small towns who dont have the talent wanting to play a?

[hellofellow89]

all the years i have been around youth hockey i have lived in a small town, i dont understand these coaches who say we have to play a when we dont have the talent to even be on the same ice as these bigger towns who play a they say that will make the kids better but i strongly disagree im assuming why the have gone to this aa thing

[BadgerBob82]

Welcome to the forums hellofellow89!

I think you are speaking exactly to the problem that has been created. While the AA-A model might be needed regardless, I know too many smaller associations field A level teams without the talent needed to compete at the A level. In other words, they are B teams playing at the A level because the coaches, parents, or association members will not put their ego's aside.

I don't think the AA-A proposal will solve any problems as the underlying problem is too many programs will continue to play at the wrong level for the ability and depth of their players. Throw them to the wolves, they'll get better just trying to survive. (Or quit)

Ask around the summer AAA rinks. Talk to the AAA parents. Those parents of top level talent view other AAA programs as "wannbe's". They have to name their teams Elite and play in Invite Only tournaments to distance themselves from AAA teams that have B ability level.

The egos of parents will never be removed from youth sports. Couple that will endless amounts of money thrown at their kid's sports.

[hellofellow89]

thanks! yeah its hassle not only for the teams who have to play them but for the parents and coaches who insist they need to play A. they really think the kids are going to get better playing A when they dont have the talent to compete at that level. how are the kids supposed to get any better when they spend the whole game chasing the puck and also rarely touching the puck? i have seen this for years in my hometown but for a while when we had some coaches who had common sense, we only played at the level we could compete and ended up with some pretty decent high school teams considering the size of our town and how young are hockey program is. they say the kids wont get any better if they dont play A, when there is evidence that this is false if they had been around when groups of kids would play B in squirts and by the time they got to peewees they could compete and beat big schools at the A level. the reason for that being the kids had fun playing B in squirts competing and winning some games it made them want to get better because they realized how fun and great the game is when you play in competitive games!!

[HockeyDad41]

Ask around the summer AAA rinks. Talk to the AAA parents. Those parents of top level talent view other AAA programs as "wannbe's". They have to name their teams Elite and play in Invite Only tournaments to distance themselves from AAA teams that have B ability level.

Bo - do you view other AAA programs as "wannabe's"?

[Outoftowner]

thanks! yeah its hassle not only for the teams who have to play them but for the parents and coaches who insist they need to play A. they really think the kids are going to get better playing A when they dont have the talent to compete at that level. how are the kids supposed to get any better when they spend the whole game chasing the puck and also rarely touching the puck? i have seen this for years in my hometown but for a while when we had some coaches who had common sense, we only played at the level we could compete and ended up with some pretty decent high school teams considering the size of our town and how young are hockey program is. they say the kids wont get any better if they dont play A, when there is evidence that this is false if they had been around when groups of kids would play B in squirts and by the time they got to peewees they could compete and beat big schools at the A level. the reason for that being the kids had fun playing B in squirts competing and winning some games it made them want to get better because they realized how fun and great the game is when you play in competitive games!!

If you are in D5 and have enough kids for two teams, the district makes you field an A team.

[Outoftowner]

all the years i have been around youth hockey i have lived in a small town, i dont understand these coaches who say we have to play a when we dont have the talent to even be on the same ice as these bigger towns who play a they say that will make the kids better but i strongly disagree im assuming why the have gone to this aa thing

When did finding challanges to test and improve skills become a bad thing?

[black sheep]

thanks! yeah its hassle not only for the teams who have to play them but for the parents and coaches who insist they need to play A. they really think the kids are going to get better playing A when they dont have the talent to compete at that level.

Might want to take a look at what EGF did with their bantam program the last two years before saying having kids be challenged is a poor decision.

For small towns once you accept the B road, it can be difficult to recover.

[hellofellow89]

when you dont even touch the puck your not even really playing hockey, your basically playing keep away and your always the one chasing. the number one thing this game is supposed to be about is fun!! and i dont know about you but the most fun for me when i played was playing in games. i cant imagine the kids who are getting smoked by at least 7 goals in every game can be having to much fun playing in games considering they rarely touch the puck and when they do, they rarely make a play because 1 they are not used to having the puck on their stick in a game situation, 2 the play is much to fast for them to react because they are playing at the wrong level, so they end up playing slap happy hockey when they actually do touch the puck, what are they learning from that? if they played at a level down they could make some plays win some games and have fun!!! playing b1 would be better for those teams and it would be challenging and more fun.

[hellofellow89]

improve skills? what skills would they be improving playing at a level they get smoked every game? the skills would improve much more playing at a level down because like i said they would have the puck on their stick a lot more make a lot more plays and their heads would be totally in the game because it would be competitive. if a particular team has the skill to play A then they play A, if they dont they play B. In my town we used to have the mentality that we have to play A, well you know what we didnt have the talent we got smoked kids lost interest and those varsity teams didnt end up being very good. a few years later we changed the mentality and only played at a level we could compete guess what happened kids had fun got better and ended up being decent at varsity.

[hellofellow89]

all the years i have been around youth hockey i have lived in a small town, i dont understand these coaches who say we have to play a when we dont have the talent to even be on the same ice as these bigger towns who play a they say that will make the kids better but i strongly disagree im assuming why the have gone to this aa thing

When did finding challanges to test and improve skills become a bad thing?

what challenges? lets try not to lose by 10 this game instead will make it 8. how can that be fun for kids? you know what would be fun for them playing at a level they can compete and because they can compete they will get a whole lot better playing in those games instead of the games that end up in running time. do you think a kid is gonna get better playing in a game where the score is 6-5 or in a game that the score is 10-0?

[old goalie85]

In some cases I can agree/Not in others !! Chisago plays B every year yet refuses to play A reguardless the talent in each group. I grew up in FL/we only had B teams back then.[untill bantams] When we got to varsity we were way behind all other sports/teams in our conference.[North sub ] The Forest Lake teams,That plyed top competion in youth were just fine!!!!! We as kids wanted to play A/Not beat the other B teams!!!!!

[hellofellow89]

[quote="old goalie85"]In some cases I can agree/Not in others !! Chisago plays B every year yet refuses to play A reguardless the talent in each group. I grew up in FL/we only had B teams back then.[untill bantams] When we got to varsity we were way behind all other sports/teams in our conference.[North sub ] The Forest Lake teams,That plyed top competion in youth were just fine!!!!! We as kids wanted to play A/Not beat the other B teams!!!!![/quo

if you have the talent you play A. Forest Lake thats a AA school right? well yeah they should be able to play A hockey and could imagine why they were behind given the teams they probably played in varsity. I am talking about small towns who play single A in high school. If you can compete at the A level then by all means you should play A but if you get smoked in every game not so much. In these small towns they might not and probably wont beat a big towns best B team yet they play those towns A teams instead. What would be the reason for you wanting to play at a level you cant compete other than ego, they think they get better when the game ends up in running time when in actuality they get much better playing in competitive games. When i was in squirts we had a B1 and a B2 team. we would play teams like moorheads B1s and be competitive. once we got to peewees we played A and beat the crap out of bemidji, brainerd, trf, and lost to moorhead by 1 goal. evidence teams do get better when played at a level they can compete.

[MrBoDangles]

Ask around the summer AAA rinks. Talk to the AAA parents. Those parents of top level talent view other AAA programs as "wannbe's". They have to name their teams Elite and play in Invite Only tournaments to distance themselves from AAA teams that have B ability level.

Bo - do you view other AAA programs as "wannabe's"?

I would think that most are finding a higher level of competition in the Summer.

NO "Wannabe's" in my book...

How do you feel about "other" programs?

[Outoftowner]

all the years i have been around youth hockey i have lived in a small town, i dont understand these coaches who say we have to play a when we dont have the talent to even be on the same ice as these bigger towns who play a they say that will make the kids better but i strongly disagree im assuming why the have gone to this aa thing

When did finding challanges to test and improve skills become a bad thing?

what challenges? lets try not to lose by 10 this game instead will make it 8. how can that be fun for kids? you know what would be fun for them playing at a level they can compete and because they can compete they will get a whole lot better playing in those games instead of the games that end up in running time. do you think a kid is gonna get better playing in a game where the score is 6-5 or in a game that the score is 10-0?

I understand what you are saying. However, where does that end? Motivation to get better is missing when you continue to lower your standards for success. What happens if you switch to B and can only win a few games? Do you then switch to C? What if at C level you only win half your games? At some point, perseverance through failure helps as a motivator for positive determination and effort. In other words, work harder, revamp your program, find better coaching, emulate more successful programs. Implement dryland, power/speed skating and stick handling, passing possibly hire consultants and just make a commitment to get better. An 8-1 game is an improvement from 10-0 no matter how negative you want to be about it. Use it as a positive motivation and measurement of your program. If you cant score, evaluate why and work to improve your offence. If you always have double digit scoring against you, then clearly your defense needs work. Good programs work on both aspects of then game in an ongoing process, along with individual skill development.

Finally, be realistic. Don't plan on beating the top teams in the state or even in your district. Work toward being competitive with the middle tier teams.

Honestly I understand your frustration but IMO, your plan is a negative philosophy. For example, If I want to get good at arm wresting, what good would it do me to schedule arm wresting contests with 12 year old girls. Can I claim success because I finally found someone I can beat? I know that is extreme, but hopefully you get my point.

[observer]

Outoftowner, everything you said is true but all secondary.

There is a single powerful solution that must come first and solves all other problems. Recruiting. 30 new mite boys and 20 new mite girls this fall. The recruiting committee is the most important group in any association. Hockey development isn't real important if you don't have enough players to form a team.

With more players comes more revenue, more and better coaches and more and better volunteers.

Recruiting season starts right now with a solid recruiting committee plan. Minnesota Hockey, and several of the Districts, have programs to refund some of your associations recruiting expenses.

[elliott70]

In District 16 your first team is an A team (even if you have only one team).
BUT, you can ask (and almost always it is granted) to play at the B level with your first team.

AND, you can get permission for that B team to play middle/lower level A teams in the District.

[old goalie85]

The way it should be.

[hellofellow89]

I understand what you are saying. However, where does that end? Motivation to get better is missing when you continue to lower your standards for success. What happens if you switch to B and can only win a few games? Do you then switch to C? What if at C level you only win half your games? At some point, perseverance through failure helps as a motivator for positive determination and effort. In other words, work harder, revamp your program, find better coaching, emulate more successful programs. Implement dryland, power/speed skating and stick handling, passing possibly hire consultants and just make a commitment to get better. An 8-1 game is an improvement from 10-0 no matter how negative you want to be about it. Use it as a positive motivation and measurement of your program. If you cant score, evaluate why and work to improve your offence. If you always have double digit scoring against you, then clearly your defense needs work. Good programs work on both aspects of then game in an ongoing process, along with individual skill development.

Finally, be realistic. Don't plan on beating the top teams in the state or even in your district. Work toward being competitive with the middle tier teams.

Honestly I understand your frustration but IMO, your plan is a negative philosophy. For example, If I want to get good at arm wresting, what good would it do me to schedule arm wresting contests with 12 year old girls. Can I claim success because I finally found someone I can beat? I know that is extreme, but hopefully you get my point.[/quote]

playing at the level you can compete never ends, its where you belong. With time if the kids have the motivation, they will get better and play at higher level IF THEY CAN COMPETE. If you only win half the games at the C level than that's probably where you should be playing at. What do you define as success? Playing at the highest level you can regardless of the lack of talent you have at that level? And where from there not going into running time? Success lies in each individual kid with the amount of fun they are having making plays and playing the game the right way. This isnt all about preparation for the next level and even if it was playing at a level you cant compete isnt the way to go about it, because you learn nothing in those games you rarely touch the puck in. you might learn something by watching the players on the other team. but games are the time to play and show your team skills, develop them as your having fun playing in a competitive game. well my man playing in 8-1 game is negative i know i didnt like to lose by that much when i was a little guy and those games were never fun to play in, how could it be when the other team dominates the play for the entire game. luckily those games didnt happen to often when i played because i had coaches that knew what they were doing having us play at a level we could compete at. that is a really bad analogy. i got one how about an 8th grade kid who starts the year off in algebra but just doesnt seem to get it at all fails every test know matter how hard he works so his teacher decides to move him back down to normal 8th grade math. If a kid wants to get good he will get good problem is now a days it seems like the parents want it more than the kids. kids want to have fun parents want their kids to be superstars. thats fine i guess but having your kids team play at the wrong level isnt the way to go about it. its not about claiming success, thats ego. FUN good close games thats what keeps the kids interested and if they want to get good they will get good. who says you have to play A to be good hockey player?

[Outoftowner]

playing at the level you can compete never ends, its where you belong. With time if the kids have the motivation, they will get better and play at higher level IF THEY CAN COMPETE. If you only win half the games at the C level than that's probably where you should be playing at. What do you define as success? Playing at the highest level you can regardless of the lack of talent you have at that level? And where from there not going into running time? Success lies in each individual kid with the amount of fun they are having making plays and playing the game the right way. This isnt all about preparation for the next level and even if it was playing at a level you cant compete isnt the way to go about it, because you learn nothing in those games you rarely touch the puck in. you might learn something by watching the players on the other team. but games are the time to play and show your team skills, develop them as your having fun playing in a competitive game. well my man playing in 8-1 game is negative i know i didnt like to lose by that much when i was a little guy and those games were never fun to play in, how could it be when the other team dominates the play for the entire game. luckily those games didnt happen to often when i played because i had coaches that knew what they were doing having us play at a level we could compete at. that is a really bad analogy. i got one how about an 8th grade kid who starts the year off in algebra but just doesnt seem to get it at all fails every test know matter how hard he works so his teacher decides to move him back down to normal 8th grade math. If a kid wants to get good he will get good problem is now a days it seems like the parents want it more than the kids. kids want to have fun parents want their kids to be superstars. thats fine i guess but having your kids team play at the wrong level isnt the way to go about it. its not about claiming success, thats ego. FUN good close games thats what keeps the kids interested and if they want to get good they will get good. who says you have to play A to be good hockey player?

Have considered just playing outdoor rink rat hockey? It's just for fun and usually there is no score kept. If your kid cant keep up to the kids out there then just quit and come back later. Maybe there will be different kids playing so jr can touch the puck. Otherwise, work toward being able to compete in competitive (and fun) association hockey. I think the issue may be that you want competitive association hockey to be community rec hockey, but it sounds like your association wants to be competitive. If you are in district 5 you are required to play A if you have enough kids for two teams. What district are you in?

[HockeyTalk18]

Did your Association Offer a lower team? sounds like maybe that would have been a better fit for your child/family, not sure if you have a kid playing or just chatting about why Associations do that, but I would think it's a little deeper

MN offers 4 levels of hockey? A,B1,B2,C

your Association may have some folks that want to be offered that level so the community offers "A" for those who want it, then from there maybe a B1,B2 or C, not sure about what Association you are talking about, and I really don't want to know.

Point being, lots of reason Associations Offer what they do either in School or Sports, your example of Math is not a bad one But.. your school offered both, just like most Associations do for Hockey. It would be interesting if MN Hockey used a method like Soccer, Associations Self Select levels when young, but starting at a certain age you have to Earn it to stay there, or if you rip up the lower level you get moved up. But then again Soccer uses Birth year age, that system would not work for Sqt's, PW's, Bantams due to a 2 year window, one Bantam team would not be the same kids next year, in Soccer they usually are

I know we live in a time of What can you do for me, and not what can I do for you, but try not to throw communities under the bus for offering activities for the kids in their community

[PWD10]

I know we live in a time of What can you do for me, and not what can I do for you, but try not to throw communities under the bus for offering activities for the kids in their community

We used to live in another state. It seemed funny our community every year in the spring and summer had roller hockey programs. Footprint was very small about the cost of upkeeping one tennis court, costs were definately affordable like $60 for the season per player. It grew our ice program so greatly that within two or three years of starting it one of our Squirt or PW hockey programs went to the T2 Nationals and lost in the finals by a single goal. Same thing happened the following year. I would guess 50 percent of our players who were on those teams would have never played ice if they hadn't had played competitive roller in the summer.

Quite literally we were shocked at how devoid the summer programs are here since moving here. We just thought it was natural. Mind you the state we lived in did not have a pro baseball team so I think that might have led to less players playing baseball then other areas.

I will also add this our best forwards all played roller hockey. I can't put a finger on what it was or is but they all seem to have a different mindset or ability after playing roller. They are more confident and their passes and thinking improved greatly.

For rinks with shops/stores the costs of lightweight durable and clothing material and sticks easily keep it on par with ice. Some roller blades are more expensive then ice skates, throw in upgrades in wheels, berings and different sticks and it all adds up.

We would definately join a team or league...if we could find one close by.

[hellofellow89]

why have competitive hockey if its not going to be competitive? is it so your kid can play at the highest level possible because you think he or she is going to be a superstar one day? Isn't it all just for fun? what are the incentives here? If the incentive is to make it as much fun as possible for kids while helping them to become better hockey players than you are in the right. If the incentive is to get as much kids you can into the program while making them want to stay than your incentive is right. Not all kids play hockey just to prepare them for the next level in fact i would say most dont. The people that i may or not throw under the bus (depends on how you wanna take it) have absolutely nothing to do with providing kids a sheet of ice to play on. Most are coaches who have a kid on the team who have it driven into their head that they must play at the highest level possible if the kids are going to get good if you have any hockey knowledge at all you would know that this is false. In fact when you make the kids play at a level that is not competitive for example getting blown out in every game or blowing some one out in every game the kids are not getting much better at all. i have seen both philosophies when it comes to this A, B thing and guess which one worked as far producing good hockey players and good hockey teams at the varsity level. Play where its competitive!!!

[hellofellow89]

we used to have a roller hockey league to it was really cool

[hellofellow89]

how would you consider an association that get beats by double digits because they play at the wrong level competitive? because of that kids lose interest and quit. its not about one kid being able to touch the puck its about the team being able to make plays to one another. these games turn into monkey in the middle. This is really common sense man i know your gonna say oh well the kids will just have to work harder so they can get the puck, oh yeah than what are they going to do when it finally gets on their stick are they going to make a play or are they just going to throw it away because the other team is to fast for them? are you honestly going to tell me a kid is going to work harder in a game where its running time compared to a game where the score is close?

[PWD10]

what challenges? lets try not to lose by 10 this game instead will make it 8. how can that be fun for kids? you know what would be fun for them playing at a level they can compete and because they can compete they will get a whole lot better playing in those games instead of the games that end up in running time. do you think a kid is gonna get better playing in a game where the score is 6-5 or in a game that the score is 10-0?

We this past fall/winter had a coach who coached a Minnesota Rec league team. He received his players and was looking at where the players were from and based just on the location started figuring out who was going where and what not. One of the kids came from a town which has no Bantam AA, Bantam A or even Bantam B1 program. The B2 program finished at roughly 500. This one player was by far our leading scorer I want to say close to 80 plus goals. I think in his last two games he had like 10 of our 12 goals. What was interesting to really watch as how he played a lot of the other players picked up his style and started playing that way. We won some, we lost some, but we knew in each and every game we had a difference maker who could quickly strike. I might add our leading scorer didn't even play offense and he had not played any hockey since the previous summer like 7 months earlier. We blew one team out 15-1 and I think there were more that the score was close and maybe even double digit. My point...it happens, let the players roll and you will soon forget those games. But lose those games in Showcase or Minnesota Rec league or in similar experiences where these kids will never probably ever be together again, matter all that much or if they are they really don't weigh much on things. I must say our losses were close games for the most part. As one kid used to say. Never ever forget that sometimes the opponent has more weapons then you do.

I asked the kid why he played rec league vs association and he simply said he had moved, the waiver thing didn't work out and instead of playing Bantam B2 which he considered almost unsportsmanlike to trying rec league just to see if there was enough quality to make it worthwhile and to get a feel for the ice and to work on things he had never done before. In this case he knew the quality of B2, he did not know what he would be facing in rec league.

So for clarity with regard to the waiver system in Minnesota. If you are living in one town but going to school in another you need or do not need a waiver to play where you goto school?[/quote]

Wasn't there an article by someone named Bucci about it was allright to run up the score widely disseminated last year...What gives...is it or isn't it?