuing to let the "top end" girls move over and play YOUTH (Boys) hockey will eventually end up hurting the overall strength (talent level, depth - whatever you want to call it) of GIRLS hockey because those top end girls aren't there to help pull the rest of the talent level up. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's different now (GIRLS hockey is MUCH better now and there are many more opportunities).

Bottom line, I respect the girls and the parents of the girls that want to and are good enough to play YOUTH (Boys) hockey. I would, however really like to see us (Minn Hockey and USA) start to move away from YOUTH hockey and get back to good ol' BOYS hockey somehow. Not saying I have the perfect solution but how about something like - You can't plays YOUTH (Boys) hockey in associations that offer a similar level GIRLS team? Would it really be that hard? No complaint, just a suggestion.

A little food for thought: How many girls play on AAA BOYS teams? Oh, they have their OWN teams! Weird concept - deal with it!

EnjoyTheShow
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:22 pm

Post by EnjoyTheShow » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:07 pm

This is a topic that can certainly be argued both ways. As a non parent coach and a non parent at this point in general, people often ask my opinion on this. It's simple for me now and may change a lot over the next years. If I'm a parent of a girl who has the talent and more importantly the desire to play boys "a" hockey, I would want her to do just that. The reason being, my experience with girls playing at a high level in the US and Canada is that they played with the boys until they were no longer competitive. By the time I have a child old enough to play the game I hope that girls hockey can offer the same top end development as boys. As a coach there are girls on the teams that Ive coached and they have fit in well (squirts and peewees).
The opposite arguement can be made, that the team chemistry is far better if the same group, girls or boys, plays together for more seasons. This is an area that I can see being the case a lot more with girls given the numbers. There will be kids moving up or down at ever age but given the number of girls in many associations odds are they can play together longer. Personally I find the arguement often comes down to developing your player versus your association. It's hard to blame a parent for letting their daughter play with the boys if she can and she wants to.
Just my 2 cents

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:51 am

If anything, continuing to let the "top end" girls move over and play YOUTH (Boys) hockey will eventually end up hurting the overall strength (talent level, depth - whatever you want to call it) of GIRLS hockey because those top end girls aren't there to help pull the rest of the talent level up.
That's a Catch 22 - girls are playing with the boys because the girls program isn't as good as it could be; the girls program isn't as good as it could be because girls are playing with the boys. The answer has to be: continue to make the girls program better, so those girls want to be a part of it (if you build it they will come); you can't create restrictive rules to force improvement of the girls program.

The issue will likely always exist in smaller and outstate associations; larger programs can offer a "something for everybody" approach that isn't possible when you're trying to scrape together enough kids to field a team. Girls programs tend to emphasize the social aspect of being part of the team versus the competitive side of the sport; that's perfectly understandable, as in general girls tend to enjoy that, however there are some girls that would rather push themselves to go faster and compete rather than hold hands on the ice and meet at Suzie's house for a make-over party after practice (I exaggerate to make a point, though I think some would confirm that in some places it's not far off the mark).

PWD10
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:25 pm

Post by PWD10 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:47 am

girls are playing with the boys because the girls program isn't as good as it could be; the girls program isn't as good as it could be because girls are playing with the boys. The answer has to be: continue to make the girls program better, so those girls want to be a part of it (if you build it they will come); you can't create restrictive rules to force improvement of the girls program
-- Transcontinental Railroad from inception to completion 6 years
-- Man on Moon from inception to completion 10 years
-- Panama Canal from taking over from France to completion 13 years
-- Desert Storm moving 2,000,000 troops halfway around the world and waging a war and declaring victory 7 months
-- Title IX signing 1973 to now... 37 years
-- Vikings winning Superbowl 42 years and counting. Okay...just a point!

While one can easily argue that girls may be able to compete on some boys teams doesn't it face argument then, that for example all or a large portion of the B1 boys team could easily replace all or most of the Girls at an A level?

I don't and still can't fathom why if girls can check in boys games, why girls can't check in all girls games? If you argue it is for protection or safety then why should girls be allowed to compete on boys teams at all? If you are worried about injuries or whatever, the risk is going to be even more against faster and larger mass particpants isn't it?

In my opinion USAH is always going to allow girls to play on boys teams simply because they can't or won't get off the pot and organize and get competition for themselves. I know states much larger then Minnesota that can't even get enough teams to form leagues without travelling for hours. The reasons are many but in my opinion is it comes down to there is no history or rivalry formed between towns and highschools. Too many options for girls to participate in other sports and activities which leaves no time for hockey or participation. Too costly. Easier to join something already running then create your own.

What USA hockey should do is open up ADM or something similar for just girls and totally do away with it at the boys level. Why? We already have AAA programs, Prep schools, and a whole host of other avenues that will and can develope the talent for boys.

If you go to the Girls Hockey forum you will see that colleges still give away almost 40 percent of their hockey scholarships to foreign students. In my opinion this is wrong but that is a whole different thread.

I do find it funny though that when you look at the attendence of college hockey between neighboring states the disparity in attendence between Men and Womens sports. Mens Hockey average attendence between Wisconsin and Minnesota 12000. Womens Hockey attendence between same schools about 2000. Now for all of those that argue womens hockey is better...smarter...whatever...why?

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:31 am

InigoMontoya wrote: The answer has to be: continue to make the girls program better, so those girls want to be a part of it (if you build it they will come); you can't create restrictive rules to force improvement of the girls program.
quote]

Absolutely spot on. It may not be the easiest strategy, but it is the right one.

northwoods oldtimer
Posts: 2649
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:01 pm

USA HOCK

Post by northwoods oldtimer » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:04 pm

This is a USAH issue. MH has no say in how it is handled.
Just like their mandated "hockey development" (nazi lockstep) :x

TriedThat2
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:33 am

Post by TriedThat2 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 pm

One big point that most of you are missing out on, is the affect this has on the program later on, primarily at the HS level. One can argue the personal achievements, the strength, the stamina, a harder shot, but because little Suzy decided to skate on a youth team when she was young, the results can be devastating in the later years.

Little Suzy Skater has a cirlce of friends around her. If she skates with the girls, that circle typically will follow. If she skates with the boys, the circle claims they cannot keep up with the boys, and suddenly Suzie's circle is pushing pumkins up and down the basketball court.

When Suzy gets to HS, the numbers are down, she isn't pushed anymore, and suffers through a long season with very few team victories. At that point, the finger is usually pointed at the Coach, who cannot seem to motivate Suzy like her PeeWee A Coach did.

Post Reply