Positive Ways to improve Minnesota Hockey

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:30 am

Please post positive ways to improve our game. Please be positive and maybe some of our reps can get ideas.

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:32 am

I for one would like to see the touch-up rule brought back in for Pee Wee and Bantam age teams.

windowpeeper · Post by **windowpeeper** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:05 pm

I would like to see the parents be more positive. No HEP program will fix that.

big7stars · Post by **big7stars** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:10 pm

Have the stop signs abandoned , No one that has ever played hockey goes into get a puck looks at the other players shoulder blades. Take the monies saved and get more skill hours of ice. I know they say studies show the signs worked but if you remember the refs were told to crack down on check from behinds at that same time. Refs define a check from behind not a sign. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... g7stars</A> at: 3/24/06 12:16 pm

All The Heat · Post by **All The Heat** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:24 pm

1) Do away with Fair Play Points. (They have become an enforcement tool, and not a learning or training device.) 2) HEP program needs attention. ($400,000 on a program that still is NOT working.) 3) Here's the one that will raise a few eyebrows: Make all Squirts an in-house only program. (Put the emphasis back on SKILLS, and not the "W".) 4) CEP Program for the most part is a joke.

puckedup · Post by **puckedup** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:30 pm

There really is a need to emphasize strategy and team play. There's so much obsessive behavior around individual stats (largely driven by parents really). Throughout the youth hockey season this year - the teams that consistently won played great team hockey. Sure, there were some highly skilled players, but it means nothing if the team can't play with them. We need to look no further than the second Winter Olympics in a row watching the US team gets it's behind handed to them - they were a bunch of skilled players that didn't play as a team. I have heard arguments that it's all about skills and there needs to be greater emphasis on this. Sure, skill development is critically important - but not as important as bringing it as a total team.

Chico · Post by **Chico** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:00 pm

1. We do need to bring the practice to game ratio back to something closer to 3 to 1. Too many youth teams are playing way too many games. There is a cap at the squirt level, why not have one at the peewee and bantam levels? Peewees 30-35, bantams 35-40 for example. There is no way teams that have 50 to 65 games have a 3 to 1 ratio. Think about it, high schools play 25 games and practice the other days during the 3 month season. Why is it backwards at the youth level? 2. I think we need to work more on the raw skills of the game, skating, passing, shooting while being more creative with practices. I see too many players that come to the high school level with poor skills. Also I see many players that do not know how to cycle the puck in the offensive zone, we need to make sure we are working on the raw skills more than special teams. 3. CEP - I do not think the CEP program is a complete waste of time, but it certainley needs more improvement. Maybe more emphasis with actual on-ice instruction and less time in the classroom would help. I think more new coaches need help on how to actually set up and conduct a practice rather than some of the other topics they listen to in the classroom. There is a need for the program, just needs to be tweaked, and soon. 4. I think at times coaches and parents need to not worry about how soon their son or daughter will make that D1 program, and just let these young athletes enjoy some of the best years of their lives. Not all players are on the "fast track" to the NHL.

2AhockeyOldTimer · Post by **2AhockeyOldTimer** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Think about it, high schools play 25 games and practice the other days during the 3 month season. Why is it backwards at the youth level?<hr></blockquote> I like how youth teams play a lot of games. No sense turning something they like in to a job prematurely. When a player gets up to the Bantam age group and have the choice between high school and Bantams, most people choose bantams because of the amount of games. With less games, more kids will be lost to high school. Taylor Mattson-The Next Non-Mr. Hockey

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Make all Squirts an in-house only program. (Put the emphasis back on SKILLS, and not the "W".)<hr></blockquote> Couldn't agree more. About 5 years ago our association started something similar in that ALL squirts play in-house, games on Saturdays, Monday is "skills night" (used to be with the varsity coaches) and a "team" practice on Thursday. From the in-house program, 2 "A" equal squirt teams are put together, around Thanksgiving, to play 5 home, 5 away game, 1 home and 1 away tourney. In-house is the priority, you can't skip in-house and still do the traveling. Of course, each year the squirt program comes under fire from parents who want to create 1 traveling squirt team that would be more competitive. Typically neither of those 2 teams are very strong. And of course, one of the teams will play more games than they're supposed to play and they keep picking the teams a little earlier every season. I would say the biggest change we've seen is an increase in the number of players. At the time of the squirt program's implementation our association had around 25 Bantams, this year there were two full rosters of Bantams. Not to mention 8 or so girls from that first year of the squirt program. In my opinion, it's been a very successful experiment.

Hockeystud27 · Post by **Hockeystud27** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:24 pm

I think that touch up icing would be good because you have to be faster and better skaters to get to the puck first. I no its a lot like the NHL, but I just think it would be fun to do it that way. I also like the tag up off sides to keeps the game going.

yaw aloki · Post by **yaw aloki** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:57 am

Even though this will never be done it is food for thought. If USA Hockey, Minnesota Hockey etc. are all about "giving the game back to the kids" and by that I take it to mean develop hockey players, why keep score? Keeping score is for the adults. The kids will keep score without a scoreboard--we all know that, just coach 7 or 8 year old T-ball where the score is not "officially" kept (except by some idiot parents) and you will find that both teams won by a run or two. (Creative math?) Keeping score causes much of the misery in the game, short bench, safe play, running it up in certain tournaments. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of competition, it is the essence of America, but again, if our goal is to develop players, why keep score??? Let each bench keep score---for themselves. Go Chiefs!!

tjhd5 · Post by **tjhd5** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:53 pm

not keeping score is like the fair play points, how stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, squirt in house may work for the large associations but what do you do for the assoc. that only has 10-20- kids, what works good for one may not be the right thing for the other. everybody complains about the talent in the state but look at the colleges around and who do they keep recruiting. lets face it times have changed but why do we continue in the same stupid mistakes hockey has made time and time again{ tag up rule} heck any body can slap the puck and go chase it and that is what happened when this rule was in place,,,, Lets leave the game be for 5 years without any changes.. how about that, and yes we can leave the stop patches on till we get new jerseys but stop wasting money on non essentials

upucker · Post by **upucker** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:36 am

Dasherdude; Do you really think by that having all squirts kids play in-house will prepare them for competitive hockey? I used to think this could work but after being involved for 5 years I know this is not the answer. Games are tests to see how well the kids are developing compared to other programs and if the only test that the kids have are with other average or below average skilled players then you are giving the kids false feedback. Top players in associations need to know where they stand with other top players in other programs. In-house hockey is recreational and many kids do not even know if hockey is for them. Some are also trying basketball and wrestling they do not put the time or dedication in that others do. You are wrong on the 5 home and 5 away games and 2 tournaments. Our Guide Lines state that squirt A teams can play 25 games approximately, made up of games or tournaments and in any order. Our current past President came up with his own ideas on how many games Squirts should play but the guide lines were never voted on. The 2 A teams in my mind are working for now and one of the A teams this year was over 500. With 9 kids coming back they should have a good season next year as well. To have the kids play only in-house would be a disaster and would not prepare them for pee-wees. They have enough problems at that level lets not make it worse. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

gferhock1 · Post by **gferhock1** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:24 am

One way to improve hockey is like anything else, COMPETITION! Not speaking about competing teams but compete with Mn Hockey for the kids to have options. When someone has a monopoly on something, it generally doesnt have everyones best interest at heart. Just imagine if we didnt have a gas station on every corner, maybe a poor analogy but I think you get my point.

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:17 am

I went back and re-read my original post. Let me clarify my original post. I agree that squirts should play in house, but not exclusively. Sorry about that. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you really think by that having all squirts kids play in-house will prepare them for competitive hockey?<hr></blockquote> Well that's not exactly what I said, but to answer your question. No, not in itself. The original design was to improve the skill level of more kids, not prepare them for competition. You are right in that competition is a test, to also aid in their growth they need competitive games. But, let's not forget that we're talking about 8,9 and 10 year olds. I think it's more important for them to learn to love the game than it is for them to worry about how many loses they have in a season. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You are wrong on the 5 home and 5 away games and 2 tournaments.<hr></blockquote> I'm only wrong in that over the past few years the squirt teams have been playing more games, which is not part of the original plan. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>To have the kids play only in-house would be a disaster and would not prepare them for pee-wees.<hr></blockquote> I have NEVER said that the squirt kids should only play in-house. In house is the basis for the traveling teams, it's original idea was rooted in skill development and keeping kids invloved with the game. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>...would not prepare them for pee-wees. They have enough problems at that level.. <hr></blockquote> I'm not so sure that's at all related to the squirt in house program. I have my own opinion as to the struggles of the Peewees<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... herdude</A> at: 3/27/06 9:20 am

pucklover7 · Post by **pucklover7** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:20 am

My opinion, Minnesota should look at changing the ages of our youth to coincide with the rest of the country. That way our kids could go and compete with other top teams from around the country. They other thing I think that does is helps with the age old question bantams or JV. It brings the age of the kids at each level down a bit, so most of the 9th graders will be high school age anyway. Maybe force the high school league to begin entertaining 9th grade teams. The biggest thing it would do is give us the possiblity to open up the boarders and allow our teams to go play in a tournament in Michigan or anywhere and see how we match up at a comparable age and talent. Gives us a tool to see how our kids are developing. It may also give our Jr. Gold program a chance to be more meaningful. That would be a good start in my opinion.

upucker · Post by **upucker** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:44 am

The reason one Team played more games this year was that the ice outside was terrible, kids could not go down to the park and it seemed like the in-house program was sliding. There was three teams on the ice on Wednesdays which used to be 2 so each team could have 1/2 of the ice and the coach could actually carry on a practice with his team. Pretty hard to do with 3 teams on the ice. Also sometimes when there was a tournament at the arena the in-house was cancelled. I was contacted by a couple of towns and was asked to go to free tournaments which did not interfere with in-house so we went. Yes we did have more games then we have had in the past (30 total) but I maintain a 2 to 1 practice ratio and sometimes 3 to 1. My practices are more skill orientated than system type practice 75%-25% and the kids are having fun and developing skill at the sametime. The thing that I see wrong with the current in-house system is that there is nobody in charge. With the Hockey Association giving 7500.00 per year to the city to run the in-house program you would think we would take more interest in it. More quality coaches need to get involved.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I would say the biggest change we've seen is an increase in the number of players. At the time of the squirt program's implementation our association had around 25 Bantams, this year there were two full rosters of Bantams. Not to mention 8 or so girls from that first year of the squirt program. <hr></blockquote> You can't say this is due to "in-house squirts" program. This has to due with How many players you have available to play at that time. We have the same number and kids that played C squirts as 8 yr olds playing Bantams right now minus the few that moved away. I like how people think because you have 40 kids playing squirts they should have 40 playing bantams. What association are you from? Another thing you should look at is the success of your high school, Did they play in the high school tournament or have a couple good years? It inspires parents and kids to want to be part of it.

FutureSeaWolve · Post by **FutureSeaWolve** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:00 am

I would create more private schools to make MN highschool hockey better and it gives a place for good hockey players to go instead of their sucky assosiation or no name highschool.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat">

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The thing that I see wrong with the current in-house system is that there is nobody in charge. With the Hockey Association giving 7500.00 per year to the city to run the in-house program you would think we would take more interest in it. More quality coaches need to get involved. <hr></blockquote> I agree.

dasherdude · Post by **dasherdude** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:38 am

Pucknutz, Yes, I believe the increase in numbers at the bantam level this season is due, in part, to keeping more kids involved at the squirt level. I did not say that because we have 40 squirts we should have 40 bantams. Of course we lost kids, it happens in almost every association, but it's a little easier to take losing a few players when you have 40 players vs. 20 players. Each new season you only get "x" number of players, but to keep "x" number of players through bantams they need to stay involved. Our in house squirt program helped in that.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:05 pm

I don't think you are looking at all of the ingredients involved. I have watched the Hastings In-house squirt program and it has not increased or decreased the amount of players we have. The kids have stayed due to the success of the high school and the influx of younger families that has increased the involvement. We have lost the normal amount at the Bantam level. How many of those Bantam kids at the time went to JV or private school JV? How many moved out of town? How many quit due to other sports IE; snowboarding, it isn't your in-house program. Wait until all of these in-house kids grow up and ask them What has kept you in hockey? I don't think any of them will say "It was the great time and skill development we had while with our in-house program." I haven't seen a hockey program that the kids aren't INVOLVED. The only way they couldn't be involved is if they only skated outdoors and with the lack of ice I could see why you would lose players.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:46 pm

Well I have picked on other peoples posts so I figured I should add mine. I believe it all has to do with coaching. Kids will play losing season after losing season with a coach they like and think is a good coach. I recently coach a few kids that had a coaching staff that only worried about their kids on the team. Played them every PP and PK, started them let them finish, blamed the other kids when they lost, after one particular loss in a tournament the coaches son was crying and he looked at the rest of the team and told them " Look at this kid now he has heart he cares if we lose, I wish all of you were more like him." Now doesn't that make you want to lace'em up? Time should be set aside for kids to just play. Like a previous post I read "Don't make it a job for them."

hawkfan70 · Post by **hawkfan70** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:53 pm

So, are you saying then that it should be fun for the kids? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>for kids to just play<hr></blockquote> now there is a good idea Let's give the game back to the kids <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)">

lutzinmn · Post by **lutzinmn** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:11 pm

People say we should stress skills but we want to make rules that do not stress skills. Using tag up rule does not allow skill with the puck. Anyone can dump the puck, that does not teach anything. Keep the immediate offsides. To take it one step further, face off for offsides should be all the way down or at the affending teams defensive blue line. This will force puck handling skills on teams.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com