HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

hocmom wrote:

Someone release the air chamber so I can get some air....What?? If someone calls me "folks" one more time or wants to teach me lifes lessons through hockey again I have a suggestion...get a grip and start realizing this is a youth hockey program. Youth means children and all the "malcontents" associated with dealing with one dimensional individuals not offering equal opportunities for all participating need to understand that you are standing in the way of advancement for a sports program. This post would be considered "gibberish" and has no relevance towards development. Good luck Lakeville and all association Hockey when board members can post this type of message...sad state of affairs for Mnhock. Lastly, please explain bubble kid terminology..nothing within the Webster's dictionary describes this position other than whats placed on a hockey skater within most associations across Minnesota. This label could be considered a curse depending on what association you play for...either you abide and sit on the bench 3rd or 4th line and love it or you're a star player on B1...who has the pin?

I am trying to figure out what I posted that is so upsetting.

You did not comment on our tryout process... is it fair?

A few definitions:

Malcontents... someone that is NEVER satisfied, EVER. We had one fellow that complained about a choice that the board made the year before, he had argued for the opposite. We determined that he had been right and the following year went with his suggestion. He REALLY did not like that. Are you suggesting that these folks don't exist, or even worse that after the 47th phone call I keep listening? Why?

Bubble Kid - A kid who at tryouts could go either way. This is in no way a label placed on a child. I was privy to the results of the tryouts and this kid was "on the bubble". Hence forth I shall use the term "Almost A"

I think I met you once. You told me something like..."well if they can't take the heat, they shouldn't be on the board" Right?

Sorry about the Folks part, I could see where that would be alarming.

Not sure about your tryouts being "fair" you didn't list details other than head nods and that isn't much information...but for a 10 year veteran to come on the forum it is interesting to hear your perspective. What association.. I will do some research and give an outside perspective on fair tryouts.

Save your personal definitions, most of us already know the boards handbook survival guide.

Never crossed paths or I would have said.."10 years should have term limits or everyone feels the heat...zero progress"

Does everyone agree that 10 years is too long?

Thinking, my experiance was actually 9 years. I skipped one year in the midst... So, I did a couple years at clubs, scheduling bingo and fish frys... A year as tournament director, and then started at VP. We have two year terms for VP, Pres and then Past Pres...so if you hang in there it is 6 year commitment when you start at VP. Is this a bad idea?

I always thought that it was a good thing to have some consistency. A few people that hung in and learned from mistakes. Cripe, it takes 5 years to figure out how to deal with MN Hockey and District rules.

Do you assume ill will from your board members?

Do you assume ill will from your tryout judges?

I didn't read through the whole thread as this stuff kind of bores me, but do the Lakeville associations make the tryouts inaccessible to parents? The Woodbury association puts black sheets in front of all the windows that look into the rink that tryouts occur on and lock all unattended doors into the rink as well. I know that not all the associations do this. I was up at the Maple Grove arena recently and they had tryouts going on and parents were just sitting there watching them! Talk about a powder keg situation.

hocmom wrote:Does everyone agree that 10 years is too long?

Thinking, my experiance was actually 9 years. I skipped one year in the midst... So, I did a couple years at clubs, scheduling bingo and fish frys... A year as tournament director, and then started at VP. We have two year terms for VP, Pres and then Past Pres...so if you hang in there it is 6 year commitment when you start at VP. Is this a bad idea?

I always thought that it was a good thing to have some consistency. A few people that hung in and learned from mistakes. Cripe, it takes 5 years to figure out how to deal with MN Hockey and District rules.

Do you assume ill will from your board members?

Do you assume ill will from your tryout judges?

Hocmom,

I'm not sure what your mission is here but let me answer some of your questions so you can go off on hockey retirement and pat yourself on the back...hopefully you can look back on your years of public service and be proud of what you may have accomplished.

I love when the establishment board members try to leave words in the mouth towards their opposition, another tactic to silence the opposing view point and assuming ill will is not something I would champion for anyone.

Here are some of my assumptions that I would expect from all the hockey community:

1. I assume that all hockey boards realize and follow all internal and MN hock by-laws

2. I assume that children will be able to participate in a sporting development program that allows individual growth

3. I assume that coaches will be given the respect and allowed to manage teams without board intervention unless needed

4. I assume that tryouts will give kids the opportunity to advance without internal politics placing individuals

5. I assume that intergrety, respect, honesty, and personal responsibility are key fundamentals within a youth hockey sport

6. I assume the hockey board is in place to meet the expectations of the community and "listens" to all members

7. I assume that a youth program can be managed without minority parent intervention

8. I assume I can trust the association is looking out for the best interest of all members

9. I assume youth hockey is for all youth and managed towards participation retention

10. I assume the girls program has the same attention as the boys on all levels.

Hope this answers some of your questions because many associations have left the station without any moral bearing. Your interest within this subject is interesting...what are your toughts on the Lakeville situation? How would you have handled it?

Kidding Me... I agree with your assumptions.

I am not sure where we disagree.

Maybe I am naive. I always felt that our tryout process was a pure and fair as we knew how to put together. I knew the judges and felt them to be honest. Even with that I constantly heard about "political" decisions.

I never once got a complaint from a parent who thought his kid got placed to high.

I guess maybe I have a chip on my shoulder. I just get tired of the "everyone knows" ideas. Money talks, Politics, etc. I simply did not see this in our assn and doubt it is as common as the "everyone knows" crowd says it is in others.

I can't speak to the Lakeville thing... not involved there.

hocmom wrote:Kidding Me... I agree with your assumptions.

I am not sure where we disagree.

Maybe I am naive. I always felt that our tryout process was a pure and fair as we knew how to put together. I knew the judges and felt them to be honest. Even with that I constantly heard about "political" decisions.

I never once got a complaint from a parent who thought his kid got placed to high.

I guess maybe I have a chip on my shoulder. I just get tired of the "everyone knows" ideas. Money talks, Politics, etc. I simply did not see this in our assn and doubt it is as common as the "everyone knows" crowd says it is in others.

I can't speak to the Lakeville thing... not involved there.

Naivety is recognized...I did some research and can agree the northern metro area has some issues. It's easy to keep a blind eye on something when in control...times are changing. Good luck....

hocmom wrote:Kidding Me... I agree with your assumptions.

I am not sure where we disagree.

Maybe I am naive. I always felt that our tryout process was a pure and fair as we knew how to put together. I knew the judges and felt them to be honest. Even with that I constantly heard about "political" decisions.

I never once got a complaint from a parent who thought his kid got placed to high.

I guess maybe I have a chip on my shoulder. I just get tired of the "everyone knows" ideas. Money talks, Politics, etc. I simply did not see this in our assn and doubt it is as common as the "everyone knows" crowd says it is in others.

I can't speak to the Lakeville thing... not involved there.

You "can't speak to the Lakeville thing"

Gee, thanks for participating because your opinion on this subject, which is the subject of this thread is probably the only thing anyone is interested in hearing. Instead we got to hear you ramble on about god knows what. Typical hockey board member I guess.

I assume all of the other posts on this thread are dead on topic.

I am wondering how someone "does some research" regarding whether on not there are "problems" on area hockey boards.

I posted here because it looked interesting. Did something happen at tryouts and did a hockey board support the decision, the bastards.

My contention is that this stuff does not happen very often, regardless of what "everyone" knows.

Most of this stuff is typical conspiracy theory BS. In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

Next we should discuss whether or not we landed on the moon.

hocmom wrote:

Next we should discuss whether or not we landed on the moon.

In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

That is simply not true. Why would the board know anything at all about tryout scores/rankings/etc.? If the board is looking at that, then you do, in fact, need the board sworn to secrecy - which is highly unlikely.

I heard a story a couple years ago from someone that overheard a conversation. Player Development/Tryout Coordinator/Bantam A coach is yelling at his brother, whom he put on the evaluation team, about a kid that isn't very good that made the A team. The brother's response was, and I paraphrase, as I wasn't there, 'I know he's no good. You told me you wanted him on the team. I had to change his evaluation scores on the way back from the scrimmage, just so he'd make the A team.' Maybe that is the only time that happened; maybe his is the only association in which it has happened; I doubt it.

I still like the moon landing bit, and think we'd get just as far discussing that, but Inigo is correct. That kind of thing is far from uncommon, as is incompetence.

In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

There are all sorts of ways for tryouts to be tainted by politics without all these things happening.

1) The evaluators who are brought in know people (usually active members in the association) and when they score their kid they tend to give them a point or two more.

2) Evaluator is friends with a board member because of summer hockey or something else and is fearful that the scores given will leak to that person so he gives a point or two higher score.

3) Coach knows the family of a player and gives extra point OR chooses that player over another because of that relationship.

4) Board member spends the summer helping plan the tryouts and makes suggestions and slight changes to how they are set up based on the strengths (or weaknesses) of their kid. Most people don't analyze why or how the tryout process is created so they don't notice the little things that could effect the outcome.

None of these require a major conspiracy with numerous people sworn to secrecy. They are all just minor tweaks that could help a player whose parents are active in hockey get a spot over a player whose parents are not as well known.

These things rarely effect the obvious choices but definitely can have an impact on the bubble players being chosen. It is nearly impossible to stop so the best thing to do is to accept it, help your kid learn from it and then move on.

InigoMontoya wrote:

In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

That is simply not true. Why would the board know anything at all about tryout scores/rankings/etc.? If the board is looking at that, then you do, in fact, need the board sworn to secrecy - which is highly unlikely.

I heard a story a couple years ago from someone that overheard a conversation. Player Development/Tryout Coordinator/Bantam A coach is yelling at his brother, whom he put on the evaluation team, about a kid that isn't very good that made the A team. The brother's response was, and I paraphrase, as I wasn't there, 'I know he's no good. You told me you wanted him on the team. I had to change his evaluation scores on the way back from the scrimmage, just so he'd make the A team.' Maybe that is the only time that happened; maybe his is the only association in which it has happened; I doubt it.

why would the board allow the brother of the A bantam coach on the evaluation committee? that's just asking for trouble--

why would the board allow the brother of the A bantam coach on the evaluation committee? that's just asking for trouble--

I agree, we don't allow siblings of coaches, nor first cousins. 2nd cousin is OK... We also don't allow guys that live near or work with the coach. We will allow the coach's wife to judge, as she pretty much does the opposite of what he wants, which is the goal of our tryout process. Just sayin...

hocmom wrote:

why would the board allow the brother of the A bantam coach on the evaluation committee? that's just asking for trouble--

I agree, we don't allow siblings of coaches, nor first cousins. 2nd cousin is OK... We also don't allow guys that live near or work with the coach. We will allow the coach's wife to judge, as she pretty much does the opposite of what he wants, which is the goal of our tryout process. Just sayin...

I just called the MN Hock retirement center and they confirmed that hocmom has busted out of the center. The description given to locate was a woman driving a wheelchair erratically spewing hockey profanity and banging on a laptop. Most likely has hockey banners displayed off the handle bars and the Sioux emblem on the back of the seat. It's time to go home now.....Lakeville hang in there and hold your board accountable.

Hocmom,

You're community is lucky to have someone who gave their time to make it better, it is too bad some people think you're time was too much. You have set a great example for your kids, giving back to the community is the most under rated thing a person can do, but as you know, very rewarding.

hocmom wrote:

why would the board allow the brother of the A bantam coach on the evaluation committee? that's just asking for trouble--

I agree, we don't allow siblings of coaches, nor first cousins. 2nd cousin is OK... We also don't allow guys that live near or work with the coach. We will allow the coach's wife to judge, as she pretty much does the opposite of what he wants, which is the goal of our tryout process. Just sayin...

I don't mean to continually call BS, but where do you live? Let's say a community fields 4 squirt, 3 peewee, and 2 bantam teams. Let's say there are 10 non-parent coaches and 20 parent coaches and 125 kids - giving us roughly 100 families, in an association boundary that includes a population between 15,000 and 20,000. Where is it that you are finding these qualified, hockey knowledgeable people that are not related to or friends or neighbors or coworkers with these 30 guys; and that doesn't include the 10-15 people on the board - or do you allow their siblings to evaluate? Since you have made generalizations about association membership, I'll generalize you into a cartoon version of a board member: you seem to live in a fantasy world, and your smug attitude, toward the rest of us worker bees that make hockey in Minnesota run, is what has caused the chasm between the hard working single mom trying to scrap up $3,000 so her 3 kids can play hockey and you self-absorbed, self-entitled, pompous housewives that have nothing better to do than make locker signs for your kid's squirt A team and bitch that nobody came by at 10:30 in the morning to help you glue glitter. Perhaps if you'd have said anything so far that could be given the benefit of the doubt as even remotely hockey knowledgeable you'd get a pass here, but in the meantime keep spewing rainbows and sunshine while fees go up, ice time goes down, participation goes down, development goes down; but you're cozy by the fire clinking glasses of eggnog with the other board members, toasting the four hours you all spent poring over the budget - of which none of you can answer a question, all condescending and oblivious to reality.

Ingo... you talkin to me? I meant my post about cousins as sarcasm.

The coaches brother thing was strange. Our assn is exactly as you describe. We draw from about 25,000 people. Everyone knows everyone else. We are for the most part a close knit bunch. By the time the kids play Peewees we know the people from the surrounding towns as well.

I always chuckle when the Bantams put on their tryout pennies... like no one will know who they are. Funny.

seek & destroy wrote:

In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

There are all sorts of ways for tryouts to be tainted by politics without all these things happening.

1) The evaluators who are brought in know people (usually active members in the association) and when they score their kid they tend to give them a point or two more.

2) Evaluator is friends with a board member because of summer hockey or something else and is fearful that the scores given will leak to that person so he gives a point or two higher score.

3) Coach knows the family of a player and gives extra point OR chooses that player over another because of that relationship.

4) Board member spends the summer helping plan the tryouts and makes suggestions and slight changes to how they are set up based on the strengths (or weaknesses) of their kid. Most people don't analyze why or how the tryout process is created so they don't notice the little things that could effect the outcome.

None of these require a major conspiracy with numerous people sworn to secrecy. They are all just minor tweaks that could help a player whose parents are active in hockey get a spot over a player whose parents are not as well known.

These things rarely effect the obvious choices but definitely can have an impact on the bubble players being chosen. It is nearly impossible to stop so the best thing to do is to accept it, help your kid learn from it and then move on.

Politics is a system where groups of people make collective decisions.

Your first 3 points don't fit the bill. I will agree that individuals might make choices based on things other than pure hockey ability. How to know when it happened, how to prevent it, should it be prevented? I can only imagine a coach picking his team and then remembering the experiance he had with Johnny's loud mouth dad.... We need some sort of purity test.

Define hockey ability... can a kid demonstrate his ability to be a valuable part of the A team by displaying his playing skills to a room full of strangers in 3 or 4 hours? Does the fact that he can't get along, lead the team in penalty minutes, and only showed up half the time last year mean anything?

Your 4th is a sign of paranoia... A person uses subtle persausion to take out the backwards skating drill because his kid can't skate backwards... really?

hocmom wrote:

seek & destroy wrote:

In order for tryouts to be tainted by politics you need several things to happen. 1st you need the tryout evaluators on board... all of them. You need them to keep it quiet. Then you need the board on board, all of them, and they need to keep it quiet. All of these folks need to be on the same page, dishonest and sworn to secrecy.

There are all sorts of ways for tryouts to be tainted by politics without all these things happening.

1) The evaluators who are brought in know people (usually active members in the association) and when they score their kid they tend to give them a point or two more.

2) Evaluator is friends with a board member because of summer hockey or something else and is fearful that the scores given will leak to that person so he gives a point or two higher score.

3) Coach knows the family of a player and gives extra point OR chooses that player over another because of that relationship.

4) Board member spends the summer helping plan the tryouts and makes suggestions and slight changes to how they are set up based on the strengths (or weaknesses) of their kid.

Most people don't analyze why or how the tryout process is created so they don't notice the little things that could effect the outcome.

None of these require a major conspiracy with numerous people sworn to secrecy. They are all just minor tweaks that could help a player whose parents are active in hockey get a spot over a player whose parents are not as well known.

These things rarely effect the obvious choices but definitely can have an impact on the bubble players being chosen. It is nearly impossible to stop so the best thing to do is to accept it, help your kid learn from it and then move on.

Politics is a system where groups of people make collective decisions.

Your first 3 points don't fit the bill. I will agree that individuals might make choices based on things other than pure hockey ability. How to know when it happened, how to prevent it, should it be prevented? I can only imagine a coach picking his team and then remembering the experiance he had with Johnny's loud mouth dad.... We need some sort of purity test.

Define hockey ability... can a kid demonstrate his ability to be a valuable part of the A team by displaying his playing skills to a room full of strangers in 3 or 4 hours? Does the fact that he can't get along, lead the team in penalty minutes, and only showed up half the time last year mean anything?

Your 4th is a sign of paranoia... A person uses subtle persausion to take out the backwards skating drill because his kid can't skate backwards... really?

I've actually witnessed #4 happen on more than one occassion. It's not paranoia, it does and will happen, especially at the squirt-peewee level.

I've actually witnessed #4 happen on more than one occassion. It's not paranoia, it does and will happen, especially at the squirt-peewee level.

Honestly? Can you elaborate? What did they change in the process and who did it help? Why is it more prevalent at squirts and peewees and less so at Bantam?

hocmom wrote:

I've actually witnessed #4 happen on more than one occassion. It's not paranoia, it does and will happen, especially at the squirt-peewee level.

Honestly? Can you elaborate? What did they change in the process and who did it help? Why is it more prevalent at squirts and peewees and less so at Bantam?

It's more prevalent at the squirt/peewee level because most associations still have a skills portion in their tryout process. A board or chair level individual can dictate what skills are performed by the skaters and omit certain drills that may expose, let's say, a certain skater who may lack the skill to perform it at a high level and Mommy or Daddy sits on the committee. Why do skill drills at tryouts change from year to year, and then go back to the original drills when certain kids are done at that level? Trust me, I've seen it and heard the discussions in boardrooms. Hey, I love to eat hamburger, but who wants to see how it's made?

Wow! Watched this thread for a while and asked around about this. Rumors abound! Lakeville Association has tons of issues within the ranks it sounds like. Late try outs and pissed off parents as a result. Apparently, the try outs were open though (first year) and people could watch and most liked that. Evaluators were independent (though no one knew their names or could list any of them off the top of their head) and A coaches had input (what that means no one knew for sure). A coaches at pee wee and squirt level are parent coaches. Two pee wee coaches approached the board and wanted to skate only 12 skaters instead of 15 "because there was no talent" and because of the fair play rule - they would be forced to skate the "no talents." At squirt level - north had about 75 trying out and south only had about 35. Some said they lost all their good skaters to MN Made. It will be interesting to see how Lakeville does on all levels this year. Money is down and lots of people upset - so figures everyone needs someone to blame.

HockeyMom87 wrote:Wow! Watched this thread for a while and asked around about this. Rumors abound! Lakeville Association has tons of issues within the ranks it sounds like. Late try outs and pissed off parents as a result. Apparently, the try outs were open though (first year) and people could watch and most liked that. Evaluators were independent (though no one knew their names or could list any of them off the top of their head) and A coaches had input (what that means no one knew for sure). A coaches at pee wee and squirt level are parent coaches. Two pee wee coaches approached the board and wanted to skate only 12 skaters instead of 15 "because there was no talent" and because of the fair play rule - they would be forced to skate the "no talents." At squirt level - north had about 75 trying out and south only had about 35. Some said they lost all their good skaters to MN Made. It will be interesting to see how Lakeville does on all levels this year. Money is down and lots of people upset - so figures everyone needs someone to blame.

Most associations have parent head coaches at the squirt level. I don't believe the head coach at Lakevillle South PWA is a parent coach.

HockeyMom87 wrote:Wow! Watched this thread for a while and asked around about this. Rumors abound! Lakeville Association has tons of issues within the ranks it sounds like. Late try outs and pissed off parents as a result. Apparently, the try outs were open though (first year) and people could watch and most liked that. Evaluators were independent (though no one knew their names or could list any of them off the top of their head) and A coaches had input (what that means no one knew for sure). A coaches at pee wee and squirt level are parent coaches. Two pee wee coaches approached the board and wanted to skate only 12 skaters instead of 15 "because there was no talent" and because of the fair play rule - they would be forced to skate the "no talents." At squirt level - north had about 75 trying out and south only had about 35. Some said they lost all their good skaters to MN Made. It will be interesting to see how Lakeville does on all levels this year. Money is down and lots of people upset - so figures everyone needs someone to blame.

This thread started due to the Bantam A level and I don't think that the issue has been resolved. The parent that complained seemed to get his way his kid was put on the team and another unfortunate kid got pulled from the roster after his name was posted as an A player. No one from Lakeville has come on the board and explained this and most likely never will. I have lost interest as I have no dog in the game but still feel bad for the A player playing B1 and even worse for the B1 player that daddy put on the A team.