Rogers Bantam A's--#1 in my rankings

[toomanystitches]

Forget what the whacko hockey left has to say. If they got what they wanted, we wouldn’t keep score, everyone would get a trophy, and boys and girls would share locker rooms.

Build yourself a strong hockey tradition. Learn from those associations that continually put good teams on the ice. Many of these programs may have forgotten what it was like when they were young and struggling associations. I’ve watched some of the elite players in this state only come out of games when they were tired. Some might take a shift at defense before returning to their forward position. Equal playing time for the 3rd line? Not a chance!

Now these associations have built traditions of winning and working hard. Players are not content to just make the team, they want to play in the games. There is no birthrights.

Build yourself an exceptional program! Don’t become another “feel good” losing association. There are too many of these around already.

Once you become a powerhouse, you too can start complaining about teams short shifting and being unfair.

[Fire and Ice]

Are you suggesting that Rogers is a powerhouse? or are they taking this approach to become one?

I agree that there are far more "feel good" programs than not. I am just interested in your feeling on Rogers heading into the future

[toomanystitches]

No I am NOT saying they are a powerhouse (but they sure have stuck it to a few of the powerhouse teams). If they want to become one, they need to create a culture of winning. Rogers is a young and struggling association and I respect what they have accomplished in the past couple of years. I get a kick out of how many are ruffled by them and their shortened bench - especially after they knocked the snout out of you.

[cooper26]

Build yourself a strong hockey tradition. Learn from those associations that continually put good teams on the ice.

That would be great, except that it's fiction. Numbers of kids in the association equals "success" in 95% of cases. The rest is aberration

[Fire and Ice]

WOW!

First of all I don't care how they do it, play guys or don't play guys just do it. Not ruffled by them and their shortened bench I don't care...good for them actually. Their program allows them to play to win.

What have they accomplished the last couple of years?

Agreed they need to create a culture of winning.

Why are they a struggling association? Please tell me it is numbers.

Secondly, they didn't knock the snot out of anyone. Beating Maple Grove 6-2 is still the most impressive win and tying and beating Wayzata I believe 3-3, 4-2 and beating Centennial 3-2 in overtime is not beating the snot out of anybody. Who else? All three of those programs have wiped there... with your jerseys since you became a program from High School to mites.

I asked a couple of questions and you respond by getting defensive and I actually believe they have a chance this year.

[Papa Bergundy]

My heart goes out to all those poor third liners.

However, I have two points that would suggest otherwise. One being you're one year away from high school and if you think, especially at smaller schools [like rogers], they play lines evenly the hasn't gone off in your head yet. Secondly everyone is playing the player development card. I say they are developing players, unfortunately for some only the ones who will be playing at the next level. And I bet 95% of people complaining haven't seen a Rogers practice so maybe the coach is doing work with the less fortunate and will play them when he feels they are ready to see some ice time.

But that doesn't matter because the thread isn't questioning the morals and values of Roger's coaching, but simply whether they are the best team in the state or not at the Bantam A level. So make your case against what they're doing instead of how they're doing it.

[muckandgrind]

My heart goes out to all those poor third liners.

However, I have two points that would suggest otherwise. One being you're one year away from high school and if you think, especially at smaller schools [like rogers], they play lines evenly the hasn't gone off in your head yet. Secondly everyone is playing the player development card. I say they are developing players, unfortunately for some only the ones who will be playing at the next level. And I bet 95% of people complaining haven't seen a Rogers practice so maybe the coach is doing work with the less fortunate and will play them when he feels they are ready to see some ice time.

But that doesn't matter because the thread isn't questioning the morals and values of Roger's coaching, but simply whether they are the best team in the state or not at the Bantam A level. So make your case against what they're doing instead of how they're doing it.

Great post....I agree with you 100%.

No doubt the majority of kids and parents would say they are "okay" with it, but the odds that all of 17 kids and 34 parents believing that what the coach is doing is okay are miniscule. Regardless of what any of them might feel comfortable sharing here, it's a good bet that 3 to 5 families on this team aren't real happy with the season's prospects. And what if it happens in consecutive years? What do you suggest a frustrated parent should do?

I think what Rogers is doing is wrong. So do many others and that's all been debated here in the past. And this stuff happens in squirts! The parent who steps up and trys to communicate with the coach or the association will be ridiculed as a whiner and labeled a malcontent who doesn't appreciate volunteer coaches. Even those fellow parents who agree with him will scatter.

"Who are we to judge?" We are experienced hockey parents and because we are "outsiders", we can offer an opinion without fear of retribution. Until people start believing it's "okay" to talk to coaches and share opinions, we're all they've got. The discussion is a good thing.

I think unhappy parents have every right to talk to the coach, and it's the coach's job to be available to talk to the parents. If it's ice time the parents are unhappy with, then they should ask the coach what is holding their kid back...if it's something that can be corrected, than encourage your son to stick with it and work hard...if it's something that can't be corrected, than look into the possibility of dropping to the B team, there is no shame in that.

[cooper26]

The "wacko hockey right": Sit them at mites to prepare for squirts, to prepare for peewees, to prepare for bantams to prepare for... Whatever.

Yes, it's bantam A hockey. Some kids are going to sit some times during some games. That's the way it should be.

There's a point where it's just stupidly wrong. Rogers has found it.

[muckandgrind]

The "wacko hockey right": Sit them at mites to prepare for squirts, to prepare for peewees, to prepare for bantams to prepare for... Whatever.

Yes, it's bantam A hockey. Some kids are going to sit some times during some games. That's the way it should be.

There's a point where it's just stupidly wrong. Rogers has found it.

I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to sit players at Mites and Squirts...and I doubt that you have, either.

How familiar are you with the Rogers program? Do you have a player on the team, have you watched multiple games? Do you know any of the kids? Or are you just basing your opinion by what you are reading on this site? Just curious....

[cooper26]

The "wacko hockey right": Sit them at mites to prepare for squirts, to prepare for peewees, to prepare for bantams to prepare for... Whatever.

Yes, it's bantam A hockey. Some kids are going to sit some times during some games. That's the way it should be.

There's a point where it's just stupidly wrong. Rogers has found it.

I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to sit players at Mites and Squirts...and I doubt that you have, either.

How familiar are you with the Rogers program? Do you have a player on the team, have you watched multiple games? Do you know any of the kids? Or are you just basing your opinion by what you are reading on this site? Just curious....

Absolutely I've seen kids sat at the squirt level and at mites also! (Which is more than I can say for the supporting evidence offered regarding the "wacko hockey left" above.) And at the squirt level, they defend it!

Doubt whatever you like. I've seen Rogers play a couple of games, and I'm sure that won't meet whatever criteria you have for a person to post an opinion on this board, but I'm going to anyway.

How familiar am I with "The Rogers program"? Now there's a joke! How do you suppose "The Rogers program" differs significantly from other youth hockey programs in Minnesota? Just curious....

[muckandgrind]

The "wacko hockey right": Sit them at mites to prepare for squirts, to prepare for peewees, to prepare for bantams to prepare for... Whatever.

Yes, it's bantam A hockey. Some kids are going to sit some times during some games. That's the way it should be.

There's a point where it's just stupidly wrong. Rogers has found it.

I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to sit players at Mites and Squirts...and I doubt that you have, either.

How familiar are you with the Rogers program? Do you have a player on the team, have you watched multiple games? Do you know any of the kids? Or are you just basing your opinion by what you are reading on this site? Just curious....

Absolutely I've seen kids sat at the squirt level and at mites also! (Which is more than I can say for the supporting evidence offered regarding the "wacko hockey left" above.) And at the squirt level, they defend it!

Doubt whatever you like. I've seen Rogers play a couple of games, and I'm sure that won't meet whatever criteria you have for a person to post an opinion on this board, but I'm going to anyway.

How familiar am I with "The Rogers program"? Now there's a joke! How do you suppose "The Rogers program" differs significantly from other youth hockey programs in Minnesota? Just curious....

I think most would agree with you that it is wrong to sit Mite and Squirt players, even those people who are OK with it at the Bantam level.

The reason I asked the questions, is that I'm not going to criticize a program without knowing all the details...that being said, I don't have a problem with certain players getting more ice time than others. My sons Bantam A coach tells the players that they have to earn their special teams ice time based on how hard they work in practice. So, basically, the kids who work the hardest in practice are rewarded with getting on the PP and PK...do you have a problem with that? Maybe Rogers does the same thing. So, in a game where there are lots of penalties called, certain players will get more ice time than others due to who has earned spots on those special teams.

[cooper26]

I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to sit players at Mites and Squirts...and I doubt that you have, either.

How familiar are you with the Rogers program? Do you have a player on the team, have you watched multiple games? Do you know any of the kids? Or are you just basing your opinion by what you are reading on this site? Just curious....

Absolutely I've seen kids sat at the squirt level and at mites also! (Which is more than I can say for the supporting evidence offered regarding the "wacko hockey left" above.) And at the squirt level, they defend it!

Doubt whatever you like. I've seen Rogers play a couple of games, and I'm sure that won't meet whatever criteria you have for a person to post an opinion on this board, but I'm going to anyway.

How familiar am I with "The Rogers program"? Now there's a joke! How do you suppose "The Rogers program" differs significantly from other youth hockey programs in Minnesota? Just curious....

I think most would agree with you that it is wrong to sit Mite and Squirt players, even those people who are OK with it at the Bantam level.

The reason I asked the questions, is that I'm not going to criticize a program without knowing all the details...that being said, I don't have a problem with certain players getting more ice time than others. My sons Bantam A coach tells the players that they have to earn their special teams ice time based on how hard they work in practice. So, basically, the kids who work the hardest in practice are rewarded with getting on the PP and PK...do you have a problem with that? Maybe Rogers does the same thing. So, in a game where there are lots of penalties called, certain players will get more ice time than others due to who has earned spots on those special teams.

The problem is that 90% of the responses on this board are black & white. No one seems able to wrap their mind around an issue of degrees. It's either okay to sit players or it's not. You're either wacko left or wacko right. Macho old-time hockey or a whimp. It's BS.

There IS a point where it's wrong. Rogers demonstrated it at EP.

[puckboy]

if the parents of the players that don't play are ok with it and the Rogers hockey board is ok with it- then there is no issue.

If I was a parent paying LOTS of $$$ and my son only saw a couple of shifts at best per game I know I would have a HUGE issue- but that is me.

I think this topic has been beaten to death- I vote to end it:)

[Jimbo99]

if the parents of the players that don't play are ok with it and the Rogers hockey board is ok with it- then there is no issue.

If I was a parent paying LOTS of $$$ and my son only saw a couple of shifts at best per game I know I would have a HUGE issue- but that is me.

I think this topic has been beaten to death- I vote to end it:)

It's a good exchange, but everyone has that choice. Just click on that little "x" in the upper right corner.