AT WHAT AGE/LEVEL ???

HockeyDad2016 · Post by **HockeyDad2016** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:50 pm

When is it a good age/level for a girl playing with a boys program to make the switch and play with the girls.

Can the Assoc make the call? or is it the kids choice?

Is it an advantage/disadvantage for the girl to be playing with the boys?

I don't know alot on this topic. I'm sure there alot of you parents out there that would like to share some of your views.

Thanks

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:56 pm

This is currently being discussed here...
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15130

FYI, per USAH rules, it is a girl's choice to play youth or girls hockey.

watchdog · Post by **watchdog** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:58 pm

i think its an advantage for girls to play with the boys. however its a touchy subject now that their is girls hockey. most would say it fine through mites than you need to move over to girls program. if you play squirts than your taking a spot a boy would other wise have and that can get ugly.

HockeyDad2016 · Post by **HockeyDad2016** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:11 pm

What if the Assoc isn't large enough to offer a girls program?

should they have to get the waiver signed and have to drive to the nearest assoc she can play with the girls

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:12 pm

watchdog wrote:i think its an advantage for girls to play with the boys. however its a touchy subject now that their is girls hockey. most would say it fine through mites than you need to move over to girls program. if you play squirts than your taking a spot a boy would other wise have and that can get ugly.

That would never happen.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12945

HockeyDad2016 · Post by **HockeyDad2016** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:56 pm

Thanks for the LINKS Spin-o

Took awhile to read most of them . but it gave me a good prospective of this topic.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:59 pm

Good question HD!

Personally I think it depends 75% on where the best coaching is inside of that association. 25% depends on the girls ability and aggressiveness.

I would have them play for the best set of coaches, unless they are a passive player. If that's the case, the girls program would be better from the start.

All that said, there are situations where associations offering a girls program at or after mites may suffer if any number of the girls choose to play with the boys. If the numbers are limited, and the association is trying to truly grow the girls program the best case is to have the girls play with the girls.

I've coached boys and girls teams. At the end of the day, 99% of the time girls are happier playing with the same gender on the rink.

HockeyDad2016 · Post by **HockeyDad2016** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:12 pm

In our Assoc. we have 5 girls playing with the boys squirt teams

from what I have seen - only 2 of them are aggresive enough in my option to continue to play with the boys.

One girl went and played with the girls team - and watching her grow up - I feel she has taken a step backwards in her development, and she is one of the better girls on the all girls team. So from what I read from the links above is true - keep them where the better coach's are. to a point.

Duluth 4 · Post by **Duluth 4** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:00 pm

well i had a girl on my team last year.. and no body liked her in the team.. the most often brought up question is "if girls can play guys hockey why cant we play girls hockey?" its not that we really want to but its just the point.. its unfair for girls to have the option to play both places.. i think they should stick to girls hockey once they hit pee-wee's

blondegirlsdad · Post by **blondegirlsdad** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:58 pm

You have to wonder if girls EVER need to play with boys. Unless you are in an association where you just can't get the numbers, I would say that the best plan is to let the girls play with the girls. My kid has played 3 years of Girls Mites, where she began as the single worst player in the league. (Perhaps the history of the league) Fortunately, she is vastly more athletic than her father, and has managed to get to the U10A level in a pretty good association. We thought about moving her during 3rd year mites, but are so much happier that we let her score tons of goals and experience some success at that time. Our association has, I believe, 2 girls playing Squirts (one in A, one in B) again, in a pretty competetive association. I think most sane observers would agree that they're probably the best two girls in the association at this age level, and playing with the boys hasn't scarred them psychologically or made them outcasts amongst the other girls. But the fact of the matter is that for 90% of the girls (at least) the social aspect of the sport is as important as the physical. The girls all tend to be type-A, competetive kids, who bond while pushing each other. They can find kindred spirits in the girls locker room that they might not find with the boys, and they certainly will walk away with more friends. Maybe we just have the greatest coaches in the world here (I'm nowhere near qualified to be one of them), but they get what makes girls tick. A little push, a little pull, lots of compliments and encouragement, and a strong sense of team. I'm fairly certain that for most of the girls on this team, it would be a lot less personal of an experience for them, and that even if they don't all turn out to be Natalie Darwitz, they stand a chance at playing HS hockey someday, and at that point, I assume that the ones that are going to go on to get college scholarships will be obvious.

For now, I will trade what some people call "development" and know that my kid is getting better in hockey, but is "developing" more in creating long-term friendships, learning about hard work and self-discipline, and teamwork. (And to be honest, she IS "developing" in hockey, too, quite nicely, but I'm a biased hockey parent).

All depends on how you want your kid to develop. Maybe your kid will play with the boys and keep mine out of the olympics, but I hope she'll have something other than that to fall back on in the slight chance

that she doesn't make that squad.

mn has a nba team? · Post by **mn has a nba team?** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:12 pm

Does the girl hockey parent ever ask the child what they want : boys or girls team?

Does the girl hockey parent ever consider if the boys team would rather have her not on the team?

When the superstar girl player leaves in 7th grade to play girls high school, were they just borrowing a spot from a boy?

these are questions commonly brought up for discussion : I have not shared my opinion as of this time.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:27 pm

"Does the girl hockey parent ever ask the child what they want : boys or girls team? "

I was taking for granted that was the first step in the equation.

GR3343 · Post by **GR3343** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:59 am

I have a daughter in the 12u program in GR. She has only played with the girls. There are several at her level that have played with the boys through squirts. The difference is amazing. The girls that played squirt hockey are more agressive, and know more about hockey. Most of this year's GR/Greenway High School team played with the boys, and the difference shows. GR now mandates that girls play with girls starting at the 8u level. It's great to have a girl's program, don't get me wrong, but aren't resources being wasted? Most 6,7,8 year old kids are going to be at the same level and size. You'd probably get more out of your hockey budget dollar by having them all in the same mite league. Most of the girls I see that have started playing hockey with just girls are behind other girls teams in the state that played with boys. Split them up starting at the 10u level. You'd probably like the results better. The girls would be more comfortable with their knowledge, and both the girls and their parents would be more understanding of the physical parts of the game.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:21 am

There are no boys programs.

Girls
and Youth.

Every program with enough bodies should have an 8U program for girls. There are girls that want to be with other girls an dnot with the boys.

Daughter and Mom should make the decision (most often). A lot of times us Dads are thinking 'what's the best to make little Jill better?', but 'what makes little Jill happier?' and Mom usually handles that better.

The only advantage to the boys side at the younger age is the aggressive, compettive side boys usually bring to an athletic field.
The girls side offers better team work, more social interaction, and thus more fun and the possibility of more growth becaus they like going to the rink.

There is NO answer that fits every situation.

But if you put the FUN factor first, the right decison should follow.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:24 am

GR3343 wrote:I have a daughter in the 12u program in GR. She has only played with the girls. There are several at her level that have played with the boys through squirts. The difference is amazing. The girls that played squirt hockey are more agressive, and know more about hockey. Most of this year's GR/Greenway High School team played with the boys, and the difference shows. GR now mandates that girls play with girls starting at the 8u level. It's great to have a girl's program, don't get me wrong, but aren't resources being wasted? Most 6,7,8 year old kids are going to be at the same level and size. You'd probably get more out of your hockey budget dollar by having them all in the same mite league. Most of the girls I see that have started playing hockey with just girls are behind other girls teams in the state that played with boys. Split them up starting at the 10u level. You'd probably like the results better. The girls would be more comfortable with their knowledge, and both the girls and their parents would be more understanding of the physical parts of the game.

They cannot do this.
A girl is eligible for girls programs and youth programs.
While I like the idea that girls play with girls and for a lot of girls it is better, some girls are served better in the youth program.

One phone call and the GR mandate isout the window.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:27 am

Make sure you are comparing apples to apples as far as the coaching goes as well.

Many times the younger girls programs are new, and get some less experienced coaches. Not a bad thing, but they need to get the knowledge, and time will help.

Elliott hits it on the head, most times girls want to play with girls. That is a decision that needs to be made at home with no pressure. The key is to make sure "fun" is a big part of the equation for youth or girls.

Another thing to think about - If your girls program is trying to grow, and your daughter decides she wants to play with the boys.. OK, what happens when the girls program goes away down the road and there is no place for your daughter to play when she gets to the high school age?

GR3343 · Post by **GR3343** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:29 am

elliott70 wrote:
GR3343 wrote:I have a daughter in the 12u program in GR. She has only played with the girls. There are several at her level that have played with the boys through squirts. The difference is amazing. The girls that played squirt hockey are more agressive, and know more about hockey. Most of this year's GR/Greenway High School team played with the boys, and the difference shows. GR now mandates that girls play with girls starting at the 8u level. It's great to have a girl's program, don't get me wrong, but aren't resources being wasted? Most 6,7,8 year old kids are going to be at the same level and size. You'd probably get more out of your hockey budget dollar by having them all in the same mite league. Most of the girls I see that have started playing hockey with just girls are behind other girls teams in the state that played with boys. Split them up starting at the 10u level. You'd probably like the results better. The girls would be more comfortable with their knowledge, and both the girls and their parents would be more understanding of the physical parts of the game.
They cannot do this.
A girl is eligible for girls programs and youth programs.
While I like the idea that girls play with girls and for a lot of girls it is better, some girls are served better in the youth program.

One phone call and the GR mandate isout the window.

If it's not mandated directly, it's strongly suggested. Great points about the social and fun aspects. Was a point that somehow escaped me. That's probably why the wife doesn't let me go to board meetings anymore.

HockeyDad2016 · Post by **HockeyDad2016** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:30 am

I like the way you put it GR3343 -

more agressive is right, and this can only help them in the future.

Example - I read about a girl playing with the boys last yr - 1st yr squirt - so what 9 or 10. and then in the Summer she played on a U12 team, she was playing with girls 2-3 yrs older than herself, and was still one of the better players on the Ice.

Is this because of the exposure to a faster more competitive boys program she play's in - or becasue she is just a good athlete?

but it all go's back to AT WHAT AGE??????. it hasn't happen to me yet, But I wonder how I would handle it if my son missed making the team that all his buddies are on, and it was a girl that put him on the bubble.

I know I could handle it. but we know that the child will not take it so well.

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:52 am

When I here that playing on boys teams will make girls more aggressive, I always wonder if that is true. I always figured that the girls that wanted to play with boys were probably more aggressive in the first place and would carry that trait onto the ice regardless of what team they play on. I've also seen very aggressive players that have always played on girls teams and some players that are not aggressive at all that have played several years on boys teams.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:44 am

Cowboy wrote:When I here that playing on boys teams will make girls more aggressive, I always wonder if that is true. I always figured that the girls that wanted to play with boys were probably more aggressive in the first place and would carry that trait onto the ice regardless of what team they play on. I've also seen very aggressive players that have always played on girls teams and some players that are not aggressive at all that have played several years on boys teams.

my daughter played in the old days before the creation (or numbers) of the younger girl teams. She was a former figure skater that found the light and converted to hockey. Her first team was a community mixed team of 12-13 year old girls and then went straight to the HS program.

The girls at this time frame did play a lot more boys hockey. I know one that is now playing at OSU. she played through PeeWee and was typically one of the better more aggressive players.

I think a lot of the former great female youth players in MN benefitted from playing with boys because of speed of play and the physical nature of the game. That being said - I think those girls were also programmed as you suggest. I think they benefitted greatly, but I think it is great that they have the ability to all play and grow up together.

Since training girls in hockey is fairly new to most coaches in hockey, I would suggest doing some reading of books by some female basketball, soccer, and volleyball coaches. The key point is to treat them like athletes who are female rather than like females who are athletes.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:39 am

inthestands wrote:Make sure you are comparing apples to apples as far as the coaching goes as well.

Many times the younger girls programs are new, and get some less experienced coaches. Not a bad thing, but they need to get the knowledge, and time will help.

Elliott hits it on the head, most times girls want to play with girls. That is a decision that needs to be made at home with no pressure. The key is to make sure "fun" is a big part of the equation for youth or girls.

Another thing to think about - If your girls program is trying to grow, and your daughter decides she wants to play with the boys.. OK, what happens when the girls program goes away down the road and there is no place for your daughter to play when she gets to the high school age?

Excellent point.

That is why I try to encourage girls to be with girls.
But to enhance the agggressive, competitive play, the girls can play the boys or mix them up once in a while. Remember, if they are mites, no one should get to concerned about rosters, etc...
Even at 10U the 10U should play squirt teams.
At 12U & pee-wees youn need to provide care...
12U vs. squirt A or good B team might be appropriate.

Just remember to check with you DD.

theref · Post by **theref** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:32 pm

After reading through several of these posts, I found out that I'm very much a hypocrit. I was thinking about my daughter and the fact that she may actually turn out to be quite a skater. Thinking like a lot of fathers (and going along with how Elliott stated it

), I was thinking "What would be best for my daughter skill-wise when the time comes" I think it would probably be playing with the boys.

However, as the squirt player Duluth 4 stated, if she plays boys hockey that takes away ice time from a boy that doesn't have the option to play girls. And then I realized it:

I'm was against Michelle Wie everytime she played with the PGA because whoevers spot she took in that tournament, wasn't allowed to go play on the LPGA to recoup that money that was possibly lost. (Big difference as there is money being made, I know)

Now, until we come up with three leagues (boys, girls, and mixed) I'm going to have to say that I will keep my daughter in girls hockey for just the reasons stated above.

It may be fair in some other parents eyes, but the way I see it, the girls have two choices and the boys only have one. I'm all for equality, but stating it the way I have, things do not come out equal.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:25 pm

theref wrote:After reading through several of these posts, I found out that I'm very much a hypocrit. I was thinking about my daughter and the fact that she may actually turn out to be quite a skater. Thinking like a lot of fathers (and going along with how Elliott stated it ), I was thinking "What would be best for my daughter skill-wise when the time comes" I think it would probably be playing with the boys.

However, as the squirt player Duluth 4 stated, if she plays boys hockey that takes away ice time from a boy that doesn't have the option to play girls. And then I realized it:

I'm was against Michelle Wie everytime she played with the PGA because whoevers spot she took in that tournament, wasn't allowed to go play on the LPGA to recoup that money that was possibly lost. (Big difference as there is money being made, I know)

Now, until we come up with three leagues (boys, girls, and mixed) I'm going to have to say that I will keep my daughter in girls hockey for just the reasons stated above.

It may be fair in some other parents eyes, but the way I see it, the girls have two choices and the boys only have one. I'm all for equality, but stating it the way I have, things do not come out equal.

I understand your viewpoint, I do look at it differently. If MH had an affirmative action policy mandating that X% of A rosters be girls then I can understand an argument that a girl took a boy's spot. The way it is now, a girl has to be good enough to make the team. I can't imagine complaining about a girl taking my boy's spot. How embarrassing!

It is true that girls do have 2 choices. However, they have to make that choice at signups. Girls only teams are a way to serve a special interest group that MH/USAH would like to develop. I think it is working. However, it is a long way from providing equal competition. If you watch an U10A game followed by a Squirt A game there is a huge difference! Boys are dominant over the girls, even pre-puberty.

If a woman was good enough to play in the NHL then I wouldn't want her limited to the WWHL.

Until the youth designation is changed to boys we need to give a fair shake to all that tryout.

theref · Post by **theref** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:02 pm

spin-o-rama wrote:
theref wrote:After reading through several of these posts, I found out that I'm very much a hypocrit. I was thinking about my daughter and the fact that she may actually turn out to be quite a skater. Thinking like a lot of fathers (and going along with how Elliott stated it ), I was thinking "What would be best for my daughter skill-wise when the time comes" I think it would probably be playing with the boys.

However, as the squirt player Duluth 4 stated, if she plays boys hockey that takes away ice time from a boy that doesn't have the option to play girls. And then I realized it:

I'm was against Michelle Wie everytime she played with the PGA because whoevers spot she took in that tournament, wasn't allowed to go play on the LPGA to recoup that money that was possibly lost. (Big difference as there is money being made, I know)

Now, until we come up with three leagues (boys, girls, and mixed) I'm going to have to say that I will keep my daughter in girls hockey for just the reasons stated above.

It may be fair in some other parents eyes, but the way I see it, the girls have two choices and the boys only have one. I'm all for equality, but stating it the way I have, things do not come out equal.
I understand your viewpoint, I do look at it differently. If MH had an affirmative action policy mandating that X% of A rosters be girls then I can understand an argument that a girl took a boy's spot. The way it is now, a girl has to be good enough to make the team. I can't imagine complaining about a girl taking my boy's spot. How embarrassing!

It is true that girls do have 2 choices. However, they have to make that choice at signups. Girls only teams are a way to serve a special interest group that MH/USAH would like to develop. I think it is working. However, it is a long way from providing equal competition. If you watch an U10A game followed by a Squirt A game there is a huge difference! Boys are dominant over the girls, even pre-puberty.

If a woman was good enough to play in the NHL then I wouldn't want her limited to the WWHL.

Until the youth designation is changed to boys we need to give a fair shake to all that tryout.

I agree and trust me, as a referee I definately know the difference because I get paid way more for a peewee game than I do for a girls u12 game.

Yes, if a girl is good enough to play with the boys, good for her. What about the squirt kid moving up to peewees that doesn't want to check? (no, it doesn't happen often) He can't go play girls U12 (which doesn't have checking) while the 11 or 12 year old girl can pick to play either one.

I understand the whole wanting to compete with the better kids, hence the mixed league. All of the best players, boys or girls, can play there. I've said the same thing about pro golf. They should have a MPGA, LPGA, and PGA. (sorry, golf is just a great example as it is a major sport where women are starting to play with men)

I'm sorry, but special intrests groups shouldn't get more choices just because they are special intrest.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

theref · Post by **theref** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:05 pm

theref wrote:
spin-o-rama wrote:
theref wrote:After reading through several of these posts, I found out that I'm very much a hypocrit. I was thinking about my daughter and the fact that she may actually turn out to be quite a skater. Thinking like a lot of fathers (and going along with how Elliott stated it ), I was thinking "What would be best for my daughter skill-wise when the time comes" I think it would probably be playing with the boys.

However, as the squirt player Duluth 4 stated, if she plays boys hockey that takes away ice time from a boy that doesn't have the option to play girls. And then I realized it:

I'm was against Michelle Wie everytime she played with the PGA because whoevers spot she took in that tournament, wasn't allowed to go play on the LPGA to recoup that money that was possibly lost. (Big difference as there is money being made, I know)

Now, until we come up with three leagues (boys, girls, and mixed) I'm going to have to say that I will keep my daughter in girls hockey for just the reasons stated above.

It may be fair in some other parents eyes, but the way I see it, the girls have two choices and the boys only have one. I'm all for equality, but stating it the way I have, things do not come out equal.
I understand your viewpoint, I do look at it differently. If MH had an affirmative action policy mandating that X% of A rosters be girls then I can understand an argument that a girl took a boy's spot. The way it is now, a girl has to be good enough to make the team. I can't imagine complaining about a girl taking my boy's spot. How embarrassing!

It is true that girls do have 2 choices. However, they have to make that choice at signups. Girls only teams are a way to serve a special interest group that MH/USAH would like to develop. I think it is working. However, it is a long way from providing equal competition. If you watch an U10A game followed by a Squirt A game there is a huge difference! Boys are dominant over the girls, even pre-puberty.

If a woman was good enough to play in the NHL then I wouldn't want her limited to the WWHL.

Until the youth designation is changed to boys we need to give a fair shake to all that tryout.
I agree and trust me, as a referee I definately know the difference because I get paid way more for a peewee game than I do for a girls u12 game.

Yes, if a girl is good enough to play with the boys, good for her. What about the squirt kid moving up to peewees that doesn't want to check? (no, it doesn't happen often) He can't go play girls U12 (which doesn't have checking) while the 11 or 12 year old girl can pick to play either one.

I understand the whole wanting to compete with the better kids, hence the mixed league. All of the best players, boys or girls, can play there. I've said the same thing about pro golf. They should have a MPGA, LPGA, and PGA. (sorry, golf is just a great example as it is a major sport where women are starting to play with men)

I'm sorry, but special intrests groups shouldn't get more choices just because they are special intrest.

I guess I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Forgot to add, can you imagine how much the girls parents would complain if a boy wanted to play with the girls. I'd like to see a kid do it just to see what happens.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

AT WHAT AGE/LEVEL ???

AT WHAT AGE/LEVEL ???

When to move?