Cross Ice Games

boomerang · Post by **boomerang** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:08 pm

I can see both/all sides of this, but I will say that I especially agree that it's likely also due to availability of ice. One of the things people say to me when they find out my kid plays hockey is, "Oh, I could never do those 5 am or midnight practices." Uh......7 am is the earliest my kid has played so far and 8 pm the latest, and they make each team take turns at an early one, so you only do a couple a season. No biggie. Bring coffee and donuts. Our association also leaves the later evening ice for the older kids who don't have early bed times. It's never at midnight. Sheesh!

I say it's definitely a factor in getting new kids playing hockey. If the perception is you have to play at crazy early morning or late nights to get ice, the parents won't write that check, and they'll talk their kid out of it.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:53 pm

JSR wrote:Was there resistance a first, yes. Was 100% great, NO. Did the sky fall and the kids quit playing, NO. Did some parents of kids who got "demoted" during the season get a little pissy at times, YES. Did they come around when they saw that their kid started geting more puck time by moving down and were actually getting better because of it, YES.

JSR:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Major props to the Wisconsin associations that embraced RW&B without being forced by USA Hockey. Also, credit to you for being open minded. You truly see all sides here.

Since your son was younger, I'm guessing you'll see a "problem" in that he "needs" to play full-ice games when he's 8. Of course, you won't overreact like others. As much as I'm a supporter of RW&B, three years of fighting in our area has left me tired. I have no interest in fighting those that aren't on board. As a result, I feel the easiest solution is just to tell the parents of the "Great 8s" as I call them to play up on Squirt teams.

USA Hockey magazine references a "mandate", but the language is pretty flimsy. We have many in our area that don't want to go along, so I suspect the resistance will continue.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:18 am

O-town-that is perfect name. "The Great 8s".

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:25 am

old goalie85 wrote:O-town-that is perfect name. "The Great 8s".

Thanks. If it catches on anywhere you can say you knew the guy. I also coined the term "Mite flight" for kids whose families or programs did everything they could to get around playing RW&B.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:55 am

O-townClown wrote:
JSR wrote:Was there resistance a first, yes. Was 100% great, NO. Did the sky fall and the kids quit playing, NO. Did some parents of kids who got "demoted" during the season get a little pissy at times, YES. Did they come around when they saw that their kid started geting more puck time by moving down and were actually getting better because of it, YES.
JSR:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Major props to the Wisconsin associations that embraced RW&B without being forced by USA Hockey. Also, credit to you for being open minded. You truly see all sides here.

Since your son was younger, I'm guessing you'll see a "problem" in that he "needs" to play full-ice games when he's 8. Of course, you won't overreact like others. As much as I'm a supporter of RW&B, three years of fighting in our area has left me tired. I have no interest in fighting those that aren't on board. As a result, I feel the easiest solution is just to tell the parents of the "Great 8s" as I call them to play up on Squirt teams.

USA Hockey magazine references a "mandate", but the language is pretty flimsy. We have many in our area that don't want to go along, so I suspect the resistance will continue.

I was an early convert to SAG's way before this new U8 stuff started happening. I started a 30n3 league years ago and still run a 3on3 league on Sundays for kids who want extra ice time in the winter and 90% of the kids who show up are the best players who can't get enough hockey and trust me no one is making them be there... that said in the early days I will tell you that the parents always left our 3on3 sessions telling me that even though there are few rules amd virtually no coaching that it's the hardest skating and one of the best development things their kids did all week, so I thought those who like SAG's might be on to something cuz I saw the same thing. Now not ALL SAG's are great but when done properly I think they are pretty darn good for the most part. I can tell you that the majority, yes the MAJORITY of the practices up at UW for the Badger's include ton's of small area games, they have ONE single SAG that they play for 45 minutes straight at virtually every practice, so even the top level of the sport supports the SAG's through action and not words.

As for my youngest son, honestly I don't know how I'll feel when he is in his final year of U8's, I do know that SAG's will be important regardless of whether he's a U8, a Squirt, a Pee Wee or a college player. I like the idea of giving people some choice for individual players. I mean this year in our club we had one kid that was actually a 2nd year mite and he tried out for Squirts and made the "A" team and you know what, it was the right place for him. Even in the small area this kid would have absolutely dominated everyone and dominated the puck, it would not have been fun for him or those he was playing against. Not saying he will be that good BUT IF my younger son were that good going in to his final year of mites then I think we'd have to look at how good the U8's around him are, how good the U8 league will be that season and talk to our coachign director to see what will be most beneficial to him and the team just like that other family did this year. If it's decided it's best for everyone that he play up then he'll play up, if it looks like it's best for all he stay put then he'll stay put. I just don;t like parents going off the deep end for the sake of going off the deep end because they don't like or understand a certain change regardless of how the situation actually effects their kid and their association. People by nature hate change, even change for the better and that is where you get whacko's doing whacko things most of the time if you ask me

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:02 am

P.S. One thing I wish the U8 league would embrace is that there are other SAG's besides cross ice that can be effective. For instance I still think the most effective game I've ever seen is tag up 3v3. Where 3 skaters from each team are using half the ice and half to tag up at the blue line with the puck to gain offensive control and both team are going against the same goalie. To me that is the fastest game on ice, it teaches breaking out of the zone, going back into the zone hard, transitioning from offense to defense and vice versa on the fly and also the goalie that is in net sees ALL the shots. Play an hour of cross ice and then play an hour of this type of tag up 3v3. Change the goalies half way through the tag up game but in the cross ice game both goalies play the whole game obvisouly. At the end fo both games count the shots on goal that each goalie saw in both games. You'll find that even thogh they only play "half the game" in the tag up version that they actually see significantly more shots than they see in the cross ice game and the shots come faster and from more angles. So that is my only main gripe is that they don't embrace toher games in their "mandate" when there are several other great SAG's that could be played besides cross ice or half ice with two goals.....

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:34 am

JSR, I played that tag up game in adult pick up since we only had one goalie. Not only does it do the things you say it burns the crap out of your legs and lungs. Extremely fast paced.

I just put that SAG into the practice plan for tomorrow morning for the last 20 minutes.

C_R · Post by **C_R** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:01 pm

JSR wrote:
* * * * I mean this year in our club we had one kid that was actually a 2nd year mite and he tried out for Squirts and made the "A" team and you know what, it was the right place for him. Even in the small area this kid would have absolutely dominated everyone and dominated the puck, it would not have been fun for him or those he was playing against. * * * *

Curious - do most agree that this is a valid argument for the Great 8s to move up ? Having coached youth soccer for 5+ years, and having watched my kids go through the Mite level - my observation is that this "domination" rarely lasts a whole season. Why? because the other players adapt, develop, learn and compete. Isn't that the goal and objective as an association?

Frankly - if the "domination" does last all season, there is a COACHING problem - not a player problem. And, if the decision makers for the Great 8s refuse to be part of the betterment of the whole, there is a PARENT problem - not a player problem.

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:36 pm

You're a smart guy. Unfortunately there's a whole lot of selfishness out there. It ends up being reflected in style of play as the ol' selfish apple doesn't fall far from the selfish tree. Life is about serving others.

A team is only as strong as it's weakest player. Your super duper son will end up needing linemates. The focus has to be on all 17 players.

Cross ice and half ice are awesome. The telling sign, as many have said, is the sweat on their head and the smile on their face.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:46 pm

C_R is a smart guy,but please tell me it's your daughter ,and not your son playing soccer.[I call it the communist game, right in the middle of Football and Baseball seasons]

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:59 pm

C_R wrote:
JSR wrote:
* * * * I mean this year in our club we had one kid that was actually a 2nd year mite and he tried out for Squirts and made the "A" team and you know what, it was the right place for him. Even in the small area this kid would have absolutely dominated everyone and dominated the puck, it would not have been fun for him or those he was playing against. * * * *

Curious - do most agree that this is a valid argument for the Great 8s to move up ? Having coached youth soccer for 5+ years, and having watched my kids go through the Mite level - my observation is that this "domination" rarely lasts a whole season. Why? because the other players adapt, develop, learn and compete. Isn't that the goal and objective as an association?

Frankly - if the "domination" does last all season, there is a COACHING problem - not a player problem. And, if the decision makers for the Great 8s refuse to be part of the betterment of the whole, there is a PARENT problem - not a player problem.

Up in MN that might be true but in southern WI it's not, our hockey player pool is not deep enough for it to be. Because of that in this case no amount of coaching or parenting would have caught the other kids up to this kid. He is that much above the other kids. Plus he's the H.S. coaches son so the kid has ALOT of opportunities outside of the association to get better that the other kids just don't have. I do not begrudge the kid or the coach, that is one of the great "perks" to the job of coaching H.S. sports and coaching H.S. sports has few perks (trust me) so I think it's great, but again every case has to be taken on an individual basis. In this particular instance it was absolutley the right thing to do and I'm sorry we had some really good coaches and our U8's grew, adapted and advanced as much as you could possibily have asked them too and probably more in some instances but none of that would have helped them catch up to this kid. Sorry some kids are that much better than what you have in your club or even in your area down here, we aren't MN, a HUGE association down here has maybe 4 squirt teams (and the same at the other levels), so yea, when we get an exceptional kid sometimes our only valid solution is to play him or her "up". Maybe in the twin cities that isn't the case but again individual situations should still be evaluated on their own merits and not just have some goofy across the board deal that doesn't even allow for the possibility.

I also coach soccer (played it my whole life, I'm 39 now, including at the D1 level), after I stopped playing at a high competitive club level I started coaching and I have been coaching soccer at youth and high school levels for over 15 years now. Yes kids need teammates but not at the expense of holding some certain kids back. Now I've coached long enough that I know that not every age group even down here has a kid that should be playing up (despite what the kids parents think) but when a kid from a younger age group grades out as a top 3 player in the age group above her/him, then he/she should ALWAYS play where their abilities and mentality allow them to play and I've never had a problem with that line of thinking and never will, not as a coach and not as a player

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:45 pm

JSR-kidding around w/C_R we played football and baseball from7th grade thru 12th. No offense on the soccer.

C_R · Post by **C_R** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:05 pm

Observer & JSR have summed it up pretty well. Either a focus on all 17 players or a focus on the Exceptional One, when they come along.

Never fails to surprise me though, when the fans of the Exceptional One say years later - "wonder why our team is so weak?" Seen it in several sports in the community (perhaps basketball more than the others).

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:12 pm

C_R:

Where I live we have the equivalent of a very small association in Minnesota. My son started young, skated a lot (his choice, I just facilitate it) and began organized hockey ahead of his peers locally. When you looked across the state there were others at/around his experience level.

Time and time again I was told, "the other kids will catch up." Actually, the opposite is true. (We live in a "non-traditional" hockey market.) The kids that were the most interested when they were 5 or 6 are the same as the ones that are most interested 3-4 years later. Still a few years away from puberty where genetics play a significant role, you have to understand so many of the "best athletes" in our state never see the inside of an ice rink. (Football, baseball, basketball, soccer.)

So just how many years does a parent need to worry about the whole group? Travel hockey players regularly drop the sport, only to be replaced by beginning travel hockey players. Seems to me the argument can be made that the focus should be on the families that we can count on coming back for years to come.

While this isn't a likely scenario in most Metro associations in Minnesota, it certainly has to be the same in Ely, New Ulm, Fergus Falls, and whatever others you can name. A friend has an exceptional young player for a son. In his words, "why can't there be some consideration for the kids that are good now?"