ADM and your association

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

hockeyfan14
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:12 am

ADM and your association

Post by hockeyfan14 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:52 am

Just curious on how other associations operate. Over the past few years our association has been phasing in USA Hockey's ADM. I dont completely agree with everything in the ADM, however it is usefull and does have some good parts to it. I would prefer this thread not be about the ADM itself and more about what other associations do.

This year it has been pretty extreme. Mites and under print out the practice plan off of USA Hockey's website and that is what they do at practice. Lots of soccer, ringette, and tag going on at practices. Again, not a bad thing but should our top kids that are 9 be doing the same things that beginners are doing? This is also the first year we regularly have 3 teams on the ice for practices. That includes all levels Squirts, Peewees, and Bantams have roughly one practice a week with 3 teams on the ice and mites and below is almost all shared with 3 teams. How many other associations squirt A team takes time in practice to play ringette and soccer? Any other associations out there have squirts, peewees, and bantams sharing 3 teams on the ice?

In the past our association split the cost of the hour of ice if 2 teams were on. Each team got billed a half for the hour of ice. I figured no big deal, 3 teams on the ice means 3 teams pay for the hour of ice. Wrong, it appears our board is now changing the stance and going to say you get X number of pracitces doesnt make a difference if there is 1,2, or 3 teams on the ice. Does your association say you get X number or practices or do they keep track of number of hours/teams on the ice?

Wonder if the direction our association is going is the reason for large drops in number of kids the last few years. And also why at every level a few kids leave to play somewhere else. Typically they are the higher end kids that leave.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:25 pm

We follow ADM pretty closely. All of our divisions up through PeeWees practice with multiple teams on the ice (Bantams don't have the numbers to do this). It allows us to maximize our ice time. If the practice is run properly, it is very easy to run an up tempo, effective practice with 30-40 skaters on the ice. In fact, on the occasions where it is just our one Pee Wee team, I feel the practices slow down, but we take those random practice opportunities to work on things we can't with both teams on the ice.

Mini-mites (U6) pretty much follows the USA Hockey practice plan. At Mites (U8) the coaches deviate from it a bit and sprinkle in some more advanced drills, full ice skating drills on occasion, and a couple times a year the kids play a full ice scrimmage. They really get fired up for that day.

My only beef with ADM is game limits. For some reason our association feels we should follow the recommended USA Hockey game limits (though we do get some latitude there, but the pressure is on to stay under) which are far under the MN Hockey limits. My beef is that the point of game limits is to use what would have otherwise been icetime used for games to be used for practice instead. Fine, if you are going to limit the games, give me the recommended practice hours (which are pretty big). Nope, they only look at the game side of things and don't grant more practice time. Net result is even less time on the ice. What's better, a game or no ice at all? If your going to follow that tenant of ADM follow the whole thing, don't pick and choose.

If there are multiple teams on the ice we only get charged for half the time. Example, if we share ice for a one hour practice each team is only charged for a 1/2 hour. If your association is changing their stance on this and counting it as a "full" practice are you seeing a reduction in your overall fees? Has ice costs increased to the point those savings are eaten up and by splitting ice it has kept fees in check? Those are some things to take into consideration.

Oh, and we do a lot of small area games in our Pee Wee practices, and the boys STILL love to play ringette. Though ringette when they are that old becomes a full contact, all out war of a game. Honestly, I think it still helps them in developing being strong on their skates and inside edges.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:30 pm

Our assocaition all three of our squirt teams share the ice. We only have two teams at pee wees and bantams and they also share the ice. They all share ice every single practice. Also, our fees are our fees so our fees get us "X" number of practices doesn't matter if you share the ice or not. We also have a "skills night" every other week where our squirts AND all of our mites have to share the ice for skills and then bantams and peewees share the ice for skills every other week. That is on top of the two shared ice practices each week.... Our association embraces the ADM big time for U8s (aka mites) and younger. At squirts we still do ADM station work stuff but not as rigidly so probably 50/50 mix at squirts and much much less so at peewee and bantams. I personally love small area games and station work can be good for some stuff but you do need to gauge the ability fo teh team(s) in question when implementing it. Our numbers are not what you see in the Metro Minneapolis area but for what it's worth our "best" final year U8's (not many but a few) usually play up on the Squirt teams in our assocation if they are ready and capable, playing with their cross ice mandated U8 brethren does nothing to help them or their teammates....

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

IMHO

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:18 pm

4 on 4 half ice no goalies at mites and 8u have so drastically reduced development at those levels that if I had another kid coming up I wouldn't even bother. No skating, no passing, no learning positions. An 8 kid cluster f***.

betterupnorth
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:40 am

Re: IMHO

Post by betterupnorth » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:56 pm

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:4 on 4 half ice no goalies at mites and 8u have so drastically reduced development at those levels that if I had another kid coming up I wouldn't even bother. No skating, no passing, no learning positions. An 8 kid cluster f***.
Does anybody else miss the days when mites played 5 on 5 full ice, and mini mites would play full ice in tournaments? I thought it forced the kids to develop an actual shot when they had to have a kid stand and play goalie in front of a normal sized net, not those knee hockey nets they use today where they can skate the puck in because there isn't a goalie.

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:43 pm

YES! That was my entire point.

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: IMHO

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:13 pm

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:4 on 4 half ice no goalies at mites and 8u have so drastically reduced development at those levels that if I had another kid coming up I wouldn't even bother. No skating, no passing, no learning positions. An 8 kid cluster f***.
LOL, somebody is very bored and looking for a good argument here. Who is going to take the bait? My money is on JSR. :)

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Re: IMHO

Post by Froggy Richards » Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:18 pm

betterupnorth wrote:
Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:4 on 4 half ice no goalies at mites and 8u have so drastically reduced development at those levels that if I had another kid coming up I wouldn't even bother. No skating, no passing, no learning positions. An 8 kid cluster f***.
Does anybody else miss the days when mites played 5 on 5 full ice, and mini mites would play full ice in tournaments? I thought it forced the kids to develop an actual shot when they had to have a kid stand and play goalie in front of a normal sized net, not those knee hockey nets they use today where they can skate the puck in because there isn't a goalie.
I remember the 5 on 5 full ice Mini Mite games well. One kid had the puck the entire time and everyone else watched. The shot comes with time. Better to use your ice time for skating at that age. You can work on your shot off the ice. Don't have to pay for garage time.

O-townClown
Posts: 4026
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:39 am

My son's program skates 3 PW teams together for practice, but the execution breaks down as the coaches haven't coordinated their activities. My son calls it a small group lesson for six kids in the neutral zone. I give this as an example of somebody saying the follow the ADM, but not understanding the ADM. Putting a ton of kids on the ice together (32 if all show up; the teams have out-of-area players as a low participation program was annexed three years ago) was an easy-out solution because there isn't enough ice time to accommodate those playing.

Contrast that to places where there is more available ice than kids to use it.

The rink's in-house program (separate from the travel club) is very ADM compliant from Mites through Pee Wees. As you know, the ADM gets extremely intense for the competitive track when kids are teenagers and that isn't offered by either the in-house or "competitive" club where we live, so the result is that the minority that qualify probably go play elsewhere.

I think the ADM is very good, but it breaks down for rigid thinkers. It is a concept. Trying to adhere 1000% makes implementation problematic where we are, and that's something I hear from people all over the country.
Be kind. Rewind.

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Re: IMHO

Post by Redarmy19 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:44 am

Froggy Richards wrote:I remember the 5 on 5 full ice Mini Mite games well. One kid had the puck the entire time and everyone else watched. The shot comes with time. Better to use your ice time for skating at that age. You can work on your shot off the ice. Don't have to pay for garage time.
Our association plays both full-ice and some cross-ice for the advanced mite team. Our observation is:

Cross-ice: The weaker players slap the puck up the ice as soon as they get it because multiple players are on them in a split second. No puck carry, no hockey moves, no looking for a pass. Worthless puck touches.

Full-ice: The weaker player carries the puck a little and tries to make a move on a player because it's more spread out. He also has time to look for teammates. Much more quality puck touches.

We still sprinkle cross-ice in because the quick thinking is good for players, but at this age we feel the quality puck touches are better for them. Also, the top players control the play as much in cross-ice as they do in full-ice.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Re: IMHO

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:19 am

Redarmy19 wrote:
Froggy Richards wrote:I remember the 5 on 5 full ice Mini Mite games well. One kid had the puck the entire time and everyone else watched. The shot comes with time. Better to use your ice time for skating at that age. You can work on your shot off the ice. Don't have to pay for garage time.
Our association plays both full-ice and some cross-ice for the advanced mite team. Our observation is:

Cross-ice: The weaker players slap the puck up the ice as soon as they get it because multiple players are on them in a split second. No puck carry, no hockey moves, no looking for a pass. Worthless puck touches.

Full-ice: The weaker player carries the puck a little and tries to make a move on a player because it's more spread out. He also has time to look for teammates. Much more quality puck touches.

We still sprinkle cross-ice in because the quick thinking is good for players, but at this age we feel the quality puck touches are better for them. Also, the top players control the play as much in cross-ice as they do in full-ice.
Ahh yes, whack-a-puck syndrome. We see that quite often in Mite cross-ice games here. Unfortunately that type of play has been carrried forward and the cross-ice Mite graduates have now infected the Squirt division with that style of play.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:08 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:We follow ADM pretty closely. All of our divisions up through PeeWees practice with multiple teams on the ice (Bantams don't have the numbers to do this). It allows us to maximize our ice time. If the practice is run properly, it is very easy to run an up tempo, effective practice with 30-40 skaters on the ice. In fact, on the occasions where it is just our one Pee Wee team, I feel the practices slow down, but we take those random practice opportunities to work on things we can't with both teams on the ice.

Mini-mites (U6) pretty much follows the USA Hockey practice plan. At Mites (U8) the coaches deviate from it a bit and sprinkle in some more advanced drills, full ice skating drills on occasion, and a couple times a year the kids play a full ice scrimmage. They really get fired up for that day.

My only beef with ADM is game limits. For some reason our association feels we should follow the recommended USA Hockey game limits (though we do get some latitude there, but the pressure is on to stay under) which are far under the MN Hockey limits. My beef is that the point of game limits is to use what would have otherwise been icetime used for games to be used for practice instead. Fine, if you are going to limit the games, give me the recommended practice hours (which are pretty big). Nope, they only look at the game side of things and don't grant more practice time. Net result is even less time on the ice. What's better, a game or no ice at all? If your going to follow that tenant of ADM follow the whole thing, don't pick and choose.

If there are multiple teams on the ice we only get charged for half the time. Example, if we share ice for a one hour practice each team is only charged for a 1/2 hour. If your association is changing their stance on this and counting it as a "full" practice are you seeing a reduction in your overall fees? Has ice costs increased to the point those savings are eaten up and by splitting ice it has kept fees in check? Those are some things to take into consideration.

Oh, and we do a lot of small area games in our Pee Wee practices, and the boys STILL love to play ringette. Though ringette when they are that old becomes a full contact, all out war of a game. Honestly, I think it still helps them in developing being strong on their skates and inside edges.
I have had the same beef. I was able to get our youth board to "see the light" in this regard though. I sent an email to USA Hockey about this exact thing a while back, have not heard anything back. My email basically said "Ok so you want a 3:1 practice to game ratio, ok, that sounds GREAT, tell me how to implement that in real life when I have this many hours of ice alotted to me". I broke it down for them and I created the most "favorable" scenario I could in regards to games etc... and the BEST hypothetical scenario I was able to come up with for a Squirt A team was just barely over a 2:1 practice to game ratio (and that scenario saw the Squirt A team playing less than 30 games), you can do some math from there but sufficed to say the ADM recommendation is great but it doesn't work to a "T" in the real world. I like the idea of using as much ice as possible for practice and skills etc... but what about when I am able to schedule an AWAY GAME with another association and they do NOT require me to reciprocate, should I just tell them "no" because it might make our practice to game ratio out of whack, that is jsut stupid, it's more ice time that the kids otherwise NOT have even had, so what's better no ice at all or playing a game, I say playing a game, luckily folks in my association heard me on that one so I imagine your frustration if they are not listening to you about this same problem.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:53 am

JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:01 am

Lots of people making lots of money on teams, camps, tourneys in the "off" season, which we know in hockey is never really off. Longer seasons cut into $$ making programs at our local and not so local arenas both in spring and fall. I'd go so far as to say that associations that have strong in-house off season programs retain at a higher level and that is reflected come the skate to state.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:39 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yea, I find it funny as well. All three of my kids also play travel soccer. I talk to some of their teammates parents about playing hockey and they are like "isn't alot of money and traveling"... I laugh, these are the same people paying $850 for association fees for soccer (a sport that doesn't have to pay for it's fields.....) and last year one of the soccer teams had regular 3 hour, 2 hour, 1.5 hur drives and even had a tournament down in Kansas City.... but hockey is too much money and travel :shock: :roll: ... I think hockey was largely the "first" sport to involve that level of money, time and travel but when I look around ALL the sports have "caught up" so to speak in that regard. I think because hockey was "first" it retains this aura of expense etc... and I think these people just assume because their sports have so much cost and time and travel involved that hockey must have exponentially increased as well, when in reality hockey maintained while everyone else just caught up, but I don't think nonhockey people realize that until you outright explain it to them

SECoach
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:48 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yes, game limits are used to keep game activity down. Not for the reasons you state. It's to increase quality practice time and to limit the effects of the "grind" on young players. You are presumably an adult, and enjoy the grind of a hockey season. That grind feels and affects a squirt or mite differently than an adult. Not only physically but mentally as well. The tide has turned world wide on the downfalls of too much to soon, and early specialization. Message boards and forums are getting to be the only place left that you can find support for the other side of the coin these days. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of entrepreneurs touting the advantages of very high levels of activity and early specialization. I suspect we will never run out of those. The reasons are not just to have more participate, it's to help those that do participate find more success and enjoyment from it, for a longer period of time. Maybe the rest of their lives.

http://www.getsportiq.com/2013/11/early ... th-hockey/

mackjogger
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:03 pm

Post by mackjogger » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:09 pm

JSR wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yea, I find it funny as well. All three of my kids also play travel soccer. I talk to some of their teammates parents about playing hockey and they are like "isn't alot of money and traveling"... I laugh, these are the same people paying $850 for association fees for soccer (a sport that doesn't have to pay for it's fields.....) and last year one of the soccer teams had regular 3 hour, 2 hour, 1.5 hur drives and even had a tournament down in Kansas City.... but hockey is too much money and travel :shock: :roll: ... I think hockey was largely the "first" sport to involve that level of money, time and travel but when I look around ALL the sports have "caught up" so to speak in that regard. I think because hockey was "first" it retains this aura of expense etc... and I think these people just assume because their sports have so much cost and time and travel involved that hockey must have exponentially increased as well, when in reality hockey maintained while everyone else just caught up, but I don't think nonhockey people realize that until you outright explain it to them
agree.....all sports have caught up. Select teams, select tournys with college scouts, camps, clinics, private instruction, etc. Cant point to hockey parents as the crazies anymore. I think it has become a societal obsession with youth sports. I would love a study done to explain WHY. That's a project waiting to happen.

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Post by Froggy Richards » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:09 pm

JSR wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yea, I find it funny as well. All three of my kids also play travel soccer. I talk to some of their teammates parents about playing hockey and they are like "isn't alot of money and traveling"... I laugh, these are the same people paying $850 for association fees for soccer (a sport that doesn't have to pay for it's fields.....) and last year one of the soccer teams had regular 3 hour, 2 hour, 1.5 hur drives and even had a tournament down in Kansas City.... but hockey is too much money and travel :shock: :roll: ... I think hockey was largely the "first" sport to involve that level of money, time and travel but when I look around ALL the sports have "caught up" so to speak in that regard. I think because hockey was "first" it retains this aura of expense etc... and I think these people just assume because their sports have so much cost and time and travel involved that hockey must have exponentially increased as well, when in reality hockey maintained while everyone else just caught up, but I don't think nonhockey people realize that until you outright explain it to them
They're paying $850 to make regular 3 hour drives to sit through a soccer game? Why didn't you just slap them?

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:45 pm

Froggy Richards wrote:
JSR wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yea, I find it funny as well. All three of my kids also play travel soccer. I talk to some of their teammates parents about playing hockey and they are like "isn't alot of money and traveling"... I laugh, these are the same people paying $850 for association fees for soccer (a sport that doesn't have to pay for it's fields.....) and last year one of the soccer teams had regular 3 hour, 2 hour, 1.5 hur drives and even had a tournament down in Kansas City.... but hockey is too much money and travel :shock: :roll: ... I think hockey was largely the "first" sport to involve that level of money, time and travel but when I look around ALL the sports have "caught up" so to speak in that regard. I think because hockey was "first" it retains this aura of expense etc... and I think these people just assume because their sports have so much cost and time and travel involved that hockey must have exponentially increased as well, when in reality hockey maintained while everyone else just caught up, but I don't think nonhockey people realize that until you outright explain it to them
They're paying $850 to make regular 3 hour drives to sit through a soccer game? Why didn't you just slap them?
I would but I am one of the coaches..... :lol:

black sheep
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:57 pm

Post by black sheep » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:50 pm

i was in the cities on business last summer and there was some sort of major soccer tournament and my hotel had some teams of young teenagers from different countries...and from all over the US

so hockey not so crazy...its just what we see, its baseball, basketball, beauty pagents etc....crazies everywhere...or maybe nowhere

people are in positions to get paid to make decisions...so they do.

adm is maybe the most misunderstood plans around...associations seem to grab parts but not the whole as they see fit...

see many 10 player squirt teams in fargo?

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:32 pm

SECoach wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yes, game limits are used to keep game activity down. Not for the reasons you state. It's to increase quality practice time and to limit the effects of the "grind" on young players. You are presumably an adult, and enjoy the grind of a hockey season. That grind feels and affects a squirt or mite differently than an adult. Not only physically but mentally as well. The tide has turned world wide on the downfalls of too much to soon, and early specialization. Message boards and forums are getting to be the only place left that you can find support for the other side of the coin these days. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of entrepreneurs touting the advantages of very high levels of activity and early specialization. I suspect we will never run out of those. The reasons are not just to have more participate, it's to help those that do participate find more success and enjoyment from it, for a longer period of time. Maybe the rest of their lives.

http://www.getsportiq.com/2013/11/early ... th-hockey/
Look earlier in the thread where I said I am not opposed to game limits if it is replaced by practice time. That's not happening. Also, 35 games for Squirts isn't a grind, it's pretty light. USA Hockey says 25. That's not much at all.

But, to be honest, I just don't entirely believe USAH and their motives.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:08 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:
SECoach wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:JSR-

My suspicion is one of the reasons "game limits" are being used is to keep the activity in a season down. You know how the hockey season can turn into a grind. It's the kind of grind that hockey people love and embrace. Sure, it's work, but we love it.

Well, I suspect it is too much for some parents who don't want to put forward that level of commitment. Then they tell their friends and they think the hockey schedule is "crazy"or "too much", so they don't want to get their kids involved in the sport. Parents pull their kids or don't want to get involved in the first place due to the sport's reputation of being too intense and costly. Basically, game limits are an attempt to lessen the commitment to increase enrollment for USA Hockey.

What they miss is this, it's a real life example. My son's friends are basketball players. One of the parent's says to me, "where you off to this weekend." I reply with where our tournament is this weekend (it's a 2 1/2 hr drive). The response is jeez, holy smokes, and basically we are crazy for traveling that far is the vibe I am getting. I ask where they are playing for basketball and they tell me a town that's an hour away. I'm like, ok, what's the difference? They look at me like hockey is too much travel, too much work. Their kids are playing AAU basketball. Hello? There is no difference in the commitmetn level of the activities other than what sport they are playing. It's OK to play travel basketball because that is their sport, but hockey is too much time and expense.

Bottom line is while I applaud USA Hockey for wanting more kids to get involved in the sport the reality is we are never going to convert some people, and restricting my kid's activities and what we want to do in an attempt to attract non-hockey people is wrong.

Sorry for the thread drift. Resume the normal topic.
Yes, game limits are used to keep game activity down. Not for the reasons you state. It's to increase quality practice time and to limit the effects of the "grind" on young players. You are presumably an adult, and enjoy the grind of a hockey season. That grind feels and affects a squirt or mite differently than an adult. Not only physically but mentally as well. The tide has turned world wide on the downfalls of too much to soon, and early specialization. Message boards and forums are getting to be the only place left that you can find support for the other side of the coin these days. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of entrepreneurs touting the advantages of very high levels of activity and early specialization. I suspect we will never run out of those. The reasons are not just to have more participate, it's to help those that do participate find more success and enjoyment from it, for a longer period of time. Maybe the rest of their lives.

http://www.getsportiq.com/2013/11/early ... th-hockey/
Look earlier in the thread where I said I am not opposed to game limits if it is replaced by practice time. That's not happening. Also, 35 games for Squirts isn't a grind, it's pretty light. USA Hockey says 25. That's not much at all.

But, to be honest, I just don't entirely believe USAH and their motives.
I am with SCBlue on this. The teams are not replacing games with more practices they are just reducing the number of games. I also do not think 35 games is a grind for squirts, I think once you get to 40 and above it probably is but 35 is pretty reasonable and manageable schedule for the kids, I've seen alot of squirt teams over the last 10 years and my observation is 40 is where you see the grind taking effect, keep it to around 35 and they'll all leave wanting more but again you've got the ADM recommending 25ish and that means they want atleast 75+ practices but that is not happening where we live, if you get 25 games you probably still only get 60 practices give or take, where as at 30 to 35 games you probably still got 60 practices but fewer games, the practices are the "grind" for little kids, have not ever met a 8 or 9 year old kid who thought playing a game was a grind.... and if you do find one, it's probably not because of the number of games scheduled it's probably because he is the rare kid who doesn't like hockey and is being "made" to play from my experience

legalbeagle05
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:31 pm

Re: IMHO

Post by legalbeagle05 » Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:40 am

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:4 on 4 half ice no goalies at mites and 8u have so drastically reduced development at those levels that if I had another kid coming up I wouldn't even bother. No skating, no passing, no learning positions. An 8 kid cluster f***.
HEAR, HEAR!

Ringettes and soccer balls on the ice are an insult, event to 8u kids. My daughter switched over to the boys team this fall because the speed and intensity was better than the girls team, but when those ringettes and blue pucks came out again, my husband and I went *facepalm*

That's why she's also in a Triple A team in the spring and a winter development league and they are both light years ahead of the association. Thank goodness for that or she'd wither away like a rubber soccer ball getting wacked around by bored 7 & 8 year olds...

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:51 pm

And I bet she quits by the age of 12

57special
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:23 pm

Post by 57special » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:55 am

I take what I need and leave the rest. Some of it is pretty silly, IMO, and designed to drawn in players from non hockey markets. My experience with the full ice 5 on 5 for Mites differs from some of the above posters. I find the strong players dominate the puck more in that format, and the lesser skilled players get less chance to touch it, let alone score.

I've found that my players hate the shared practices as they get older. Something about developing and holding onto a team ID, I think. I'm fine with it, for the most part, though I do want the odd practice to address specific things I want MY team to work on.

Post Reply