HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

BoogeyMan wrote:In this case. Why doesn't Edina just ask some other association to help evaluate the kids? In return. Edina can help evaluate their kids.

This way you stay away from "Its not what you know it's who you know"

I thought I heard last year that there are some associations that do this. Does anyone know for sure?

Pros / Cons?

Ultimately someone always knows someone from the helping assoc. and it ends up pretty much the same...
I am not in favor of closed tryouts either, IMO it actually makes the situation worse because those same worked up parents after the tryouts, are going to be the same ones freaking out their own kids and stirring up problems that don't even exist before and during.
Best approach is openness... and if your on the choosing end be honest and have some integrity, if your on the chosen end have some dignity and self control you and your child will be glad you did.

It's funny when I was young and played sports I knew where I stood and was never really that dissapointed, as long as there was a place to play you were good.
Oh and mom and dad?? they were busy with their own business of working and housekeeping, not chasing down coaches or evaluators..going to a game was the exception not the rule, some could take a lesson from that.

So actually yeah the kids could pick the teams and be ok with it, but it's not just for the kids anymore or that would have happened long ago.

Can't Never Tried wrote:

BoogeyMan wrote:In this case. Why doesn't Edina just ask some other association to help evaluate the kids? In return. Edina can help evaluate their kids.

This way you stay away from "Its not what you know it's who you know"

I thought I heard last year that there are some associations that do this. Does anyone know for sure?

Pros / Cons?

Ultimately someone always knows someone from the helping assoc. and it ends up pretty much the same...
I am not in favor of closed tryouts either, IMO it actually makes the situation worse because those same worked up parents after the tryouts, are going to be the same ones freaking out their own kids and stirring up problems that don't even exist before and during.
Best approach is openness... and if your on the choosing end be honest and have some integrity, if your on the chosen end have some dignity and self control you and your child will be glad you did.

It's funny when I was young and played sports I knew where I stood and was never really that dissapointed, as long as there was a place to play you were good.
Oh and mom and dad?? they were busy with their own business of working and housekeeping, not chasing down coaches or evaluators..going to a game was the exception not the rule, some could take a lesson from that.

So actually yeah the kids could pick the teams and be ok with it, but it's not just for the kids anymore or that would have happened long ago.

CNT you are so right but only in a vacuum. When the club foregoes it's integrity over and over we are still asked to maintain our self control and not hold them accountable and just wait for them to find their way. The only thing other than publicly challenging them that will work to stop it is competition. This behavior stems from monopolization. Once those barriers are broken down, and it's already happening ie. MN Made, private school bantams, and other venues to be launched soon, there will be consequences for the offending clubs and they may think twice about continuing the shinanagans. If most clubs would commit to developing more than 15 kids per level a lot of this wouldn't be an issue. The best way to do that is to have kids play with and against kids of their own skill level. #16 playing with #90 isn't it.

One last comment here hockey is a huge political monster from the ground up. Lucsia on the gophers????? Woog on the gophers???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? its not just in our programs people its even at the college level. pro level if your an average american your not gona make the team over the average canadien...

watchdog wrote:One last comment here hockey is a huge political monster from the ground up. Lucsia on the gophers????? Woog on the gophers???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? its not just in our programs people its even at the college level. pro level if your an average american your not gona make the team over the average canadien...

I thought the same thing about Lucia at first, but after two seasons I've come to see that the kid belongs there.

theref wrote:

watchdog wrote:One last comment here hockey is a huge political monster from the ground up. Lucsia on the gophers????? Woog on the gophers???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? its not just in our programs people its even at the college level. pro level if your an average american your not gona make the team over the average canadien...

I thought the same thing about Lucia at first, but after two seasons I've come to see that the kid belongs there.

On this one I agree with the ref!

The issue here is that the guy and his wife acted like jerks. There are a lot of high level athletes who have a sense of entitlement about everything they do. They did not get the benefit of the doubt and they freaked out. Sounds like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Anyone who has been in a large association knows that the difference between 12 and 20 can be very small. Sidney Crosby has bad weeks and games, why can't a 9 year old. The facts are that you need to be at your best for that one week. If you are not at your best, but some other kid is, that may be the difference. My son is in a very large association, and the "A" team 10-15 could have been completely different if the tryouts were held a week earlier or later. That is the breaks. However, the B1 players are very good and there is not a large drop off between 15 and 60 (no kidding). Kids are very good these days and the differences are getting smaller. Why not be the best player instead of the worst? Herb Brooks said that he never saw a kid move up too slow, but he saw many move up too fast. Playing squirt b is not going to impact his long term prospects-he has not even hit puberty yet.


I saw the kid when he was in EP. He was not a standout, so the fact he was even in the running for Squirt A is a positive for him.

dingle wrote:carpenterguy,

I understand that the parents acted poorly in this situation.

My point would be that the coaches/evaluators/board members of edina that picked the squirt team acted like children when they picked there 'favorite son' over this other player that seemed to have a better tryout.

When this happens in an association consistenly, it not only effects the player/parent that gets picked over, but other players/parents also notice picks like these. I see this as a reason parents look for programs outside their associations.

Some on here are stating all this as fact. How do we know for sure this kid was given special treatment????

Parents need to get a grip!!

carpenterguy wrote:

dingle wrote:carpenterguy,

Parents need to get a grip!!

Agree

skillbuilder wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote:

BoogeyMan wrote:In this case. Why doesn't Edina just ask some other association to help evaluate the kids? In return. Edina can help evaluate their kids.

This way you stay away from "Its not what you know it's who you know"

I thought I heard last year that there are some associations that do this. Does anyone know for sure?

Pros / Cons?

Ultimately someone always knows someone from the helping assoc. and it ends up pretty much the same...
I am not in favor of closed tryouts either, IMO it actually makes the situation worse because those same worked up parents after the tryouts, are going to be the same ones freaking out their own kids and stirring up problems that don't even exist before and during.

Best approach is openness... and if your on the choosing end be honest and have some integrity, if your on the chosen end have some dignity and self control you and your child will be glad you did.

It's funny when I was young and played sports I knew where I stood and was never really that dissapointed, as long as there was a place to play you were good.
Oh and mom and dad?? they were busy with their own business of working and housekeeping, not chasing down coaches or evaluators..going to a game was the exception not the rule, some could take a lesson from that.

So actually yeah the kids could pick the teams and be ok with it, but it's not just for the kids anymore or that would have happened long ago.

CNT you are so right but only in a vacuum. When the club foregoes it's integrity over and over we are still asked to maintain our self control and not hold them accountable and just wait for them to find their way. The only thing other than publicly challenging them that will work to stop it is competition. This behavior stems from monopolization. Once those barriers are broken down, and it's already happening ie. MN Made, private school bantams, and other venues to be launched soon, there will be consequences for the offending clubs and they may think twice about continuing the shinanagans. If most clubs would commit to developing more than 15 kids per level a lot of this wouldn't be an issue. The best way to do that is to have kids play with and against kids of their own skill level. #16 playing with #90 isn't it.

It's a game..kids play games, adults watch kids play games for fun and enjoyment....we are talking about associations...not clubs.

Associations commit to the whole program from mini-mites to Jr gold, clubs focus on their clubs be it PW, bantams, or what ever.
I don't know what vacum your talking about?? unless it's the one that has sucked all the common sense out of the children that we have raised that are apparently now this age group.
I have said many times, having been through the ride that mistakes have been made..and I have learned from them..now some of you younger folks have the opportunity in this information age to learn the mistakes that were made and better things through community effort, not individual wants and needs, if you want things to be how you see they should be, get involved and quit saying it's all the associations fault, if you are right in your convictions you will get support and you can change things.. I know because I've done it.
I think it's lame to blame without contributing, it's never easy to change things but the effort is always worth it in the end....it has been for me!

___________________________
Is it for you or the kids?

Here's a novel idea and something that I tried to get done a couple years back. Have a 'revolvolving elvaluator' tryout. Sound dumb...here was the concept...

Three Associations with three sets of evaluators. All three sets would see kids participate in same format on three different nights. Just seemed fair to me but went over like a lead ballon with some inside our association...

HOFam'r wrote:Here's a novel idea and something that I tried to get done a couple years back. Have a 'revolvolving elvaluator' tryout. Sound dumb...here was the concept...

Three Associations with three sets of evaluators. All three sets would see kids participate in same format on three different nights. Just seemed fair to me but went over like a lead ballon with some inside our association...

Here is a much better idea! Parents, when your kids are faced with a tough moment, show them how to react! It all comes down to parenting!!

carpenterguy wrote: Here is a much better idea! Parents, when your kids are faced with a tough moment, show them how to react! It all comes down to parenting!!

Spot on

and CNT's signature line asks the right question- "is it for you or for the kids?"

If it is worth having, it is worth earning.

As CNT indicated, parents involvement in the game when we were "yutes" was an exception. If my pops was at any of my hockey games he did so without me knowing. I think the first soccer game my parents ever went to was my final senior college game. And that was bizzarre and didn't really feel right.

Best lesson/advice pops gave me when I didn't make a team I thought I should have. "I guess you now know how much harder you need to work to make the coach's decision easier and make it impossible to take you off the field" I started bitching about favoritism and he laughed and told me to get over it because I would face it everyday of my life and it was up to me to influence the situation.

My kids have heard that phrase and it still pisses my wife off becasue it doesn't show empathy or compassion. Ask my collegiate daughter when she was complaining about her playing time in the game last week. She was told, she was the only one that could affect that situation. I got the "look" and the roll of the eyes from both wife and duaghter

The sorry thing is, these will besome of the same parents that will be involved in their kid's careers. There was a story in Fast Company a few years back about HR horror stories involving parents involvement when their kids didn't get promotions or if they recieved poor reviews. It was amazing how parents are not preparing their kids for life on their own.

One down, two to go

Sudden Death wrote:Edina just finished their tryouts for the Squirt level. An ex-NHLers son did not make the squirt A team and what happens, He and his wife blow up in the lobby of the arena. Yelling, screaming, swearing, going to sue the hockey board.

So here is the question, Can we fix this problem with parents or is it just part of Minnesota hockey?

By the way, I think his son should have made the team, but they took the "Child" of another favored son of Edina.

Tie Domi lives in Edina?

I think Edina should have gone with 2 squirt A teams. It has been mentioned that by going with only 1 A team the 16th ranked kid will be practicing/playing with kids ranked as low as 105th (6 B teams at Edina this year).

Maybe more significant is the competition. With 200 squirts the kids who would have been on the second A team are in the 85th to 92nd percentile. They will be playing at the B level against associations with 100 kids and 60 kids whose B team members will be in the 42nd to 85th percentile and 37th to 75th percentile. In theory the best kids on the other teams will not be close to the level of the 16th ranked player.

Let's get this straight. There are politics in Edina squirts and an ex-nhler who is rich, coaches A teams, and is on the board is not favoured enough to get his kid on the A team? Bizarro! What does it take?

There are parents who get out of control. But I think it is bad policy to have closed tryouts and no cheer sections. The majority of parents have self control and just want to enjoy watching their kids play.

carpenterguy wrote:

HOFam'r wrote:Here's a novel idea and something that I tried to get done a couple years back. Have a 'revolvolving elvaluator' tryout. Sound dumb...here was the concept...

Three Associations with three sets of evaluators. All three sets would see kids participate in same format on three different nights. Just seemed fair to me but went over like a lead ballon with some inside our association...

Here is a much better idea! Parents, when your kids are faced with a tough moment, show them how to react! It all comes down to parenting!!

Carpenter...I understand and agree with your point. I have always said if they have to think to pick you then it probably doesn't matter anyway. However, I think there is a fairness issue in most Associations...from both ends. By that I mean some parents get involved specifically so their kid can have advantages...I think this is wrong...additionally, I think it is wrong for parents to do nothing in the Association and then complain that others are getting unfair treatment.

My idea was meant to take the politics out of the tryout process and quit having coaches 'stack' their evaluation team with like thinkers. Obviously, this idea would be much more work and might not accomplish a darn thing...but at least it would make it more difficult for those who were unfair about their selection....and unfortunately these types of scenario's are more the norm then the exception. While you guys thoughts are nobel and respected...your opinion does nothing to prevent 'cheaters' from controling hockey.

Once again, would it really matter if Edinas #16 played "with" no one lower than #30 from his club and played against EP, Wayzata, Maple Grove, Eagan, Apple Valley etc's "second 15", and Kennedy, Eastview etc's "top 15"? The answer is "no" There would be no discernable difference for that bubble kid and the parents would have likely maintained their self control having conceeded virtually nothing. Having my kid not play against or with kids 2-4 teams below him in skill is all I have ever asked from my association, my district, and MN hockey and they won't listen. My district director said he couldn't sell it so the reason can be only one thing and it has been obvious to me for several years. They'll never speak it, but associations only want 15 kids per year developed (their click) and the rest are exiled. It's virtually always the same kids and the skill gap gets wider and makes it a self fulfilling prophecy eventually. This year in our club kids that were given free passes the past two years are now good enough from playing up and utilizing the better coaching to actually take the spots without the gift. Off season hockey can help repair some of the damage B hockey does but since everyone including the better players are now doing that, the fix is limited going forward. 6 months of summer development will never beat 12 months no matter how good it is. I know this because our summer program is exceptional and my son is inching ever closer to those favorite sons, but will probably not climb fast enough in his few remaining years to reach his dream of A hockey before time is up. So as far as the "he's only 9 and he has many years to go statement", you better have a an unbelievable off season program waiting for him or it's an up hill battle of epic proportion.

I have had many years of involvement in hockey. Is there some politics in hockey? Yes! There is in every walk of life. However, some on here like the last post will always have this as their "EXCUSE". All each individual kid can do is work hard and overcome any so called obstacles in his way.

The adults need to act like adults and be there for their child. To make excuses and act like a child will only create another generation of excuse makers.

In the end it's a game that should be fun. The less parents interfere the better!! Remember we cannot control others and their actions, but we are in control of our emotions and actions.

skillbuilder wrote: So as far as the "he's only 9 and he has many years to go statement", you better have a an unbelievable off season program waiting for him or it's an up hill battle of epic proportion.

Get real.

I think we are talking about a third-grader here. What is the goal? NHL like dad, college, or just the Hornets? No matter what, he'll be fine either way.

As a 2nd year Squirt he's a lock to make A. He was a legitimate bubble kid this year.

I played with an eventual WCHA star that didn't travel as a first-year Pee Wee (none of us did in Edina West's program that year) and I can name a kid that played on several A teams that didn't ever sniff JV because he never improved.

Age 9 means something, but it is hardly a determinant of where you are headed.

skillbuilder wrote:I know this because our summer program is exceptional and my son is inching ever closer to those favorite sons, but will probably not climb fast enough in his few remaining years to reach his dream of A hockey before time is up.

Are we sure here!

spin-o-rama wrote:

Sudden Death wrote:Edina just finished their tryouts for the Squirt level. An ex-NHLers son did not make the squirt A team and what happens, He and his wife blow up in the lobby of the arena. Yelling, screaming, swearing, going to sue the hockey board.

So here is the question, Can we fix this problem with parents or is it just part of Minnesota hockey?

By the way, I think his son should have made the team, but they took the "Child" of another favored son of Edina.

Tie Domi lives in Edina?

I think Edina should have gone with 2 squirt A teams. It has been mentioned that by going with only 1 A team the 16th ranked kid will be practicing/playing with kids ranked as low as 105th (6 B teams at Edina this year).

Maybe more significant is the competition. With 200 squirts the kids who would have been on the second A team are in the 85th to 92nd percentile. They will be playing at the B level against associations with 100 kids and 60 kids whose B team members will be in the 42nd to 85th percentile and 37th to 75th percentile. In theory the best kids on the other teams will not be close to the level of the 16th ranked player.

Let's get this straight. There are politics in Edina squirts and an ex-nhler who is rich, coaches A teams, and is on the board is not favoured enough to get his kid on the A team? Bizarro! What does it take?

There are parents who get out of control. But I think it is bad policy to have closed tryouts and no cheer sections. The majority of parents have self control and just want to enjoy watching their kids play.

200 squirts and one A team. What the heck is that. Fact of the matter is you could have 3 equal A teams and still be competitive with 80-90% of the Squirt teams. But my guess is the association wants to brag that they went 35-0. HEAVEN FORBID IF A 9 YEAR OLD LOSES A GAME.

Davey, you nailed it.

I told a friend that we went 40-8 as Squirts and probably would have been ranked in the Top 5 if LPH ranked Squirts. Four of our losses were to a team that churned out a few WCHA players, including two stars... one of whom played in the NHL.

He told me, "that's not acceptable now. If these kids (Edina Squirts) lose more than three games it's viewed as a bad year!"

The only positive I can see in this is that kids will learn from a very young age that hockey is very competitive. They shouldn't have any surprises as Bantams. (I'm digging for a silver lining here.)

davey wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:

Sudden Death wrote:Edina just finished their tryouts for the Squirt level. An ex-NHLers son did not make the squirt A team and what happens, He and his wife blow up in the lobby of the arena. Yelling, screaming, swearing, going to sue the hockey board.

So here is the question, Can we fix this problem with parents or is it just part of Minnesota hockey?

By the way, I think his son should have made the team, but they took the "Child" of another favored son of Edina.

Tie Domi lives in Edina?

I think Edina should have gone with 2 squirt A teams. It has been mentioned that by going with only 1 A team the 16th ranked kid will be practicing/playing with kids ranked as low as 105th (6 B teams at Edina this year).

Maybe more significant is the competition. With 200 squirts the kids who would have been on the second A team are in the 85th to 92nd percentile. They will be playing at the B level against associations with 100 kids and 60 kids whose B team members will be in the 42nd to 85th percentile and 37th to 75th percentile. In theory the best kids on the other teams will not be close to the level of the 16th ranked player.

Let's get this straight. There are politics in Edina squirts and an ex-nhler who is rich, coaches A teams, and is on the board is not favoured enough to get his kid on the A team? Bizarro! What does it take?

There are parents who get out of control. But I think it is bad policy to have closed tryouts and no cheer sections. The majority of parents have self control and just want to enjoy watching their kids play.

200 squirts and one A team. What the heck is that. Fact of the matter is you could have 3 equal A teams and still be competitive with 80-90% of the Squirt teams. But my guess is the association wants to brag that they went 35-0. HEAVEN FORBID IF A 9 YEAR OLD LOSES A GAME.

I am not sure if Minnesota Hockey will allow more than one A team. Can't think of any associations in the state that have more than one A team.

Rochester has 2 squirt A teams.

We used to have 3 teams, one for each public high school, but the people in charge were not happy with their records (a few games over .500) and cut it back to just two A teams. That was about 8-10 years ago when we had 200+ squirts but now we only have about 150 squirts.

breakout wrote: I am not sure if Minnesota Hockey will allow more than one A team. Can't think of any associations in the state that have more than one A team.

I thought St. Cloud had 2 A teams a fews years back I can't remember for sure but I think it was PW level...I'm sure someone will remember.

Can't Never Tried wrote:

breakout wrote: I am not sure if Minnesota Hockey will allow more than one A team. Can't think of any associations in the state that have more than one A team.

I thought St. Cloud had 2 A teams a fews years back I can't remember for sure but I think it was PW level...I'm sure someone will remember.

Yes, you are correct. St. Cloud supports 3 high schools.........correct? Of, course Lakeville has North and South now. Rochester supports 3 high schools. Not sure if the youth hockey & high school comparison is relevant. Didn't St. Cloud go back to one A team?

Personally, I have no problem with Edina fielding 2 squirt A teams if they are both competitive.

I wish somebody from Edina could explain the rational for one A squirt. I will guess that the board has a policy that does not emphasize squirt traveling; that was a District 6 policy put in place around 1990. But the fact that they have only one peewee A team and 6 B teams suggests that the policy of one A team goes beyond squirt level. Again there maybe some District 6 rule involved about more then one A team participating. My belief is there is some constraint on the Edina program that prevents more then one A level team.

I heard that there are over 400 kids in the mite level at Edina. That is a successful program and they are to lauded for achievement. But they should solve the "bottleneck". Perhaps they can be allowed to split into 2 associations and expand A level participation that way?