Is AAA Hockey really just check Book Hockey

[bella]

Do you guys not get the fact that if spend all kinds of money at some of these
private ice rinks that my kid is going to make there best team over a kid that the parents don't spend as much there. This is just good business.

[Snowmass]

It can become 'checkbook hockey' easily if you let it. As long as your kid is having fun, getting plenty of ice time (not game, but actual hours of practice in relation to what you spend) and the coaches or club outline the goals & expectations well, then that's all you can ask. JMO

[Benito Juarez]

I like to call it 'Credit Card' hockey.

Checkbook hockey is so yesterday.

[Snowmass]

I like to call it 'Credit Card' hockey.

Checkbook hockey is so yesterday.

LOL. When is the last time I wrote a real check for hockey....or anything????

[HockeyDad41]

I like to call it 'Credit Card' hockey.

Checkbook hockey is so yesterday.

LOL. When is the last time I wrote a real check for hockey....or anything????

Sometimes you are charged a 2.5% or more fee when you use a credit or check card to pay. MM charges that as a passthrough cost. That's why I write gigantic checks to them rather than charge gigantic amounts on my check card.

[Snowmass]

I like to call it 'Credit Card' hockey.

Checkbook hockey is so yesterday.

LOL. When is the last time I wrote a real check for hockey....or anything????

Sometimes you are charged a 2.5% or more fee when you use a credit or check card to pay. MM charges that as a passthrough cost. That's why I write gigantic checks to them rather than charge gigantic amounts on my check card.

Good point. I'm sure what I'm charged is just "absorbed" into the total for my association etc.... Good fodder.

[bella]

Add the money up that parents spend on hockey and you fid out that it will cost more than the u.

[muckandgrind]

Isn't ALL hockey really just "checkbook hockey"????? I write the same checks in October that I do in July, what's the difference as long as the kids are having fun?

[Deep Breath]

muck--

Agreed. A lot is made about the cost of summer hockey, but for our association season; the Squirt A tryout cost was $415; then there are 4 ice payment installments of $400 during the season; plus the 15 volunteer hours. Before hotel costs for 2 non-metro tournaments, the cost is already over 2 grand. It seems the perception is out there that summer hockey is so much more expensive, but in reality, at least for our winter hockey season, the costs are relatively similar.

[BadgerBob82]

deep breath: $2,015 to play Squirt A hockey. I paid $800 last year. 4 hours of home ice per week. 4 out of town tournaments. Your association is screwing its members?

[old goalie85]

Muck is correct..... It all costs. So what, you get the kids in the car with you, go out to eat[and drink] with other folks. It is kinda a way of life!! What price do you put on spending time with your kids.

[Deep Breath]

old: I agree. We simply pay what it costs. I was just referring to the fact that a lot of people may have the perception that summer hockey is so much more expensive than winter/associaition hockey. Depending on where you live, it may not be that big a difference at all.

[old goalie85]

Deep- My opinion is that it all hurts$$$$$$$$$$$$ [At least we're not like my brother he spends his $$ on dance.]

[JSR]

deep breath: $2,015 to play Squirt A hockey. I paid $800 last year. 4 hours of home ice per week. 4 out of town tournaments. Your association is screwing its members?

Bob, is your association in WI or MN? Ours is in WI and we pay about what you pay. One thing to consider is, if you are in WI, is that in MN I think they pay their coaches even in association hockey where down in WI the coaches are pretty much all unpaid volunteers at the association level so that skews the costs between teh two I think. But maybe you are in MN and do pay your coach and it still costs that. IDK

[Pioneerprideguy]

I recently went to watch Pee Wee level clinics. I know a handful of players who have played year round and the families who have put in a great deal of money towards hockey. The bottom line is none of these kids stood out. I guess I was expecting to see a clear separation of those that did & those that didn't play all year. If they put in the money because their kids love playing and they enjoyed the experience, then it was worth it. If it was spend hoping to gain an edge, then I would say money wasted.

[MrBoDangles]

I recently went to watch Pee Wee level clinics. I know a handful of players who have played year round and the families who have put in a great deal of money towards hockey. The bottom line is none of these kids stood out. I guess I was expecting to see a clear separation of those that did & those that didn't play all year. If they put in the money because their kids love playing and they enjoyed the experience, then it was worth it. If it was spend hoping to gain an edge, then I would say money wasted.

Out on the recruiting trail again?

[Pioneerprideguy]

Again?? Recruting season never stops!

[InigoMontoya]

I recently went to watch Pee Wee level clinics. I know a handful of players who have played year round and the families who have put in a great deal of money towards hockey. The bottom line is none of these kids stood out. I guess I was expecting to see a clear separation of those that did & those that didn't play all year. If they put in the money because their kids love playing and they enjoyed the experience, then it was worth it. If it was spend hoping to gain an edge, then I would say money wasted.

I know more than a handful of players that played during the summer, and I couldn't disagree more. You can all do your own poll this winter - after an association A game, at any level, while the coaches are milling around in the lobby, walk up to the coach of the other team, tell him his boys looked good, and ask him, "How many of your kids skate during the summer?" You'll find that the answer is "all of them" many more times than the answer is "a handful".

[Quasar]

I recently went to watch Pee Wee level clinics. I know a handful of players who have played year round and the families who have put in a great deal of money towards hockey. The bottom line is none of these kids stood out. I guess I was expecting to see a clear separation of those that did & those that didn't play all year. If they put in the money because their kids love playing and they enjoyed the experience, then it was worth it. If it was spend hoping to gain an edge, then I would say money wasted.

I know more than a handful of players that played during the summer, and I couldn't disagree more. You can all do your own poll this winter - after an association A game, at any level, while the coaches are milling around in the lobby, walk up to the coach of the other team, tell him his boys looked good, and ask him, "How many of your kids skate during the summer?" You'll find that the answer is "all of them" many more times than the answer is "a handful".

Inigo is right..
I am building a data base of 97's. So far I have 450 kids that played this summer listed. I've only listed about 80% of the teams that played at the 97 level this year. If you think about all age groups, you can see that this is much more than a handful.

[irish skater]

As much as I hate to say it, if your kid doesn't skate year around, there's going to eventually be a separation with the kids that do. It's just numbers. The more time you spend on the ice, the more you improve.

[PWD10]

I recently went to watch Pee Wee level clinics. I know a handful of players who have played year round and the families who have put in a great deal of money towards hockey. The bottom line is none of these kids stood out. I guess I was expecting to see a clear separation of those that did & those that didn't play all year. If they put in the money because their kids love playing and they enjoyed the experience, then it was worth it. If it was spend hoping to gain an edge, then I would say money wasted.

Can't agree more.
Saw the same thing here with a large D10 team during tryouts. In fact I was a little surprised how non descript some of those AAA players really appeared.

[O-townClown]

As much as I hate to say it, if your kid doesn't skate year around, there's going to eventually be a separation with the kids that do. It's just numbers. The more time you spend on the ice, the more you improve.

Agreed, but the problem is the pyramid is inverted. USA Hockey recognizes this, and they do in Canada as well.

Going as hard as you can as a Mite and Squirt is the best way to become the best Pee Wee. Moderation at the lower ages and then intensifying as you get older is better if you are concerned with being the best young adult.

Here's an anecdotal example:

Mike Eruzione played multiple sports and did not fancy himself as a hockey player up through age 18. He was invited to play in a summer league and a referee was impressed with his tenacity. "What are you doing this fall?"

Mike replied that he was headed to Merrimack, a Div. II school at the time. It turns out the official was Jack Parker, and a player wasn't coming to Boston from Canada. They had an opening.

He switched colleges, improved as he focused more on hockey, and made the 1980 Olympic team as a veteran player. Who then went on to score the biggest goal in American history to key the upset of the Russians.

Another example is Chris Chelios. He spent at least two of his Bantam/Midget age years living in San Diego. He had no trouble investing more time into hockey from ages 18-22, which laid the groundwork to become a regular NHL player well into his 40s.

It is really hard to restrain your kids hockey when you see the very best 10 and 12 year olds. Back to your example, what if the kid in question skates very little in the summers as a Mite and Squirt, then skates some as a Pee Wee, and then trains almost year 'round as a Bantam and above. You won't see that separation if he has a high potential. In fact, you probably won't be able to tell he didn't skate in the summers as a Mite.

[irish skater]

As much as I hate to say it, if your kid doesn't skate year around, there's going to eventually be a separation with the kids that do. It's just numbers. The more time you spend on the ice, the more you improve.

Agreed, but the problem is the pyramid is inverted. USA Hockey recognizes this, and they do in Canada as well.

Going as hard as you can as a Mite and Squirt is the best way to become the best Pee Wee. Moderation at the lower ages and then intensifying as you get older is better if you are concerned with being the best young adult.

Here's an anecdotal example:

Mike Eruzione played multiple sports and did not fancy himself as a hockey player up through age 18. He was invited to play in a summer league and a referee was impressed with his tenacity. "What are you doing this fall?"

Mike replied that he was headed to Merrimack, a Div. II school at the time. It turns out the official was Jack Parker, and a player wasn't coming to Boston from Canada. They had an opening.

He switched colleges, improved as he focused more on hockey, and made the 1980 Olympic team as a veteran player. Who then went on to score the biggest goal in American history to key the upset of the Russians.

Another example is Chris Chelios. He spent at least two of his Bantam/Midget age years living in San Diego. He had no trouble investing more time into hockey from ages 18-22, which laid the groundwork to become a regular NHL player well into his 40s.

It is really hard to restrain your kids hockey when you see the very best 10 and 12 year olds. Back to your example, what if the kid in question skates very little in the summers as a Mite and Squirt, then skates some as a Pee Wee, and then trains almost year 'round as a Bantam and above. You won't see that separation if he has a high potential. In fact, you probably won't be able to tell he didn't skate in the summers as a Mite.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I can tell you this: Given the option, my kid would rather play hockey than not play hockey. I can also tell you this: I know he'll, most likely unless some miracle takes place, never play college hockey or pro hockey. I'm not seeing stars and I don't dream about it.

I have a friend/acquaintence who played in the NHL. He told me that the kids today are way better than when he was a kid. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be better high school or college players. If my kid didn't want to play, that would be okay. I'll admit, the first year he played summer hockey (see what I did there), I directed him into it. I haven't had to twist his arm since. He does play other sports.

The team he plays for also takes a nice break in June and July. He fills it with golf and just being a kid. As a matter of fact, about the middle of July this year, after playing him umpteenth round of golf, he said that maybe next summer he'd take it off and play golf. It did kind of set me back a little. It surprised me and I thought maybe he was starting to shift away from it.

Then a week or two later practices started up again and a couple weeks after that they're in another tournament. He comes out of the locker room with a huge smile on his face (they just got hammered by the Machine), he looked right at me and said, "I forgot how much fun this is." I guess that kind of says it all. Even after a drubbing, he still loves playing. If and when it's not fun, he'll/I'll know when enough is enough.

He'll be like all the other old timers I see in the over 40 leagues, the guys with the guts and the wooden sticks and the 20-year-old skates, the socks they wore in high school that have holes in them. They play because they love it. That's what spending thousands and thousands of dollars will get you. It's like all the kids that play baseball, 99 percent of them end up playing beer softball. In any sport only a very small percentage of kids ever reach college level and beyond. This is Minnesota, the big sport is hockey. In Texas they play baseball all year -- oh, yeah, and football.

It's an age old question and I guess there is no right or wrong answer.

[muckandgrind]

^Great post.

And let me piggy back on that with this question: Why does everyone use the "less is better" argument to back up their theory about making better adult hockey players? Is that where we are at now??? It's not my job as a parent to make my son a better adult hockey player, it's my job to keep my kids safe, secure, and on track for a hopefully productive adulthood that probably doesn't include hockey outside of the Sunday Night Beer League.

Like you, I pretty much know for a fact that my kids won't be playing D1 or pro hockey....they play summer hockey because they love to play hockey, period. Life is short and childhood is even shorter. If these kids want to play extra hockey, what's the harm? Should I tell them they can't because of the "Inverted Pyramid" and this might hurt their chances at future stardom??

How ridiculous is that???

[BadgerBob82]

muck: Agreed with your last post. However, there are MANY people that look at D1 and pro players that played year round and figure they need to "encourage" their little kid to do the same. To keep up with the Jones', they feel some other kid got better today, did my kid? They say, Jonny won't play in the NHL, but in the back of the mind they feel IF, you're saying IF there's a chance of him playing NHL hockey, I have to skate him year round.