Minnesota AAA Teams

[ghshockeyfan]

Here is a link to all the rosters from NAHA last Fall:

http://www.winter-hawks.org/LaborDay/do ... RSONLY.doc

As explained, the current "Reilly" is the Black NAHA group - Burg is the White NAHA...

[ghshockeyfan]

As such, anything that OS does, be it with training or running teams weakens the purpose and intent of CODP.

In theory yes, but those that have lived this in MN may have a different view. Some feel that CODP diluted to the point where it wasn't truly what it was supposed to be. This perception caused other opportunities to happen and flourish. Don't shoot the messenger on this one - I'm only speaking that which has been said to me by others.

[OntheEdge]

As such, anything that OS does, be it with training or running teams weakens the purpose and intent of CODP.

In theory yes, but those that have lived this in MN may have a different view. Some feel that CODP diluted to the point where it wasn't truly what it was supposed to be. This perception caused other opportunities to happen and flourish. Don't shoot the messenger on this one - I'm only speaking that which has been said to me by others.

I heard the same thing GHS. As it was told to me, Winny Brodt and Ronda Curtin were involved with Herb Brooks in the development of CODP in Minnesota. For personal reasons, Winny and Ronda decided to start their own program. My personal opinion is that their primary purpose is development of players and it is not just a money venture but of course they make money since its their right to make a living. The cost of their clinic is not outrageous and is in line with what CODP charges.

[PuxRinmyblood]

Kudos to Bensonmum. I couldn't agree more with your comments.

As for Hux.....Our experience with OS has been nothing but positive, and the training programs have been great. I have found that Ms. Brodt has contributed to substantial improvement in my kids' games, especially their skating.

It is hard to fathom how another good training program can "undermine" what CODP is about. Choice is good.

Regarding CODP's "outreach efforts" and "fair amount of time and resources to fulfill the USOC mission", perhaps you can enlighten us as to what these are. I have not seen anything special in this regard. Maybe things are different out East. This is not to bash CODP. I have many friends with kids in the program, and they have had very positive experiences.

One final thought....Much is written and said about "elite" programs, "elite" competition, etc. etc. One of the great comments I've remembered from Herb Brooks was "To raise the pyramid, you need to widen the base". To paraphrase and apply to girls hockey, this means that to create more "elite" players, we really ought to find ways to get more players, even those that might be slightly less than "elite", into great programs.

[spr air 210]

I don't know how you can do a better job than Winny and Rhonda are doing.They work very well with the girls,are organized on there e-mails,provide quality evaluations and nobody is left out. There is placement for all levels of ability for proper development.Many hockey girls have grown accustomed to the OS process and it would be greatly missed by many if it wasn't in existence, we are thankful it is.

[Hux]

I don't see how OS 'undermines' or 'weakens' CODP. CODP has a tryout and only accepts a certain percentage of the applicants. Would you rather have those not deemed worthy by the CODP judges be left out and have no training program available to them so they can improve and one day be 'worthy'? If Winny and Ronda can offer the same training for a better price and accept everyone who registers, good for them. I think CODP is/was great for my daughter, but what's the difference to the player where the money is going? The coaches and trainers are obviously as good as CODP. If OS makes CODP look bad, and players are choosing OS without even trying out for CODP, that's CODP's fault.
And how much 'outreach' does CODP do? I never heard of it before a friend recommended it. I've never seen a flyer posted in an arena or a pamphlet anywhere. I see OS stuff all over the place.

Certainly not, as mission number one is to develop the maximim amount of elite players possible so we have a bigger talent pool to draw upon to beat Canada. However, you stated it yourself "If Winny and Ronda can offer the same training for a better price and accept everyone who registers.."

This is where it undermines what CODP is trying to do. And as I understand it, there tend to be considerably more skaters on the ice than with CODP, and the training is no where near as intense. And from the player I talked to, I got the impression that OS was more of a drop-in when you want type of affair, whereas CODP "required" more of a commitment.

That being said, I think the original intent and mission of the CODP has been lost at the USA Hockey level. When Brooks and Blatherwick and the USOC went before Congress, it was with the intent of creating something that would identify and develop talent for National and Olympic team play, especially in non-traidtional sports. In 1995, women's ice hockey was a non-traditional sport, with relatively small numbers participating. However, the majority of those participants tended to be highly skilled (relative to the times) and with the long tradition of college and prep hockey in the east, and the emergence of high school hockey in Minnesota, there was already a decent pool of talent to draw from for the National teams. CODP should have been where they sent the Olympic teams to train prior to the last two Olympics, and where USA Hockey kept an eye on emerging talent. That didn't happen, though part of that is that it takes a long time for most athletes to achieve "elite" status, as Wendell and Darwitz are exceptions.

Obviously the numbers aspect has changed, as there are now more players in either Minnesota or New England, than there were in the whole US in '95. Women's ice hockey, while not as predominant as softball or soccer, is no longer a truly non-traditional sport. Additionally, unlike kayaking, or fencing, or even volleyball, hockey development is a very entrepreneurial and so there are many options available to a young skater who dreams of wearing the red, white, and blue in the Olympics. (though in reality, the "dream" more often becomes a parent's quest for a college scholarship)

And as we have seen, the NGB hasn't exactly bent over backwards in tapping CODP for players for the National and Olympic teams. (though I think you will see many more CODP trained players emerging on those teams in the next 7 years as the list of players now in, or soon to enter D1 schools is a whos who list of blue chip talent)

[WillWork4Hockey]

[quote]And from the player I talked to, I got the impression that OS was more of a drop-in when you want type of affair, whereas CODP "required" more of a commitment.
[/quote]

Any camp or training program requires committment from both the skater and the parents. If my daughter was to treat a $500+ training program as a "drop in when you want type affair" my checkbook would not be opening for that expense! That said...I also don't believe that a training program should have to "require" a committment. No-show,No-Benefit. The spring league was billed as a "get ready for Phase 1". Scrimmages, but no training. This is not what the OS program is really about....just a side benefit.

We have really liked the OS Summer Training program. Winny and Rhonda are out on the ice with the kids....great role models! Not only are they well-known by the girls, they skate with them, push them to excel, and know them by name!

[ghshockeyfan]

One final thought....Much is written and said about "elite" programs, "elite" competition, etc. etc. One of the great comments I've remembered from Herb Brooks was "To raise the pyramid, you need to widen the base". To paraphrase and apply to girls hockey, this means that to create more "elite" players, we really ought to find ways to get more players, even those that might be slightly less than "elite", into great programs.

Agreed. Often many wonder why MN has developed so many outstanding girls hockey players. I believe this has to do with the fact that we have community based youth hockey vs. club/elite stuff that seems to be in some other areas of the country. Hockey is hard to get started in due to many factors, cost, etc. and community based athletics are critical to "widening the base" vs. more elite/tryout based club offerings that focus on the great few. This is one of the fears that I have about G Hockey in MN is that we don't want to evolve into more year-round T-breds non-HS like teams (some privates come close enough to this already) as that could start to dominate and eventually do away with the fragile community based youth programs for girls that really are the reason why we have the great number of top-level players that we have.

[Hux]

Kudos to Bensonmum. I couldn't agree more with your comments.

As for Hux.....Our experience with OS has been nothing but positive, and the training programs have been great. I have found that Ms. Brodt has contributed to substantial improvement in my kids' games, especially their skating.

It is hard to fathom how another good training program can "undermine" what CODP is about. Choice is good.

Regarding CODP's "outreach efforts" and "fair amount of time and resources to fulfill the USOC mission", perhaps you can enlighten us as to what these are. I have not seen anything special in this regard. Maybe things are different out East. This is not to bash CODP. I have many friends with kids in the program, and they have had very positive experiences.

One final thought....Much is written and said about "elite" programs, "elite" competition, etc. etc. One of the great comments I've remembered from Herb Brooks was "To raise the pyramid, you need to widen the base". To paraphrase and apply to girls hockey, this means that to create more "elite" players, we really ought to find ways to get more players, even those that might be slightly less than "elite", into great programs.

Again, I agree, and in a perfect world OS would be the feeder system for CODP, or better yet, CODP would be the be all and end all with training centers located all across the land, and every girl over the age of 10 was in it and followed the training regimine, with the cream rising to the top. One of the primary missions of CODP is to do outreach via coaching seminars to teach training techniques, and learn to play clinics to attract more girls to the sport, as well as doing the same in the inner city for disadvantaged kids and the like. As I understand it, that is indeed being done by CODP in Minnesota.

Unfortunately what has happened is that kids opt out for AAA hockey "fun" and see their training fall off, or take the "easy" training route and go OS (if the drop-in comments are true)

Optimally CODP needs to adjust the mission, at least for women's ice hockey in Minnesota, in that the focus needs to be on retaining and continuing the training of the girls once they move on to college. Studies have shown that it takes 10 years of training to become an "elite" athlete, with most of the top Olympians not peaking until their late 20's.

In talking with Michele Amidon and Ben Smith about this, hockey has some immensely talented younger players (Parsons, Knight, the Twins), and older, more experienced players who become "elite" later (Hagerman) . The problem is that there are very few opportunities for the "Senior" player to really continue their development, and in many cases players that are on the cusp of achieving elite status, stop training before they can achieve that status. The key now is to get those players (the Jamie Hagermans) to stay with it and make the jump once they are out of college.

As much as we talk about AAA, and before and after teams (the later of which New England has in spades) the bigger need is in Senior A teams and leagues that can offer those National/Olympic team prospects a place to continue their development after they get out of school. USA Hockey needs to take a closer look at the Senior A division, and make some attempt at creating a league on the lines of the NWHL/PWHL so our post grad "senior" players can continue to develop their game.

[Hux]

One final thought....Much is written and said about "elite" programs, "elite" competition, etc. etc. One of the great comments I've remembered from Herb Brooks was "To raise the pyramid, you need to widen the base". To paraphrase and apply to girls hockey, this means that to create more "elite" players, we really ought to find ways to get more players, even those that might be slightly less than "elite", into great programs.

Agreed. Often many wonder why MN has developed so many outstanding girls hockey players. I believe this has to do with the fact that we have community based youth hockey vs. club/elite stuff that seems to be in some other areas of the country. Hockey is hard to get started in due to many factors, cost, etc. and community based athletics are critical to "widening the base" vs. more elite/tryout based club offerings that focus on the great few. This is one of the fears that I have about G Hockey in MN is that we don't want to evolve into more year-round T-breds non-HS like teams (some privates come close enough to this already) as that could start to dominate and eventually do away with the fragile community based youth programs for girls that really are the reason why we have the great number of top-level players that we have.

This is one of the things that I am fighting here in my own town. The varsity coach and I run a "try it out" clinic to attract more girls to the sport, and we have equipment available if someone doesn't have their own. We have averaged 40 some girls a year for each of the last four years.

Unfortunately no sooner do we get 8-10 of those girls to tryout and join the town team, but 10 or 15 of the girls already playing will then opt for Assabet, Chelmsford, Flames, Charles River, or lately the Wizards. As soon as a kid shows any talent, parents are much too quick to want to get the kid into a "select" program (which in these parts is a misnomer, as there is no "select" league as there is with the boys) which is club hockey claiming to be "select."

And while it certainly offers less talented kids a place to play, it would be nice if some of those more talented kids hung around and helped raise the bar for some of the newer girls, particularly at the U12 level.

[ghshockeyfan]

Again, I agree, and in a perfect world OS would be the feeder system for CODP, or better yet, CODP would be the be all and end all with training centers located all across the land, and every girl over the age of 10 was in it and followed the training regimine, with the cream rising to the top.

Unfortunately what has happened is that kids opt out for AAA hockey "fun" and see their training fall off, or take the "easy" training route and go OS (if the drop-in comments are true)

I think that we need to get USA H NDP in line with CODP then. Why separate programs for development/identification?

OS is not the "easy" training. And I'm not being paid or encouraged to say that!

[finance_gal]

OS Hockey is an incredible program put on by two very Knowledgable girls who put everything they have into the program. My daughter is not an elite player, she hasn't been skating very long and wanted to make the varsity team at her school this year. Ronda Curtin has taken time out of her life to help my husband find the right things for her to work on and the right clinics to go to so that she can improve to the point where she most likely will make varsity. This is something I can't say for any of her High School Coaches, or any of the other hockey people that I have run into except for a few on this board. Not many people are willing to take the time for an average player and Ronda did that, so i would recomend her program to anyone who wants there child to be more than just another player because Ronda will get the best out every player regardless of there talent level

[Oilers08]

IMHO Hux is right on the money- he has done his homework. At CODP you must commit to the complete program. CODP has an ongoing plan, a blue print if you will, and it is not flexible or accomodating. You either sink or swim, for those who swim the payoffs are quite obvious.

Maybe hard work and not all fun and games is the hockey gods way of weeding out the weak and undedicated.

So just keep on bashing CODP. You are the type of people they dont want or need.
So........
If its not for you why dont you just leave it at that.

[keepitreal]

IMHO Hux is right on the money- he has done his homework. At CODP you must commit to the complete program. CODP has an ongoing plan, a blue print if you will, and it is not flexible or accomodating. You either sink or swim, for those who swim the payoffs are quite obvious.

Maybe hard work and not all fun and games is the hockey gods way of weeding out the weak and undedicated.

So just keep on bashing CODP. You are the type of people they dont want or need.
So........
If its not for you why dont you just leave it at that.

I don't see where anyone is bashing CODP. However characterizing OS as for "the weak and undedicated" IS bashing. If this were true, then Hux's point about OS diluting talent at CODP would be moot. Assuming he is correct, obviously there are plenty of elite level players who choose OS over CODP for one reason or another.

Having familiarity with both programs, I can say that OS is more accommodating to multi-sport athletes (soccer, softball, etc.) which, ironically, supports USA Hockey's philosophy of letting kids play other sports in the summer. This is not to disparage CODP which indeed demands the highest commitment levels for those so inclined and is an excellent development program with a successful track record.

FWIW, OS has I think three levels from youth to prep elite based on a skills evaluation. Winny and Rhonda are of course both very familiar with CODP training regimens and work the kids hard on edges and overspeed in the finest tradition of Cardiac Jack-- although the main complaints I've heard are not enough time with a puck on the stick during this (this easily may have changed since my daughter was involved). I still believe CODP eventually lands a majority of elite players especially as they become older, but for many trying to balance hockey training with other sports or who cannot accommodate the strict commitment of CODP might find OS to be a good alternative for high level development.

[jumpstart]

I have been quietly reading the comments posted about CODP and OS. I want to start by saying that I believe there is room for both programs--competition is always a good thing!

My daugher participated in CODP the first year it began its program for "younger" girls. The first session was tremendous. A number of instructors on the ice with the girls, including Winny and Rhonda. As the summer progressed, less and less instructors were on the ice, and by the end of the last summer session, the only instructors who showed up consistently and worked with the girls were Winny and Rhonda. I heard (and I hope I am not spreading rumors) that Winny and Rhonda did not get paid what they should have, and that is why they started their own program, OS.

Not liking what we heard about how CODP was run, my daugher did OS the next year and has done so since.

People who have done both OS and CODP during the same summer have told me that the skating sessions are comparable, but that the dryland is more intense at CODP.

The comment about wanting to see OS as a feeder program to CODP is ludricous. These are two organizations that both charge for their services and compete against each other. I hope both continue to operate and are successful.

[Bensonmum]

Oilers08 wrote:

So just keep on bashing CODP. You are the type of people they dont want or need.

Oilers08--did you actually read any of the comments? Hux is the only one who said anything negative about CODP (losing its direction, etc), unless you consider anything said that's positive about OS to be a slam against CODP.
I have no experience with OS, but I probably will soon. I do have a year of CODP parent experience. And yes, I know that CODP expects a total commitment from the participants.

Oilers08 also wrote:

Maybe hard work and not all fun and games is the hockey gods way of weeding out the weak and undedicated.

It must have worked remarkably last year, because the numbers at the Sunday scrimmages dwindled slowly but surely last summer until by the last week the instructors were telling players to show up at as many of the scheduled scrimmages as possible so that they'd actually have 7 or 8 players per side. My daughter played in two of them that week and on one team there were 6 girls (most scrimmage teams had started with 12 kids). I think we figured it out that considerably less than half the girls showed up for the scrimmages that day. They even cancelled some of them to consolidate the numbers. But lo and behold, most of those 'weak and undedicated' girls are back for more this year, and I assume they've been accepted to the program since they are talented. I get the feeling that girls (or their parents) register and try out for CODP just to get accepted, like it's a status symbol, and then attend on a drop in basis (my daughter said the weekday sessions were less well attended as the summer went on too). FWIW, my daughter had perfect attendance at the sessions and scrimmages.

OS doesn't have scrimmages, but the parents who were involved with it say the attendance was exceptional at the OS training sessions last year.

[Hux]

Oilers08 wrote:

So just keep on bashing CODP. You are the type of people they dont want or need.

Oilers08--did you actually read any of the comments? Hux is the only one who said anything negative about CODP (losing its direction, etc), unless you consider anything said that's positive about OS to be a slam against CODP.
I have no experience with OS, but I probably will soon. I do have a year of CODP parent experience. And yes, I know that CODP expects a total commitment from the participants.

I was not being negative about CODP, but about how USA Hockey has not utilized it as it was intended, which was to be as a source of identifying and then training potential Olympic athletes. As I stated, I think CODP itself has accomplished that mission, especially in the past few years when they got out from under the local athletic commision, and we will see many CODP trained players on future National and Olympic team rosters.

In fact, I think this will be even more evident sooner rather than later with the addition of the U18 National team. I know from conversations with Michele Amidon that she is very interested in seeing a CODP for New England so that this region's players can benefit from the type of training that the Minny players receive. I also got the impression that she would be monitoring the athletes in CODP with an eye towards National team play.

It must have worked remarkably last year, because the numbers at the Sunday scrimmages dwindled slowly but surely last summer until by the last week the instructors were telling players to show up at as many of the scheduled scrimmages as possible so that they'd actually have 7 or 8 players per side. My daughter played in two of them that week and on one team there were 6 girls (most scrimmage teams had started with 12 kids). I think we figured it out that considerably less than half the girls showed up for the scrimmages that day. They even cancelled some of them to consolidate the numbers. But lo and behold, most of those 'weak and undedicated' girls are back for more this year, and I assume they've been accepted to the program since they are talented. I get the feeling that girls (or their parents) register and try out for CODP just to get accepted, like it's a status symbol, and then attend on a drop in basis (my daughter said the weekday sessions were less well attended as the summer went on too). FWIW, my daughter had perfect attendance at the sessions and scrimmages.

OS doesn't have scrimmages, but the parents who were involved with it say the attendance was exceptional at the OS training sessions last year.

I think that is to be expected though, given that the scrimmages are on Sundays, and one has to figure that people like to go away for long weekends, especially later in the summer.

[keepitreal]

One final thought....Much is written and said about "elite" programs, "elite" competition, etc. etc. One of the great comments I've remembered from Herb Brooks was "To raise the pyramid, you need to widen the base". To paraphrase and apply to girls hockey, this means that to create more "elite" players, we really ought to find ways to get more players, even those that might be slightly less than "elite", into great programs.

Agreed. Often many wonder why MN has developed so many outstanding girls hockey players. I believe this has to do with the fact that we have community based youth hockey vs. club/elite stuff that seems to be in some other areas of the country. Hockey is hard to get started in due to many factors, cost, etc. and community based athletics are critical to "widening the base" vs. more elite/tryout based club offerings that focus on the great few. This is one of the fears that I have about G Hockey in MN is that we don't want to evolve into more year-round T-breds non-HS like teams (some privates come close enough to this already) as that could start to dominate and eventually do away with the fragile community based youth programs for girls that really are the reason why we have the great number of top-level players that we have.

To take a commercial break from the OS vs CODP banter that at this point should probably be ended anyway ...

GHS, PuxRin and Hux make great points about broadening the base. "Outreach" starts at the local level, often with one person. A few thoughts on the youth end of things:

1) After your kids "graduate" from the youth program, do you still participate? Frankly this is the ideal time to run for your association board or committee position because with "no dog in the race" you are above the fray politically and can objectively act in the best interests of the program without political implications, or perceptions of such. Give of your time as a non-parent volunteer and hockey parents will see this and hopefully take a turn when their time comes.

2) If no youth scholarship program exists or is underutilized, form a fundraising program in your association to provide opportunity to those families who need help defraying the cost of this expensive sport. Collect and inventory used and donated equipment, seek contributions from your local sporting goods stores, civic organizations and businesses. Assist working single parents by organizing team volunteers to help drive kids to practices when needed.

3) On association sign-up day, expand and publicize the event into a hockey festival with a couple of short scrimmage games for the uninitiated to watch, plus off-ice shooting games, information booth, equipment swap meet, and an open skate, all designed to expose first timers to the game and the fun. Exhibitors and sponsors can help defray any costs.

4) If your youth association is healthy and vibrant, "adopt" an association that needs help and volunteers, in particular inner-city associations.

5) Finally if you're a female graduate of a youth program, BE A COACH to the young girls coming up. I know it's a lot to ask of a young woman in your late teens and twenties, but even as an periodic assistant coach you will impact the lives and confidence of young girls in ways you can't imagine.

There's a million more ideas...time and expertise is often more valuable than money. If you lived through the genesis of girls hockey and care about its continued development, get involved and give back to the future generations of players at the association level. This is exactly what makes amateur hockey in Minnesota the envy of the nation.
===

For the non-elite post-youth players I believe there are any number of excellent off-season training and playing organizations from camps to leagues that are fairly reasonable from a cost standpoint. However, were USA Hockey to endorse/run/promote tiered programs, or if the coaches association would provide opportunities for these players, I think it would be very successful. Elite players are few and spread too thin while players that could soon be elite are often ignored. A sanctioned training program and spring or fall league that offers outstanding coaching and development at a reasonable cost for tier II, JV and U14 players seeking to elevate their abilities, seems to me an idea whose time has come (critcal mass).

As for the older elite players, I agree with Hux that additional post-high school and post-college playing opportunities are needed to help players on the cusp continue to develop. It's in its infancy, but building Also worthy of your patronage

[PuxRinmyblood]

Outstanding suggestions by keepitreal.

I might add that exposing as many 8 and under/10 and under young female athletes to the game pays amazing dividends. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to win over the parents (who might not think hockey is a good fit for girls), but once they start playing, the players and parents keep wanting more. I worked with a terrific, enthusiastic bunch of 8U girls this past winter and it is amazing what a year does for beginners.

A few more suggestions that seem to work: 1) Have your high school team provide student coaches to the youth teams (especially the 8U/10Us). This provides great role models for the younger girls, and gets the HS players who might want to try coaching some day some expertise. 2) Have a "jersey night" (with free HS game entry) to let the little ones (and their parents!) see how much fun and how advanced HS hockey can be!

[keepitreal]

I might add that exposing as many 8 and under/10 and under young female athletes to the game pays amazing dividends. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to win over the parents (who might not think hockey is a good fit for girls), but once they start playing, the players and parents keep wanting more.

This is absolutely the case with many parents and sometimes players, who most often fear injury because of the speed and potential impact of the game. But with virtually every girl we got started in U8 and U10, it quickly became their favorite sport-- and the parents loved it too. Far safer than snowboarding is what I say. Hockey is an OUTSTANDING sport for girls that leads to the development of more motor skills and balance than nearly any other sport.

Great suggestions too PuxR, I know our local HS coach helps the program with these and much, much more including guest coaching for nearly any girls team that asks including U8's. He is top-notch!

USA Hockey Student Coaching Requirements

[Hux]

Outstanding suggestions by keepitreal.


Yes, great posts.


I might add that exposing as many 8 and under/10 and under young female athletes to the game pays amazing dividends. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to win over the parents (who might not think hockey is a good fit for girls), but once they start playing, the players and parents keep wanting more. I worked with a terrific, enthusiastic bunch of 8U girls this past winter and it is amazing what a year does for beginners.

A few more suggestions that seem to work: 1) Have your high school team provide student coaches to the youth teams (especially the 8U/10Us). This provides great role models for the younger girls, and gets the HS players who might want to try coaching some day some expertise. 2) Have a "jersey night" (with free HS game entry) to let the little ones (and their parents!) see how much fun and how advanced HS hockey can be!

It certainly does make a difference when you can get the girls involved at a younger age, before they venture over to the "dark side" with the likes of figure skating or (cover her ears and block her eyes) cheerleading.

In my town cheerleading rules the roost, with the various age groups regualrly cleaning up with National Championships. So now every grade school aged girl seems to want to be a cheerleader so they can go to Disney come the first week of December. (I lost three of my U10s this past season to this heinous "sport") They have more cheerleaders than football players, with some of the squads numbering 50 girls. They practice 2.5 hours a day, five nights a week, from August 1st, through November. (yeah, you can say it, waaaaaaaaaay overboard) They are not allowed to miss more than one practice, unless bedridden or injured.

Which brings me to the selling point of youth hockey. I regularly recruit girls for our program from the figure skating set (though I've been banned from the rink during their session a few times ;o) ) where, naturally, the refrain is "But hockey is so violent/dnagerous etc.

At which point I mention that in one session of figure skating the director uses more ice packs than the whole hockey association has in the five years I've been coaching. Where we have fully protected kids via their head to toe equipment, the toe picks fly around, and usually crash into ice, boards, and one another, with none. (And with no helmets to boot)

So on the one hand you have safer. And then when you hear, at least from the figure skating, or dancing types that it is too expensive, you can respond with "Ah, it isn't cheap, but how much do you pay for private lessons, and dance, and gymnastics etc?" And what you will often find is that a season of hockey is cheaper than those activities over the course of a year.

[Hux]

I might add that exposing as many 8 and under/10 and under young female athletes to the game pays amazing dividends. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to win over the parents (who might not think hockey is a good fit for girls), but once they start playing, the players and parents keep wanting more.

This is absolutely the case with many parents and sometimes players, who most often fear injury because of the speed and potential impact of the game. But with virtually every girl we got started in U8 and U10, it quickly became their favorite sport-- and the parents loved it too. Far safer than snowboarding is what I say. Hockey is an OUTSTANDING sport for girls that leads to the development of more motor skills and balance than nearly any other sport.

Great suggestions too PuxR, I know our local HS coach helps the program with these and much, much more including guest coaching for nearly any girls team that asks including U8's. He is top-notch!

USA Hockey Student Coaching Requirements

During the 2005-'06 season I had the benefit of coaching help from the varsity coach who was a former D at Providence, and who has her own skills instruction business, and she was fantastic at teaching skating to the little ones. We also used varsity players, but this season I did not.

It turns out that if there is anyone on the ice, player or coach, that is not on the roster, it voids the insurance for everyone on the ice. And while you may think it is no big deal, if that player, parent, or guest coach does something that somehow manages to hurt someone else on the ice, the insurance is void for both medical and liability, for them, the players, and you. And given the litigous nature of society these days, it is not something you want to leave to chance.

[keepitreal]

It turns out that if there is anyone on the ice, player or coach, that is not on the roster, it voids the insurance for everyone on the ice.

Assuming he has his/her card, list the HS coach as an assistant on each of the girls youth team rosters

[Hux]

It turns out that if there is anyone on the ice, player or coach, that is not on the roster, it voids the insurance for everyone on the ice.

Assuming he has his/her card, list the HS coach as an assistant on each of the girls youth team rosters

She was on the roster, but the varsity girls were not. This past season I had three other coaches on the ice most nights, so my roster spots were filled. I had varsity girls wanting to help out, but I couldn't use them because of the insurance and liability issues.

[keepitreal]

She was on the roster, but the varsity girls were not. This past season I had three other coaches on the ice most nights, so my roster spots were filled. I had varsity girls wanting to help out, but I couldn't use them because of the insurance and liability issues.

Hux, if I'm reading the requirements properly I don't think student coaches (varsity players) need to be rostered as assistants as long as they are under age 18, only indicated on a form as to which team they are coaching. Check the USA-H Student Coaching link I posted above (scroll to the bottom of the FAQs).