Squirt A's

[Judgeandjury]

Being new to squirt hockey I'm starting to see other squirt A teams with anywhere from 13, 14 or 15 skaters on their teams.

What or who determines how many squirt A players are on a team?

What logical sense does it make only having 13 skaters on a squirt A team if we're supposed to be developing hockey players?
Is this a sign that some teams are more concerned about the wins or losses in youth hockey?

Correct me if I'm wrong. 15 skaters will make three lines?

[O-townClown]

Being new to squirt hockey I'm starting to see other squirt A teams with anywhere from 13, 14 or 15 skaters on their teams.

What or who determines how many squirt A players are on a team?

What logical sense does it make only having 13 skaters on a squirt A team if we're supposed to be developing hockey players?
Is this a sign that some teams are more concerned about the wins or losses in youth hockey?

Correct me if I'm wrong. 15 skaters will make three lines?

I've had this discussion with a friend from my youth hockey days. Edina has 15 skaters, just like my Squirt team did. Three lines.

For development I think 9 or 10 makes much more sense. Kids get far more ice time. My son will have 8 or 9 in his game Saturday and that's far better to having 15. I'm an advocate for smaller rosters and slightly fewer games to offset. Net cost is unchanged. Shared-ice practices are much easier if two teams have 10 skaters each.

[Reality Check]

I see the word "Developing" used a lot on this forum and thats great. However, I never see the word "Underdeveloping". Everybody always talks about having 15 skaters on a team and developing those last few players, nobody ever talks about "Underdeveloping" the better players by giving them less ice time in games and fewer reps in practice. The last few players often improve over the course of the season, but no more so than if they were playing at a lower level. Keep the rosters small and let the top players play with and against players of similar ability. I'm sick of watching players skate at an "A" level for the sake of "Deveelopment". If "Developing" constitutes, skating around looking lost, never touching the puck, being physically overmatched, and not getting anything accomplished, I want nothing to do with "Developing".

[muckandgrind]

I think no more than 13 skaters on the team is best considering the 11 or 12 minute periods they play.

[shooter803]

Here's a thread that touches on an issue that everyone will have an opinion on. I'll start with my experience - Northeast MN will have rinks that field between 50 to less than 20 squirt age players. There are A & B teams and numbers will play a major part, as well as talent (for better or worse) i.e.-you can't have only 10 skaters on your A team if that leaves 17-18 on your B's. Hermantown & Cloquet will tryout 45 or so and field an A & 2-B's w/ 13-15 based on the number & talent. They do a great job of rolling all lines & developing all skaters (which can be a dis-service to the top 3-5 players) during the season. However, the competition they play (Duluth neighborhoods still field local teams @ 6-7 rinks) will tryout 20-30 and still field an A & B team. Some rinks field A teams w/ even less (again for better or worse). They may only have 4-7 "A" quality players & fill out the team to have at least 10-12 players - however, in local area play all skaters can "compete" on the ice w/ some degree of success. Can they compete w/ rinks that tryout 85+ players? Not for a full game, but locally yes. Can rinks field teams w/ 15 players? Yes - Do you develop on a team of 10-12 w/ more ice, the best players & more touches? yes. We need to field teams based on numbers as well as talent. This usually means smaller numbers of players on teams from M1, M2, & Squirts; it helps in the long term development of our hockey teams at older levels. Smaller is usually better (if only in number of players on your team).

[nhl'er]

I see the word "Developing" used a lot on this forum and thats great. However, I never see the word "Underdeveloping". Everybody always talks about having 15 skaters on a team and developing those last few players, nobody ever talks about "Underdeveloping" the better players by giving them less ice time in games and fewer reps in practice. The last few players often improve over the course of the season, but no more so than if they were playing at a lower level. Keep the rosters small and let the top players play with and against players of similar ability. I'm sick of watching players skate at an "A" level for the sake of "Deveelopment". If "Developing" constitutes, skating around looking lost, never touching the puck, being physically overmatched, and not getting anything accomplished, I want nothing to do with "Developing".

I agree 100%.. Determine the number of players on the given team based upon the skill level of that group of kids. As stated above, the less skilled kids will almost always improve more playing at a level where they will touch the puck more and therefore have more success. The more skilled players will further benefit by playing with kids that are equal to their level thus causing more effective practices and a level of play that will futher push them to the next level.

[dogeatdog1]

Haven't been around the rink much if you think that the bottom end kids don't develop. Follow the kids for a couple of years and the #15 kid on the squirt team is just as likely to be on the Bantam A as the #3-4 kid.. Remember The highschool team only needs 5-6 kids from each class to win the state tourney....Will it be your kid that is #6 on the squirt team getting cut for a #15?

[Reality Check]

Perhaps, but the #1 kid on the "B-1" squirt team has just as good of a shot to make the Bantam A team, as does the #15 kid kid on the squirt "A" team.

[nhl'er]

Haven't been around the rink much if you think that the bottom end kids don't develop. Follow the kids for a couple of years and the #15 kid on the squirt team is just as likely to be on the Bantam A as the #3-4 kid.. Remember The highschool team only needs 5-6 kids from each class to win the state tourney....Will it be your kid that is #6 on the squirt team getting cut for a #15?

Noone is saying they don't develop, but are they devloping at a slower rate than if they were in an environment that would allow them to touch the puck more. And are the top kids developing slower do to this type of environment?? I've seen many kids over the past 5+ years in youth hockey that were clearly at a B level that played A because of small associations, and comparing them to kids that were similiar in skill that were placed on a B team, my peronal experience has shown that the majority of kids that played B progressed more than the kids that played A. Coaching is also a big factor in this equation..

[dogeatdog1]

I agree that coaching can make the difference so why not have that #15 play for the coach at the A level, typically a non parent or someone with more experience than a b coach especially at the Squirt level. Good coaches will segment the practice and match up top kids for competitive drills and match up low end kids on the team so they all develop... It is also good to get the bottom end kids to suck it up and compete against the super squirt... The people that think their kid needs an extra shift in the 30 games that squirts play are missing the boat when it comes to development.

[dogeatdog1]

If I had the top kid on the team I would want as many kids playing A as we could so we can develop the talent at the top end and push the kids to become better together how else does a small town like Roseau get to the tourney... Now I sound like a democrat on ice. (ouch that hurts)
No kid left behind

[Judgeandjury]

Thanks for the responses. I feel if a team only has 13/14 skaters on their squirt A roster it's more for the winning factor. I realize coaches want to win but these kids are only 4th and 5th grade. If the numbers are there I feel each team should have at least three lines. Not trying to rock the boat however many people talk about this year after year.

[muckandgrind]

If I had the top kid on the team I would want as many kids playing A as we could so we can develop the talent at the top end and push the kids to become better together how else does a small town like Roseau get to the tourney... Now I sound like a democrat on ice. (ouch that hurts)
No kid left behind

I'll tell you how a small town like Roseau does it....the ice fees are payed through the local tax base, not just by the parents. There is one rink open just to play pick-up hockey anytime the kids want.

They get a ton more ice than most kids get elsewhere.

[O-townClown]

Thanks for the responses. I feel if a team only has 13/14 skaters on their squirt A roster it's more for the winning factor. I realize coaches want to win but these kids are only 4th and 5th grade. If the numbers are there I feel each team should have at least three lines. Not trying to rock the boat however many people talk about this year after year.

If I were king Edina (and programs like it) would have three balanced A teams with 10 skaters and a goalie. They'd develop at a faster rate.

[gorilla1]

Sometimes what needs to be understood is that by limiting rosters at the top, it creates a need for more teams at the C level, which increases the cost because of the requirement to have more ice. The bottom line is that once you get to picking the 13 plus kid, there usually is two more kids just like him that could be rostered without a drop in talent. If you place 10 skaters or 13 skaters on the A team in the name of better development because of more touches etc. . ., do you do the same all the way down the line with the B and C teams?

[Judgeandjury]

Sometimes what needs to be understood is that by limiting rosters at the top, it creates a need for more teams at the C level, which increases the cost because of the requirement to have more ice. The bottom line is that once you get to picking the 13 plus kid, there usually is two more kids just like him that could be rostered without a drop in talent. If you place 10 skaters or 13 skaters on the A team in the name of better development because of more touches etc. . ., do you do the same all the way down the line with the B and C teams?

Agreed! If the numbers are there when's the last time you saw a B or C squirt team roster 13 players?

It's my opinion there's one reason some associations only roster 13/14 players and it's not for the development aspect. For a select few winning means everything and for the majority it's a lower priority. We all know the kids are still young enough for any players to make the jump over the next few years.

Good stuff thanks for the replies.

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

NAME the Association

Are they developing at the squirt level ? Or are they winning at the squirt level? Would the girls team be at 15 skaters if the same numbers trying out?

Team size : "will be 1 Squirt A team, 3 Squirt B teams, and 3 Squirt C teams" WOW 7 squirt teams without mite moveup to Squirt C... 105 kids roughly.

Team Selection : " the A team will consist of 13 skaters " WOW, don't they have a better chance of fielding 15A skaters then say a Chaska or Woodbury, not to mention the smaller associations which maybe less than 1/2 the size.

[Judgeandjury]

Not a big deal. If the association has numbers then roster 15 squirt A players. I've already spoken to many people from other associations and majority of them are going with the fewest amount of skaters they can on the squirt A team.
I fear that they're doing this for the winning factor versus development. I think we all can agree a young skater will benefit skating with better skaters.

[nmnhockeydad]

My son played on a Squirt "A" team with 10 skaters, only because there were only 20 at the squirt level. There were probably five skaters who were true "A" caliber skaters. They won one game all year. They lost the first game of the year 13-1. They lost in the playoffs against the same team in overtime 3-2. 9 skaters off that team ended up on a Pee Wee "A" team. Everyone developed. They would have developed if there was 15 skaters.