The original question was 'what do the girls think'. Girls generally play boys hockey for one of three reasons:
(1) They are too good to play girls hockey
(2) They think they are too good to play girls hockey
(3) Dad thinks they are too good to play girls hockey
98% of the time, it's #2 or #3
...but whether it's 1, 2, or 3, there's no way around the implied insult to the girls that are playing girls hockey. So, to answer your question, 'the girls' mostly resent the girls that decide they are too good to play with the girls.
FYI - you come across as judging.
FYI - the other points you make are already understood by the parents.
I grew up around hockey with my older brother and I learned to skate young and was put into hockey young. And I like playing with the guys so much more, don't get me wrong I love my girls team but I play with my guys high school team and it's so much fun. I love the pace of the game because it's faster than girls and theres more body contact in guys which I like. Even though with guys it's like I have a target on my back because of my pony tail I embrace it and I wouldn't have it any other way because there wouldn't be that competition if they didn't go after me. Also playing guys makes me better because i'm playing against players that aren't necessarily better than me but strong and have more weight no me. It's just plain fun and you just can't get that during girls games and theres less drama with guys teams all my girls teams theres always drama.
All players are different and require different motivation to be sucessful. Some girls prefer to play on a youth team vs. girls. It is true that the level of commitment is different. But not always the case it depends on how well the association supports girls hockey.
Today or this season is not the end result, what prepares them to be sucsessful in high school is what matters because thats where colleges look. Maybe today doesn't require a A team or a tournament medal, but how strong, fast and skilled they become to prepare them for the next level does. Development trumps all.
Girls hockey has a lot of work to do. This sort of garbage doesn't help.
Promote the Game, work to make it better, encourage the players to work hard and enjoy what they do. Stop insulting our fellow hockey families.
I would suggest that succeeding in the current game and current season is what matters and trumps all. Too many players and parents are always eyeing the next season or next coach or next level...you are living the dream now...enjoy it....everything happens in its own time.
Sure good Idea, nice Me Generation additude everybody gets a medal. I guess next season or the future is not the reason parents have their players attend OS, CODP, STP and various other offseason training programs.
Coachk wrote:Sure good Idea, nice Me Generation additude everybody gets a medal. I guess next season or the future is not the reason parents have their players attend OS, CODP, STP and various other offseason training programs.
Having fun now and doing well in the future are complementary, not contradictory. A child who is not having fun playing hockey now is probably not going to be a hockey player much longer. When great players like Gretzky talk about their youth they always mention how they loved hockey so much that they couldn't wait to play. They talk about skating in the back yard and pickup games, not about OS or STP or organized hockey. You can't "program" a good athlete. Desire has to come from within.
Off season programs are really good for one thing. They provide opportunities to play and watch hockey in the summer. Nothing's better than being in a cool rink on a hot muggy day.
Coachk wrote:Sure good Idea, nice Me Generation additude everybody gets a medal. I guess next season or the future is not the reason parents have their players attend OS, CODP, STP and various other offseason training programs.
Wow, that's a lot of acronyms. You must be one of those real hockey guys. I stand corrected...never play to succeed in your current game always train for tomorrow.
hipcheck wrote:If there is not a girls program, then let them play with the boys. If there is a girls program, they should play girls hockey only, no choice.
I agree hipcheck but from experience in trying to pass such a rule at the association level its not possible until USA hockey amends their rules to say just what you are proposing. We tried to pass a rule that said if there is an equivalent girls team (e.g. PWA and U12A) then girls have to play on the girls team. We had a law firm research the issue and it is NOT a Title IX issue, it is a USA Hockey issue.
Girls hockey is evolving and improving rapidly. It is my experience that parents want girls to play with boys to improve their game. What such parents don't realize is that the opposite typically happens (not in all cases but in most). Most of the time a girl that plays PW or Bantams is playing a different game than the girls game. Such girls usually play defense because they don't want to get hit. They learn to move the puck fast, hit and keep their heads up which is good; however, this training usually doesn't translate very well to the girls game which requires more stickhandling, patience and body positioning not hitting. Most girls that play boys hockey beyond squirts are too physical resulting in too many penalties and they need to develop more patience with puck. It generally takes at least a year or two to adjust to the girls' game when they crossover and sometimes they never do completely adjust. I think parents want the best for their daughter but many times they are doing them a disservice because they are losing valuable experience in the girls game. They are also losing some valuable time developing chemistry and comraderie with their teammates which I think is invaluable.
hipcheck wrote:If there is not a girls program, then let them play with the boys. If there is a girls program, they should play girls hockey only, no choice.
I agree hipcheck but from experience in trying to pass such a rule at the association level its not possible until USA hockey amends their rules to say just what you are proposing. We tried to pass a rule that said if there is an equivalent girls team (e.g. PWA and U12A) then girls have to play on the girls team. We had a law firm research the issue and it is NOT a Title IX issue, it is a USA Hockey issue.
Girls hockey is evolving and improving rapidly. It is my experience that parents want girls to play with boys to improve their game. What such parents don't realize is that the opposite typically happens (not in all cases but in most). Most of the time a girl that plays PW or Bantams is playing a different game than the girls game. Such girls usually play defense because they don't want to get hit. They learn to move the puck fast, hit and keep their heads up which is good; however, this training usually doesn't translate very well to the girls game which requires more stickhandling, patience and body positioning not hitting. Most girls that play boys hockey beyond squirts are too physical resulting in too many penalties and they need to develop more patience with puck. It generally takes at least a year or two to adjust to the girls' game when they crossover and sometimes they never do completely adjust. I think parents want the best for their daughter but many times they are doing them a disservice because they are losing valuable experience in the girls game. They are also losing some valuable time developing chemistry and comraderie with their teammates which I think is invaluable.
A group of 96' & 97' Edina and Eden Prairie girls play in the Bantam AA division @ Velocity 3 on 3 league. They get a huge benefit from playing against the boys. They see better pace and a different style than most of the year. On the flip side, you see boys that are not used to handling the puck for more than 3 seconds and lack some of the puck pocession skills.
Also, During the season our association runs open clinics that have the boys and girls in common age groups out togther. They would play small area games and run drills together. The kids enjoyed it so much that the PWA and 12A players would text each other to make sure they went to them. Great competition, fun and I know it helped our girls squad.
Just a couple of hybrid options we use to raise the girls performance without completely immersing them in the boys game.
hipcheck wrote:If there is not a girls program, then let them play with the boys. If there is a girls program, they should play girls hockey only, no choice.
I agree hipcheck but from experience in trying to pass such a rule at the association level its not possible until USA hockey amends their rules to say just what you are proposing. We tried to pass a rule that said if there is an equivalent girls team (e.g. PWA and U12A) then girls have to play on the girls team. We had a law firm research the issue and it is NOT a Title IX issue, it is a USA Hockey issue.
Girls hockey is evolving and improving rapidly. It is my experience that parents want girls to play with boys to improve their game. What such parents don't realize is that the opposite typically happens (not in all cases but in most). Most of the time a girl that plays PW or Bantams is playing a different game than the girls game. Such girls usually play defense because they don't want to get hit. They learn to move the puck fast, hit and keep their heads up which is good; however, this training usually doesn't translate very well to the girls game which requires more stickhandling, patience and body positioning not hitting. Most girls that play boys hockey beyond squirts are too physical resulting in too many penalties and they need to develop more patience with puck. It generally takes at least a year or two to adjust to the girls' game when they crossover and sometimes they never do completely adjust. I think parents want the best for their daughter but many times they are doing them a disservice because they are losing valuable experience in the girls game. They are also losing some valuable time developing chemistry and comraderie with their teammates which I think is invaluable.
What's wrong with defense?
Nothing wrong with defense if that is the best position for the player. However, girl's playing boys don't typically play forward because of the checking and maybe forward is their best position but if defense is their best position that's ok. In regards to your later post I think playing with the boys occassionally is good especially 3 on three. The National Team plays against men to elevate their game to a faster level but they play by women's rules (i.e. no checking).
I think you would have been right on a few years ago but some of the younger ones I have seen over on the west side (Armstrong, Wayzata) and a couple girls i knew out of the Johnson Boys teams are showing that this is not always true anymore. The Pannek girl in the article below is one of 3 that came up through Armstrong Pee Wee straight to Girls HS recently. It might be the way the HS game has changed or the that they play girls AAA in the summer but these are some very good all around players who excel in Girls HS. They are not stuck in a boys hockey mode and didn't need years to adjust.
There are plenty who go straight from U14 to Varsity as well, Tonka had a very good one this year. I think if it is a good fit for the individual it is a not necessarily a poor option (to play youth) if your goals are to play at a high level in Girls HS hockey. Just like carrying the puck across center ice in Pee Wees, families better go in to this decision with their head up.
royals dad wrote:I think you would have been right on a few years ago but some of the younger ones I have seen over on the west side (Armstrong, Wayzata) and a couple girls i knew out of the Johnson Boys teams are showing that this is not always true anymore. The Pannek girl in the article below is one of 3 that came up through Armstrong Pee Wee straight to Girls HS recently. It might be the way the HS game has changed or the that they play girls AAA in the summer but these are some very good all around players who excel in Girls HS. They are not stuck in a boys hockey mode and didn't need years to adjust.
There are plenty who go straight from U14 to Varsity as well, Tonka had a very good one this year. I think if it is a good fit for the individual it is a not necessarily a poor option (to play youth) if your goals are to play at a high level in Girls HS hockey. Just like carrying the puck across center ice in Pee Wees, families better go in to this decision with their head up.
First of all, I said most not "all". Some girls will be very good immediately whether they play girls or boys. I could give you lots of examples of girls that had a longer transition but I don't think its appropriate to name names.
Second as an association Board we were trying to lead the way to make girls hockey even better. Too many girls were playing boys because they wanted to be like Wendell or others that were successful playing boys hockey. In the opinion of our board girls hockey became successful because an all girls alternative was created. In Minnesota there were substantial numbers of quality players missing from the equation because they were playing with the boys. To make the girls program even stronger we were trying to get those girls to play with the girls. Just my opinion but I think most of the girls playing with the boys and even Wendell would have been great whether they played with the boys or played with the girls. Growing girls hockey was our intent. We were thwarted by threats but I still think girls hockey as a whole would be better if girls played with girls unless there wasn't an opportunity to play unless they play with the boys.
If its better to play with the boys, should we eliminate the girls program or limit it only to B players? I don't think that's the answer because we will go right back to where we started before girls hockey took off. Its a bit frustrating to many of us that think the girls program has lots to offer and see girls' parents snub the program because they think playing with the boys gives them some sort of advantage. Just my opinion.
Edge, It was the word "most" that I was disagreeing with. No way to know for sure but I just was going by the ones I have seen in the 95 and 96 birth years.
royals dad wrote:Edge, It was the word "most" that I was disagreeing with. No way to know for sure but I just was going by the ones I have seen in the 95 and 96 birth years.
No problem. We can agree that we disagree. Its not the first time and it probably won't be the last time we disagree.
It's really hard to generalize as each association is a different situation. The most important point in the entire discussion is recruiting 4 and 5 year old girls. It can be a financial saver for some associations as they may have done a pretty good job getting all the boys they can in their community but may have a ways to go with the girls.
Most all associations now have girls programs which wasn't the case just 5 years ago. There are a lot of girls that don't want to skate with boys so once the girls program gets equal attention more girls will sign up to skate with other girls. Girls often sign up in twos and threes as they like to do stuff together with their friends.
Numbers are always a situation at every association, every size, at every level, girls and boys. There's never the exact correct number of players to divide the talent into teams without having a few strong players, or weak players, on every team. So now there's a number shuffle. Should 4 A level girl players be waived, with their registration fee, to a neighboring association that offers A level? That might tighten the talent gap of the remaining girls and make them a solid B team. Should the 4 be allowed to tryout for the boys Squirt and PeeWee teams which could tip the boys numbers as weaker boy players trickle down? All of these questions are answered by more girls. 30 new mite girls each year has to be the metro goal. The situation you have at 12U and 14U is based on the recruiting that was done 5-6 years ago and can't be repaired. 12 year old girl hockey players don't fall from trees unless you're Blaine and use questionable tactics to benefit your own personal situation. So, you got what you got. Again, go recruit girls so the situation is different in 5 more years.
What Districts and associations in each District should discuss is how to work together allowing player movement between neighboring associations in the same District. The same thing happens with Bantam C boys. What, do you think there are always 15 players and a golie left for the last team formed? That's hardly ever the case at any association. When large associations have 10 teams at a level they can add or subtract 1 player from each team and have enough players to form one more team or not. That allows the largest associations to avoid some of what we're discussing. Smaller associations, with 1-2 teams per level don't have that luxury and are in a pickle without enough players for the final teams. They also end up with a bigger spread in player ability on their individual teams. It seems with 3 teams you get closer to having everyone at the correct level. That's why you can have a Champlain Park B team win a state title with a few A players. The large association teams are usually more true to their level as more teams have all the kids playing at the appropriate level. Their B2 level boys teams are truely B2 as more teams means having more kids playing at the appropriate level.
Now, everyone say after me, get out there and recruit 4 and 5 year olds. Have more kids, more teams, more revenue, more and better volunteers, better coaches, more success and more kids playing at the appropriate level.
To make the girls program even stronger we were trying to get those girls to play with the girls.
What alternative methods did you use "to get those girls to play with the girls" prior to hiring a lawyer to find a way to force them to do it?
We have lots of dads that are ex-professional and college hockey players who pushed girls hockey as much as boys hockey. In our community the board spends as much time and money on the girls side as they do on the boys side. Hockey has become the cool thing to do among the girls and the girls parents.
As I said in a previous post we used a law firm to do some research on the issue of requiring girls to play with girls. The law firm said that there wasn't anything in the Federal Title IX law that prohibited us from requiring girls to play with girls. What we found was that more than 25 years ago USA hockey put in a rule that required boys hockey teams to let girls play. I assume that the reason USA hockey put in such a rule was that at that time there were no equivalent girls hockey programs. We were faced with a dilemma. We could require girls to play with girls and face sanctions from USA hockey (the most likely being not allowing our youth teams to play in the playoffs) or do nothing since it wasn't a huge problem in our community because we had very few girls that played on the boys side and most that did play with the boys switched over by the time they were PeeWees. The motivation for exploring the passage of a girls only requirment was to lead the way and give other associations some ammunition to do the same thing. The thought was that the quality of girls hockey in the State would increase by getting more quality players into the girls program.
In our community, its cool to play girls hockey and part of the reason for success is that the vast majority of them want to play on the girls side, which makes for a vibrant girls program.
So your program is the bees knees; you were just trying to help out all the other girls programs in the state? That's mighty nice of you, however I would guess that most of the other girls programs would like to be able to have the flexibility to handle their own situations in the best manner available to them. I would also guess that most associations don't have ex-NHLers pushing girls hockey, most associations don't have a girls' program "equivalent" to the boys' program, and most associations don't have the money to pay a lawyer to tell them that Title IX doesn't apply to them because they don't get federal money. On the flip-side, the top girls' programs in the state have had, and currently have, ex-NHLers who have their daughters playing in the boys' programs, so, if this issue is that important, then even the bees knees need to ask the hard questions: what do the girls (or their parents), that play with the boy, want or need from their hockey experience, and are we capable of (or wanting to) meeting those needs.
Young girls can definitley skate with young boys and they certainly can play at par with them. A problem that occurs is they are taking a position away from a young boy that could eventually develop into a player for the boys program. The girls are using the boys program to develop themselves for the girls high school team. If they would continue to play on the boys highschool team, they deserve to be in that spot, but we all know, they do not usually continue into the Bantam level.
I would rather see a young boy get the icetime to develop into a player for the boys program than have that roster spot filled with a girl who could develop within the girls program and further the development of her future team mates.
Why don't the boy's just start signing up for GIRLS hockey? Is that an option? That would be wierd! Now that girls hockey is available, I think the girls should play with the girls. These girls are good! The are competitive and have a love for the game. They work hard and are getting more and more physical. It was different when girls hockey wasn't available but the times have changed. The few girls I have watched play with the boy's teams play the puck like it's a hot potato. I rarely saw one girl get a pass and when she did it was like she was nervous. Then when she played with the girls in selects she thought she could control everything. That didn't work either, she made many turnovers. I didn't see her playing above and beyond the level of any of the girls out there at the higher level. The other girl I watched playing PW hockey was tiny and looked scared out there. Again, when I saw that girl play with the girls she was nothing special either.
Every situation is different. Every association is different and every girl player is different. If you want to talk about a specific situation and get some feedback please describe your specific situation.
Hipcheck, you're a little confused about the role of a youth hockey association. A youth hockey association is in the business of developing hockey players. Period. They are generally 501c3 (can't discriminate) and have no real relationship with any of the high schools in their community. Some associations develop kids that play on 8 different high school teams.
Develop as many good hockey players as you can through bantam and 14U and then let em go. That's the role of a youth hockey association.
hipcheck wrote:So why do we have a girls youth program????
We have a girls program and we have a youth program. We do not have a boys program. Some girls still choose the youth program as a better fit. I would guess it is a tiny fraction of the 13K girls who play but I am glad they have the option if it means they are continuing in the sport.
