HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

For reference to all the name calling of parents during tryouts, it would be beneficial to outline this behavior described...like:

* crazy parent
* wack job parent
* uncontrollable parent
* rich parent
* poor or growing financially parent
* single parent
* parent looking for special treatment
* parent dating similar sex parent
* connected parent
* unknowledgeable parent
* Just stupid parent
* coaches parent
* good old boy's parent
* or Roseau Ram parent

What behavior do these stereotype descriptions have that limit tryout placement? this might help readers of the "bored".

Meow.

helightsthelamp wrote:After asking around 30 kids at the rink the last couple of days, this is clearly a parent issue.

I asked Bantam and Squirt age kids - When it comes to tryouts would you rather have it

A) Open
B) Closed
C) Does not make any difference

ALL... YES ALL, each and every kid I asked said it does not make any difference to them.

I figured that would be the majority, but I was shocked that no one cared either way. I kept asking kids in hoping to hear either A or B, but to no avail.

Seems this is a much bigger deal to the parents then it is to the players......

My preference is for open tryouts, the reason I like them is I enjoy watching the kids play. Interesting to see where players are at and how some have improved over the summer. I also think closing them gives the perception of secrecy...

Like I said, the overwhelming majority of kids do not care one way or another. Like I said the idea that 90% wanted closed tryouts was proposterous.........

I would vote to open them. But if none of the board members were allowed in, I'd settle for closing them.

Vote: open

MrBoDangles wrote:Having open tryouts forces everyone to be more honest.

I completely agree with you. But do you really think that would stop the underhandedness, if that's even a word, that goes on? Here's an idea for a new consulting business. Half a dozen ex-pro and/or ex-college hockey players or coaches that go around to each association and pick teams. No coach's pick. Team is picked entirely independently -- for a fee naturally. Who could complain? They still would. Who am I kidding?

hockeygoof1 wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Having open tryouts forces everyone to be more honest.

I completely agree with you. But do you really think that would stop the underhandedness, if that's even a word, that goes on? Here's an idea for a new consulting business. Half a dozen ex-pro and/or ex-college hockey players or coaches that go around to each association and pick teams. No coach's pick. Team is picked entirely independently -- for a fee naturally. Who could complain? They still would. Who am I kidding?

Of course they would because it still leaves open the possibility of getting certain things very wrong. When we first hired our professional British coaches for soccer that is how they wanted to do things with ZERO input from previous coaches or input on how the kids had performed in previous seasons. I'd say they got it 80% correct but they definitely made some errors too. ONE huge example was not taking literally the best player on the U11 boys team that year.... how did they make such an error if the kid is clearly the best, because the kid did his best to do tryouts but was suffering severely from mono and had "nothing" to give at tryouts, he probably shouldn't have even been at tryouts but he was and he didn't tell them that he was sick, but sufficed to say they put the best player in the program on the "B" team, and within two weeks of practices they realized the mistake they had made but it was too late for official rosters to be changed..... you HAVE to have SOME input from previous season coaches to avoid disasterous call like that, otherwise I like the idea of independent evaluators in general......

I talked to a guy from Rosemount. He said they had a independent company come in and pick teams last year. I didn't ask at the time who they were. My oldest is a frosh in collage/my youngest a 2nd year squirtI've seen bothh here in FL and I think open was the best. I still go to the bar after dropping the kid off. Some folks want to stay and why shouldn't they ??

If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

I agree with the "some" control stance. In my experience, the evaluators do a very good job of placing players at the correct level, but every year there seems to be 1-2 players that are on the wrong side of the bubble and giving the coach an opportunity to modify a small percentage of the roster (maybe the final 3 spots) makes sense to me.

InThePipes wrote:

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

I agree with the "some" control stance. In my experience, the evaluators do a very good job of placing players at the correct level, but every year there seems to be 1-2 players that are on the wrong side of the bubble and giving the coach an opportunity to modify a small percentage of the roster (maybe the final 3 spots) makes sense to me.

6 consecutive years on a hockey board, 1-10 ranked ended up on the A team.
11-25 ended up on the 2nd team. Bottom line all of top 25 always made a top 2 team. Coaches along with a board appointed liasion do not see evaluations. Both parties have input in choosing the team, they then give their list to the board for approval. In 6 years only 1 kid outside the top 20 ever make an A team. For all of you who believe tryouts are corrupt the 1 kid outside the top 20 was the son of the biggest jackass in the entire association.

Teamusa1980 wrote:

InThePipes wrote:

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

I agree with the "some" control stance. In my experience, the evaluators do a very good job of placing players at the correct level, but every year there seems to be 1-2 players that are on the wrong side of the bubble and giving the coach an opportunity to modify a small percentage of the roster (maybe the final 3 spots) makes sense to me.

6 consecutive years on a hockey board, 1-10 ranked ended up on the A team.
11-25 ended up on the 2nd team. Bottom line all of top 25 always made a top 2 team. Coaches along with a board appointed liasion do not see evaluations. Both parties have input in choosing the team, they then give their list to the board for approval. In 6 years only 1 kid outside the top 20 ever make an A team. For all of you who believe tryouts are corrupt the 1 kid outside the top 20 was the son of the biggest jackass in the entire association.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease? Let's hope this doesn't embolden this type of strategy for everyone's sake.

Teamusa1980 wrote:

InThePipes wrote:

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

I agree with the "some" control stance. In my experience, the evaluators do a very good job of placing players at the correct level, but every year there seems to be 1-2 players that are on the wrong side of the bubble and giving the coach an opportunity to modify a small percentage of the roster (maybe the final 3 spots) makes sense to me.

6 consecutive years on a hockey board, 1-10 ranked ended up on the A team.
11-25 ended up on the 2nd team. Bottom line all of top 25 always made a top 2 team. Coaches along with a board appointed liasion do not see evaluations. Both parties have input in choosing the team, they then give their list to the board for approval. In 6 years only 1 kid outside the top 20 ever make an A team. For all of you who believe tryouts are corrupt the 1 kid outside the top 20 was the son of the biggest jackass in the entire association.

I'm sure Bo was appreciative ...

THAT WAS A JOKE!!

I don't even know Bo, just seems like he can take a joke.

DrGaf wrote:

Teamusa1980 wrote:

InThePipes wrote: I agree with the "some" control stance. In my experience, the evaluators do a very good job of placing players at the correct level, but every year there seems to be 1-2 players that are on the wrong side of the bubble and giving the coach an opportunity to modify a small percentage of the roster (maybe the final 3 spots) makes sense to me.

6 consecutive years on a hockey board, 1-10 ranked ended up on the A team.
11-25 ended up on the 2nd team. Bottom line all of top 25 always made a top 2 team. Coaches along with a board appointed liasion do not see evaluations. Both parties have input in choosing the team, they then give their list to the board for approval. In 6 years only 1 kid outside the top 20 ever make an A team. For all of you who believe tryouts are corrupt the 1 kid outside the top 20 was the son of the biggest jackass in the entire association.

I'm sure Bo was appreciative ...

THAT WAS A JOKE!!

I don't even know Bo, just seems like he can take a joke.

I laugh at all of TeamUSA1980's posts.

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

That is precisely my fear. Coach's kid, kid's two best friends, and so on. No, it doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot.

hockeygoof1 wrote:

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

That is precisely my fear. Coach's kid, kid's two best friends, and so on. No, it doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot.

Yes, it can happen.

Can also happen that a talented(or bubble)kid can be a complete cancer( bullying, refuses to listen, misses practices, alcohol/drug problems). Or he has parents who are complete whack jobs (show up plastered to rink, screams at the kids during games, call,or text at all hours of the day, etc., etc., etc.).

It's a long,unpaid season. If I'm lucky I get a gift card to Bunny's At the end. If you're telling me I have no control at all over the choosing of the team I'm out.

57special wrote:

hockeygoof1 wrote:

57special wrote:If I'm coaching a team I want some control over who is on it.

That is precisely my fear. Coach's kid, kid's two best friends, and so on. No, it doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot.

Yes, it can happen.

Can also happen that a talented(or bubble)kid can be a complete cancer( bullying, refuses to listen, misses practices, alcohol/drug problems). Or he has parents who are complete whack jobs (show up plastered to rink, screams at the kids during games, call,or text at all hours of the day, etc., etc., etc.).

It's a long,unpaid season. If I'm lucky I get a gift card to Bunny's At the end. If you're telling me I have no control at all over the choosing of the team I'm out.

I'm no coach, but I'm in complete agreement. First strive to avoid parent coaches whenever possible but the coaches need to pick their players.

C-dad wrote:

57special wrote:

hockeygoof1 wrote: That is precisely my fear. Coach's kid, kid's two best friends, and so on. No, it doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot.

Yes, it can happen.

Can also happen that a talented(or bubble)kid can be a complete cancer( bullying, refuses to listen, misses practices, alcohol/drug problems). Or he has parents who are complete whack jobs (show up plastered to rink, screams at the kids during games, call,or text at all hours of the day, etc., etc., etc.).

It's a long,unpaid season. If I'm lucky I get a gift card to Bunny's At the end. If you're telling me I have no control at all over the choosing of the team I'm out.

I'm no coach, but I'm in complete agreement. First strive to avoid parent coaches whenever possible but the coaches need to pick their players.

The coaches need input in who the players on their team will be, not complete autonomy, I think 57special sounds like he'd agree with that

JSR,

Exactly. Veto power, if you will, that I would use judiciously, and hopefully not at all.