American Development Model? (ADM)

skills_coach1 · Post by **skills_coach1** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:57 pm

So what are your thoughts? Will this bring about more American born NHL'ers? How do you see it being implemented? Will your current organization apply to be High Competition Level Leagues??

Seriously, what do you think of this USA hockey proposal? How and when will we see it in place and the potential products... Curious on the discussion that ensues...

Barman · Post by **Barman** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:23 am

There is already a thread on this, forget what it is called.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:48 am

According to Blatherwick and the front page of LPH, they've canned the HPCs for awhile.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:44 am

DMom wrote:According to Blatherwick and the front page of LPH, they've canned the HPCs for awhile.

Really? The probably realized what a fiasco that was. I had not seen that.

Thanks for sharing.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:40 am

It's my opinion that USA Hockey does a fairly decent job developing skaters, but where the real weakness lies, is the development of goaltending. Looking back at the WJC, that was the big difference. If I'm not mistaken, didn't the USA outshoot Slovakia at close to a 3-1 pace?

Canada spends a lot of time and resources coaching their goalies starting at a very young age. Here in America we throw our goalies in net and ask that they just stop shots in practice. The coaches, for the most part, focus too heavily on the skaters and basically ignore the netminders until they are Bantam or HS age.

Haute hockeymom · Post by **Haute hockeymom** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:44 am

Blatherwick article in LPH

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/976blatherwick.html

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:17 am

Blatherwick does confuse me at times since you would think he would be a big proponent of this approach. What I think sets him off more is the one size fits all dictatorship approach vs. more of a guidelines approach. USA hockey was trying to force the same system on everyone, using money as the carrot.

I would really like to see Jack layout his proposal. (It could be his STP which has a lot of common elements). His letter has a lot of good points, but the letter is disjointed. I really respect his teachings and approaches, but this response seems to be more of an attack on USA hockey than on elements of the program that are very beneficial.

My interpretation of his concerns regarding the development portion:

Multiple sports and non hockey activities are good ways to develop athleticism, but you still need to emphasize hockey specific activities.

The best way to develop hockey players is for them to play hockey. He is a proponent of non-structured pond hockey activities where kids can try new things a push themselves without the restrictions of playing in a system. I think he feels that adapting the LTAD approach strictly would take away from that.

The off ice athletic development should be structured for the individual, not one monolithic program for all to follow.

It kills the high school hockey model in Minnesota.

I think he feels USA hockey should promote the Minnesota model.

It would be nice for Hal and Jack to put together an outline on how this fits into the Minnesota situation (in their spare time of course

). I anticipate we could get a very interesting an thought provoking discussion of the issues, but the current form of the discussion takes away from the core of what should be debated.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:57 am

Sorn, I think you are spot-on to focus on the "one size fits all" flaw in your post. I don't see one size fitting many due to geography. Sun Belt hockey has grown, but it still far different than hotbeds. Minnesota is not Michigan or Massachusetts. Heck, Metro isn't Outstate (in MN) and Detroit isn't the rest (in MI).

These guidelines were pretty much in place already, no? I don't see much difference in the ADM principles and existing guidelines - that nobody follows anyway. (Maybe that's the real problem.)

Our rink owner has ice to sell. Think he wants to limited 'touches' in an area with low participation? Of course there's a problem implementing this.

Blatherwick hints that the HPC will come back in a summer-only form. Well there goes your ceiling on games!! They'll get players from AAA teams that already max'd out schedules, not a AA player that cut back to just 24 games at age 13 so he'd be able to play a dozen more in the summer.

In-season hockey is varied in our country. Expanding the Select program and possibly working on growing the USHL (possibly through acquisition of existing leagues) can achieve the same goals as HPC without abolishing hockey as we know it.

How could they not foresee all this? The "blog" online didn't ever answer any questions that were raised.

5thgraders · Post by **5thgraders** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:32 pm

Well then answer them you seem to have an answer for everything.

Bozo is one smart clown

He certainly is smarter than a fifth grader .

I am glad to see you finally got your nose out of sand

OnFrozenPond · Post by **OnFrozenPond** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:56 pm

5thgraders wrote:Well then answer them you seem to have an answer for everything.

Bozo is one smart clown

He certainly is smarter than a fifth grader .

I am glad to see you finally got your nose out of sand

Dude, you are digging deep to continue your fight. Is this turning into a tomASS vs Boogy battle?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:08 pm

A Minnesota Hockey committee (mostly non-board members - so put your fears aside) and the USAH ADM rep for MN are working on how to implement the program into MH.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:33 am

After an eight month hiatus this thread has been resurrected. What happened in the interim?

USA Hockey is using the NHL money to create an entire bureaucratic layer. Six guys, mostly college coaches, have been hired to spread the message.

Still, the problem seems to be with implementation, not the actual principles themselves.

Where USA Hockey struggles is that they want to issue mandates and expect everyone to follow them. After much thought, my impression is that the tack needs to be to show people how these concepts work. Lead, and maybe some will follow.

I recently learned the Blue Puck is seen as a requirement for Mites and a recommendation for Squirts! Using that one issue as a case study, you can see why the USA Hockey message fails to earn widespread acceptance. Sometimes we'd play with tennis balls as kids at the park, and it was always fun. Kids would surely play with Blue Pucks if people let them.

HPCs are still in the plans for 2010-11. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:36 am

5thgraders wrote:Well then answer them you seem to have an answer for everything.

Obviously I cannot answer for the home office of USA Hockey. Am I the only one that finds it odd that USA Hockey trumpets this blog and solicits questions, then doesn't respond?

jancze5 · Post by **jancze5** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:13 am

I have a few friends around the country in this game, as you guys know, and for the most part, it seems like this ADM is going to launch at some point. The main reason it didn't is because of all the AAA programs that make a TON of cash off of families are going to lose their cash cow in the process and just didn't support USA Hockey's initial attempt.

Do the math
Squirt minor 17 kids at 3000
Squirt major 17 kids at 3200
pw minor 17 kids at 3400
pw major 17 kids at 3600
btm minor 17 kids at 3800
btm major 17 kids at 4000
midget minor u16 20 kids at 5000 (7k if you live in Chitown)
midget major u18 20 kids at 8500

This is just an average look, but that's about 627K a year coming into an organization...would YOU SUPPORT the ADM if you were a "franchise" owner in AAA hockey?

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:21 am

O-townClown wrote:
Where USA Hockey struggles is that they want to issue mandates and expect everyone to follow them. After much thought, my impression is that the tack needs to be to show people how these concepts work. Lead, and maybe some will follow.

I recently learned the Blue Puck is seen as a requirement for Mites and a recommendation for Squirts! Using that one issue as a case study, you can see why the USA Hockey message fails to earn widespread acceptance. Sometimes we'd play with tennis balls as kids at the park, and it was always fun. Kids would surely play with Blue Pucks if people let them.

HPCs are still in the plans for 2010-11. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

I don't get the blue puck....they bounce all over the place and the kids have a tough time keeping them on their stick.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:56 am

Muck, I've heard all the arguments against, so I asked the Prez of our affiliate for the argument for. He provided me with a lot of information. Short version - USA Hockey thinks it will make the game more enjoyable for the kids. Retention will go up. They will have an easier time stickhandling, passing, and of course shooting. The complaints you hear are from adults, not the kids. (You and I can feel free to disagree with their reasoninng.)

Blue Puck is supposedly used in Scandinavia and the Czech Republic.

Our affiliate is catching a lot of heat for not using them.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:27 am

I don’t understand what an ADM model is. Frankly, I don’t care as long as Minnesota Hockey does not change their current age levels to fit USA Hockey minor and major age levels. That two year rule keeps the retention of kids in Minnesota Hockey more then any other rule that Minnesota Hockey has by allowing kids whether they are borne in January or December of a given year, the opportunity to excel at squirts, peewees, and bantams (or U10, U12 and U14).

USA Hockey should realize if retention was the major problem that they are trying to fix, that their current single year approach kills the desire of all the kids born late in the year to participate. Effectively, USA Hockey loses half of the potential kids interested in playing hockey in each birth year. They have built their program on sand and no shoring up of walls will prevent USA Hockey from sagging.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:55 pm

frederick61 wrote:I don’t understand what an ADM model is. Frankly, I don’t care

If you did care....

http://www.admkids.com/

USA Hockey may have shortcomings, but it sure seems like they've done a great job of communicating ADM and the LTAD. (Even those that don't agree with it must concede they've been very good about gettiing the word out.)

For those interested, you can probably spend 60-90 minutes on that site reading everything.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:29 pm

O-townClown wrote:Muck, I've heard all the arguments against, so I asked the Prez of our affiliate for the argument for. He provided me with a lot of information. Short version - USA Hockey thinks it will make the game more enjoyable for the kids. Retention will go up. They will have an easier time stickhandling, passing, and of course shooting. The complaints you hear are from adults, not the kids. (You and I can feel free to disagree with their reasoninng.)

Blue Puck is supposedly used in Scandinavia and the Czech Republic.

Our affiliate is catching a lot of heat for not using them.

D16 does not use them (if they want, they can, we do not believe in mandating development), most prefer the smaller black puck for mites (especially the younger, less skilled) - same consistency, a little lighter and smaller. If they want to use tennis balls, who cares...
The coaches and associations can decide...
suggest - fine, good, great
mandate - not so good

If Florida is not using them, you are not ruining the kids...

When I have watched mites (and worse squirts) there are blue pucks flying around the players head all practice long.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com