Coaching openings

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:27 pm

Any reported openings yet, anyone not coming back?

LZ94 · Post by **LZ94** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:41 pm

1. Moorhead
2.
3.

sinbin · Post by **sinbin** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:24 pm

This thread happened fast . . .

Racki2016 · Post by **Racki2016** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:51 am

I know one school I would love to see on this list! - Can only wait and hope.

Nevertoomuchhockey · Post by **Nevertoomuchhockey** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:35 am

I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

Racki2016 · Post by **Racki2016** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:08 am

Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.

I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:23 am

Racki2016 wrote:
Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.
I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.

I think you might be in a fairly small minority.

Racki2016 · Post by **Racki2016** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:19 am

Bluewhitefan wrote:
Racki2016 wrote:
Nevertoomuchhockey wrote:I don't think the coach makes this list if the team is gone altogether.
I'm not hinting at AA, actually think CP is a good coach.
I think you might be in a fairly small minority.

And explain why you think that?

backspin · Post by **backspin** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:02 pm

Yes. Saying this guy is a good coach puts you in a very small minority.

Why. Because he recruits 12 year olds, lies to kids and parents and circumvents every process. He's a cheater at every turn. Any program that has this guy involved is, or will be, corrupt.

Coachk · Post by **Coachk** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:32 pm

Game, set, match. Just because your a good salesman doesn't make you a good coach. Well, we've never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat

Nevertoomuchhockey · Post by **Nevertoomuchhockey** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:59 pm

I want my daughter's coach to lead by example and teach her INTEGRITY as much as hockey.
Lol CoachK. "But this is just between us, ok buddy? I can't have word getting out about the deal you're getting or everyone will expect that." Wink.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:40 am

I would ask the moderators to simply remove all the AA and CP stuff. Can't a thread run normal without this crap showing up everywhere on the HS Girl's forum ?

This thread title has run on this Forum for several years now. Why lock it down with repeats of all this AA debate ?

FlyingWarrior · Post by **FlyingWarrior** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:40 pm

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3.

sinbin · Post by **sinbin** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:01 pm

I don't know that I would call the AA discussion a "debate". I'm not sure what word I would use, but it seems it was more of an exorcism than a debate.

TaNite · Post by **TaNite** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:07 am

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5.

LZ94 · Post by **LZ94** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:26 pm

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:14 am

LZ94 wrote:1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6.

Home town player had returned to coach. Is this a surprise to Mahtomedi ?

LZ94 · Post by **LZ94** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:59 am

1. Moorhead
2. Brainerd/Little Falls
3. Minnehaha United
4. Mahtomedi
5. Fergus Falls
6. Mankato West
7. Faribault
8. Albert Lea
9. St. Louis Park
10.

Rocketwrister · Post by **Rocketwrister** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:58 pm

Sure seems like a lot this early.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:47 pm

9 on March 25th of last year.

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

MN_Bowhunter · Post by **MN_Bowhunter** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:25 am

How long before the AD's get sick of hiring new coaches every other year and just fold the program or co-op? In 10 years we will have no need for 2 classes anymore because all of these schools will have folded their programs or joined forces with 3 other schools so they can compete against the privates and the open enrollers. Richfield and Kennedy off the top of my head.

hockeyfan21 · Post by **hockeyfan21** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:17 am

MN_Bowhunter wrote:How long before the AD's get sick of hiring new coaches every other year and just fold the program or co-op? In 10 years we will have no need for 2 classes anymore because all of these schools will have folded their programs or joined forces with 3 other schools so they can compete against the privates and the open enrollers. Richfield and Kennedy off the top of my head.

Not true. AD's have to deal with this level of coaching churn in all sports. In addition, hockey is cost prohibitive for lower socioeconomic communities like the two you mentioned (Richfield and Kennedy). I've railed against open enrolling for sports on other threads enough for people to know I'm not a defender of that, but you are arguing cause and effect where there isn't.

Coaches leave for many reasons:
-family
-career change
-health
-crazy parents
-coaching burnout

AD's don't cut sports because it's too much work to find a head coach. It's usually only one of two reasons; budgetary, or participation.

MN_Bowhunter · Post by **MN_Bowhunter** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:44 am

I'm not sure what I'm arguing, and I may be doing a poor job of it as well. The bottom line is the majority of the turnover happens at teams that aren't competitive, and the gap between being competitive and sucking gets bigger every year. The haves (privates and established publics) continue to vacuum up talent because nobody wants to play for a losing team and the have-nots (everybody else) continue to struggle to field a team because they lose their most talented kids every year. If the cause is open enrollment and the effect is less hockey teams then that is what I'm arguing, I guess.

Did I make any sense?

rwb1351 · Post by **rwb1351** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm

Keep in mind winning solves a lot of problems... or at least keeps them in the shadows. All teams have their issues, but I'd argue that a coach's job can become incrementally more difficult if the team is not winning.

IMO, this more than anything is why you see the correlation between turnover and low performing teams; or at least why you see less turnover on teams that are successful.

hockeyfan21 · Post by **hockeyfan21** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:19 am

MN_Bowhunter wrote:I'm not sure what I'm arguing, and I may be doing a poor job of it as well. The bottom line is the majority of the turnover happens at teams that aren't competitive, and the gap between being competitive and sucking gets bigger every year. The haves (privates and established publics) continue to vacuum up talent because nobody wants to play for a losing team and the have-nots (everybody else) continue to struggle to field a team because they lose their most talented kids every year. If the cause is open enrollment and the effect is less hockey teams then that is what I'm arguing, I guess.

Did I make any sense?

Makes sense. I wouldn't disagree that it is an issue. Hard to keep working on building a program and working with the youth, only to see another program swoop in and take a kid that could make a difference.