HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Any big names or up and comers or families who are leaving their home associations? U14 and younger or please add to high school thread.

We have a lot of future Olympians who are leaving the girls program to play boys B hockey. Does that count?

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:Any big names or up and comers or families who are leaving their home associations? U14 and younger or please add to high school thread.

It looks like a rather acclaimed goalie (first year U14) is moving from St. Paul to Forest Lake, based on another thread here.

goaliedad31 wrote:We have a lot of future Olympians who are leaving the girls program to play boys B hockey. Does that count?

Absolutely. Please share where future Olympians are playing B hockey lol.

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:

goaliedad31 wrote:We have a lot of future Olympians who are leaving the girls program to play boys B hockey. Does that count?

Absolutely. Please share where future Olympians are playing B hockey lol.

I think his point was to sarcastically point out those that think they're too good to play girls hockey, but end up on the boys B team.

InigoMontoya wrote:

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:

goaliedad31 wrote:We have a lot of future Olympians who are leaving the girls program to play boys B hockey. Does that count?

Absolutely. Please share where future Olympians are playing B hockey lol.

I think his point was to sarcastically point out those that think they're too good to play girls hockey, but end up on the boys B team.

I know I know. That's why it was funny. IMHO inter-association transfers (move-ups and girls to boys) should universally practice the stipulation that the transfer needs to make one of the top 2 lines on the top team. Otherwise no one is benefitting. Also IMHO all athletes benefit from sometimes being one of the best players on the team and sometimes being the weakest.

***

That is my point, we will have 4 girls playing boys who will not make the top team and may struggle to make the second team. Ultimately it hurts the girls program and creates a lot of animosity between the girls who should be using this time to build relationships and cohesiveness that they could use when they get to high school.

4? I don't know your situation, but 4 sets of parents may be seeing something you don't, or choose not to, see. Does the boys B coach have tons of hockey and coaching experience, where on the girls side they trot out a couple dads that can't skate, but can face paint your association mascot like an episode of Miami Ink?

No, had a girls program ranked anywhere from 3 to 8 last year. Just parents with Olympians too good to play girls. I will clarify, I don't think an "A" team that has a "AA" team is really an "A" team. Anything past the top team, I consider B.

Bingo!

Ultimately it hurts the girls program and creates a lot of animosity between the girls who should be using this time to build relationships and cohesiveness

Very selfish and very rarely a good idea.

goaliedad31 wrote:No, had a girls program ranked anywhere from 3 to 8 last year. Just parents with Olympians too good to play girls. I will clarify, I don't think an "A" team that has a "AA" team is really an "A" team. Anything past the top team, I consider B.

Unless you're Edina.

observer wrote:Bingo!

Ultimately it hurts the girls program and creates a lot of animosity between the girls who should be using this time to build relationships and cohesiveness

Very selfish and very rarely a good idea.

Other than the very rare exception, all girls that play boys hockey very selfish, or just the ones that end up on a B team?

InigoMontoya wrote:

observer wrote:Bingo!

Ultimately it hurts the girls program and creates a lot of animosity between the girls who should be using this time to build relationships and cohesiveness

Very selfish and very rarely a good idea.

Other than the very rare exception, all girls that play boys hockey very selfish, or just the ones that end up on a B team?

And geez, I think most of the girls who play girls hockey like to play with the girls who play boys hockey, because as a general rule the girls who play boys hockey are pretty good players.

Again, these are girls making the 2nd or 3rd teams down in boys, not the top team. Yea, for the girls that are talented enough to skate with the boys at the top level, go ahead, but when they are playing B boys hockey I think it hurts the girls programs, and really doesn't benefit them either, for them to go play boys.

goaliedad31 wrote:Again, these are girls making the 2nd or 3rd teams down in boys, not the top team. Yea, for the girls that are talented enough to skate with the boys at the top level, go ahead, but when they are playing B boys hockey I think it hurts the girls programs, and really doesn't benefit them either, for them to go play boys.

Agreed!

Snap Happy wrote:

goaliedad31 wrote:Again, these are girls making the 2nd or 3rd teams down in boys, not the top team. Yea, for the girls that are talented enough to skate with the boys at the top level, go ahead, but when they are playing B boys hockey I think it hurts the girls programs, and really doesn't benefit them either, for them to go play boys.

Agreed!

Eh, I don't know about that.

One quick example - in my childrens' home association, U10 coaches are only required to be certified with Mite coaching requirements, whereas Squirt coaches are held to a higher licensing standard.

Then, PeeWee coaches are held to a higher coaching pedigree / certification than U12 coaches.

Oh, another - boys' programs are provided more/better ice time, more games/scrimmages, more tournaments than girls' teams. A quick look indicates the PeeWee B teams in my local association played around 50 games last year, whereas the U12A team played around 33.

The reality is that if your daughter does not play in one of the power associations (Edina, Andover, Stillwater, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie), playing boys' hockey is probably a better option until Bantams.

This is one of the "power associations" you mentioned. All hours are the same and coaching is not an issue. Non parent coaches with top credentials -- actually as it looks now, the boys side may end up with parent coaching.

it hurts the girls programs

Is it simply a numbers issue?
It isn't anything particular about these individuals, they could be any four girls, but 4 more bodies would allow 3 12U teams instead of 2, which allows A1, A2, and B?

Is it about these four girls?
If these 4 played on the 12A team, we'd be ranked #2 instead of #3-8?

Is it the principle?
If any girl plays boys hockey, no matter the talent, commitment, or attitude of the kid or parent, it undermines the respectability of the girls' game?

jg2112 wrote: Oh, another - boys' programs are provided more/better ice time, more games/scrimmages, more tournaments than girls' teams. A quick look indicates the PeeWee B teams in my local association played around 50 games last year, whereas the U12A team played around 33.

JG2112 if I am understanding your post correctly, you are indicating that playing 50 games in a winter season at the U12/Pewee level is better than playing 33 games. Is that correct? It is important to have a good practice to game ratio for skill development.

It might be that the U12A coach was actually a better coach, and he/she chose to only play 33 games because that gave them the practice to game ratio that they desired.

A Peewee B team playing 50 games, should have around 100 practices, that is 150 hockey practice/game events in a season. That is a lot for a Peewee aged kid. With a 5 month season, that is an event nearly every day, not do-able, so what gets cut is the practice time, and in the end the players suffer from a skill development stand point.

All my humble opinion of course...

hockeyfan87 wrote:

jg2112 wrote: Oh, another - boys' programs are provided more/better ice time, more games/scrimmages, more tournaments than girls' teams. A quick look indicates the PeeWee B teams in my local association played around 50 games last year, whereas the U12A team played around 33.

JG2112 if I am understanding your post correctly, you are indicating that playing 50 games in a winter season at the U12/Pewee level is better than playing 33 games. Is that correct? It is important to have a good practice to game ratio for skill development.

It might be that the U12A coach was actually a better coach, and he/she chose to only play 33 games because that gave them the practice to game ratio that they desired.

A Peewee B team playing 50 games, should have around 100 practices, that is 150 hockey practice/game events in a season. That is a lot for a Peewee aged kid. With a 5 month season, that is an event nearly every day, not do-able, so what gets cut is the practice time, and in the end the players suffer from a skill development stand point.

All my humble opinion of course...

I think my argument is that the boys' side is provided more ice time as a general principle. I'm not arguing more games is better, at all. But, when you're in an association like my childrens', more games are needed to get value for money because you get hardly any practices because they're squeezed for ice.

The issue of practice to game ratios is terrible in my home association. When my daughter played U10A it was 1.14-1 (48-42). Last year's U12A team was 1:25-1 (44-33). The PeeWee team I used as a comparable was .63 (33-52).

So I'm not sure what I'm arguing anymore. I do know my oldest now plays somewhere with a 2:1 practice-to-game ratio and that works for us.

jg2112 wrote:

hockeyfan87 wrote:

jg2112 wrote: Oh, another - boys' programs are provided more/better ice time, more games/scrimmages, more tournaments than girls' teams. A quick look indicates the PeeWee B teams in my local association played around 50 games last year, whereas the U12A team played around 33.

JG2112 if I am understanding your post correctly, you are indicating that playing 50 games in a winter season at the U12/Pewee level is better than playing 33 games. Is that correct? It is important to have a good practice to game ratio for skill development.

It might be that the U12A coach was actually a better coach, and he/she chose to only play 33 games because that gave them the practice to game ratio that they desired.

A Peewee B team playing 50 games, should have around 100 practices, that is 150 hockey practice/game events in a season. That is a lot for a Peewee aged kid. With a 5 month season, that is an event nearly every day, not do-able, so what gets cut is the practice time, and in the end the players suffer from a skill development stand point.

All my humble opinion of course...

I think my argument is that the boys' side is provided more ice time as a general principle. I'm not arguing more games is better, at all. But, when you're in an association like my childrens', more games are needed to get value for money because you get hardly any practices because they're squeezed for ice.

The issue of practice to game ratios is terrible in my home association. When my daughter played U10A it was 1.14-1 (48-42). Last year's U12A team was 1:25-1 (44-33). The PeeWee team I used as a comparable was .63 (33-52).

So I'm not sure what I'm arguing anymore. I do know my oldest now plays somewhere with a 2:1 practice-to-game ratio and that works for us.

The MAX games you are allowed to play at U10/squirts is 35

Mavs wrote:

jg2112 wrote:

hockeyfan87 wrote: JG2112 if I am understanding your post correctly, you are indicating that playing 50 games in a winter season at the U12/Pewee level is better than playing 33 games. Is that correct? It is important to have a good practice to game ratio for skill development.

It might be that the U12A coach was actually a better coach, and he/she chose to only play 33 games because that gave them the practice to game ratio that they desired.

A Peewee B team playing 50 games, should have around 100 practices, that is 150 hockey practice/game events in a season. That is a lot for a Peewee aged kid. With a 5 month season, that is an event nearly every day, not do-able, so what gets cut is the practice time, and in the end the players suffer from a skill development stand point.

All my humble opinion of course...

I think my argument is that the boys' side is provided more ice time as a general principle. I'm not arguing more games is better, at all. But, when you're in an association like my childrens', more games are needed to get value for money because you get hardly any practices because they're squeezed for ice.

The issue of practice to game ratios is terrible in my home association. When my daughter played U10A it was 1.14-1 (48-42). Last year's U12A team was 1:25-1 (44-33). The PeeWee team I used as a comparable was .63 (33-52).

So I'm not sure what I'm arguing anymore. I do know my oldest now plays somewhere with a 2:1 practice-to-game ratio and that works for us.

The MAX games you are allowed to play at U10/squirts is 35

"Coach controlled scrimmages" are included in that number, and don't forget the rule has been changed to "game days," not games.

goaliedad31 wrote:Again, these are girls making the 2nd or 3rd teams down in boys, not the top team. Yea, for the girls that are talented enough to skate with the boys at the top level, go ahead, but when they are playing B boys hockey I think it hurts the girls programs, and really doesn't benefit them either, for them to go play boys.

I beg to differ The Boys game is vastly different from the girls game Playing on a boys team teaches more than just the on ice skills. The pace is quicker the skills are better and the intensity level is higher. My daughter wants to play boys Bantams so we are going to encourage her to do so and she will develop a heck of a lot better than sitting on the bench as a backup goalie on the varsity. The fundamental problem with girls hockey is that girls hockey is no taken seriously by most association so we as parents see that and want our daughters to develop and follow their dreams. If associations would put the same time and effort into the girls programs that they do with the boys you would not have the numbers issues. It all goes back to the leadership provided by the associations, the district, Mn hockey, and USA hockey. Until the programs are equal from the top down you will always have this problem.

I get it now....

Its not what your daughter can bring to a team...its what can a team bring to you daughter.

Let the other girls get pounded for a couple years because the strong players play somewhere else, then complain later when there is no depth.