HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Who own's this one? Board membership or HS?

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Who own's this one? Board membership or HS?

Both.

They should be working together to develop all the kids.

The goal for most of these kids is to play for their local HS and have a shot at the State Championship.

Bronc wrote:

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Who own's this one? Board membership or HS?

Both.

They should be working together to develop all the kids.

The goal for most of these kids is to play for their local HS and have a shot at the State Championship.

Well, it should be both. To me personally, the ultimate goal is HS varsity. Anything beyond that is a blessing.

What varsity coach is interested in bantam C hockey?

InigoMontoya wrote:What varsity coach is interested in bantam C hockey?

Completely agree, IM. Youth hockey has a much broader scope than just developing the next best HS team.

My kids brought home the paper in the back pack and asked to play hockey. I liked the idea because they would get some exercise and make friends. Now, 15 years latter, I think maybe that is still the most important part.

Youth Hockey Associations should focus on three things in my opinion. 1) Making hockey fun. 2) Providing players developmental opportunities. 3) Teaching young boys and girls discipline with an emphasis on rewarding effort.

HS coaches should be involved to the extent they can help any of these aspects... which is almost always all three.

It matters too whether you're talking a Roseau or a team in the cities... most cities associations feed hockey players into lots of schools, both public and private. When this is the case, it is NOT the association's role to push one high school over another, public or private.

Making hockey fun.

I think this is one of the most dangerous statements made in arenas. If you made the statement: 'Don't take the fun out of hockey', I would whole-heartedly agree. 'Making hockey fun' leads many people to the conclusion that hockey is not inherently fun, and that it has to be changed or manipulated in some way before a child can enjoy it - like broccoli. If a child doesn't find hockey to be fun, then there are many other options available. Hockey is NOT a no-child-left-behind proposition. Many, many children should not play hockey - there would be nobody left to wrestle, or play basketball, or swim, etc.

The assc. is for the kids! Now a smart varsity coach will "make his job easier by being involved with the youth coaches, player development comittees, summer programs, [STP] whatever. [see Mike Grant E.P. football] But keep in mind only 3 to 6 kids from any grade or class end up playing varsity.

old goalie85 wrote:The assc. is for the kids! Now a smart varsity coach will "make his job easier by being involved with the youth coaches, player development comittees, summer programs, [STP] whatever. [see Mike Grant E.P. football] But keep in mind only 3 to 6 kids from any grade or class end up playing varsity.

this is more what I meant, stated much better.

InigoMontoya wrote:

Making hockey fun.

I think this is one of the most dangerous statements made in arenas. If you made the statement: 'Don't take the fun out of hockey', I would whole-heartedly agree. 'Making hockey fun' leads many people to the conclusion that hockey is not inherently fun, and that it has to be changed or manipulated in some way before a child can enjoy it - like broccoli. If a child doesn't find hockey to be fun, then there are many other options available. Hockey is NOT a no-child-left-behind proposition. Many, many children should not play hockey - there would be nobody left to wrestle, or play basketball, or swim, etc.

I hear your point, but I must say, in my opinion, "structured hockey" is not always made fun. Coaches should always be conscious of whether their teams are "having fun". That's how you keep the kids playing and giving 100%

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

Making hockey fun.

I think this is one of the most dangerous statements made in arenas. If you made the statement: 'Don't take the fun out of hockey', I would whole-heartedly agree. 'Making hockey fun' leads many people to the conclusion that hockey is not inherently fun, and that it has to be changed or manipulated in some way before a child can enjoy it - like broccoli. If a child doesn't find hockey to be fun, then there are many other options available. Hockey is NOT a no-child-left-behind proposition. Many, many children should not play hockey - there would be nobody left to wrestle, or play basketball, or swim, etc.

I hear your point, but I must say, in my opinion, "structured hockey" is not always made fun. Coaches should always be conscious of whether their teams are "having fun". That's how you keep the kids playing and giving 100%

Until someone comes up with the Suite Life of Zach and Cody edge work routine, there will be aspects of practice that are simply less "fun" than others. Cake is more delicious than green beans, but I would bet that a healthy 8 year old has more "fun" than a big, fat 8 year old. By the same token an 8 year old that can go into the corner with speed and come away with the puck is likely going to have more "fun" than the kid that can "limbo".

Going into the corner with speed is a great way to end your hockey future

Have you had a chance to see all the Butchers that call themselves Players.

hocmom wrote:My kids brought home the paper in the back pack and asked to play hockey. I liked the idea because they would get some exercise and make friends. Now, 15 years latter, I think maybe that is still the most important part.

Can't resist this one...being a nine year retired board member from D8 and D9 and getting a "back pack" letter 15 years ago with kids still involved with the program today (rabbit comes to mind) how has the program helped your youth program promote excercise towards your HS program?