Should the senior skate?
Should the senior skate?
Should a coach let a senior player skate or release him for a more talented underclassman? Taking into consideration that the senior has been in the program from squirts on, or in the private schools his sophomore year and on. <p></p><i></i>
Team makeup
The team ought to be made up of the best guys. Forget about who is in what class and take the best guys. <br><br>The Totino Grace coach lays it out real well on that schools website. He has a 'open letter' on the site where hr describes what he is going to do and how how he selects the team. It might be something all high school coaches should consider. <p></p><i></i>
Re: Should the senior skate?
Although I often feel bad for the seniors that get cut, they get cut for a reason and the coach has got to do what's necessary for the team to win. I think it's worse to keep the senior and sit him on the bench all season. <p></p><i></i>
kids
By the time most kids are seniors in high school their hockey careers are coming to an end anyway, and if this rule is in effect at this hs, then the kid should be prepared any way, I have however seen where the coach puts him on the JV because of numbers, but the senior also had playing time as a sophomore because of this coach's rule....................irony, but fare.......... <p></p><i></i>
joe totino
hubbaa, <br>I went there to check out where their home ice is and I stumbled on his very nicely laid out "policy" statement.<br><br> But remember, I have a younger boy too and his talent is available to the highest bidder. I dont want anybody out there thinking I have any loyality or commitment to anything. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Seniors
The "Private" mentality would be that the best future player should play. The "Public" would be, he has come up through "our" program and be to play the senior as he has put in his time and should be rewarded for his hard work and "loyalty". <p></p><i></i>
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:04 pm
senior play
Atually, it is just the opposite, most public schools have a lot more kids to choose from and given two equal kids on the bubble will go with the younger -- future. Most privates will let the younger player wait for next season and let the senior play 4th line. <p></p><i></i>
Seniors
Wow…I expected to hear from both sides of the fence, my expectations have been missed so far. The majority of these replies learns towards skating the best team, thus putting winning ahead of the experience. Isn’t rewarding ones loyalty to his team, school and coach as important as winning? I am pushing my kids into sports, dance and other social events in an effort to expose them to a co-operative situation, where they can learn from loyalty and sacrifice for others. Winning the game is the least important thing for me at this time; however I have to admit my kids are too young at this point to have experienced the big game. At what point does winning over ride the experience and the appreciation that is shown by his/her school?<br>Reading the posts in this thread there is no mention of the younger players not getting an opportunity. It’s all about the “win”.<br> <p></p><i></i>
Re: Seniors
The answer to your question is simple - the most talented players play, period. Regardless of whether they "stuck it out" through the youth programs, versus transferring in, the more talented sophomore plays and the senior gets cut.<br><br>I think the whole notion of a player growing up in a "system" is entirely overrated. Particularly in this era of open enrollment. It's sad when you boil it down to it, but open enrollment has ruined any sense of tradition or loyalty. Throw in the sudden surge of private schools deciding they want to be known as hockey schools (AHA, Benilde, Totino, etc) and it really doesn't matter where a kid played mites or squirts, or even bantams.<br><br>I think a more interesting question is a scenario in which two players are virtually equal in talent. I would always take the senior if he is equal in ability to an underclassman. If player A is a senior and transferred in from somewhere else and player B is a sophomore and has risen through the program, I'd still take the senior. The future of a program should never take precedence over a player's chance to lace them up for varsity. The only thing a coach should consider is the immediate season, and only that season. <br><br>I realize probably 95% of coaches don't have this attitude, but all things equal, I say let the older kid get his chance to play. Just my opinion... <p></p><i></i>
senior players
I feel you should go with the seniors. The younger players will maybe perform well in the beginning of the season, but it takes the older ones to step up in crunch time. I see year after year, the seniors step up and lead their teams when the hockey gets serious. The younger ones usually get lost in the shuffle.<br><br>If you are always building your team for the future with underclassmen, when will that "future" ever be here?? Look at the best teams in the state...their rosters consist of all juniors and seniors, with maybe the occassional underclassman. That's what wins state championships. <p></p><i></i>
seniors vs. underclassmen
When I coached (not hockey) my policy was seniors get first priority for playing time, until they get beat out by younger talent. Sometimes, the younger talent beat them out by the end of the first day of practice. Give seniors first chance, but you've got to play who's doing the best job. <p></p><i></i>
Politics ot Athletics
Hip Tzech,<br>You have misunderstood the reason for my post and,I think, others. I can only speak for myself but the reason people say 'go with the best guys' is because it is the fairest and most appropriate approach. It is what everyone can understand. It is honest and straight forwad. If you are one of the top 16-18 skaters in the program , you will be on the varsity . The next group will be on the JV. Then, we can proceed with the season and win some and lose some depending on our talent.<br><br>Any thing else is political bull. <br><br>Rewarding loyalty? This is athletics. Loyalty is good but it should be expected and not rewarded as something out of the ordinary. <br><br>How do you tell a kid that he isnt on the team even though he is better than the kids that are? What kind of reward is that? Is that a cooperative situation?<br><br>Take the best guys. Not because it is all about winning but because it is the fairest approach. <br><br>If you get away from taking the best, you go down one slippery slope. Do tryouts then become meaningless? Should we submit resumes instead of strapping it on at a tryout? <br><br>We need to get back to basics in a lot of aspects of our society. Athletics ahould be about athletics and not politics. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p074.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... wker>Mitch Hawker</A> at: 9/6/05 12:14 pm<br></i>
big joe...
big joe,<br><br>that explains it quite well with your younger son. i remember you mentioning something about the centenniel site also, seems to me you are starting to narrow the field and offer him to the highest bidder...<br>any bids for his services yet? i'll buy you a burger at the nook...<br> <p></p><i></i>
Play the senior if equal
<br>Right on Eagles93. Not only do I agree that if two players are equal, the senior should play, but your depiction of the current state of hockey at private schools is accurate as well. <p></p><i></i>