No Checking = No Top Girls at 12U?

Burnbabyburn · Post by **Burnbabyburn** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:01 pm

Despite it being more fun socially for the girls, I think the no check rule will flood Pee Wee programs across the state with not only the Top girls, whose parents want them competing against tougher competition, but even the medium-to-good players, who will see an opportunity to play faster. Because when the top girls leave U12, (and they will), the near-top girls have no incentive to stay. And when they leave, so goes the next level.

I can see Girls surviving, but without the most competitive girls, it will be much harder to go through U12 to get to High School. And with many girls leaving at U14, will all the gains made these last few years just go away?

I'll post this on both the Youth and Girls boards, see what people think.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:17 pm

What were the 10-11 numbers regarding girls playing squirts and peewees? A breakdown of A,B,&C would be helpful, as well.

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:08 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:What were the 10-11 numbers regarding girls playing squirts and peewees? A breakdown of A,B,&C would be helpful, as well.

I'm not sure if supporting data is allowed on this forum. Only unfounded speculation please.

In EP the number of girls playing on boys drops off drastically after mites. Looking at current rosters I found three girls. One at A and two at B. Numbers were about the same a few years ago when my daughter was that age.

I don't think any girls played PW last year. I could find the B2 roster, but I didn't see any girls on any of the other teams.

Intheslot · Post by **Intheslot** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:17 pm

Last year's #'s are meaningless. This rule did not apply last year. Like I said before, lots of actions have unintended consequences. Time will tell on this one

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:35 pm

Intheslot wrote:Last year's #'s are meaningless. This rule did not apply last year. Like I said before, lots of actions have unintended consequences. Time will tell on this one

Meaningless? There was no checking in squirts last year, and only 3 girls from EP played squirts - the rest played 10U. I cannot for the life of me see why a girl (or parent) that chose 10U over non-checking squirts would choose non-checking peewees over 12U. Therefore, my assumption would be that EP would have 3 girls playing peewees, at the most, assuming all 3 of them were second year squirts.

Intheslot · Post by **Intheslot** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:54 pm

My comments pertain to this thread topic. Your comments are pure speculation. Only time will tell what the girls do.

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:04 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:
Intheslot wrote:Last year's #'s are meaningless. This rule did not apply last year. Like I said before, lots of actions have unintended consequences. Time will tell on this one
Meaningless? There was no checking in squirts last year, and only 3 girls from EP played squirts - the rest played 10U. I cannot for the life of me see why a girl (or parent) that chose 10U over non-checking squirts would choose non-checking peewees over 12U. Therefore, my assumption would be that EP would have 3 girls playing peewees, at the most, assuming all 3 of them were second year squirts.

A potential problem here is anecdotal evidence of girls coming out of squirts having a disadvantage when they eventually merged back in. Instead of having mad skills that put them on top they played at the same skill level as the U10 girls, didn't know the U10 girls or coaches well, and played a different style of hockey. After a couple years of U12 they had adjusted and are good, but not outstanding players. Will two more years with boys mess them up beyond saving? Don't know.

Something good may come of this. Maybe associations will learn that they can't treat girl hockey players like second class citizens. Ignore the girls and they'll retaliate by taking roster spots from your precious boys.

Well run girls programs have nothing to fear.

Hard water fan · Post by **Hard water fan** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:58 pm

EP Dad is spot on. As with most things, build it right and it will survive. Looking at Edina or EP as an example, great programs attract great kids. They have healthy programs with lots of options. The caveat to this is the rural teams. You might see some attrition as the boys programs have historically been a popular option, even into Bantams. That combined with limited options going into High School will cause many to consider alternatives.

NotEasyBeingGreen · Post by **NotEasyBeingGreen** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:36 pm

To the contrary - most of the Edina girls who went the Boys route in Squirts ended up near the top of U12s when they rejoineed - not all, but remember Edina has a ton of girls in the program. I just wonder how many of those will head to Boys now that they won't get hit until 14s, if they even end up playing 14s...

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:57 pm

Size of the association will be a factor. Also, number of nutty dads varies from association to association. If there are enough girls for 3 teams they may stick together. If there's only one team, with a broad range of players, the top girls will play with the boys. In that small association scenario the girls program is doomed and will be chaos as all the families argue what's best.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:25 pm

Girls hockey has started to develope it's own culture and identity. That is really the goal and the growth will continue. The few that travel the peewee route are at least committed to hockey and at best....will eventually be back contributing to the girls side at the next level.

easy as 123 · Post by **easy as 123** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:02 pm

I agree that strong programs will be able to retain their girls. The programs that only have 1 team per level, and only offer B teams will have a tough time getting girls to join or stay with the girls program.

NotEasyBeingGreen · Post by **NotEasyBeingGreen** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:44 pm

Why play with girls anymore at U10? The big reason before was that you were coming back at U12. Why not just skate with the boys the whole way, and if you can't hook on at JV when you're 14, you just play there for a year.

No, this will seriously lower the quality of U12 hockey across the board.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:25 am

FL girls director says three top returning 12's will be trying out w/boys pee-wee. None will make A. They would rather play B/C w/the boys. This may push us into only one team at U12. If we had two we would take some from C-Lakes. SOOOOOOO it's already started in FL. I know we are no Edina/EP, but we are not the smallest. We may end up just scrapping the girls hockey, and just having YOUTH hockey. Now this may not be the case in Stillwater/Rosaville/WBL, but we play those teams twice a year, if we have no team thats two less games. If other assc. have too do the same thing it could get ugly. Don't get me wrong I don't want my daughter in the lockeroom w/my sons and his buddys.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:29 pm

old goalie85 wrote:FL girls director says three top returning 12's will be trying out w/boys pee-wee. None will make A. They would rather play B/C w/the boys. This may push us into only one team at U12. If we had two we would take some from C-Lakes. SOOOOOOO it's already started in FL. I know we are no Edina/EP, but we are not the smallest. We may end up just scrapping the girls hockey, and just having YOUTH hockey. Now this may not be the case in Stillwater/Rosaville/WBL, but we play those teams twice a year, if we have no team thats two less games. If other assc. have too do the same thing it could get ugly. Don't get me wrong I don't want my daughter in the lockeroom w/my sons and his buddys.

What did the girls director say when you asked, "Why?"

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:51 pm

InigoMontoya wrote: What did the girls director say when you asked, "Why?"

Hopefully the response would be "None of your business".

U10Father · Post by **U10Father** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:26 pm

Never underestimate what hockey parents will do in the name of their kids' "development."

It doesn't matter what level your girl plays at. Boys have more players, they (generally) have better coaches, they play faster. No matter where your daughter gets slotted in at boys, whether it's A, B1 or B2, they will get better faster.

As the top girls leave, the next tier of girls' parents will feel their girl is falling behind and they'll fill in B2. Maybe 1/3rd of what would have been 12A girls will be left in 12U, which means that 2/3rds of 12A would be what were 12Bs. Maybe there won't be enough to have 12A... I just hate this because Girls had made so much progress.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:50 pm

U19father- I totally agree. It is a pure 3's deal from here on out. We[fl] just started making some headway w/our girls.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:26 pm

luckyEPDad wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote: What did the girls director say when you asked, "Why?"
Hopefully the response would be "None of your business".

I'm not sure I understand. The girls director told OG85 that 3 girls would play with the boys next year, but when OG85 asked the girls director "Why" they were going to skate with the boys instead of the girls, the girls director should tell OG85 "none of your business"??? Why wouldn't the health and well being of an association be the business of a member of that association?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:31 pm

It doesn't matter what level your girl plays at. Boys have more players, they (generally) have better coaches, they play faster. No matter where your daughter gets slotted in at boys, whether it's A, B1 or B2, they will get better faster.

This is not a given. Many girls will actually learn to "defer to the boys". If they don't feel comfortable in their skills, or just don't feel comfortable on the ice with the boys, they'll shove the puck over to the nearest boy, whether that is the correct play or not. That girl is not getting better faster. The girls that are aggressive and confident and capable will excel on the boys side (they'll also excel on the girls side), where the less aggressive girls, less confident girls, or less capable girls will may not be better at all at the end of their experience.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:59 pm

U10Father wrote: Never underestimate what hockey parents will do in the name of their kids' "development."

Very true. Although they don't always make the best decisions.

U10Father wrote:It doesn't matter what level your girl plays at. Boys have more players, they (generally) have better coaches, they play faster. No matter where your daughter gets slotted in at boys, whether it's A, B1 or B2, they will get better faster.

Far from an absolute. Girls HS is full of average players who played boys. I don't think they would have been terrible if they played with girls and only managed to rise to average by competing with boys.

U10Father wrote:As the top girls leave, the next tier of girls' parents will feel their girl is falling behind and they'll fill in B2. Maybe 1/3rd of what would have been 12A girls will be left in 12U, which means that 2/3rds of 12A would be what were 12Bs. Maybe there won't be enough to have 12A... I just hate this because Girls had made so much progress.

U12 was the purest level of girls youth hockey. All the top girls played with the exception of a very, very few playing PW and HS. It won't be quite the same for a while, but as HS improves, reducing the # of 7th graders moving up, it may compensate for the slight increase of girls who played with the boys at squirts and continue at pw. I don't see the domino effect you described happening. Why would more girls play PW than play Squirt?

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:50 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:
It doesn't matter what level your girl plays at. Boys have more players, they (generally) have better coaches, they play faster. No matter where your daughter gets slotted in at boys, whether it's A, B1 or B2, they will get better faster.
This is not a given. Many girls will actually learn to "defer to the boys". If they don't feel comfortable in their skills, or just don't feel comfortable on the ice with the boys, they'll shove the puck over to the nearest boy, whether that is the correct play or not. That girl is not getting better faster. The girls that are aggressive and confident and capable will excel on the boys side (they'll also excel on the girls side), where the less aggressive girls, less confident girls, or less capable girls will may not be better at all at the end of their experience.

I agree Indigo...and it is not a given that a boys B1, B2 or C team will be better and faster paced. An A team is an A team. That holds true for both boys and girls. The skill is less, the commitment is less and there is less depth...even in the large associations. A skill that these superstar girls will never be taught being a plumber with the peewees is what it takes to be the player that their team counts on. To play with the pressure of having to perform each night to win. Role players are a dime a dozen.

PWD10 · Post by **PWD10** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:02 am

U10Father wrote:Never underestimate what hockey parents will do in the name of their kids' "development."

It doesn't matter what level your girl plays at. Boys have more players, they (generally) have better coaches, they play faster. No matter where your daughter gets slotted in at boys, whether it's A, B1 or B2, they will get better faster.

As the top girls leave, the next tier of girls' parents will feel their girl is falling behind and they'll fill in B2. Maybe 1/3rd of what would have been 12A girls will be left in 12U, which means that 2/3rds of 12A would be what were 12Bs. Maybe there won't be enough to have 12A... I just hate this because Girls had made so much progress.

I don't know about the top players but if you take the top 10-15 associations around the state I am pretty sure there second and maybe even third team(s) will be more competitive then the top team at the girls level at the same organization. I am curious how many teams won't have goalies as there is very little contact for the most part at that position, and if each team takes two goalies there could be a lot of girl goalies sharing time on the youth level. Hell If I had a daughter that played goalie I would try and get her interested in playing with the boys. You may keep the top skaters, but the goal tenders I think will be pushing for the more challenging level with the youth teams.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:09 am

I am curious how many teams won't have goalies as there is very little contact for the most part at that position, and if each team takes two goalies there could be a lot of girl goalies sharing time on the youth level. Hell If I had a daughter that played goalie I would try and get her interested in playing with the boys. You may keep the top skaters, but the goal tenders I think will be pushing for the more challenging level with the youth teams.

I'm going to assume you're being facetious, as this makes a nice point. The goaltender position has never been subject to checking, so why aren't there a load of girls goaltending on youth teams, with all the girls teams skating six?

PWD10 · Post by **PWD10** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:06 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
I am curious how many teams won't have goalies as there is very little contact for the most part at that position, and if each team takes two goalies there could be a lot of girl goalies sharing time on the youth level. Hell If I had a daughter that played goalie I would try and get her interested in playing with the boys. You may keep the top skaters, but the goal tenders I think will be pushing for the more challenging level with the youth teams.
I'm going to assume you're being facetious, as this makes a nice point. The goaltender position has never been subject to checking, so why aren't there a load of girls goaltending on youth teams, with all the girls teams skating six?

Because it hasn't become mainstream yet. If a small organization loses their goalie to a youth team, how easy is it going to be to field a replacement goalie? You normally have a whole host of players that can play offense or defense. How easy it it to add a goalie? Take a few parents who think they can have their daughter playing goalie in Highschool and maybe even college if the child only got more opportunity against better opponents, then what they faced and will see how the numbers work out.