Volunteer Squirt Coaches

HockeyMN1 · Post by **HockeyMN1** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:12 am

I know both the EP and Edina squirt a teams have non-parent coaches. I think it is good because there is no favoritism and it has worked for these two teams as they are two of the top three teams in the state. Do you think more teams should do this?

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:54 am

They are 2 of the top 3 teams in the state because they are 2 of the top 3 biggest organizations in the state. Coaching has nothing to do with it.

FLHRCI_03 · Post by **FLHRCI_03** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:10 am

Strength in numbers... Those 2 associations have more Squirts players alone (160-180), than some (most) Associations have total traveling players (Squirts-Bantams). Barely have enough Dads interested in coaching those smaller associations let alone finding non-Parent coaches. Yes, it would be great to have non-Parent coaches for all Associations, but almost impossible. It would definitely save on a lot of Political BS… A question is: How do you attract Quality Non-Parent coaches to smaller associations?

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:23 am

I believe the Edina coach has a son on the team. Wayzata has a parent coach, but I doubt you would find many non-parents who were better or would do it for the minimal amount these coaches are paid (if they are even paid at all). It helps if the parent coach's son or daughter is clearly the best player on the team, or at least clearly belongs.

nahc · Post by **nahc** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:00 pm

Squirt coaches maybe although favoratism is rampant. No parent coaches above squirts.......kids need to be exposed to other types of coaching throughout their careers. Some kids have the same coaches for years, literally.....

rinkresident · Post by **rinkresident** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:39 pm

While it does work for EP and the Squirt A coaches are exceptional, it is not for having a lack of talented parent coaches.

Eden Prairie has many exceptional parent coaches at the squirt level with the exception of one Squirt B team that had a couple of Yahoo's runnning the show!

Garth · Post by **Garth** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:13 pm

FLHRCI_03 wrote:Strength in numbers... Those 2 associations have more Squirts players alone (160-180), than some (most) Associations have total traveling players (Squirts-Bantams). Barely have enough Dads interested in coaching those smaller associations let alone finding non-Parent coaches. Yes, it would be great to have non-Parent coaches for all Associations, but almost impossible. It would definitely save on a lot of Political BS… A question is: How do you attract Quality Non-Parent coaches to smaller associations?

EP only had six squirt teams totaling right about 108 players.

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:42 am

Why would EP put 18 players on a team in Squirts. That doesn't sound right. Those numbers have to be wrong.

rinkresident · Post by **rinkresident** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:27 pm

No those numbers for EP Squirts is correct.
There were 18 kids on each B & C level team. A's remained the same with 17 players. This was due to the fact that registration numbers were lower at the beginning and so the board decided to only have 2 C teams instead of the historical past number of 3 C teams. Once registration closed there were some straggler registrations which would have allowed for a 3rd C team, however it was to late and already a done deal.
It really hurt some of the kids development wise, because that meant that the B teams had a couple of kids that truly were C level and the coaches had a hard time coaching to the bubble A/B kids and accomodate a practice to the C level kids.

Oh well, I think they learned a lesson and there will be 3 C teams next year in Eden prairie.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com