Board Member Tryout Boost

[barry_mcconnell]

Board members volunteer dozens or even hundreds of their hours for their association. In exchange they might receive a hat and free coffee if they're lucky.

Everyone assumes that board member kids have an advantage come tryout time. There is snickering and complaining when a board member bubble kid makes a team.

What if we just made it transparent? Board member kids get a 5 player boost for tryouts. If the skater was #17 after tryouts you just bump him straight to #12. If the parent has multiple skaters you could split the boost across players (+2.5 and +2.5).

The advantage to this is that its open, no more hushed snickering. It would also get a lot more people running for the board.

What is the number of boost spots that seems fair? 2? 5? 10?

[O-townClown]

An interesting concept. But doesn't the boost happen when the kids are sorted? An inherent bias in evaluating. Or maybe a reverse-boost happens because people are harder on that kid.

[JSR]

An interesting concept. But doesn't the boost happen when the kids are sorted? An inherent bias in evaluating. Or maybe a reverse-boost happens because people are harder on that kid.

I may be the rare "maverick" but I do alot of evaluations for both hockey and soccer and it has never even entered my mind to give a kid a boost or take away from a kid based on who or what their parent does. I evaluate them based on their performance nothing else... granted I know that the otherside does happen and I have seen that as well and it leads ot some behind the scenes bickering amongst the evaluators even...

[barry_mcconnell]

Exactly, the players should be evaluated with complete subjectivity and stack ranked. At that time the board member kids should be shifted up as a reward for all their hard work.

This method would be much more open and transparent. In the end it should cut down on the amount of bickering and grumbling. If non-board member parents don't think it is fair then they should run for the board.

I think 5 spots is probably a fair shift for 100 hours of volunteer work.

[JSR]

Exactly, the players should be evaluated with complete subjectivity and stack ranked. At that time the board member kids should be shifted up as a reward for all their hard work.

This method would be much more open and transparent. In the end it should cut down on the amount of bickering and grumbling. If non-board member parents don't think it is fair then they should run for the board.

I think 5 spots is probably a fair shift for 100 hours of volunteer work.

This method sounds nic eon paper and all but what about parents who try hard to get on boards and don't get elected.... in fact I know some really good people who would be very fair and objective who want to help on the board and the board has gone out of their way to bring in "their people" to keep these folks off the board because if they got elected they wouldn't be able to run things "their way".... a kid deserves no "reward" for what their parents do or do not do, if you run for a board position purely to benefit your child then please may I suggest you leave that position and allow someone with love for the GAME to take your place... I would never want me kid to make a team that way and it's beyond disturbing to think that some people think that way

[blueblood]

This article needs to go in the sports Apocolypse section of Sports Illustrated...

[dlow]

So you want your kid on a team he doesn't belong, skill wise, and everyone will know it. I'm sure that little guy will have a fun year.

If you volunteer for the board its volunteer, you shouldn't expect or want favors for your kid. Anybody who would want this type of arrangement does not have the best interest of the whole association in mind, which is what the purpose of the board is...

[jg2112]

Board members volunteer dozens or even hundreds of their hours for their association. In exchange they might receive a hat and free coffee if they're lucky.

Everyone assumes that board member kids have an advantage come tryout time. There is snickering and complaining when a board member bubble kid makes a team.

What if we just made it transparent? Board member kids get a 5 player boost for tryouts. If the skater was #17 after tryouts you just bump him straight to #12. If the parent has multiple skaters you could split the boost across players (+2.5 and +2.5).

The advantage to this is that its open, no more hushed snickering. It would also get a lot more people running for the board.

What is the number of boost spots that seems fair? 2? 5? 10?

In some circumstances, that Board member also ends up coaching the team in question, with his sons/daughters going through tryouts. In my daughter's former association, the coach must take the top 12, then can take 3 of the next 8 for his team. Do you have any doubt whether his children will make the squad?

[SWPrez]

So you want your kid on a team he doesn't belong, skill wise, and everyone will know it. I'm sure that little guy will have a fun year.

If you volunteer for the board its volunteer, you shouldn't expect or want favors for your kid. Anybody who would want this type of arrangement does not have the best interest of the whole association in mind, which is what the purpose of the board is...

Exactly Dlow. I always preached to new board members that they are on the board to move the organization forward, not to bring their pet complaints (i.e. they don't like a coach and being on the board is a way to get rid of him), and they should have no expectations of favoritism at tryouts because it won't happen.

My kid on a couple of occasions was the odd man out and made the lower team. Made him a better player with more ice time, and a better understanding that only he can effect where he gets placed. At one point in time, every member of our board had a kid who was the bubble kid, and ended up on the lower team. They all had great seasons and developed.

Board members give hundreds, even thousands of hours. Their reward is a big thank you and maybe a once every few years dinner. Politics of child placement probably happens somewhere, but I think it is more conspiracy theorists within organizations pushing something that isn't there than anything else.

[InigoMontoya]

Politics of child placement probably happens somewhere, but I think it is more conspiracy theorists within organizations pushing something that isn't there than anything else.

I think most of us cynics long to have been able to hold onto our idealism and coweyed naivety.

[barry_mcconnell]

In so many cases there isn't that much difference between the final group of the bubble kids.

But maybe 5 spots is too much of a bump? So let's say that 2 kids are tied in the rankings for the last spot on one of the teams. Is anyone going to argue that the board member kid isn't going to get that spot? I'm just saying we should be more open with what is going on. There is no need to apologize or feel bad your kid got that spot because of all the hours you volunteered. We should just put it in the handbook.

[luckyEPDad]

What a beautifully constructed ironic thread. I was about to chime in "Don't you mean objectively instead of subjectively evaluated?" when I realized the joke. Nice work.

[O-townClown]

I may be the rare "maverick" but I do alot of evaluations for both hockey and soccer and it has never even entered my mind to give a kid a boost or take away from a kid based on who or what their parent does.

I never meant to imply it enters anyone's mind. I think it just happens. Because people are aware of who a kid is they get watched more closely.