HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Any reported openings yet, anyone not coming back?

1. Moorhead
2.
3.

This thread happened fast . . .

I know one school I would love to see on this list! - Can only wait and hope.

I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.

Racki2016 wrote:

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.

I think you might be in a fairly small minority.

Bluewhitefan wrote:

Racki2016 wrote:

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.

I think you might be in a fairly small minority.

And explain why you think that?

Yes. Saying this guy is a good coach puts you in a very small minority.

Why. Because he recruits 12 year olds, lies to kids and parents and circumvents every process. He's a cheater at every turn. Any program that has this guy involved is, or will be, corrupt.

Game, set, match. Just because your a good salesman doesn't make you a good coach. Well, we've never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat

I want my daughter's coach to lead by example and teach her INTEGRITY as much as hockey.
Lol CoachK. "But this is just between us, ok buddy? I can't have word getting out about the deal you're getting or everyone will expect that." Wink.

I would ask the moderators to simply remove all the AA and CP stuff. Can't a thread run normal without this crap showing up everywhere on the HS Girl's forum ?

This thread title has run on this Forum for several years now. Why lock it down with repeats of all this AA debate ?

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3.

I don't know that I would call the AA discussion a "debate". I'm not sure what word I would use, but it seems it was more of an exorcism than a debate.

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5.

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6.

LZ94 wrote:1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6.

Home town player had returned to coach. Is this a surprise to Mahtomedi ?

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6. Mankato West
7. Faribault
8. Albert Lea
9. St. Louis Park
10.

Sure seems like a lot this early.

9 on March 25th of last year.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

How long before the AD's get sick of hiring new coaches every other year and just fold the program or co-op? In 10 years we will have no need for 2 classes anymore because all of these schools will have folded their programs or joined forces with 3 other schools so they can compete against the privates and the open enrollers. Richfield and Kennedy off the top of my head.

MN_Bowhunter wrote:How long before the AD's get sick of hiring new coaches every other year and just fold the program or co-op? In 10 years we will have no need for 2 classes anymore because all of these schools will have folded their programs or joined forces with 3 other schools so they can compete against the privates and the open enrollers. Richfield and Kennedy off the top of my head.

Not true. AD's have to deal with this level of coaching churn in all sports. In addition, hockey is cost prohibitive for lower socioeconomic communities like the two you mentioned (Richfield and Kennedy). I've railed against open enrolling for sports on other threads enough for people to know I'm not a defender of that, but you are arguing cause and effect where there isn't.

Coaches leave for many reasons:
-family
-career change
-health
-crazy parents
-coaching burnout

AD's don't cut sports because it's too much work to find a head coach. It's usually only one of two reasons; budgetary, or participation.

I'm not sure what I'm arguing, and I may be doing a poor job of it as well. The bottom line is the majority of the turnover happens at teams that aren't competitive, and the gap between being competitive and sucking gets bigger every year. The haves (privates and established publics) continue to vacuum up talent because nobody wants to play for a losing team and the have-nots (everybody else) continue to struggle to field a team because they lose their most talented kids every year. If the cause is open enrollment and the effect is less hockey teams then that is what I'm arguing, I guess.

Did I make any sense?

Keep in mind winning solves a lot of problems... or at least keeps them in the shadows. All teams have their issues, but I'd argue that a coach's job can become incrementally more difficult if the team is not winning.

IMO, this more than anything is why you see the correlation between turnover and low performing teams; or at least why you see less turnover on teams that are successful.

MN_Bowhunter wrote:I'm not sure what I'm arguing, and I may be doing a poor job of it as well. The bottom line is the majority of the turnover happens at teams that aren't competitive, and the gap between being competitive and sucking gets bigger every year. The haves (privates and established publics) continue to vacuum up talent because nobody wants to play for a losing team and the have-nots (everybody else) continue to struggle to field a team because they lose their most talented kids every year. If the cause is open enrollment and the effect is less hockey teams then that is what I'm arguing, I guess.

Did I make any sense?

Makes sense. I wouldn't disagree that it is an issue. Hard to keep working on building a program and working with the youth, only to see another program swoop in and take a kid that could make a difference.