The stress of tryouts

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:49 pm

I just wrote a little article on the stress of tryouts - 6 and a half things to know if your kid is on the bubble.

Enjoy,

TS

http://youthhockeyhub.com/is-your-kid-a-bubble-kid/

Little King · Post by **Little King** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:56 pm

PRICELESS!!!!!! From the bottom of my heart... THANK YOU!

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:19 am

Hope you enjoyed the piece, Little.

I got an icy comment on our site and an email from a woman that was less than positive.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:25 am

Sorry Tony, but I disagree with #6 a little. Associations are filled with politics and while I might agree they may not have anything "against" the kid who didn't make it (though they may have something agianst the parents, I've seen that as a determiner too...), the politics involved are over who "did" make it over the kid who didn't make it. How many times has the President of the assocation's son been a "bubble kid" and made the "A" team over a kid equally as good who's parents are not on the board..... way too many to not believe politics do not play a part..... Honestly, I am of the school of thought that if your kid is a bubble kid they are ALMOST always far better off development wise being the #1 guy on the B team than being #15 on the A team. That one year of confidence and extra puck touches and being a leader etc.. etc.. are usually huge for that type of player and more often than not they are usually the ones who do the "leap frog" thing on to the A teams the following years and usually keep climbing the ladder as opposed to the kid's who are #15 ont he A team but hardly see the puck and never get to be "the guy"... but again to think politics plays no part and do not exist in associations is just plain goofy, I've been an evaluator for assocations in hockey and soccer and can tell you for fact it's just plain false, they absolutely play a part and it's almost ALWAYS the bubble kids involved, it's never the "locks"...

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:32 am

I'd be a liar if I haven't seen the same thing...thanks for your comment. What you say is very true.

I guess the context of my #6 was the board doesn't sit back and intentionally conspire against your son.

As for board member kids getting preference...its never pretty. I secretly hope every year that the new association president has a "lock" type player, so I don't have to hear the allegations in the arena hallway.

IHEA · Post by **IHEA** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:03 am

reposted

IHEA · Post by **IHEA** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:04 am

By intentionally listening to and giving the direct or indirect nod to giving preference to the board members kid, friends kid, drinking buddy's kid, fellow coaches kids they are intentionally conspiring against all of the deserving kids that should be considered or outright choices against those kids.

Agree the first 10 are locks.

But for the next 5, politics is in the mix. Conspiring to pick a kid is the same thing as conspiring against the kid that doesn't get picked.

black sheep · Post by **black sheep** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:11 am

I think term politics is too widely used.

If you are looking at filling the last roster spots...all things being equal...the things outside of hockey will often determine who is picked. Is that really politics?

IHEA · Post by **IHEA** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:19 am

I'd say yes. If it not being determined by hockey, including the player's ability, committment, discipline, then it is Politics.

Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Political science is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power, i.e. the ability to impose one's will on another.

black sheep · Post by **black sheep** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:57 am

IHEA wrote:I'd say yes. If it not being determined by hockey, including the player's ability, committment, discipline, then it is Politics.

See that is where my issue is with calling it politics...a BA, PWA or SQA is not necessarily in control of those items among others. They are not getting themselves to practice, they are not buying groceries to eat properly, they are not paying fees, etc...etc...

at the youth levels you are as much selecting the family and their situation as the player, and there will always be deal breakers in that scenario.

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B has difficulting making it to practices and games on time so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B's parents party hardy on every road trip so their player never gets good sleep and is awful during 8:00 am games so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

What that is is life lessons...blame it on "politics" if you will, but if you look just a little harder most of the time you will find a reason wether you like it or not.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:58 am

I'd be a liar if I haven't seen the same thing...thanks for your comment. What you say is very true.

I guess the context of my #6 was the board doesn't sit back and intentionally conspire against your son.

As for board member kids getting preference...its never pretty. I secretly hope every year that the new association president has a "lock" type player, so I don't have to hear the allegations in the arena hallway.

Yep, agreed. Like I said, the griping is never about the "locks" regardless of who their parents are, it is always over the bubble player and that is when the "politics" and "hallway talk" are at their worst.....

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:02 am

black sheep wrote:
IHEA wrote:I'd say yes. If it not being determined by hockey, including the player's ability, committment, discipline, then it is Politics.
See that is where my issue is with calling it politics...a BA, PWA or SQA is not necessarily in control of those items among others. They are not getting themselves to practice, they are not buying groceries to eat properly, they are not paying fees, etc...etc...

at the youth levels you are as much selecting the family and their situation as the player, and there will always be deal breakers in that scenario.

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B has difficulting making it to practices and games on time so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B's parents party hardy on every road trip so their player never gets good sleep and is awful during 8:00 am games so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

What that is is life lessons...blame it on "politics" if you will, but if you look just a little harder most of the time you will find a reason wether you like it or not.

Black sheep the scenarios you listed are legitimate reasons for making decisions BUT by "techincal" defintion they are within the definition of politics of those types of decisions. No differently than a kid being son f a board Presidnet or the HS coaches son, or a being the son of the family who gripes and whines the most. You are not wrong but neither is saying all of those thigns are "political" because they all are, jsut some are more "acceptable" forms of the politics than others. Politics by nature are neither good nor evil they just "are", it is hwo they are practiced that assigns them to be good or bad

IHEA · Post by **IHEA** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:00 pm

black sheep wrote:
IHEA wrote:I'd say yes. If it not being determined by hockey, including the player's ability, committment, discipline, then it is Politics.
See that is where my issue is with calling it politics...a BA, PWA or SQA is not necessarily in control of those items among others. They are not getting themselves to practice, they are not buying groceries to eat properly, they are not paying fees, etc...etc...

at the youth levels you are as much selecting the family and their situation as the player, and there will always be deal breakers in that scenario.

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B has difficulting making it to practices and games on time so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B's parents party hardy on every road trip so their player never gets good sleep and is awful during 8:00 am games so you select player A, are you telling me its just "hockey politics"?

What that is is life lessons...blame it on "politics" if you will, but if you look just a little harder most of the time you will find a reason wether you like it or not.

That ties directly to committment in the case of missing practices. Yes the family is involved and if the coach doesn't think they can control it then the kid does not get picked. The kid is a burden of their circumstance/parents but because these issues impact the team it is a hockey decision. In the case of parents partying, I know several --pure hockey-- coaches that have none of it and those parents are banned from the rinks or otherwise punished and it becomes a non factor. Those coaches are strictly there for the hockey and kids not the fraternizing and drinking unlike many other --tainted-- coaches who are in it for the social aspects too. If you have a coach that tolerates it and in many cases is a part of it then they may not mind. But some coaches will take a pass and those parents also screw it up for their kids if the he doesn't get picked. Again that ties back to team unity, distractions.... and the kid is an extension of the parents. They are still hockey decisions.

On the other hand when a coach picks players based on who their mom or dad is and powerplays.... that's political and unfortunate. It sucks for those kids that get picked because they get blasted by their peers, are responsible for poor play or losing games - we've all seen this at the youth level and even big state games at the high school level. It sucks for the players that should have been picked. It sucks for those that did get picked and have a weaker team than they would have. Those picks make everyone's stomach churn the whole season.

JoltDelivered · Post by **JoltDelivered** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:57 pm

[/quote]If player A & player B are equal talent but player B's parents party hardy on every road trip [/quote]

Actually where I come from...this is seen as a positive and will most certainly move a player off the bubble and into the "A" column.

This is nuts! · Post by **This is nuts!** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:49 pm

Picking the last three kids of a team is extremely difficult. In a small association you may have 6 kids that are basically equal for the last 3 spots on a team and they all DESERVE to be on the "A" team. In a large assoc. the ratio will be larger.

Keeping in mind all of hose kids deserve a spot, coaches have to decide what type of player he wants on his team. A grinder, speedster, size, puck handler, sniper, defenseman, forward, good attitude, coachable, potential, and so on.

coaches don't want kids who pout, don't listen, goof off, don't hussle, are always late, and yes parents matter. 2 kids being equal, why would a coach pick the kid whos parents are a pain.

Point being the 3 kids who didnt make can argue that they should have, and they are right. But the 3 that made deserve the spots too.

If your child is a bubble kid, I would strongly encourage him to get better over the summer and not be a bubble kid next year. It's like trying to get a job and always finishing 3rd or 4th, you better do something to separate yourself from the competition, or you will continue to be unemployed....

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Bring on the parents that party. Even better the ones that get drunk and tell the coach off. $\:D/$

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:12 pm

I've been a part of this process several times. All things being equal when it comes to player ability you do look at other factors. Intangibles like coachability and attitude become deciding factors.

We're in a smaller association, when possible our association tries to keep the same age kids together. Call it seniority, or whatever, but we try to not only develop individual kids but also age groups. There's nothing wrong with that when kids are younger (squirt age). As the kids get older it will get more competitive and the boys will start seperating themselves.

JSR posted it earlier, there is something to be said about being the #1-2 player on the B team vs. the 15th kid on the A team. It gives that kid the opportunity to develop into a team leader and a goal scorer vs. a role player/grinder. In fact, I'd rather my young player be the best player on the team, developing that scoring touch as opposed to grinding it out just keeping up.

Mnhockeys · Post by **Mnhockeys** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:57 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:I've been a part of this process several times. All things being equal when it comes to player ability you do look at other factors. Intangibles like coachability and attitude become deciding factors.

We're in a smaller association, when possible our association tries to keep the same age kids together. Call it seniority, or whatever, but we try to not only develop individual kids but also age groups. There's nothing wrong with that when kids are younger (squirt age). As the kids get older it will get more competitive and the boys will start seperating themselves.

JSR posted it earlier, there is something to be said about being the #1-2 player on the B team vs. the 15th kid on the A team. It gives that kid the opportunity to develop into a team leader and a goal scorer vs. a role player/grinder. In fact, I'd rather my young player be the best player on the team, developing that scoring touch as opposed to grinding it out just keeping up.

Has anybody heard a case where the 15th ranked player requested to be on the B team when he/she was picked on the A team?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:40 am

Mnhockeys wrote:Has anybody heard a case where the 15th ranked player requested to be on the B team when he/she was picked on the A team?

Good question, but the 15th ranked player picked on the A team is like the Easter Bunny!

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:32 am

JoltDelivered wrote:

If player A & player B are equal talent but player B's parents party hardy on every road trip [/quote]

Actually where I come from...this is seen as a positive and will most certainly move a player off the bubble and into the "A" column.

[/quote]

Especially the ones that enjoy the hot tub.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:02 am

Mnhockeys wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:I've been a part of this process several times. All things being equal when it comes to player ability you do look at other factors. Intangibles like coachability and attitude become deciding factors.

We're in a smaller association, when possible our association tries to keep the same age kids together. Call it seniority, or whatever, but we try to not only develop individual kids but also age groups. There's nothing wrong with that when kids are younger (squirt age). As the kids get older it will get more competitive and the boys will start seperating themselves.

JSR posted it earlier, there is something to be said about being the #1-2 player on the B team vs. the 15th kid on the A team. It gives that kid the opportunity to develop into a team leader and a goal scorer vs. a role player/grinder. In fact, I'd rather my young player be the best player on the team, developing that scoring touch as opposed to grinding it out just keeping up.
Has anybody heard a case where the 15th ranked player requested to be on the B team when he/she was picked on the A team?

Actually I did exactlyy that when my oldest was younger. They had tryouts and my oldest was on the bubble for the A team and I went to the A and B coahes and asked them to put him on the B team. He ended up being the best player on the B team, developed scoring tuch, confidence all kinds of things, he hasn't been close to the bubble since, in fact he has been top 2 in points on virtually every team he's played for since that year and he is a hard worker on defense too since then, he never takes it for granted. It's why I advocate it so much and I've seen it up close and personal in soccer and hockey in many other kids as well.

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:37 pm

We had a first year squirt last year that was the last pick of the A team and chose to play B. He is a very strong skater but needed a lot of work on his stickhandling and transitions. His parents felt he could better develop as a top B player and they thought the B coach would do a better job with his development. Most of his teammates from mites were on B so the kid also wanted to stay with his friends.

He'll be a top line player on A this season.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:58 pm

Good parenting.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:26 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:We had a first year squirt last year that was the last pick of the A team and chose to play B. He is a very strong skater but needed a lot of work on his stickhandling and transitions. His parents felt he could better develop as a top B player and they thought the B coach would do a better job with his development. Most of his teammates from mites were on B so the kid also wanted to stay with his friends.

He'll be a top line player on A this season.

Is the squirt A coach returning this year, or coaching a different team?

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:51 am

We don't really have tryout stress at our household. To make sure that we don't have any stress, we have pre-tryout meetings to discuss my goals and what will need to happen for my dreams to come true and what will happen if anyone fails to live up to the standard.

I'm thinking of revamping my tryout incentive plan for the 8 year old this year. Maybe weigh it more heavily towards the carrot instead of the stick this time around. Frankly with all the "bounty" incentive plans in the NFL and Peewee football, I was tempted to go that route, but I wasn't sure what to put the bounty on, so I decided to try the direct compensation for production plan. What is the going rate for a goal these days? Bonus for hat tricks or multiple hat tricks? I'm considering some kind of reward for assists or passing, but I am not sure at this point if I want to be promoting or recognizing that kind of activity. I mean if when he gets to the A team - or gets screwed and ends up not on the A team - we can worry about passing the puck. If there is anyone to pass to.

They start this week so I am thinking of pulling him out of class to get some extra ice time during the day. Anyone else doing this?

I love this time of year.