HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I think you guys are defining "cuts" differently.

Spinner, cut means you didn't make a team. What other definition is there?

I was thinking of you and your daughter. Responsible Sports has podcasts so I downloaded all of the hockey ones. Leetch, Housley, Jerry York, Neely. Anyway, be sure to listen to the Jenny Potter one. (Formerly Jenny Schmigdahl.)

1. Absolutely. It is imperative that kids be placed at the level that is appropriate. In fact, it is a core tenet of the ADM which advocates 1/3-1/3-1/3 at that age.

One of the teams in our state has a boy on their Pee Wee team that turned 8 this week. so yes, they took him at age 7. It is widely agreed that this was a really bad idea and assumed that only two people were okay with this - the hockey director and the parent. Now, from your post above, I have learned that there are three people.

I'll repeat: cut him. This isn't good for the kid and it isn't good for the team.

You've lost me now, if a kid is cut that means he has NOWHERE to skate. Placing him on a team of kids his own ability is not cutting him, big difference. You said cut, cut means not playing at all.

2. SMALL associations...oh, you mean like where my son has played for 5 seasons. Hard to imagine any smaller. If someone doesn't offer anything in-house they are most certainly traveling for low level games that are similar. In which case you aren't cutting from those teams, so the point is moot.

Again not necessarily, depends on where you are in the country. You make blanket statements that don't apply everywhere.

3. Where we live we don't have associations that own rinks. It is the other way around where the rink has a hockey association as an extension of its business. Either way, doesn't matter. Kids that aren't making top teams are generally as good for the rink's business. (The Hockey Director where I play says they are better.)

You last sentence structure doesn't make enough sense to even guess what you meant here and I mean that seriously not sarcastically. As for the first part, just because you don;t have assocations that don't own rinsk doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it's actually pretty prevalent up here. Technically a different corp is set up for the rink but in essence the association is usually responsible for thethe majority of financials in how the rink operates in those scenarios so they want as many BODIES as possible paying ddues, doing volunteer work and fundraising. Period. So you could have just said you were "wrong" about this point.

4. Well, you lose that bet. What do I win? My son as a Squirt wants to have fun like any other kid. I guess he's in the minority, because his request is to play on a line and play on a team with others that are as interested in the game as he is. Last year he didn't have fun, a product of negative coaching and being introduced to the position of babysitter. If anything that has made me more sensitive to the fact that some kids aren't "just happy to be there".

No comment, but sufficed to say I think this sounds liek your interpretation.....

I'll repeat: don't cut kids at your own peril. Hockey, like other sports, has an established structure for youth with many levels of play at all ages. Because it does, I'm surprised we're having this discussion.

You do not appear to understand what the meaning of the word "cut" is

I know what cut means. And it most certainly doesn't mean a kid has no place to play. Ask any kid on the A team if they are playing AA and they'll say they got cut. In Minnesota, ask the C kid if he's playing A or B and he'll say he got cut.

What does it mean?

Ask the coach that runs tryouts what he did to pare back from 20 kids to the 12 he wants. "Well, I didn't cut them!" What did he do? Ask them - politely - to play elsewhere.

Cuts solve a lot of issues. When you don't cut kids it can cause a lingering problem.

O-townClown wrote:I know what cut means. And it most certainly doesn't mean a kid has no place to play. Ask any kid on the A team if they are playing AA and they'll say they got cut. In Minnesota, ask the C kid if he's playing A or B and he'll say he got cut.

What does it mean?

Ask the coach that runs tryouts what he did to pare back from 20 kids to the 12 he wants. "Well, I didn't cut them!" What did he do? Ask them - politely - to play elsewhere.

Cuts solve a lot of issues. When you don't cut kids it can cause a lingering problem.

Ask a kid on the A team that isn't playing o the AA team and he most certainly willl not say he got cut. He'll say he didn't make the AA team and is playing for the A team this season. Ask a kid who tried out for an association team and was told he wouldn't be able to play for any team and he'll say he got cut. HUGE difference... and for many if they are 'cut" from an association they do not have a chance to play elsewhere

JSR wrote: Ask a kid who tried out for an association team and was told he wouldn't be able to play for any team and he'll say he got cut. HUGE difference... and for many if they are 'cut" from an association they do not have a chance to play elsewhere

Where does this happen?

The Administrator's Code of Conduct for USA Hockey says, "Make every possible attempt to provide everyone, at all skill levels, with a place to play." Even when girls hit age 14 they can find non-check rec programs.

Name one kid that's ever been cut from the lowest level of play. It doesn't happen here and shouldn't happen anywhere.

O-townClown wrote:

JSR wrote: Ask a kid who tried out for an association team and was told he wouldn't be able to play for any team and he'll say he got cut. HUGE difference... and for many if they are 'cut" from an association they do not have a chance to play elsewhere

Where does this happen?

The Administrator's Code of Conduct for USA Hockey says, "Make every possible attempt to provide everyone, at all skill levels, with a place to play." Even when girls hit age 14 they can find non-check rec programs.

Name one kid that's ever been cut from the lowest level of play. It doesn't happen here and shouldn't happen anywhere.

Andover cut 4-5 kids from their B2 bantam team last season

Juiceman:

And no C team I assume? Then they sound like a pretty good fit for the Twin City rec league or whatever that thing is called. Something like no check, play once a week, little or no practice.

Does it still exist?

O-townClown wrote:

JSR wrote: Ask a kid who tried out for an association team and was told he wouldn't be able to play for any team and he'll say he got cut. HUGE difference... and for many if they are 'cut" from an association they do not have a chance to play elsewhere

Where does this happen?

The Administrator's Code of Conduct for USA Hockey says, "Make every possible attempt to provide everyone, at all skill levels, with a place to play." Even when girls hit age 14 they can find non-check rec programs.

Name one kid that's ever been cut from the lowest level of play. It doesn't happen here and shouldn't happen anywhere.

It happens everywhere that "cuts" are made. Our high school team cut kids this year, which means they were cut and had no where else to play because we don't midget gold programs or whatever down here because we don't have the numbers and these kids weren't good enough for midget AAA so hence cut and done.

Also, if you cut at youth levels by the time a kids tryout and then get cut down here they have no option to enroll elsewhere if they were to get cut (we have no "rec leagues"). And again we were talking small associations which are alot of times rural up here and no where near another town with a rink.

As for naming kids who were cut... huh... that isn't what you said, you are contradicting yourself now. I said what "cut" means

O-townClown wrote:

JSR wrote: Ask a kid who tried out for an association team and was told he wouldn't be able to play for any team and he'll say he got cut. HUGE difference... and for many if they are 'cut" from an association they do not have a chance to play elsewhere

Where does this happen?

The Administrator's Code of Conduct for USA Hockey says, "Make every possible attempt to provide everyone, at all skill levels, with a place to play." Even when girls hit age 14 they can find non-check rec programs.

Name one kid that's ever been cut from the lowest level of play. It doesn't happen here and shouldn't happen anywhere.

It happened in my association last year. We co-op the girls to another association, they decided they had enough girls at the U14 level and cut our girls. Left us scrambling to find somewhere for them to play, and piece them out to other associations in the area, none of which would take more than one.

So it does happen.

O-townClown wrote:Juiceman:

And no C team I assume? Then they sound like a pretty good fit for the Twin City rec league or whatever that thing is called. Something like no check, play once a week, little or no practice.

Does it still exist?

No C league--D10 does not have one for Bantams. The TC rec league still exists. 3 of the cuts played in Coon Rapids to fill out 1 of their 2 B2 teams

Piehl:

Participation on the girls side is a big issue nationally. We have a number of girls that play for Team Pittsburgh from our state. Yes...they don't feel like there is an appropriate option that doesn't necessitate flights.

It is too bad that the neighboring association cut them, but they likely feel that they don't have an obligation to provide playing opportunities for people from another state. Long story I'll skip, but I remember saying our Affiliate has no obligation to go out of our way to provide playing opportunities for those in another. If it can be accomodated without much problem, fine. But it doesn't make sense to impact others. I stand by that.

JSR:

In all sports playing opportunities dry up around HS. Wisconsin has HS Hockey as a Varsity sport, no? The school has no obligation to provide a playing opportunity for everyone. That's a USA Hockey issue. If you live in an area that can't support some level of hockey for those kids it is unfortunate. I would think the rinks would over a teen house league that travels within a 50 mile diameter or something.

You are really twisting things if you don't see the difference between HS Varsity sports and USA Hockey programs.

O-townClown wrote:Piehl:

Participation on the girls side is a big issue nationally. We have a number of girls that play for Team Pittsburgh from our state. Yes...they don't feel like there is an appropriate option that doesn't necessitate flights.

It is too bad that the neighboring association cut them, but they likely feel that they don't have an obligation to provide playing opportunities for people from another state. Long story I'll skip, but I remember saying our Affiliate has no obligation to go out of our way to provide playing opportunities for those in another. If it can be accomodated without much problem, fine. But it doesn't make sense to impact others. I stand by that.

JSR:

In all sports playing opportunities dry up around HS. Wisconsin has HS Hockey as a Varsity sport, no? The school has no obligation to provide a playing opportunity for everyone. That's a USA Hockey issue. If you live in an area that can't support some level of hockey for those kids it is unfortunate. I would think the rinks would over a teen house league that travels within a 50 mile diameter or something.

You are really twisting things if you don't see the difference between HS Varsity sports and USA Hockey programs.

I understand the difference between high school varsity and USA Hockey 100%... it's you who do not understand what the word "cut" means and why it has no place at all in USA Hockey youth levels

Although I will say that if a high school is a public school AND if that public school uses tax payer money to fund it's athletic endeavors then I actually believe it should be against the law to cut kids even in high school assuming those things are true. But that is a completely different argument than the one we are having.

Good luck with getting that law passed. You'll be responsible for sports dropping extracurriculars altogether.

Define cut. I'm very well aware of what it means. And have fun with your 23-man rosters and 7 year olds playing PW.

O-townClown wrote:Good luck with getting that law passed. You'll be responsible for sports dropping extracurriculars altogether.

Define cut. I'm very well aware of what it means. And have fun with your 23-man rosters and 7 year olds playing PW.

Clown, you sound bitter with your response, are you stating that a 23 man roster of qualified players involved with the game of hockey including talented 7 year olds is a bad thing? I've watched Florida hockey and would invite 5 year old players to compete. They would also receive game time.

23 man roster is horrible. I am an advocate for small rosters. USA H recommendation is 10-12 at that age.

That's two teams, not one.

SCBlueLiner wrote:Part of being a good coach is putting a player in the best possible position to succeed. It is necessary for their confidence and for their development.

Are you suggesting that "the bench" is the best possible position for your bottom 6 players to succeed at pee wee and higher?

You should only bench a player for injury and discipline. This is a game of mistakes and part of the development is correcting those mistakes. Good coaches do and the wanna bees do not,they play to win at all costs rather than use the game as a test. Players need to be challenged and to do that they need to be in situations where they might be uncomfortable,it is how that is handled after that builds confidence.

scorekeeper wrote:

SCBlueLiner wrote:Part of being a good coach is putting a player in the best possible position to succeed. It is necessary for their confidence and for their development.

Are you suggesting that "the bench" is the best possible position for your bottom 6 players to succeed at pee wee and higher?

Wow. Way to twist my words.