HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

Look on the bright side, it may significantly reduce the number of morons who write into this forum.

GoBigorGoHome wrote:Look on the bright side, it may significantly reduce the number of morons who write into this forum.

Another who thinks it could have a negative impact.....

So the big picture is even worse........... The bOred could be in jeopardy!

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

I would say watching grass grow, watching basketball, learning origami, cross country family trips in a car for 19 hours or mowing the lawn all seem more exciting than watching full ice mite games.

When I grew up in the '70's we played 1/2 ice games until squirts, I don't think it hurt us any. Full ice seems like a waste of ice and money, if it gets more kids involved by keeping costs down I think that's a good thing.

We don't put younger kids on a 100 yard football field and we don't have younger kids pitching from a MLB mound or running MLB bases either. It's near financially impossible to build smaller rinks so this seems like a good compromise.

MN_Hcky_Coach wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

I would say watching grass grow, watching basketball, learning origami, cross country family trips in a car for 19 hours or mowing the lawn all seem more exciting than watching full ice mite games.

Sorry to hear that ... hope your mite program improves.

goldy313 wrote:We don't put younger kids on a 100 yard football field and we don't have younger kids pitching from a MLB mound or running MLB bases either. It's near financially impossible to build smaller rinks so this seems like a good compromise.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

But I know a bunch of you out there really think your kid is a future NHL'er. Last time I checked, no one was handing out scholarships, or contracts at a mite game.... Except the Mn Maid teams of course

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

If their kids are first year? I'd say none. Most of the first year players can't go end to end in less than a minute. Cross ice for 1st or 2nd year(c's & d's) is a good idea. Maybe go full ice for A's & maybe B's

What are the essential skills that only can be gained by playing full ice that are so vital for 1st year squirts to learn? I can't think of any.

We always talk about gaining the solid foundation of skating and stickhandling. 1/2 ice does that quite well.

MN_Hcky_Coach wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

I would say watching grass grow, watching basketball, learning origami, cross country family trips in a car for 19 hours or mowing the lawn all seem more exciting than watching full ice mite games.

The reason I bring it up is because we always hear parents say they can't wait until their kids play on full ice. Are you able to honestly say that you were not interested at all in your kids first full ice games?

In no way am I saying that small ice games are not a great thing for development. I'm just curious of what the effects on participation will be. Should there not be a balance of both?

My sons team played their first full ice game in the Showcase league. The kids were excited to say the least and the parents enjoyed

I would have to say there needs to be a compromise. Once again the problem with USA hockey is it is all or nothing. Just like removing checking from pee-wee's. First I see a lot of value in small area games for development - that includes but is not limited to cross-ice hockey. However there is also a time and place for full ice games as well. First reason is at least for my son who is a last year mite - He wants to play full ice games like his older brother - the gophers - the wild. He watches hockey and wants to play they way they do. If it is not fun for the kids they will not continue to play the game. If he knows they are going to do a cross-ice game he is not nearly as excited as when he knows they are going to play a full-ice game. I have seen a lot of very good full ice mite games this year. In fact some times I give his older brother who is an A pee-wee a hard time because they move the puck better than some of the kids on the pee-wee team. In my opinion and I ran a mite program I was in charge like this - First the teams should be picked on ability - not age. Get kids of similar ability on the ice together. Then you have the lowest level group play 100% cross-ice or half-ice games. The next level could do 50% cross-ice / 50% full ice. Start the year cross-ice finish full ice. The next level (was our highest level) do 75% full-ice / 25% cross-ice with an emphasis on small area games in practices at all three levels. There is no question both have a place in the development of young hockey players. I don't think it has to be all or nothing. You have not seen good mites skate or play if you don't believe mites can handle full-ice games. I was told by my old district director that USA hockey went to Russia and other places to study how they develop players and that is why we came up with cross-ice games - yet when I ran into a couple of Russian dad's this summer who grew up in Russia and played in Russia they laughed at that idea. They have boys that were probably the most skilled 99's I have ever seen. They play out of California and my son played against them this past summer so I had a very lengthy conversation with them on what they did for development. They started their own hockey team because they didn't agree with a lot of the ideas in the ADM. Once again I think there are some good points and some not so good. The tough part is competition keeps companies honest and USA Hockey really doesn't have any competition to keep them honest. They are a monopoly so they can basically do what they want - good or bad. They use what ever stats they want to make up to get their point across, but usually have nothing to prove it. Most of their decision come down to money - not necessarily what is best for the kids. I recently read an article on how the US has more players in the NHL today than ever before and USA hockey wanted to credit the ADM - That is a pile because the ADM was not around when they grew up playing. I would bet that the players in the NHL today played full-ice games at the mite level - worked out pretty good for them! Let's not be so close minded and say it has to be one way or another. Sorry so long winded.

goldy313 wrote:When I grew up in the '70's we played 1/2 ice games until squirts, I don't think it hurt us any. Full ice seems like a waste of ice and money, if it gets more kids involved by keeping costs down I think that's a good thing.

We don't put younger kids on a 100 yard football field and we don't have younger kids pitching from a MLB mound or running MLB bases either. It's near financially impossible to build smaller rinks so this seems like a good compromise.

These examples are far from 3on3, cross ice, no rules Hockey....... 6on6 football starting on the 20 with 5 downs and little rules would be closer....... Not learning to play as a 11 player football unit or the rules of a real football game.

Mix of both would be best in my opinion. That is not the topic though.

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

This topic is really getting old... the kids will probably become better with puck handling and decision making skills... and on the flip side, they'll be worse at rushing the puck.

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

This is the first I have heard of this. All I have to say is a good friend of mine who coached my son for a few years in Woodbury Hockey grew up in Toronto. He said they played on 1/2 ice I believe up to PeeWee age.

He said that is why Canadian players are so good in the corners and along the boards.

I guess it will be another out of the blue change that many won't like......We must have been100% wrong all these years.

Would of probably been smart to try it out for 40% of the contests or do it more in practice hours. Nope, should not have full games at all anymore in Mites.



Bernie scores again.

[This is the first I have heard of this. All I have to say is a good friend of mine who coached my son for a few years in Woodbury Hockey grew up in Toronto. He said they played on 1/2 ice I believe up to PeeWee age.

He said that is why Canadian players are so good in the corners and along the boards]


I know that is not true for all Canadians - I know for a fact in Winnipeg and Calgary they play all full ice games - zero cross-ice at mites. At least that is what I have been told when we have been there for tournaments.

"Things that make me wonder"....between PuckU126 trying to be the last poster on every topic on this forum and MrBo responding to his own posting after every other response (could be considered insanity), I can get better entertainment value reading the local paper police reports...If you are involved with MN Hock or USA Hock remember there are thousands of youth players depending on your leadership. Good luck...and try not to screw up Minnesota Hockey.

Did Minnesota embrace Red, White & Blue with a 100% mandate in the last few hours?

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........

Fewer than the new ones that the sport will attract when you can play an entire season for something like $175 because programs will be encouraged to cram 50 kids on the ice at a time.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........

Fewer than the new ones that the sport will attract when you can play an entire season for something like $175 because programs will be encouraged to cram 50 kids on the ice at a time.

The Mite parents will all expect their fees to drop by 75% then next year...... It's going to be great!!!!

OH Clown you could start a new Florida Frenzy " ICE SITTING "

No equipment needed you could sit the kids on the ice and then teach them the right way to play the game.

There seems to be quite a shortage of players that actually understand it.

You could bark your orders over the P.A. System

When time is up hit the buzzer and the next group comes in and sits.

Somehow I get the feeling that you are one who actually might not be able to turn the buzzer off though so this may not be a good idea for you after all....

PoniesDad45 wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:How many NEW parents/kids won't sign up for Hockey now........ Since they know that they'll have to watch their kid play cross-ice hockey for a few years.

I've had my kids in both and nothing compares to watching a full ice game.

Just my opinion.... What do you folks think will happen?

This is the first I have heard of this. All I have to say is a good friend of mine who coached my son for a few years in Woodbury Hockey grew up in Toronto. He said they played on 1/2 ice I believe up to PeeWee age.

He said that is why Canadian players are so good in the corners and along the boards.

I've been to Vancouver, Winnepeg, and Calgary for squirt age hockey ... they must do it differently in Toronto.

!Viva la Quebec!

I've been to several full-ice mite games in the SW metro, and I don't see the terrible things that get posted here. Sure, there are occasionally kids that can dominate a game by going end to end regularly, but such is the case in squirt, and even some peewee, games. In general I've seen kids working their tails off for 45-60 second shifts, carrying the puck, hitting teamates with passes in stride and on the tape, playing defense by skating backwards, forcing the puck carrier to the outside, and rubbing him off the puck. They seem to understand angles - where the puck is going and which direction they need to skate to get to it. In practice they skate edges, backwards, with and without the puck, end-to-end - for more than an hour. I certainly did not ride to the rink or back home with all of these kids, but in the lobby they seemed to be pretty happy.

I have also had a chance to watch a little station/cross-ice mite hockey. The aspect that struck me immediately was that, except for 2 or 3 of the 50, there was no stickhandling at all. The first kid to the puck took a wack at it, to send it in the direction of the net that would produce a score for their team (most times), in most cases the 6 kids on the ice (they were playing 3 on 3, which, in my opinion, destroys the argument of cross ice creating bodies in a tighter space) would stand flat footed and stare at the puck until they saw where it went, then all 6 would chase it until the fastest kid (usually the same kid) got there first and again gave it a wack toward his own goal (which was basically a knee hockey net).

O, you are correct, more bodies on the ice could lead to cheaper hockey; but at what price? More kids equals less space - how does a kid learn proper stride when he only gets two pushes before he's at the end of the drill. More kids equals less time - how many reps does the kid get when he has to stand in line so long. More kids equals less coach-to-kid time - how much one-on-one time is that kid getting? That may all be awesome in Florida, but in Minnesota you don't have to spend $175 to put your kid on the ice, watch him take two strides and fall down, with no one there to show him the correct way to do it.

In my district the last year mites (3rd graders) do full ice games for the 2nd half of the season. In my association we typically have 40 to 50 kids on the ice for practices (1.5 hour) and cross ice games in the 1st and 2nd grade level. We do have some ice times (1 hr) late in the season with 20 kids that can include some full ice scrimmages at the coaches discretion, we use the USA hockey practices plans but are not religious about it.

As a coach I have not ever been told that I had to do this to the letter of ADM but I find myself agreeing with it more than not. It also does keep the mite costs low (USA Hockey hooks people just like crack dealers, give it away until they are hooked then take all their money ).

What I think should be talked about from this post is the idea that we are doing this for the parents as spectators to enjoy their time in the stands. Never once in the last 20 years of coaching has it crossed my mind that I was there to entertain parents.

InigoMontoya wrote: O, you are correct, more bodies on the ice could lead to cheaper hockey; but at what price? More kids equals less space - how does a kid learn proper stride when he only gets two pushes before he's at the end of the drill. More kids equals less time - how many reps does the kid get when he has to stand in line so long. More kids equals less coach-to-kid time - how much one-on-one time is that kid getting? That may all be awesome in Florida, but in Minnesota you don't have to spend $175 to put your kid on the ice, watch him take two strides and fall down, with no one there to show him the correct way to do it.

This is BS, you watch a badly run practice and tear down ADM, you watch a full ice (most likely advanced last year mite) game and come to the conclusion full ice is the way to go. If you saw a bad practice blame the adults on the ice and not adm.

If there are 4 stations and 3 coaches per station. that is 12 coaches on the ice with 40 to 50 kids that is no different than the ratio you have at any other level. If you have 10 to 12 kids at a station and your organized they will not be in line for a great deal of time. In fact I think if anything we tend to overwork our kids by not resting them between stations.