HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Special thanks to this guy who commented on our site this weekend. Thought it was well thought out enough to publish into a post (with his permission, of course).

http://www.youthhockeyhub.com/letter-to ... r-the-adm/

Enjoy,

TS

YouthHockeyHub wrote:Special thanks to this guy who commented on our site this weekend. Thought it was well thought out enough to publish into a post (with his permission, of course).

http://www.youthhockeyhub.com/letter-to ... r-the-adm/

Enjoy,

TS

Sure is easy for someone to speak out when they don't appear to have any kids in the system.... I mean sure, why don;t we give the ADM 5 years to see if it works or not.... but here is the problem, what if it doesn't work, in fact what if it is an absolute disaster and it's your kid that happens to be playing in their mite/squirt/pee wee years during those 5 years.... sorry but many parents just don't like the idea of their kids having to be the guinea pigs, and frankly I don't blame them one bit... his response was well thought out but not all the way through to conclusion IMHO

JSR wrote:

YouthHockeyHub wrote:Special thanks to this guy who commented on our site this weekend. Thought it was well thought out enough to publish into a post (with his permission, of course).

http://www.youthhockeyhub.com/letter-to ... r-the-adm/

Enjoy,

TS

Sure is easy for someone to speak out when they don't appear to have any kids in the system.... I mean sure, why don;t we give the ADM 5 years to see if it works or not.... but here is the problem, what if it doesn't work, in fact what if it is an absolute disaster and it's your kid that happens to be playing in their mite/squirt/pee wee years during those 5 years.... sorry but many parents just don't like the idea of their kids having to be the guinea pigs, and frankly I don't blame them one bit... his response was well thought out but not all the way through to conclusion IMHO

What if it is an absolute disaster? In what sense? More practice time is going to make them worse? Your answer is very generic. I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of what he proposes but I can't see how anything he says will result in a disaster. Please give more details as to why you think this is a bad idea.

The goals of ADM are open to interpretation. From the ADM overview page:

"For starters, many athletes spend too much time traveling, competing and recovering from competition and not enough time preparing for it. Second, there is too heavy a focus on the result rather than the performance. This attitude leads to long-term failure, as coaches forgo the development of skills to focus on specific game tactics. And third, too many athletes are specializing too early on. An early focus on just one or two sports often leads to injuries, burnout and capping athletic potential.

This way of thinking has led to 60% of players dropping out before PeeWees and 20% dropping out after only one season leading to an overall decline in retention since 2000.

Coach Herb Brooks was famous for saying that, “Great moments are born from great opportunities.” Well this is our opportunity. Our time to get it right.

The American Development Model is a nationwide model for successfully developing American hockey players. It is a tool that will ensure every kid will have the same chance to succeed.

By implementing ADM, associations will see an increase in player retention. Again, ADM is a set of guidelines designed specifically to help kids reach their full potential."

Developing American hockey players to reach their full potential. How the heck do we measure that? Some potential metrics:

- # US players entering NHL
- # US players at any pro level (AHL, Europe, etc.)
- # US players at collegiate levels
- Performance of US teams in international competitions
- # Players entering mites
- Player retention rate across levels
- High school participation rates
- # Players continuing on to HS or Junior level hockey
- Overall health and fitness scores
- # Players in adult hockey leagues
- Player happiness and fulfillment scores (interviews, surveys, or other methods)
- Rate of injuries

I'm willing to give ADM a shot but let's agree on how we're going to measure success. Otherwise it's just a unprovable theory. Sometimes I get the feeling that US Hockey exists to publish a magazine, fund the national development program, and maintain salaries and a nice office. Please prove me wrong.

barry_mcconnell wrote: Sometimes I get the feeling that US Hockey exists to publish a magazine, fund the national development program, and maintain salaries and a nice office. Please prove me wrong.

This is 100% true. The only reason that USA Hockey tries to "grow the game" is to have a bigger pool of players to choose from for the national teams. They could not care less about association hockey.

As far as the article goes, it contains a basic contradiction which I have struggled with on the whole ADM. If only 3% (high) play some type of college hockey why are we worrying about the development of the other 97%? I know that my kid is not playing past high school so would it not make sense for him to have the most fun he possibly could now? He has a lot more fun playing games than he does at practice. Will he be a better player if he gets the 3:1 ratio? Absolutely, but the end result is going to be the same so why waste time practicing? Would we keep more kids if there were teams that used a 1:1 ratio and they just practiced enough to learn basic skills and rules? I would argue yes.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here that applies to everyone. I have seen a lot of really good squirt aged kids that should be playing high level games but I also see the kids that stare into the stands at peewee and don't seem like they want to be there. To force everyone into the same model is impossible.

hipcheck62 wrote: As far as the article goes, it contains a basic contradiction which I have struggled with on the whole ADM. If only 3% (high) play some type of college hockey why are we worrying about the development of the other 97%? I know that my kid is not playing past high school so would it not make sense for him to have the most fun he possibly could now? He has a lot more fun playing games than he does at practice. Will he be a better player if he gets the 3:1 ratio? Absolutely, but the end result is going to be the same so why waste time practicing? Would we keep more kids if there were teams that used a 1:1 ratio and they just practiced enough to learn basic skills and rules? I would argue yes.

Exactly, if we are focused on optimizing the retention rates then the 3:1 practice to game ratio needs to be rethought. So what ARE we optimizing?

I had the exact same thoughts as some of you while reading the article. To summarize:

-5 yrs for ADM, great, but I don't want my kid being the experiment and don't blame any other parents for feeling the same way.

-He advocates USAHockey just mandating it and that's the way it's going to be. The problem is there are now other choices with Choice League, AAU, and the like popping up. USAH may destroy their future by mandating such a thing.

-That's great about how things used to be in the old days in Duluth. There is nothing stopping the author from starting a purely recreation based hockey program in Duluth or any other town. They could have neighborhood teams and everything. His idea of only one travel team is pure elitism. Could you imagine the pressure to make that ONE team?

-I thought USA Hockey's numbers had grown over the past 10, 15, 20 yrs? Not dropped.

-Isn't AA,A,B1,B2 etc. just like Red, White, & Blue hockey? Grouping kids by skill level to play with each other. You've all seen those games when there are kids of varying skill level on the ice together. The skilled player dominates the puck, the less skilled skater can't keep up and never gets to touch the puck. How fun is it for them?

-If only 3% make it then why so much emphasis on practice? What are we developing the kids for? By the time they are "developed" their career is over and they are done. The kids want to play games, that's how you keep them interested. Ask any kid what they would rather do, play or practice, besides, I've always been told that the best players were developed by those kids "playing" pick-up hockey on the ponds. Never heard anything about practicing in those stories.

-To expand on the last point, I've caught myself thinking about that over the past year. Games don't matter it's all about development and turning out better hockey players. Then I got to thinking "to what end?" This IS their career. These games do count to these kids because these are the only games they'll ever have. They are living it out as kids and when they grow up they are done. Unless you count beer league and that's just not as exciting for some reason.

I like aspects of the ADM, there's other aspects of it I can do without. My observations are coming from the position of devil's advocate. I just want to look at the other side of the positions taken in that article. I also just wanted to let my mind wander a bit here and bring up some points, some I don't believe in but may just be valid.

Here's a few excerpts (below) from an article written two or so years ago. At the time, I was interested in the success of the Swedish national teams and the high number of NHL draftees they were producing. It turns out, their results didn't come by happenstance.

Here you go.... after which I'll go on a bit of a RANT...

It wasn't too long ago the Swedish Ice Hockey Association was forced to come to grips with the fact its educational and developmental methods had become outdated. Between 1997 and 2002, the Swedish Under-20 junior national team was deemed a failure -- finishing fourth twice and fifth or worst four other times.

Tommy Boustedt, the Sweden Ice Hockey Association's director of youth development, played an integral role in the overhaul of Sweden's hockey development. According to [Boustedt], the most important part in building a successful youth hockey program is relentless recruitment.

"We're getting more players into hockey now in the youngest age groups (6 or 7 years old) than we've [ever] had before," Boustedt told NHL.com. "The next challenge is to take care of all these players and try to retain them for our game."

Other comments from Boustedt:

"The NHL has become a good carrot for us when trying to recruit people to our programs and keep them there since soccer is huge in Europe these days," Boustedt said. "The NHL is something to aim for...”

"If you want to be on the elite level, you have to compete in everything you do from the beginning," Boustedt said. "The best competitor ever was Peter Forsberg. If we could take Peter Forsberg's mind and put it into all our talented players that would be perfect. Being competitive is more important than skating fast or shooting hard.”

"Let's face it, the word 'compete' was obsolete in this country -- we haven't been in a war in 200 years and we have a classic social democratic system that built this society, and to 'compete' has historically been a bad word."

Today, having that competitive spirit in everything associated with Swedish hockey is what has changed most, according to Boustedt.

"The word 'compete' is a good word again in Swedish hockey," he said.

Stromboli here again. It seems to me that we're (collectively) doing okay on participation here in MN, but how are we doing on the "compete" end of the scale?

When eliminating full ice games for older mites is even considered, which way is our "compete" needle pointing? (I agree with cross-ice for younge mites.)

No state squirt tournament? (District 10 didn’t even allow squirt teams to travel to Fargo for the big squirt tourney that has served in place of a state tourney.) How's our "compete" needle doing?

No need for PWs to check during the winter season? Okay, I'll buy that as long as they're prepared during the season so that they're ready for Bantams, but how are we actually doing on that? (rhetorical question, no responses needed on that one, since there wasn't much "preparation" beyond what they're getting through summer hockey...)

For older kids, are we increasing the number of kids going on to play beyond highschool, or are we stagnant compared to the rest of the US, or the rest of the world?

Why are topics like Tier I, AAU, MN Made, WHL, OHL, etc. on this bored over and over again?

Focusing solely on numbers isn't the answer. It's half of the equation IMO.

What about the "compete" half of the equation???

Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for my kids wanting to compete, or for me wanting them to have a passion to compete. On and off the rink.

For me, what they learn through sports has always been more about what they're taking into their lives as adults rather than at what level they'll hang their skates up. When it comes to hockey itself, I don't care if my kids have anything more than an ability to play a pickup game in their 40s or 50s should they so desire. Mission accomplished.

That said, if they want to compete to the best of their abilities, I'll help support their efforts, so long as they also are good students, good sports, and all around good young people of character. Hard work, honesty, and treating others as they'd want to be treated. Standing up for someone when it's right to do so, even when it's not popular. Knowing that life isn't always fair, but you're responsible for how you respond to the hand your dealt. Etc....

None of that is inconsistent with "competing."

What is inconsistent with competing is treating everyone as though they're all equal in terms of either ability or potential.

Yes, all kids should have the opportunity to play and grow to their individual potential. That doesn't mean, however, that they all need to be trained using a one-size-fits all model, or coaching philosophy.

Have a path for those that just want to have fun. Have a path for those that want to compete, but aren't going to make it their life's focus for 12 months a year. Have a path for those that want to travel to the moon and back to seek out the best competition they can find.

In other words, have different paths or "models" for different levels of "compete."

I'm tired of the mentality that everyone needs to be treated the same when it comes to youth sports. REDICULOUS! (that's for you long time posters...)

Just like Sweden used to be, we’re turning “compete” into a bad word. Nonsense!

And no offence to the person who wrote the article to YHH, but sometimes parents need to push back on "leadership" when they know what's best for their own kids under a one-size-fits-all model -- not just sit back for 5 years that their kids will never get back.

My rant is done.

Back to helping my kids with a 5 foot nothing dad and 5 foot nothing mom compete to the best of their abilities... (But secretly hoping for some throwback genetics or some help from those darn food additives, right? )

SCBlueliner and Stromboli spelled it out pretty well.....

Here is the other thing that always gets me. When touting the ADM or other similar things I am constantly hearing about Sweden or some other tiny country. Here is the thing, we can no doubt learn alot from other countries but the reality is our country is unique (for better and worse) in so many ways it is nearly impossible to adopt the models other couuntries use. First of all the majority of other countries in the world are homogeneous, the USA a freaking melting pot of every race, ethnicity, religion or sect you could possibly think of. Sweden has about 9.5 million people most all of which are the same heritage, same upbringing etc... etc... In otherwords it is more appropriate to compare Sweden to Minnesota than it is to our entire country. You can get a country like Sweden to adopt a "national model" because of their relative small size and their homogeneous background. Yes ther are other countries that do have multiculutral backgronds but none of them to my knowledge have the size of the USA. Take Canada, sem-muulticultural (not as much as here) but only 28 million mpeople not 300 million..... On the flip side you do have countries that are big like Brazil or China but again homogeneous populations with long long histories to their culture. Brazil has a national style of soccer that basically everyone adopts no matter where you live, try doing that here, it won't happen. The reality is you could probably get STATES to adopt certain "styles" of play and certain ways of doing things but to think that you can get the whole country to do that in the USA is literally impossible becuse we are not a homogeneous population. That is just fact. You could get the majority of Minnesotans to probably adopt a MN Development model but there is no way the folks in Michigan will adopt the same model, nor would the folks in Massachussetts etc... etc... An earlier poster asked how it could be a disaster, that is all in teh eye of the beholder and we have alot of "eyes" in this country

JSR wrote:Sure is easy for someone to speak out when they don't appear to have any kids in the system.... I mean sure, why don;t we give the ADM 5 years to see if it works or not.... but here is the problem, what if it doesn't work, in fact what if it is an absolute disaster and it's your kid that happens to be playing in their mite/squirt/pee wee years during those 5 years.... sorry but many parents just don't like the idea of their kids having to be the guinea pigs, and frankly I don't blame them one bit... his response was well thought out but not all the way through to conclusion IMHO

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it's something I've noticed for some time now on this forum...if you know what to look for, it isn't hard to tell which posters are parents, and which ones are more removed. The more removed people never quite understand that parents don't have the luxury of the long-term view they tend to take. Sometimes the parents are right to be upset about what the removed people (whether they're at USAH, MNH, or on the local board) are implementing; sometimes they're not. But somewhere along the line that dialogue needs to happen, rather than having things be imposed from on high. So often, there is a disconnect there, which I think is an argument for keeping the decisions on a more local level--and I think this is more or less what JSR is saying when he says it's impossible to slap one model on to such a large country.

Of course, keeping things local has its drawbacks, too. The article mentioned Duluth; Duluth's model is hyper-local, which can either be very good or very bad depending on how well each local rink is run. Certainly over the long run, the results look pretty good, as the city continues to pump out D-I players and NHL draft picks despite unfavorable demographics. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good option for anywhere else, though. Trying to impose it in places that aren't used to it might not go over well, even if it does have real advantages.

Digression on Duluth: it's probably worth pointing out that the drastic drop in numbers in Duluth has coincided with an equally drastic drop in school enrollment, along with general economic stagnation that has really hurt certain parts of the city. Demographic and socioeconomic reasons are the far more likely causes of the decline than any vagaries of the development model. (To give you some idea, 30 years ago, there were 3 high schools serving the central and western parts of the city; now there is one, and it is noticeably smaller than East.)

At any rate, I think Barry asks the right question when he asks, "what ARE we optimizing?" As ten people on this bored what "development" is, and you might get ten different answers.

What if, just what if, there was another option out there, just around the corner...Where practice, off ice, and games were all competition?? Welcome to the Revolution Tier I Hockey program. Don't bash me, just tossing it out to the hockey minds on the boards. Have not heard of The Revolution you say...
www.revolutiontier1hockey.com This will get interesting!!

Or a cult !!! Much luv BUT ????

Revolution, oh yeah, that's the Northern Edge group that is basing a AAA program out of Des Moines but holding tryouts in Richfield and Shakopee. Using the Central District to get Tier 1 status because Minnesota won't do it. Nice end run, just like I called it.

Now if we can get back on topic and discuss the articel. I believe there is another thread on Northern Educate.

there is a lot more to the ADM than just "not letting mites play full ice games"

there are a lot of very good things in that package that are not being well utilized by associations. as well there are many good things in all of USA hockey's CEP program that are never utilized by associations and coaches becasue they already know everything.

the fact of the matter is if used as tools for development they are extremely effective. Why are there hockey players coming from ALL across the US now...its becasue of USA Hockey.

At best the current player development is measured in specualtion. What if that was the way schools did it. OK, your Johnny gets advanced placement becasue we "believe" he is smarter than most other kids and Susy, well you seem dumb so you go get some special help...ugh.

USA Hockey has a full tool set to measure and track player development through the CEP and Skills Progression and now planning tools within the ADM, but 99.9% of associations and coaches choose to not use them.

So if you think disbanding and letting associations and coaches do whatever they want becasue that is how they feel, i think you would find a very high percentage of dissapointment.

What if that was the way schools did it. OK, your Johnny gets advanced placement becasue we "believe" he is smarter than most other kids and Susy, well you seem dumb so you go get some special help...ugh.

That is a can of worms best left unopened.

black sheep wrote:there is a lot more to the ADM than just "not letting mites play full ice games"

there are a lot of very good things in that package that are not being well utilized by associations. as well there are many good things in all of USA hockey's CEP program that are never utilized by associations and coaches becasue they already know everything.

the fact of the matter is if used as tools for development they are extremely effective. Why are there hockey players coming from ALL across the US now...its becasue of USA Hockey.

At best the current player development is measured in specualtion. What if that was the way schools did it. OK, your Johnny gets advanced placement becasue we "believe" he is smarter than most other kids and Susy, well you seem dumb so you go get some special help...ugh.

USA Hockey has a full tool set to measure and track player development through the CEP and Skills Progression and now planning tools within the ADM, but 99.9% of associations and coaches choose to not use them.

So if you think disbanding and letting associations and coaches do whatever they want becasue that is how they feel, i think you would find a very high percentage of dissapointment.

I don't think anyone here questions the efficiency of the program. It is impossible to quantify the results but it seems like having a plan for kids to develop certain skills and concepts based on their aged and maturity is a very good idea. The problem is that is only truly effective for the upper elite kids.

Compared to your school scenario, it would be like making all of the kids take advanced classes with the goal of being a NASA Engineer or Brain Surgeon. Good for a small minority but not the masses. How many kids would drop out of school if it were like this?

Some kids just want to play and have fun and I think it is a good idea to give them that option and sacrifice some skill development.

How is it different than us old guys. The mens league is about having fun. We don't practice yet still enjoy getting out there trying to do things we know we cant do.

hipcheck62 wrote:Compared to your school scenario, it would be like making all of the kids take advanced classes with the goal of being a NASA Engineer or Brain Surgeon. Good for a small minority but not the masses. How many kids would drop out of school if it were like this?

Some kids just want to play and have fun and I think it is a good idea to give them that option and sacrifice some skill development.

I dont disagree...but part of the ADM is to have regional High Performance teams and that does not fit the MN Association Model, but likely fits every other regional model fine.

So it is in the ADM to do exactly as you state...now lets see a raise of hands that will be happy to see the top 5% of your association move on to these regional HP teams.

I think Stromboli really hits it on the head here. I have often wondered when competition became an ugly thing for our kids. I always hear the statement, "Youth sports needs to focus on skills development and not competition." Since when are these things mutually exclusive? Also, no mention of fun in there. I would argue that kids having fun is the most important aspect of youth sports because that's what keeps them coming back and gives them a chance to improve. I think competition breeds skill development and fun. Don't agree, then try a little experiment.

I've coached Mites for two years. Like most teams, we will set up cones and have kids stickhandle around them, power turns, crossovers, forward/backward transition, etc. This is what we call skill development. Watch the kids in practice. One or two of them skate hard and get the full potential out of the drill. The rest go half or three quarter speed and are disinterested. Why? Because they have done it 100 times and it's not fun or competitive. They don't understand the point.

Now, put a line in each corner and have them do the same drill, but make it a race for each team. This is competition. Watch how hard they skate and how much fun they have. Watch them scream and yell to encourage and cheer on their teamates. The losers are disappointed, yes.... for about 15 seconds until they start lining up for the next race and another opportunity to skate even harder.

I don't know when we first felt the need to shelter our kids from competition. Why are we so afraid of subjecting them to failure? Why can't we keep score in any sport anymore, until the kids are in 4th grade? We kept score in everything from T-Ball to Mitey Mites when I played. Again, yes, kids were disappointed when they lost. But by the time they got undressed and out of the locker room they were over it, because they were looking forward to the next adventure and the next challenge, and they were arguably better equipped to face it. Kids have very short memories and attention spans, they get over disappointment much more quickly than adults.

The one real concern that I do have that the article addresses is also something that Herb Brooks used to talk about. He was afraid of the stigma being attached to young kids of being an A, B or C player. I think we do lose kids because of this who may have gone on to be great players. I could live with no A, B, or C hockey until Peewees, I think this is probably a good idea. but we need to leave competition in the equation. Life is a series of failures and successes. People need both in order to appreciate either. Let's give our kids some credit, they can often handle it better than the parents.

The ADM fully supports skill development through competition at all ages. It doesn't promote kids standing in line and going around cones 100 times and becoming bored. Full ice at 8 and under is often not very competitive and doesn't promote skill development. Smaller areas promote more competition and more opportunity for skill development for a higher number of participants. That's the theory anyway.

Froggy Richards wrote:I always hear the statement, "Youth sports needs to focus on skills development and not competition."

We are speaking with different people. Most everything I have read and heard sees competition as healthy. What I have heard is that there is an overemphasis on outcome or results. As if winning is somehow better than losing.

To me, it is far better to have competed admirably in a 4-2 loss where the final outcome was in doubt until late in the 3rd period than it is to be a part of a 7-1 win where things went into cruise control early in the 2nd period. I'd rather my son be on a team that has a .400 winning percentage than one that is at .950 because in the latter there isn't much "competing" going on other than to make the roster.

SECoach wrote:The ADM fully supports skill development through competition at all ages. It doesn't promote kids standing in line and going around cones 100 times and becoming bored. Full ice at 8 and under is often not very competitive and doesn't promote skill development. Smaller areas promote more competition and more opportunity for skill development for a higher number of participants. That's the theory anyway.

I have a 2000 and a 2005 so I have experience both Mite models relatively recently. My experience has been that I like small area games and I like alot about the ADM model. However, what I have noticed iss that in doing small area games exclusively it seems like the bottom to middle end players are better than when my older boy skated but the top end players are not progressing as much as they did when they played full ice. Thus I think there needs to be a balance somewhere. Others have mentioned that after January 1st you should be alotted a certain number of full ice games for older or advanced mite aged kids in addition to the small area games, instead of this "mandate" of only small area games for the entire winter.... The other thing I would like to see is the implementation of other kinds of competitive small area games other than just cross ice or half ice. I'd really like to see alot more check up style 3on3 or 4on4 where both teams go against one goalie, or side-by-side 5on5 with two goalies. Not enough imagination going on by most coaches, the majority seem to think cross ice is the only small area game that can be played and it's not.....

O-townClown wrote:

Froggy Richards wrote:I always hear the statement, "Youth sports needs to focus on skills development and not competition."

We are speaking with different people. Most everything I have read and heard sees competition as healthy. What I have heard is that there is an overemphasis on outcome or results. As if winning is somehow better than losing.

To me, it is far better to have competed admirably in a 4-2 loss where the final outcome was in doubt until late in the 3rd period than it is to be a part of a 7-1 win where things went into cruise control early in the 2nd period. I'd rather my son be on a team that has a .400 winning percentage than one that is at .950 because in the latter there isn't much "competing" going on other than to make the roster.

I agree with this but you do need to keep score to even find that out......

JSR wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

Froggy Richards wrote:I always hear the statement, "Youth sports needs to focus on skills development and not competition."

We are speaking with different people. Most everything I have read and heard sees competition as healthy. What I have heard is that there is an overemphasis on outcome or results. As if winning is somehow better than losing.

To me, it is far better to have competed admirably in a 4-2 loss where the final outcome was in doubt until late in the 3rd period than it is to be a part of a 7-1 win where things went into cruise control early in the 2nd period. I'd rather my son be on a team that has a .400 winning percentage than one that is at .950 because in the latter there isn't much "competing" going on other than to make the roster.

I agree with this but you do need to keep score to even find that out......

The kids keep score even if it's not on the scoreboard. At least the competitive ones do. Not tracking it in lights helps take some emphasis off the outcome.

SECoach wrote:

JSR wrote:

O-townClown wrote: We are speaking with different people. Most everything I have read and heard sees competition as healthy. What I have heard is that there is an overemphasis on outcome or results. As if winning is somehow better than losing.

To me, it is far better to have competed admirably in a 4-2 loss where the final outcome was in doubt until late in the 3rd period than it is to be a part of a 7-1 win where things went into cruise control early in the 2nd period. I'd rather my son be on a team that has a .400 winning percentage than one that is at .950 because in the latter there isn't much "competing" going on other than to make the roster.

I agree with this but you do need to keep score to even find that out......

The kids keep score even if it's not on the scoreboard. At least the competitive ones do. Not tracking it in lights helps take some emphasis off the outcome.

But isn't that the poin that some else above was trying to make, that the outcome does have merit in teaching lessons. Regardless of whether or not some kids keep score in their head there is no "winner" or "loser" when the score is not kept, and isn't learning how to handle losing and becoming a gracious winner a couple of important lessons that should be taught at all ages??

JSR wrote:

SECoach wrote:

JSR wrote: I agree with this but you do need to keep score to even find that out......

The kids keep score even if it's not on the scoreboard. At least the competitive ones do. Not tracking it in lights helps take some emphasis off the outcome.

But isn't that the poin that some else above was trying to make, that the outcome does have merit in teaching lessons. Regardless of whether or not some kids keep score in their head there is no "winner" or "loser" when the score is not kept, and isn't learning how to handle losing and becoming a gracious winner a couple of important lessons that should be taught at all ages??

I agree, except to add "age appropriate" to the equation. The theory is that given a child's age, the learning to compete becomes more a part of the training when they get older, and too much of it gets in the way of other important development stages when they are young. It don't think it suggests that all competition is removed at any age. It's difficult to see things as a child when we are far removed from enjoying innocent, relatively unstructured fun. Maybe that makes a case for a mix, but we seems to go from a nice mix, to full on games pretty easily.