The ADM Question

[Quasar]

[How about a few of you reading this that agree with the Coach letting us know how you feel about it. Nobody likes being ganged up on. It's easy, just sign up and start talking. Pros or Cons all are welcome...

[SECoach]

That's a really long post so I won't quote it. Look up instead

First off, I don't feel like I'm being attacked. That's just typically where these converstaions go, so it's more of a preemptive (I really wish there was spell check on here, since that can be where the attacks begin) measure to keep a good converstation going.

I hear where you are coming from. I just don't think there are as many hockey players discouraged with their situation. I do understand that a lot of my experience is with what I consider a strong association. Not a winning association mind you, but a strong one. Does this mean people don't fee that way in mine? Or in my District? No. I just don't think the small gang of members that feel they are getting the short end of the stick are so ready to leave. In my fantasy world, all it takes is good, mature, healthy conversation. Each association needs at least one person that is able and willing to address these local issues without the real or percieved bias. I don't know that this can happen in every one, and probably not the ones now run by "insiders", but the culture needs to change in many places. Believe it or not, there is a strong effort to identify these issues and improve each and every associations situation. In order for that to happen, the people that are not satisfied need to be able to communicate, and not just sit and bitch to their buddies. The people managing the association have to listen and address issues that people have. This may not be the way it is in every association, and may never be, but there is absolutley a strong effort to see that it happens. Minnesota Hockey is a big giant ship, and it takes time to change direction. On top of that, I don't know that a 180 turn is the right thing. You are right, that you have to see the iceberg soon enought to begin the change. My main disagreement with these issues is the thought that USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey is not even looking for the icebergs. They clearly see them and the ship is turning. Clearly not quick enough for some.

[Quasar]

That's a really long post so I won't quote it. Look up instead

First off, I don't feel like I'm being attacked. That's just typically where these converstaions go, so it's more of a preemptive (I really wish there was spell check on here, since that can be where the attacks begin) measure to keep a good converstation going.

I hear where you are coming from. I just don't think there are as many hockey players discouraged with their situation. I do understand that a lot of my experience is with what I consider a strong association. Not a winning association mind you, but a strong one. Does this mean people don't fee that way in mine? Or in my District? No. I just don't think the small gang of members that feel they are getting the short end of the stick are so ready to leave. In my fantasy world, all it takes is good, mature, healthy conversation. Each association needs at least one person that is able and willing to address these local issues without the real or percieved bias. I don't know that this can happen in every one, and probably not the ones now run by "insiders", but the culture needs to change in many places. Believe it or not, there is a strong effort to identify these issues and improve each and every associations situation. In order for that to happen, the people that are not satisfied need to be able to communicate, and not just sit and bitch to their buddies. The people managing the association have to listen and address issues that people have. This may not be the way it is in every association, and may never be, but there is absolutley a strong effort to see that it happens. Minnesota Hockey is a big giant ship, and it takes time to change direction. On top of that, I don't know that a 180 turn is the right thing. You are right, that you have to see the iceberg soon enought to begin the change. My main disagreement with these issues is the thought that USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey is not even looking for the icebergs. They clearly see them and the ship is turning. Clearly not quick enough for some.

If everyone involved had an open mind like I believe you have many problems could be solved.

I would like to tell you a true story, and then get your reaction.. I am aware of a AAA summer team that was started 4 years ago. It was an open team made up of a bunch of runts, and clumsy kids.. After their first season, about 6 of these kids moved to a invite bubble team. Different coaches, different parents. In addition to the new team they spent time with another program that just offered training. In their third season they started to add good kids because they were starting to win. Change of name new coach playing hard. This year the three kids that have been with the team from the beginning are all serious AAA invite players. I would rank them in the top 100 kids in their age group. Remember at the start these were all C players for a number of reasons. Two were runts, and the other had the misfortune of a Dad that played in college.

In your world these kids would have been lost to the level of hockey they are now playing. A lot of people say 'It's perfect, they can do both" but some of us think why not have the same opportunity in the winter.

How do you think these kind of kids can make it without summer hockey. And how could the association hope to emulate this experience?

[SECoach]

That's a really long post so I won't quote it. Look up instead

First off, I don't feel like I'm being attacked. That's just typically where these converstaions go, so it's more of a preemptive (I really wish there was spell check on here, since that can be where the attacks begin) measure to keep a good converstation going.

I hear where you are coming from. I just don't think there are as many hockey players discouraged with their situation. I do understand that a lot of my experience is with what I consider a strong association. Not a winning association mind you, but a strong one. Does this mean people don't fee that way in mine? Or in my District? No. I just don't think the small gang of members that feel they are getting the short end of the stick are so ready to leave. In my fantasy world, all it takes is good, mature, healthy conversation. Each association needs at least one person that is able and willing to address these local issues without the real or percieved bias. I don't know that this can happen in every one, and probably not the ones now run by "insiders", but the culture needs to change in many places. Believe it or not, there is a strong effort to identify these issues and improve each and every associations situation. In order for that to happen, the people that are not satisfied need to be able to communicate, and not just sit and bitch to their buddies. The people managing the association have to listen and address issues that people have. This may not be the way it is in every association, and may never be, but there is absolutley a strong effort to see that it happens. Minnesota Hockey is a big giant ship, and it takes time to change direction. On top of that, I don't know that a 180 turn is the right thing. You are right, that you have to see the iceberg soon enought to begin the change. My main disagreement with these issues is the thought that USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey is not even looking for the icebergs. They clearly see them and the ship is turning. Clearly not quick enough for some.

If everyone involved had an open mind like I believe you have many problems could be solved.

I would like to tell you a true story, and then get your reaction.. I am aware of a AAA summer team that was started 4 years ago. It was an open team made up of a bunch of runts, and clumsy kids.. After their first season, about 6 of these kids moved to a invite bubble team. Different coaches, different parents. In addition to the new team they spent time with another program that just offered training. In their third season they started to add good kids because they were starting to win. Change of name new coach playing hard. This year the three kids that have been with the team from the beginning are all serious AAA invite players. I would rank them in the top 100 kids in their age group. Remember at the start these were all C players for a number of reasons. Two were runts, and the other had the misfortune of a Dad that played in college.

In your world these kids would have been lost to the level of hockey they are now playing. A lot of people say 'It's perfect, they can do both" but some of us think why not have the same opportunity in the winter.

How do you think these kind of kids can make it without summer hockey. And how could the association hope to emulate this experience?

Great question....First off, I've never said there shouldn't be summer hockey. I just don't think our summer hockey format should become our winter hockey format. I'm not sure that is what you are stating, but just in case. I would need to know the kids age group to make good comments. I do, maybe foolishly in some situations, believe that when a kid gets better, he will move up. I also feel he has a better chance to improve when he's not in over his head. Time spent on a lower level team very often, though few notice, allows a player to develop to their potential better than if they had been the last kid picked. That's why it's too bad when a kid makes a B or C team, at a young age, they get shipped off to where someone, that wants to collect their money, makes them feel like they will give them the world. The same thing likely would have happened where they were, for much less cost (cost coming in many different ways). Now I will certainly allow for the cases where that kid as a first year squirt, makes the C team and will recieve poor coaching, and be relegated to be a C player. This does not happen everywhere, and I'd like to believe it's isolated. This specifically is where associations need to improve. The coaching MUST get stronger at young ages and at lower levels of those ages.

[Quasar]

That's a really long post so I won't quote it. Look up instead

First off, I don't feel like I'm being attacked. That's just typically where these converstaions go, so it's more of a preemptive (I really wish there was spell check on here, since that can be where the attacks begin) measure to keep a good converstation going.

I hear where you are coming from. I just don't think there are as many hockey players discouraged with their situation. I do understand that a lot of my experience is with what I consider a strong association. Not a winning association mind you, but a strong one. Does this mean people don't fee that way in mine? Or in my District? No. I just don't think the small gang of members that feel they are getting the short end of the stick are so ready to leave. In my fantasy world, all it takes is good, mature, healthy conversation. Each association needs at least one person that is able and willing to address these local issues without the real or percieved bias. I don't know that this can happen in every one, and probably not the ones now run by "insiders", but the culture needs to change in many places. Believe it or not, there is a strong effort to identify these issues and improve each and every associations situation. In order for that to happen, the people that are not satisfied need to be able to communicate, and not just sit and bitch to their buddies. The people managing the association have to listen and address issues that people have. This may not be the way it is in every association, and may never be, but there is absolutley a strong effort to see that it happens. Minnesota Hockey is a big giant ship, and it takes time to change direction. On top of that, I don't know that a 180 turn is the right thing. You are right, that you have to see the iceberg soon enought to begin the change. My main disagreement with these issues is the thought that USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey is not even looking for the icebergs. They clearly see them and the ship is turning. Clearly not quick enough for some.

If everyone involved had an open mind like I believe you have many problems could be solved.

I would like to tell you a true story, and then get your reaction.. I am aware of a AAA summer team that was started 4 years ago. It was an open team made up of a bunch of runts, and clumsy kids.. After their first season, about 6 of these kids moved to a invite bubble team. Different coaches, different parents. In addition to the new team they spent time with another program that just offered training. In their third season they started to add good kids because they were starting to win. Change of name new coach playing hard. This year the three kids that have been with the team from the beginning are all serious AAA invite players. I would rank them in the top 100 kids in their age group. Remember at the start these were all C players for a number of reasons. Two were runts, and the other had the misfortune of a Dad that played in college.

In your world these kids would have been lost to the level of hockey they are now playing. A lot of people say 'It's perfect, they can do both" but some of us think why not have the same opportunity in the winter.

How do you think these kind of kids can make it without summer hockey. And how could the association hope to emulate this experience?

Great question....First off, I've never said there shouldn't be summer hockey. I just don't think our summer hockey format should become our winter hockey format. I'm not sure that is what you are stating, but just in case. I would need to know the kids age group to make good comments. I do, maybe foolishly in some situations, believe that when a kid gets better, he will move up. I also feel he has a better chance to improve when he's not in over his head. Time spent on a lower level team very often, though few notice, allows a player to develop to their potential better than if they had been the last kid picked. That's why it's too bad when a kid makes a B or C team, at a young age, they get shipped off to where someone, that wants to collect their money, makes them feel like they will give them the world. The same thing likely would have happened where they were, for much less cost (cost coming in many different ways). Now I will certainly allow for the cases where that kid as a first year squirt, makes the C team and will recieve poor coaching, and be relegated to be a C player. This does not happen everywhere, and I'd like to believe it's isolated. This specifically is where associations need to improve. The coaching MUST get stronger at young ages and at lower levels of those ages.

They're 97 birth year bantams now. Two will play Bantam A in two different associations, the third will be playing varsity as a freshman.

unfortunately there are associations and situations that really stink.
This same scenario could happen in Minnesota hockey if the kids were not locked into an association based on where they live.

I just cannot see the fear of letting the kids that need to move for one reason or another the opportunity to find something that works for them.
It is not easy to make this decision , and I'm sure only a few would take advantage of a rule that would let them try to find a place that works for their needs.

I think these are the kinds of things Minnesota hockey should be thinking about. No matter how hard Minnesota hockey tries to hold on to the the play were you live rule they will not succeed. Too many people have found the freedom of summer hockey.

One final thought .. It may be hard to accept, But, the kids do actually say they're having fun. It's kinda lame to lay it off on their parents.

[SECoach]

If everyone involved had an open mind like I believe you have many problems could be solved.

I would like to tell you a true story, and then get your reaction.. I am aware of a AAA summer team that was started 4 years ago. It was an open team made up of a bunch of runts, and clumsy kids.. After their first season, about 6 of these kids moved to a invite bubble team. Different coaches, different parents. In addition to the new team they spent time with another program that just offered training. In their third season they started to add good kids because they were starting to win. Change of name new coach playing hard. This year the three kids that have been with the team from the beginning are all serious AAA invite players. I would rank them in the top 100 kids in their age group. Remember at the start these were all C players for a number of reasons. Two were runts, and the other had the misfortune of a Dad that played in college.

In your world these kids would have been lost to the level of hockey they are now playing. A lot of people say 'It's perfect, they can do both" but some of us think why not have the same opportunity in the winter.

How do you think these kind of kids can make it without summer hockey. And how could the association hope to emulate this experience?

Great question....First off, I've never said there shouldn't be summer hockey. I just don't think our summer hockey format should become our winter hockey format. I'm not sure that is what you are stating, but just in case. I would need to know the kids age group to make good comments. I do, maybe foolishly in some situations, believe that when a kid gets better, he will move up. I also feel he has a better chance to improve when he's not in over his head. Time spent on a lower level team very often, though few notice, allows a player to develop to their potential better than if they had been the last kid picked. That's why it's too bad when a kid makes a B or C team, at a young age, they get shipped off to where someone, that wants to collect their money, makes them feel like they will give them the world. The same thing likely would have happened where they were, for much less cost (cost coming in many different ways). Now I will certainly allow for the cases where that kid as a first year squirt, makes the C team and will recieve poor coaching, and be relegated to be a C player. This does not happen everywhere, and I'd like to believe it's isolated. This specifically is where associations need to improve. The coaching MUST get stronger at young ages and at lower levels of those ages.

They're 97 birth year bantams now. Two will play Bantam A in two different associations, the third will be playing varsity as a freshman.

unfortunately there are associations and situations that really stink.
This same scenario could happen in Minnesota hockey if the kids were not locked into an association based on where they live.

I just cannot see the fear of letting the kids that need to move for one reason or another the opportunity to find something that works for them.
It is not easy to make this decision , and I'm sure only a few would take advantage of a rule that would let them try to find a place that works for their needs.

I think these are the kinds of things Minnesota hockey should be thinking about. No matter how hard Minnesota hockey tries to hold on to the the play were you live rule they will not succeed. Too many people have found the freedom of summer hockey.

One final thought .. It may be hard to accept, But, the kids do actually say they're having fun. It's kinda lame to lay it off on their parents.

It may seem lame but I personally spend hundreds of hours speaking to parents and kids about this very subject. I get to have my take on it.

The misconception is that kids are not having fun in the winter and the fun "turns off". I can sure understand how a summer full of games and tournaments is fun. I can understand that in the winter were there is a higher priority on practice where summer may be a different kind of fun. It will be very hard to convince me that summer hockey in the present format will help us develop our players to be world class. It is a piece of it, but on it's own, we will head down the path of many other areas that used to have great hockey players. I can personally say that I cannot afford much summer hockey. It is expensive, or at least it is if it's more than a few tournaments. For my older kid, that is battling for a college spot, I find a way. For my younger, I try to make sure they get the best experience and have a chance to develop to the best of their god given abilities while they figure out if they want to put the effort in that it takes to make the most of those abilities. When he is old enough, and wants to make that commitment, I will find a way. As a very young player, that will be enough or now, just as it was for the older one. I do know that my younger child, that has played C hockey, A hockey, and summer hockey, the love of the game and love of competition makes winter hockey just as exciting and fun as any summer program could for him. I hope your association can provide the same opportunity very soon.

[Quasar]

Coach, I just got rid of all the preceding stuff. The page is way too long.

I'm glad to hear that you have some experience with summer hockey. I don't know if you've said that before or not. No matter. At least now I know your comments on summer hockey are informed. The kids all have fun in the winter. They would have fun in the back yard. They're kids !!

Each kid is special. Your kids, my kids, NPC's kids, they're all special. You are in a position as a coach, and association member to look after your kids, and to do what you think is best for them.

Sometimes for others it's not possible to get involved beyond supporting their kid. work schedules etc: Years ago I actually changed jobs to be home with my kid. I was his coach, and I was active in my association. Good luck to your son at college. My kids college career is far behind him now, but it was the greatest. If I had not been were I was as his coach I doubt if he would have played in college. That should not be the case. Some how we have to figure out how to make sure that every kid with the desire and talent can go as far as he can. a few years ago I was you. After watching how the ability to move kids into the right situation worked in summer I began to doubt some of my long held convictions. It has to be about each kid. I hope that all the people coming down the pike can figure out something that works better than what we have right now.

[SECoach]

Coach, I just got rid of all the preceding stuff. The page is way too long.

I'm glad to hear that you have some experience with summer hockey. I don't know if you've said that before or not. No matter. At least now I know your comments on summer hockey are informed. The kids all have fun in the winter. They would have fun in the back yard. They're kids !!

Each kid is special. Your kids, my kids, NPC's kids, they're all special. You are in a position as a coach, and association member to look after your kids, and to do what you think is best for them.

Sometimes for others it's not possible to get involved beyond supporting their kid. work schedules etc: Years ago I actually changed jobs to be home with my kid. I was his coach, and I was active in my association. Good luck to your son at college. My kids college career is far behind him now, but it was the greatest. If I had not been were I was as his coach I doubt if he would have played in college. That should not be the case. Some how we have to figure out how to make sure that every kid with the desire and talent can go as far as he can. a few years ago I was you. After watching how the ability to move kids into the right situation worked in summer I began to doubt some of my long held convictions. It has to be about each kid. I hope that all the people coming down the pike can figure out something that works better than what we have right now.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it seems like it needs further explanation. I don't support our current winter model to the exclusion of summer hockey. I have coached it, my kids have all played it. One plays now at the highest level available for a senor high school student. That opportunity would not exist if not for USA Hockey in conjunction with Minnesota Hockey. I in no way am saying we should abandon it. I do however think that in the middle of the fight over which is best, we may have had the best model world wide land in our laps. Summer hockey and winter hockey in close to their present format. Just because summer hockey has greatly complimented our winter model, does not mean we should abandon the other part. I can very realistically see, in the near future, Minnesota Hockey becoming involved in the summer season and others, as they already have, becoming involved in the winter. We cannot throw away one for the other. I really believe our current model provides one of the best hockey experiences in the world. There's lots of room to make it better, but change for the better, when something is already great, should not be knee jerk, reactionary, or wholesale.

[Quasar]

Coach, I just got rid of all the preceding stuff. The page is way too long.

I'm glad to hear that you have some experience with summer hockey. I don't know if you've said that before or not. No matter. At least now I know your comments on summer hockey are informed. The kids all have fun in the winter. They would have fun in the back yard. They're kids !!

Each kid is special. Your kids, my kids, NPC's kids, they're all special. You are in a position as a coach, and association member to look after your kids, and to do what you think is best for them.

Sometimes for others it's not possible to get involved beyond supporting their kid. work schedules etc: Years ago I actually changed jobs to be home with my kid. I was his coach, and I was active in my association. Good luck to your son at college. My kids college career is far behind him now, but it was the greatest. If I had not been were I was as his coach I doubt if he would have played in college. That should not be the case. Some how we have to figure out how to make sure that every kid with the desire and talent can go as far as he can. a few years ago I was you. After watching how the ability to move kids into the right situation worked in summer I began to doubt some of my long held convictions. It has to be about each kid. I hope that all the people coming down the pike can figure out something that works better than what we have right now.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it seems like it needs further explanation. I don't support our current winter model to the exclusion of summer hockey. I have coached it, my kids have all played it. One plays now at the highest level available for a senor high school student. That opportunity would not exist if not for USA Hockey in conjunction with USA Hockey. I in no way am saying we should abandon it. I do however think that in the middle of the fight over which is best, we may have had the best model world wide land in our laps. Summer hockey and winter hockey in close to their present format. Just because summer hockey has greatly complimented our winter model, does not mean we should abandon the other part. I can very realistically see, in the near future, Minnesota Hockey becoming involved in the summer season and others, as they already have, becoming involved in the winter. We cannot throw away one for the other. I really believe our current model provides one of the best hockey experiences in the world. There's lots of room to make it better, but change for the better, when something is already great, should not be knee jerk, reactionary, or wholesale.

Thanks for the conversation over the 4th...

I think were making progress. The combining of winter and summer sounds like pie in the sky to me. It's kinda like oil and water...
But I guess we'll see in the next year or two.

Maybe in the days to come you will take on the question of freedom of movement in the winter.. For now I'm going to walk down to the park and watch the fireworks ..HAPPY FOURTH !!!

[longrebound]

I don't know why you keep putting down North Korea. We would be lucky to have Kim Jong-Il in on this debate. Don't you remember when he went golfing for the first time and made 11 holes in one? With the same kind of leadership in hockey he could turn a team full of benders into Stanley Cup champs in a couple of years. Early reports are that he was first against the pee wee checking rule change but later pulled an Al Gore and was for it. No word on whether he supports the ADM concepts yet but when somebody mentioned "orange" the corners of his mouth turned up slightly.

Also, East Germany should be embraced, not ridiculed. They developed more athletes than any country of its size in the world. Seems like we would want to embrace their model. Of course, we would have 10 year olds growing playoff beards, but that is merely a short-term side effect.

[darkhorse]

First, this has been a great thread to read. The posts have kept focus on the issues and haven't allowed this topic to morph into a typical internet forum flamefest. Great points on both sides.

I keep reading about how MN Hockey has to change the association model. NPC makes the argument that the change will come from the kids/parents who are just below the top rung of players. So what's the solution? Simply allowing transfers from one association to another? Is it that simple? So now you have Johnny from Edina who finds out he just missed making the A team heading over to Richfield. You think parents are vocal and up in arms now, that would take it to a whole new level. Not only would those "almost elite" players be moving but so would the elite. The top kids in Edina, Wayzata, EP, Mtka would migrate to one program and create an allstar team that wouldn't be touched. That model would quickly adapt into a similar structure of what we see in summer hockey today.

I think SECoach makes some very valid points. Change is inevitable and coming, but it doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) done so dramatically. One point that I didn't see a response to was about the fact that MN/USA Hockey are taking steps to improve/change the system but anytime a change is proposed many on here are up in arms about it. You want MN/USA Hockey to be proactive and adjust before the train gets here yet you are resistant to anything they propose. The market will dictate the direction this goes as evidenced by MM. Will something similar pop up in Blaine or somewhere else? Maybe, but then again is that such a bad thing? I don't think it has to be an all or nothing route, but rather a continuous evolution based on the demand. Association/community hockey has a tremendous foundation and is going to continue meeting the needs of many kids for years to come. I think other choices for those that aren't satisfied or who want more can co-exist but maybe that's more wishful thinking than reality.

[skills_coach1]

Wow, great discussion here!

I have coached for 25 years, varying levels, inline and ice... I have enjoyed coaching in winter association based hockey and Summer hockey as well.. Truthfully, I see the only true difference is the relative separation of the talent pool.
My main beef with our age grouping is we have two complete years or up to three different year classes of kids on one team in the winter association level hockey. This allows some of the talent pool to be less filtered. In the summer it is all the same year class of kids. While there can be significant differences in talent, maturity and age are not one of the confounding factors. Winter hockey for my own son and family has had some tremendous rewards in development and opportunities. Summer hockey has been perhaps slightly more on track with development and social fun.
Can we anticipate the future of how Minnesotans will respond to HPC's or AAU programs... Not sure.. I could easily see some of the B1-B2 players take opportunities if they are not satisfied with the coaching potential at their level.... But IMHO, it really depends on the coaches and the overall philosophy of the association. Is it win at all cost? Is it development and recreation?

The summer AAA programs are filling a niche for players (and parents) that want more. IS that a bad deal? Even the Canadian players do some summer hockey too.

I really feel that the rule changes will benefit development in the long run (short term will be a little ugly). For winter hockey, I still would like to see the age classifications change in MN (I know this is a bad thought for some associations that are not as big) to what the remainder of the country uses. Still maintaining the community based system as much as possible, but allowing some teams the potential to compete with other teams across the country.

Again great discussion!

[spin-o-rama]

All this talk of A quality players getting the shaft and having to play B brings up the question - How good is too good? How dominate does a player have to be at the lower level to reason it is better to be the 3rd liner being short shifted at the next higher level?

[Quasar]

How about your player can openly transfer to another association that wants him but only to go up a level of play? Your B2 can go play B1 down the road, your B1 can go play A down the road but your A can't go to another A and your B can't go to another B? Might work. The associations would have to be honest about placing kids since if they sand bagged a kid for what ever reason the club down the road can take him so they are not going to screw a kid for a non-hockey reason because he will show up next door and come back to haunt them. The kids on the club will have to work hard to keep their spots since if they are not they will have the kid from the neighboring club come in and take the spot from them. The kids in the club would also work hard because they realize that they have the opportunity to go down the road to find a higher level home to play in. The parents and or kids with the rose colored glasses on who think that their kid is better than he is will have the chance to have somebody else look at him and confirm that it was hockey skills and not politics that got him. Everybody would be kept honest, the associations would be protected since you would have to skate at home if nobody else till take you and move you up, freeze Mites and Mini-Mites so that they have to stay home and skate, squirts too for that matter. The players are protected since if you are the victim of board daddies and get put onto a B team the people down the road will take you or at least have the opportunity to look at you and think about it or if you are the victim of large numbers you can go down the road to a smaller association to play at a higher level of play that wants to use you there.

What is wrong with this idea??? This of course assumes that all associations want to develop their kids to the max and also want to win. If an association wants to have the fun people on the A team to travel or want to have the coaches and board member's kids on the team they can but they are going to get killed and we all know losing is not a fun long term deal.

Not a thing wrong with this idea. I like the age restriction. Keeps a lot of silliness from happening before any one knows what kind of talent a kid is going to have. If this were to happen then mergers/co-ops would be a way to take care of low numbers, I also like the idea of kids playing with their birth year. Some how the idea that traveling hockey is recreational has to be overcome. Any one that is against high pressure competitive hockey better have another look at what USA HPC's are all about. We all know that for the large majority of kids it happens at 13 or 14 years of age. BY 15 you can begin to determine what a kid's got. That's why I think I would like to hear more from Fred61. He has a pretty good handle on that age group. At any rate you know where I stand on the issue of "Free Agency" If they can make the team let them play there!

[Quasar]

All this talk of A quality players getting the shaft and having to play B brings up the question - How good is too good? How dominate does a player have to be at the lower level to reason it is better to be the 3rd liner being short shifted at the next higher level?

I think a kid would be better off getting full rotation on the B team, But he should be able to make the decision. If any one could play any where they want, the quality of the try out system would improve greatly. I would bet that in a couple of years it would all settle down and not be the problem some think it would be. I think you've brought up one of the problems with the current system. Not enough talent to have three strong lines in smaller/weaker associations. I don't think weak third lines will be a problem with HPC's..

[darkhorse]

How about your player can openly transfer to another association that wants him but only to go up a level of play? Your B2 can go play B1 down the road, your B1 can go play A down the road but your A can't go to another A and your B can't go to another B? Might work. The associations would have to be honest about placing kids since if they sand bagged a kid for what ever reason the club down the road can take him so they are not going to screw a kid for a non-hockey reason because he will show up next door and come back to haunt them. The kids on the club will have to work hard to keep their spots since if they are not they will have the kid from the neighboring club come in and take the spot from them. The kids in the club would also work hard because they realize that they have the opportunity to go down the road to find a higher level home to play in. The parents and or kids with the rose colored glasses on who think that their kid is better than he is will have the chance to have somebody else look at him and confirm that it was hockey skills and not politics that got him. Everybody would be kept honest, the associations would be protected since you would have to skate at home if nobody else till take you and move you up, freeze Mites and Mini-Mites so that they have to stay home and skate, squirts too for that matter. The players are protected since if you are the victim of board daddies and get put onto a B team the people down the road will take you or at least have the opportunity to look at you and think about it or if you are the victim of large numbers you can go down the road to a smaller association to play at a higher level of play that wants to use you there.

What is wrong with this idea??? This of course assumes that all associations want to develop their kids to the max and also want to win. If an association wants to have the fun people on the A team to travel or want to have the coaches and board member's kids on the team they can but they are going to get killed and we all know losing is not a fun long term deal.

This is one of the better ideas I've seen. Keeps association hockey alive while fostering competition for the top kids to stay at the top and gives the ones just below more motivation to get better and keep improving.

[Wildcathcky]

What is wrong with this idea??? This of course assumes that all associations want to develop their kids to the max and also want to win. If an association wants to have the fun people on the A team to travel or want to have the coaches and board member's kids on the team they can but they are going to get killed and we all know losing is not a fun long term deal.

The assumption that all associations want to win is a stretch. While clearly everyone would prefer to win, a common complaint I hear is that "my association is focused only on participation and recreation." Fielding teams that are as competitive as possible isn't a primary goal to many associations. This seems prevalent among many of the medium/smaller sized associations that are content simply to put teams on the ice. Many of these medium/smaller sized organizations treat all their teams the exactly same (from travel teams to the in-houe teams). There is no recognition by the association that travel players may have different goals than the in-house players or have a different definition as to what makes hockey "fun." While I like the concept of allowing players to move associations if they can move up a level, that solution does not address the highly motivated player stuck in an association that treats its travel A/B teams like in-house teams.

[Quasar]

What is wrong with this idea??? This of course assumes that all associations want to develop their kids to the max and also want to win. If an association wants to have the fun people on the A team to travel or want to have the coaches and board member's kids on the team they can but they are going to get killed and we all know losing is not a fun long term deal.

The assumption that all associations want to win is a stretch. While clearly everyone would prefer to win, a common complaint I hear is that "my association is focused only on participation and recreation." Fielding teams that are as competitive as possible isn't a primary goal to many associations. This seems prevalent among many of the medium/smaller sized associations that are content simply to put teams on the ice. Many of these medium/smaller sized organizations treat all their teams the exactly same (from travel teams to the in-houe teams). There is no recognition by the association that travel players may have different goals than the in-house players or have a different definition as to what makes hockey "fun." While I like the concept of allowing players to move associations if they can move up a level, that solution does not address the highly motivated player stuck in an association that treats its travel A/B teams like in-house teams.

More than a few associations are nothing more than social clubs.
I think a kid should be able to move up... Down ... sideways.. It is important that they be able to find a team that fits for them. If the residency rule were changed, it would still be up to the association to decide who they would accept.

[Quasar]

The assumption that all associations want to win is a stretch. While clearly everyone would prefer to win, a common complaint I hear is that "my association is focused only on participation and recreation." Fielding teams that are as competitive as possible isn't a primary goal to many associations. This seems prevalent among many of the medium/smaller sized associations that are content simply to put teams on the ice. Many of these medium/smaller sized organizations treat all their teams the exactly same (from travel teams to the in-houe teams). There is no recognition by the association that travel players may have different goals than the in-house players or have a different definition as to what makes hockey "fun." While I like the concept of allowing players to move associations if they can move up a level, that solution does not address the highly motivated player stuck in an association that treats its travel A/B teams like in-house teams.

More than a few associations are nothing more than social clubs.
I think a kid should be able to move up... Down ... sideways.. It is important that they be able to find a team that fits for them. If the residency rule were changed, it would still be up to the association to decide who they would accept.

Yes but the problem they bring up is that Edina will go on a tear and get all of the top A kids off of all of the top programs and put together a monster team. It is probably right, sort of like the NY Yankees do. This would stop it by not allowing A kids to be skimmed off of programs but opens the doors to B kids moving around. If you are being honest when you place a kid on your B team you are OK, if not then you lose him and you get what you deserve.

I understand.. But ... Freedom brings with it hard choices. Like you said,
associations that try to game the system will find out quickly it wont work! And even if some one builds the super team. That's only 17 kids. Who's for super team 2? And another thought . If the associations screw it all up I suppose the AAU/equivalent will be happy to correct the problem.

[interestedbystander]

All this talk of A quality players getting the shaft and having to play B brings up the question - How good is too good? How dominate does a player have to be at the lower level to reason it is better to be the 3rd liner being short shifted at the next higher level?

Ohhhh, I don't know. How many B kids have the advanced performance camp evaluators taken a chance on in the last, oh say, 5 years.

[HockeyDad41]

Yes but the problem they bring up is that Edina will go on a tear and get all of the top A kids off of all of the top programs and put together a monster team. It is probably right, sort of like the NY Yankees do. This would stop it by not allowing A kids to be skimmed off of programs but opens the doors to B kids moving around. If you are being honest when you place a kid on your B team you are OK, if not then you lose him and you get what you deserve.

If they form this monster team who are they going to play to unleash all of that awesomeness on? Just start making the 2nd place trophy bigger than the 1st place trophy and the problem will be solved.

Seriously, as the parent of a future phenom, I would love the ability to pick his team. I'm not sure I would pick Edina's superteam to put him on though. I would probably try to find a program with the reputation for development I am looking for, and for which Edina has, but I am not yet sure that Jr. is the greatest player to ever lace up skates at his age level. So over at Edina, first line center may not be a lock and that's important to me...er..him. I do however think that he may be the man over at Eden Prarie so I would will have to give them a serious look.

Am I worried if the team we pick for him will get rolled by Edina's superteam? Not really, it's not like I would see them every weekend on the schedule. Jr. would get great development, be the first line center on arguably the second best team in youth hockey and be very prepared to represent his highschool when he gets to 8th grade.

[interestedbystander]

Yes but the problem they bring up is that Edina will go on a tear and get all of the top A kids off of all of the top programs and put together a monster team. It is probably right, sort of like the NY Yankees do. This would stop it by not allowing A kids to be skimmed off of programs but opens the doors to B kids moving around. If you are being honest when you place a kid on your B team you are OK, if not then you lose him and you get what you deserve.

If they form this monster team who are they going to play to unleash all of that awesomeness on? Just start making the 2nd place trophy bigger than the 1st place trophy and the problem will be solved.

Seriously, as the parent of a future phenom, I would love the ability to pick his team. I'm not sure I would pick Edina's superteam to put him on though. I would probably try to find a program with the reputation for development I am looking for, and for which Edina has, but I am not yet sure that Jr. is the greatest player to ever lace up skates at his age level. So over at Edina, first line center may not be a lock and that's important to me...er..him. I do however think that he may be the man over at Eden Prarie so I would will have to give them a serious look.

Am I worried if the team we pick for him will get rolled by Edina's superteam? Not really, it's not like I would see them every weekend on the schedule. Jr. would get great development, be the first line center on arguably the second best team in youth hockey and be very prepared to represent his highschool when he gets to 8th grade.

Might want to read the entire thread HockeyDad or at least the last couple of pages. We're not talking about your, er, the elite players.

[Quasar]

Yes but the problem they bring up is that Edina will go on a tear and get all of the top A kids off of all of the top programs and put together a monster team. It is probably right, sort of like the NY Yankees do. This would stop it by not allowing A kids to be skimmed off of programs but opens the doors to B kids moving around. If you are being honest when you place a kid on your B team you are OK, if not then you lose him and you get what you deserve.

If they form this monster team who are they going to play to unleash all of that awesomeness on? Just start making the 2nd place trophy bigger than the 1st place trophy and the problem will be solved.

Seriously, as the parent of a future phenom, I would love the ability to pick his team. I'm not sure I would pick Edina's superteam to put him on though. I would probably try to find a program with the reputation for development I am looking for, and for which Edina has, but I am not yet sure that Jr. is the greatest player to ever lace up skates at his age level. So over at Edina, first line center may not be a lock and that's important to me...er..him. I do however think that he may be the man over at Eden Prarie so I would will have to give them a serious look.

Am I worried if the team we pick for him will get rolled by Edina's superteam? Not really, it's not like I would see them every weekend on the schedule. Jr. would get great development, be the first line center on arguably the second best team in youth hockey and be very prepared to represent his highschool when he gets to 8th grade.

If you look at what I said you will see that since Jr. is the first line center on EP's team he is stuck there. Edina will not be able to create this monster team unless they either home grow them which if fine or a whole lot of other people screw up and Edina has a way of finding all of the diamonds in the rough. Earlier in this thread and in others the argument against free movement is that all of the players will concentrate on a team and go monster, untouchable. This would stop that, if your little guy is on an A team whether it is EPs or somebody else's he is stuck. He can not move. The ONLY way you can move is to move up and ONLY if the association you want to go to agrees to take you. You can't move down, you can't move sideways, only up. The association you are in has no say in it after they select their teams. The only other stop point would be you can not move up a year and move. So, when Jr is a PeeWee A and wants to move up to BnB this year so that Edina can win the lottery and take him he can't move. This keeps both your little guy and Edina honest and gives those lucky dogs at EP first shot at him when he is truly a Bn so that they can see him in all of his glory, or not.

Are you saying that if your a pretty good A player in a crappy association your still stuck?

It has either got to be free choice or the private hockey group will prevail.
Making the current situation only half bad is not the answer.

A, B ,C makes no difference you can't tell one kid he's got a choice, and tell his team mate he's stuck because he's an A player.
Or, am I misunderstanding what you are proposing?

Edit: Just reread your original post sorry missed the only up part somehow.

[Quasar]

If you look at what I said you will see that since Jr. is the first line center on EP's team he is stuck there. Edina will not be able to create this monster team unless they either home grow them which if fine or a whole lot of other people screw up and Edina has a way of finding all of the diamonds in the rough. Earlier in this thread and in others the argument against free movement is that all of the players will concentrate on a team and go monster, untouchable. This would stop that, if your little guy is on an A team whether it is EPs or somebody else's he is stuck. He can not move. The ONLY way you can move is to move up and ONLY if the association you want to go to agrees to take you. You can't move down, you can't move sideways, only up. The association you are in has no say in it after they select their teams. The only other stop point would be you can not move up a year and move. So, when Jr is a PeeWee A and wants to move up to BnB this year so that Edina can win the lottery and take him he can't move. This keeps both your little guy and Edina honest and gives those lucky dogs at EP first shot at him when he is truly a Bn so that they can see him in all of his glory, or not.

Are you saying that if your a pretty good A player in a crappy association your still stuck?

It has either got to be free choice or the private hockey group will prevail.
Making the current situation only half bad is not the answer.

A, B ,C makes no difference you can't tell one kid he's got a choice, and tell his team mate he's stuck because he's an A player.
Or, am I misunderstanding what you are proposing?

Edit: Just reread your original post sorry missed the only up part somehow.

No problem. Here is my rational. If you are on your association's flagship team which you would assume the PeeWee A and the Bantam A teams are you are getting a shot. Sure your team might be a grease fire but they are trying. That is good.

If you want to develop you should be able to and the way to do that is to move up to the next highest level. Sure, if Edina wants to take a C player and put him on an A team they can. B2 to B1 going up. MN HOckey keeps saying that they do not want to concentrate the power and talent and leave everybody else out to dry so they freeze everything. This way is a compromise. Sure in a perfect world I want what all the other people have, total freedom. MN Hockey won't go for that, they might go for this.

Well, compromise is better than nothing, but I'm still holding out for more. Besides If I understand where USA/Minnesota hockey is going with the HPC concept they will have to get off the concentration of power kick. I like your Ideas but I am not yet convinced that letting a kid play were he wants cant be done. Good conversation ...

[darkhorse]

NPC, the more I read this "proposal" and the more I think about it the more I like it. If total freedom is allowed as Quasar proposes I think that would be the end of association hockey as we know it. It would quickly become what we have in summer hockey. The idea of allowing kids to move but only when they are going up keeps association hockey intact but allows that outlet for those that feel they have been slighted by their association (or just weren't good enough to make the cut.) A great component to this is that the other association has to accept that player and essentially invite him/her to be on their team at the next level up from where he/she came from.

The only issue I can see that has been brought up is for the superstar on a really below avg assocation team. That kid has great potential but will be held back in this model because of being on the A team already and not having the option to move up elsewhere. However, if an association like this is truly struggling to field competitive teams the question becomes would they really be fielding an "A" team? From the conversation I've been reading about Spring Lake Park they have moved in and out of having A teams. If said association only had a B team this would then allow the superstar to move. Of course this isn't what that particular association would want but it would be the right thing.