Rosemount Hockey-An interesting statistic

[frederick61]

Rosemount High School record over the years 2005-2009 was 50-56-2. In 2005, the hockey board made decisions to go to parent coaches at the peewee level.

Their first crop resulting from that decision finished last year with a 2-22 record. The Irish ranked 62 at the high school level according to one ranking service, ranked 89 according to another. Teams from Sauk Rapids, New Prague, Red Wing, and Hastings were ranked higher.

Does board level decisions and agendas other then what is good for the hockey program cause this?

[murray]

sorry to say, but one year doesn't give enough statistical data to analyze to get a good idea what is going on. but i would be a bit nervous, but thew way to fix it is to join the board, get involved and help correct what you perceive as a shortcoming.
on a dad/player level there are other avenues to proceed for hockey nowadays instead of just association hockey.

good luck to you.

[frederick61]

sorry to say, but one year doesn't give enough statistical data to analyze to get a good idea what is going on. but i would be a bit nervous, but thew way to fix it is to join the board, get involved and help correct what you perceive as a shortcoming.
on a dad/player level there are other avenues to proceed for hockey nowadays instead of just association hockey.

good luck to you.

I am not involved with Rosemount Hockey and have no axe to grind. I thought with hockey boards being formed and planning beganing to start over the June/July time, it would be a good discussion. Rosemount is one example, there are others.

[muckandgrind]

Generally speaking, I think it's best to hire a non-parent head coach at "A" level for both PeeWee and Bantam.

[Jimbo99]

sorry to say, but one year doesn't give enough statistical data to analyze to get a good idea what is going on. but i would be a bit nervous, but thew way to fix it is to join the board, get involved and help correct what you perceive as a shortcoming.
on a dad/player level there are other avenues to proceed for hockey nowadays instead of just association hockey.

good luck to you.

I am not involved with Rosemount Hockey and have no axe to grind. I thought with hockey boards being formed and planning beganing to start over the June/July time, it would be a good discussion. Rosemount is one example, there are others.

It just seems like a go nowhere discussion. Many examples could be found of each, successes and failures. There are good and bad parent coaches. There are good and bad non-parent coaches. It is coaching talent that will determine relative success, not parental status.

In addition, you have to consider how hard it is to find non-parent coaches. Anyone who has been around for awhile has seen examples of taking a non-parent coach for no good reason other than they are non-parents. There's nothing magic about them, anymore than there is anything magic about D1 or NHL experience.

[muckandgrind]

sorry to say, but one year doesn't give enough statistical data to analyze to get a good idea what is going on. but i would be a bit nervous, but thew way to fix it is to join the board, get involved and help correct what you perceive as a shortcoming.
on a dad/player level there are other avenues to proceed for hockey nowadays instead of just association hockey.

good luck to you.

I am not involved with Rosemount Hockey and have no axe to grind. I thought with hockey boards being formed and planning beganing to start over the June/July time, it would be a good discussion. Rosemount is one example, there are others.

It just seems like a go nowhere discussion. Many examples could be found of each, successes and failures. There are good and bad parent coaches. There are good and bad non-parent coaches. It is coaching talent that will determine relative success, not parental status.

In addition, you have to consider how hard it is to find non-parent coaches. Anyone who has been around for awhile has seen examples of taking a non-parent coach for no good reason other than they are non-parents. There's nothing magic about them, anymore than there is anything magic about D1 or NHL experience.

The biggest advantage of having non-parent coaches is that it removes much of the suspicion around "favoritism" of the coach's kid or his kid's buddies who are the on the team. A non-parent coach is getting paid to put the best players on the ice that gives the team the best chance of winning (no matter who they are), and develop his players into better hockey players.

Many times coaches who have a kid on the team are placed in an unfair position. If their kid is really good and sees time on the top PP and PK units (for example), the parents of the kids who are not on those units will complain loudly that the coach is only favoring his son. Like I said, sometimes the criticism is unfair, and many times the criticism is legitimate.

Of course, associations have to do their due dilligence when hiring a coach and be prepared to look long and hard to find a good one. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. Placing ads in Let's Play Hockey is a great start.

[O-townClown]

Rosemount High School record over the years 2005-2009 was 50-56-2. In 2005, the hockey board made decisions to go to parent coaches at the peewee level.

Their first crop resulting from that decision finished last year with a 2-22 record. The Irish ranked 62 at the high school level according to one ranking service, ranked 89 according to another. Teams from Sauk Rapids, New Prague, Red Wing, and Hastings were ranked higher.

Does board level decisions and agendas other then what is good for the hockey program cause this?

Other factors had an impact as well. It sure looks like you've oversimplified things and we also can't prove cause and effect. For instance, what if the discussion five years ago was that the HS team wouldn't win a game if Rosemount stayed the course?

Players win games, not boards and coaches. Did Rosemount lose any players? If so, can these losses be attributed to the parent coaches used at the Pee Wee level?

[mghockey18]

This isn't always the case. I was involved with this type of incident with a parent head coach at the Youth level and we went 20-4-3 my Senior year of High School in the NWSC.

It really depends on the type of coaches you put into the position.

[observer]

No. Coaching is part of it but, whether they are parent coaches is not. I've been around great parent coaches and generally think it's difficult to find a volunteer non-parent coach that cares as much as the parent one.

Players are the other part and players definitely come in spurts, bunches and shortages. Usually the best bunch of players that come through were a nice sized bunch as mites and squirts and had a strong parent coach that kept them together and brought them up through the years.

One thing all of our youth sports share in common is they depend on where you live and if the community has special dads that can find, coach and nurture, groups of players through the system. During both seasons special dads, in all sports, yield special bunches of players.

[Jimbo99]

youth coaches that can find, coach and nurture groups of player through the system. During both seasons special dads, in all sports, yield special bunches of players.

Wow - I'm betting that a lot of us might think that is one of the reasons you would look hard for a non-parent coach! I've seen coaches that stick with every kid in that group come hell or high water. That's where a lot of the garbage begins. The first time those couple of kids are kept on the team even when they didn't perform in tryouts - in the name of "loyalty" - a slippery slope.

But I agree with the general premise. It is coaching ability, not parent/non-parent.

[JSR]

I am not involved with Rosemount Hockey and have no axe to grind. I thought with hockey boards being formed and planning beganing to start over the June/July time, it would be a good discussion. Rosemount is one example, there are others.

It just seems like a go nowhere discussion. Many examples could be found of each, successes and failures. There are good and bad parent coaches. There are good and bad non-parent coaches. It is coaching talent that will determine relative success, not parental status.

In addition, you have to consider how hard it is to find non-parent coaches. Anyone who has been around for awhile has seen examples of taking a non-parent coach for no good reason other than they are non-parents. There's nothing magic about them, anymore than there is anything magic about D1 or NHL experience.

The biggest advantage of having non-parent coaches is that it removes much of the suspicion around "favoritism" of the coach's kid or his kid's buddies who are the on the team. A non-parent coach is getting paid to put the best players on the ice that gives the team the best chance of winning (no matter who they are), and develop his players into better hockey players.

Many times coaches who have a kid on the team are placed in an unfair position. If their kid is really good and sees time on the top PP and PK units (for example), the parents of the kids who are not on those units will complain loudly that the coach is only favoring his son. Like I said, sometimes the criticism is unfair, and many times the criticism is legitimate.

Of course, associations have to do their due dilligence when hiring a coach and be prepared to look long and hard to find a good one. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. Placing ads in Let's Play Hockey is a great start.

Unfortuantely having a "non-parent" coach does NOT get rid of that suspicion of favoritism. My son was on a team this year where it actually made things worse. One of the parents of a player on our team actually called our coach the "lap dog" of the parent of our teams best player. Having nonparent coaches does not get rid of the jealousy and spitefulness of insecure parents. Anyone with eyes knew who our teams best player was (and no it was not my kid) but this parent was mental. It was beyond ridiculous.

I also think that if a parent is a really good coach then it shouldn't matter if they have a kid on the team or not. Interestingly for our own experience, the best coach my son has ever had was a parent coach, the worst coach he's ever had was a nonparent coach. He has had a couple of both in his different sports thus far. So seeing as how, IMHO, it doesn't get rid of the jealousy or pettiness and it doesn't guarantee a good coach either way, just get the best guy for the job regardless of whether they are a parent or not.

[frederick61]

youth coaches that can find, coach and nurture groups of player through the system. During both seasons special dads, in all sports, yield special bunches of players.

Wow - I'm betting that a lot of us might think that is one of the reasons you would look hard for a non-parent coach! I've seen coaches that stick with every kid in that group come hell or high water. That's where a lot of the garbage begins. The first time those couple of kids are kept on the team even when they didn't perform in tryouts - in the name of "loyalty" - a slippery slope.

But I agree with the general premise. It is coaching ability, not parent/non-parent.

I agree with Jimbo99 that keeping kids together is a rifle bullet approach to hockey. If your “selected group” of kids makes to the junior/senior years in your local high school and continue to develop, there can be a big payoff. But I contend that is not only risky, but kills the development of kids by limiting development numbers and kills community wide interest in the sport. When a board goes from non-parent coaching to parent coaching, that sends a signal to parents and kids that if they are not in, they will be forever out. Subsequent groups of kids that follow become smaller and the once the “selected” kids graduate, the high school teams success falls.

One used to look at the bantam A programs and predict the strength of a high school team in one or two years. Though it is still an indicator, the peewee kids becoming bantams are setting plans and making moves before entering high school. This weakens the local bantam team as forecaster of success at the high school level and places emphasis on the association’s success at the peewee level.

This is due to the high school ruling forcing kids playing athletics to make decisions on their athletic future at the start of their eighth grade year. The high school approach that “one rule fits all sports” does not work for hockey.

Before the association could tolerate hockey parents that used the board for something other then what is best for the program. These type of parents usually get involved at the peewee level. The problem is that the new emphasis brought on by new high school rules place added pressure on commitments for the kids and for the programs that pursue them or that they pursue. Kids are not always ready and bad board policy can force hasty decisions.

[muckandgrind]

OK....what happens if the child of the parent coach you hire for the "A" job has a bad tryout or isn't good enough to make that team? Or if you decide to wait until after tryouts to hire a parent coach, what happens if none of the player's parents are qualified, or even want to coach?



It just seems like a go nowhere discussion. Many examples could be found of each, successes and failures. There are good and bad parent coaches. There are good and bad non-parent coaches. It is coaching talent that will determine relative success, not parental status.

In addition, you have to consider how hard it is to find non-parent coaches. Anyone who has been around for awhile has seen examples of taking a non-parent coach for no good reason other than they are non-parents. There's nothing magic about them, anymore than there is anything magic about D1 or NHL experience.

The biggest advantage of having non-parent coaches is that it removes much of the suspicion around "favoritism" of the coach's kid or his kid's buddies who are the on the team. A non-parent coach is getting paid to put the best players on the ice that gives the team the best chance of winning (no matter who they are), and develop his players into better hockey players.

Many times coaches who have a kid on the team are placed in an unfair position. If their kid is really good and sees time on the top PP and PK units (for example), the parents of the kids who are not on those units will complain loudly that the coach is only favoring his son. Like I said, sometimes the criticism is unfair, and many times the criticism is legitimate.

Of course, associations have to do their due dilligence when hiring a coach and be prepared to look long and hard to find a good one. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. Placing ads in Let's Play Hockey is a great start.

Unfortuantely having a "non-parent" coach does NOT get rid of that suspicion of favoritism. My son was on a team this year where it actually made things worse. One of the parents of a player on our team actually called our coach the "lap dog" of the parent of our teams best player. Having nonparent coaches does not get rid of the jealousy and spitefulness of insecure parents. Anyone with eyes knew who our teams best player was (and no it was not my kid) but this parent was mental. It was beyond ridiculous.

I also think that if a parent is a really good coach then it shouldn't matter if they have a kid on the team or not. Interestingly for our own experience, the best coach my son has ever had was a parent coach, the worst coach he's ever had was a nonparent coach. He has had a couple of both in his different sports thus far. So seeing as how, IMHO, it doesn't get rid of the jealousy or pettiness and it doesn't guarantee a good coach either way, just get the best guy for the job regardless of whether they are a parent or not.

What happens if you hire a parent coach for the "A" team and his kid doesn't qualify for the "A" team based on the tryouts? Or, if you decide to wait until after the tryouts to hire a parent coach, what do you do if none of the parents are qualified, or even WANT to coach?

[Jimbo99]

What happens if you hire a parent coach for the "A" team and his kid doesn't qualify for the "A" team based on the tryouts? Or, if you decide to wait until after the tryouts to hire a parent coach, what do you do if none of the parents are qualified, or even WANT to coach?

That stuff is handled internally by boards all the time. They need to have a good handle on it all long before tryouts and it doesn't always turn out perfectly, but the fact is, normally, enough is known about tryouts long before they begin.

[Jimbo99]

When a board goes from non-parent coaching to parent coaching, that sends a signal to parents and kids that if they are not in, they will be forever out.

Fred, that can happen but it's not a universal truth by any means.

I believe if you have a choice between two identically talented and qualified coaches, if you pick the non-parent, you will be better off. But that kind of choice is just not a luxury that exists very often. Boards just have to go with the best guy/gal for the job. Parent/non-parent is just one of a hundred criteria.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

What happens if you hire a parent coach for the "A" team and his kid doesn't qualify for the "A" team based on the tryouts? Or, if you decide to wait until after the tryouts to hire a parent coach, what do you do if none of the parents are qualified, or even WANT to coach?

That stuff is handled internally by boards all the time. They need to have a good handle on it all long before tryouts and it doesn't always turn out perfectly, but the fact is, normally, enough is known about tryouts long before they begin.

If you are saying that the "A" team and coaches are established prior to official tryouts, I agree. It's the B and C levels that become complicated.

[muckandgrind]

What happens if you hire a parent coach for the "A" team and his kid doesn't qualify for the "A" team based on the tryouts? Or, if you decide to wait until after the tryouts to hire a parent coach, what do you do if none of the parents are qualified, or even WANT to coach?

That stuff is handled internally by boards all the time. They need to have a good handle on it all long before tryouts and it doesn't always turn out perfectly, but the fact is, normally, enough is known about tryouts long before they begin.

I'm aware of that (I'm currently sitting on a board), but hiring a parent-coach for an "A" team always require a leap of faith that their player will make the team. Sometimes it's easy to predict, and sometimes (if the player is a "bubble" player) it's really difficult.

My opinion is that, all things considered equal, non-parent is the way to go. Will it remove all the politics? No, nothing will ever do that. But, I think it's the cleanest way of doing things....and, more and more, it seems that non-parent coaches at the "A" levels is becoming the preferred way among most associations. We were in a local tournament this year and while I was thumbing through the program with the rosters, I found it interesting that the head coach of every team was a non-parent....or at least if they had a kid on the team, that kid didn't share his last name.

Of course, the trick is finding the right coach....but, there are plenty of qualified candidates available (especially in the metro area), it just requires a bit of effort to find them, that's all.

[HSHOCKEYTIME]

Rosemount High School record over the years 2005-2009 was 50-56-2. In 2005, the hockey board made decisions to go to parent coaches at the peewee level.

Their first crop resulting from that decision finished last year with a 2-22 record. The Irish ranked 62 at the high school level according to one ranking service, ranked 89 according to another. Teams from Sauk Rapids, New Prague, Red Wing, and Hastings were ranked higher.

Does board level decisions and agendas other then what is good for the hockey program cause this?

The only thing missing from your facts are the facts. The team this year was coached by non-parent coach who now is a coach for the JV Team at apple valley h.s. They had a bad record at bantams 6 wins and a good 50 losses.

To be fair to that team they had mostly first year players and the 2 best players loew/anderson played on the H.S Team that was 1 game from going to the state tourney that year. Rosemount has always had a non-parent coach at bantam level and the seniors/juniors/sophmores that played on this team all had non-parent coaching. From Peewees to Bantams. So again I think your Stats are wrong. The only group that was run by the board is still yet to make it to high school that is the ninth grade group. This years team had 2 ninth graders play high school and 1 already jumped ship to play for eagan. The Bantam team this year is ranked like 56th so i don't think you can blame the H.S. head coach when it comes to the talent level he is working with. So I guess your attack on rosemount hockey is working. I know rosemount is weak in hockey and your big and tough apple valley eagles are the real deal. The High school team lost 4-3 to your eagles in the first game and the JV beat your eagles 6-3. H.S Team had a lot of injuries and other problems and next years team will be with out its top players leaving to play juniors. So yes next year looks 2-22 again. Leave Rosemount alone and worry about the Jeffersons, Burnsvilles teams we are no threat to your eagles.

[Dr. RosenRosen]

frederick61 wrote:
Rosemount High School record over the years 2005-2009 was 50-56-2. In 2005, the hockey board made decisions to go to parent coaches at the peewee level.

Their first crop resulting from that decision finished last year with a 2-22 record. The Irish ranked 62 at the high school level according to one ranking service, ranked 89 according to another. Teams from Sauk Rapids, New Prague, Red Wing, and Hastings were ranked higher.

Does board level decisions and agendas other then what is good for the hockey program cause this?

I am not involved with Rosemount Hockey and have no axe to grind. I thought with hockey boards being formed and planning beganing to start over the June/July time, it would be a good discussion. Rosemount is one example, there are others.

Frederick,

I normally really appreciate your posts, both here and with Lets Play Hockey. So I hate to impeach your credibility, however... What year was it again when your son wasn't hired back to Rosemount Hockey Association as a non-parent coach?

From what I have seen he is a very good hockey coach and I am not bringing that into question at all.

I do find it a bit disingenuous that you state that you have no involvement in Rosemount Hockey. I have always felt that your statewide Peewee work has been very impartial and accurate. I do think you are a bit close to this situation to be impartial. The mere fact that you are bringing this up after several years shows that you do have "an axe to grind".

[JSR]

What happens if you hire a parent coach for the "A" team and his kid doesn't qualify for the "A" team based on the tryouts? Or, if you decide to wait until after the tryouts to hire a parent coach, what do you do if none of the parents are qualified, or even WANT to coach?

That stuff is handled internally by boards all the time. They need to have a good handle on it all long before tryouts and it doesn't always turn out perfectly, but the fact is, normally, enough is known about tryouts long before they begin.

I'm aware of that (I'm currently sitting on a board), but hiring a parent-coach for an "A" team always require a leap of faith that their player will make the team. Sometimes it's easy to predict, and sometimes (if the player is a "bubble" player) it's really difficult.

My opinion is that, all things considered equal, non-parent is the way to go. Will it remove all the politics? No, nothing will ever do that. But, I think it's the cleanest way of doing things....and, more and more, it seems that non-parent coaches at the "A" levels is becoming the preferred way among most associations. We were in a local tournament this year and while I was thumbing through the program with the rosters, I found it interesting that the head coach of every team was a non-parent....or at least if they had a kid on the team, that kid didn't share his last name.

Of course, the trick is finding the right coach....but, there are plenty of qualified candidates available (especially in the metro area), it just requires a bit of effort to find them, that's all.

IF all things are equal AND the ability of the coaches are really equal then I agree, nonparent coaches would be ideal. But that isn't reality for alot of associations, especially ones not the the Minneapolis Metro area. Alot of associations have trouble finding barely qualified parent coaches let alone qualfied nonparent coaches willig to "volunteer" their time to coach kids that are not their own. You guys in the Minne-Metro area are lucky, you have that luxury, the rest of us do not have that luxury. So when we do have a really good qualified coach, whether he is a parent or not he should be hired on IMHO. Which brings me to the question you raised about the coaches son and if he's a "bubble" kid. For those of us that do not have a huge association and do not have the luxury of lots of nonparent coaches in the area, if the coach is legitimately a really good quality coach, if it means my kid can be coached by him but the price is that his bubble kid is on the team, then so be it, it's a price I am happy to pay. It's the same with spring/summer AAA hockey. If I want my kid to be able to be coached by "XYZ" coach, and i want that because the coach is known to be a really good coach who develops all the players, but part of the "price" is that that coaches kid will be on the team, then that is a very smal price to pay IMHO. Again I think peoples' feelings on this would be partially dictated by where they live, how big their association is and hwo deep the coaching talent pool is for your area.

[frederick61]

muchandgrind,

I am suggesting associations are starting to face a new challenge. Before the new high school rule took effect, the bantam level straightened out some of the ills a hockey board generated at the peewee level. With the new rule, today the more the hockey boards mess with their peewees the more harm they do to their programs at the high school level.

As a board member, I suspect that you try to deal fairly on all issues before the board not on a personal agenda. But some parents run for the board because they see that as opportunity push a personal agenda. Most of these parents are focused on the peewee program and after two years leave.

My point is to association members as their boards start their planning for next fall, understand the implications of their decisions and that decisions involving peewees can have dramatic impacts on the associations programs.

I am looking for someone to explain where I am wrong on this point.

[dueling21]

H.S Team had a lot of injuries and other problems and next years team will be with out its top players leaving to play juniors. So yes next year looks 2-22 again. Leave Rosemount alone and worry about the Jeffersons, Burnsvilles teams we are no threat to your eagles.

Which players are leaving Rosemount for juniors?