How do you get the message across to move the youth program from B level to A level. So many parents do not want it to happen because they think there won't be a spot for there kid to play. But for a program to grow and develop to become consistently good, they need to play A's in order to be more competive and consistent at the High School Level.
Agree or Dis-agree? How do you convince the association to make the move?
How to Convince Youth Program to Play A's to excel at HS
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Stiff-Shaft
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:45 pm
Are they dominating "B"s? If they are competitive, then they are probably at the right level. If they are winning most their games, then it should be rather easy to move up. Herb Brooks said once that he has seen many who have moved up too soon, but very few who have not moved up quick enough (paraphrasing a bit).
-
Marty McSorely
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:01 am
Playing A's
Playing A's doesn't make a good high school program. Putting your kids at a level in which they can win 55% to 70% of their games teaches winning and determination along with the fact they are playing comparable level talent.
Playing A's and losing 50% to 70% of their games teaches losing and leads to frustration of players, parent and coaches.
Your program needs to be flexible to the talent. That's tough when there are pyscho parents whom think Jonny is the next Sid. Play A's if the talent is there, if not play B's.
Playing A's and losing 50% to 70% of their games teaches losing and leads to frustration of players, parent and coaches.
Your program needs to be flexible to the talent. That's tough when there are pyscho parents whom think Jonny is the next Sid. Play A's if the talent is there, if not play B's.
You have to move to the "A" level to get a consistantly good varsity hockey program, that is what we are talking about right?
I AGREE 100%... You cannot win a majority of your games year in and year out without playing A's in the youths. These kids are being set back because they are running into the A's once they hit highschool and then are being moved from Bantam B to varsity which is a ridiculously large jump.
Time to talk to the youth board, maybe some pushing and pulling of teeth will straighten it out. If that doesnt work then back to the drawing board. I would talk to Stahnke tho and see if he has any ideas on how to get it done...
I AGREE 100%... You cannot win a majority of your games year in and year out without playing A's in the youths. These kids are being set back because they are running into the A's once they hit highschool and then are being moved from Bantam B to varsity which is a ridiculously large jump.
Time to talk to the youth board, maybe some pushing and pulling of teeth will straighten it out. If that doesnt work then back to the drawing board. I would talk to Stahnke tho and see if he has any ideas on how to get it done...
-
Stiff-Shaft
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:45 pm
[quote="newsguy35"]You have to move to the "A" level to get a consistantly good varsity hockey program, that is what we are talking about right?
I AGREE 100%... You cannot win a majority of your games year in and year out without playing A's in the youths. These kids are being set back because they are running into the A's once they hit highschool and then are being moved from Bantam B to varsity which is a ridiculously large jump.
Time to talk to the youth board, maybe some pushing and pulling of teeth will straighten it out. If that doesnt work then back to the drawing board. I would talk to Stahnke tho and see if he has any ideas on how to get it done...[/quote]
That's right. At a certain level... Maybe Pee Wees, you need to make the jump. Give them time to rise at the Pee Wee and Bantam level so they are more prepared at High School to take on the teams that have always been at an A level.... Stahnke needs to lead the charge on this one... Come on Pete....Let's make PR consistently GREAT!!!! PR needs tp support this move..
I AGREE 100%... You cannot win a majority of your games year in and year out without playing A's in the youths. These kids are being set back because they are running into the A's once they hit highschool and then are being moved from Bantam B to varsity which is a ridiculously large jump.
Time to talk to the youth board, maybe some pushing and pulling of teeth will straighten it out. If that doesnt work then back to the drawing board. I would talk to Stahnke tho and see if he has any ideas on how to get it done...[/quote]
That's right. At a certain level... Maybe Pee Wees, you need to make the jump. Give them time to rise at the Pee Wee and Bantam level so they are more prepared at High School to take on the teams that have always been at an A level.... Stahnke needs to lead the charge on this one... Come on Pete....Let's make PR consistently GREAT!!!! PR needs tp support this move..
If the program doesn't have the talent to make the jump, why set kids up for years of failure at Sq, PW and Ban?
It depends on the program, its numbers, and its ability to develop talent.
I can show you a program in the metro that plays A's every year (don't even field a B team) and yet year in and out they are doormats. I could never understand how that outcome promotes learning let alone enjoyable hockey that keeps the kids coming back.
It depends on the program, its numbers, and its ability to develop talent.
I can show you a program in the metro that plays A's every year (don't even field a B team) and yet year in and out they are doormats. I could never understand how that outcome promotes learning let alone enjoyable hockey that keeps the kids coming back.
Tough to figure out what team you are talking about but I assume they get pounded into submission every game at the varsity level as well. Perhaps a slight coaching problem at the varsity and/or youth levels. All I know is that the jump from Bantam B to varsity is ridiculous and that it will not help any association to make the kids jump that far. Not sure Evil Canevil could make that jump on his bike...who_b_dat wrote:If the program doesn't have the talent to make the jump, why set kids up for years of failure at Sq, PW and Ban?
It depends on the program, its numbers, and its ability to develop talent.
I can show you a program in the metro that plays A's every year (don't even field a B team) and yet year in and out they are doormats. I could never understand how that outcome promotes learning let alone enjoyable hockey that keeps the kids coming back.
For a town/school/program to improve or continue the success a few down years have to occur but the move is essential. There is just no way a program can sustain its "good years" by growing kids in the "B's". The other programs playing "A" are too far ahead and play tougher opponents and are used to the speed. Kids will step up there play if you ask them to and by making them play "A" you are doing that. As long as the bench captain keeps everything positive and explains why certain things are happening (in otherwords doing his job) the team will be alright and will actually improve throughout the year. Hopefully the coach with the class below is doing the same. Vicious but rewarding circle if done correctly.
-
Stiff-Shaft
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:45 pm
Plus, The lower level coaches need to be on a coaching program that supports development up to the varsity level. Too many coaches do their only thing thinking they are the next best thing to coaching. Besides the A jump, Stahnke would need to help implement a association wide development plan for each level and then monitor it so it does not get twisted by other coaches.
Youre best argument for convincing the board to play A level hockey should come from what's happening on the ice. If you have B teams that are winning all of their games then it will be obvious that you should move up. If your teams are average, then it's obvious that you have more work to do.
I think you need to develop A level players and then make the jump to A level hockey, not the other way around. If you dominate at the B level then move up to A; if you are a mediocre B team stay at B until the program is developing players that are good enough to make the move up to A. Taking a B level player and putting them on an A level team is not going to make them an A level player.
I have never understood the logic that if you move up to A and get smoked by 7-8 goals nearly every game at Squirts, Peewees, and Bantams; and then the next year these kids move up to varsity and all of a sudden they start beating these same teams they've been losing to for years? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Let the kids enjoy their time in youth hockey and experience some success. Move them up when they are ready, not when you want them to be ready.
I think you need to develop A level players and then make the jump to A level hockey, not the other way around. If you dominate at the B level then move up to A; if you are a mediocre B team stay at B until the program is developing players that are good enough to make the move up to A. Taking a B level player and putting them on an A level team is not going to make them an A level player.
I have never understood the logic that if you move up to A and get smoked by 7-8 goals nearly every game at Squirts, Peewees, and Bantams; and then the next year these kids move up to varsity and all of a sudden they start beating these same teams they've been losing to for years? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Let the kids enjoy their time in youth hockey and experience some success. Move them up when they are ready, not when you want them to be ready.
One last comment; I agree that you need a GOOD A program at the youth level in order to have a GOOD varsity program. But if you have poor A teams at the youth level, you will still only have a poor varsity team, except that you may have a bunch of kids that have lost their passion for the game. Don't fall for the thought that by declaring A teams at the youth level that it will magically make kids better.
Focus on team/player development and recruiting more players, get the varsity coaching staff involved in helping the youth program on the ice. Organize off season training and keep kids involved, but make sure it is fun or they will get burned out. It's a long process, unfortunately there isn't a secret formula. When the program is ready to take the next step most everyone will gladly accept the challenge. If they aren't ready, pushing them to A will fail and it will take even longer to get it back.
Been there, done that.
Focus on team/player development and recruiting more players, get the varsity coaching staff involved in helping the youth program on the ice. Organize off season training and keep kids involved, but make sure it is fun or they will get burned out. It's a long process, unfortunately there isn't a secret formula. When the program is ready to take the next step most everyone will gladly accept the challenge. If they aren't ready, pushing them to A will fail and it will take even longer to get it back.
Been there, done that.
-
Johnsonpres
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:28 pm
I know here at Johnson we have a proud tradition of having competitive teams. This year our "A" & "B" Bantams are doing fine but when we get to Pee Wee's our "A" team has won 3 games out of 25 and they work hard at practice but are not physically strong enough to compete. Our "B" Pee Wee's have not won one game. Our "A" squirt team only has wins in District One games outside the district they have not won the same with the "B" Squirts. Some of the scores are at best ridicules. 13 to 0, 8 to 0 are not uncommon. Even the jewel of District 1 Highland is not doing the greatest outside the district. B and C hockey might be the only thing left for inter-city kids, You don't see anyone rushing to live in the cities.
-
steelheader
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:33 pm
This problem really gets down to the mite level for most associations. Playing a travel schedule at 6,7,8 years old makes for a long youth experience. It used to be that mites was an in-house with games against local associations of similar size. Now (in D10 anyway) they offer in-house and 3 levels of competitive mites (B,C,D with D being the highest level). Well, guess what, you dump a small association D team against the associations that have hundreds of mites and they get killed. In addition to that, the coaches of these teams are working on systems to get them ready for these games! That equals less skills of course.
By the time the parents get to squirts they are tired of losing (notice I said parents). Instead of starting the competitive, travel schedule, they are already tired of it and want to play B level.
1. Stop playing over your head at the mite level
2. Save the gas money for when your kids get older
3. Work on nothing but skills (your breakout will be fine when the kids can make and catch a pass!)
4. Encourage your district to get rid of this (if it's there, parents will want it)
By the time the parents get to squirts they are tired of losing (notice I said parents). Instead of starting the competitive, travel schedule, they are already tired of it and want to play B level.
1. Stop playing over your head at the mite level
2. Save the gas money for when your kids get older
3. Work on nothing but skills (your breakout will be fine when the kids can make and catch a pass!)
4. Encourage your district to get rid of this (if it's there, parents will want it)
Steelheader,
You pretty much nailed it. But I don't think it's only parents that get tired of losing all the time. The parents may be the ones driving the push down to the B level but I think it is because thier kids are unhappy and not having fun anymore. Being competative and losing can still be fun, but when you are consistently losing by scores of 10-0 it is no longer fun.
But you are right that the problem often starts at the mite level. We went through exactly what you are talking about.
You pretty much nailed it. But I don't think it's only parents that get tired of losing all the time. The parents may be the ones driving the push down to the B level but I think it is because thier kids are unhappy and not having fun anymore. Being competative and losing can still be fun, but when you are consistently losing by scores of 10-0 it is no longer fun.
But you are right that the problem often starts at the mite level. We went through exactly what you are talking about.
-
egf hockey1
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:40 pm
I like cowboys response, that you have to develop players before moving up to the top level. If kids are getting beat by 10 goals all the time it is tough to keep them interested. If the teams are dominating at the B level, that would be the time to move up to A hockey. 90% of the time the small towns will not compete at HS anyway. They may not get beat as bad with a little talent, but they will still get beat.
I don't think that we need to be settting up our youth programs to make our highschool teams more competitive. The goal of the youth program is to let the kids enjoy hockey, so that when they graduate they continue to enjoy it. When they have children of their own, they will allow their children to play hockey. If we put so much pressure on making a hs team, it is very hard on the kid that gets cut or struggles. They end up hating hockey and will never let their kids play hockey. In that case, we haven't lost just one player, we have lost generations of future players.
Let the kids play and enjoy the game. The game is demanding enough without putting pressure on an 8 year old to be Mr. Hockey in 10 years
I don't think that we need to be settting up our youth programs to make our highschool teams more competitive. The goal of the youth program is to let the kids enjoy hockey, so that when they graduate they continue to enjoy it. When they have children of their own, they will allow their children to play hockey. If we put so much pressure on making a hs team, it is very hard on the kid that gets cut or struggles. They end up hating hockey and will never let their kids play hockey. In that case, we haven't lost just one player, we have lost generations of future players.
Let the kids play and enjoy the game. The game is demanding enough without putting pressure on an 8 year old to be Mr. Hockey in 10 years
-
countryboy
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:18 am
hmmm
What do you do if you live in northern minnesota and your program offers a very competative squirt A and its is going great for them but your 3 squirt b teams who are competative with most other b teams but 2 neighboring programs (Greenway and Hibbing) dont have squirt a's so they can have winning b teams. we lose by 10-12 every game as there best are playing against our b's. Who is this helping? There are plenty of A's within an hours drive ie Bemidji, Brainard, Hermantown, Cloquet, Proctor, and multiple Duluth teams. Why doesnt MN Hockey set up a standard program so all kids play with and agianst kids of equal skills. After all this is the best model of development. I cant wit to see what happens now that Greenway thinks there strong at the youth levels as the get older. They will get their just do. In fact in my 20 years of being around this area the only time they were really competative was when a few kids moved in in late peewees and bantam years or transfered from here to them. IE Andy Sertich, Adam Johnson, Mike Dagel, etc. There system of development has not worked but one group of late adds. Im sick of seeing my son come off the ice knowing he is a b player and losing by 10+ against a program that could and should have a A program. Both Greenway and Hibbing have the talent to have solids A teams but refuse to in the name of winning. MN Hockey do something to make this right. B Squirts quitting because of losing is what is happening and that is wrong!!!!!!
The simple answer is to have B1 and B2 levels like some districts have. Then you have an A, B1, and 2-B2 teams. I'm guessing your B teams are divided equally?
But that being said I am not really a fan of continually adding more levels. I would really like to see MN Hockey step in and make standard levels of play and use some control as to what levels associations are putting their teams. Force associations to move up a level if they are dominating at lower levels, and move teams down if they are not competative.
I'm curious as to what types of season's the two associations you mentioned were having at the A level when they decided to step down to B level.
But that being said I am not really a fan of continually adding more levels. I would really like to see MN Hockey step in and make standard levels of play and use some control as to what levels associations are putting their teams. Force associations to move up a level if they are dominating at lower levels, and move teams down if they are not competative.
I'm curious as to what types of season's the two associations you mentioned were having at the A level when they decided to step down to B level.
-
egf hockey1
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:40 pm
It is different up north. We don't have enough kids to have A, B1, B2. If we did split up like that we wouldn't have enough teams to play within a reasonable driving distance. Half of the teams that you mention that have A teams are in different districts. You would have a district tourney with 5 teams, with too much travel during the season. You see this alot in western ND. They make equal B teams so they at least have teams to play. Usually one or two kids stand out and score 4 of the 6 goals. They make A teams at the PeeWee and Bantam Leve. There are only 6 A teams in western ND, the majority of their games are weekend trips to the Red River Valley. All the travel discourages alot of families from playing hockey.
-
countryboy
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:18 am
Hibbing and Greenway do split somewhat even but not totally. If they made A's (which they could be very good looking at the strenght of there B teams) there would be no less than 12 teams within an hours drive. play them all 2 times and thats 24 games add acouple tourny and your there. It just doesnt seem to me that we should keep playing them if they dont want to step up to the plate and complete on the same level. I dont think we will give up our A's as it seems there is a real drop off as my son is one that need to play b's and the A's need to continue to be challanged. i would rather work it out with Bem and Brain and set it up so we could always play 2 games in aday and set our schedule up with them and let Greenway and Hibbing run there own little thing. It is doing nothing to aid in the development of any of the palyers the way it is.
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that mites are playing teams outside of their association?steelheader wrote:This problem really gets down to the mite level for most associations. Playing a travel schedule at 6,7,8 years old makes for a long youth experience. It used to be that mites was an in-house with games against local associations of similar size. Now (in D10 anyway) they offer in-house and 3 levels of competitive mites (B,C,D with D being the highest level). Well, guess what, you dump a small association D team against the associations that have hundreds of mites and they get killed.
yeah somethings not right about his perception of mite hockey in MNwho_b_dat wrote:Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that mites are playing teams outside of their association?steelheader wrote:This problem really gets down to the mite level for most associations. Playing a travel schedule at 6,7,8 years old makes for a long youth experience. It used to be that mites was an in-house with games against local associations of similar size. Now (in D10 anyway) they offer in-house and 3 levels of competitive mites (B,C,D with D being the highest level). Well, guess what, you dump a small association D team against the associations that have hundreds of mites and they get killed.
-
steelheader
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:33 pm