I have not commented on the specifics of this year's events and provided no chronical order, but tried to point out to "keepyourheadup" that root of the problem was the board and the parent coaches that formed an alliance of sort three or four years ago. They rationalized they could do this and meet a hockey program objectives. When it falls apart, as it has this year, the immediate events are the result of a flawed policy.
If a hockey board wants to ignore the results, then they are satisfied with status quo. As I said before, the result is a high school team that no matter how well they perform, people will say they could have been better. As "fromthecrease" wrote, it makes the private schools happy. The sad thing is the parent coaches will be cheering for the private school their son is playing for as they beat the high school team whose program they used to foster their sons development.
How did it all get so messed up
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
After reading a few more posts - I now understand a little better where Frederick was going with his first post. There are definitely some good reasons to support the idea of non-parent coaches at Peewee A and above - I could easily be convinced of that. They are not a cure-all though. Some end up in the pocket of influential association members or of those they feel they "owe their job to". Then you have all the same stuff going on and the people doing it can hide behind the non-parent coach.
And - I still agree with keepyourheadup, that this year's departures at LHA do not fit neatly into your theory. They left for a variety of reasons and it was expected for several of them. Parent or non-parent coaches would not have changed the outcome in this case.
Should be a good season anyway guys - It's kind of nice starting out as the underdog for a change! Lots of opportunities...
And - I still agree with keepyourheadup, that this year's departures at LHA do not fit neatly into your theory. They left for a variety of reasons and it was expected for several of them. Parent or non-parent coaches would not have changed the outcome in this case.
Should be a good season anyway guys - It's kind of nice starting out as the underdog for a change! Lots of opportunities...
I thought I might chime in regarding nonparent coaches. Rochester tries to do that at the bantam A level due to wanting to appear nonbiased. Here's a little reality check - One of our bantam A coaches just quit and apparently will be coaching (Asst?) in Rosemount where his kids live with his ex-wife. On the surface it seems like you can't blame him.
But consider this, over the last 10 years he is now our 5th bantam A coach to leave a team before new years and all five have been nonparent (noncommitted ?) coaches. Their reasons have included moving to another team (high school or differnent program) , time commitments and mental illness. We have had a few coaches at lower levels quit too but they are never quite as at visible as bantam A. To my knowledge, Rochester has removed four other coaches (3 of 4 were parents) for disciplinary issues like drinking before practices or sportmanship issues and in one case for being in way over his head (C level).
But consider this, over the last 10 years he is now our 5th bantam A coach to leave a team before new years and all five have been nonparent (noncommitted ?) coaches. Their reasons have included moving to another team (high school or differnent program) , time commitments and mental illness. We have had a few coaches at lower levels quit too but they are never quite as at visible as bantam A. To my knowledge, Rochester has removed four other coaches (3 of 4 were parents) for disciplinary issues like drinking before practices or sportmanship issues and in one case for being in way over his head (C level).
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
Last time I looked, every youth hockey progarm in this state uses jerseys that are almost identical to the high school within the community. I have yet to see a Rosemount youth team in a black and yellow jersey with Blaze scrawled across the front.Ontheice wrote:"High School program" they USEDfrederick61 wrote:The sad thing is the parent coaches will be cheering for the private school their son is playing for as they beat the high school team whose program they used to foster their sons development.
WTH
-
keepyourheadup
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
But consider this, over the last 10 years he is now our 5th bantam A coach to leave a team before new years and all five have been nonparent (noncommitted ?) coaches.
At some point a youth hockey program has developed players and they are ready to transition beyond the association. That starts with Bantam A players. The original question brought up was how did a Bantam A team get "messed up" such that the idea of playing with "their buds" at high school was lost.
My point is the problems at the bantam level are rooted in the squirt/peewee years of development when parent coaches who have sons playing manipulate the board to foster their own sons development. They rationalize that it costs the program nothing. But it can with the loss of players at the high school level. And it can by weakening the overall program through reduction in parent interest resulting in fewer players. Everybody wants a fair chance especially with a large financial and time commitment.
With coaches transitioning, it is harder for bantam teams to have successful seasons. I would hope that Rochester could find a more permanent answer. But the question I would ask of you is how many of the bantam players in the program went on to play high school in your area with their "buds". In the last 10 years, Rochester high schools have competed very well including a number of state tournament appearances. I would guess that a number of those teams had "best buds" that even today get together in some way to celebrate or remember the good times. Then the second question can then be posed, is this an objective that the Rochester Hockey Association? If so have they accomplished it in spite of having turnover in coaches. After all, aren't these "best buds" the source of the next generation of peewees.
At some point a youth hockey program has developed players and they are ready to transition beyond the association. That starts with Bantam A players. The original question brought up was how did a Bantam A team get "messed up" such that the idea of playing with "their buds" at high school was lost.
My point is the problems at the bantam level are rooted in the squirt/peewee years of development when parent coaches who have sons playing manipulate the board to foster their own sons development. They rationalize that it costs the program nothing. But it can with the loss of players at the high school level. And it can by weakening the overall program through reduction in parent interest resulting in fewer players. Everybody wants a fair chance especially with a large financial and time commitment.
With coaches transitioning, it is harder for bantam teams to have successful seasons. I would hope that Rochester could find a more permanent answer. But the question I would ask of you is how many of the bantam players in the program went on to play high school in your area with their "buds". In the last 10 years, Rochester high schools have competed very well including a number of state tournament appearances. I would guess that a number of those teams had "best buds" that even today get together in some way to celebrate or remember the good times. Then the second question can then be posed, is this an objective that the Rochester Hockey Association? If so have they accomplished it in spite of having turnover in coaches. After all, aren't these "best buds" the source of the next generation of peewees.
This thread seems to touch on almost every aspect of what it's all about - doesn't it? Passionate viewpoints all around. We're back to trying to figure out "who" an association is for... It's all very interesting. I can't help but point out that, as I understand it, in the case of Rochester, it's one association serving five High Schools - so that's a bit different than a lot. Then I look to the cities where associations have evolved in different ways - There aren't many public High Schools left where anyone can play! So maybe the jerseys once matched, but they make less and less sense every year (Highland/Central, Edgcumbe, Johnson, Edison, SW/SLP, Como, etc.)
Personally, while I sometimes wonder what motivates some people to make certain decisions at certain times, I can't see that it should be so surprising that some kids will opt for the private schools. It's happened for a long time - in Rochester, in Bloomington, in St. Paul, in Minneapolis, and in Lakeville, and it will continue to happen. To me it just seems like a good reason to play and develop ALL the kids.
Personally, while I sometimes wonder what motivates some people to make certain decisions at certain times, I can't see that it should be so surprising that some kids will opt for the private schools. It's happened for a long time - in Rochester, in Bloomington, in St. Paul, in Minneapolis, and in Lakeville, and it will continue to happen. To me it just seems like a good reason to play and develop ALL the kids.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
The programs "really" mentioned to me have suffered more from shifting population and change in parent views of hockey. Some have a parent population that view hockey as violent (much to my dismay), others have parents that can't afford the sport, and still other programs suffer from loss of numbers of kids. I think of Twig and I wonder how that association survives or a range town whose school population is less then a third of what it was 10-15 years ago. The state hockey association tries to accommodate these programs in the belief that the interest can be revived as the community changes.
In the larger programs in the cities not everybody can play for the high school team and the good hockey program recognizes that. With approximately 40 slots available at the high school level in any year and up to 20 good players transitioning from bantams every year, there at a minimum is 60 to 80 players competing for spots. Some thing has to give.
But the hockey program is responsible for development not placement of kids. It shouldn't reject any players because they may not play for the school, it should have an objective to generate a group that are interested in playing for the school. Their charter is a numbers game. Remember my original point is that hockey board focus is lost when parents leverage the board to coach their sons.
When it came to my kids, I wonder if I was smart in trying to help them make decisions. But I have talked to parents at various games in various locations over the past twenty years. One thing have I found consistently is a fair number of parents whose son's participate simply don't understand the game. I have had a number of conversations with parents before and after games (especially the mothers) who are surprised about simple rules. Most respond positively to learning about the game and become more interested in their child's participation. Most want the best decision for their kids, not necessarily the best team or a college scholarship. Some decisions worked and some didn't. The hockey program can provide opportunity to develop and then the parents and kid can decide; I only wish the parents had some mechanism to educate themselves as their kid develops.
In the larger programs in the cities not everybody can play for the high school team and the good hockey program recognizes that. With approximately 40 slots available at the high school level in any year and up to 20 good players transitioning from bantams every year, there at a minimum is 60 to 80 players competing for spots. Some thing has to give.
But the hockey program is responsible for development not placement of kids. It shouldn't reject any players because they may not play for the school, it should have an objective to generate a group that are interested in playing for the school. Their charter is a numbers game. Remember my original point is that hockey board focus is lost when parents leverage the board to coach their sons.
When it came to my kids, I wonder if I was smart in trying to help them make decisions. But I have talked to parents at various games in various locations over the past twenty years. One thing have I found consistently is a fair number of parents whose son's participate simply don't understand the game. I have had a number of conversations with parents before and after games (especially the mothers) who are surprised about simple rules. Most respond positively to learning about the game and become more interested in their child's participation. Most want the best decision for their kids, not necessarily the best team or a college scholarship. Some decisions worked and some didn't. The hockey program can provide opportunity to develop and then the parents and kid can decide; I only wish the parents had some mechanism to educate themselves as their kid develops.
[quote="frederick61
last time I looked, every youth hockey progarm in this state uses jerseys that are almost identical to the high school within the community. I have yet to see a Rosemount youth team in a black and yellow jersey with Blaze scrawled across the front.[/quote]
Not true -
Roseau - youth hockey = blue
HS = green
There are more....
last time I looked, every youth hockey progarm in this state uses jerseys that are almost identical to the high school within the community. I have yet to see a Rosemount youth team in a black and yellow jersey with Blaze scrawled across the front.[/quote]
Not true -
Roseau - youth hockey = blue
HS = green
There are more....
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
To re-cap this whole discussion, the question was asked "how did it all get so messed up" at Lakeville because the Bantam A South team split when the non-parent coach returning from last year had a job promotion that limited his time and had to step down as full time coach. Despite his suggestions to the board about bringing in another competent non-parent coach who he would assist, the board chose to go with a parent coach. That decision caused a number of kids to leave the team.
The second question that was asked is why don't kids develop "best bud" attitudes and want to play for the high school. My view is that it is the association board is at fault because for years at the Squirt and Peewee levels they have had parent coaches coaching their own kids and that leaves a perception of unfair treatment of hockey players.
To me the board has not lived up to its obligation to the community because of decisions they have made has lead to strife among the parents and players. I then said the sad part was the parent coaches and sons often end up supporting and playing for teams that beat the high school the association supports. Hence the line about the color of the uniforms.
To me, you miss my points by just stating there are some youth programs have uniforms that don't match. The issue is why is it messed up? Are parent coaches sources for problems like that experienced by the Lakeville Bantam A team?
The second question that was asked is why don't kids develop "best bud" attitudes and want to play for the high school. My view is that it is the association board is at fault because for years at the Squirt and Peewee levels they have had parent coaches coaching their own kids and that leaves a perception of unfair treatment of hockey players.
To me the board has not lived up to its obligation to the community because of decisions they have made has lead to strife among the parents and players. I then said the sad part was the parent coaches and sons often end up supporting and playing for teams that beat the high school the association supports. Hence the line about the color of the uniforms.
To me, you miss my points by just stating there are some youth programs have uniforms that don't match. The issue is why is it messed up? Are parent coaches sources for problems like that experienced by the Lakeville Bantam A team?
frederick61 wrote:To re-cap this whole discussion, the question was asked "how did it all get so messed up" at Lakeville because the Bantam A South team split when the non-parent coach returning from last year had a job promotion that limited his time and had to step down as full time coach. Despite his suggestions to the board about bringing in another competent non-parent coach who he would assist, the board chose to go with a parent coach. That decision caused a number of kids to leave the team.
The second question that was asked is why don't kids develop "best bud" attitudes and want to play for the high school. My view is that it is the association board is at fault because for years at the Squirt and Peewee levels they have had parent coaches coaching their own kids and that leaves a perception of unfair treatment of hockey players.
To me the board has not lived up to its obligation to the community because of decisions they have made has lead to strife among the parents and players. I then said the sad part was the parent coaches and sons often end up supporting and playing for teams that beat the high school the association supports. Hence the line about the color of the uniforms.
To me, you miss my points by just stating there are some youth programs have uniforms that don't match. The issue is why is it messed up? Are parent coaches sources for problems like that experienced by the Lakeville Bantam A team?
Non-parent coaches should be used at every level possible.
Are there good parent coaches? Yes, but once you get to pee-wees, unless the coach has been in place for a long time, why create teh perception of bias.
In the metro area, I would think the possibilites for quality non-parent coaches would be abundant or at least sufficient to have non-parents at the A and B levels.
-
frederick61
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm
"""""I agree with you, elliott70. Amen to everything you said"""""
Notice that Elliot didn't necessarily agree with everything Fred said....
Fred - I still think you have your time-line messed up... At Lakeville South, Kids left - THEN the coach... and as for the kids who remain, and the choice the board made? I cannot imagine a better coach for the situation - bar none. If I were him I would have said "No way!" (and I'm sure he considered that)...
In a "perfect world" we all recognize the "benefits" of non-parent coaches.... and it takes one year of Mites for us ALL to start learning to roll our eyes at how parent coaches view their own kids... It's ugly sometimes... In my experience, it's also true that 7 outta 10 times the coach's kid IS a stud... and some parents have a tough time with THAT!... So let's figure out exactly what the bitch is - cuz everyone's is different!...
My sense is that "even" parent coaches should be applauded for their time commitment and dedication and some of them have been exceptionally good! Associations should NEVER turn their backs on locally available talent (while at the same time understanding that "D1 experience" is in NO way an automatic predictor of coaching excellence)....
Likewise with boards.... We are ALL frustrated at times with the transcient nature of association boards. It stinks! - and what is the alternative?! To lay it all at these volunteer's feet and bemoan (as many on this forum do) the fact that they (personally) are "un-electable" is crazy!... The board members too, are doing the best they know how...
The idea that those 6 kids would all still be at Lakeville South were it not for a decision here or there - to me - is nuts and moot... They were all going anyway, better now than later!. Kids are already, and will continue to step up and take their places...
Which brings us to jersey colors again... Who really cares?!... Way back when - when the "system" developed.... associations were small, dedicated, and fed the local high school... Duh!!!...
Things have changed... Hill Murray and Cretin kick some team's butts now.... better or worse, I don't care... It is what it is... I know I part with many here, when I say - Those parents pay taxes too - where do you expect them to play "little league" hockey?!... Give that argument up!...
Many of them always have and continue to play with their "buds"!... So that argument only goes so far also...
The fact is NOTHING happened at Lakeville South Bantams this year!! We've got a decently talented team - Some studs, some moving up and finding their ways... We're 3 and 0 against "average" competition - but we're going to get better - as will those teams... My take is that they're having fun and learning some hockey.
Bottom line - WHAT do you want your kids to get out of it all???!!!
Notice that Elliot didn't necessarily agree with everything Fred said....
Fred - I still think you have your time-line messed up... At Lakeville South, Kids left - THEN the coach... and as for the kids who remain, and the choice the board made? I cannot imagine a better coach for the situation - bar none. If I were him I would have said "No way!" (and I'm sure he considered that)...
In a "perfect world" we all recognize the "benefits" of non-parent coaches.... and it takes one year of Mites for us ALL to start learning to roll our eyes at how parent coaches view their own kids... It's ugly sometimes... In my experience, it's also true that 7 outta 10 times the coach's kid IS a stud... and some parents have a tough time with THAT!... So let's figure out exactly what the bitch is - cuz everyone's is different!...
My sense is that "even" parent coaches should be applauded for their time commitment and dedication and some of them have been exceptionally good! Associations should NEVER turn their backs on locally available talent (while at the same time understanding that "D1 experience" is in NO way an automatic predictor of coaching excellence)....
Likewise with boards.... We are ALL frustrated at times with the transcient nature of association boards. It stinks! - and what is the alternative?! To lay it all at these volunteer's feet and bemoan (as many on this forum do) the fact that they (personally) are "un-electable" is crazy!... The board members too, are doing the best they know how...
The idea that those 6 kids would all still be at Lakeville South were it not for a decision here or there - to me - is nuts and moot... They were all going anyway, better now than later!. Kids are already, and will continue to step up and take their places...
Which brings us to jersey colors again... Who really cares?!... Way back when - when the "system" developed.... associations were small, dedicated, and fed the local high school... Duh!!!...
Things have changed... Hill Murray and Cretin kick some team's butts now.... better or worse, I don't care... It is what it is... I know I part with many here, when I say - Those parents pay taxes too - where do you expect them to play "little league" hockey?!... Give that argument up!...
Many of them always have and continue to play with their "buds"!... So that argument only goes so far also...
The fact is NOTHING happened at Lakeville South Bantams this year!! We've got a decently talented team - Some studs, some moving up and finding their ways... We're 3 and 0 against "average" competition - but we're going to get better - as will those teams... My take is that they're having fun and learning some hockey.
Bottom line - WHAT do you want your kids to get out of it all???!!!
-
keepyourheadup
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
Nothing happened?
Coach quits 2 weeks before tryouts
six kis bolt the program, one after tryouts
all tournaments rescheduled out of fear of the competition.
complete overhaul of nondistrict games for the same reason as above
good thing nothing happened or imagine what the fall out might be.
What did I want? The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed. Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives? These kids have every right to leave and pursue any hockey/educational avenue they wish, I can feel dissapointed for my son and at the same time understand their choice. Be it good or bad, there is no denying something happened.
Whats the baseline for the average arguement? Chances are that lakeville south won't play more than a couple games against teams that they will compete against in high school. I'm quite certain we'd be average in the Missota conference, but these kids are headed to the Lake conference, a huge difference.
Coach quits 2 weeks before tryouts
six kis bolt the program, one after tryouts
all tournaments rescheduled out of fear of the competition.
complete overhaul of nondistrict games for the same reason as above
good thing nothing happened or imagine what the fall out might be.
What did I want? The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed. Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives? These kids have every right to leave and pursue any hockey/educational avenue they wish, I can feel dissapointed for my son and at the same time understand their choice. Be it good or bad, there is no denying something happened.
Whats the baseline for the average arguement? Chances are that lakeville south won't play more than a couple games against teams that they will compete against in high school. I'm quite certain we'd be average in the Missota conference, but these kids are headed to the Lake conference, a huge difference.
-
fromthecrease
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:28 pm
Hmmmm...let's see here, 7 out of 10 times coaches kid is a stud.
Current Bantam 'A' South coach, prominent board member, kid has played on 'A' team for 5 out of 6 traveling years, lone year he made 'B' team, there was a non-parent coach as the 'A' coach, other 5 years prominent board member is either head or assistant coach of 'A' team at sons level.....hmmm.
Why is Lakeville having this problem, it is rooted in the way their board interacts with its members (coaches and families). Most associations will fall into the 90/10 rule, 90% of your problems stem from 10% of the population. Lakeville caves to the 10%!! They are more concerned with status quo, "everybody likes a winner". They alter their standing based on who is riding the winning wave. The first year of the split, all 'A' coaches were told by the board to watch who they schedule, "we don't want to run into any problems with parents." Schedule soft, puff up the win column, parents can't complain about split, trust me this is fact. Why? Because they are worried about wins and losses, not development!! They can't show development to their parents, they can only show wins and losses. How do they keep the status quo, parent coaches.
Just a quick lineage for you a sampling of some things that occured:
03-04: Prominent Board member/squirt 'A' coach cuts returning squirt 'A'
goalie in order to have only one goalie, whose dad becomes assistant coach and eventually becomes the peewee 'A' coach the following year.
04-05: Goalie dad is peewee 'A' coach, reaches down and to take prominent board members kid as first year 'A' when he didn't belong there, prominent board member becomes goalie coach/assistant. Team plays extremely weak schedule, gets those all important, confidence boosting wins and fails in playoffs.
05-06: Goalie dad and prominent board member have failing out, "difference in philosophies". Dad's part ways after making a run to the state tournament.
06-07: Kids are now bantams with a non-parent coach, goalie dad kid makes 'A', prominent board members kid makes 'B'. Team has successful year, going farther than they did as first year peewees. Goalie dad and prominent board member still don't talk.
07-08: "The Year", returning coach gets job promotion weeks before tryouts. Wants to stay on and bring in added help, board refuses, forces coaches resignation due to job conflict, immediately hire prominent board member, kids leave.
Bottom line, "Really?" talks about his kids team and there talent and immediately crosses over to their record as a bench mark, so what "really?" is important to you? Puff up the schedule, win some games and get smoked in playoffs and worse, never get better. These kids left and all of the sudden their entire schedule changes, Lakeville hockey isn't developing kids they are feeding the egos of the 10%, they see success as winning.
These kids aren't blind, they are smarter than you give them credit for. They see the writing on the wall and whats in store for them ahead. It's all been laid out in front of them, you think they don't notice, but they do.
And you wonder how it all got so messed up?
Current Bantam 'A' South coach, prominent board member, kid has played on 'A' team for 5 out of 6 traveling years, lone year he made 'B' team, there was a non-parent coach as the 'A' coach, other 5 years prominent board member is either head or assistant coach of 'A' team at sons level.....hmmm.
Why is Lakeville having this problem, it is rooted in the way their board interacts with its members (coaches and families). Most associations will fall into the 90/10 rule, 90% of your problems stem from 10% of the population. Lakeville caves to the 10%!! They are more concerned with status quo, "everybody likes a winner". They alter their standing based on who is riding the winning wave. The first year of the split, all 'A' coaches were told by the board to watch who they schedule, "we don't want to run into any problems with parents." Schedule soft, puff up the win column, parents can't complain about split, trust me this is fact. Why? Because they are worried about wins and losses, not development!! They can't show development to their parents, they can only show wins and losses. How do they keep the status quo, parent coaches.
Just a quick lineage for you a sampling of some things that occured:
03-04: Prominent Board member/squirt 'A' coach cuts returning squirt 'A'
goalie in order to have only one goalie, whose dad becomes assistant coach and eventually becomes the peewee 'A' coach the following year.
04-05: Goalie dad is peewee 'A' coach, reaches down and to take prominent board members kid as first year 'A' when he didn't belong there, prominent board member becomes goalie coach/assistant. Team plays extremely weak schedule, gets those all important, confidence boosting wins and fails in playoffs.
05-06: Goalie dad and prominent board member have failing out, "difference in philosophies". Dad's part ways after making a run to the state tournament.
06-07: Kids are now bantams with a non-parent coach, goalie dad kid makes 'A', prominent board members kid makes 'B'. Team has successful year, going farther than they did as first year peewees. Goalie dad and prominent board member still don't talk.
07-08: "The Year", returning coach gets job promotion weeks before tryouts. Wants to stay on and bring in added help, board refuses, forces coaches resignation due to job conflict, immediately hire prominent board member, kids leave.
Bottom line, "Really?" talks about his kids team and there talent and immediately crosses over to their record as a bench mark, so what "really?" is important to you? Puff up the schedule, win some games and get smoked in playoffs and worse, never get better. These kids left and all of the sudden their entire schedule changes, Lakeville hockey isn't developing kids they are feeding the egos of the 10%, they see success as winning.
These kids aren't blind, they are smarter than you give them credit for. They see the writing on the wall and whats in store for them ahead. It's all been laid out in front of them, you think they don't notice, but they do.
And you wonder how it all got so messed up?
-
keepyourheadup
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
"""""Nothing happened?
Coach quits 2 weeks before tryouts
six kis bolt the program, one after tryouts
all tournaments rescheduled out of fear of the competition.
complete overhaul of nondistrict games for the same reason as above
good thing nothing happened or imagine what the fall out might be.
What did I want? The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed. Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives? These kids have every right to leave and pursue any hockey/educational avenue they wish, I can feel dissapointed for my son and at the same time understand their choice. Be it good or bad, there is no denying something happened.
Whats the baseline for the average arguement? Chances are that lakeville south won't play more than a couple games against teams that they will compete against in high school. I'm quite certain we'd be average in the Missota conference, but these kids are headed to the Lake conference, a huge difference."""""
[b]I wish I knew how to "format" this stuff like others...
Well - I still prefer this to yelling at each other at the Mill...
Yes, from my perspective, nothing (of consequence) happened...
First off - 5 kids "bolted" THEN the coach quit, not the other way around. Then, later, another kid left. (THAT was too bad - cost us all some $). But, otherwise?....
Yes, tournaments and non-district games were reconsidered and changed... All, well before the season started. It didn't affect me or my kid a bit.
I think it comes down to your "expectations/desires"... How realistic they are, and the fact that they seem somewhat dependent upon what other people do (a recipe for disappointment).
You say: ""The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed"".
While I agree that your "goals" may have seemed to be almost within reach, I'd still say (sorry) they're pretty "out there"...
What you were wishing for is a pipe dream in 9 out of 10 associations in this state. We've talked before - 4 of those 6 were never going to play for South HS... The other two?... My take is: "**** happens"... People do what people do. As far as "history of success" with this group?!... Your kid played with them for one season and a little 3 on 3!!??... I believe the opportunity to more fully develop "16-20" is a good thing as far as LSHS is concerned.
If playing with that caliber player is all that important to your kid - My answer would be - besides the obvious options during the "off-season", (which you've always taken advantage of). I'd point out again, that your kid has the option now - (many others don't). If your values are that "public education" and "community" and "loyalty" to the group mean something? Then you've made the right choice in staying, and your kid will learn something from that. If it's about "winning" and playing with the "best", and "going to state", "scholarships", "D1", etc. etc. You made the wrong choice.
My "goal" for both my kids has always been for them to play intramurals at UMD (I had a blast!)... In the meantime, I want them to have FUN, to really learn the word "team", (all for one, one for all, Semper Fi, win as a team - lose as a team, and ALL the rest), to improve as players, to learn work ethic, and dedication, and respect and attitude... I think they will get ALL that this season and more.
"Average"?... - Based on what I've seen... (not Edina, E.P., Eagan... and not Winona, or Farmington, etc....). Missota? Lake?... Whatever... LSHS will do nothing but improve over the next 10 years...
You say: """Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives?"""
Maybe.[/b]
Coach quits 2 weeks before tryouts
six kis bolt the program, one after tryouts
all tournaments rescheduled out of fear of the competition.
complete overhaul of nondistrict games for the same reason as above
good thing nothing happened or imagine what the fall out might be.
What did I want? The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed. Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives? These kids have every right to leave and pursue any hockey/educational avenue they wish, I can feel dissapointed for my son and at the same time understand their choice. Be it good or bad, there is no denying something happened.
Whats the baseline for the average arguement? Chances are that lakeville south won't play more than a couple games against teams that they will compete against in high school. I'm quite certain we'd be average in the Missota conference, but these kids are headed to the Lake conference, a huge difference."""""
[b]I wish I knew how to "format" this stuff like others...
Well - I still prefer this to yelling at each other at the Mill...
Yes, from my perspective, nothing (of consequence) happened...
First off - 5 kids "bolted" THEN the coach quit, not the other way around. Then, later, another kid left. (THAT was too bad - cost us all some $). But, otherwise?....
Yes, tournaments and non-district games were reconsidered and changed... All, well before the season started. It didn't affect me or my kid a bit.
I think it comes down to your "expectations/desires"... How realistic they are, and the fact that they seem somewhat dependent upon what other people do (a recipe for disappointment).
You say: ""The opportunity for my son to play at the highest level on a community based team. The chance to practice with and play against some of the best players his age in the state. To continue and hopefully build on a history of success with this group of kids, maybe even start a tradition and belief that kids could stay in their association and succeed"".
While I agree that your "goals" may have seemed to be almost within reach, I'd still say (sorry) they're pretty "out there"...
What you were wishing for is a pipe dream in 9 out of 10 associations in this state. We've talked before - 4 of those 6 were never going to play for South HS... The other two?... My take is: "**** happens"... People do what people do. As far as "history of success" with this group?!... Your kid played with them for one season and a little 3 on 3!!??... I believe the opportunity to more fully develop "16-20" is a good thing as far as LSHS is concerned.If playing with that caliber player is all that important to your kid - My answer would be - besides the obvious options during the "off-season", (which you've always taken advantage of). I'd point out again, that your kid has the option now - (many others don't). If your values are that "public education" and "community" and "loyalty" to the group mean something? Then you've made the right choice in staying, and your kid will learn something from that. If it's about "winning" and playing with the "best", and "going to state", "scholarships", "D1", etc. etc. You made the wrong choice.
My "goal" for both my kids has always been for them to play intramurals at UMD (I had a blast!)... In the meantime, I want them to have FUN, to really learn the word "team", (all for one, one for all, Semper Fi, win as a team - lose as a team, and ALL the rest), to improve as players, to learn work ethic, and dedication, and respect and attitude... I think they will get ALL that this season and more.
"Average"?... - Based on what I've seen... (not Edina, E.P., Eagan... and not Winona, or Farmington, etc....). Missota? Lake?... Whatever... LSHS will do nothing but improve over the next 10 years...
You say: """Should I believe that the current situation is actually better for him but I'm just unable to comprehend all the positives?"""
Maybe.[/b]
[quote="keepyourheadup"]excellent post crease, pretty much the scenario I've watched unfold, just not my nature to bail. Don't take that as being wrong..the thought sure has crossed my mind.[/quote]
As I see it, actually apples and oranges.... 80% of his post deals with LHA "North" and the other 20% with "South"... and the situations are SO individualized as to be a joke to compare them...
The contention that I care about the win/loss record is also a joke! -- Do the kids? - Absolutely!!... Good for the board/coaches making the changes they did!!
As I see it, actually apples and oranges.... 80% of his post deals with LHA "North" and the other 20% with "South"... and the situations are SO individualized as to be a joke to compare them...
The contention that I care about the win/loss record is also a joke! -- Do the kids? - Absolutely!!... Good for the board/coaches making the changes they did!!
-
keepyourheadup
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
I'm not so sure I agree with your stats, are they compiled somewhere or is this your best guess. Find another program that lost as many..moreover find that nine out of ten. As for the 4 that were never going to play at south..two of your four professed their intentions to stay within the last 9 months. Did you ever speak directly with these people about their plans or is this another assumption? Did it affect your child as well as mine? You bet it did, if you choose to ignore it thats fine, you may consider the impact minimal but the competition you practice and play against does have an effect. Maybe the difference comes down to the desire to compete, I'd never apologize for encouraging my son to be competitive and trying to be the best he could be. This is as good a life skill as can be gleaned from sports. I have no time for the lets just all have fun who cares attitude, if its more important to be part of something then maybe A level sports isn't your cup of tea. My beliefs come from a lifetime of playing, coaching and watching hockey. I'll throw out my own mystery stat, more people involved in bantam A hockey feel the same way I do than you do. Or maybe even you feel this way because the loss of these players removes any chance of a repeat of two years ago when things didn't work out to your liking. Its easy to question a persons motivation isn't it.
-
keepyourheadup
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
More info for really, I've had a son involved with this group since the day I arrived in this community, so the snide remark about just one season couldn't have been more wrong. By my count thats over 200 hockey games including AAA and other off season events. Throw in practices and social gatherings and I'm sure it approaches at least 500 times between my TWO children. Would I now qualify to at least have an opinion. Pretty unfair to make that statement don't you think.
Amen! It's nice to read this story. I'm glad to hear that you're doing whats best for your situation. Honest input from from the varsity coach helps.loveallsports_notjusthky wrote:I also have a boy playing on this year's FIRE Major Bantam team.
He had the opportunity to play for his varsity team this year. I called (for the first time ever) the head varsity coach and asked for his opinion, he said that playing 60-65 games at that level would help my son development more than playing a few shifts on the 2nd or 3rd line for 20 varsity games. Additionally he mentioned that he liked the practice to game ratio that the FIRE has...He will practice 30 minutes from our home...most of our practices are at Ridder or Mariucci. Our practices are only on Tuesday and Thursday during the school week so it actually allows him the opportunity to continue to have success in the classroom. Also it allows him to have a strong social life with his grade school buddies...
Don't be fooled; we all want our children to develop their skills to the highest level. It wouldn't matter if my son wanted to the best scientist or best chess player or for gods sake the best hockey player he could be, I would try to help he acheive that level...wouldn't we all do that for our children. My daughter is a dancer...she has been asked to be on different competition lines...and I have encouraged her to do so...what is so different?
Just a note regarding playing the FIRE...I have helped schedule some of the games against MN Bantam A's...NOT one coach or manager has said no to me yet. Furthermore, I have had two D2 coaches say that it is ridiculous that their DD will not even allow discussion of this item in the District meeting....sounds like politics, doesn't it?
One last thing...if the FIRE isn't already on your team's schedule, you should encourage your Bantam A coach or manager to schedule your team to play against this group of young men. From top to bottom (not sure there is one) it is a group of super young men and unbelievable coaching staff. Why not check them out?
FIRE and Shattuck play a 3 game series next weekend.
www.firehockeyclub.com
Lastly, I realize that this thread was not intended to be a FIRE thread, but you know what, I support the FIRE and all that Mr. Olson has done to make the organization a success!
* Have you seen the '94 team....WOW! Not bad either...
Of course my "stats" are my "best guess"! - What else is ANYbody putting out on this forum?! ?? "Personal conversations" shared with "everybody"... and "everybody makes their own determinations re. what rings true for them. I've got no problem with that.
Your expectations and the 9 outta 10?... I stand by it. I just don't see that many associations out there which would meet your criteria. If it makes you feel better - let's just say "the majority".... I just refuse to believe that 1/2 (and more) of the associations in MN (and the kids who play in them) are doomed to some sort of "miserable experience" because they have losing seasons every year or because the 3rd line can't keep up with the 1st... Even exceptional players have thrived in "mediocre" associations.
2 of 4 may very well have professed their intentions to stay this year - My point was, we all knew they'd never play for LSHS... so (as far as I'm concerned) better now than later.
Did it "affect my kid"?... As I've said repeatedly - not in any appreciable way that concerns me as a parent. I'm not "ignoring" anything. The things I want my kids to get out of sports - they are getting.
"Desire to compete" is a cryptic phrase. It'll mean something different to many people who hear it. But as a general term - neither I nor my kids have any fear of competition. Neither do I think any of the kids/parents on LHA BAS have any fear of competition. They are all just dealing with what they've got and moving on - and certainly trying to be the "best they can be".
Attempting to paint me, or anyone else, as someone who believes they should all "just have fun" and "who cares" - simply because we don't share all your angst over this non-"event" is crap. I have tried to be quite clear about what I want my kids to get out of sports and why I am not troubled by a few kids "leaving" the association. I started out (at least) in an effort to help you deal with your frustration - (you started this thread - not me)... Now you just seem to be on the attack because I don't agree?... Whatever. but I gotta say I don't care for the personal tack you're taking here.
Your attempt to connect all this to events of two years ago where my kid was concerned is, again, - Crap. That coach and myself "moved on" far sooner and more completely than a few of you guys did.
The comment: "more people involved in bantam A hockey feel the same way I do than you do" is just arrogance personified - and I feel no need to respond to that.
MY "beliefs" come from a lifetime of living in general. I guess it's just a different perspective?... Perhaps a more well-rounded perspective isn't your cup of tea?
Again - this is your thread... but you're not going to shout me down here - Regardless of who puts them out, the personal attacks and innuendo are inappropriate for this or any forum.
- nice talkin'
[quote="keepyourheadup"]I'm not so sure I agree with your stats, are they compiled somewhere or is this your best guess. Find another program that lost as many..moreover find that nine out of ten. As for the 4 that were never going to play at south..two of your four professed their intentions to stay within the last 9 months. Did you ever speak directly with these people about their plans or is this another assumption? Did it affect your child as well as mine? You bet it did, if you choose to ignore it thats fine, you may consider the impact minimal but the competition you practice and play against does have an effect. Maybe the difference comes down to the desire to compete, I'd never apologize for encouraging my son to be competitive and trying to be the best he could be. This is as good a life skill as can be gleaned from sports. I have no time for the lets just all have fun who cares attitude, if its more important to be part of something then maybe A level sports isn't your cup of tea. My beliefs come from a lifetime of playing, coaching and watching hockey. I'll throw out my own mystery stat, more people involved in bantam A hockey feel the same way I do than you do. Or maybe even you feel this way because the loss of these players removes any chance of a repeat of two years ago when things didn't work out to your liking. Its easy to question a persons motivation isn't it.[/quote]
Your expectations and the 9 outta 10?... I stand by it. I just don't see that many associations out there which would meet your criteria. If it makes you feel better - let's just say "the majority".... I just refuse to believe that 1/2 (and more) of the associations in MN (and the kids who play in them) are doomed to some sort of "miserable experience" because they have losing seasons every year or because the 3rd line can't keep up with the 1st... Even exceptional players have thrived in "mediocre" associations.
2 of 4 may very well have professed their intentions to stay this year - My point was, we all knew they'd never play for LSHS... so (as far as I'm concerned) better now than later.
Did it "affect my kid"?... As I've said repeatedly - not in any appreciable way that concerns me as a parent. I'm not "ignoring" anything. The things I want my kids to get out of sports - they are getting.
"Desire to compete" is a cryptic phrase. It'll mean something different to many people who hear it. But as a general term - neither I nor my kids have any fear of competition. Neither do I think any of the kids/parents on LHA BAS have any fear of competition. They are all just dealing with what they've got and moving on - and certainly trying to be the "best they can be".
Attempting to paint me, or anyone else, as someone who believes they should all "just have fun" and "who cares" - simply because we don't share all your angst over this non-"event" is crap. I have tried to be quite clear about what I want my kids to get out of sports and why I am not troubled by a few kids "leaving" the association. I started out (at least) in an effort to help you deal with your frustration - (you started this thread - not me)... Now you just seem to be on the attack because I don't agree?... Whatever. but I gotta say I don't care for the personal tack you're taking here.
Your attempt to connect all this to events of two years ago where my kid was concerned is, again, - Crap. That coach and myself "moved on" far sooner and more completely than a few of you guys did.
The comment: "more people involved in bantam A hockey feel the same way I do than you do" is just arrogance personified - and I feel no need to respond to that.
MY "beliefs" come from a lifetime of living in general. I guess it's just a different perspective?... Perhaps a more well-rounded perspective isn't your cup of tea?
Again - this is your thread... but you're not going to shout me down here - Regardless of who puts them out, the personal attacks and innuendo are inappropriate for this or any forum.
- nice talkin'
[quote="keepyourheadup"]I'm not so sure I agree with your stats, are they compiled somewhere or is this your best guess. Find another program that lost as many..moreover find that nine out of ten. As for the 4 that were never going to play at south..two of your four professed their intentions to stay within the last 9 months. Did you ever speak directly with these people about their plans or is this another assumption? Did it affect your child as well as mine? You bet it did, if you choose to ignore it thats fine, you may consider the impact minimal but the competition you practice and play against does have an effect. Maybe the difference comes down to the desire to compete, I'd never apologize for encouraging my son to be competitive and trying to be the best he could be. This is as good a life skill as can be gleaned from sports. I have no time for the lets just all have fun who cares attitude, if its more important to be part of something then maybe A level sports isn't your cup of tea. My beliefs come from a lifetime of playing, coaching and watching hockey. I'll throw out my own mystery stat, more people involved in bantam A hockey feel the same way I do than you do. Or maybe even you feel this way because the loss of these players removes any chance of a repeat of two years ago when things didn't work out to your liking. Its easy to question a persons motivation isn't it.[/quote]
Geezz!!..
You're right - I was not remembering your son who is two years older and who has also spent time with "this group" - My observation was never meant as "snide" - just an observation... I did not understand your angst based on the one kid... I see it a little more with two... and as I've said from the first post, I too "value" community and loyalty and teamwork and all the rest... I wish it WERE that way for everyone. It's not - so I (and my kids) move on. What's the choice?
and... Have I somehow questioned your right to have an opinion? I don't think so.
[quote="keepyourheadup"]More info for really, I've had a son involved with this group since the day I arrived in this community, so the snide remark about just one season couldn't have been more wrong. By my count thats over 200 hockey games including AAA and other off season events. Throw in practices and social gatherings and I'm sure it approaches at least 500 times between my TWO children. Would I now qualify to at least have an opinion. Pretty unfair to make that statement don't you think.[/quote]
You're right - I was not remembering your son who is two years older and who has also spent time with "this group" - My observation was never meant as "snide" - just an observation... I did not understand your angst based on the one kid... I see it a little more with two... and as I've said from the first post, I too "value" community and loyalty and teamwork and all the rest... I wish it WERE that way for everyone. It's not - so I (and my kids) move on. What's the choice?
and... Have I somehow questioned your right to have an opinion? I don't think so.
[quote="keepyourheadup"]More info for really, I've had a son involved with this group since the day I arrived in this community, so the snide remark about just one season couldn't have been more wrong. By my count thats over 200 hockey games including AAA and other off season events. Throw in practices and social gatherings and I'm sure it approaches at least 500 times between my TWO children. Would I now qualify to at least have an opinion. Pretty unfair to make that statement don't you think.[/quote]