Should Coaches be Involved with Pre Tryout Clinic's?

[5 For Fighting]

The situation with OMG is unfortunate and they have lost a very strong coach in Jake Fleming. This issue is handled differently across associations and there is a wide spectrum of views. Should coaches be involved with pre-tryout camps at their respective age levels?

[muckandgrind]

The situation with OMG is unfortunate and they have lost a very strong coach in Jake Fleming. This issue is handled differently across associations and there is a wide spectrum of views. Should coaches be involved with pre-tryout camps at their respective age levels?

I say sure...why not? Especially if it's a non-parent coach....they don't have any biases and generally can be trusted to pick the best players for that team no matter who the parents are. A guy like Jake Fleming isn't stupid, he can pick out the best players right away and if he has been around, he should probably be able to tell you who will be on the A Bantam team the following year anyways. Do anyone honestly think that all players go into a tryout evenly and that there isn't already some players already pegged into an 'A' roster spot before they take the ice for that first drill in the first tryout? If you think that, you are incredibly naive and need to wake the heck up. My bet is that Fleming probably had a good idea of who was going to make up the majority of that team and only needed to decide on the last couple of players....and I bet that most of the parents also had a pretty good idea also.

So...all that being said....what is the difference if he skates with the kids during the pre-tryout camps??

[InigoMontoya]

Is there a difference in the camp being run mid Sept v. mid Aug? How about mid July?

[yeahyeahyeah]

Our associations runs warm ups not sure if that is the same as "Camp" or not. It consists of 5 90 minute sessions. I don't see anything wrong with a coach, parent or non-parent, running the warm up/camp.

As stated previously, nothing is going to happen, positive or negative, to any kid in a 1 month camp or warm up that will change where the kid gets placed at tryouts. In my opinion insecure parents are to blame for this situation. Tom Saterdalen said it best when he had to cut a boy off the Bloomington Varsity years ago. A parent approached him and accused him of giving up on his kid, Saterdalen said "I didn't give up on your kid, you gave up on your kid when you stopped getting him off season development." I wonder if the people that had a problem with the coaching arrangement did not do enough in the off season to keep up?

[SWPrez]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

More exposure to the players allows for better decisions to be made and happier teams (at least they become happy three weeks after tryouts).

[stupidiswhatstupiddoes]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

More exposure to the players allows for better decisions to be made and happier teams (at least they become happy three weeks after tryouts).

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

[muckandgrind]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

More exposure to the players allows for better decisions to be made and happier teams (at least they become happy three weeks after tryouts).

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

So what if he has additional exposure?....They most likely know who the top players are well before registration... Most Bantam "A" team rosters are already penciled in before the first tryout anyways, getting a little "extra exposure" probably won't change anyone's opinion a whole lot. In my opinion, tryouts are only for the bubble players and determining the split between B1, B2, and C. And if your kid is a bubble player, he d@mn well should be at the warm-ups, anyways.

[stupidiswhatstupiddoes]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

More exposure to the players allows for better decisions to be made and happier teams (at least they become happy three weeks after tryouts).

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

So what if he has additional exposure?....They most likely know who the top players are well before registration... Most Bantam "A" team rosters are already penciled in before the first tryout anyways, getting a little "extra exposure" probably won't change anyone's opinion a whole lot. In my opinion, tryouts are only for the bubble players and determining the split between B1, B2, and C. And if your kid is a bubble player, he d@mn well should be at the warm-ups, anyways.

So if he already knows who he wants that what is the big deal - no reason to quit then.

[muckandgrind]

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

So what if he has additional exposure?....They most likely know who the top players are well before registration... Most Bantam "A" team rosters are already penciled in before the first tryout anyways, getting a little "extra exposure" probably won't change anyone's opinion a whole lot. In my opinion, tryouts are only for the bubble players and determining the split between B1, B2, and C. And if your kid is a bubble player, he d@mn well should be at the warm-ups, anyways.

So if he already knows who he wants that what is the big deal - no reason to quit then.

My guess is that there is more to this story than we are being told.

[Chuck Norris Fan]

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

So what if he has additional exposure?....They most likely know who the top players are well before registration... Most Bantam "A" team rosters are already penciled in before the first tryout anyways, getting a little "extra exposure" probably won't change anyone's opinion a whole lot. In my opinion, tryouts are only for the bubble players and determining the split between B1, B2, and C. And if your kid is a bubble player, he d@mn well should be at the warm-ups, anyways.

So if he already knows who he wants that what is the big deal - no reason to quit then.

Exactly... that why I think he quit like... here is your letter of resignation see ya! ( no choice)

[My_Kid_Loves_Hockey]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

What have you done to the logically thinking former SW Prez?

How does he know that the 10 other kids that are not in this clinic/camp are not better, will be better teammates, act respectable in the LR?

They don't and you should be judging the association tryouts based on all the kids not some clinic run by somebody private. If this was a Association sponsored clinic/camp and everyone was there (even if there are 150 kids out there or 2/3/4 sessions) , I would look at it differently.

How many have had a kid or kids come back for the season and you say "what the H did Billy/Jimmy/Susie etc do this off season , they have improved/fallen behind" and all those teams that were picked at sign ups are out the window?

SW Prez this ever happened?

[Chuck Norris Fan]

What have you done to the logically thinking former SW Prez?

How does he know that the 10 other kids that are not in this clinic/camp are not better, will be better teammates, act respectable in the LR?

They don't and you should be judging the association tryouts based on all the kids not some clinic run by somebody private. If this was a Association sponsored clinic/camp and everyone was there (even if there are 150 kids out there or 2/3/4 sessions) , I would look at it differently.

How many have had a kid or kids come back for the season and you say "what the H did Billy/Jimmy/Susie etc do this off season , they have improved/fallen behind" and all those teams that were picked at sign ups are out the window?

SW Prez this ever happened?

Again, this is exactly what the coach is thinking.... and wishing for.... the good players to be good in tryouts so that they get the best team possible. Who cares what they do in teh summer or fall or what ever.... come to play during tryouts and you will make the team.

[SWPrez]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

More exposure to the players allows for better decisions to be made and happier teams (at least they become happy three weeks after tryouts).

I think you are making the point as to why he shouldn't be on the ice - he is gaining exposure to some and not others. This is a CLINIC and not TRYOUTS.

My guess is the Board would agree with you in that having him at the Clinic would give him more information to pick the best team but that is not what the problem is per the presidents letter - i understand the problem having to do with being fair to all the players at the loss of gaining additional player exposure to improve the coaches player decisions.

If the coach wanted to see the kids all he would have to do is show up at the clinic so not sure why it was worth quitting over - just show up and sit in the stands - the association can't keep him from entering a public facility.

Stupidisasstupiddoes,

A good "A" level coach should have had a pulse on the B1's and the A level below them from the prior year. Those players have gained exposure to that good "A" coach cumulatively over time. So are we going to prevent that good "A" coach from having conversations with his "feeder" teams' coaches as it creates additional exposure?

Again, a good "A" coach is not unlike a varsity hockey coach. They 'scout' whats in their pipeline. Talk to the coaches. Understand who the team players are, who the prima donnas are, who is going to work, who is lazy. These are things that don't come out in tryouts....but are critical to assembling a team.

He should also know what the player did to improve their game in the offseason. Fhit? AAA hockey? Camps? 10,000 shots in their garage?

Tryouts are critical and where a kid has to show their stuff....but complete information on the player is better. Just read a sports illustrated article on Mike Modano. He was invited to the Olympic training camp while a bunch of older players were left off. Why, because the coach felt his work ethic, good attitude, and history could benefit the other players and the team.

The more information a coach has....the better the team he can put on the ice. Sorry, but clinics apply. They give more exposure and kids that want to make the team better be out there working their tails off to show it.

[puckboy]

ideally I would think the High School coach should be contributing to these. He gets to see what kids are coming up and the kids will work hard to try and impress the HS coach. It would expect the successful HS programs to be involved in these type of programs.

[SWPrez]

Absolutely coaches should be involved in preseason clinics.

The coaches are tasked with picking teams. A team isn't just who performs best in tryouts. A coach needs to know is this a good kid, a good teammate, do they listen when drills are explained, are they a bully, are they disruptive on the bench and in the locker room. Virtually all of these things don't come out in a traditional 'tryout' setting.

When parents want a "score by the numbers" tryout, they get exactly what they asked for - a dysfunctional team with several kids that had nice tryouts that are over their head, several knuckleheads, and a few kids that actually should be there but spend the whole season frustrated because of a screwed up tryout process put these other kids on the team.

A coach is tasked with putting together a team that works on the ice. Running clinics allows the coach more exposure to see if the kid will fit into that team model that he desires to put together.

What have you done to the logically thinking former SW Prez?

How does he know that the 10 other kids that are not in this clinic/camp are not better, will be better teammates, act respectable in the LR?

They don't and you should be judging the association tryouts based on all the kids not some clinic run by somebody private. If this was a Association sponsored clinic/camp and everyone was there (even if there are 150 kids out there or 2/3/4 sessions) , I would look at it differently.

How many have had a kid or kids come back for the season and you say "what the H did Billy/Jimmy/Susie etc do this off season , they have improved/fallen behind" and all those teams that were picked at sign ups are out the window?

SW Prez this ever happened?

Yes....and those kids end up making the team...or if they have fallen behind it shows and they get cut. Kids do improve and change physically from year to year.

[Educator29]

The big question is Can the Coach run the clinic with out getting any preconceived notion about the players in attendance? A player should not gain an advantage or be hurt because they attended the pre-tryout clinic. Only way to not create that perseption is to have someone else run the clinics and have the head coaches staty home.

[My_Kid_Loves_Hockey]

Yes....and those kids end up making the team...or if they have fallen behind it shows and they get cut. Kids do improve and change physically from year to year.

Thank you, that is why you select your team at tryouts. If the coach has the team picked by watching the previous season, working a camp, will these kids get a fair look.............?

Hey could it be that the folks running the clinic hired the now former coach to work it and that's what the board had an issue with?

I heard that he could work the Peewee clinic without issue, what a better way to see whats coming than work with the younger group since he's already in the know with the Bantams.

[sorno82]

The only reason I signed my kid up for our association's pre-season clinic was that the "A" coach was going to run the clinic. My son has no chance of making the "A" team this year as a 1st year, but I want my son to get used to the coach. He does not try out well and if he becomes familiar with the coach, he may relax a bit for next years try-outs, where he will have a chance.

Dumb move on OMGHA.

[hockey_is_a_choice]

Help me out, why does the OMG policy only apply to non-parent coaches? Why doesn't the policy apply to parent coaches, too? Frankly, my son's association allows parent and non-parent coaches to run the fall training sessions. I don't have a problem with the "A" coaches (parent or non-parent) running the sessions as long as the sessions are open to all skaters. Kids who participate in Fall sports generally show up on Sundays and only pay for those sessions.

The Fall training sessions are a good opportunity for kids to get together and skate with the "A" coach before the big dance. Yes, I agree the coach is sizing up the kids, but, as someone else stated, some kids worked hard and improved over the summer and they should be given a fresh look by the coaches. I'd rather have this type of open and transparent Fall skate than have the "A" coach host "secret" sessions or, worse yet, Fall teams where only a select few are invited to participate.

[goldy313]

Our associations runs warm ups not sure if that is the same as "Camp" or not. It consists of 5 90 minute sessions. I don't see anything wrong with a coach, parent or non-parent, running the warm up/camp.

As stated previously, nothing is going to happen, positive or negative, to any kid in a 1 month camp or warm up that will change where the kid gets placed at tryouts. In my opinion insecure parents are to blame for this situation. Tom Saterdalen said it best when he had to cut a boy off the Bloomington Varsity years ago. A parent approached him and accused him of giving up on his kid, Saterdalen said "I didn't give up on your kid, you gave up on your kid when you stopped getting him off season development." I wonder if the people that had a problem with the coaching arrangement did not do enough in the off season to keep up?

BS, no way Saterdalen said that he's way too much of a class act to have ever said anything close to that. I've known him for years, heck I played for him.

SW Prez, what if the coach is making money off this camp? What about the kids who can't make it do to other committments? Essentially you've extended the try out process without formally doing so.

[muckandgrind]

Yes....and those kids end up making the team...or if they have fallen behind it shows and they get cut. Kids do improve and change physically from year to year.

Thank you, that is why you select your team at tryouts. If the coach has the team picked by watching the previous season, working a camp, will these kids get a fair look.............?

Hey could it be that the folks running the clinic hired the now former coach to work it and that's what the board had an issue with?

I heard that he could work the Peewee clinic without issue, what a better way to see whats coming than work with the younger group since he's already in the know with the Bantams.

C'mon....you're not REALLY that naive, are you? You don't really believe that the entire team is selected without any "pre-conceptions", do you? My experience is that if you have a 15 skater Bantam "A" roster, about 10-12 of them are penciled in before the first tryout even takes place. The tryout, itself, is only used to determine who the bottom 3-5 players are and the B and C teams.

[mghockey18]

That is to bad. Jake is great coach for the bantam level.

[yeahyeahyeah]

Our associations runs warm ups not sure if that is the same as "Camp" or not. It consists of 5 90 minute sessions. I don't see anything wrong with a coach, parent or non-parent, running the warm up/camp.

As stated previously, nothing is going to happen, positive or negative, to any kid in a 1 month camp or warm up that will change where the kid gets placed at tryouts. In my opinion insecure parents are to blame for this situation. Tom Saterdalen said it best when he had to cut a boy off the Bloomington Varsity years ago. A parent approached him and accused him of giving up on his kid, Saterdalen said "I didn't give up on your kid, you gave up on your kid when you stopped getting him off season development." I wonder if the people that had a problem with the coaching arrangement did not do enough in the off season to keep up?

BS, no way Saterdalen said that he's way too much of a class act to have ever said anything close to that. I've known him for years, heck I played for him.

SW Prez, what if the coach is making money off this camp? What about the kids who can't make it do to other committments? Essentially you've extended the try out process without formally doing so.

I guess I, and 30 other coaches, misunderstood him when he recanted the story to an association coaches meeting. I probably did not, as a result, go out and buy hi book "Blades of Glory" and read the same story there.....Who are you Sid Hartman? close personal friend?
Sorry if this bursts some bubble, I respected him for the comment as did every other coach in the room. you have to understand the context.

[mghockey18]

To bad for OMG, Jake is a great coach.

[hockeyover40]

If the A coach is on the ice evaluating players, why are you calling it a clinic or camp? Call it what it is, try outs. And maybe more kids will show up. Our assoc. does it's best to make sure the clinics are not perceived as tryouts. It's a get ready for try out clinic. If your evaluating kids and calling them clinics, your lying to your assoc. members. And that's what parents have a problem with. Board members not being open and honest with them. Under the table agreements, and doing things behind their backs. Either way you do it, call it it what it is, and don't be deceptive.