MN Hockey reminds coaches hockey is about having fun

[warmskin]

From MN Hockey email newsletter:

How short is your bench? I received an email recently from a 17-year-old “former youth player.” She related that as a U-14 when their team began district playoffs she and a couple other players did not skate one shift in any of the games. She sat and watched with no reason or explanation given by her coaches. She quit hockey forever at the end of the season. Parents, please have a very serious conversation with your coaches at the beginning of the season regarding play of players. Do not allow short benches on your teams. This article has appeared in Let’s Play Hockey several times and still applies today. Make a copy and take it to your early season team meeting and talk about it. No game is so important that players should sit on the bench and watch their teammates for lengthy periods of time. It is not fun and they come for fun and to play. Let them play.

See you around the rink.

Hal Tearse
Coach in Chief, Minnesota Hockey/ Chair Safety Committee
August 2012

[DMan-dad]

Yes, I read that article. It's great in theory, but it just doesn't work that way. Mr. Tearse knows this; I wonder why he's bringing this up. It will just cause friction between parents and coaches. I have heard many times in pre-season parents' meetings, "Feel free to talk to me any time, about anything. Except playing time."

[SCBlueLiner]

In a perfect world it would be nice to have a team composed of all players of similar talent level where turning the lines over is an easy task. The reality is, especially in smaller associations where there can be gaps in talent, it is sometimes necessary to shorten the bench when in a tournament championship game or playoff game. Coaches don't want to do this, but coaches also don't want to put a kid in a position he cannot handle. Putting a player in that position can also be a negative experience for the kid and also can cause teammates to resent that player of a little less caliber who just "cost the team the game". As coaches you preach "win as a team, lose as a team" but the reality is it leads to animosity within the team.

Coaches should try to keep playing time as fair as possible. They should get the end of the bench more time in meaningless games or blowouts to compensate for those times when the bench does get shortened. Basically, coaches should just use good judgment when it comes to playing time.

It's not on size fits all. It's just not that simple. That's my opinion.

[JSR]

WHat age group are we talking about SCBlueliner, because if we are talking Bantam and older then I agree with you. If we're talking about Pee Wee or Squirt age kids and younger then I could not disagree with you more. The kids don't care, they just want to play. The only ones who care are adults and they put their adult opinions on the kids after games. We are part of a small association with large talent gaps, I have never, not once been in the locker room with a team regardless of talent gaps where good kids blame and resent other kids for whether or not they won or lost, if that is happening on teams you are associated with then to me that reflects poorly on your coaches and your parents and that is not pie in the sky talk that is reality.

[SCBlueLiner]

I was talking about Pee Wee and up. We're talking about kids who are now in Jr High and are hitting puberty. The kid gloves start coming off and these kids start playing to win. Part of being a good coach is putting a player in the best possible position to succeed. It is necessary for their confidence and for their development.

I have been in locker rooms where squirt age kids start playing the blame game. They may be young at that age but they are still competitive whether it's hockey, baseball, monopoly, or video games, some kids don't like to lose and, because they are young and don't know better, express themselves poorly. To say this doesn't happen and that the kids are all just there to have fun is naive, in my experience.

FWIW, I don't count wins and loses, especially when the kids are mite or squirt age. I care more about developing and improvement as individuals and as a team. In the end nobody remembers who won the (Insert City Name) A Squirt Shootout Spectacular but they will remember the 2013 State High School Champions.

[luckyEPDad]

In a perfect world it would be nice to have a team composed of all players of similar talent level where turning the lines over is an easy task. The reality is, especially in smaller associations where there can be gaps in talent, it is sometimes necessary to shorten the bench when in a tournament championship game or playoff game. Coaches don't want to do this, but coaches also don't want to put a kid in a position he cannot handle. Putting a player in that position can also be a negative experience for the kid and also can cause teammates to resent that player of a little less caliber who just "cost the team the game". As coaches you preach "win as a team, lose as a team" but the reality is it leads to animosity within the team.

Coaches should try to keep playing time as fair as possible. They should get the end of the bench more time in meaningless games or blowouts to compensate for those times when the bench does get shortened. Basically, coaches should just use good judgment when it comes to playing time.

It's not on size fits all. It's just not that simple. That's my opinion.

Why is it "necessary"? That is the question you are supposed to be asking. Is it "necessary" to win any game? Is it worth essentially telling a player that they are worth-less?

When there is resentment over a loss it is usually because there is a culture of "winning is the only thing". It may not be the fault of the current coach, but it probably is part of the association culture. It is not an easy thing to fix, but that doesn't give you an excuse to not even try.

[IHEA]

From MN Hockey email newsletter:

How short is your bench? I received an email recently from a 17-year-old “former youth player.” She related that as a U-14 when their team began district playoffs she and a couple other players did not skate one shift in any of the games. She sat and watched with no reason or explanation given by her coaches. She quit hockey forever at the end of the season. Parents, please have a very serious conversation with your coaches at the beginning of the season regarding play of players. Do not allow short benches on your teams. This article has appeared in Let’s Play Hockey several times and still applies today. Make a copy and take it to your early season team meeting and talk about it. No game is so important that players should sit on the bench and watch their teammates for lengthy periods of time. It is not fun and they come for fun and to play. Let them play.

See you around the rink.

Hal Tearse
Coach in Chief, Minnesota Hockey/ Chair Safety Committee
August 2012

Does Hal say what to do if your coach makes a player suck their thumb infront of the whole team if they don't do a drill right? Did the parents at MM have a meeting with their fearless coach when he set that tone with the team?

Its definitely about having fun but its also about winning expecially at the top levels. But agree there must be a healthy balance of fun, improvement, discipline and winning. Takes a quality coach that spends time on more than just Xs and Os to get to know the players, to work on their individual S's and W's, get the most out of each and every one of them, keep a level of respect between team mates and coaches, and keep them motivated day in and day out. Hats off to those that do!

[wannagototherink]

The irony is when Hal was coaching at Wayzata, certain players almost never came off the rink...

[SCBlueLiner]

Sometimes it is necessary to try to win a game for the morale of a team. If a team keeps losing and losing and losing it eventually becomes no fun. The kids develop attitudes that they are losers and they will never be any better no matter how much coaches try to tell them otherwise.

I am not advocating a win every game at all costs attitude. I am describing a balanced, common sense approach to this issue of ice time vs winning the game. This common sense approach should take into account what skill level and what age group you are coaching as well.

[wannagototherink]

Sometimes it is necessary to try to win a game for the morale of a team. If a team keeps losing and losing and losing it eventually becomes no fun. The kids develop attitudes that they are losers and they will never be any better no matter how much coaches try to tell them otherwise.

I am not advocating a win every game at all costs attitude. I am describing a balanced, common sense approach to this issue of ice time vs winning the game. This common sense approach should take into account what skill level and what age group you are coaching as well.

I totally agree, the only problem is, common sense isn't that common...especially in youth athletics!

[greybeard58]

In the 80's one metro association had a section in their handbook that stated"The coach will compete with all of his players", in another section it had " A coach can consider himself a successful coach, not when his players make a high school team or a college scholarship o even the Olympic team. A coach is successful when he gets every player to develop and gain confidence in himself. When a coach by-passes a player,the coach is telling that player he has no confidence in him and he is telling the rest of the team he has no confidence in the player and soon the player will have no confidence in himself. A good coach can win games but a great coach develops teams." The association was Edina, it is to bad that a few years ago the bantam coach did not develop his 3rd line, as their lack of playing time actually caused his best players to get tired in the 3rd period and they could not keep up, and after the game they left their 2nd place trophy in the locker room.
Remember we are talking about children not adults and coaches need to teach the skills to all and develop all and the skills learned or not taught shows up in the games. I guess one can say good teaching will get you victories whether in winning games or winning a shift.

[JSR]

I was talking about Pee Wee and up. We're talking about kids who are now in Jr High and are hitting puberty. The kid gloves start coming off and these kids start playing to win. Part of being a good coach is putting a player in the best possible position to succeed. It is necessary for their confidence and for their development.

I have been in locker rooms where squirt age kids start playing the blame game. They may be young at that age but they are still competitive whether it's hockey, baseball, monopoly, or video games, some kids don't like to lose and, because they are young and don't know better, express themselves poorly. To say this doesn't happen and that the kids are all just there to have fun is naive, in my experience.

FWIW, I don't count wins and loses, especially when the kids are mite or squirt age. I care more about developing and improvement as individuals and as a team. In the end nobody remembers who won the (Insert City Name) A Squirt Shootout Spectacular but they will remember the 2013 State High School Champions.

Again I disagree with you. My oldest is second year Pee Wee age. He also plays on a high level travel soccer team. His previous soccer coach before this season would often "short the bench" in the sense that some kids played the whole game without sub and some would play maybe half the game. His reasoning was similar to yours. We have a new coach now, his philosophy is that in a 60 minute game if player "A" plays 60 minutes and player "B" plays 30 minutes then player "A" is getting twice the development opportunity and at what expense to the team and the kid who sits. And that was the previous coach. The new coach now plays player "A" 45 to 50 minutes and player "B" is getting 40 - 45 minutes. Guess what, the team still reached the championship game of their first tournament and all of the kids on the team were elated at the new playing time scenarios as were the parents. Huh, seems like it wasn't such a detriment to the team after all to equal up the playing time for the pee wee age kids........ Part of being a good coach to raising the level of play and confidence of every player on the team and kids can't "succeed" in certain positions until they've been in them a few times. If you never let a id take a penalty kick how do you know how he'll do on them. If you never let him play the PP or PK of course he'll never get better at them. Sorry Pee Wee's are still too young to not give equal playing time. Bantams (who are more high school and older) is the earliest this should ever be considered and there is AMPLE evidence that the players and teams will still progress and advance if they have a good coach and supportive parents at the helm, if they aren't it's the adults at fault not the kids or their talent

[O-townClown]

I believe the playing time riddle goes hand in hand with roster size. If you have 15 skaters it is a lot different than 11. Bylsma's father supposedly believed that if you are good enough to make the team you are good enough to play. I agree with that, which is why I think cuts make sense in these smaller associations.

At "C" level in Minnesota it is obviously about development of all players as best you can. Playing time equal there.

[JSR]

I believe the playing time riddle goes hand in hand with roster size. If you have 15 skaters it is a lot different than 11. Bylsma's father supposedly believed that if you are good enough to make the team you are good enough to play. I agree with that, which is why I think cuts make sense in these smaller associations.

At "C" level in Minnesota it is obviously about development of all players as best you can. Playing time equal there.

Two things on this OTC:

1) Are cutting mites or squirts or pee wee's or bantams? Which age group(s) are getting cut

2) How do you address the fact that smaler associations usually need the dues fees the most and can't financially afford to cut anyoen usually?

[SCBlueLiner]

Cuts don't happen like they should in smaller associations. Smaller associations need numbers and are hesitant to make those cuts. On a given A Pee Wee team you can have a handful of A players mixed in with a handful of B players. Play down in B and you are hurting the A players and probably getting grief for not playing at an appropriate level as a team because they win too much. Play A and now you have B level kids who are overmatched in certain situations and it is the coaches job to develop these kids and to also put the kids in situations in which they can succeed so as to not damage their confidence.

JSR, I read your soccer scenario and it doesn't apply. You state right off the bat it was an elite level team. When you say that I assume all the players on the team have some pretty decent soccer ability. Of course those kids should get equal P-T they are of similar talent level. I am talking about having to coach a team of mixed bag talent.

[JSR]

Cuts don't happen like they should in smaller associations. Smaller associations need numbers and are hesitant to make those cuts. On a given A Pee Wee team you can have a handful of A players mixed in with a handful of B players. Play down in B and you are hurting the A players and probably getting grief for not playing at an appropriate level as a team because they win too much. Play A and now you have B level kids who are overmatched in certain situations and it is the coaches job to develop these kids and to also put the kids in situations in which they can succeed so as to not damage their confidence.

JSR, I read your soccer scenario and it doesn't apply. You state right off the bat it was an elite level team. When you say that I assume all the players on the team have some pretty decent soccer ability. Of course those kids should get equal P-T they are of similar talent level. I am talking about having to coach a team of mixed bag talent.

It absolutely applies. I wouldn't call his team elite, I said high level travel (meaning to me equivalent to a typical MN Pee Wee A team) but even with that said there is a huge differential in talent between the best kid(s) and kids number 15, 16 and 17 on the team. You are citing talent differential as the reason for your argument. Since the talent differential gap also applies here my scenario totally applies. The talent is absolutely mixed bag on that team, the coach is just good enough to realize how to dispense equal playing time without hurting team performance.

But you want more relevant equation. My sons Squirt A team two years ago had three kids who were AAA caliber, a couple borderline A players, two B players and the rest were "C" caliber on a team that skated 10 skaters and 1 goalie (11 players). All kids were given equal playing time for the entire season, no PP or PK units everyone just rotated like usual. The team ended up winning our Squirt state title and everyone on the team developed. Tell me how equal playing time hurt this team?

[observer]

I am talking about having to coach a team of mixed bag talent.

Unless an end of the season district game that can effect seeding, a district playoff game with a chance to advance to regions or a regional game with a chance to advance to State the bench shouldn't be shortened, ever. Everyone is on the team and paid the same amount of money. A team is only as strong as they're weakest player so the interest has to be to get the weakest player as much game time as possible. Having the correct number of players, 9 forwards and 6 D in my opinion, is a big part of that. Carrying an odd number will haunt the team, coach, parents and players, for the entire year as someone will certainly get the short end of that stick.

The role of a youth hockey association and its coaches is to develop all players equally.

[SCBlueLiner]

I am talking about having to coach a team of mixed bag talent.

Unless an end of the season district game that can effect seeding, a district playoff game with a chance to advance to regions or a regional game with a chance to advance to State the bench shouldn't be shortened, ever. Everyone is on the team and paid the same amount of money. A team is only as strong as they're weakest player so the interest has to be to get the weakest player as much game time as possible. Having the correct number of players, 9 forwards and 6 D in my opinion, is a big part of that. Carrying an odd number will haunt the team, coach, parents and players, for the entire year as someone will certainly get the short end of that stick.

The role of a youth hockey association and its coaches is to develop all players equally.

Read my previous posts, we are on the same page about when is the appropriate time to shorten a bench.

[JoltDelivered]

The role of a youth hockey association and its coaches is to develop all players equally.

Funny...I thought the role of my youth hockey associaiton and coaches was to drain my bank account, dictate my winter travel schedule and forbid me to ever take a spring break vacation with my family. Maybe our assocaiton is just unique that way.

[C-dad]

I am talking about having to coach a team of mixed bag talent.

Unless an end of the season district game that can effect seeding, a district playoff game with a chance to advance to regions or a regional game with a chance to advance to State the bench shouldn't be shortened, ever. Everyone is on the team and paid the same amount of money. A team is only as strong as they're weakest player so the interest has to be to get the weakest player as much game time as possible. Having the correct number of players, 9 forwards and 6 D in my opinion, is a big part of that. Carrying an odd number will haunt the team, coach, parents and players, for the entire year as someone will certainly get the short end of that stick.

The role of a youth hockey association and its coaches is to develop all players equally.

[O-townClown]

Two things on this OTC:

1) Are cutting mites or squirts or pee wee's or bantams? Which age group(s) are getting cut

2) How do you address the fact that smaler associations usually need the dues fees the most and can't financially afford to cut anyoen usually?

I don't see where age matters. Just draw cut lines where you need to in order to keep the kids reasonably close in ability.

An association may need the money, so just form more teams. Or cut kids down to the in-house program if you are in those parts of the country. No team "needs" money...you just share the costs across the families of the kids on the team. If you have a short roster, share ice for practice.

My son's team has one player who was on the bubble. His father wrangled for him to be on "the team" rather than play at a lower level. How do you think this season is going to go?

[old goalie85]

O-town did your kids already start ?

[O-townClown]

O-town did your kids already start ?

Yes. A few teams played last week in the Early Bird in Coral Springs and most teams will play in one of our Labor Day tournaments. One in Orlando and the other near Bradenton.

League play starts in about two weeks.

[JSR]

I don't see where age matters. Just draw cut lines where you need to in order to keep the kids reasonably close in ability.

SO you think it's ok to cut a 7 year old based on ability??? Sorry not on board with that one no matter how you spin it

An association may need the money, so just form more teams. Or cut kids down to the in-house program if you are in those parts of the country.

SMALL associations by very definition often do not have the numbers for "in house". So that misses the mark

No team "needs" money...you just share the costs across the families of the kids on the team. If you have a short roster, share ice for practice.

Not true. MANY associations across the nation own their own rinks. My association owns the rink, the city does not own the rink, thus we need every single nickel we can get from every signle source possible just to keep the rink doors open. So Not true, LOTS of teams/associations need money and you can only increase individual skater fees so much to "share" those costs. So that point is incorrect.

My son's team has one player who was on the bubble. His father wrangled for him to be on "the team" rather than play at a lower level. How do you think this season is going to go?

Thaty depends, how is it going to go for YOU or for your SON. My bet is if your son is a squirt (maybe even a pee wee) or younger he's going to have a blast and not give a rats patooty about how that bubble kid helps or does not help the team. Now, how it goes for you is up to you. If he's a bantam, midget or high schooler, then that is different, they are old enough and smart enough and the game takes on different meaning after puberty

[O-townClown]

SO you think it's ok to cut a 7 year old based on ability??? Sorry not on board with that one no matter how you spin it

SMALL associations by very definition often do not have the numbers for "in house". So that misses the mark

Not true. MANY associations across the nation own their own rinks. My association owns the rink, the city does not own the rink, thus we need every single nickel we can get from every signle source possible just to keep the rink doors open. So Not true, LOTS of teams/associations need money and you can only increase individual skater fees so much to "share" those costs. So that point is incorrect.

Thaty depends, how is it going to go for YOU or for your SON. My bet is if your son is a squirt (maybe even a pee wee) or younger he's going to have a blast and not give a rats patooty about how that bubble kid helps or does not help the team. Now, how it goes for you is up to you. If he's a bantam, midget or high schooler, then that is different, they are old enough and smart enough and the game takes on different meaning after puberty

1. Absolutely. It is imperative that kids be placed at the level that is appropriate. In fact, it is a core tenet of the ADM which advocates 1/3-1/3-1/3 at that age.

One of the teams in our state has a boy on their Pee Wee team that turned 8 this week. so yes, they took him at age 7. It is widely agreed that this was a really bad idea and assumed that only two people were okay with this - the hockey director and the parent. Now, from your post above, I have learned that there are three people.

I'll repeat: cut him. This isn't good for the kid and it isn't good for the team.

2. SMALL associations...oh, you mean like where my son has played for 5 seasons. Hard to imagine any smaller. If someone doesn't offer anything in-house they are most certainly traveling for low level games that are similar. In which case you aren't cutting from those teams, so the point is moot.

3. Where we live we don't have associations that own rinks. It is the other way around where the rink has a hockey association as an extension of its business. Either way, doesn't matter. Kids that aren't making top teams are generally as good for the rink's business. (The Hockey Director where I play says they are better.)

4. Well, you lose that bet. What do I win? My son as a Squirt wants to have fun like any other kid. I guess he's in the minority, because his request is to play on a line and play on a team with others that are as interested in the game as he is. Last year he didn't have fun, a product of negative coaching and being introduced to the position of babysitter. If anything that has made me more sensitive to the fact that some kids aren't "just happy to be there".

I'll repeat: don't cut kids at your own peril. Hockey, like other sports, has an established structure for youth with many levels of play at all ages. Because it does, I'm surprised we're having this discussion.