New season within association tryouts...placement Xpectation

[BadgerBob82]

Coaching at the PWA and Bantam A levels can pose a huge problem regardless if parent/non-parent. A level parents are usually the problem.

The A level is more about winning. Everytime I hear complaints about a coach, it's always emphasized with, "this is A level hockey". So B and C level hockey shouldn't shorten the bench to 8-10 players to win, but A teams should?

My experience with non-parent coaches are they are generally younger than the parents on the team. They often aren't married. Show up to practices on the final lap of the zamboni and leave the rink through the back door to avoid talking with parents. Are all like that? No, but some are and a knowledgable dedicated parent coach beats that every time.

[Shinbone_News]

Again I was trying to stay on subject of this post. Tryouts and placement. So I apologize for not making myself clear. Maybe this will make it easier for you.

Does having a parent coach affect the tryout and placement process when the coach and his staff have input on who makes the team?

I'm looking for thoughts and opinions, not arguing pro or con.

Our association intends that there will always be non-parent coaches for the A and B1 teams (who are, incidentally, paid. Parent coaches are explicitly NOT paid), and also no parents are allowed to participate as evaluators at their player's level. I think there are different tryout procedures in different associations, I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations. It's a big metropolitan area. It should be super easy for, say, St. Louis Park to call someone up from Rosemount to come over and rank kids they've never seen play before for $25 or so.

A very good parent coach with a track record? Fine in some cases, in our association's view, if there are no other options at A or B1.

This year, as we go into tryouts, there's an interesting dynamic at work: Lots of parent coaches with last year's B2 or C kids who will likely make A or B1 this year. (Big turnover year, few returning As and B1s). We're likely to have 6 or eight assistant coaches at A and B1, and none at B2 and C. Should be very interesting. In the past, bubble players with dads who coach were sometimes asked to "take one for the team" and fall off the bubble so that B2s had enough coaches. (For the record, I think bubble players playing down is generally a good thing, and can be great for development for kids who need more confidence.)

[observer]

I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations.

Kinda disagree with this part. Anyone can pick the first 10 players but picking the last 5-6 is difficult. Outside evaluators make mistakes in this area. Beyond some coaches preferring big and strong over quick and skilled there are other factors. The association I'm involved with has the coaches do some end of season player evaluations ranking players, keeping track of scoring, goalie stats, etc. Those player evaluations are useful when breaking the bubble the following year. A player generally doesn't go from 5th ranked player to 22nd or from 22nd to 5th. Those annual player evaluations are also used when answering parent concerns regarding their player's placement. Beyond player on-ice evaluations we also look at attendance, attitude, and parental support. These are often things that an outside evaluator, assigned to select the final 5 players, has no knowledge of yet are very important factors. So, in my opinion, the last 3-4-5 spots should be selected by an internal coach committee. Someone that is familiar with the players, past performance, and their evaluations.

[C-dad]

I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations.

Kinda disagree with this part. Anyone can pick the first 10 players but picking the last 5-6 is difficult. Outside evaluators make mistakes in this area. Beyond some coaches preferring big and strong over quick and skilled there are other factors. The association I'm involved with has the coaches do some end of season player evaluations ranking players, keeping track of scoring, goalie stats, etc. Those player evaluations are useful when breaking the bubble the following year. A player generally doesn't go from 5th ranked player to 22nd or from 22nd to 5th. Those annual player evaluations are also used when answering parent concerns regarding their player's placement. Beyond player on-ice evaluations we also look at attendance, attitude, and parental support. These are often things that an outside evaluator, assigned to select the final 5 players, has no knowledge of yet are very important factors. So, in my opinion, the last 3-4-5 spots should be selected by an internal coach committee. Someone that is familiar with the players, past performance, and their evaluations.

Besides, the outside evaluators won't know which parents are buddies with the board members and hence whose kid should break the bubble.

My current complaint with the Edina tryout process is they had time scheduled to run 5 tryout groups (in PW and B) and decided the numbers were down enough to only run 4. The bottom group, 4, has 42 kids in it for the bantams. Not much time on ice to show much when there are that many out there at a time. Also the spread in the bottom group will include such a wide range of skill that I'd think it'll make evaluation difficult.

[JSR]

Talking about parent coach vs non parent is a another subject for a new posting. But, I'd be happy to add my two cents. I like many many others have experienced both but, unlike you I did have a bad experience with a parent coach. You evidently haven't experienced that. In my experience, the 3 parent coaches kids played 1st line, PP, and PK. Granted these kids were good but, not the top 3 kids on the team. They were somewhere between 5-10, and not just in my opinion. This caused a lot of problems not only on the team but, for the association too. So, granted, you are correct (and I agree) in principle, having a parent coach at the PWA level can cause huge problems. If the guy can meet your 3 criteria, that's great but, that doesn't mean it will be a good situation.

Actually based on your experience the coach you portrayed did not meet my three criteria. If a coach truly meets all three criteria then if the situation turns out not to be good it is likely not the coaches fault. Ie. in your situation that coach did not meet criteria #3 if he was putting his own son above the team.

[observer]

Besides, the outside evaluators won't know which parents are buddies with the boardmembers and hence whose kid should break the bubble.

I know you're partially kidding but I just don't find that to be true. Being the weakest player on an A or B1 team is awful. The season is so long there's just no hiding in this sport. It's on display game after game. Board members, and any parents frankly, should be careful attempting to move their player off the bubble cuz it will bite you hard.

Most experienced parents on this bored state that being a top player on the lower level team is a much better experience for all involved and will assist the player being the horse on B1 or B2 as opposed to getting short shifted and yelled at from the stands on the higher level team.

Another interesting dynamic is peoples opinion on who should have made it instead. This often proves to be incorrect come March 1st. November 1st you might think it should be one player but by March 1st it's often an entirely different player that proves to be the best player on the lower level team.

I'll add, because this is an issue families deal with, kids will be split up. It happens every year. Carpools and sleepovers changed forever. Making new friends, players and parents, is a good thing.

[JSR]

I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations.

Kinda disagree with this part. Anyone can pick the first 10 players but picking the last 5-6 is difficult. Outside evaluators make mistakes in this area. Beyond some coaches preferring big and strong over quick and skilled there are other factors. The association I'm involved with has the coaches do some end of season player evaluations ranking players, keeping track of scoring, goalie stats, etc. Those player evaluations are useful when breaking the bubble the following year. A player generally doesn't go from 5th ranked player to 22nd or from 22nd to 5th. Those annual player evaluations are also used when answering parent concerns regarding their player's placement. Beyond player on-ice evaluations we also look at attendance, attitude, and parental support. These are often things that an outside evaluator, assigned to select the final 5 players, has no knowledge of yet are very important factors. So, in my opinion, the last 3-4-5 spots should be selected by an internal coach committee. Someone that is familiar with the players, past performance, and their evaluations.

I agree with this post totally. I am actually a nonparent paid evaluator for soccer in our area. My playing, coaching and reffing background in the sport is such that I am pretty wel respected by the boards, coaches and parents when it comes to soccer evaluations. The BEST evaluation processes allow the paid evaluators like me to watch the tryouts unbiased and to make my own notes over the course of the tryouts. The coaches of the teams also evaluate the tryouts as well. Then, we do our best to rank the players. The final stage is we come together with the coaches of the teams and we discuss our rankings with the coach as he also has his own rankings. As someone else mentioned the tops kids are easily identified and our evaluations and the coaches evaluations are almost always identical for the top kids but once you get beyond that is where you stat having differences of opinion. What is helpful to both sides is discussing it, hashing it out and coming to an agreed upon ranking for that player that both coach and evaluator can live with. So many times we don't get to see everything a player can do in a tryout process that a coach can and does see over the course of a season, then again many times we open the coaches eyes to somethings that he did not recognize before in some players. Also, sometimes some top kids get sick unexpectedly at tryout time, they come, they aren't able to perform due to illness and we paid evaluators have no way of knwoing that they are actually the best returning player when in our eyes they looked like a bubble kid cuz they had the flu. So IMHO the best way to do it is to have a mix of unbiased paid evaluators along with coaches familiar with the players history.

[C-dad]

Besides, the outside evaluators won't know which parents are buddies with the boardmembers and hence whose kid should break the bubble.

I know you're partially kidding but I just don't find that to be true. Being the weakest player on an A or B1 team is awful. The season is so long there's just no hiding in this sport. It's on display game after game. Board members, and any parents frankly, should be careful attempting to move their player off the bubble cuz it will bite you hard.

Most experienced parents on this bored state that being a top player on the lower level team is a much better experience for all involved and will assist the player being the horse on B1 or B2 as opposed to getting short shifted and yelled at from the stands on the higher level team.

Another interesting dynamic is peoples opinion on who should have made it instead. This often proves to be incorrect come March 1st. November 1st you might think it should be one player but by March 1st it's often an entirely different player that proves to be the best player on the lower level team.

I'll add, because this is an issue families deal with, kids will be split up. It happens every year. Carpools and sleepovers changed forever. Making new friends, players and parents, is a good thing.[/quote]

I don't claim that it's smart, or turns out well, but there have certainly been selections to A and B1 team where everyone in the association says "well we know who influenced that choice" and it's as true in March as it was in November.

[C-dad]

Besides, the outside evaluators won't know which parents are buddies with the boardmembers and hence whose kid should break the bubble.

I know you're partially kidding but I just don't find that to be true. Being the weakest player on an A or B1 team is awful. The season is so long there's just no hiding in this sport. It's on display game after game. Board members, and any parents frankly, should be careful attempting to move their player off the bubble cuz it will bite you hard.

Most experienced parents on this bored state that being a top player on the lower level team is a much better experience for all involved and will assist the player being the horse on B1 or B2 as opposed to getting short shifted and yelled at from the stands on the higher level team.

Another interesting dynamic is peoples opinion on who should have made it instead. This often proves to be incorrect come March 1st. November 1st you might think it should be one player but by March 1st it's often an entirely different player that proves to be the best player on the lower level team.

I'll add, because this is an issue families deal with, kids will be split up. It happens every year. Carpools and sleepovers changed forever. Making new friends, players and parents, is a good thing.

I don't claim it's smart, or turns out well, but I think most of us have seen it happen where everyone in the association says "well, we know who influenced that choice." And it's as true in March as it was in November.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations.

Kinda disagree with this part. Anyone can pick the first 10 players but picking the last 5-6 is difficult. Outside evaluators make mistakes in this area. Beyond some coaches preferring big and strong over quick and skilled there are other factors. The association I'm involved with has the coaches do some end of season player evaluations ranking players, keeping track of scoring, goalie stats, etc. Those player evaluations are useful when breaking the bubble the following year. A player generally doesn't go from 5th ranked player to 22nd or from 22nd to 5th. Those annual player evaluations are also used when answering parent concerns regarding their player's placement. Beyond player on-ice evaluations we also look at attendance, attitude, and parental support. These are often things that an outside evaluator, assigned to select the final 5 players, has no knowledge of yet are very important factors. So, in my opinion, the last 3-4-5 spots should be selected by an internal coach committee. Someone that is familiar with the players, past performance, and their evaluations.

So are you saying that an individual youth player has little or no chance at getting a look/chance on the numbering system within your association if he or she is a #22 rank? Who updates progress towards skill advancement on a yearly basis...sounds like the status quo is applied every year. I would say that the 1-2-3 spots are easy and all represent interpretation after that. You are correct from history that recruitment is the number one objective moving forward.

[InigoMontoya]

Besides, the outside evaluators won't know which parents are buddies with the boardmembers and hence whose kid should break the bubble.

I know you're partially kidding but I just don't find that to be true. Being the weakest player on an A or B1 team is awful. The season is so long there's just no hiding in this sport. It's on display game after game. Board members, and any parents frankly, should be careful attempting to move their player off the bubble cuz it will bite you hard.

I completely agree. In the most egregious cases, it borders on abuse. The B kids stick around to watch the A game to laugh at the kid. Parents from other age groups come to games because they don't believe the kid can be as bad as they've heard. Other A parents don't even find the energy to yell, they just give each other knowing looks and shake their heads. And yet it happens again and again, year after year.

[JSR]

I personally think A and B1 level tryouts should always be outside, paid, objective evaluators. Final team selection up to the coach, but with few reasons to depart from evaluations.

Kinda disagree with this part. Anyone can pick the first 10 players but picking the last 5-6 is difficult. Outside evaluators make mistakes in this area. Beyond some coaches preferring big and strong over quick and skilled there are other factors. The association I'm involved with has the coaches do some end of season player evaluations ranking players, keeping track of scoring, goalie stats, etc. Those player evaluations are useful when breaking the bubble the following year. A player generally doesn't go from 5th ranked player to 22nd or from 22nd to 5th. Those annual player evaluations are also used when answering parent concerns regarding their player's placement. Beyond player on-ice evaluations we also look at attendance, attitude, and parental support. These are often things that an outside evaluator, assigned to select the final 5 players, has no knowledge of yet are very important factors. So, in my opinion, the last 3-4-5 spots should be selected by an internal coach committee. Someone that is familiar with the players, past performance, and their evaluations.

So are you saying that an individual youth player has little or no chance at getting a look/chance on the numbering system within your association if he or she is a #22 rank? Who updates progress towards skill advancement on a yearly basis...sounds like the status quo is applied every year. I would say that the 1-2-3 spots are easy and all represent interpretation after that. You are correct from history that recruitment is the number one objective moving forward.

I disagree with your assumption that numbers 1-2-3 are easy and it's interpretation after that. It completely depends on the group being evaluated. I've evaluated groups where 1 thru 9 were easy and then it was this weird huge drop off and it got hard after that. I've evaluated where #1 was easy and that was it. I've done groups where 1 & 2 were easily 1 & 2 and then there was a drop off but there was a group of 8 kids that were easily identifiable as being better than the rest within that "grouping so in essence 1 thru 10 were easy but then it got tough after that. So to just blanketly say 1-2-3 are easy then it's interpretation is completely false. Every group is different. The top kids are easily identifiable whether there are 3 of them or more or less, certain groupings of kids can be easily idinetifiable but it really is almost always the bubble kids, whether there are 2 of them or 6 of them, that are the hardest to place and someone will always be peaved.

[2112]

JSR please remember you live in Wisconsin and you base your knowlegde from wisconsin players. Minnesota is different, i would say picking out the top 5 players is usually a no brainer when evaluting A tryouts.

[icehornet]

JSR please remember you live in Wisconsin and you base your knowlegde from wisconsin players. Minnesota is different, i would say picking out the top 5 players is usually a no brainer when evaluting A tryouts.

Actually I think his post is spot on. It doesn't matter what sport you're talking about either, for the most part.

[2112]

Nice 1st post icehornet, really JSR.

[JSR]

JSR please remember you live in Wisconsin and you base your knowlegde from wisconsin players. Minnesota is different, i would say picking out the top 5 players is usually a no brainer when evaluting A tryouts.

I have neither the time nor the want to create false identies 2112. ...

That said, being from Wisconsin has NOTHING to do with tryouts and evaluations and how each group is compeltely different and how easy or hard it can be to decide on players is not a WI or a MN thing. That is beyond ignorant. The fact you'd even post that shows yor ignorance about how evaluations work. The FACT is some groups more kids than others stick out, again the idea that the top 1 or 2 or 5 are easy every time is beyond proposterous. I don't think it should take a rocket scientist to figure that what I know from experience actually is something that should be common sense, though you are fom MN though I guess

[2112]

As usual you are the smartest guy in the room and you let everyone know that, you are the dancing monkey. Thanks for the entertainment.

[icehornet]

Nice 1st post icehornet, really JSR.

I've read this board for awhile, registered in July and haven't paid much attn to it until the last couple weeks again. Your post is so far off with the "we're in MN comment" I had to reply. Nice assumption though.

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: I'm not sure what 2112 was trying to say? I 100% agree with you though. I have been an evaluator for A-B hockey levels and baseball. Each group is different. Doesn't matter which sport. Some groups are very easy to evaluate and others are a muddy mess that is near impossible. Evaluations are snapshot in time. On those 3-5 sessions, who do we think is best suited for that level team. 1-2-3-4 months later could be totally different.

Others have spoken about biased evaluators. My personal bias (related to ranking "bubble players") when a bubble player is wearing their AAA hockey socks/jerseys/helmets, my general theory is that player is as good as they will get. Meaning they have skated so much since last March, they are not rusty and are at the top of their game. So if they are on the bubble with kids that might look rusty or maybe show signs of football feet, I will score the AAA player lower. I have been correct on most over the years as they plateau and the rusty football players advance further come November/December.

[JSR]

As usual you are the smartest guy in the room and you let everyone know that, you are the dancing monkey. Thanks for the entertainment.

Keep digging that hole. I see it's gaining you alot of support thus far.

[InigoMontoya]

My personal bias (related to ranking "bubble players") when a bubble player is wearing their AAA hockey socks/jerseys/helmets, my general theory is that player is as good as they will get. Meaning they have skated so much since last March, they are not rusty and are at the top of their game. So if they are on the bubble with kids that might look rusty or maybe show signs of football feet, I will score the AAA player lower.

We should see if maybe this is one of those MN v WI differences. We keep hearing of all these kids that spend the summers makin' pies with Aunt Bea and fishin' with Pa. Let's pick peewees as an age group and lets set the boundaries within a radius of 40 minutes outside of the 494-694 loop - as the A teams are picked, let's toss out the make up of the team - # that skated during the summer and # that didn't.

[Shinbone_News]

Others have spoken about biased evaluators. My personal bias (related to ranking "bubble players") when a bubble player is wearing their AAA hockey socks/jerseys/helmets, my general theory is that player is as good as they will get. Meaning they have skated so much since last March, they are not rusty and are at the top of their game. So if they are on the bubble with kids that might look rusty or maybe show signs of football feet, I will score the AAA player lower. I have been correct on most over the years as they plateau and the rusty football players advance further come November/December.

Ha, that's funny.For tryouts, I'll be sure to have the kid wear jeans over his shin pads and a park/rec sweater.

I am skeptical about how "correct" this bias has been over the years. Unwinding your logic, it is: kids who play AAA summer hockey don't develop during the winter like multi-sport kids do. But for bubble players of both types, I guess I'll buy it.

[BadgerBob82]

Shinbone: I think you unwound the logic. But to clarify. If you have two kids that are equally on the bubble and say it is coming down to these two for the final ranked spot. If it appears to me one is "rusty" and the other is decked out in AAA uniform. I make the assumption rusty player has an upside.

Obviously, most AAA kids are the best kid on the team so are never in a bubble situation in the first place.

[the_juiceman]

Shinbone: I think you unwound the logic. But to clarify. If you have two kids that are equally on the bubble and say it is coming down to these two for the final ranked spot. If it appears to me one is "rusty" and the other is decked out in AAA uniform. I make the assumption rusty player has an upside.

Obviously, most AAA kids are the best kid on the team so are never in a bubble situation in the first place.

not all "AAA" teams are equal....

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Shinbone: I think you unwound the logic. But to clarify. If you have two kids that are equally on the bubble and say it is coming down to these two for the final ranked spot. If it appears to me one is "rusty" and the other is decked out in AAA uniform. I make the assumption rusty player has an upside.

Obviously, most AAA kids are the best kid on the team so are never in a bubble situation in the first place.

I'll make the assumption that many affiliate WI posters might always be in a bubble situation....