HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

SHOW ME THE MONEY

elliott70 wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:Elliott,

Well now that we've all given our input, and the meetings have happened, what went on in the meetings? Did any of the concerns brought up on this forum get addressed or even discussed? Would love an update.

Not a whole lot got discussed by the time we got to this committee...
So another meeting will be held for the steering group, which for me sux as I have another drive to the cities. It like Big Ben, the cogs turn slowly behind the face of te clock.

But all will have this stuff in hand plus some old stuff I have that I hope they read.

Not much of an update, but what we went through was not that exciting, but I guess it was necessary.

Elliott Is the Bureaucracy getting in the way of getting anything done? How much time do they spend on these issues regarding the direction of youth hockey. Shouldn't the board be the main vehicle driving the direction youth hockey.
It seems like the board may need to change it's focus other wise the private groups and AAA groups will start grabbing for the wheel.
What do you think, sometimes being in the metro area a person is to far into the fire to see if there is anything being damaged. Are there any issues you feel need to be address in the short term or can all these issues be resolved with the long term planning.

Abe wrote:We need to find a place for players that do not want to play traveling hockey during the winter months. We see so many boys and girls that are required to play 4-5 times a week on teams that they are not influential on. We forget that we have skaters that play because their friend is on the team...What happened to the house team that only had one practice a week and maybe 1-2 games a week? It's ok to not skate 6 out of 7 days if your goal is to just have fun....Why can't we organize a level on both sides u12, u14 bantams.....that has teams based on players that just want to play? Why do we always have to be grooming the "next" one? It's ok if my kid plays on the house team... She'd rather have that than play on a B team and get crushed every game, and not have any fun.......we need to include all ability levels.

Great post and I agree but think this is something that has to be handled more on a district or association level. Hockey is a wonderful sport and not all the kids who play have the ability or even the aspiration to play traveling hockey.

OK, here it goes. I am going to put this out there knowing that all of the "purists" are going to incinerate me!

Looking through my latest issue of USA Hockey i read a nice article about removing the icing option from short handed teams in the Mass. hockey associations.

Has this been discussed in Minnesota hockey? I for one think it is a great idea.

1. It creates more pressure on the short handed team which in turn forces them to play under pressure. By being forced into an uncomfortable situation it forces the players to get used to playing under pressure.

2. It forces players to use more creativity and use puck control to relieve the pressure instead of just icing the puck and taking the easy way out.

3. I think it forces the Power Play team to use better puck control as well because the short handed team can't just throw the puck away so you can pick it up again.

In the end we have to ask ourselves how important are the wins and losses at the youth level and whether we are here for the long term development of our Minnesota players. I for one vote for the long term development.

Let the flaming begin!

If it is long-term development we are striving for would it not be a good idea to limit the number of games. I know games can be used for development of players, but not all coaches do it.

Bantams 25 games before play-offs.
Pee-wees 20 games.
Squirts 15 games.

However; there are players that want to play games.
How many kids in a youth classification of peewees will play varsity hockey (assuming that is what the long-term development is for).

I personally believe we have a good game, and would be careful of making changes just for the sake of development. Development should come in practice, off-season activity, non-structured activity all year (and in particpating in other non-hockey activities).

Examples, checking or no-checking, tag-up offsides, no whistles on off-sides or icing....
things that could be changed/have been changed for player development...
I prefer to see the game played as the game was established and change the other things we do for development.

Elliot, I agree completely with everything you have said here. The only thing that I would disagree on is that you can't recreate game time pressure in a practice envrionment. It just doesn't work.

I to think that we have a great game and I am certainly not advocating change just for the sake of change but at the same time we shouldn't just accept the status quo because something seems different.

I don't like the tag up rule. Never have, never will, but for now we have to deal with it. Should it be changed back? I think it should. But I think that the icing rule is a little different. It doesn't directly impact the flow of the game unless of course the puck gets iced then you would have a whistle, same as even up play. I just think there are a lot of positives to this particular change. I am certainly willing to listen to detractors. Trust me I understand that just because some cake eater in Mass. thinks this is a great idea doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

I hear what you are saying about the player development. Yes i suppose that the short term goal is developement for the High School level but why does it have to stop there? Part of the goal here is not only to teach the game and enjoy it but there are kids who want to play at the "next level" as well.

I didn't mean to clutter up your thread with a bunch of debate. I will start a new thread on this topic and we can invite all opinions. Thanks.