Select 15s or 93's

[OntheEdge]

Reading these reply’s you get the feeling some people just don’t understand what going on. That maybe their view is somewhat distorted based on their experience (or lack there of). You can blame bad coaches or incompetent evaluators all you want, but my experience tells me that the elite players are elite because they have a real and full passion for the game. You can see it, heck you can feel it. Good coaching and quality instruction is fundamentally part of the equation, but isn’t necessarily crucial. The top players develop because they have found a personal significance with the sport (maybe an identity, I don’t’ know) but a definite love for the game and the competition, for which they just can’t get enough. The reason they are playing year round is because they can. The opportunities are there so they take full advantage of them. IMO these girls don’t go to the Advance Development programs with the expectation that they will become Olympians. They go because they love to compete. That’s what competitive athletes do; they continuously match their skills with the skills of other competitive athletes. This takes commitment and this takes sacrifice. The notion that the “others” are left behind is absurd. The brass ring is there for all who seek it. I think I heard once that you generally get out what you put in. And there is no magic formula to follow. Play year round or not, it still comes down to fervor for the game and lot of hard work. It’s been my understanding that success is promised to no one. If you get left out it’s not because someone blocked the entrance, it’s because you weren’t willing (or able) to go in. I think possibly the ones doing the most complaining are the ones who want the prize just handed to them. They are use to too many participation medals. They feel that they deserve it because they simply showed up. I may be old school, but that’s how it’s always worked. The reason you see players drop off is because it’s inevitable. Not just in girl’s hockey, but for all sports. One reason is the pursuit other interests, the other is they no longer can compete for playing time because of diminishing roster spots. Believe me it’s not some huge conspiracy. It’s life. The sooner you understand this, the clearer the picture gets.

Excellent post HockeyHeaven. I have not heard many if any girls complain about coaching. Its usually the parents that complain and its usually directly related to playing time or winning. I've never heard my daughter complain about coaching and she has had many coaches. She loves to play hockey and playing the game is working hard and listening to her coach. Much like life you work hard and listen to your boss to succeed.

As far as evaluators, in general they get it right but its not an exact science and there is no way an evaluator can watch all of the girls all of the time and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I've been around a lot of rinks. I really like to listen to what people say about how players played. I find it interesting that very knowledgeable hockey people will have totally different opinions of the same player in the same game. There was a 50% turnover in the players that made Phase 3 at Advanced 16 level this year. Why is that? I think its many factors for reasons discussed here ad nauseum. The point is that there is hope. To not make it one year is not the end of the journey nor does it mean your daughter was not good enough or treated unfairly.

I think the most important point stated by HockeyHeaven is that many of the top girls play year round for the love of the game. If you can afford it, let the feelings and desires of your daughter guide you and not your personal desires for their future.

[Hansonbrother]

I didn't mean to start people piling on coaches or parents. All I meant to say was I would rather see elite training going to the coaches because there's a perception out there (I feel rightfully so) that girls coaching isn't very good in alot of places and if people want to more elite players they should get more programs with elite coaching because nobody gets better in these 8 to 1 games and there are still far to many games like these.

If memory serves correct you were pretty excited about your new coach at your private school. He seems to be a pretty good coach, why has your excitement changed regarding him?

[finance_gal]

I didn't mean to start people piling on coaches or parents. All I meant to say was I would rather see elite training going to the coaches because there's a perception out there (I feel rightfully so) that girls coaching isn't very good in alot of places and if people want to more elite players they should get more programs with elite coaching because nobody gets better in these 8 to 1 games and there are still far to many games like these.

If memory serves correct you were pretty excited about your new coach at your private school. He seems to be a pretty good coach, why has your excitement changed regarding him?

The head coach at our school seems ok, not the best communicator, I'm talking in general among all the schools I seen this year, it seems that too many teams are staying the same and the coaching has to improve before the teams can improve. As far as our Head coach, he knows his hockey but not so good with people. The team will improve under him but won't improve much until the competition gets better. they need more big games on their schedule

[Cowboy1]

I would like to say to the parents whose kids didn't make the final 120 and they thought they were good enough to maybe make it to the final 20, would be to take 2,000 dollars (about what it would cost you to send your kid, more if a parent or parents tag along to the final 2 phases) put it in a savings acct. Buy a net for the garage and some pucks, and a hockey ball and have your kid practice stick handling and shooting. If they don't make it next year do the same. If by the time they graduate they still aren't at the level for college scholarships at least you will have 2/3 of their first years tuition in the bank. As for planning on playing for the Olympic team 99.9% are going to be disappointed.

[OntheEdge]

I would like to say to the parents whose kids didn't make the final 120 and they thought they were good enough to maybe make it to the final 20, would be to take 2,000 dollars (about what it would cost you to send your kid, more if a parent or parents tag along to the final 2 phases) put it in a savings acct. Buy a net for the garage and some pucks, and a hockey ball and have your kid practice stick handling and shooting. If they don't make it next year do the same. If by the time they graduate they still aren't at the level for college scholarships at least you will have 2/3 of their first years tuition in the bank. As for planning on playing for the Olympic team 99.9% are going to be disappointed.

2/3 of the first year's tuition??? Wow I think you underestimate the cost of college these days but I agree its a step in the right direction. The average tuition at a public school is close to $6,000/year and the best private school average is around $25,000/year.

[hockeyrube7]

'drama coaches'

Fantastic catch phrase! I hope this one catches on, it truly describes them very well!

[Hansonbrother]

I didn't mean to start people piling on coaches or parents. All I meant to say was I would rather see elite training going to the coaches because there's a perception out there (I feel rightfully so) that girls coaching isn't very good in alot of places and if people want to more elite players they should get more programs with elite coaching because nobody gets better in these 8 to 1 games and there are still far to many games like these.

If memory serves correct you were pretty excited about your new coach at your private school. He seems to be a pretty good coach, why has your excitement changed regarding him?

The head coach at our school seems ok, not the best communicator, I'm talking in general among all the schools I seen this year, it seems that too many teams are staying the same and the coaching has to improve before the teams can improve. As far as our Head coach, he knows his hockey but not so good with people. The team will improve under him but won't improve much until the competition gets better. they need more big games on their schedule

Your conference is what is killing you guys. There isn't enough high tempo games there to keep you up with your non-conference schedule, and then to have to play in the region you do isn't helping either. Get rid of the soft non-conference games!!

[finance_gal]

If memory serves correct you were pretty excited about your new coach at your private school. He seems to be a pretty good coach, why has your excitement changed regarding him?

The head coach at our school seems ok, not the best communicator, I'm talking in general among all the schools I seen this year, it seems that too many teams are staying the same and the coaching has to improve before the teams can improve. As far as our Head coach, he knows his hockey but not so good with people. The team will improve under him but won't improve much until the competition gets better. they need more big games on their schedule

Your conference is what is killing you guys. There isn't enough high tempo games there to keep you up with your non-conference schedule, and then to have to play in the region you do isn't helping either. Get rid of the soft non-conference games!!

This is exactly what I'm saying, Roseville makes Stillwater a better team and vice versa. Is it because they have the best players? Not really. It's because both teams have great coaching and when they play each other it looks like the battle scene from Braveheart. This is why I feel Elite training dollars would be better spent on elite coaching training because coaches can influance 40 players a year. and elite player influences maybe 5 if she's lucky.....

As for my daughters school...they have to change their mindset about being happy destroying teams that don't belong on the ice with them, they should be embarressed by this rather than proud of it. Every scrimmage and non conference game should be against a top 10 team or someone who legitimatly aspires to be a top 10 team. They need to figure out that making everyone better through game experiance is more important than winning 4 to 1. This is the road to the promised land that boys teams have ridden to titles year after year.

Girls teams can't figure this out because it's still to easy to find a couple players who are good enough to dominate a game and by doing this the coaches get their wins, don't have to take the time to actually teach players that really need it, then they walk away from the season with a couple of all confernce players and everyone saying what a wonderful coach they are.

[keepitreal]

A lot of expectations here on a high school coach, especially in a thread about 93's who are for the most part are in the early stages of their HS experience, if at all. In the example cited, Roseville and Stillwater, well, they do have some of the best HS players and that is a product of their excellent youth coaches and strong association numbers and tradition. For example, Roseville coach Vic Brodt was a great U12 coach before he became a great HS coach, and now his team benefits from his work in the youth levels. So much HS success can be credited to the stronger youth programs and their coaches-- often dedicated parents who feel the responsibility of being a head coach beyond the development of their own kid(!), or a successful non-parent coach, who work to improve their own knowledge and truly TEACH.

I'm not saying that kids can't make major strides under a good HS coach-- most do-- but by the time they arrive on the varsity, much of their skills and habits have been cast, as well as their attitudes. It's no secret that many of the top players at U10/peewee/U12 become the top players on their high school teams. So if a HS program isn't having the success it feels it should, parents and association leaders should often turn the telescope away from the HS coach and more toward the skills, work ethic and habits their players developed at the youth levels and put their focus there. Elite coach training? There's a number of excellent resources and programs from USA Hockey, FlexCoach, and dozens of others, and it's no surprise that many of the best youth coaches partake of these.

High school coaches lucky enough to have 1) great youth coaches, 2) strong association numbers (and probably, 3) being able to retain the association's best players at their school) have a tremendous advantage. In many other places, coaches do the best with what they have to work with, and the frustration of parents who feel they should be able to suddenly "fix" everything doesn't make it easier.

You want a strong HS team? Develop a CORE of players at the youth level, not individuals! Demand that all the girls in your U8/10/12 youth program are treated with respect by each other, their coaches and ALL the parents-- don't let winning and losing a few games create a "class" system on a team, you're not there to develop the best players at the expense of the others; provide development opportunities without exclusion, and work as hard with the lesser skilled to the extent of their motivation; try to encourage the parents of elite players to participate in the same development opportunities as the other players in their association--not rush to distinguish themselves in elite programs; and finally, ensure that you have positive, fair-minded youth coaches who, no matter what their qualifications or pedigree, aren't focused on their own kid, are dedicated enough to take their role responsibly and invest the many, many hours necessary into effective practice planning.

Now that will give your HS coach something to work with.

[OntheEdge]

A lot of expectations here on a high school coach, especially in a thread about 93's who are for the most part are in the early stages of their HS experience, if at all. In the example cited, Roseville and Stillwater, well, they do have some of the best HS players and that is a product of their excellent youth coaches and strong association numbers and tradition. For example, Roseville coach Vic Brodt was a great U12 coach before he became a great HS coach, and now his team benefits from his work in the youth levels. So much HS success can be credited to the stronger youth programs and their coaches-- often dedicated parents who feel the responsibility of being a head coach beyond the development of their own kid(!), or a successful non-parent coach, who work to improve their own knowledge and truly TEACH.

I'm not saying that kids can't make major strides under a good HS coach-- most do-- but by the time they arrive on the varsity, much of their skills and habits have been cast, as well as their attitudes. It's no secret that many of the top players at U10/peewee/U12 become the top players on their high school teams. So if a HS program isn't having the success it feels it should, parents and association leaders should often turn the telescope away from the HS coach and more toward the skills, work ethic and habits their players developed at the youth levels and put their focus there. Elite coach training? There's a number of excellent resources and programs from USA Hockey, FlexCoach, and dozens of others, and it's no surprise that many of the best youth coaches partake of these.

High school coaches lucky enough to have 1) great youth coaches, 2) strong association numbers (and probably, 3) being able to retain the association's best players at their school) have a tremendous advantage. In many other places, coaches do the best with what they have to work with, and the frustration of parents who feel they should be able to suddenly "fix" everything doesn't make it easier.

You want a strong HS team? Develop a CORE of players at the youth level, not individuals! Demand that all the girls in your U8/10/12 youth program are treated with respect by each other, their coaches and ALL the parents-- don't let winning and losing a few games create a "class" system on a team, you're not there to develop the best players at the expense of the others; provide development opportunities without exclusion, and work as hard with the lesser skilled to the extent of their motivation; try to encourage the parents of elite players to participate in the same development opportunities as the other players in their association--not rush to distinguish themselves in elite programs; and finally, ensure that you have positive, fair-minded youth coaches who, no matter what their qualifications or pedigree, aren't focused on their own kid, are dedicated enough to take their role responsibly and invest the many, many hours necessary into effective practice planning.

Now that will give your HS coach something to work with.

Good post KeepitReal. I would add one thing. Development at the youth level is crucial to success but its also important to keep the girls you develop in the system. I think EP is a good youth program but in my opinion the next few years they won't be as strong because of the loss of many of their most talented girls over the past few years.

[keepitreal]

Good post KeepitReal. I would add one thing. Development at the youth level is crucial to success but its also important to keep the girls you develop in the system. I think EP is a good youth program but in my opinion the next few years they won't be as strong because of the loss of many of their most talented girls over the past few years.

Agree. I did mention that small caveat

Certainly this is true not only in EP, but in other associations where talented players have left for any number of reasons. For those who left purely for hockey reasons, I tend to believe this is changing with the new transfer rule as well as the larger numbers of solid players that are emerging at the younger ages, but it's important to understand why some of these players left in the first place. For all the reasons stated, if tighter cores of skilled players are fostered in a highly-supportive development-focused environment at the youth levels, maybe fewer will seek greener pastures.

[Mac15]

A lot of expectations here on a high school coach, especially in a thread about 93's who are for the most part are in the early stages of their HS experience, if at all. In the example cited, Roseville and Stillwater, well, they do have some of the best HS players and that is a product of their excellent youth coaches and strong association numbers and tradition. For example, Roseville coach Vic Brodt was a great U12 coach before he became a great HS coach, and now his team benefits from his work in the youth levels. So much HS success can be credited to the stronger youth programs and their coaches-- often dedicated parents who feel the responsibility of being a head coach beyond the development of their own kid(!), or a successful non-parent coach, who work to improve their own knowledge and truly TEACH.

I'm not saying that kids can't make major strides under a good HS coach-- most do-- but by the time they arrive on the varsity, much of their skills and habits have been cast, as well as their attitudes. It's no secret that many of the top players at U10/peewee/U12 become the top players on their high school teams. So if a HS program isn't having the success it feels it should, parents and association leaders should often turn the telescope away from the HS coach and more toward the skills, work ethic and habits their players developed at the youth levels and put their focus there. Elite coach training? There's a number of excellent resources and programs from USA Hockey, FlexCoach, and dozens of others, and it's no surprise that many of the best youth coaches partake of these.

High school coaches lucky enough to have 1) great youth coaches, 2) strong association numbers (and probably, 3) being able to retain the association's best players at their school) have a tremendous advantage. In many other places, coaches do the best with what they have to work with, and the frustration of parents who feel they should be able to suddenly "fix" everything doesn't make it easier.

You want a strong HS team? Develop a CORE of players at the youth level, not individuals! Demand that all the girls in your U8/10/12 youth program are treated with respect by each other, their coaches and ALL the parents-- don't let winning and losing a few games create a "class" system on a team, you're not there to develop the best players at the expense of the others; provide development opportunities without exclusion, and work as hard with the lesser skilled to the extent of their motivation; try to encourage the parents of elite players to participate in the same development opportunities as the other players in their association--not rush to distinguish themselves in elite programs; and finally, ensure that you have positive, fair-minded youth coaches who, no matter what their qualifications or pedigree, aren't focused on their own kid, are dedicated enough to take their role responsibly and invest the many, many hours necessary into effective practice planning.

Now that will give your HS coach something to work with.

This post is right on the money and could apply to the youth (boys ) programs as well as the girls. Very well stated!

[OntheEdge]

Good post KeepitReal. I would add one thing. Development at the youth level is crucial to success but its also important to keep the girls you develop in the system. I think EP is a good youth program but in my opinion the next few years they won't be as strong because of the loss of many of their most talented girls over the past few years.

Agree. I did mention that small caveat

My fault KeepItReal. I should read more closely! Good post.

[finance_gal]

I can't help but think of how we would have never heard the names Willard Ikola or George Thole without the excellent youth programs feeding their programs......wait they didn't have that luxury...Actually I totally agree with all that was said about youth programs they are part of the puzzle, but coaching is still the key to any successful High School program. I think someone had earlier written in here about feeling most U14 coaches were better than most high school coaches and I can't dissagree with that. This is because as high school coaches cherry pick their best players they have to be great coaches to maintain their programs.

All I'm saying is that High School coaches need the training more than the handfull of kids chosen as elite. As coaches reach deeper down and bring up 7th and 8th graders to varsity because their "gifted" they are essentially stunting that players growth. What more can a coach teach this player after he's had her for 4 years? How does a coach repeatadly challenge a player like this? This is more common than people think because most programs have a couple of kids like this.


What if a girl was gifted for that particular school but evaluators don't see the gift or she choses not to play summer hockey? The only coaching she would recieve for 6 years would be from her high school coach? I have seen it time and again where someone is dubbed to be a sure thing and they stop growing the momement they step into the high school program. It happens everyday, and she's a senior walking around the halls at school saying "I've been on varsity since I was in 7th grade" yet she's still the same player she was in 7th grade because her coach decided that he knows everything he needs to know about hockey. Most coaches have nothing else after a couple of years with a kid and thats where elite coaches training would come into play because it will give coaches a new perspective on the game (hopefully) as well help all of the girls become better players.

[hockeyrube7]

Fine gal are you sure this is about coaching, or is it just a kid being a kid? That does add in to everything.

I've seen coaches that have coached 20 plus years, and still not be able to get the results you are looking for, and have seen coaches coach 1 year and get all of the results that all are looking for. Not sure that this makes sense or not, but how much more training could you ask for than 20 years of experience.

Good example would be Gravel. At BSM had all the talent in the world, but who and how the kids were, they still could not win state. Then he goes to North Metro with not nearly the same talent, and they take 2nd in state, with not quite the same talent level I might add. Kids being kids, I would think.

[keepitreal]

gal, I don't disagree that great coaching is a very important key to a team's success, that's plainly obvious. And I'm not here to defend every coach. Lord knows there are people unqualified, lazy or tapped out.

But if we're going to romanticize this by invoking boy's coaching icons, I think it only supports the notion that we as parents might need to temper our expectations in GIRLS high school hockey. I'm surprised you didn't add Herb Brooks into the mix. I can tell you for a fact that anyone who played for Ikola knew they could never go less than 100% or there were several other players of like ability right behind you to take your place without mercy. Everyone knew the rules, probably from the time you made your first traveling team as a squirt, that if you wanted to play HS hockey, you toed the line. You don't think that Edina had/has a dominant youth program feeding their HS program??? Stop in at Braemar and take a look in the rafters. There is no substitute for development prior to HS.

Now, let's compare this with the typical girls hockey experience, with most associations at the youth level struggling for numbers, many struggling to form teams at both the A and B levels to provide the best development environment for all the players. Move it up to high school level, again with low numbers in many programs, attempting to execute sophisticated plays and systems with such wide varieties of skills as to make all but basic drills almost impossible to perform successfully. Add in juniors being surplanted by 8th graders, the ever-present locker room dramas, giant gaps in motivation, inability to discipline in many cases, and no real sense of urgency (except by the parents), and it's quite easy to see that the girls HS hockey coach deals with conditions that simply aren't even on the radar of boys coaches, let alone at an elite HS program.

I've known a few excellent, veteran hockey coaches on the boys side who have been eaten up by head coaching a girls hockey team because of these conditions, usually mixed with unwelcomed parental influence at levels rarely seen in boys hockey (lest they endanger their son's position on the team). Most leave scratching their heads and are relieved to return to coaching boys.

For the record I have coached at every youth level, both boys and girls, as well as the high school level, and from what I have observed being a girls high school coach is far more art than science, and very often a thankless job.

[MNHockeyFan]

keepitreal, one of the best posts I've read on this forum. In a couple of sentences you managed to capture what makes coaching high school girls hockey so unique and so challenging at the same time:

"Move it up to high school level, again with low numbers in many programs, attempting to execute sophisticated plays and systems with such wide varieties of skills as to make all but basic drills almost impossible to perform successfully. Add in juniors being surplanted by 8th graders, the ever-present locker room dramas, giant gaps in motivation, inability to discipline in many cases, and no real sense of urgency (except by the parents), and it's quite easy to see that the girls HS hockey coach deals with conditions that simply aren't even on the radar of boys coaches, let alone at an elite HS program."

P.S. I had to chuckle at "the ever-present locker room dramas" as this perhaps best exemplifies what's so different about coaching girls vs. the boys. Sometimes it seems like the littlest thing can set things off in the wrong direction. You can be the best "x's and o's" coach in the world but if you don't learn how to manage all kinds of squabbles and sensitive personalities it won't matter much.

[hockeyrube7]

WOW, the last two posters really get it! MNH and Keepit, you graduate to the head of the class. Just teasing, but honestly "Fin-gal", these two said it all.

[keepitreal]

finance_gal is a very eloquent and active voice on this forum so I mean no disrespect to her.

It's very hard, here in the midst of AAA season and the pressure of the USA Advanced tryouts, to maintain our perspective about HS sports and what it takes to run a school team. It's far, far easier to drill and coach a dedicated team of elite level/all-star players (usually of about the same age too) than it is to coach your average HS team for all the obvious reasons. It's also sometimes far easier to watch this brand of hockey as a parent.

The interesting thing is, 20+ years later as a player I remember little about the all star teams and coaches, but have nothing but great memories of my HS coach (the old bas***d!) and teammates.

[hockeyheaven]

I concur, very well constructed post(s). The short version can be summed up in one word.. Motivation. No motivation for Athletic Director to find quality coaches, no motivation for quality coaches to apply (no money, insane parents, etc.) and there is no motivation for the majority of the players to perform (low numbers on most teams). Everyone needs a little Mo. So what you end up with is a hand full of dedicated, passionate players who can’t wait to graduate. I know this is the downbeat scenario but still relatively accurate in most cases.

[winnings not 4 everyone]

Bravo hockeyheaven. You must know something about my town. Finance-gal is also right on the money. To better state her case, what coaches need to be trained on is sports psychology. The simple things like respect, team building, and motivation. Put those into place, and your team will go somewhere. IMO, Psychology plays a bigger role in girls hockey than in boys. Notice I didn't mention drills or x's and o's. Those are what most girls coaches know, and that is not necessarily what makes a great coach. 20 years of experience does not make a good coach if he wasn't good to begin with and has not bettered his understanding of the psychological part of the equation.

[finance_gal]

Bravo hockeyheaven. You must know something about my town. Finance-gal is also right on the money. To better state her case, what coaches need to be trained on is sports psychology. The simple things like respect, team building, and motivation. Put those into place, and your team will go somewhere. IMO, Psychology plays a bigger role in girls hockey than in boys. Notice I didn't mention drills or x's and o's. Those are what most girls coaches know, and that is not necessarily what makes a great coach. 20 years of experience does not make a good coach if he wasn't good to begin with and has not bettered his understanding of the psychological part of the equation.

These are all things that would need to hashed out in elite coaching workshops, we all know every team can't have a winning record but geez is it too much to ask that teams become competitive? The same teams win year after year because their coach is a great fit for the program and he knows where all the pieces of the puzzle go. I just get so tired of seeing the doormats year after year and I find myself wanting to cheer for them if they score a single goal...this is sad and it needs to change before girls hockey makes the leap into being the primetime sport it should be.

[keepitreal]

Bravo hockeyheaven. You must know something about my town. Finance-gal is also right on the money. To better state her case, what coaches need to be trained on is sports psychology. The simple things like respect, team building, and motivation. Put those into place, and your team will go somewhere. IMO, Psychology plays a bigger role in girls hockey than in boys. Notice I didn't mention drills or x's and o's. Those are what most girls coaches know, and that is not necessarily what makes a great coach. 20 years of experience does not make a good coach if he wasn't good to begin with and has not bettered his understanding of the psychological part of the equation.

Put these in place? Like, plug-and-play? If values of respect and personal motivation aren't established in the fabric of individual players, their peer cores and the hockey program itself long before they reach high school, it's trouble ahead.

[Hansonbrother]

Bravo hockeyheaven. You must know something about my town. Finance-gal is also right on the money. To better state her case, what coaches need to be trained on is sports psychology. The simple things like respect, team building, and motivation. Put those into place, and your team will go somewhere. IMO, Psychology plays a bigger role in girls hockey than in boys. Notice I didn't mention drills or x's and o's. Those are what most girls coaches know, and that is not necessarily what makes a great coach. 20 years of experience does not make a good coach if he wasn't good to begin with and has not bettered his understanding of the psychological part of the equation.

These are all things that would need to hashed out in elite coaching workshops, we all know every team can't have a winning record but geez is it too much to ask that teams become competitive? The same teams win year after year because their coach is a great fit for the program and he knows where all the pieces of the puzzle go. I just get so tired of seeing the doormats year after year and I find myself wanting to cheer for them if they score a single goal...this is sad and it needs to change before girls hockey makes the leap into being the primetime sport it should be.

Here's the one thing that might be missing from this particular post. Finance Gal's daughter plays for a private school. Last time I checked, most privates don't have a youth hockey program to build from...except maybe Shattuck. I saw your team play in regions last year, and they played tough against Stillwater. Keep in mind, Stillwater was a very strong team last year and they DIDN'T make it to the state tournament. You guys have alot of young talent and I wouldn't be so quick to downplay your teams future. I don't agree with your statement about a kid learning all there is to learn from a coach. It has always been my understanding that a coach is there to guide ideas and alternatives to players, but it is the self motivation and individual work that seperates the player from the pack. You can tell a kid that they need to shoot pucks, but it isn't the coaching that makes that kid a shooter. They need to find the drive to practice and develope the skill. You can tell a kid they need to be quicker, but it isn't a coach that makes them work out in the off season or after practice and days off on being faster and moving their feet.
I guess here's my point Fin Gal, if your kid is really an "Elite" player, they will have the drive to continually want to get better, to continually try new things to get different results whether they have a so called elite coach or not. Every division 1 player that I've had cross my path has clearly shown me why they deserve to be seperated from the others. Some kids who are talented as younger players and don't develop later, are many times kids that just peaked too early. And that is just a fact of life. Timing is everything.

[goalzilla]

Many good points brought up so far regarding coaching and it's effect on and or results with players. If you want frustration have a goalie for a kid; that will put you over the edge. In most instances regarding a goalie, the question is; coaching what is that? You dont get much if any at youth levels and unless you are fortunate enough to have a HS coach like Guider or someone experianced at the goalie position your goalie isnt going to get much attention in relation to position specific training. It's unfortunate, but thats when you have to become the detective and find what's availble for your goalie to improve. Deals on camps, camps that need goalies, books, DVD's, self-improvement these are the budget items. The next step is to open the wallet step up to goalie specific camps, individual Stauber type training, etc. Because of the lack of goalie coaching usually provided the goalie has to do alot on their own to reach the ADV 15,16,17 level of development. The old joke is goalies are usually a little different. It kind of makes sense because they are treated differently or sometimes forgotten.