HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

SammyOB wrote:On that 15 player how often does the head coach shorten the bench to win? Don't say they don't because 95% of the coach do.

But they've all had their USA Hockey training that tells them not to????

Bail where ?? Why ??? If they leave that team they should not be allowed back, and the assc. should keep their check/$$ !!

Kari Takko wrote:

wingnuts wrote:

old goalie85 wrote:Smaller the team -more puck touches. Less kids in the class during practice!!! At the squirt level embace it.

I agree. You already are aware that hockey is expensive. So suck it up and make it a great year. I think your just mad because you're the one everything is falling on. Whatever the issues are, the end goal is to make it fun for your players. I've known a couple of Squirt "C" players that have gone onto playing in High School Hockey tourney. So keep them interested!

I generally agree that smaller teams are the way to go. But how small is too small?

I think 10 skaters on a C team is borderline. I know some of our parents are already looking at backup options. What if 1 bails and we are down to 9 skaters? Is that too small? How about 8?

I do understand your pain. Same thing happened in our association 2 years ago. Our "C" team was disbanded and the association figured the kids would come back. Well, a few did not and now they are short players in the Bantams. It is a direct result of not finding a way to help out these families. I would go back to the board and plead with them to find a way to add a player or two. Otherwise this will come back to haunt them in the future. Smaller associations really need to find a way to keep EVERY player. It's no different than a small business trying to can traction. They need EVERY client to make it work.

Kari Takko wrote:

wingnuts wrote:

old goalie85 wrote:Smaller the team -more puck touches. Less kids in the class during practice!!! At the squirt level embace it.

I agree. You already are aware that hockey is expensive. So suck it up and make it a great year. I think your just mad because you're the one everything is falling on. Whatever the issues are, the end goal is to make it fun for your players. I've known a couple of Squirt "C" players that have gone onto playing in High School Hockey tourney. So keep them interested!

I generally agree that smaller teams are the way to go. But how small is too small?

I think 10 skaters on a C team is borderline. I know some of our parents are already looking at backup options. What if 1 bails and we are down to 9 skaters? Is that too small? How about 8?

There is no question that 10 is too few on a C team. One of the big problems in hockey is the battle that is going on in this thread...some parents have no concern for the cost of hockey (i.e. divide the total bill amongst fewer players is good because they get to touch the puck more) vs. parents who have kids who love hockey but the parents find it tough to afford (i.e. bigger teams is better to keep the costs down).

The bigger problem is that many parents are just packing it in and forcing their kid to pick a different sport rather than try to fight with the high cost of hockey. It may be time for a new model in some parts of Minnesota.

Associations in combination with their nearby neighbors should look at putting together "inhouse" hockey leagues for Squirts, Peewees and perhaps even Bantams. Most associations could continue to have inhouse mite hockey. Essentially, associations would have A, B1 teams and in some situations even a B2 team. Kids who don't want to try out for "traveling" hockey OR kids who don't make the traveling team, go to the inhouse league. There is NO "C" traveling team in those associations. Inhouse has 1 game, 1 practice a week, uses outdoor ice for a 2nd game/practice when the weather permits and the cost is brought down to a reasonable level. At the youngest levels, you could combine the inhouse league with the cities local skating programs to have skating instruction being a priority.

It is NOT association based hockey so it is not affiliated with Minnesota hockey and the rules/regulations regarding refs, coaches, player fees etc.. It would be city run with rink managers working with other cities to put together enough local teams for a league. The association could concentrate their fundraising (pull tabs, raffles etc.) for the traveling teams to help keep their costs down.

The idea is to get the cost of hockey down to a point where parents let their kids try the sport of hockey. If they love it, the family may consider extra summer clinics etc. to help their player have a chance to tryout for the traveling level. If they just want to have fun and play inhouse, it is affordable and works for them.

seek & destroy wrote:There is no question that 10 is too few on a C team. One of the big problems in hockey is the battle that is going on in this thread...some parents have no concern for the cost of hockey (i.e. divide the total bill amongst fewer players is good because they get to touch the puck more) vs. parents who have kids who love hockey but the parents find it tough to afford (i.e. bigger teams is better to keep the costs down).

The bigger problem is that many parents are just packing it in and forcing their kid to pick a different sport rather than try to fight with the high cost of hockey. It may be time for a new model in some parts of Minnesota.

Associations in combination with their nearby neighbors should look at putting together "inhouse" hockey leagues for Squirts, Peewees and perhaps even Bantams. Most associations could continue to have inhouse mite hockey. Essentially, associations would have A, B1 teams and in some situations even a B2 team. Kids who don't want to try out for "traveling" hockey OR kids who don't make the traveling team, go to the inhouse league. There is NO "C" traveling team in those associations. Inhouse has 1 game, 1 practice a week, uses outdoor ice for a 2nd game/practice when the weather permits and the cost is brought down to a reasonable level. At the youngest levels, you could combine the inhouse league with the cities local skating programs to have skating instruction being a priority.

It is NOT association based hockey so it is not affiliated with Minnesota hockey and the rules/regulations regarding refs, coaches, player fees etc.. It would be city run with rink managers working with other cities to put together enough local teams for a league. The association could concentrate their fundraising (pull tabs, raffles etc.) for the traveling teams to help keep their costs down.

The idea is to get the cost of hockey down to a point where parents let their kids try the sport of hockey. If they love it, the family may consider extra summer clinics etc. to help their player have a chance to tryout for the traveling level. If they just want to have fun and play inhouse, it is affordable and works for them.

Great post.

Seek - you could have all the kids play "in-house" or like for their elementary. Then gab 30 kids for the A/B teams. That way all the kids have to play @ the house level w/their buddys from school. I think Duluth does this and they seem to enjoy it.[the kids]

Nice to see how you jump to conclusions. I'm coach, board member and have years of experience in youth hockey. Visit USA hockey and see ADM...small games and lots of puck touches. So yes, you can schedule combined practices and you better reduce cost. On that 15 player how often does the head coach shorten the bench to win? Don't say they don't because 95% of the coach do. 10 skaters you don't have that issue.

You, my friend, are the problem. I'm sensing you're the ugly coach, selfish association fake big-shot, often talked about in these posts. Maybe even with the association mentioned in the original post.

First, there is no shortening the bench. Maybe in the final 2 minutes of a District playoff game to get to Regions, or Regions to get to State, maybe in the semifinal of a tourney but that's it. And, only in the last 2 minutes. Those situations are only faced by a small number of teams in the State.

You're more responsible for helping develop the 9th forward or 6th D than the first. You're only as strong as your weakest player is very true in hockey. That means more time and opportunity for the 14th and 15th skaters. The top 5-6 are likely getting all the time and development they need or they wouldn't be top players. Your role is not to turn off the bottom half of any team but to energize them with your assistance, praise, trust and support.

Like your thinking, seek & destroy, but feedback from associations almost always: "ice". Not necessarily the cost, but the availability.

old goalie85 wrote:Seek - you could have all the kids play "in-house" or like for their elementary. Then gab 30 kids for the A/B teams. That way all the kids have to play @ the house level w/their buddys from school. I think Duluth does this and they seem to enjoy it.[the kids]

Agreed! I personally would opt for my kid to play at the higher level as soon as possible because we are willing to pay the higher cost of traveling. However, we need to start finding ways for the masses to afford hockey (give it a try at least) or rinks will start closing due to small associations not being able to support their local arena.

If Duluth is doing something similar to this already, we should look at that as a potential model. They obviously have had good success at the higher levels so whatever they are doing seems to work. I would guess that their overall numbers are high at the youth level as well.

Problem solved,

Move up 2,3,4, maybe even 5 mites that want this or are way past the level they are going to play at. I'm sure the few mites they could move up may even have some DADS that want to coach. Try that rout...

seek & destroy wrote:

old goalie85 wrote:Seek - you could have all the kids play "in-house" or like for their elementary. Then gab 30 kids for the A/B teams. That way all the kids have to play @ the house level w/their buddys from school. I think Duluth does this and they seem to enjoy it.[the kids]

Agreed! I personally would opt for my kid to play at the higher level as soon as possible because we are willing to pay the higher cost of traveling. However, we need to start finding ways for the masses to afford hockey (give it a try at least) or rinks will start closing due to small associations not being able to support their local arena.

If Duluth is doing something similar to this already, we should look at that as a potential model. They obviously have had good success at the higher levels so whatever they are doing seems to work. I would guess that their overall numbers are high at the youth level as well.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are two forces at work. The first is cost but the second is there are a lot of kids that just want to play the game. They don't want to spend hours working on their outside edges. They just want to have fun. By making all C teams into the travel, it forces all of them into the same development model. There is nothing wrong with just dropping the puck and letting them play. Especially at the younger ages.

old goalie85 wrote:Seek - you could have all the kids play "in-house" or like for their elementary. Then gab 30 kids for the A/B teams. That way all the kids have to play @ the house level w/their buddys from school. I think Duluth does this and they seem to enjoy it.[the kids]

Back in the day, every neighborhood had it's own elementary school complete with playground and rink with warming house. Each school fielded a team and we practiced at our rinks almost every evening and once a week went to the indoor rink for a game. We traveled to other neighborhoods for extra games and attended one out of town tournament at a near by town. It couldn't have been very expensive because our family wasn't loaded by any means. The coach was usually some college kid, I don't think we ever had a parent set foot on the ice let alone coach. I absolutely loved it. We didn't play in the summer back then, but we made up for it in the winter.

So you played w/all of your buddies. How great would that be. Sounds awsome.

MNM JMH wrote:Problem solved,

Move up 2,3,4, maybe even 5 mites that want this or are way past the level they are going to play at. I'm sure the few mites they could move up may even have some DADS that want to coach. Try that rout...

DING DING DING ... we have a winner.

Our association has almost the same numbers

in squirts

We went with 15 a skaters 2 goalies, 2 13 b teams 2 goalies each, 2 13 c teams 1 goalie each
We had 2 kids go from c squirts last year to a squirts this year

our bantam group had a kid go from c bantams last year to the aa team this year

I always find it funny that people want to dismiss the c players you never know who may develop into your next a player.

old goalie85 wrote:So you played w/all of your buddies. How great would that be. Sounds awsome.

Lots of fun. We weren't nearly as good as the kids are today, but then again I could throw a knuckle ball when I was 11 and I knew all the best fishing spots.

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

MNM JMH wrote:Problem solved,

Move up 2,3,4, maybe even 5 mites that want this or are way past the level they are going to play at. I'm sure the few mites they could move up may even have some DADS that want to coach. Try that rout...

DING DING DING ... we have a winner.

We already have 2 mite aged kids on our team. I'm told that after our Mite evaluations they will extend the invitation again.

Also, our Varsity hockey coach stepped in and found a former player of his that wants to coach. He is also offering up a couple of his current players to help out with practices. Says a lot that he would do something like that for a C team.

Kari Takko wrote:

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote:

MNM JMH wrote:Problem solved,

Move up 2,3,4, maybe even 5 mites that want this or are way past the level they are going to play at. I'm sure the few mites they could move up may even have some DADS that want to coach. Try that rout...

DING DING DING ... we have a winner.

We already have 2 mite aged kids on our team. I'm told that after our Mite evaluations they will extend the invitation again.

Also, our Varsity hockey coach stepped in and found a former player of his that wants to coach. He is also offering up a couple of his current players to help out with practices. Says a lot that he would do something like that for a C team.

It does say a lot, sounds like you have great HS program. Those C kids might be the luckiest kids in squirts. Think how cool it will be that the HS players are working with them and now the HS team has some BIG fans. Win Win for everyone.

What a great job by the varsity coach.

Very nice and it also give the high school kids a chance to give back to a sport that they loved enough to stick with all the way up. A good deal all the way around.

Another great example of Mn model working out in the end.

Back in the day, every neighborhood had it's own elementary school complete with playground and rink with warming house. Each school fielded a team and we practiced at our rinks almost every evening and once a week went to the indoor rink for a game. We traveled to other neighborhoods for extra games and attended one out of town tournament at a near by town. It couldn't have been very expensive because our family wasn't loaded by any means. The coach was usually some college kid, I don't think we ever had a parent set foot on the ice let alone coach. I absolutely loved it. We didn't play in the summer back then, but we made up for it in the winter.[/quote]


DAD,,,,,DAD',,,,,,,, Has this been you on here the whole time?

old goalie85 wrote:Another great example of Mn model working out in the end.

Ahhh, no. Had MN had a club hockey model like the rest of the world uses the C team who needed a few kids would have been able to put out the word that they needed a few kids and the kids in question would have been free to go take a look. In this MN model we wind up with a low number team held hostage and given the choice to either live with it or play basketball. She still has a team with very low numbers who are going to try to sweet talk a couple of mite kids into moving up who were lucky enough to have a high school coach who cared about kids enough to do some digging for them. I know that back in the day this model worked just fine but it is nearing the end of it's run due to situations like this one. Too many people know about club hockey and are becoming less and less willing to be kept down on the farm while the rest of the world moves on.

The Enlightened One wrote:She still has a team with very low numbers

She? Come on man!

Ouch, sorry about that.

Point still stands though that you are stuck in a position that is pretty untenable from the standpoint of trying to offer a group of kids the opportunity to play hockey.