Movin' on up!

[HockeyDad41]

I don't understand how holding a kid back benefits the association. If he's a mite and he's good enough to play on a squirt b1 team, doesn't that help out the b1 team and at the same time provide the best situation for the kid?

[HockeyDad41]

I don't understand how holding a kid back benefits the association. If he's a mite and he's good enough to play on a squirt b1 team, doesn't that help out the b1 team and at the same time provide the best situation for the kid?

I suppose that you could take the stance that by moving a mite up to squirt you are taking a true squirt aged kid and dropping him back down the ladder as far as that goes. I don't know about other associations but usually the A and B1 teams are coached to get better and win and the B2 and below are coached by a parent who wants to have fun with the kids. I have seen huge differences in coaching that leads to huge differences in skill progression and etc so the next fall the kid who was dropped off the back end is essentially too far behind to catch up. Leads into that pigeon holing of the kids based on what level they played at last year so this year you know (even before tryouts) what level the kid is gonna play this year.

I am sure that every association is different, but for the local, by the time you get to the back end of the B1's you are into the kids who kick off the skates at the end of the season and don't even think about putting them back on until next fall. Moving a few of those kids back to accomodate the mite kids who legitimately could play and benefit from the coaching and competition wouldn't be the end of the world for the association.

[old goalie85]

I think the assc should try to put the best teams on the ice they can....... Everything else should work it's way out. I keep posting about my oldest[ he is a 94, senior] Only five kids were the same from the squirt A to the Bantam A pictures. If the mite is good enough and the parents want to get into the"rat race" sooner than they have to, so be it. Me I'd stay in mites where it is cheaper as long as possible.

[JSR]

I don't understand how holding a kid back benefits the association. If he's a mite and he's good enough to play on a squirt b1 team, doesn't that help out the b1 team and at the same time provide the best situation for the kid?

I suppose that you could take the stance that by moving a mite up to squirt you are taking a true squirt aged kid and dropping him back down the ladder as far as that goes. I don't know about other associations but usually the A and B1 teams are coached to get better and win and the B2 and below are coached by a parent who wants to have fun with the kids. I have seen huge differences in coaching that leads to huge differences in skill progression and etc so the next fall the kid who was dropped off the back end is essentially too far behind to catch up. Leads into that pigeon holing of the kids based on what level they played at last year so this year you know (even before tryouts) what level the kid is gonna play this year.

I am sure that every association is different, but for the local, by the time you get to the back end of the B1's you are into the kids who kick off the skates at the end of the season and don't even think about putting them back on until next fall. Moving a few of those kids back to accomodate the mite kids who legitimately could play and benefit from the coaching and competition wouldn't be the end of the world for the association.

And there is the pigeon holing. Let's not get a little thing like the fact that they are 9 years old get in the way of trying to advance a 8 year old who may or may not be any good in 5 years comparitively if we just give the 9 year old a chance to grow up a little and keep working with them.......

[HockeyDad41]

I suppose that you could take the stance that by moving a mite up to squirt you are taking a true squirt aged kid and dropping him back down the ladder as far as that goes. I don't know about other associations but usually the A and B1 teams are coached to get better and win and the B2 and below are coached by a parent who wants to have fun with the kids. I have seen huge differences in coaching that leads to huge differences in skill progression and etc so the next fall the kid who was dropped off the back end is essentially too far behind to catch up. Leads into that pigeon holing of the kids based on what level they played at last year so this year you know (even before tryouts) what level the kid is gonna play this year.

I am sure that every association is different, but for the local, by the time you get to the back end of the B1's you are into the kids who kick off the skates at the end of the season and don't even think about putting them back on until next fall. Moving a few of those kids back to accomodate the mite kids who legitimately could play and benefit from the coaching and competition wouldn't be the end of the world for the association.

And there is the pigeon holing. Let's not get a little thing like the fact that they are 9 years old get in the way of trying to advance a 8 year old who may or may not be any good in 5 years comparitively if we just give the 9 year old a chance to grow up a little and keep working with them.......

I am thinking more of rewarding the 8 year old for hard work than punishing the 9 year old who would rather play baseball, video games, anything else, etc...

[JSR]

I am sure that every association is different, but for the local, by the time you get to the back end of the B1's you are into the kids who kick off the skates at the end of the season and don't even think about putting them back on until next fall. Moving a few of those kids back to accomodate the mite kids who legitimately could play and benefit from the coaching and competition wouldn't be the end of the world for the association.

And there is the pigeon holing. Let's not get a little thing like the fact that they are 9 years old get in the way of trying to advance a 8 year old who may or may not be any good in 5 years comparitively if we just give the 9 year old a chance to grow up a little and keep working with them.......

I am thinking more of rewarding the 8 year old for hard work than punishing the 9 year old who would rather play baseball, video games, anything else, etc...

So a kid who is playing baseball and soccer or football and doing all the things his coaches said to do to develop his overall athleticism in the "off season" at that age instead of concentrating just on hockey at 9 years old should not be rewarded? Am I getting that correct? Seems like the other kid is working just as hard, just choosing a different path at the early age so his long term results can be better instead of the early short term results. Wait I get it now, you are saying working hard at just hockey is more important than working hard at developing overall athleticism and should be rewarded more so than the other. Is that it?

[observer]

A lot of this is dad driven and on occasion selfish. I remember telling one, trying to get on the fast track and a coach as several of these types are, Dude, your responsibility is to all the kids your son’s age. You need to develop all them, not just yours, so your son has linemates, and D partners, in the coming years. Life is about serving others. Stay with the group your sons age, and class is school, and help to develop all of them.

Just had to throw that angle out there. Sometimes these discussions miss huge parts.

[old goalie85]

That is the an fun part. Watching not just your kid, the whole group develop. Sometimes parents end up spending big $ on hockey and want those returns right away. By the time the kids are Bantams those kids can get passed up. other times not. Marathon not a sprink. Enjoy it they grow fast.

[old goalie85]

I meant sprint.

[HockeyDad41]

And there is the pigeon holing. Let's not get a little thing like the fact that they are 9 years old get in the way of trying to advance a 8 year old who may or may not be any good in 5 years comparitively if we just give the 9 year old a chance to grow up a little and keep working with them.......

I am thinking more of rewarding the 8 year old for hard work than punishing the 9 year old who would rather play baseball, video games, anything else, etc...

So a kid who is playing baseball and soccer or football and doing all the things his coaches said to do to develop his overall athleticism in the "off season" at that age instead of concentrating just on hockey at 9 years old should not be rewarded? Am I getting that correct? Seems like the other kid is working just as hard, just choosing a different path at the early age so his long term results can be better instead of the early short term results. Wait I get it now, you are saying working hard at just hockey is more important than working hard at developing overall athleticism and should be rewarded more so than the other. Is that it?

You are not getting what I am saying. In my scenario, you are not taking anything away from a couple of kids that get moved down to B2, because neither they nor their parents really give much of a crap about hockey to begin with. Of course you don't discourage or punish kids that participate in other sports that develop athleticism.

[luckyEPDad]

A lot of this is dad driven and on occasion selfish. I remember telling one, trying to get on the fast track and a coach as several of these types are, Dude, your responsibility is to all the kids your son’s age. You need to develop all them, not just yours, so your son has linemates, and D partners, in the coming years. Life is about serving others. Stay with the group your sons age, and class is school, and help to develop all of them.

Just had to throw that angle out there. Sometimes these discussions miss huge parts.

If coaching at mite level is so horrible that an 8 year old's hockey career is at risk why not improve the coaching. Hire some skills coaches who cycle through working with all the teams. Superstar kid gets some time with a top notch coach. All kids un-learn some bad habits they were picking up. The pool of potential squirts coaches get better from getting to work with a good, experienced coach. Eight years from now you win the HS hockey tournament.

[@hockeytweet]

I've come full circle on this topic and enjoy watching the banter when it makes the annual appearance on this board. The words: "development", "rewarding", and "talented" are thrown around by adults looking to rationalize the decisions they make for their children, by assuming the wisdom often gained in their own lives has some bearing on that of the child.
No one in our association is allowed to move up. Period. Every year there is some angry Dad accusing the Association of holding back his kid. "It's political". (That Dad is the parent of a Mite 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, his super Squirt should be playing Pee Wees.)
Funny enough, the playing up talk seems to die down around Bantams, when things seem to have played out.
The Dad who insisted his kid should have played up all of those years ago, is content. His child is playing with friends.

[JSR]

I am thinking more of rewarding the 8 year old for hard work than punishing the 9 year old who would rather play baseball, video games, anything else, etc...

So a kid who is playing baseball and soccer or football and doing all the things his coaches said to do to develop his overall athleticism in the "off season" at that age instead of concentrating just on hockey at 9 years old should not be rewarded? Am I getting that correct? Seems like the other kid is working just as hard, just choosing a different path at the early age so his long term results can be better instead of the early short term results. Wait I get it now, you are saying working hard at just hockey is more important than working hard at developing overall athleticism and should be rewarded more so than the other. Is that it?

You are not getting what I am saying. In my scenario, you are not taking anything away from a couple of kids that get moved down to B2, because neither they nor their parents really give much of a crap about hockey to begin with. Of course you don't discourage or punish kids that participate in other sports that develop athleticism.

No I understand exactly what you are saying and to say a kid who is a bubble B1/B2 player "doesn't give much of a crap about hockey" is beyond insulting both to the kid and the parent. I've known kids who couldn't skate at all their first year of squirts but loved it and worked harder than alot of the squirt A kids and now are playing for the Peee Wee A team and are one of the top three kids. I have known kids who were Pee Wee C's their first year of pee wee's that now have D1 scholarships. They gave a crap about hockey as mites they just hadn't developed physically yet. It's a good thing they didn't have you as a coach though, probably would have never been given a chance to develop ever. Again you are pigeon holing and when you do that you practice in absolutes and there are in absolutes and that is dangerous and shortsighted.

[HockeyDad41]

So a kid who is playing baseball and soccer or football and doing all the things his coaches said to do to develop his overall athleticism in the "off season" at that age instead of concentrating just on hockey at 9 years old should not be rewarded? Am I getting that correct? Seems like the other kid is working just as hard, just choosing a different path at the early age so his long term results can be better instead of the early short term results. Wait I get it now, you are saying working hard at just hockey is more important than working hard at developing overall athleticism and should be rewarded more so than the other. Is that it?

You are not getting what I am saying. In my scenario, you are not taking anything away from a couple of kids that get moved down to B2, because neither they nor their parents really give much of a crap about hockey to begin with. Of course you don't discourage or punish kids that participate in other sports that develop athleticism.

No I understand exactly what you are saying and to say a kid who is a bubble B1/B2 player "doesn't give much of a crap about hockey" is beyond insulting both to the kid and the parent. I've known kids who couldn't skate at all their first year of squirts but loved it and worked harder than alot of the squirt A kids and now are playing for the Peee Wee A team and are one of the top three kids. I have known kids who were Pee Wee C's their first year of pee wee's that now have D1 scholarships. They gave a crap about hockey as mites they just hadn't developed physically yet. It's a good thing they didn't have you as a coach though, probably would have never been given a chance to develop ever. Again you are pigeon holing and when you do that you practice in absolutes and there are in absolutes and that is dangerous and shortsighted.

I guess I'm not making myself clear to you, but that's ok. Don't worry about it.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

After seeing your comments on borderline B1/B2 players and clearly only focussed on what may benefit your child, it is clearly a waste of electrons to try talk some sense to you. Coming from a large association, there are many quality B2 players that would be playing at higher levels in smaller associations. They work hard, play hard, but sometime get caught in a numbers game if they had a bad day or week of tryouts (getting sick etc). Adding a B team is not doable since ice time is already at a premium. Some of those kids eventually make an "A" team. It seams to happen every year. Adding more competition just makes a tough situation tougher when the emotional aspects are considered.

Too many other things to consider out side of your personal perspective, but I will amend my earlier comment. You will not be able to hide those nut job personality traits, no matter how hard you try.

[@hockeytweet]

As I've said before, I've come full circle on this subject. With my oldest, more ice was always better. Summer Mite hockey was spent playing up a level, or two in some cases. But his friends all did it too. It was fine through the Squirt years. But then you start to see some of those kids crack. And you begin to wonder if pushing your kid to play up will do the same. And, to borrow HD41's word, "rewarding" them for that hard work just doesn't seem like a reward at all.
Good luck either way. But when the advice is given, don't dismiss it as being from people who don't get your point, just because it is to the contrary.

Full disclosure: I'm trying a completely different angle with the youngest son, who is a squirt. No AAA teams, so I'm saving a lot of dough right there. Just a good old fashion power skating camp, instead of Minnesota Made. Insert your own joke here. {}
I've already noticed the difference.

[HockeyDad41]

After seeing your comments on borderline B1/B2 players and clearly only focussed on what may benefit your child, it is clearly a waste of electrons to try talk some sense to you. Coming from a large association, there are many quality B2 players that would be playing at higher levels in smaller associations. They work hard, play hard, but sometime get caught in a numbers game if they had a bad day or week of tryouts (getting sick etc). Adding a B team is not doable since ice time is already at a premium. Some of those kids eventually make an "A" team. It seams to happen every year. Adding more competition just makes a tough situation tougher when the emotional aspects are considered.

Too many other things to consider out side of your personal perspective, but I will amend my earlier comment. You will not be able to hide those nut job personality traits, no matter how hard you try.

[HockeyDad41]

Everyone is just dying to give me all this sage advice and to opine on my intelligence. I thought everyone here knew that my kid doesn't play association hockey. I just wanted to talk about something different. Relax.

Still haven't heard a decent reason not to move up a kid who can handle it.

[old goalie85]

I am relaxed, and gave you one good reason.......$$$$$.

[HockeyDad41]

I am relaxed, and gave you one good reason.......$$$$$.

What's the reason again?

[O-townClown]

Still haven't heard a decent reason not to move up a kid who can handle it.

A player can help their proper-age team win, while they really can't do that on an older team.

Let's say you have a Pee Wee A stud. Put him on Bantam A and he is an average or below player. At Pee Wee A he will make a difference. Also, he will build confidence. We have such a rush to be average as parents. It often leads to being average at a high level, not standing out at a high level. (Examples from other sports....Stacy Lewis has won a Major while Michelle Wie hasn't and Freddie Adu has not set the world on fire. Those two were playing way up in age at age 13/14.)

[HockeyDad41]

Still haven't heard a decent reason not to move up a kid who can handle it.

A player can help their proper-age team win, while they really can't do that on an older team.

Let's say you have a Pee Wee A stud. Put him on Bantam A and he is an average or below player. At Pee Wee A he will make a difference. Also, he will build confidence. We have such a rush to be average as parents. It often leads to being average at a high level, not standing out at a high level. (Examples from other sports....Stacy Lewis has won a Major while Michelle Wie hasn't and Freddie Adu has not set the world on fire. Those two were playing way up in age at age 13/14.)

Perhaps that is true once they hit Pee Wee's and try to play up to Bantams, but does this hold true for the mite that wants to play up to squirts? Winning is not an issue at mites, in fact the district has done everything they can to remove winning from the scenario. 12 minute periods, 12 year old refs, no penalties, no keeping score, no posting any references to wins or losses on the association website. No tournaments, and for the majority of mites, no play outside of the association.

[JSR]

You are not getting what I am saying. In my scenario, you are not taking anything away from a couple of kids that get moved down to B2, because neither they nor their parents really give much of a crap about hockey to begin with. Of course you don't discourage or punish kids that participate in other sports that develop athleticism.

No I understand exactly what you are saying and to say a kid who is a bubble B1/B2 player "doesn't give much of a crap about hockey" is beyond insulting both to the kid and the parent. I've known kids who couldn't skate at all their first year of squirts but loved it and worked harder than alot of the squirt A kids and now are playing for the Peee Wee A team and are one of the top three kids. I have known kids who were Pee Wee C's their first year of pee wee's that now have D1 scholarships. They gave a crap about hockey as mites they just hadn't developed physically yet. It's a good thing they didn't have you as a coach though, probably would have never been given a chance to develop ever. Again you are pigeon holing and when you do that you practice in absolutes and there are in absolutes and that is dangerous and shortsighted.

I guess I'm not making myself clear to you, but that's ok. Don't worry about it.

No, you have been perfectly clear. You just won't open your mind to other peoples points. I have seen this before.... BUT you want a good reason not to move a kid up, CONFIDENCE. There is no substitute for the confidence a player gains by being "the man" on his team instead of being just "one of many" by playing up. We have a kid near us that has been playing up since he was a second year mite. He still plays up on his current team (which is a winter AAA team, so he is in essence playing with the age group above him). He looks great when he plays with his own age group but honestly he is not the numero uno best kid on the ice, he is one of them but he isn't so head and shoulders above everyone that you just go "wow", he just has a really high motor. Meanwhile some of the other best kids on the ice have been playing with their own age groups the whole time never playing up. One of the main reasons, IMHO, that he doesn't look better than you would think he should is that because he plays up he is used to deferring to older, better players. Sure he skates hard and works hard but when it comes to needing a play made at critical points in the game the guys who don't play up are the ones making those plays most of the time because they are used to ebing "the man" and know what is required at those junctures. Sure there is a kid every once in a blue moon who is still "the man" even when he plays up but those kids are so, so rare. BUT when you look at this message board, or attend a tryout or a youth board meeting you'd swear every single association has like 4 of those kids, atleast according to their parents......

You want a second reason. LEADERSHIP. Basically it goes hand in hand with what I wrote above about confidence but you learn to be a leader on a team when youa re that good and play with your own age group, you learn to be a follower when you play up. THere are exceptions toe very rule but I have found this to be the rule.

You want a third, humility, both for kid and parent. Something lacking in youth sports in general in my opinion.

Shall I go on?

[old goalie85]

HD- I was joking around w/ you. The big thing to me is it is much cheaper to play mights than to play squirts. As far as assc goes if they want to move up let-em go. It all sorts itself out by bantam/highschool whatever you do it......

[@hockeytweet]

I definately agree about the $$$. OG has the right idea, especially when you have multiple skaters to pay for.
But say that money isn't an issue. You know best how your assocation works. If it is allowed, use that to your advantage. I'm just saying that in a Mega Assocation like mine, where the policy is "NO", things are just fine too. One or two each year get denied, they complain, life goes on.
Next July, about a month before tryouts, another post will appear and the debate will continue. No right or wrong answers to this.