Seniors Ice Time

[fanboy]

I believe, all things being relatively equal, Seniors have earned their spot and should be playing before sophomores. In my mind, the seniors have paid their dues and unless a sophomore is outstanding they should have to wait, their time will come. Just can't stand seeing seniors being benched and short- shifted to give the younger kids all the ice time. Am I right? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[dontcallmeshirley]

That is the kind of mentality that can cause a lot of trouble for seniors and sentimental coaches. If a kid doesn't prove that he deserves a regular shift night in and night out, it shouldn't just be given to him. On the other hand, by the time the kids are seniors, they should know the high school game well enough to perform on a higher level than sophomores or freshman, even if they aren't necessarily more skilled. If a younger guy is outplaying an older guy because the upperclassman thinks that he 'deserves' his spot and doesn't have to work, the coach should adjust who he puts on the ice accordingly.

[Roseauverrated]

This isn't the first time this topic has been brought up.

In my opinion, these kids are in high school, it's not peewees anymore, I say the best kids play regardless of class. If a kid isn't good enough by his senior year, quite frankly he doesn't deserve to play. Nobody cares about feelings anymore, it's about winning. To do that you put the best players out on the ice. Would you also suggest rotating goalies every game despite one being clearly better than the other?

[BearsSensGophs]

IMO you dont play a guy just because hes a senior. Its not smart coaching, play your best players more and give the team a better chance of winning. Reward that senior whos "paid his dues" by giving him a start on senior night.

[HShockeywatcher]

On top of what's been said, assuming "everything's equal" like the original poster said, that would be reason to not play the senior. If "everything" is equal with their playing abilities, the sophomore has one thing the senior doesn't have; two more seasons before he graduates.

Why would you play a player with no years left over a player with two if their abilities are the same?

[Doglover]

Have to admit that's the type of reasoning that drives me nuts. I really think that if all things are equal - play the Senior. They are older, stronger and probably more equipped to make the right decision from experience in a tight spot. Also, it's their senior year. The younger guys have two to three more years. They are just happy to be part of the team.

[timcorbin21]

"all things being relatively equal" everyone will interpret this differently.

someone is better. go by skill and ability and everyone gets the same opportunity.

[mulefarm]

The way I see the senior had a least 2 yrs to show the coaches he could play a regular shift. Obviously he didn't. The coach probably wishes he would hvae cut him during tryouts.

[wingmaster]

The way I see the senior had a least 2 yrs to show the coaches he could play a regular shift. Obviously he didn't. The coach probably wishes he would have cut him during tryouts.

[fanboy]

I never said players should play "just" because they are seniors but I would give the nod to a senior over a sophomore because they have pd their dues. Coaches can not expect loyalty from their players if they do not return it. The fact is you can't buy chemistry and if you continue to break and rebuild you never establish a real team. There is something to be said for the extra motivation that comes from wanting to win the big prize your senior year. Let's face it, these kids are being weeded out well before they're seniors so if they made it on the team they certainly don't suck; they should have skill and they have the strength the sophomores lack. And as dog lover said the younger kids are just happy to be part of the team.

[mulefarm]

How have seniors paid their dues? Just because you are a senior doesn't give you the privilege to be on the team or a regular shift. Coaches want to win and will pick the best players they feel will give them that chance. Should players like Travis Boyd, Max Coatta, Jordan Schroeder and Aaron Ness not have played on the varsity as 8th and 9th graders so a senior could have played?

[karl(east)]

I don't have incredibly strong views on this topic, but a couple things have come up that I want to address.

The phrase "all things equal" is going to lead to problems. How do you judge that? Different people value different things, and sometimes a team may have a need that prioritizes a certain type of player.

If you then argue that seniors should be playing because they have strength and skill that an underclassman might lack, then the two players you're deciding between are obviously not equal--one is stronger and more skilled!

The real argument here, IMO, is about whether it's okay for coaches to cut seniors who are slightly better than sophomores at that point in time, because they see more development opportunity in the younger player.

[MNHockeyFan]

The real argument here, IMO, is about whether it's okay for coaches to cut seniors who are slightly better than sophomores at that point in time, because they see more development opportunity in the younger player.

That plus the fact that you're team will never have players with lots of experience if the coach doesn't select at least a few sophomores each year. Ideally you want each class to be represented, from 10th to 12th grade. If you dress 17 players I would say a good balance would be 7-8 seniors, 6-7 juniors and 3-5 sophomores. Obviously this will vary year-to-year because some classes are stronger than others.

I would also say that in the ideal world you won't have to take any freshmen, unless they are truly exceptional like the above mentioned players.

[Ufeelshame]

I agree with MNhockey fan. You need to be a pretty special player to compete as a Sophomore with kids 2 years older than you. No one is entitled to a spot on varsity. In the old days Sophomores would earn their stripes by working hard on PK. I have always questioned a coach who puts a senior on third or fouth line. Then never plays them. No one is happy under that scenario. I was at banquet a few years ago where a senior was introduced and he never scored a point his entire HS career. Not one goal not one assist. Nada. I know there are exceptions but seniors are not entitled to a spot just because they are seniors.

[curtiscurve]

Seniors should get beneficial treatment on 1 occasions, Senior Night! Outside of that, they should be like everyone else. Coaches play those who show up everyday with a good work ethic and great attitude. Sometimes it is best to cut the seniors who are not willing to work hard as a team.

[saucepass]

Small schools need to fill the bench by begging kids to play even if they haven't skated for 5 years. This just happens to be a year that 13 seniors are playing Varsity. The 3 or 4 seniors on JV probably are filling space. I saw a Breck JV game this year and they had some freshman playing(probably their 24th kid on roster) in a conference game(easier game) that couldn't make peewee b2 this year and would get killed if he played against a good team(Totino, St Thomas, Shattuck). You know what, the JV will need that kid the next 3 years to produce a full squad.

Class AA...won't happen, however you slice it, I don't think Breck has much more than 100 students per class. So if they have a near 50/50 girls/boys ratio, then they have 200 potential boys to play hockey. And out of those they still have other sports to fill. And don't forget, it's an educational school where not all students are athletes. So, the numbers will never be there for JV to make cuts or to make a jump to AA.

Now with that said, they can play and beat AA teams, so let the A state champs battle the AA state champs for a true state champ. No AA team would agree to that...chickens!

[stilly5hm3]

the only A team that proves to be worthy of begging for that game would sta, they might beat the AA champ 40% of the time, but they should be AA anyways considering they prove to play at that level year after year, for any other A squad to banter about not getting that shot to play the AA champ is ridiculous...theyre just not worthy of it. Maybe they will that "one time" like the kid beating his brother down cherry hill in the little giants movie.

[Doglover]

Are the coaches honoring the seniors on senior night like the Breck coach?

Heard from a buddy (one of the 5 people who actually attended the Edina-Buffalo game Senior night since the rest of us were at Pagel last night) that Edina sat their Senior goalie. Shots on goal were something like 55-5. Paper said Edina won 10-1. How do you even justify that?

[HShockeywatcher]

the only A team that proves to be worthy of begging for that game would sta, they might beat the AA champ 40% of the time, but they should be AA anyways considering they prove to play at that level year after year, for any other A squad to banter about not getting that shot to play the AA champ is ridiculous...theyre just not worthy of it. Maybe they will that "one time" like the kid beating his brother down cherry hill in the little giants movie.

02-03 the Cadets won 4 games. Summer 03 UST/STA built an ice arena on campus at STA (why you'd built a new ice arena in the 21st century with one sheet of ice and stands on one side of the ice is beyond me). 03-04 the Cadets were .500 with 3 or 4 players who weren't there the year before. In 2005 they went to state. Since then they have been doing well, but now are just another good school that happens to be Class A.

Warroad has a history of making it to state and competing with the top teams in the state. As does Hermantown, Red Wing, Breck and a handful of others. In that time the Cadets have had some good teams that have been upset and the teams that beat them get less recognition for it than they do. I would say that every year since the class system the Class A champ could at least step on the ice with the Class AA champ and most year give them a run for their money.

In 2007, Hermantown ran the table. While I personally don't think they would've beat the Cadets had they played them, I doubt Roseau would've handled them.
Last year, Breck could've definitely played with Eden Prairie.

[stilly5hm3]

there are dozens of teams in AA that can "play with" the elite teams of the class or the eventual state champion, but as we see time and time again the elite teams will win those games on almost every occasion. The point is that AA teams are in AA because they are either a good team or there enrollment requires a AA status. There are good A teams in particular years, but sta without question has proven to be the best of the second tier. We witness many blogs bashing sta for not stepping up to AA because most believe they can and should be at that level. A game between the A and AA champs would merely set up for the AA team winning 9 outa 10...why even play it then?

[HShockeywatcher]

there are dozens of teams in AA that can "play with" the elite teams of the class or the eventual state champion, but as we see time and time again the elite teams will win those games on almost every occasion. The point is that AA teams are in AA because they are either a good team or there enrollment requires a AA status. There are good A teams in particular years, but sta without question has proven to be the best of the second tier. We witness many blogs bashing sta for not stepping up to AA because most believe they can and should be at that level. A game between the A and AA champs would merely set up for the AA team winning 9 outa 10...why even play it then?

I say "play with" because it is generally silly to assume a win from the smaller school, but what I mean is that it would be a good game. I totally disagree with your saying the AA team would win 9 out of 10 in most years.

[bronx18]

The spot should always be given to the better player that is going to help your team achieve victory, whether they be a freshman or a senior.

[High_Plains_Dangler]

The spot should always be given to the better player that is going to help your team achieve victory, whether they be a freshman or a senior.

I agree with that statement 100%, it should not matter the age. Whoever will contribute the most to the team should have the spot regardless

[johnnyquest]

I agree with the "best player plays - period."

I do think the coaching decisions are easier for a coach that is not a teacher at the school. A coach/teacher has to be concerned that his athletic decisions don't adversly affect his academic position - I think they call it politics.

[hero12]

Play whoever gets the job done. You don't "earn" ice time because you've been riding the bench for two years, you earn it by performing.