HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

One of my least favorite statements. Curious as to your thoughts about it. Sounds so sinister.

Assuming someone has seen a group of kids play hockey for years, isn't a reasonable expectation that one could identify which kids will make a team in most associations?

A lot harder in a huge town, but for people in an average-sized area it seems pretty easy. My response to the inevitable comment about politics is that you also are aware of that going in and can adequately account for it.

O-townClown wrote:One of my least favorite statements. Curious as to your thoughts about it. Sounds so sinister.

Assuming someone has seen a group of kids play hockey for years, isn't a reasonable expectation that one could identify which kids will make a team in most associations?

A lot harder in a huge town, but for people in an average-sized area it seems pretty easy. My response to the inevitable comment about politics is that you also are aware of that going in and can adequately account for it.

The first 5 everyone almost knows.
The second 5 may be debatable.
The last 5 out of the last 10 or 15, that is and will be debatable;
but I have never known a coach that has them preselected.

Goalies, anybodies guess.

All I can say is if you r a bubble kid get better, because it has little to do with politics, only a coin toss.

This is nuts! wrote:All I can say is if you r a bubble kid get better, because it has little to do with politics, only a coin toss.

There will always be a few that are debatable, that is life and impossible to avoid. What I find puzzling is that there often seems to be at least one significant miss, usually a kid that ends up tearing it up at a lower level and everyone is left scratching their head as to how they ended up at that level. Has anyone identified any reasons why that happens (illness, injury, had his/her tryout jersey on backwards)?

This is nuts! wrote:All I can say is if you r a bubble kid get better, because it has little to do with politics, only a coin toss.

I disagree with the second half of your statement, at least in a large association with parent coaches/evaluators. If you have 10+ kids to choose from for the last 5 spots, and the differences between them are negligible, it's only human nature for a coach to pick his freinds/buddies/kids he is familiar with. You can't really blame a coach for doing so but I think situations like this are what often get characterized as "politics" (who you know).

If there is anyone out there who thinks that politics doesn't come into play when youth sports teams are chosen, hockey or otherwise, let me be the first to welcome you to the planet Earth. Please say hello to the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy for me when you get back to where it is you live.

Deep Breath wrote:If there is anyone out there who thinks that politics doesn't come into play when youth sports teams are chosen, hockey or otherwise, let me be the first to welcome you to the planet Earth. Please say hello to the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy for me when you get back to where it is you live.

I agree, does anyone have any exceedingly alarming political stories to share?

One of the situations that always confused me is when you see teams out playing fall Showcase and MASH Leagues and the players have association jerseys on. Who picked the fall MASH team and how did they decide who to leave out. I presume it can get ugly from there.

And there usually is a miss or two. It's absolutely no fun to be the bottom one or two players on a team. Midway through the season everyone knows who the player is and some parents start yelling about his play and the parents, if not the player himself, can hear it. Brutal. Some teams would probably like to trade a player or two during the season which of course can't happen. Those are usually political mistakes not impartial selection mistakes.

Usually better to be the horse on the lesser team. Tons more ice and smiles.

observer wrote:One of the situations that always confused me is when you see teams out playing fall Showcase and MASH Leagues and the players have association jerseys on. Who picked the fall MASH team and how did they decide who to leave out. I presume it can get ugly from there.

And there usually is a miss or two. It's absolutely no fun to be the bottom one or two players on a team. Midway through the season everyone knows who the player is and some parents start yelling about his play and the parents, if not the player himself, can hear it. Brutal. Some teams would probably like to trade a player or two during the season which of course can't happen. Those are usually political mistakes not impartial selection mistakes.

Usually better to be the horse on the lesser team. Tons more ice and smiles.

last year, a player was cut from the Hermantown peewee A team. At hermantown's final 20 tryout, he came straight from a cross country meet, where he was varsity as a 7th grader. The player was completely gassed, and was cut because "he didn't have enough stamina." This player, playing for the b1 team, scored over 90 goals and 50 assists. His team placed 3rd in state. He got plenty of ice time, as opposed to being a benchwarmer on the a team. That's one example I can think of where it worked out better for a player to be cut

InThePipes wrote:

This is nuts! wrote:All I can say is if you r a bubble kid get better, because it has little to do with politics, only a coin toss.

There will always be a few that are debatable, that is life and impossible to avoid. What I find puzzling is that there often seems to be at least one significant miss, usually a kid that ends up tearing it up at a lower level and everyone is left scratching their head as to how they ended up at that level. Has anyone identified any reasons why that happens (illness, injury, had his/her tryout jersey on backwards)?

I agree, but I ll say this.. Coaches want the best players, remember most assoc. don't let parents watch tryouts. That kid may have not stood out in tryouts or didn't put forth an effort..

goaliewithfoggedglasses wrote:

This is nuts! wrote:All I can say is if you r a bubble kid get better, because it has little to do with politics, only a coin toss.

I disagree with the second half of your statement, at least in a large association with parent coaches/evaluators. If you have 10+ kids to choose from for the last 5 spots, and the differences between them are negligible, it's only human nature for a coach to pick his freinds/buddies/kids he is familiar with. You can't really blame a coach for doing so but I think situations like this are what often get characterized as "politics" (who you know).

Exactly, it's easier to say to your son that you got screwed then it is to tell them the truth, that they r a bubble kid and you have to work hard to get out of that group or every year you will be in he same situation...

Deep Breath wrote:If there is anyone out there who thinks that politics doesn't come into play when youth sports teams are chosen, hockey or otherwise, let me be the first to welcome you to the planet Earth. Please say hello to the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy for me when you get back to where it is you live.

Of course there r situations where politics have come into play. But not as often as people claim.

And as for the planet earth comment goes, coaches are not perfect and it is impossible to pick the top 15 players out 30, 50, or 100 players. Mistakes will be made, coaches are human and I m sure would like a do over at times, but like I said earlier , that player may have put out a poor effort in tryouts.

I wonder what Herb would have to say about this topic.

Anyone can pick the top 10 of a team, that's a piece of cake. It's the ability to pick those last few players that defines a champion caliber coaching mind.

In my experience it's only the last few spots on any team that are really in question, and the way those spots are filled are always unique to the individual situation. I know if I were the coach and it were between two equally skilled players and I had a more familiar relationship with one of the families, I would naturally lean towards choosing that player. I don't know if that qualifies as political, but I certainly think it's reasonable.

HockeyDad41 wrote:I wonder what Herb would have to say about this topic.

Anyone can pick the top 10 of a team, that's a piece of cake. It's the ability to pick those last few players that defines a champion caliber coaching mind.

In my experience it's only the last few spots on any team that are really in question, and the way those spots are filled are always unique to the individual situation. I know if I were the coach and it were between two equally skilled players and I had a more familiar relationship with one of the families, I would naturally lean towards choosing that player. I don't know if that qualifies as political, but I certainly think it's reasonable.

Well said. Often coaches try to gage the potential of those last few players, and lets face it NHL scouts blow that often..

The term "bubble player" came straight from the bubbling beers of the coach's drinking buddy's kids.

Seriously, if you feel the team is picked before the tryouts, you do not want to be on that team.

"They" don't want you on the team and it will be a miserable experience for your son/daughter.

Many players flourish being the "a-" player on a "b1" team.

MrBoDangles wrote:The term "bubble player" came straight from the bubbling beers of the coach's drinking buddy's kids.

elliott70 wrote:

O-townClown wrote:One of my least favorite statements. Curious as to your thoughts about it. Sounds so sinister.

Assuming someone has seen a group of kids play hockey for years, isn't a reasonable expectation that one could identify which kids will make a team in most associations?

A lot harder in a huge town, but for people in an average-sized area it seems pretty easy. My response to the inevitable comment about politics is that you also are aware of that going in and can adequately account for it.

The first 5 everyone almost knows.
The second 5 may be debatable.
The last 5 out of the last 10 or 15, that is and will be debatable;
but I have never known a coach that has them preselected.

Goalies, anybodies guess.

So do you mean that more "bizarre" selections occur with goalies as opposed to the skaters?

InThePipes wrote: So do you mean that more "bizarre" selections occur with goalies as opposed to the skaters?

I think he means goalies are a crap shoot without a specific way to place them. The problem with goalies is that you can't pick your teams based on the 15 scrimmage shots they see over a two or three day tryout. I have seen this done and mistakes are always made (the below average goalie closes his eyes, makes a circus save in a scrimmage and new coaches in the program think they have Patrick Roy).

Goalies need to have a blend of their history (prior years - what is their reputation? Can they stop pucks?), skills assessments (movement, rebound control, etc.), and game play. Many associations don't have the resources or are so focused on picking the skaters they overlook the tenders.

InThePipes wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

O-townClown wrote:One of my least favorite statements. Curious as to your thoughts about it. Sounds so sinister.

Assuming someone has seen a group of kids play hockey for years, isn't a reasonable expectation that one could identify which kids will make a team in most associations?

A lot harder in a huge town, but for people in an average-sized area it seems pretty easy. My response to the inevitable comment about politics is that you also are aware of that going in and can adequately account for it.

The first 5 everyone almost knows.
The second 5 may be debatable.
The last 5 out of the last 10 or 15, that is and will be debatable;
but I have never known a coach that has them preselected.

Goalies, anybodies guess.

So do you mean that more "bizarre" selections occur with goalies as opposed to the skaters?

I am not sure about the selections, but the goalies....

Goalies need to have a blend of their history (prior years - what is their reputation? Can they stop pucks?), skills assessments (movement, rebound control, etc.), and game play.

I agree with the above for goalies and skaters. Why not look at past play, attitude, a history of penalties, etc?

How do you square this with the desire for anonymous tryouts run by outsiders?

I think - "Coaches have an idea who they WANT on the team before tryouts" might be a better way of putting it. Parents have to understand that coaches have been around these kids and the other parents that have coached these kids for a few years at least. They know these kids, their work ethic, MATURITY, and compete level.

It all depends on what the coach/association/evaluators are looking for. We all know those kids that are pretty talented but can be a real PITA at practice or in the locker room. Parents might not see it, evaluators will not have a box for attitude on their score sheet but the coaches know that the pluses that kid will bring will be offset by the "intangibles" that he may have.

Trying to form a team based solely on tryouts would be like giving a job to the best interviewer without calling the previous employer. Of course you are getting everyone's best effort for that one weekend, but I want a kid that is committed all season not just when he/she knows they are being evaluated. I don't think that's politics, I think its called life.

Don't most associations have anonymous tryouts?

O-townClown wrote:One of my least favorite statements. Curious as to your thoughts about it. Sounds so sinister.

Assuming someone has seen a group of kids play hockey for years, isn't a reasonable expectation that one could identify which kids will make a team in most associations?

A lot harder in a huge town, but for people in an average-sized area it seems pretty easy. My response to the inevitable comment about politics is that you also are aware of that going in and can adequately account for it.

Interesting subject Clown. I use to be in a big association. The one big flaw (which I am sure there were many) that I saw during tryouts was when a head coach (and staff) move from one level to the next the following year. Example would be, a Squirt A head coach and staff moves to PW A or PW A to Bantam A. We all know during tryouts, the head coach and staff of that level are involved in some evaluation capacity. We as parents are told year after year by the heads that there is no bias during tryouts. It’s funny the roster from year to year hardly ever change!

It's an interesting thought Otown.

I think the problem comes when the tryout is thought of to be equal for everyone, we all know deep down it's not but are told they are. Kids and parents get their hopes up that this may be the year yet the teams remain pretty much unchanged from year to year which is funny because kids grow and develop at different rates.

Some try outs are borderline fraud because they charge a tryout fee even though the reality is the kids are picked beforehand and many don't even have to try out. My youth association charges for A tryouts, then again for B try outs, the A team is picked before try outs, the B teams aren't. Our high school picked it's team last spring, ran a it's summer camp at $350 per session for 2 sessions then cut nearly all the upperclassmen for sophomores.

I don't really have a problem with teams picked prior to tryouts, I wish the organizations would be honest up front about the tryout process, admitting how many spots are really open would help. Saying these 14 kids are on the team, then don't even have them there because they're not trying out, then everyone knows the kids on the ice are trying out for the remaining 4 spots would help.

Try outs aren't open and their not anonymous at the highest levels no matter what they tell you, I just wish they were honest up front about it.