HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Jusss a little bit outside...and totally off topic. What does MM have to do with association board sense corruption? Try a different thread and lets peel back what IM is clearly discussing towards offering associations the ability to clean up what many find disgusting within youth hockey. I called the police and they confirmed that Hocmom is very elusive....and after 9 years out of touch with common reality.

100% agree

hocmom wrote:

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Jusss a little bit outside...and totally off topic. What does MM have to do with association board sense corruption? Try a different thread and lets peel back what IM is clearly discussing towards offering associations the ability to clean up what many find disgusting within youth hockey. I called the police and they confirmed that Hocmom is very elusive....and after 9 years out of touch with common reality.

Maybe you have spelled this out in the past, lots of posts...If you have I apologize. It appears that you have concerns about Assn boards in general. What are you top few concerns and what do you suggest as a solution?

Sounds like you are playing psychiatrist here homom

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Jusss a little bit outside...and totally off topic. What does MM have to do with association board sense corruption? Try a different thread and lets peel back what IM is clearly discussing towards offering associations the ability to clean up what many find disgusting within youth hockey. I called the police and they confirmed that Hocmom is very elusive....and after 9 years out of touch with common reality.

I agree, though not as sarcastically. Coaches and the board become entrenched in a circle...back-scratch, where the board members have been licking the A coach's ...boots for so long, they can't get rid of him; they certainly didn't spend 6 years of their lives (or in some cases 10 years) just to have the bantam A coach tossed, just as their kids come of age. Look the other way, brush it under the rug, do what you can to hold onto your powerbase - after all who else will speak up against the board if the coach has their backs and who calls the cops on the coach if the board can cover it up. The coach may be legendary for his explosive temper, for his inability to develop players, for the number of kids that quit the game instead of playing for him or quit because they played for him, they number of knowing looks in the lobby or supportive stories at the motel, but there are no 'official records' of any complaints or instances of inappropriate behavior.

So it is down to this.

The solution is to stand near the corner glass swapping conspiracy theories further exagerated with each telling. All the while listing the examples of why you can't help...

I honestly think most of the reason for not helping is fear. Fear of finding out that all of the assumptions you had are pretty much BS.

I confess, I gave the coach some cookies...with sprinkles....

hocmom wrote:So it is down to this.

The solution is to stand near the corner glass swapping conspiracy theories further exagerated with each telling. All the while listing the examples of why you can't help...

I honestly think most of the reason for not helping is fear. Fear of finding out that all of the assumptions you had are pretty much BS.

I confess, I gave the coach some cookies...with sprinkles....

You hit it right on the head, as much as people don't want to believe it. In most cases it is people not knowing what is going on, so they make it up to fit their needs. It couldn't possibly be that little Jimmy isn't an A player, it has to be some huge conspiracy against him.

Most people have no idea how much time and effort goes into making things fair for the players and giving everyone the opportunity to play at the appropriate skill level. How many kids that don't make the team they (or their parents) wanted, go out and truly dominate where they are at?

hocmom wrote:So it is down to this.

The solution is to stand near the corner glass swapping conspiracy theories further exagerated with each telling. All the while listing the examples of why you can't help...

I honestly think most of the reason for not helping is fear. Fear of finding out that all of the assumptions you had are pretty much BS.

I confess, I gave the coach some cookies...with sprinkles....

Or fear of the ridicule and labeled as a trouble maker. If you happen to end up near several board members talking hockey, you can hear them ridiculing members of there association who dare to ask a question or recommend something. Fat chance of getting the benefit when it comes to ice time or making the upper team if you anywhere near the bubble.

So you don't make that mistake you go ahead and continue to volunteer but not a hockey guy so board isn't an option.

There are MANY good, hardworking, fair people on boards. But beware, once one self server person gets in it seems like many soon follow and the board is highjacked. Good luck recovering from that.

So you don't make that mistake you go ahead and continue to volunteer but not a hockey guy so board isn't an option.

Most positions on a board don't require hockey knowledge. All require a commitment of time and some organizational ability. Treasurer, Gambling, Fund Raising...lots of places to serve. The real hockey guys are your coaches coordinator and coaches.

hocmom wrote:

So you don't make that mistake you go ahead and continue to volunteer but not a hockey guy so board isn't an option.

Most positions on a board don't require hockey knowledge. All require a commitment of time and some organizational ability. Treasurer, Gambling, Fund Raising...lots of places to serve. The real hockey guys are your coaches coordinator and coaches.

The one's who evaluate and pick teams, set playing time policy, watch for misconduct, make sure everyone is treated "fairly" etc.

You should put the Wolf on the board. I can make sure that it runs right. You would not have the kind of prolems like you see in lakeville.

Live like a Wolf.

We could use a guy like you Wolfy

hocmom wrote:So it is down to this.

The solution is to stand near the corner glass swapping conspiracy theories further exagerated with each telling. All the while listing the examples of why you can't help...

I honestly think most of the reason for not helping is fear. Fear of finding out that all of the assumptions you had are pretty much BS.

I confess, I gave the coach some cookies...with sprinkles....

No...the cookies with sprinkles didn't help and in the end the corruption you were feeding devoured your monopoly. Throw the conspiracy theories out the window...when grievance information is buried it will always be considered valid because the guilty always try to cover up the dirty work. relax...you're retired now...enjoy...or come to ER and we can show you development.

Kidding...

Your not making any sense. You have not put forth one idea. Just a bunch of half baked claims about a bunch of stuff that kinda happens sometimes maybe.

If what you say is happening the ONLY solution is from the local level. You can't possibly think that some guy at USA Hockey or MN Hockey can figure out your local mess...if it is a mess.

You and your buddies hanging around at the end of ice drinking Kwik Trip coffee (it's cheaper than the concession stand) need to step up and fix it.

This thread was really good when it started out but instead dog & IM had to drag MM into it.

I agree with scrapiron, we all need a guy like Wolfy on our board!

Lastly, Dog - if little Johnny would have gone to the Made for 1 year like little Bernie he wouldn't have been a bubble player and little Bernie would have made Peewee "A". Better yet, If little Johnny would have listened to me (Orangekoolaid) and gone to the Made when he was a 2nd year squirt he would have made Peewee "A" his first year instead of "B".

OrangeKoolaid wrote:This thread was really good when it started out but instead dog & IM had to drag MM into it.

I agree with scrapiron, we all need a guy like Wolfy on our board!

Lastly, Dog - if little Johnny would have gone to the Made for 1 year like little Bernie he wouldn't have been a bubble player and little Bernie would have made Peewee "A". Better yet, If little Johnny would have listened to me (Orangekoolaid) and gone to the Made when he was a 2nd year squirt he would have made Peewee "A" his first year instead of "B".

I have a feeling that you are going to be the king o' th lockout when it comes to your insightful commentardry on this board. Facts are you gain credibility on the forum with insightful wit not insulting @H@T... good luck with that un-cool-aide....

Let me tell you about the board of our youth program a few years back. The guy who was pretty much running the show (because he actually was on a D1 college roster for about a week) ran the rest of the board like a puppet show. He was smart enough to stay in the background so he could blame all on the people ahead of him.

His kid was an average player, not great. A really good kid, I had absolutely nothing against the kid, in fact I felt bad for him due to the mother's nature lottery that landed him the Dad he had. Anyway, this clown offered a one time "move up offer" to 2nd year PeeWee's to Bantams and promised them spots on the B1 teams (but no chance at A).

At first I thought they must have a huge glut of PeeWees-nope. Turns out they barely had enough for an A team and then a B1 team. Two B2 teams that were bad-should have been only one B2 with a C team. Less than previous years in numbers.

Then I though maybe they had a group of really good players that would benefit from an extra year of bantams-nope they were average at best.

This entire thing was orchestrated so his average PeeWee player would be good enough to make the A PeeWee team. Yep, that's it.

A lot of good kids paid the price at the Bantam level for that as well, kids that should have been playing B1 ended up on B2 teams so this clown's kid could be an A PeeWee.

Board member said there wasn't enough talent at Squirt to field two B teams, though the association had done so for the previous three years. Association went with one B team, so far the two C teams have outscored their opponents 107-12, the goalies have 11 shutouts between them.

DMom wrote:Board member said there wasn't enough talent at Squirt to field two B teams, though the association had done so for the previous three years. Association went with one B team, so far the two C teams have outscored their opponents 107-12, the goalies have 11 shutouts between them.

What information or analysis did the board member supply to the decision makers (or other board members, if they decide) to support his claim?

InigoMontoya wrote:

DMom wrote:Board member said there wasn't enough talent at Squirt to field two B teams, though the association had done so for the previous three years. Association went with one B team, so far the two C teams have outscored their opponents 107-12, the goalies have 11 shutouts between them.

What information or analysis did the board member supply to the decision makers (or other board members, if they decide) to support his claim?

The decision was not made at a membership meeting. It didn't involve a vote, it's up to the level directors what teams they are going with.

That's what makes so many people dissatisfied with association hockey. I get it, I understand why alternatives are attractive. That's a small sliver of a decision, impacting young players who will overcome the decision. Maybe MH needs to go with paid staff that run the districts and make decisions for the associations. Lay out the framework, raise the costs, you already have open enrollment, oh wait....than you have club hockey.

DMom wrote:Board member said there wasn't enough talent at Squirt to field two B teams, though the association had done so for the previous three years. Association went with one B team, so far the two C teams have outscored their opponents 107-12, the goalies have 11 shutouts between them.

How is the B team doing?

DMom wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

DMom wrote:Board member said there wasn't enough talent at Squirt to field two B teams, though the association had done so for the previous three years. Association went with one B team, so far the two C teams have outscored their opponents 107-12, the goalies have 11 shutouts between them.

What information or analysis did the board member supply to the decision makers (or other board members, if they decide) to support his claim?

The decision was not made at a membership meeting. It didn't involve a vote, it's up to the level directors what teams they are going with.

That's what makes so many people dissatisfied with association hockey. I get it, I understand why alternatives are attractive. That's a small sliver of a decision, impacting young players who will overcome the decision. Maybe MH needs to go with paid staff that run the districts and make decisions for the associations. Lay out the framework, raise the costs, you already have open enrollment, oh wait....than you have club hockey.

Unfortunately a giant pack of morons are strutting through the rink patting each other on the back about what a great job they're doing developing those kids: 107-12 proves it. Also unfortunate is the fact that a handful of those peewee C kids are going to make your peewee A team next year, and they won't be able to understand how things got so much faster, and they won't dominate - and therefore they won't have any fun, because that is what you've taught them, win and win big, that's the fun of it, so in the 2012-2013 season you'll no longer field an A team at all - B1, B2, and a couple Cs (although you'll lose those kids that should skate A to neighboring communities - or the Fire). A second alternative would be that a whole pot of current squirt A's become the backbone of your peewee A team. Once the parents of the current peewee C teams catch wind that their children have been effectively removed from the development cycle they won't be nearly as happy as they are this year as they hoist the C tourney trophies. Of course there are already a few parents that go to the rink and watch their kids score a hat trick (again) and shake their heads, muttering to themselves about how horrible C hockey is; however, they feel like a salmon swimming up stream; the majority of parents have fallen in step with the wrong headed board member - after all, 107-12 proves it.

We had the same problem, but kind of in reverse. Our HS coach has encouraged our board to field A teams if at all possible. In the years that the A team does not do well we get real pressure from parents to move down. Kids self esteem will be forever crushed, learn to lose, etc etc... My preference is A, don't have to win, just improve.

I assume that Ingo's argument in this case is that the board should just follow the lead of the HS coach and go A. They are the board, they should decide...to heck with a bunch of whiny parents.

It is a catch 22... I have parents tell me that the board should decide, not listen to parents, and then want to hold a parent meeting about the next decision. I guess their point of view, listen or ignore, depends on whether they like the decision.

When should the board decide? When should they poll the parents?

hocmom wrote:We had the same problem, but kind of in reverse. Our HS coach has encouraged our board to field A teams if at all possible. In the years that the A team does not do well we get real pressure from parents to move down. Kids self esteem will be forever crushed, learn to lose, etc etc... My preference is A, don't have to win, just improve.

I assume that Ingo's argument in this case is that the board should just follow the lead of the HS coach and go A. They are the board, they should decide...to heck with a bunch of whiny parents.

It is a catch 22... I have parents tell me that the board should decide, not listen to parents, and then want to hold a parent meeting about the next decision. I guess their point of view, listen or ignore, depends on whether they like the decision.

When should the board decide? When should they poll the parents?

the members of the associations vote the people on to the board to make these type of descisions--
for the most part, parents will criticize and 2nd guess what ever descision is made, whether the team over achieves(no A team) or under achieves(w/A team). Their is always going to be a group of "I told you so" parents.

juiceman, it depends on your board. In my association the board votes on the board. To be on the board you have to be nominated by a sitting board member, then the board votes on which nominees get on. The frustrating part is if you don't agree with what the board has been doing you won't get on. Barring a bunch of Manchurian canidates nothing will ever change.

goldy313 wrote:juiceman, it depends on your board. In my association the board votes on the board. To be on the board you have to be nominated by a sitting board member, then the board votes on which nominees get on. The frustrating part is if you don't agree with what the board has been doing you won't get on. Barring a bunch of Manchurian canidates nothing will ever change.

WOW! Was it written into the by-laws that way? The membership has no say whatsoever?

hocmom wrote:We had the same problem, but kind of in reverse. Our HS coach has encouraged our board to field A teams if at all possible. In the years that the A team does not do well we get real pressure from parents to move down. Kids self esteem will be forever crushed, learn to lose, etc etc... My preference is A, don't have to win, just improve.

I assume that Ingo's argument in this case is that the board should just follow the lead of the HS coach and go A. They are the board, they should decide...to heck with a bunch of whiny parents.

It is a catch 22... I have parents tell me that the board should decide, not listen to parents, and then want to hold a parent meeting about the next decision. I guess their point of view, listen or ignore, depends on whether they like the decision.

When should the board decide? When should they poll the parents?

The board should never poll the parents. The board, or the individual or committee in charge of deciding, should do what is in the best interest of the children (not her own child, but all or most of the children). Other than the top 20-30 programs in the state, most teams have 5-10 A players and 5-10 B players for their top team. The HS coach wants an A team, because his HS team can't compete at the HS level with kids trying to make the jump from bantam B to varsity (or even bantam B to JV to varsity). The HS coach doesn't necessarily have their best interest either - he only needs 4 or 5 kids from each grade to be competitive. If the parents get some kind of high off of their kids hoisting a B trophy with 5-10 A players, then they don't necessarily have their best interest either.

The real questions that needs to be addressed by the board each year shouldn't be A or B this year, they should be revolving around "Why don't we feel we can compete at the A level? Are we recruiting enough players? Are we recruiting the right players? Are we retaining players? Are we providing them enough ice time? Are we teaching them the right things when we have them?" If you are continually in the A cellar, behind communities that have 1/2 or 1/5 the population, then you are failing - failing the community, failing each other, and definitely failing the kids; you need to step down and give someone else a chance - could they really do any worse?!?