Shorting the bench

[really?]

First I have to say, I'm encouraged by the general consensus in this thread and if there was one last week with similar thoughts expressed, so much the better - I missed it. I hope more of these ideas are heard by boards and coaches and begin to be more respected than they often seem to be now.

A poster above asked:

"""Why do we have district, region and state tournaments for kids that are 12-13 years old if we believe the emphasis should be on development and not on winning???"""

It's a fair question. I've walked away from tournaments (whether state sponsored or private) wondering the same thing. But it's not MN hockey's fault. The tournaments should exist. The fact is that "winning" is PART of the fun. More importantly, striving to win as a TEAM, is fun. "Competition" is not a bad thing at all. Kids do learn lessons through competition. The question is: HOW do we compete? What are we teaching them?

While I do believe in and understand shorting the bench under some relatively rare circumstances, (Peewee & below) I believe there should be far more emphasis on a "Play your whole team coach" attitude.

The frustrating thing I hear and see most often is this - Even a "well-meaning" coach goes into a "big" game (and they're all "big" of course) intending to play his whole team. The coach of the opposing team benches the 3rd line. Now the well meaning coach feels the need to match lines or drastically reduce the playing time of the 3rd line in order to compete and "not put that 3rd line in a position where they would fail miserably". So the good intentions are quickly thrown out the window and it's all rationalized away. Of course this is all intensified when the coach that feels "forced" to match lines begins the game with the "inferior" team.

I'm not trying to jump on coaches here. I sympathize with some of arguments. Teams with large disparities in talent have to be more frustrating to coach. Coaches are often x-players and competitive by nature. Some parents are only happy with a "win", etc. etc...

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts/experiences with all this...

[Love goood hockey]

This is a question that is difficult to answer. While I agree with Elliot that everybody pays the same and should therefore get equal playing time, I can also see where there might be situations where a coach might consider shortening (or shorting) the bench.

My belief is that if it's early November and your coach is already putting a premium on playing time, he is not only doing those kids a disservice that are riding the pine more than others, but in the long run, he is doing his team and, ultimately, his high school program a HUGE disservice.

We all know that winning or losing doesn't really amount to a hill of beans until those kids get to high school... and even then, there are lots of coaches that believe in giving everybody a chance up until the holidays or maybe section playoffs... even so, I would be willing to be that those coaches would love to see ALL of their youth programs develop as many players as possible. Sure, when they get to bantams there can and should be a #1 & #2 PP & PK unit, but before then, give them all a shot.
******************************************************
The major problem is this: There is too much weight put on winning early and winning often - by coaches, parents, kids, and even Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey. Which begs the question (maybe you can answer this, Elliot)...

Why do we have district, region and state tournaments for kids that are 12-13 years old if we believe the emphasis should be on development and not on winning???

Doesn't it seem a teeny bit hypocritical for MN Hockey to preach that the emphasis should be on development, yet every year they spend oodles of time and money putting together a "who's the best at 12 & 13 years old" tournament?

I cannot answer why it was started. I wasn't around (the MNH Board - but yes I was alive and still am, surprisingly, and to the dismay of some).
My guess is that it gave teams from around the state to test themselves (a lot less invitational tourneys and traveling from here tot here in thsoe days).

Why is it still being done????
Pretty hard to stop it now. And I do not think it is emphasized to the point that that is all that matters in the season. At least I would hope not becuase only one team would have a successful season.

Here is what I think gets clouded when talk of playing time gets brought up. I think that most (I'm sure not all) coaches spend a great deal of time worried about the playing time their kids get. Lets face it, especially in the case of nonparent coaches the people volunteering for these jobs are doing so ultimately because they enjoy working with kids and want to be good citizens, role models, and help teach the younger generation how to be good leaders. I believe that truely. They don't go into seasons thinking "I'm going to screw this kid or that kid on ice time". Does winning get emphisized? Absolutely! But what I say is look in the mirror people. What is talked about on this site more than anything? "who's the best team", "Who's the best player"...Winning is not perpetuated by coaches shortening the bench, it is driven by society. The problem arrises when someones "little johnny" is that chosen individual. Coaches have been trying to win games since the beginning of time. The game hasn't changed the entitlement has. If you want to do something for your kid don't make an excuse for him/her when they are that third line or backup goalie, teach them to strive despite the adversity. Hopefully coaches use their brain and shorten their bench by sitting the top line in the games where they are in control if they are shortening it to get their best guys out when they are losing. A good coach is not someone that plays everyone equally but treats everyone equally.

[watchdog]

well said love! i dont think in 95% of the cases coaches are out to get a kid. compitition is a driving force and it keeps everyone working and improving. you take that out what do you really have? life isnt always fair and equal. we all learn that leason in many things we do including sports... i have a son that will sit or has sat in those games where it was needed. i dont feel he is slighted what so ever. he still practices with the team and for the most part plays. part of being a team member is staying positive and suportive to the coach and the team if you have to sit. same goes to the parents. i know this if my kid has to have limited action in the third to win a game i have no problem with that. if the coach rolls all three lines and eliminates our chances to win i have a problem with that. i will also say this if you think your kid is losing out on his chances to develop because his lack of ice time in a game your wrong! its what you do outside the game is what is making or breaking a future hockey player. a hockey game is nothing more than a showcase of what you have learned from practice. so if your not playing pp or pk sitting it out in the tight ones your either young or not putting in enough practice. either way time and effort fixes both. if things arent the way you want it put the effort in to change it. ice time ice time ice time.... compitition improvement the circle of life continues.

[greybeard58]

These are a little old but I think cover most.
The Coach is a teacher and should be judged on what he has taught his players not just wins and loses.
The team is as good as the weakest skater a take off of no chain is stronger that the weakest link.
A good coach wins most games, a great coach wins and looses games with all of his players.

If a coach has been rotating players and all of a sudden he decides to skip a few players, he is now telling the players he has no confidence in then, the other players will have no confidence in them and eventually the players themselves will have no confidence in themselves.
There are times a player should not play and that is if they are sick or injured or disciplinary issues.

[PanthersIn2011]

Lot's of good comments by others. Here's a couple of more thoughts:

1) The Coach-in-Chief of Minnesota Hockey has written about this: http://www.minnesotahockey.org/coaches/ ... 0Hands.pdf

2) Many associations have equal play built into their by-laws. Read the fine print and know what you can expect. I would never recommend that you take a lynch mob approach -- but you should be able to have a private, candid, adult conversation with a coach who is in violation of his association's operating procedures. Actually, no matter what your association's rules are, you should be able to have a frank but civil discussion with the coach on this topic.

3) I think a reasonable policy is to roll the lines up until the last two minutes of the game. If it is tight, the coach should have a little latitude to try protect a lead, tie the game, etc. I think the smart coach will make a game-time decision as to who the right players are -- sometimes your 2nd or 3rd line is the best line that particular day. I also think the smart coach will also use those 3+ goal differentials wisely .... intentionally mismatch your 3rd line against their 1st and challenge them to win the shift.

4) There is shortening the bench (taking your less skilled players out of the rotation) and there is sitting kids who are not playing to their own potential. These are two different things that look similar from the stands. I think Bantams, and to a lesser extent PeeWees, need to learn how to earn their next shift, by working hard and avoiding basic mental mistakes. Players owe their team the best effort they can give. If they aren't giving it, the coach should have the latitude to sit them down (that goes for the 1st line as well as the 3rd).

[Reality Check]

I get sick of people thinking that by shortening the bench you sacrifice the development of those players whose ice time is decreased. Nobody ever looks at it from the other perspective. By not shortening the bench, not only are you depriving the stronger players who should be on the ice in critical situations, but you're also hurting the team's chances for success.

Players develop by working hard in practice and working hard off the ice. Missing a few shifts here and there isn't going to hurt a player in the long run. Hopefully it will inspire them to become that much better.

What it all comes down to is "You play the games to win." Herm Edwards

[hockeytalk]

I agree with Reality Check. By the time you are at the Peewee/Bantam level most kids are fully aware of what their role is on the team. Most kids want to WIN above all else. Players improve in practice and in the off season- not in a game.

[hockeygod]

Players develop by working hard in practice and working hard off the ice. Missing a few shifts here and there isn't going to hurt a player in the long run. Hopefully it will inspire them to become that much better.

it may not hurt the players in the long run because they won't be playing in the long run after being shown how important they are to the team.

[hockeytalk]

EVERY player is important to the team. If a player is willing to walk away from a sport over playing time than they couldn't have been very passionate about it in the first place.

[hockeygod]

EVERY player is important to the team. If a player is willing to walk away from a sport over playing time than they couldn't have been very passionate about it in the first place.

It's local area hockey, some kids just want to have fun playing hockey, if I'm paying to have my kid play because he loves hockey I want to see him play no matter what his passion level is, I get no joy from seeing him sit on the bench. so as a parent I wouldn't keep paying to watch that. Hockey is suffering from lack of participation in so many area's and coaches are still pushing kids away from hockey...I just don't get it.

[theref]

EVERY player is important to the team. If a player is willing to walk away from a sport over playing time than they couldn't have been very passionate about it in the first place.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. I was one of those players that was a third line type. Scored a few goals and was a good position player. I loved to play the game, not sit on the bench watching our "superstar" player take dumb penalties and give up short handed goals. I decided that I would rather ref and play intramurals, at least that way I could be part of the game. So I quit, as did both my wingers. We decided we would rather play for fun and get to play, then play for something only slightly meaningful and sit on the bench the whole time.

I guess it probably didn't help that our "superstar" was related to the coach, but that really is besides the point. Some of the people that love the sport the most are the ones that walk away because they know they have the ability to play, but are never given the chance.

[DaSTeK]

Please learn to spell...

"Shorting" is not correct. It is "shortening". You should have caught that just by looking at that word and occasionally reading a book or two. It just looks retarted.

why are you yelling at a person who's made one mistake? yet not even yell you bring it to the public with a non topic post? are you crazy? are you going to correct online slang? No one takes the time to reread there posts. they just type it fast and say post. So before you think your smart, use common sense and realize were not all literature majors in college.

[hockeytalk]

Are we talking about favoritism or strategy? They are completely different topics.

[Can't Never Tried]

No one takes the time to reread there posts.

It would be helpful if they did

[tomASS]

Please learn to spell...

"Shorting" is not correct. It is "shortening". You should have caught that just by looking at that word and occasionally reading a book or two. It just looks retarted.

why are you yelling at a person who's made one mistake? yet not even yell you bring it to the public with a non topic post? are you crazy? are you going to correct online slang? No one takes the time to reread there posts. they just type it fast and say post. So before you think your smart, use common sense and realize were not all literature majors in college.

the funny thing is? there is an edit button that would allow him to go back and correct the mistake if he wanted to and make it all a moot point.

[tomASS]

DaSTEK - that error would have hopefully been marked with red ink in the kid's high school english class

[tomASS]

playing time should be equitable not equal. The game is a living entity with constantly changing conditions that need to be addressed in the "now".

More so for the older teams.

[Can't Never Tried]

DaSTEK - that error would have hopefully been marked with red ink in the kid's high school english class

What is funny, is the method in which he tried to justify it a few posts later.
I mean it's possible that's what he meant, but I doubt it!

[Northland]

Tell me who said this...

If it doesn't matter if you win or lose .... why do they keep score?


.

[Can't Never Tried]

Tell me who said this...

If it doesn't matter if you win or lose .... why do they keep score?


.

Adolph Rupp
edit...
Vince Lombardi also said it, who said it 1st I have no idea.

[watchdog]

yeah with a title of "country gentalman" you would expect better. get a grip.

[Northland]

What I was getting at was this. If you want all players to have equal playing time you need to take the score board away. At what levels, not sure.

Even some high school scrimmages use the board for time only.


.

[elliott70]

No one takes the time to reread there posts.

It would be helpful if they did

THEIR posts.

And yes it would CNT.

[elliott70]

Tell me who said this...

If it doesn't matter if you win or lose .... why do they keep score?


.

Adolph Rupp
edit...
Vince Lombardi also said it, who said it 1st I have no idea.

Vince got it from me.
Mr. Rupp maybe took it from him, but I never met the guy.

[elliott70]

What I was getting at was this. If you want all players to have equal playing time you need to take the score board away. At what levels, not sure.
Even some high school scrimmages use the board for time only.


.

The MN Hockey rule is mites.

Keep score at squirts.

But keep squirts equal (as much as you can within a living organism ).

Pee-wees start on life's lessons while still developing everyone.

At bantams, life lessons get tougher.

High school, well ya think you're old enough so get ready for reality.



And I spelt everything the way I want it spelled.