HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

BTW-great posts hockey is a choice. I enjoyed reading them.

You should write for Let's Play Hockey or something.

StayAtHomeD wrote:

observer wrote:If your player is a bubble one don't push for the higher team. Not only will they be short shifted in most instances but over the course of the year the player, and his parents, will hear various damaging comments from other parents and fans at the games. It can hurt the player and the family deeply.

My son was always a B2 or B1 player until his 2nd year of bantams when he made A. I think there was some hard feelings as some parents felt he took someone's spot. He was just a kid trying his best like everyone else but the fact that he didn't have the reputation of being an "A" player hurt him on that team.

For my wife and I it sucked. The parents were not friendly at all. When we went to tournaments they didn't invite us to the parties so we ended up eating alone and watching TV in our room. All the years in B2 and B1's we had such good friends and had so much fun but that last year was bad.

We didn't ask for it, they took him because they felt he could help them. My son started out having a lot of fun on the team. He was paired with the best player who was a defenseman on the team. They played really well together and through the first 7 games they allowed no goals and had 7 or 8 goals between them and the team went 7-0. My son was the kid who "stayed at home" (hence my screen name) and the other kid was a great offensive Dman, in fact he is one of the best Dmen now in the District. He always tells my son he loved it when they were partners.

Then the politics started. I think the parents that ran the team (and yes, one or two Dads did run that team) got involved and before you know it the entire line up was changed and my son was playing with different kids and losing ice time. Even though the team started to lose and after Christmas pretty much fell apart they never gave him that opportunity again, in fact the Dad who "ran" the team, he also gave the coach rides to tournaments, paid for his hotel room AND brought him coffee, his son played with this other kid.

It was more important that the right kids got the opportunities, not that the team won.

We wished all season we were on the B1, and I think my son did too even though he never admitted it.

Sounds familiar, My brother in law says New Prague is run by Parents too!!! Especially at the HS level, Money Talks.

when are rosters frozen?--I believe it is Dec. 31st--the coach should beable to move players up or down as needed. If there was an honest mistake, then the move should be made. Just as, if the coach realizes he choose a player that doesn't perform as expected, he should be able to move him down and move the B1 stud up before the rosters are frozen.

urban iceman wrote:

StayAtHomeD wrote:

observer wrote:If your player is a bubble one don't push for the higher team. Not only will they be short shifted in most instances but over the course of the year the player, and his parents, will hear various damaging comments from other parents and fans at the games. It can hurt the player and the family deeply.

My son was always a B2 or B1 player until his 2nd year of bantams when he made A. I think there was some hard feelings as some parents felt he took someone's spot. He was just a kid trying his best like everyone else but the fact that he didn't have the reputation of being an "A" player hurt him on that team.

For my wife and I it sucked. The parents were not friendly at all. When we went to tournaments they didn't invite us to the parties so we ended up eating alone and watching TV in our room. All the years in B2 and B1's we had such good friends and had so much fun but that last year was bad.

We didn't ask for it, they took him because they felt he could help them. My son started out having a lot of fun on the team. He was paired with the best player who was a defenseman on the team. They played really well together and through the first 7 games they allowed no goals and had 7 or 8 goals between them and the team went 7-0. My son was the kid who "stayed at home" (hence my screen name) and the other kid was a great offensive Dman, in fact he is one of the best Dmen now in the District. He always tells my son he loved it when they were partners.

Then the politics started. I think the parents that ran the team (and yes, one or two Dads did run that team) got involved and before you know it the entire line up was changed and my son was playing with different kids and losing ice time. Even though the team started to lose and after Christmas pretty much fell apart they never gave him that opportunity again, in fact the Dad who "ran" the team, he also gave the coach rides to tournaments, paid for his hotel room AND brought him coffee, his son played with this other kid.

It was more important that the right kids got the opportunities, not that the team won.

We wished all season we were on the B1, and I think my son did too even though he never admitted it.

Sounds familiar, My brother in law says New Prague is run by Parents too!!! Especially at the HS level, Money Talks.

That is the ugly side of Minnesota's winter association Hockey. Tryouts should be evaluated by evaluators from miles and miles away. 100% pure evaluations with no coaches pick. If my kid didn't make it I could be mad at some mystery people. Change the rule to 100% and it takes it all away.

MrBoDangles wrote:

urban iceman wrote:

StayAtHomeD wrote: My son was always a B2 or B1 player until his 2nd year of bantams when he made A. I think there was some hard feelings as some parents felt he took someone's spot. He was just a kid trying his best like everyone else but the fact that he didn't have the reputation of being an "A" player hurt him on that team.

For my wife and I it sucked. The parents were not friendly at all. When we went to tournaments they didn't invite us to the parties so we ended up eating alone and watching TV in our room. All the years in B2 and B1's we had such good friends and had so much fun but that last year was bad.

We didn't ask for it, they took him because they felt he could help them. My son started out having a lot of fun on the team. He was paired with the best player who was a defenseman on the team. They played really well together and through the first 7 games they allowed no goals and had 7 or 8 goals between them and the team went 7-0. My son was the kid who "stayed at home" (hence my screen name) and the other kid was a great offensive Dman, in fact he is one of the best Dmen now in the District. He always tells my son he loved it when they were partners.

Then the politics started. I think the parents that ran the team (and yes, one or two Dads did run that team) got involved and before you know it the entire line up was changed and my son was playing with different kids and losing ice time. Even though the team started to lose and after Christmas pretty much fell apart they never gave him that opportunity again, in fact the Dad who "ran" the team, he also gave the coach rides to tournaments, paid for his hotel room AND brought him coffee, his son played with this other kid.

It was more important that the right kids got the opportunities, not that the team won.

We wished all season we were on the B1, and I think my son did too even though he never admitted it.

Sounds familiar, My brother in law says New Prague is run by Parents too!!! Especially at the HS level, Money Talks.

That is the ugly side of Minnesota's winter association Hockey. Tryouts should be evaluated by evaluators from miles and miles away. 100% pure evaluations with no coaches pick. If my kid didn't make it I could be mad at some mystery people. Change the rule to 100% and it takes it all away.

MrBo...brace for impact...you just used the 100% outside evaluation suggestion and although I agree with your comments, you have just become the blip on the radar. This would move D10 light years ahead of their current district position, I wouldn't hold my breath.

observer wrote:If your player is a bubble one don't push for the higher team. Not only will they be short shifted in most instances but over the course of the year the player, and his parents, will hear various damaging comments from other parents and fans at the games. It can hurt the player and the family deeply.

good luck with that one

Kids are not chattel. Regardless of the December 31 roster deadline, moving kids up and down between teams after tryouts are completed should not be done unless there is an injury or kids make the high school team. Moving a kid from a B1 team to the A team after tryouts exposes that kid to ridicule from his peers. Moving a kid from A to B1 is a recipe for disaster. Youth hockey should be about the kids. Moving kids around like pieces on a chess board shouldn't be done because the coach is using the early season to extend tryouts. That's what the tryout process is for, not to allow a coach who has trouble making decisions to prolong or change the tryout process. Frankly, if a coach tells the Board or the tryout committee he or she cannot choose his or her team using the published tryout process, that coach should be demoted to a lower team. The coach is a diva and likely not the right person to coach an "A" level youth hockey team. Put simply, youth hockey should be about the kids. Let the kids play and let the kids have fun without treating them like marbles that you can trade.

I've read many, many times about outside evaluators. A friend and I were discussing this the other day and he pointed out what I've always felt, but couldn't verbalize as well.

So what, everything you've ever done up to that point means nothing?

Obviously players can develop at different rates, but some things go beyond observable skills. Are you a good teammate? Coachable? Can you handle adversity, or do you pack up the tent when the going gets tough?

Finally, outside observers may value different things than the one who ultimately coaches them. My first-year PW coach wanted me to stand everybody up at the blue line and hated it that I wasn't physical. As a second-year I was on the A team and my coach didn't care if I ever knocked anyone over as long as I didn't get beat one-on-one. (My dad would have cut me in favor of a bigger player.)

When there are a group of kids around the same overall ability, even outside evaluators can escape the fact that some kids make it and some don't.

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:

urban iceman wrote:Sounds familiar, My brother in law says New Prague is run by Parents too!!! Especially at the HS level, Money Talks.

That is the ugly side of Minnesota's winter association Hockey. Tryouts should be evaluated by evaluators from miles and miles away. 100% pure evaluations with no coaches pick. If my kid didn't make it I could be mad at some mystery people. Change the rule to 100% and it takes it all away.

MrBo...brace for impact...you just used the 100% outside evaluation suggestion and although I agree with your comments, you have just become the blip on the radar. This would move D10 light years ahead of their current district position, I wouldn't hold my breath.

O-townClown wrote:I've read many, many times about outside evaluators. A friend and I were discussing this the other day and he pointed out what I've always felt, but couldn't verbalize as well.

So what, everything you've ever done up to that point means nothing?

Obviously players can develop at different rates, but some things go beyond observable skills. Are you a good teammate? Coachable? Can you handle adversity, or do you pack up the tent when the going gets tough?

Finally, outside observers may value different things than the one who ultimately coaches them. My first-year PW coach wanted me to stand everybody up at the blue line and hated it that I wasn't physical. As a second-year I was on the A team and my coach didn't care if I ever knocked anyone over as long as I didn't get beat one-on-one. (My dad would have cut me in favor of a bigger player.)

When there are a group of kids around the same overall ability, even outside evaluators can escape the fact that some kids make it and some don't.

Are you a good teammate? Coachable? Is your dad bringing the beer and cards? Can you handle adversity?

O-townClown wrote:I've read many, many times about outside evaluators. A friend and I were discussing this the other day and he pointed out what I've always felt, but couldn't verbalize as well.

So what, everything you've ever done up to that point means nothing?Obviously players can develop at different rates, but some things go beyond observable skills. Are you a good teammate? Coachable? Can you handle adversity, or do you pack up the tent when the going gets tough?

Finally, outside observers may value different things than the one who ultimately coaches them. My first-year PW coach wanted me to stand everybody up at the blue line and hated it that I wasn't physical. As a second-year I was on the A team and my coach didn't care if I ever knocked anyone over as long as I didn't get beat one-on-one. (My dad would have cut me in favor of a bigger player.)

When there are a group of kids around the same overall ability, even outside evaluators can escape the fact that some kids make it and some don't.

Can someone define the meaning of a tryout that many are paying a fee to have performed on their potential player? Obviously this was missed in Lakeville and I'm starting to wonder if everyone has a predetermined list that gets adjusted last minute at the expense of children and families. I'm not seeing the baggage so many would like to place on parents as much as poorly organized tryouts and outcome from within. My ADM model is not helping me here....

You say it SHOULD be about the kids-- But, all I read on this site is how little Billy got screwed out of the "A" team. Is it only about the kids until they don't make the "A" team? Then it becomes how the great injustices are being put on to someones kid. If it was just about the kids, would we have all the different levels of play? If the goal is to put the very best team together, win your district and move on to state, then sometimes moves might have to be done. The evaluation process is not perfect--as we hear over & over again. Lets call a spade a spade. I don't necessarily agree with it, but lets pull our head out of the sand. If the parents from the mega-powers (edina, wayzata, ER, Centennial, E.P. etc..) are saying it's about the kids, that's because their kid is on the "A" team. The parents whose kids aren't "A" caliber aren't saying it SHOULD be about the kids, they are saying it IS about the kids.

Wow, Am I glad youth hockey is behind me. My sons played in this association and I've watched a good number of goofy things happen along the way. After the split Lakeville allowed one peewee a team to carry just one goalie and 13 skaters while the other had two and 15 skaters, regardless of who has been in charge strange things have happened yearly.
Clearly there are differing opinions related to the current fiasco, my own experience tells me that the bubble kid should have stayed at b1. I had a son in this same position and he came up a little short during the tryout. Between his tears and my wifes anger it was very tempting to contest the results and embarass myself and my family. Without question the best thing I did was tell junior to pick up the pieces and get back to work. He was a go to guy on the b team, learned to be a leader and gained a ton of confidence. He went on to play a couple years of varsity and even got elected captain as a senior. 3 of the first year kids who made it in front of him never played a game of varsity hockey.
I guess it sometimes comes down to who wants it more, the kid or the parent. As someone stated earlier, I think bantams is about the right time to start teaching some of the tough lessons. Causing trouble at the high school level is usually very harmful to the player.

Great posts from many different angles. Although I know it's a pipe dream, I wish one, just one, person would read these and similar posts and see themselves in it and feel some degree of shame or maybe at least a twinge of remorse - just something. I'm not asking for two people, just one. I don't have a solution for the rampant politics, but know that it gets worse as the kids progress into HS, college, and life. Wish that some of these kids didn't have to learn the hard way at such a young age, when a small handful of parents screw things up for them. Yeah, it's about the kids and unfortunately a few of them get screwed each year, sometimes unintentionally, but sometimes not. How the parents and kids react can be either detrimental or character-building.

Been through 10 years of tryouts as a board member. No matter how hard you try to design a system, it is never right.

I have listened to many sob stories, seen kids cry, even saw a dad cry.

One thing is ALWAYS true. Kid acts like his parent. Uptight parent = uptight kid.

Pick your battles, this ain't one of em.

I think there are some exceptions where at least the question should be asked so board members and tryout personnel at least know that someone is watching and they can't operate with complete impunity. We had an example where a player was top 5 in all offensive categories as a 1st year A, but made the B team second year. The first years are a weaker group and there was no way 10 kids leap-frogged this player over the summer. It wasn't my kid, but a very tough pill to swallow for this player and their family. The parent was an advocate for their player and at least asked the question, "what the heck happened"? Didn't get the answer they wanted, but they had to at least ask. They didn't push it beyond that, but certainly could have based on the circumstances.

sinbin wrote:I think there are some exceptions where at least the question should be asked so board members and tryout personnel at least know that someone is watching and they can't operate with complete impunity. We had an example where a player was top 5 in all offensive categories as a 1st year A, but made the B team second year. The first years are a weaker group and there was no way 10 kids leap-frogged this player over the summer. It wasn't my kid, but a very tough pill to swallow for this player and their family. The parent was an advocate for their player and at least asked the question, "what the heck happened"? Didn't get the answer they wanted, but they had to at least ask. They didn't push it beyond that, but certainly could have based on the circumstances.

He must've just had a bad tryout. I've seen this situation happen on many occassions....which is why I like to see non-parent coaches at the "A" level and let them have a say in choosing a couple of players. That way a good 2nd year player who happens to have a bad tryout doesn't get overlooked. IMO, it's just common sense.

The objective is to get the best players on the A team.....and they aren't always the kids who score the best during a tryout.

O-townClown wrote:I've read many, many times about outside evaluators. A friend and I were discussing this the other day and he pointed out what I've always felt, but couldn't verbalize as well.

So what, everything you've ever done up to that point means nothing?

Obviously players can develop at different rates, but some things go beyond observable skills. Are you a good teammate? Coachable? Can you handle adversity, or do you pack up the tent when the going gets tough?

Finally, outside observers may value different things than the one who ultimately coaches them. My first-year PW coach wanted me to stand everybody up at the blue line and hated it that I wasn't physical. As a second-year I was on the A team and my coach didn't care if I ever knocked anyone over as long as I didn't get beat one-on-one. (My dad would have cut me in favor of a bigger player.)

When there are a group of kids around the same overall ability, even outside evaluators can escape the fact that some kids make it and some don't.

I have always felt coaches need to be involved in the tryout process, let the outside evaluators get the pool and let the coach pick his team. I grew up with coaches picking the teams and were there times when one kid should have maybe made it over another kid, of course. But these situations were between bubble players and that comes down to personal preference or it may come down to old buddy network, but at least the players are close in ability. With outside evaluators picking the whole team, you can and will end up with kids at the wrong levels much more easily. I hear every year at my association about kids who have no business being on a team making it and not from the parents involved. If it is clear to non-parents in the association that kids are making teams they don't belong on every year, how can having only outside evaluators be the best way to do try-outs?

hocmom wrote:Been through 10 years of tryouts as a board member. No matter how hard you try to design a system, it is never right.

I have listened to many sob stories, seen kids cry, even saw a dad cry.

One thing is ALWAYS true. Kid acts like his parent. Uptight parent = uptight kid.

Pick your battles, this ain't one of em.

These are the type of posts that perpetuate a distrust of board members and the system. 'Been through 10 years of tryouts and, as a board-member-parent I've never had any issues. Be a good parent, and, if one thing is obvious, it's that to be considered a good parent, you shouldn't battle with the board.'

hocmom wrote:Been through 10 years of tryouts as a board member. No matter how hard you try to design a system, it is never right.

I have listened to many sob stories, seen kids cry, even saw a dad cry.

One thing is ALWAYS true. Kid acts like his parent. Uptight parent = uptight kid.

Pick your battles, this ain't one of em.

Lakeville....can't erase my post now. After 10 years of community service towards your association there could only be one outcome...either your association erected a bronze statue of you in front of the hockey rink or you got the boot. Making a grown man cry...shameful

There are, of course, at least a handful of kids who don't try out well, for whatever reason. Also, there are kids who try out great, but don't follow through during the season. And, there are kids who work hard in practice, slowly but surely improving, great attitudes, help make the team better, great +/-, etc. And there are the head cases. Even the most skilled evaluators can't and don't account for these qualities in 3 - 5 hours or evaluating 100 skaters. Agree with Ogelthorpe that I've witnessed some very, very strange results, and not involving my kid. The success (or lack thereof) of those teams during the season often tells the story of the quality of evaluators' rankings. By then, it's too late.

So, yes, I think that coaches should have some input because the evaluators cannot rate these qualities, either positive and negative. I don't know the best way to accomplish this because there's potential for bias and politicking there as well. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be all or nothing (outside vs. inside). There are other data points that could be utilized by associations to make this process more holistic, more equitable, and ultimately more enjoyable and rewarding for a greater percentage of the kids. While there are many good and presumably, some great, systems in place, I think every board doesn't feel that they've created the ultimate tryout process. If so, every association would be utilizing it. I think the majority of boards are constantly striving to improve their tryout processes.

sinbin wrote: While there are many good and presumably, some great, systems in place, I think every board doesn't feel that they've created the ultimate tryout process. If so, every association would be utilizing it. I think the majority of boards are constantly striving to improve their tryout processes.

I'm afraid many of the boards are like hocmom - they don't strive for any improvement in the process, only ways to justify their way.

sinbin wrote:There are, of course, at least a handful of kids who don't try out well, for whatever reason. Also, there are kids who try out great, but don't follow through during the season. And, there are kids who work hard in practice, slowly but surely improving, great attitudes, help make the team better, great +/-, etc. And there are the head cases. Even the most skilled evaluators can't and don't account for these qualities in 3 - 5 hours or evaluating 100 skaters. Agree with Ogelthorpe that I've witnessed some very, very strange results, and not involving my kid. The success (or lack thereof) of those teams during the season often tells the story of the quality of evaluators' rankings. By then, it's too late.

So, yes, I think that coaches should have some input because the evaluators cannot rate these qualities, either positive and negative. I don't know the best way to accomplish this because there's potential for bias and politicking there as well. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be all or nothing (outside vs. inside). There are other data points that could be utilized by associations to make this process more holistic, more equitable, and ultimately more enjoyable and rewarding for a greater percentage of the kids. While there are many good and presumably, some great, systems in place, I think every board doesn't feel that they've created the ultimate tryout process. If so, every association would be utilizing it. I think the majority of boards are constantly striving to improve their tryout processes.

I agree with this. Why do some kids tryout so good and then tail off during the season? Do you think it's a self confidence thing?

I like the idea of independent evaluators setting the skill pools and then the coaches picking the teams. No system is perfect but I think this makes the most sense while being as fair as possible.

Why do some kids tryout so good and then tail off during the season? Do you think it's a self confidence thing?

Two reasons. The shift is usually exactly one minute. The players are accustomed to this and work well within this constraint.

The coaches haven't become as my son calls it "enamored" with someones son or bribed or paid off.

It's amazing we beat the Soviets in 1980 Olympics with 30 second shifts at the end of the game. This past weekend we watched and timed shifts anywhere from 13 seconds to one line that was out 2:45 seconds.
It is amazing how long the shifts can be on some teams and nothing really gets accomplished by the long shifted lines. Yet they still go out

Wow, hocmom, your post frightened me. Basically, if I understand your thinking, correctly, it's your way or the highway.

The reality is the best associations in Minnesota are constantly being challenged by parents to do a better job. I don't live in Edina, Wayzata, or Eden Prairie, but those communities are filled with professionals and executives who have type A personalities. Some of those folks are not shy about demanding a better mouse trap, nor are they shy about questioning questionable practices. They are smart, no-nonsense business people who run or advise large, successful organizations. Their expectations are high and as long as they are willing to provide their expertise to improve the association, they have every right to promote change.



Our society is built on citizens' rights to speak up and challenge officials' actions. While the majority of officials are honest and tirelessly work toward the common good, corruption exists in our society--at all levels. People distrust hockey boards and tryout committees when they don't follow their advertised tryout process and then take the position that parents should suck it up and not express their concerns about a tainted process. The reality is that most complaints surrounding tryouts are meritless, but legitimate challenges do exist and should be brought to the attention of the association board.

Board members and tryout committees need to know that if an association fails to follow its published tryout process to the letter, parents will step forward and object. If an association deviates from its published process during tryouts, the association has invited folks to legitimately criticize--and, in some cases, challenge--the process. By charging an extra fee for tryouts and then furnishing parents with a tryout procedure document, the association has bound itself ethically and legally to adhere to the advertised process.



I agree that how parents react to the situation will be a life lesson for their children. On the one hand, as parents we want our children to learn to deal with adversity and understand that sometimes bad things happen to good people and sometimes it is better to turn the other cheek and move on. On the other hand, we want our children to be assertive and not allow others to take advantage of them. The fact is we send mixed messages to our kids and hope that they will learn when to speak up and object and when to shake their head and quietly make lemonade out of lemons. It's a judgment call. Sometimes we teach our children, through our own actions, to exercise good judgment and sometimes we fail them (and ourselves).

Perhaps the best way to choose teams is to let the kids choose the teams. It's their sport and they certainly can't do any worse than adults.