Parent vs Non Parent coaches

[HockeyDad41]

I wish there was a way for associations to figure out a way to get rid of parent coaches and go to non-parent coaches besides the obvious jacking up of fees.

In my experience, there are very few dad coaches who understand, let alone have the ability to develop youth hockey players. Me included. The only reason I would even consider coaching is the cool "coach" jacket you get to wear to the rink.

[SWPrez]

Hockeydad,

Parent coach/non-parent coach needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Many things come into play for the parent coach:

1) Do they have a history of coaching only to further their kid? Or do they have a history of developing all of the kids and separating themselves from their kid.

2) What is their hockey experience? A D1, D3, or even a high school hockey dad can develop kids as well as any outside coach.

3) Do you find it more beneficial to have a bad outside coach in the name of making sure a good parent coach can't coach? Too many associations hold tight to a "no parent coach" mode only to set their kids up for a miserable year with "any non-parent coach off the street". (As someone who hears complaints, I have had parents complain all year long about a weak coach (bad discipline, bad practice plans, bad example, etc.) when we could have had a good and qualified parent coach).

As far as commitment goes, parent coaches typically can be counted on.

Parent coaches should be treated like outside coaches. What is their background, what are their philosophies, do they have a history of developing teams, how have past reviews treated them? If they are good....why would you pass on a valuable and vested individual?

[hockeyover40]

SW Prez, Who and how are coaches chosen in SW?

[SWPrez]

SW Prez, Who and how are coaches chosen in SW?

Depends...

Girls Coaches - Girls committee interviews and hires.

Boys - Bantams/Peewees are co-oped with Saint Louis Park. A joint hockey committee meets between SLP and Minneapolis and interviews coaches. Where we have holes (not enough outside applicants, typically for B2 or C spots) we look at what quality parent coaches we have in the pipeline. We have their history and can plug them in where their kids end up if necessary. We definitely lean towards outside coaches if we can.

Squirts are solo w/out SLP. Our Minneapolis squirt committee will take inquiries from outside parties and interview. They just began meeting last week. Like above, they will also review upcoming parent coaches to ensure that they are apolitical (meaning they will coach all of the kids...not just promote and play their little guy), sane, and a good fit if we need them.

The original poster brought up how do you get rid of parent coaches without jacking fees. It's not easy as virtually all associations can attest. Good coaches generally can be found for your Bantam and Peewee A and B1 teams. It becomes much, much more difficult to find outside coaches at the B2 and C levels....as well as at many of the Squirt levels. I, on many occasions, have had to be the interim coach for teams until a head coach can be found because there were no qualified parents. Stipends offered pretty much cover gas money for the coaching staff --- they are in it for the love of the game and to make an impact on kids' lives. Maybe you could fill all of your teams with outside coaches if you offered EACH coach $5 - 7K salary (instead of a gas money stipend) for their hundreds of hours of work over the course of the season ---- that would be an extra thousand plus per player to go down that path. Not many parents prepared to pay that.

[High Off The Glass]

I wish there was a way for associations to figure out a way to get rid of parent coaches and go to non-parent coaches besides the obvious jacking up of fees.

In my experience, there are very few dad coaches who understand, let alone have the ability to develop youth hockey players. Me included. The only reason I would even consider coaching is the cool "coach" jacket you get to wear to the rink.

Why call out associations? Parents pay a premium to play on MM teams and still 3/4 of the coaches are dads. Even Bernie finds it tough to shell out money to non-parent coaches, I quess it cuts into his bottom line.

[ilike2score]

I will take a non paid volunteer parent coach over a paid non parent coach every time with the only exception being that if the parent coaches kid is a Bubble player.

[HockeyDad41]

I wish there was a way for associations to figure out a way to get rid of parent coaches and go to non-parent coaches besides the obvious jacking up of fees.

In my experience, there are very few dad coaches who understand, let alone have the ability to develop youth hockey players. Me included. The only reason I would even consider coaching is the cool "coach" jacket you get to wear to the rink.

Why call out associations? Parents pay a premium to play on MM teams and still 3/4 of the coaches are dads. Even Bernie finds it tough to shell out money to non-parent coaches, I quess it cuts into his bottom line.

Oh HOTG, I never get tired of helping you understand.

Funny that you should mention paying a premium though. I was just looking at the estimated cost for association hockey for one local association and was quite surprised at what I found.

To make a comparison I used the Squirt B1 team estimates. You can see them for yourself here: http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/D ... /20184.pdf

A squirt B1 at Blaine will receive an estimated 70 hours of ice and 3 tournaments which is maybe another 15 hours of ice I guess. Say 90 hours total in case I missed something. So 90 hours a bunch of games and 3 tournaments. All for $1650.00. Plus the $40.00 USA Hockey registration. I suppose that you'll have to stay somewhere for that out of town tournament too. Another $300 for that weekend. So you're getting about 90 hours for about $2,000.00.

Choice Squirts is also about $2000.00

Each team will have about 145 hours of indoor ice over the course of the season. Skating approximately 4 times a week, and possibly 5 some weeks.

Practices:
Teams will have 55 alone practices and 12 shared practices, ranging in time from 1hr 20 min. to 1hr 30 minutes.

Games:
Teams will play 36 games which includes, 2 league tournaments.

So I think if anyone is paying a premium, it's the association kid. The Choice league dad's are very different in one regard from their association counterparts, they all follow a practice plan that was developed by MM.

[High Off The Glass]

I wish there was a way for associations to figure out a way to get rid of parent coaches and go to non-parent coaches besides the obvious jacking up of fees.

In my experience, there are very few dad coaches who understand, let alone have the ability to develop youth hockey players. Me included. The only reason I would even consider coaching is the cool "coach" jacket you get to wear to the rink.

Why call out associations? Parents pay a premium to play on MM teams and still 3/4 of the coaches are dads. Even Bernie finds it tough to shell out money to non-parent coaches, I quess it cuts into his bottom line.

Oh HOTG, I never get tired of helping you understand.

Funny that you should mention paying a premium though. I was just looking at the estimated cost for association hockey for one local association and was quite surprised at what I found.

To make a comparison I used the Squirt B1 team estimates. You can see them for yourself here: http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/D ... /20184.pdf

A squirt B1 at Blaine will receive an estimated 70 hours of ice and 3 tournaments which is maybe another 15 hours of ice I guess. Say 90 hours total in case I missed something. So 90 hours a bunch of games and 3 tournaments. All for $1650.00. Plus the $40.00 USA Hockey registration. I suppose that you'll have to stay somewhere for that out of town tournament too. Another $300 for that weekend. So you're getting about 90 hours for about $2,000.00.

Choice Squirts is also about $2000.00

Each team will have about 145 hours of indoor ice over the course of the season. Skating approximately 4 times a week, and possibly 5 some weeks.

Practices:
Teams will have 55 alone practices and 12 shared practices, ranging in time from 1hr 20 min. to 1hr 30 minutes.

Games:
Teams will play 36 games which includes, 2 league tournaments.

So I think if anyone is paying a premium, it's the association kid. The

Choice league dad's are very different in one regard from their association counterparts, they all follow a practice plan that was developed by MM.

Practice plan made by Bernie? Your original point being that the problem with association hockey is dad or parent coaching, right? So why is it not a problem over at the Made when 100% of your choice league coaches are parents and 75%-90% of your Machine teams are parent coaches? Oh, right it's those great practice plans made by Bernie that everyone must follow...you got me, your right, that's the big difference here Remember, I don't care who comes up with the practice plan, it's the coach who translates it to the ice and communicates it to the kids and I guess a parent coach from MM must be better than a association parent coach based mainly on the fact their kids skate at MM.

[HockeyDad41]

Why call out associations? Parents pay a premium to play on MM teams and still 3/4 of the coaches are dads. Even Bernie finds it tough to shell out money to non-parent coaches, I quess it cuts into his bottom line.

Oh HOTG, I never get tired of helping you understand.

Funny that you should mention paying a premium though. I was just looking at the estimated cost for association hockey for one local association and was quite surprised at what I found.

To make a comparison I used the Squirt B1 team estimates. You can see them for yourself here: http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/D ... /20184.pdf

A squirt B1 at Blaine will receive an estimated 70 hours of ice and 3 tournaments which is maybe another 15 hours of ice I guess. Say 90 hours total in case I missed something. So 90 hours a bunch of games and 3 tournaments. All for $1650.00. Plus the $40.00 USA Hockey registration. I suppose that you'll have to stay somewhere for that out of town tournament too. Another $300 for that weekend. So you're getting about 90 hours for about $2,000.00.

Choice Squirts is also about $2000.00

Each team will have about 145 hours of indoor ice over the course of the season. Skating approximately 4 times a week, and possibly 5 some weeks.

Practices:
Teams will have 55 alone practices and 12 shared practices, ranging in time from 1hr 20 min. to 1hr 30 minutes.

Games:
Teams will play 36 games which includes, 2 league tournaments.

So I think if anyone is paying a premium, it's the association kid. The

Choice league dad's are very different in one regard from their association counterparts, they all follow a practice plan that was developed by MM.

Practice plan made by Bernie? Your original point being that the problem with association hockey is dad or parent coaching, right? So why is it not a problem over at the Made when 100% of your choice league coaches are parents and 75%-90% of your Machine teams are parent coaches? Oh, right it's those great practice plans made by Bernie that everyone must follow...you got me, your right, that's the big difference here Remember, I don't care who comes up with the practice plan, it's the coach who translates it to the ice and communicates it to the kids and I guess a parent coach from MM must be better than a association parent coach based mainly on the fact their kids skate at MM.

I never get tired of setting you straight HOTG.

Based on that statement I highlighted, I am going to assume you have never seen a Choice practice. If you had you would realize that in fact that each of the coaches over there is trained on how to run the MM practice plan. They may not be smarter than your average association hockey dad, but the uniform plan and training gives them an advantage over the chaos coaching that occurs in my association. You also have your facts wrong about the coaches being 100% parents. I love when you just make stuff up. Is that like the final defense of the uninformed? Just make it up and see who will believe it? I'm still waiting to see the curtains come out during the practices.

I think any association that provides a well thought out training plan that leads the coach and helps them achieve the goal of developmental progression with the kids is a positive thing. It's the association that has 15 in-house teams with 15 different coaches all going in different directions when it comes to training the kids that is the problem. With the proper training plan and leadership, I think they can get away with parent coaches, but in the absence of a plan at least get rid of the dad coaches and get a qualified hockey guy in there.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

This is a great topic.

Even the best of the best parent-coaches cannot help but have a bias towards their own kid. I've seen it from all angles and done it myself.

My kids have played on teams where the coaches kid(s) are the best on the team and they always get the most ice time. They may run 2 centers among 8-10 forwards with the coaches kid(s) being the two centermen or they may revert to 3 or 4 defensemen if the coaches kid(s) are defencemen.

My kids have played on teams where the coaches kids are worst players on the team. Invariably, the pre-season speach de-emphasizes winning and put the emphasis on equal ice. On these teams the coaches kid(s) play evenly and usually alongside one of the best players on the team, forward or defence.

When the coaches kid is a forward, defensemen are told to stay back, make a good first pass and hold the line.

When the coaches kid is a defenceman there is a lot more tolerance for the d-men rushing the puck.

Currenly one of my kids plays on a team where all of the coaches kids are defencemen. (my kids a forward). Not suprisingly, our powerplay configuration features 3 or even 4 defencemen on the first unit.

When I coached my kid he was our starting center, however, everyone else who coaches my kid puts him on wing. I think he's a centerman - but I'm the only one.

When it comes to your kids hockey team, we often see things differently, many times through our kid-colored glasses. Chances are that everyone has an opinion, but neccesity dictates that only one person has the final say, and that person is the volunteer coach that runs the team. You might not agree with him, but you need to respect his right to make those decisions and support him on them.

When your parent-coaches are also volunteers you have to take the bad with the good. It takes an enormous commitment to run a team for a season. Making practice plans, scheduling, budgets, travel arrangements, making yourself available, dealing with parents and the players. It's rewarding in the end, but not always fun. He/she *deserves* to make those decisions. He/she has *earned* that right through the sheer commitment they have undertaken.

I can always tell what kind of a team we are going to have by the coaches who pick the team and the caliber of their kids (who, btw, are ALWAYS guaranteed a spot no matter what they say at try-outs).

If the coaches kid is one of the best, you know you will end up with some disgruntled parents who complain that he gets too much ice, all the power plays etc.

If the coaches kid is one of the worst, you know you will end up with some disgruntled parents who complain that the team is not competitive enough. What's *he* doing on the power play?

The only sure thing (like death and taxes) is that you *will* end up with some disgruntled parents. Almost without exception. That's just part of youth hockey.

It really doesn't matter if the kid of your parent-coach is the worst player on the team or the best player on the team - it gets frustrating early and then you learn to deal with it. It's one of those - "it is what it is" things.

And in the end, it's really not a bad thing. Your son will play for many different coaches and learn many different styles of hockey, leadership and sportsmanship. It's all good. No reason to sound the alram and rush out and pay for a non-parent coach. Just learn the lessons that are being offered and take it all in stride.

[High Off The Glass]

Oh HOTG, I never get tired of helping you understand.

Funny that you should mention paying a premium though. I was just looking at the estimated cost for association hockey for one local association and was quite surprised at what I found.

To make a comparison I used the Squirt B1 team estimates. You can see them for yourself here: http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/D ... /20184.pdf

A squirt B1 at Blaine will receive an estimated 70 hours of ice and 3 tournaments which is maybe another 15 hours of ice I guess. Say 90 hours total in case I missed something. So 90 hours a bunch of games and 3 tournaments. All for $1650.00. Plus the $40.00 USA Hockey registration. I suppose that you'll have to stay somewhere for that out of town tournament too. Another $300 for that weekend. So you're getting about 90 hours for about $2,000.00.

Choice Squirts is also about $2000.00

Each team will have about 145 hours of indoor ice over the course of the season. Skating approximately 4 times a week, and possibly 5 some weeks.

Practices:
Teams will have 55 alone practices and 12 shared practices, ranging in time from 1hr 20 min. to 1hr 30 minutes.

Games:
Teams will play 36 games which includes, 2 league tournaments.

So I think if anyone is paying a premium, it's the association kid. The

Practice plan made by Bernie? Your original point being that the problem with association hockey is dad or parent coaching, right? So why is it not a problem over at the Made when 100% of your choice league coaches are parents and 75%-90% of your Machine teams are parent coaches? Oh, right it's those great practice plans made by Bernie that everyone must follow...you got me, your right, that's the big difference here Remember, I don't care who comes up with the practice plan, it's the coach who translates it to the ice and communicates it to the kids and I guess a parent coach from MM must be better than a association parent coach based mainly on the fact their kids skate at MM.

I never get tired of setting you straight HOTG.

Based on that statement I highlighted, I am going to assume you have never seen a Choice practice.

Wrong, my kid played in Choice for two years.

If you had you would realize that in fact that each of the coaches over there is trained on how to run the MM practice plan.

Wrong, I coached in Choice for two years and I was giving a practice plan full of line drills with no further instruction.

They may not be smarter than your average association hockey dad, but the uniform plan and training gives them an advantage over the chaos coaching that occurs in my association.

You also have your facts wrong about the coaches being 100% parents.

Wrong, in Choice it's 100% parent coaches with a non-parent goalie coach that's brought in once a month


I love when you just make stuff up. Is that like the final defense of the uninformed? Just make it up and see who will believe it?

I'm still waiting to see the curtains come out during the practices

.


Curtains are for Machine practices only, not Choice. Ask around MM and look above the windows outside the rinks, the brackets are still there.

I think any association that provides a well thought out training plan that leads the coach and helps them achieve the goal of developmental progression with the kids is a positive thing. It's the association that has 15 in-house teams with 15 different coaches all going in different directions when it comes to training the kids that is the problem. With the proper training plan and leadership, I think they can get away with parent coaches, but in the absence of a plan at least get rid of the dad coaches and get a qualified hockey guy in there.

[Puck Whisperer]

HockeyDad 41,

To shorten the quote responses - I just snipped out a point you made:

"It's the association that has 15 in-house teams with 15 different coaches all going in different directions when it comes to training the kids that is the problem."

If this is your association - I don't blame you for being a promoter for MM. I am dying to know though - how far do you drive one way to Edina?

[seek & destroy]

This is a great topic.

Even the best of the best parent-coaches cannot help but have a bias towards their own kid. I've seen it from all angles and done it myself.

My kids have played on teams where the coaches kid(s) are the best on the team and they always get the most ice time. They may run 2 centers among 8-10 forwards with the coaches kid(s) being the two centermen or they may revert to 3 or 4 defensemen if the coaches kid(s) are defencemen.

My kids have played on teams where the coaches kids are worst players on the team. Invariably, the pre-season speach de-emphasizes winning and put the emphasis on equal ice. On these teams the coaches kid(s) play evenly and usually alongside one of the best players on the team, forward or defence.

When the coaches kid is a forward, defensemen are told to stay back, make a good first pass and hold the line.

When the coaches kid is a defenceman there is a lot more tolerance for the d-men rushing the puck.

Currenly one of my kids plays on a team where all of the coaches kids are defencemen. (my kids a forward). Not suprisingly, our powerplay configuration features 3 or even 4 defencemen on the first unit.

When I coached my kid he was our starting center, however, everyone else who coaches my kid puts him on wing. I think he's a centerman - but I'm the only one.

When it comes to your kids hockey team, we often see things differently, many times through our kid-colored glasses. Chances are that everyone has an opinion, but neccesity dictates that only one person has the final say, and that person is the volunteer coach that runs the team. You might not agree with him, but you need to respect his right to make those decisions and support him on them.

When your parent-coaches are also volunteers you have to take the bad with the good. It takes an enormous commitment to run a team for a season. Making practice plans, scheduling, budgets, travel arrangements, making yourself available, dealing with parents and the players. It's rewarding in the end, but not always fun. He/she *deserves* to make those decisions. He/she has *earned* that right through the sheer commitment they have undertaken.

I can always tell what kind of a team we are going to have by the coaches who pick the team and the caliber of their kids (who, btw, are ALWAYS guaranteed a spot no matter what they say at try-outs).

If the coaches kid is one of the best, you know you will end up with some disgruntled parents who complain that he gets too much ice, all the power plays etc.

If the coaches kid is one of the worst, you know you will end up with some disgruntled parents who complain that the team is not competitive enough. What's *he* doing on the power play?

The only sure thing (like death and taxes) is that you *will* end up with some disgruntled parents. Almost without exception. That's just part of youth hockey.

It really doesn't matter if the kid of your parent-coach is the worst player on the team or the best player on the team - it gets frustrating early and then you learn to deal with it. It's one of those - "it is what it is" things.

And in the end, it's really not a bad thing. Your son will play for many different coaches and learn many different styles of hockey, leadership and sportsmanship. It's all good. No reason to sound the alram and rush out and pay for a non-parent coach. Just learn the lessons that are being offered and take it all in stride.

One of the best and most honest & direct posts on this site in a long time!!

Parent coaches are not the ideal and everything should be done to try to get well qualified non-parent coaches especially at the A and B1 levels. That even includes the well qualified parent coaches. If they really 'love the game' and want to coach, they will consider coaching a different team then the one their kid is on (ie if there kid is a PWA then coach the PWB1 team). Most association ice coordinators can try to accomodate them so they can still be at their kids games.

However, being a non-parent does not necessarily make you a good coach. My son's worst experience in hockey was with a non-parent coach brought into the association at the 'A' level who was horrible at running practices and coaching the bench during a game (and my son played a lot so it wasn't because of that). The coach did not give the effort and time to the team and merely went through the motions in order to be a part of hockey. They had a horrible season and it is the only time that my son hated going to practice. Thankfully, the coach was removed and the new coach (also a non-parent) was fantastic.

The point is, whenever possible it is nice to have a non-parent coach if their good. But I would rather have a parent coach with good teaching methods who will take the time for the team then a non-parent who doesn't care.

HD41 is also correct that it is important for their to be an 'ultimate plan' whether it is MM or an association. It sounds like Bernie gives that to his coaches and that is great. Many associations have plans set by their H.S. coach or Bantam A coach with the idea being that everyone learns similar things at different levels. More often then not, the people that do not follow this teaching method are the B2 or C dad who thinks their kid was screwed off the A or B1 team. They build the team around their kid and don't care what the master plan of the association is. I've watched some of these dads at work and it is embarassing some of the things that they will try to get away with.

When it is all said and done, ANY volunteer is great to have and it takes a lot of people to make it work. Our job as parents is to try and get our kids to do their best, respect their coach (at least during the season), try to improve and have fun! Sometimes a 'bad' coaching experience is a great chance to teach that lesson.

[HockeyDad41]

HockeyDad 41,

To shorten the quote responses - I just snipped out a point you made:

"It's the association that has 15 in-house teams with 15 different coaches all going in different directions when it comes to training the kids that is the problem."

If this is your association - I don't blame you for being a promoter for MM. I am dying to know though - how far do you drive one way to Edina?

I live in a van out behind the rink.

[observer]

Or, on a cot inside the rink.

[skills_coach1]

You know, this is a great topic for discussion..

I have been both a non-parent coach before I had a son, and a parent coach after he was old enough. I plan to be a non parent coach after he gets to HS in a couple years.

IT can be very challenging on both ends of the spectrum. I have found that if I make it a point to NOT directly coach my son it makes a much better relationship for me, the parents and my son. I count on a coaching team and have always tried to instill that nobody on the coaching staff should be directly coaching their own kids.. So we do a swap more or less to avoid the perception and the pitfalls of trying to coach your own kid. This has worked pretty well for me. Whether this works in all cases, I can't say.

Been a good program so far....

[CoachMan]

I think a case can be made for both non parent and parent head coaches. I have been both a non parent and parent head coach and I think it all comes down to how you treat the team. My child knows that when we get to the rink I talk to him as his coach, not his father. I am no harder on him than others nor do I favour him. I do know what he is capable of more than any one so sometimes I may seem harder. I treat my child like any other player on the bench. When it comes to my hockey team, I treat them all like they are "my" kids. One thing I have noticed lately is that parent coaches seem to take the team more seriously than non parent coaches....obviously because they have a vested interst in the team. I think that you can find great coaches both ways! It just may take a tries.

[ilike2score]

The association my kid plays in has the unwritten rule that Parent coaches are not encouraged at the PeeWee and Bantam Levels. So anytime a non parent applies at these levels they are automatically given the job. In recent years this has been a mistake.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Wayne Gretzky exploded onto the National scene in Canada as 2nd year Atom hockey player (Atom=Squirt) , scoring 378 goals in 85 games ... a record the NHL claims still stands today

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=384579

(though I'd say it's impossible for them to know that - my own son scored 371 in 81 games at the same age and is no Wayne Gretzky. I suspect that record has been shattered once or twice).

Anyways, Gretzky was on TV, in the papers, on the radio ... he was a national sensation. Interestingly enough, many of the parents who's kids played on Gretzky's team were not as enamored with him as the rest of the country. They accused him of being a puck-hog and they accused his uncle-coach of giving Gretzky preferential treatment, including a staggering 40 minutes (out of 45) of ice time per game.

Gretzky's uncle was questioned about this by the national media and his reply was quite interesting - his response ...

"Wayne is a wonderful little hockey player, Hockin said. "He ends up being more of a team player than most people realize.

"I know that some say he's played too often, but every time he's out there he's a threat because he controls the game.

"With Wayne being so dangerous and in possession of the puck quite often, he is in a position to shoot himself or set up his teammates. This is good for team morale - the others know he's giving 150 per cent so they try to give 115 per cent."

Wayne's father would later accuse the locals of "jeolousy" and cites that as one of the reasons they sent Wayne to Toronto to pursue his hockey career.

Point is, what some people see as preferential parent-coaching (in this case uncle-coaching), others might see as beneficial to the team, particulary the coach making the decisions. I don't know of a single parent-coach who BELIEVES they are coaching with a bias, but objective (and subjective) observers may see things differently.

For the record, my kid only played 30 minutes a game, so he's got some bragging rights on Wayne, that he tallied 371 goals in about 75% of the actual time that it took the Great One ... well, he'll need something to hang his hat on ... might as well be that.

[crw]

Wayne Gretzky exploded onto the National scene in Canada as 2nd year Atom hockey player (Atom=Squirt) , scoring 378 goals in 85 games ... a record the NHL claims still stands today

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=384579

(though I'd say it's impossible for them to know that - my own son scored 371 in 81 games at the same age and is no Wayne Gretzky. I suspect that record has been shattered once or twice).

Anyways, Gretzky was on TV, in the papers, on the radio ... he was a national sensation. Interestingly enough, many of the parents who's kids played on Gretzky's team were not as enamored with him as the rest of the country. They accused him of being a puck-hog and they accused his uncle-coach of giving Gretzky preferential treatment, including a staggering 40 minutes (out of 45) of ice time per game.

Gretzky's uncle was questioned about this by the national media and his reply was quite interesting - his response ...

"Wayne is a wonderful little hockey player, Hockin said. "He ends up being more of a team player than most people realize.

"I know that some say he's played too often, but every time he's out there he's a threat because he controls the game.

"With Wayne being so dangerous and in possession of the puck quite often, he is in a position to shoot himself or set up his teammates. This is good for team morale - the others know he's giving 150 per cent so they try to give 115 per cent."

Wayne's father would later accuse the locals of "jeolousy" and cites that as one of the reasons they sent Wayne to Toronto to pursue his hockey career.

Point is, what some people see as preferential parent-coaching (in this case uncle-coaching), others might see as beneficial to the team, particulary the coach making the decisions. I don't know of a single parent-coach who BELIEVES they are coaching with a bias, but objective (and subjective) observers may see things differently.

For the record, my kid only played 30 minutes a game, so he's got some bragging rights on Wayne, that he tallied 371 goals in about 75% of the actual time that it took the Great One ... well, he'll need something to hang his hat on ... might as well be that.

r u talking about coaches or your kid???

[HockeyDad41]

If you think about it, association hockey developmental progression should not be unlike the academic progression from elementary to middle to high school. By that I mean that to advance to the next grade, certain things need to be mastered.

When a kid reaches squirts, there is an expectation that certain skills will have been introduced and a certain amount of proficiency should have been achieved. I am sure when kids show up for their Pee Wee season the coach will have certain expectations regarding their development too.

This is not happening at a lot of associations. Kids are showing up for squirts with questionable if not downright poor skating skills.

As a first year parent in the association it didn't take me long to figure out what was (or more precisely) what was not happening. The second year we had a dad coach who really understood that developing skating skills was what our 7-8 year olds needed. He proceded to work on nothing but skating for the season. The team lost almost every game that year, but the kids on that team were better skaters at the end of it. A lot of parents thought it was a poor season. I don't believe that coach was asked back the next season.

When associations figure out that mite development is the FOUNDATION of a successful program, then I think a major step will have been taken. Currently it feels like associations treat mite hockey like it is more of an unavoidable annoyance. Shoving well meaning but wholly unqualified dads in these critical positions just exacerbates an already untenable situation.

[MN_Hcky_Coach]

I think everyone is getting closer to the biggest answer to the original question posted. Whether you are choosing a parent or a non-parent coach, the decision should come down to experience, both coaching and being coached. Also, the overall focus of the association should be on development of players from mites through bantams and my experience has shown that experienced coaches (parents or non parents) understand this progression and try to focus the season's plan in the right direction.

The worst situation that an association can get into is picking a coach that has a motive other than the development of the team, whether it be adding wins to their career totals or getting their kid on a team or more ice time. This is why many believe that non parent coaches are the only way, because it takes out the most obvious motive and conflict that a coach can have.

Personally, a few of my friends and myself do not want to coach our kids. It is great for them to get another perspective on the game and if they want to talk about hockey, they'll get all the explanation they need at home.

In a perfect world, every association's high school coach would layout a master plan for player development in the associaton, from mites through bantams. This plan would mirror USA Hockey's ADM and each season the association coaches would put a plan together to emphasize the progression laid out for their respective level. This is not far from what MM and other private groups are doing and its what some associations, Moorhead for one, have had success with in the past, producing players that have progressed to D1, D3, Juniors and professional hockey.