Squirt C's - Is this fair?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Squirt C's - Is this fair?

Post by Kari Takko » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:24 pm

My association has 4 Squirt teams this year (A, B1, B2, C). The A, B1, and B2 teams have 12 skaters and a goalie. The C team has 10 skaters and a goalie. Seems to me that 10 skatersis too few for a C team where kids seem to miss games and practices more often.

Secondly, the C team is now considered a traveling team. That means we get monthly ice bills like all the other Squirt teams, which will be divided amongst a smaller number of kids than the other teams. This means the $ per player per hour of ice will be the highest for the C team.

Lastly, there were no parents on the team who signed up to coach, and only 1 who has ever even played hockey in the past. Now we are being told that if we can't figure out the coaching situation the team will be disbanded.

Does this seem really unfair to anyone else? Anyone ever been in a situation like this or have any advice?

Thanks in advance.

DrGaf
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Post by DrGaf » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:49 pm

... on the plus side, 10 skaters = more ice time.

Also, contact the HS. I've seen one situation where HS players were looking to move on to coaching instead of playing post-HS and were more than happy to be involved.

Do any of the players have older siblings or relatives that could be on the ice?

At this age, the kids really only need skill drills. Any current / former hockey player could be able to do this. Besides, there's always google. And I am sure that another coach would be able to share practice plans, assuming you can find someone to be on the ice with the kids.

Are there any neighboring associations that would let you waiver in at the midnight hour? I have no idea if this is allowed at this late date, but I would sure as heck hope for a special circumstance ruling to get the kids on the ice.

Good luck.
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.

SWPrez
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:48 am

Re: Squirt C's - Is this fair?

Post by SWPrez » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:50 pm

Kari Takko wrote:My association has 4 Squirt teams this year (A, B1, B2, C). The A, B1, and B2 teams have 12 skaters and a goalie. The C team has 10 skaters and a goalie. Seems to me that 10 skatersis too few for a C team where kids seem to miss games and practices more often.

Secondly, the C team is now considered a traveling team. That means we get monthly ice bills like all the other Squirt teams, which will be divided amongst a smaller number of kids than the other teams. This means the $ per player per hour of ice will be the highest for the C team.

Lastly, there were no parents on the team who signed up to coach, and only 1 who has ever even played hockey in the past. Now we are being told that if we can't figure out the coaching situation the team will be disbanded.

Does this seem really unfair to anyone else? Anyone ever been in a situation like this or have any advice?

Thanks in advance.
K.T.

C level teams are one of the most difficult teams for an association to pull together. Often C level parents feel things 'aren't fair' or that they get shortchanged.

This isn't due to a Board that despises C level players. It is due to many factors and here are just a few:

1) Your hockey board members do not always know how many kids they will have sign up. They have a good guess, but kids drop out to do other things. Hockey teams are filled from the top down. Districts often have associations declare teams and schedule games before the association knows what their final player counts are.

2) Coaches....Because of the high cost of ice and overhead for hockey associations, there isn't a lot of money to pay coaches and keep the game affordable. Stipends cover their gas to and from rinks (with gas around $4....may not even cover that). Volunteer non-parent Coaches do it for the love of the game. A and B1 coaches are often non-parent volunteers that love the game and want to coach higher end hockey....they don't want to coach a C team (nothing personal, this is just the typical makeup of a volunteer non-parent coach).

3) Associations need to wait until the end of tryouts to determine coaching needs. Hockey historically has always been motivated dads helping out. My dad was a D1 basketball player...couldn't skate if his life depended on it...I chose hockey, he figured out how to coach it. If there are good parent coaches, the association would rather have them coach your kids, than a non-parent coach that really isn't very good. After tryouts, I am sure your association tried to figure out what parent coaches were available to fill the teams.

4) History has shown me that usually within 2-3 weeks a non-parent coach can be found, once a need is discovered by your hockey committee. During this time, your hockey committee is working hard to solve your problem. I now act as a transitional coach for 2-3 weeks in these situations in our association to let the parents know that we are working on it and that the kids will not lose a step on others at their age level.

5) C players often can register later than higher level players. The parents just aren't as 'dialed in' as the A or B players. Your team of 10 could be 14 in two weeks.

Finally, 10 on a C team does seem small when you have four teams. Seems to me, that's 40 players that would make up 3 C teams of 13. May want to disband and join the other three teams.

Other things. C parents tend to complain a lot about how many games A and B teams get. Usually, an association only schedules district games. Then, a team scrimmage coordinator (a parent) starts working the phones/email to schedule home/away scrimmages to leverage ice and add games. A and B teams tend to go out and buy an extra tourney or two also on their own initiative. Your association won't do this for you so when you have an 'hour counter' at the C level complaining about A teams and how much they skate, remind them that those A or B parents are doing the extra work and 'we' could do the same.

Just my thoughts. Again, C level is hard to get coordinated because of many factors noted above....but my experience is that within 2-3 weeks of the end of tryouts, these factors go away and you have a great season.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:05 pm

Agree with all that SW Prez has posted.

It doesn't take an expert to coach Squirt C hockey. At that level the coach should just be opening the gate and maintaining order on the bench. Practice plans for squirts can be found all over the web and when your volunteer parent coach goes to his Level 1 clinic USAH will give him plenty of practice plans and other material. It's not rocket science just follow the book. It would definitley help to have a high schooler on ice to help out and demonstrate drills. Just make sure you thank whoever volunteers and not give them grief over all the stupid things coaches usually get grief over.

I'll agree that if parents want to complain their kid is getting short changed compared to the A & B teams I don't think they understand the extra effort those teams (parents) put into get those added games and practice hours.

Confused by what you said about cost. Depending on where you live I would think it would be cheaper to play C hockey since you are most likely not entering as many tournaments as the A & B and therefore won't have the entry fees and travel costs that go with the extra events.

Don't sit around and wait for the association to take care of you. The teams have been set, it's your baby now. Time to coordinate with the other parents and get your season rolling.

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Post by Kari Takko » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:08 pm

Thanks for the replies. I don't personally think that the association is out to get us, but I do think someone wasn't thinking straight when they only put 10 skaters on the C team (at least have 2 teams with 11). I know that the association was aware of the numbers before tryouts, and they convinced 2 Mite skaters to tryout as Squirts. I also know that there isn't a dropoff between the bottom kid on the B2 team and the top kid on the C team (so it wasn't a skills issue).

Now we are on the verge of not having a team, and have been told that it is too late to merge with other teams within the association. The 2 mite aged parents really feel like they got the shaft. Not sure if the association is bluffing (if people knew there was a chance of going to a different they would be less likely to help) but talk about a bad message to send if they really just cut these kids.

As far as new parents learning to coach, there have been a couple who have volunteered to help but only part time. To be a coach though, they'll have to take a day long class and 10 hours of modules. To me that is a lot to ask of a dad with limited availability who is just trying to keep a C team afloat.

Something just seems inherently wrong about charging monthly ice bills, only having 10 skaters, and telling a parent volunteer "thanks for the help. Now make sure you register for USA hockey and sign up for 16 hours of training so you can coach the Squirt C team". This is not what C hockey is supposed to be about.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:17 pm

Umm, yeah it is absolutely the right thing to make a volunteer coach who knows little about ice hockey go through the USAH class. You should be thankful it is required that your son's coach has received at least some instruction.

Yes, it is a small sacrifice for whichever dad volunteers but it's a sacrifice worth making. I don't know how one could argue against that.

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Post by Kari Takko » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:59 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:Confused by what you said about cost. Depending on where you live I would think it would be cheaper to play C hockey since you are most likely not entering as many tournaments as the A & B and therefore won't have the entry fees and travel costs that go with the extra events.
C hockey would be cheaper overall due to having less ice time, but the C parent is paying more per hour than anyone else in the association due to the fact that it is the smallest team in the association. This is a level of hockey that generally doesn't have as high of a commitment level as the upper teams (kids will skip practice more often to go hunting, or to a sleepover, etc). C hockey used to be about value, aimed to keep kids from leaving the sport (pay a flat rate then go out and have fun). Now it's the worst team from a value perspective.

I did some rough calculations and I figure C hockey will cost triple what it did last year due to classifying it as a traveling team. Then to treat it like an afterthought and only put 10 kids on the team is wrong IMO. I'm sorry but at a time when most associations are losing kids, it seems like a really bad approach. I can't be alone in this thinking can I?
SCBlueLiner wrote:Don't sit around and wait for the association to take care of you. The teams have been set, it's your baby now. Time to coordinate with the other parents and get your season rolling.
I'm not sitting around. I am the one parent on the team with experience. I have a level 3 coaching card and have coached for several years. Due to my job I did not volunteer to coach this year but feel like the fate of the team has been placed squarely in my lap. I have said I will head coach and do as much as I can. But at the very least I need another body to move cones around and open the other door during games. A couple dads have volunteered to cover for me should I not be there, but they both have unpredictable schedules as well. They shouldn't have to pay USA hockey $40, then pay $40 to take an all day class, then pay $10 and take 10 hours of modules, all on the off chance they have to open a door in a couple games this winter.

I've taken plenty of coaching classes and do you know who benefits? The ones that want to become better coaches (and those people would have put in the time and effort to get better anyway). A large portion think they know it all, or just don't care. I don't buy this notion that taking one of USA Hockey's precious clinics all of a sudden makes you qualified to coach. It is a money grab. Those that want to get better, will. Those that don't, won't.

the_juiceman
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:17 am

Post by the_juiceman » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:48 pm

Kari Takko wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:Confused by what you said about cost. Depending on where you live I would think it would be cheaper to play C hockey since you are most likely not entering as many tournaments as the A & B and therefore won't have the entry fees and travel costs that go with the extra events.
C hockey would be cheaper overall due to having less ice time, but the C parent is paying more per hour than anyone else in the association due to the fact that it is the smallest team in the association. This is a level of hockey that generally doesn't have as high of a commitment level as the upper teams (kids will skip practice more often to go hunting, or to a sleepover, etc). C hockey used to be about value, aimed to keep kids from leaving the sport (pay a flat rate then go out and have fun). Now it's the worst team from a value perspective.


I did some rough calculations and I figure C hockey will cost triple what it did last year due to classifying it as a traveling team. Then to treat it like an afterthought and only put 10 kids on the team is wrong IMO. I'm sorry but at a time when most associations are losing kids, it seems like a really bad approach. I can't be alone in this thinking can I?
SCBlueLiner wrote:Don't sit around and wait for the association to take care of you. The teams have been set, it's your baby now. Time to coordinate with the other parents and get your season rolling.
I'm not sitting around. I am the one parent on the team with experience. I have a level 3 coaching card and have coached for several years. Due to my job I did not volunteer to coach this year but feel like the fate of the team has been placed squarely in my lap. I have said I will head coach and do as much as I can. But at the very least I need another body to move cones around and open the other door during games. A couple dads have volunteered to cover for me should I not be there, but they both have unpredictable schedules as well. They shouldn't have to pay USA hockey $40, then pay $40 to take an all day class, then pay $10 and take 10 hours of modules, all on the off chance they have to open a door in a couple games this winter.

I've taken plenty of coaching classes and do you know who benefits? The ones that want to become better coaches (and those people would have put in the time and effort to get better anyway). A large portion think they know it all, or just don't care. I don't buy this notion that taking one of USA Hockey's precious clinics all of a sudden makes you qualified to coach. It is a money grab. Those that want to get better, will. Those that don't, won't.
Alot of associations reimburse the coaches for the clinics--does yours? also, there is a Minnesota Rec league. Not sure if they start at squirts or not. Might be worth checking out. Other than that, what do you propose the assc. do? not have a "C" team? Doing the class and modules isn't as time consuming as you say. Unless you wait till the last minute, then it seems that way. Missing games & practice for a sleepover? really? Sounds to me they want to learn to play hockey, but not willing to commit to much. Every team sport requires a level of commitment--from players & parents (which sometimes means coaching). seems you want the assc. to do it all for you. They are only as good as their volunteers

puckhead58

Post by puckhead58 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:58 pm

That is a shi**y situation. I hate when someone expresses a concern like this and then is blasted with accusations of laziness, unwillingness to volunteer, and expecting too much from their association. Give me a break. Your association is screwing 10 kids & families AT THE SQUIRT level. I don't understand why they would do this (and risk losing them in future years rather than invest in them/develop them). Put 5 of them on each of the B teams, everyone benefits. And I don't understand why you aren't getting a little more support on here. Statements like "kids at this age don't need that much coaching" are ignorant. I guess not if you plan on playing C level hockey for the rest of your youth. Good luck. Hope it works out for you and the other families.

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Post by Kari Takko » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:15 pm

the_juiceman wrote: Alot of associations reimburse the coaches for the clinics--does yours?
They used to but as of this year, no.
the_juiceman wrote:also, there is a Minnesota Rec league. Not sure if they start at squirts or not. Might be worth checking out.
I've looked into it, and 12U is the youngest level (PeeWee). I'll bet you'll see it grow exponentially in coming years though if it's going to cost close to $1000 for a 9 year old to play C level hockey.
the_juiceman wrote:Other than that, what do you propose the assc. do? not have a "C" team?


No, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
the_juiceman wrote:Missing games & practice for a sleepover? really? Sounds to me they want to learn to play hockey, but not willing to commit to much.
It happens. Hunting, holidays, and other activities aren't planned around hockey like they are at other levels. Again one of the goals of C hockey (as least as I've always understood it) is to have an affordable option for kids who are new to the game, or maybe have a waning interest in the game. When you keep those kids from dropping out, many will play at higher levels in the future.
the_juiceman wrote: seems you want the assc. to do it all for you. They are only as good as their volunteers


Not sure what in my previous comments makes you think I want the association to do it all for me. I'm doing everything I can to have a team. I'm giving more time than I have to give, and if it doesn't work out it certainly won't be because of a lack of effort.

I guess the original post was more of a comment on the state of youth hockey today, along with looking for advise from people who've been in similar situations.

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Post by Kari Takko » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:18 pm

puckhead58 wrote:That is a shi**y situation. I hate when someone expresses a concern like this and then is blasted with accusations of laziness, unwillingness to volunteer, and expecting too much from their association. Give me a break. Your association is screwing 10 kids & families AT THE SQUIRT level. I don't understand why they would do this (and risk losing them in future years rather than invest in them/develop them). Put 5 of them on each of the B teams, everyone benefits. And I don't understand why you aren't getting a little more support on here. Statements like "kids at this age don't need that much coaching" are ignorant. I guess not if you plan on playing C level hockey for the rest of your youth. Good luck. Hope it works out for you and the other families.
I knew I wasn't alone here. Thanks!

The Enlightened One
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:39 pm
Location: Some place cold

Post by The Enlightened One » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:44 pm

Another point to come n with is that usually the associations pay for a certain number of tournies and district games. If your team is not going to be gong to the same number of tournies as the upper teams tell your squirt coordinator to apply your unused tourney entry fees to your ice bills. Also check to see f there are any junior gold or other rec type teams about. J-gold teams are maligned and usually treated like second class citizens in an association but they are truly a team who is there for the kids. Some of their old players might help or know somebody who can/will help you.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:48 pm

Because placing 5 kids on each of the B teams will lessen the icetime for not only the 5 new kids but the kids on the B teams. It would not be fair to any of the kids.

Also, I doubt the talent level is the same because if it was I would think the association would have classified it as another B team. Since the didn't I have to assume the kids on the team are C level players and playing B would be inappropriate.

Finally, you mentioned some of these kids will miss due to sleep overs and hunting and such. How would that go over if they were on a B team? How would the other players and parents feel about that level of commitment to the team?

In the end you can look at the smaller team size as an opportunity for your kid to get tons of ice time and individual instruction in practice.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:55 pm

puckhead58 wrote:That is a shi**y situation. I hate when someone expresses a concern like this and then is blasted with accusations of laziness, unwillingness to volunteer, and expecting too much from their association. Give me a break. Your association is screwing 10 kids & families AT THE SQUIRT level. I don't understand why they would do this (and risk losing them in future years rather than invest in them/develop them). Put 5 of them on each of the B teams, everyone benefits. And I don't understand why you aren't getting a little more support on here. Statements like "kids at this age don't need that much coaching" are ignorant. I guess not if you plan on playing C level hockey for the rest of your youth. Good luck. Hope it works out for you and the other families.
I never said they don't need coaching, I said it's not difficult to coach that age level. Practice plans are everywhere if you look for them and there really isn't much to behind the bench coaching other than opening the door, maintaining order, and offering some advice here and there. It's squirt C so there should not be much for systems talk.

observer
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:58 pm

I'm with puckhead on this one. 46 skaters is 3 teams. No question. 15 is the ideal number and the B2 or C team gets 16. The President, Squirt coordinator and/or whoever else is involved in this decision is handling it very poorly. 12 is a bad number and hints of selfishness. 13 can be ok for a summer tourney but not for the long winter season. At Squirt 15 is a better number. I assume the dad coach wants 3 D which sounds ok until a player gets sick, hurt, or on vacation and it's a nightmare. Squirt D perform so much better with a regular D partner and on one side of the other. Anyone with experience knows that you might be missing 5, 6, 7 players for some games just because stuff happens. 2 sick, 2 hurt and 3 at a school event and what do you do? Squirt practices should be run with 3 units of 5 and everything works much better all season. And that won't even happen as almost every kid will miss some practices. Squirt is for development and there are 30-40 practices. You should consider how many skaters to run the best practices and 15 is the number.

The Enlightened One
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:39 pm
Location: Some place cold

Post by The Enlightened One » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:53 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:
puckhead58 wrote:That is a shi**y situation. I hate when someone expresses a concern like this and then is blasted with accusations of laziness, unwillingness to volunteer, and expecting too much from their association. Give me a break. Your association is screwing 10 kids & families AT THE SQUIRT level. I don't understand why they would do this (and risk losing them in future years rather than invest in them/develop them). Put 5 of them on each of the B teams, everyone benefits. And I don't understand why you aren't getting a little more support on here. Statements like "kids at this age don't need that much coaching" are ignorant. I guess not if you plan on playing C level hockey for the rest of your youth. Good luck. Hope it works out for you and the other families.
I never said they don't need coaching, I said it's not difficult to coach that age level. Practice plans are everywhere if you look for them and there really isn't much to behind the bench coaching other than opening the door, maintaining order, and offering some advice here and there. It's squirt C so there should not be much for systems talk.
Right, you avoid all talk of systems so that when they tryout next year they are completely and truly screwed. All teams should have some systems coaching. Really when you look at it what separates the A players from the B players lots of the time is that the A players know the systems.

Basically what is happening here is tat a group of kids are bing kept around to help keep the ice bils down for the A kids.

SammyOB
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:04 pm

Post by SammyOB » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:58 pm

observer wrote:I'm with puckhead on this one. 46 skaters is 3 teams. No question. 15 is the ideal number and the B2 or C team gets 16. The President, Squirt coordinator and/or whoever else is involved in this decision is handling it very poorly. 12 is a bad number and hints of selfishness. 13 can be ok for a summer tourney but not for the long winter season. At Squirt 15 is a better number. I assume the dad coach wants 3 D which sounds ok until a player gets sick, hurt, or on vacation and it's a nightmare. Squirt D perform so much better with a regular D partner and on one side of the other. Anyone with experience knows that you might be missing 5, 6, 7 players for some games just because stuff happens. 2 sick, 2 hurt and 3 at a school event and what do you do? Squirt practices should be run with 3 units of 5 and everything works much better all season. And that won't even happen as almost every kid will miss some practices. Squirt is for development and there are 30-40 practices. You should consider how many skaters to run the best practices and 15 is the number.
15 kid per team at squirts??? Wow I want nothing to do with your association. 10 or 11 skaters is the way to go! Have shared practices to cut cost. We have roughly 120 hours for squirts...30 games and 90 practices. If you share ice with another team...20 kids on the ice. Good number too work with for practice and the remaining 30 hours the kids get a bunch of touches and chances in game situations. That's how to develop kids. Not 15 kids on a team for 12 minute periods.

IHEA
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:37 am

Post by IHEA » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:07 pm

SammyOB wrote:
observer wrote:I'm with puckhead on this one. 46 skaters is 3 teams. No question. 15 is the ideal number and the B2 or C team gets 16. The President, Squirt coordinator and/or whoever else is involved in this decision is handling it very poorly. 12 is a bad number and hints of selfishness. 13 can be ok for a summer tourney but not for the long winter season. At Squirt 15 is a better number. I assume the dad coach wants 3 D which sounds ok until a player gets sick, hurt, or on vacation and it's a nightmare. Squirt D perform so much better with a regular D partner and on one side of the other. Anyone with experience knows that you might be missing 5, 6, 7 players for some games just because stuff happens. 2 sick, 2 hurt and 3 at a school event and what do you do? Squirt practices should be run with 3 units of 5 and everything works much better all season. And that won't even happen as almost every kid will miss some practices. Squirt is for development and there are 30-40 practices. You should consider how many skaters to run the best practices and 15 is the number.
15 kid per team at squirts??? Wow I want nothing to do with your association. 10 or 11 skaters is the way to go! Have shared practices to cut cost. We have roughly 120 hours for squirts...30 games and 90 practices. If you share ice with another team...20 kids on the ice. Good number too work with for practice and the remaining 30 hours the kids get a bunch of touches and chances in game situations. That's how to develop kids. Not 15 kids on a team for 12 minute periods.
Agree with Observer. Team selection around development and practice. Develop the kids 1st and worry about winning games second. Especially at Squirts!

Sammy the kids develop in practice unless they have a bad coach that coaches systems and game play at the squirt level. They will not develop one iota in games. 30 kids on ice in shared practice no problem if you have good coaches.

O-townClown
Posts: 3672
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:55 pm

Sammy, I agree with you completely. Small rosters are much better for the kids. They want to play, not watch.
Be kind. Rewind.

observer
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:48 pm

15 kid per team at squirts??? Wow I want nothing to do with your association. 10 or 11 skaters is the way to go! Have shared practices to cut cost. We have roughly 120 hours for squirts...30 games and 90 practices. If you share ice with another team...20 kids on the ice. Good number too work with for practice and the remaining 30 hours the kids get a bunch of touches and chances in game situations. That's how to develop kids. Not 15 kids on a team for 12 minute periods.
It sounds like you're not even involved with hockey. When one team has a game are the other 5 players, 5 are out sick, injured, school event, practicing alone? Share the ice 90 times? With which team? You obviously haven't done any scheduling either. 15 is the number. Three units of 5. We're developing players at Squirt.

SammyOB
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:04 pm

Post by SammyOB » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:15 pm

observer wrote:
15 kid per team at squirts??? Wow I want nothing to do with your association. 10 or 11 skaters is the way to go! Have shared practices to cut cost. We have roughly 120 hours for squirts...30 games and 90 practices. If you share ice with another team...20 kids on the ice. Good number too work with for practice and the remaining 30 hours the kids get a bunch of touches and chances in game situations. That's how to develop kids. Not 15 kids on a team for 12 minute periods.
It sounds like you're not even involved with hockey. When one team has a game are the other 5 players, 5 are out sick, injured, school event, practicing alone? Share the ice 90 times? With which team? You obviously haven't done any scheduling either. 15 is the number. Three units of 5. We're developing players at Squirt.
Nice to see how you jump to conclusions. I'm coach, board member and have years of experience in youth hockey. Visit USA hockey and see ADM...small games and lots of puck touches. So yes, you can schedule combined practices and you better reduce cost. On that 15 player how often does the head coach shorten the bench to win? Don't say they don't because 95% of the coach do. 10 skaters you don't have that issue.:)

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:36 pm

Smaller the team -more puck touches. Less kids in the class during practice!!! At the squirt level embace it.

wingnuts
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:25 am

Post by wingnuts » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:51 am

old goalie85 wrote:Smaller the team -more puck touches. Less kids in the class during practice!!! At the squirt level embace it.
I agree. You already are aware that hockey is expensive. So suck it up and make it a great year. I think your just mad because you're the one everything is falling on. Whatever the issues are, the end goal is to make it fun for your players. I've known a couple of Squirt "C" players that have gone onto playing in High School Hockey tourney. So keep them interested!

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:32 am

No, I didn't say no systems talk, I said not much talk about systems. About 10% of your time should be teaching squirt age kids their general positioning on the ice. Even then we are talking about basic hockey positioning, maybe a 2-1-2 or 1-2-2 forecheck but not much beyond that.

USAH recommends 10 on a team. On a C team, sure. I can understand the need for 13-15 on an A team. By the end of a long tournament weekend and rolling only two lines the kids are gassed.

Kari Takko
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Post by Kari Takko » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:35 am

wingnuts wrote:
old goalie85 wrote:Smaller the team -more puck touches. Less kids in the class during practice!!! At the squirt level embace it.
I agree. You already are aware that hockey is expensive. So suck it up and make it a great year. I think your just mad because you're the one everything is falling on. Whatever the issues are, the end goal is to make it fun for your players. I've known a couple of Squirt "C" players that have gone onto playing in High School Hockey tourney. So keep them interested!
I generally agree that smaller teams are the way to go. But how small is too small?

I think 10 skaters on a C team is borderline. I know some of our parents are already looking at backup options. What if 1 bails and we are down to 9 skaters? Is that too small? How about 8?

Post Reply