HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I'm glad USAH can't touch high school hockey. They would probably want to end the state tourny. [ not good for development & kids might get hurt ]

The Huge Hook wrote:

MN_Hcky_Coach wrote:So basically, if an association is practicing for 1 hour and playing a 1 hour full ice game each week (at both the higher and lower level mites), MM is providing almost 3 times the skill development time...no wonder why they develop kids so well.

Any upper level coach, high school, college or pro will tell you that it is the skill development time that puts kids on the right path when they are younger, not the game time. I know top 10 A peewee coaches (2) that do not run forechecking systems and their practices are almost all skill development. These things can be taught at upper levels in no time.

In addition, if MM is providing almost 3 hours of skill development each week, the 4th hour is bonus, and it really sounds like they are already using ADM principles. Where they give a game for the extra ice, the ADM encourages rink rat, creative type hockey as well.

Just curious, is there off ice development going on over there too?

I'm not a big off-ice guy at this age. To answer your question, there is NO off ice instruction.

It is all skill development, on the ice. You don't even play a game until a month + of practices have been completed. They DO NOT use any ADM principles, much more based on Russian (somebody apparently read a book) stuff. I'm pretty happy regarding the decision to leave the Assoc., I hope there are no reprecussions(sp).

The dirty little secret is that, if you are the Head Coach, it is also cheaper than association hockey (at least where I live).

This year they are offering an off-ice addition to the program.

To support the Huge one: the kids skate more than 25 hours the first 5 or 6 weeks before they skate their first games. Before our association mites even hit the ice, the choice mites had already skated nearly the same number of hours our association mites will skate the entire year (including cross-ice game hours).

InigoMontoya wrote: To support the Huge one: the kids skate more than 25 hours the first 5 or 6 weeks before they skate their first games. Before our association mites even hit the ice, the choice mites had already skated nearly the same number of hours our association mites will skate the entire year (including cross-ice game hours).

But at what cost??? Hockey already has a reputation of being a "rich kid" sport. If you have shell out another 1000? 2000? for MM ice time, don't you think thats getting ridiculous. As much as all that ice time can be great for development, something has to be said about kids getting burned out....This game should be fun for these kids.... not a job.

Little King wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote: To support the Huge one: the kids skate more than 25 hours the first 5 or 6 weeks before they skate their first games. Before our association mites even hit the ice, the choice mites had already skated nearly the same number of hours our association mites will skate the entire year (including cross-ice game hours).

But at what cost??? Hockey already has a reputation of being a "rich kid" sport. If you have shell out another 1000? 2000? for MM ice time, don't you think thats getting ridiculous. As much as all that ice time can be great for development, something has to be said about kids getting burned out....This game should be fun for these kids.... not a job.

I guess that's why they call it a "choice." My son has never skated "choice," I have always pushed association on him for the team / friendship aspects of the game. Let's face it, 99% of our kids are beer league players at best.

My youngest has already made his "choice" to leave his association should checking be disallowed. (I know, I know completely different topic, although it is the same principle.)

I'm just saying ... it's a "choice." God bless America!!

[quotesomething has to be said about kids getting burned out....This game should be fun for these kids.... not a job[/quote]

I have not personally seen the burnout; I've seen the kids able to compete and understand the game; I've seen the kids smiling. I heard a parent comment after a game, "tough loss, losing 5-2" and another parent respond, "it could have been 50-2; it's still better than the cross ice alternative back home."

It's two completely different approaches. One family may not choose to start their kids piano lessons until they are 10 or 12 and only expect them to practice for about 15 minutes; another family may start the kids at the piano at 3 and expect 2 or 3 hours of piano every day. With piano there are a whole spectrum of choices within minutes of most homes in the metro area; for the most part, with hockey you are stuck with what you're given. I don't think most people are looking for the 3 hour option, but they also don't want to be forced into 15 minutes.

InigoMontoya wrote:

The Huge Hook wrote:

MN_Hcky_Coach wrote:So basically, if an association is practicing for 1 hour and playing a 1 hour full ice game each week (at both the higher and lower level mites), MM is providing almost 3 times the skill development time...no wonder why they develop kids so well.

Any upper level coach, high school, college or pro will tell you that it is the skill development time that puts kids on the right path when they are younger, not the game time. I know top 10 A peewee coaches (2) that do not run forechecking systems and their practices are almost all skill development. These things can be taught at upper levels in no time.

In addition, if MM is providing almost 3 hours of skill development each week, the 4th hour is bonus, and it really sounds like they are already using ADM principles. Where they give a game for the extra ice, the ADM encourages rink rat, creative type hockey as well.

Just curious, is there off ice development going on over there too?

I'm not a big off-ice guy at this age. To answer your question, there is NO off ice instruction.

It is all skill development, on the ice. You don't even play a game until a month + of practices have been completed. They DO NOT use any ADM principles, much more based on Russian (somebody apparently read a book) stuff. I'm pretty happy regarding the decision to leave the Assoc., I hope there are no reprecussions(sp).

The dirty little secret is that, if you are the Head Coach, it is also cheaper than association hockey (at least where I live).

This year they are offering an off-ice addition to the program.

To support the Huge one: the kids skate more than 25 hours the first 5 or 6 weeks before they skate their first games. Before our association mites even hit the ice, the choice mites had already skated nearly the same number of hours our association mites will skate the entire year (including cross-ice game hours).

The families I've spoken with are very excited about the off-ice component. These will be some of the best trained Mites in the state using the same facility some NHL'ers use during the off season.

InigoMontoya wrote:[quotesomething has to be said about kids getting burned out....This game should be fun for these kids.... not a job

I have not personally seen the burnout; I've seen the kids able to compete and understand the game; I've seen the kids smiling. I heard a parent comment after a game, "tough loss, losing 5-2" and another parent respond, "it could have been 50-2; it's still better than the cross ice alternative back home."

It's two completely different approaches. One family may not choose to start their kids piano lessons until they are 10 or 12 and only expect them to practice for about 15 minutes; another family may start the kids at the piano at 3 and expect 2 or 3 hours of piano every day. With piano there are a whole spectrum of choices within minutes of most homes in the metro area; for the most part, with hockey you are stuck with what you're given. I don't think most people are looking for the 3 hour option, but they also don't want to be forced into 15 minutes.

Me neither. I've seen alot of kids quit hockey, but I've never heard "burnout" being a factor. Some have quit because they tired of playing "C" hockey, some quit because they were nervous about the checking aspect, some quit because of finances, some quit to be able to focus on snowboarding, and many other reasons...but in all my years of being around the youth game, I have YET to hear about a kid quitting because they felt burnout from playing too much.....

Give it 5-10 years. I think you will see a good % of these kids being burnt out with hockey, and wanting to do something else.

Little King wrote:Give it 5-10 years. I think you will see a good % of these kids being burnt out with hockey, and wanting to do something else.

Why? 25+ years isn't enough?

muckandgrind wrote:

Little King wrote:Give it 5-10 years. I think you will see a good % of these kids being burnt out with hockey, and wanting to do something else.

Why? 25+ years isn't enough?

No kidding, in 10 years and 8 year old will be 18.

InigoMontoya wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

Little King wrote:Give it 5-10 years. I think you will see a good % of these kids being burnt out with hockey, and wanting to do something else.

Why? 25+ years isn't enough?

No kidding, in 10 years and 8 year old will be 18.

Thus the range from 5-10 years...

Little King wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: Why? 25+ years isn't enough?

No kidding, in 10 years and 8 year old will be 18.

Thus the range from 5-10 years...

Are you making this up out of whole cloth or do you have any evidence (studies) to back up your claim?

5 - 10 years? Ok.....5-10 years from when? MOST players quit 5-10 years from a certain age, and it has nothing to do with "burnout", it has to do with the fact that they took the sport as far as they could and had to give it up.

What is that "certain age"? Let's go with 9-11 years old. That is about the years that parents start signing their players up for the AAA programs and extra training opportunities. So, 5-10 years from 9 - 11 years old would put that player between the ages of 14-21 years old....when YES, a good percentage of players DO quit....but I don't think burnout as anything to do with it. At the early part of these ages, the player is entering high school, where a large group quit because they can't make the team. Then after these players finish high school, and even larger group of players quit because they won't be playing college or pro hockey.

Like I said, in my 25 years of being around the youth game, I have YET to meet a player who gave up the game due to "burnout"....many other reasons, but I've never heard that reason. Not saying it never happens, but it's not as pervasive as you make it out to be.

Tip of the cap.... No I have no studies. and you make some valid points. But if I gave the impression that burn out is the #1 cause of players leaving the game it was not my intention. I am simply saying that these same 5-8 year olds, if asked, without mom and dad around, would tell you that at times, they probably did not want to be at hockey so much. Regardless of how good it may, or may not, have made them. This I have seen first hand.

I have been coaching youth hockey since the day I hung them up in college, about 10 years ago, and I can give you many stories of college and pro level players that quit the game due to burn out. Is this the norm, absolutely not. I hope that a good part of those 25 years you've spent around the youth game, was spent coaching, and/or giving back to the game in some way.

Little King wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote: To support the Huge one: the kids skate more than 25 hours the first 5 or 6 weeks before they skate their first games. Before our association mites even hit the ice, the choice mites had already skated nearly the same number of hours our association mites will skate the entire year (including cross-ice game hours).

But at what cost??? Hockey already has a reputation of being a "rich kid" sport. If you have shell out another 1000? 2000? for MM ice time, don't you think thats getting ridiculous. As much as all that ice time can be great for development, something has to be said about kids getting burned out....This game should be fun for these kids.... not a job.

As I posted earlier in this thread, if you are the head coach in the "Choice" League, the cost is actually less than the cost of association hockey. At least where I live.

Additionally, I agree with the burnout factor. Everybody eventually burns out on hockey....it is a grueling sport. The question is when!! As a parent, when you see it, you need to step back and regroup. Usually you will notice it when a really good player's play goes downhill.......they lose the passion. This does not happen very often as the really good players really like being good players. And they like being known as a good player.

Have you ever seen a pro sign a decent contract and then simply "mail it in" until the contract is over. Happens all the time!

I've personally not seen it happen very often until a player reaches the College/Division 1 level when the intensity really ramps-up. They begin to realize there are other things in life (like drinking and chicks).

It happened to me!!! Could be an interesting talker!!

O-townClown wrote: Kind of young to be this cynical, no?

O-townClown wrote:

Age has nothing to do with my cynicisim (sp), I've been this way since birth.

Even though you don't like it, Minnesotans are a big part of the USA Hockey leadership.

How come I'm not????

I screwed-up the quoting process......I think you guys will figure it out!

Back when I was pres I had a mom call me wondering about the money if her son where to quit. The problem that family was having was that dad was an NHL wanna be and the kid could not meet his standards. Dad was constantly pushing, car rides home were not nice. They decided it was easier to just go snowmobiling instead.

"do you have any evidence (studies) to back up your claim? "

The study most people site was done by Michigan State in the 90's it was all sports not just hockey. I believe the age tipping point for dropping from a sport was 13 years old for boys, it was something like 60%. The most common reason was "it's no fun anymore". In the past USA Hockey has made reference to that study and acknowledged that it matched their own data. I do think that for them the concern has shifted more to the shrinking numbers starting hockey then retention.

I think they (USAH) know places like MM can make just about any kid an awesome youth player but to find a gretzky or crosby you need to cast a wide net.

I do kind of feel bad for some of the kids in the mega association world where early specialization is almost a requirement. How do you know a 7 year old should be just a hockey player? Did run into an advanced mite team this year from a western suburb 100% of the players were year round and hockey as an only sport. That to me is sad, but they could really beat up most mite teams.

royals dad wrote:"do you have any evidence (studies) to back up your claim? "

The study most people site was done by Michigan State in the 90's it was all sports not just hockey. I believe the age tipping point for dropping from a sport was 13 years old for boys, it was something like 60%. The most common reason was "it's no fun anymore". In the past USA Hockey has made reference to that study and acknowledged that it matched their own data. I do think that for them the concern has shifted more to the shrinking numbers starting hockey then retention.

I think they (USAH) know places like MM can make just about any kid an awesome youth player but to find a gretzky or crosby you need to cast a wide net.

I do kind of feel bad for some of the kids in the mega association world where early specialization is almost a requirement. How do you know a 7 year old should be just a hockey player? Did run into an advanced mite team this year from a western suburb 100% of the players were year round and hockey as an only sport. That to me is sad, but they could really beat up most mite teams.

"it's no fun anymore" can mean a myriad of things....doesn't have to mean that the kid got burned out. Some kids just come to find out that they don't like hockey and don't want to play anymore.

royals dad wrote:"do you have any evidence (studies) to back up your claim? "

The study most people site was done by Michigan State in the 90's it was all sports not just hockey. I believe the age tipping point for dropping from a sport was 13 years old for boys, it was something like 60%. The most common reason was "it's no fun anymore". In the past USA Hockey has made reference to that study and acknowledged that it matched their own data. I do think that for them the concern has shifted more to the shrinking numbers starting hockey then retention.

I think they (USAH) know places like MM can make just about any kid an awesome youth player but to find a gretzky or crosby you need to cast a wide net.

I do kind of feel bad for some of the kids in the mega association world where early specialization is almost a requirement. How do you know a 7 year old should be just a hockey player? Did run into an advanced mite team this year from a western suburb 100% of the players were year round and hockey as an only sport. That to me is sad, but they could really beat up most mite teams.

I don't know any parent that has a 7 year old that only plays hockey.

I do know of many 7 year olds that don't want to play hockey - they don't like it, they're not good at it, etc. If that parent continues to bring that kid to the rink, I would imagine it would be around the age of 13 when the kid would be intellectually capable of forming a pretty good argument to his parent about why he should no longer play - an argument that would have escaped him as a 7 year old, or a 9 year old. Why doesn't he want to play? It isn't fun, it wasn't fun 6 years prior to that either. That kid didn't burn out, he learned to tell his parent "no", or learned to show interest in other activities that he enjoyed and his parent found acceptable. My kids aren't particularly fond of piano - I make them take lessons anyway. If at the age of 13 I decide that they can choose to continue lessons or not, they'll likely choose "not" - they'll likely say the reason is "it's no fun". I can assure you, they are NOT burned out.