Short Bench

[puckbreath]

IMHO, this game is not about the kids. 90 percent of it is the fathers reliving their underachieving youth. Not all fathers, but the vast majority. I saw someone wrote down that if a kid isn't seeing enough playing time, to ask to be moved down a level. That made me laugh. Most fathers would never permit that. Somehow this game has been taken away from the kids. It's not even about them anymore. It's purely about the dads. We're not talking about high school hockey. We're talking about association hockey. Yes, at the upper levels with five minutes to go in a game down by one or two goals, sure, try to win. When you're short shifting in the first period, the coach should be flogged. That is flat out wrong. I'd also be willing to bet that in most cases, not all, the coach's kid is the benefactor of the short shifting or the long shifts. I'm not talking about summer "AAA" hockey, I'm talking association hockey. Hey, you join a summer team, all bets are off. They can do whatever they want. That's private business. Association is not. Association is supposed to be for the community.

I've seen enough crap in this sport that makes me almost sick to my stomach. It's all in the name of winning, even if the team sucks. Coaches have way too much control over some of the teams and answer to no one.

Sports have come a long way since I was a kid. Notice I didn't say it was good, it's just different. If I had to do it over again, I don't believe I'd let my kids play hockey. There are some great people involved in the sport. I've met some wonderful people and coaches, but for some reason when the "hockey switch" gets turned on, they go berzerk. I do put 90 percent of the blame on fathers trying to grab the "ring" using their kid. I've seen long friendships between grown men end because of this game. One is the coach and isn't playing the other kid enough, or something similar.

When I was younger (I'm not that old) we played sports that went with the season. Maybe, if you were one of the lucky ones, you went to a hockey camp in the summer. But now it's hockey, hockey, hockey. I think in the long run it will have the reverse effect and people will start moving away from it. Things tend to go in cycles. About 6-10 years ago, when summer hockey really started taking off, everyone wanted to join. Now there's been so much bad talk about it, it will turn the other way. I wish Minnesota would open up their rules. If your kid is truly a gifted kid, there ought to be some type of league your kid can play in during the winter to play with other elite kids. You try out, you make the team. It's about development and winning. A league that is bigger than the teams at MN Made. Then, if the coaches want to sit kids in the first period in place of their son or their neighbor's son, more power to them. If your kid is elite, you go play in this league and all bets are off and I'll shut up. The association kids can be left to play hockey on a somewhat equal footing.

Until then, it's association hockey where my $1,500 is just as good as your $1,500, and the last time I checked, no association team in Minnesota has appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

There, now it's time for the 90 percent to light me up. Flame on.

Many right on, very good points.

Also, as much as $ runs hockey in the state now, I see it becoming even more the focus in the future, with the result of fewer and fewer kids actually playing it, the sport being, literally, limited to only those with the $ required.

Not only do I see less and less kids playing in the future because of not enough $, but I also see less playing because the number of those who do have the $, I believe will also drop in the future.

We are at the tail end of the boomers. The next generation(s) will not have the disposable $ they have had, in the same numbers of parents.

I wouldn't be the least surprised to see hockey in the state go to regional, district, whatever teams, outside the metro area, for the above reasons.

[MNM JMH]

I wouldn't be the least surprised to see hockey in the state go to regional, district, whatever teams, outside the metro area, for the above reasons.[/quote]


Sounds good to me.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

With all due respect PB, the short bench has little to do about $, the money is already in the association bank account. It has to do with control at the teams $expense$. This will cause people to reconsider any investment in hockey as it relates to community development of a program.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

How much do you really depend on your coach/coaches for the totality of your child's development? It's a short season. What happens after tourney time - either in the driveway, the pond, AAA.... etc. etc. has a greater impact on overall development than maybe 5 months with coaches who might only be around your kid for a single association season?
Caveat, of course - great coaches leave lasting lessons - positive or negative.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Someone just walked past the do not cross signal and was struck by oncoming traffic. So much for the short bench discussion but I agree, great coaches leave lasting impressions.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

Someone just walked past the do not cross signal and was struck by oncoming traffic. So much for the short bench discussion but I agree, great coaches leave lasting impressions.

Awful, demeaning, power-tripping coaches unfortunately leave them as well.

WAIT. Read your post too quickly. Please tell us you called 911 prior to posting.

[puckbreath]

With all due respect PB, the short bench has little to do about $, the money is already in the association bank account. It has to do with control at the teams $expense$. This will cause people to reconsider any investment in hockey as it relates to community development of a program.

Yeah, I know.

Those comments were just in general.

Apologies for any thread drift.

[Tripod]

IMHO, this game is not about the kids. 90 percent of it is the fathers reliving their underachieving youth. Not all fathers, but the vast majority. I saw someone wrote down that if a kid isn't seeing enough playing time, to ask to be moved down a level. That made me laugh. Most fathers would never permit that. Somehow this game has been taken away from the kids. It's not even about them anymore. It's purely about the dads. We're not talking about high school hockey. We're talking about association hockey. Yes, at the upper levels with five minutes to go in a game down by one or two goals, sure, try to win. When you're short shifting in the first period, the coach should be flogged. That is flat out wrong. I'd also be willing to bet that in most cases, not all, the coach's kid is the benefactor of the short shifting or the long shifts. I'm not talking about summer "AAA" hockey, I'm talking association hockey. Hey, you join a summer team, all bets are off. They can do whatever they want. That's private business. Association is not. Association is supposed to be for the community.

I've seen enough crap in this sport that makes me almost sick to my stomach. It's all in the name of winning, even if the team sucks. Coaches have way too much control over some of the teams and answer to no one.

Sports have come a long way since I was a kid. Notice I didn't say it was good, it's just different. If I had to do it over again, I don't believe I'd let my kids play hockey. There are some great people involved in the sport. I've met some wonderful people and coaches, but for some reason when the "hockey switch" gets turned on, they go berzerk. I do put 90 percent of the blame on fathers trying to grab the "ring" using their kid. I've seen long friendships between grown men end because of this game. One is the coach and isn't playing the other kid enough, or something similar.

When I was younger (I'm not that old) we played sports that went with the season. Maybe, if you were one of the lucky ones, you went to a hockey camp in the summer. But now it's hockey, hockey, hockey. I think in the long run it will have the reverse effect and people will start moving away from it. Things tend to go in cycles. About 6-10 years ago, when summer hockey really started taking off, everyone wanted to join. Now there's been so much bad talk about it, it will turn the other way. I wish Minnesota would open up their rules. If your kid is truly a gifted kid, there ought to be some type of league your kid can play in during the winter to play with other elite kids. You try out, you make the team. It's about development and winning. A league that is bigger than the teams at MN Made. Then, if the coaches want to sit kids in the first period in place of their son or their neighbor's son, more power to them. If your kid is elite, you go play in this league and all bets are off and I'll shut up. The association kids can be left to play hockey on a somewhat equal footing.

Until then, it's association hockey where my $1,500 is just as good as your $1,500, and the last time I checked, no association team in Minnesota has appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

There, now it's time for the 90 percent to light me up. Flame on.

This poster should go around MN and give this speech to all associations at the start of each year!

[bestpopcorn]

I don't know that making a speech would change minds.

I have become convinced that parents seldom change their minds about anything.

If they do change their minds it is usually too late. For instance, the parent of a high school player often has a much different view of squirt hockey than does the typical tightly wound first year squirt parent.

Another interesting thing. Often times a persons ideas about a short bench are a barometer of their ideas on other hockey hot topics. Ie: fair tryouts, preferential treatment of board members kids, checking in Pee Wees.

If a dad chews, I can guess his position on short benching with an accuracy rate of 75%


Fun.

[Tripod]

For instance, the parent of a high school player often has a much different view of squirt hockey than does the typical tightly wound first year squirt parent.

That's why it's the associations who need to hear straight talk and give the boot to coaches who do not conduct themselves in the spirit of community-based youth association sports. If they think they are a USHL coach, then fine, go coach there.

[puckbreath]

And it ain't just dads. Some of the worst I've seen were moms.

[bestpopcorn]

And it ain't just dads. Some of the worst I've seen were moms.

Agreed. If a mom chews I guarantee she is a short bencher.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

Hahaha

[puckbreath]

And it ain't just dads. Some of the worst I've seen were moms.

Agreed. If a mom chews I guarantee she is a short bencher.

If she's got a fur coat, she's even worse.

[blindref]

And it ain't just dads. Some of the worst I've seen were moms.

Agreed. If a mom chews I guarantee she is a short bencher.

If she's got a fur coat, she's even worse. [/quot

Don't forget the mug filled with Rum Chata

[Sats81]

My brothers coached Bantam AA last season (in a very large association) and were very upfront at the beginning of the season with parents at coaches meeting telling them we will "shorten bench/match lines" in more important games, tight situations, etc. However, when the time came that bench was shortened some parents brought hell! Went to association, ended up having to go in front of coaches committee, etc.

There is definitely a time and a place for this. I think Bantam AA and possibly even some situations in Pee Wee AA. I also know a very "successful" youth coach who coaches Pee Wee AA in another large association who has had a very high level of success (state championship, several MAHA state appearances in a few short years) who did shorten bench, match lines in certain situations and was almost run out of said association. He now just rolls. All game. Regardless of any circumstances.

[redtundra]

I really shouldn't add to this already too long thread. But what the heck. I'm 52, and I remember they shortened the bench in Bantams when I played. I say, get used to it. Of course, the coach should do what he can to get all of the kids as much playing time as he can. But, at least on the A/AA teams (Bantams in particular; to a certain extent pee wees. Never squirts), it is about winning. Not sure where that memo got lost. Probably along with the one that outlawed "everyone gets a trophy". You can certainly have a healthy debate about whether shortening the bench actually leads to wins or not. That is fine. But if you think "equal playing time for all" should be a mandate because it really is all about development only (BTW - winning is a learned behavior too...), then I can't agree with you. My son has been on both sides of the short bench issue. When he was on the "wrong side", my advice was to work harder and remember that feeling. Life isnt equal. It is, however, often fair. The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry.

[Sats81]

I really shouldn't add to this already too long thread. But what the heck. I'm 52, and I remember they shortened the bench in Bantams when I played. I say, get used to it. Of course, the coach should do what he can to get all of the kids as much playing time as he can. But, at least on the A/AA teams (Bantams in particular; to a certain extent pee wees. Never squirts), it is about winning. Not sure where that memo got lost. Probably along with the one that outlawed "everyone gets a trophy". You can certainly have a healthy debate about whether shortening the bench actually leads to wins or not. That is fine. But if you think "equal playing time for all" should be a mandate because it really is all about development only (BTW - winning is a learned behavior too...), then I can't agree with you. My son has been on both sides of the short bench issue. When he was on the "wrong side", my advice was to work harder and remember that feeling. Life isnt equal. It is, however, often fair. The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry.

Very good points.

[Froggy Richards]

I really shouldn't add to this already too long thread. But what the heck. I'm 52, and I remember they shortened the bench in Bantams when I played. I say, get used to it. Of course, the coach should do what he can to get all of the kids as much playing time as he can. But, at least on the A/AA teams (Bantams in particular; to a certain extent pee wees. Never squirts), it is about winning. Not sure where that memo got lost. Probably along with the one that outlawed "everyone gets a trophy". You can certainly have a healthy debate about whether shortening the bench actually leads to wins or not. That is fine. But if you think "equal playing time for all" should be a mandate because it really is all about development only (BTW - winning is a learned behavior too...), then I can't agree with you. My son has been on both sides of the short bench issue. When he was on the "wrong side", my advice was to work harder and remember that feeling. Life isnt equal. It is, however, often fair. The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry.

Ding Ding! After 4 pages I think we have a winner folks! Dead on.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Not so fast there Froggy, you blew the whistle and the puck is clear in site. How about a definition on who is being short benched. Not saying this is a practice that might benefit some coaches but if you have a record that isn't getting you that trophy why subject the association to the method. Many cases are not based on "working hard" in life's ever mentioned equation but if you have to sit and watch the chosen few with countless minutes on the ice with a losing record, I'd say this helps no one.

[JSR]

I really shouldn't add to this already too long thread. But what the heck. I'm 52, and I remember they shortened the bench in Bantams when I played. I say, get used to it. Of course, the coach should do what he can to get all of the kids as much playing time as he can. But, at least on the A/AA teams (Bantams in particular; to a certain extent pee wees. Never squirts), it is about winning. Not sure where that memo got lost. Probably along with the one that outlawed "everyone gets a trophy". You can certainly have a healthy debate about whether shortening the bench actually leads to wins or not. That is fine. But if you think "equal playing time for all" should be a mandate because it really is all about development only (BTW - winning is a learned behavior too...), then I can't agree with you. My son has been on both sides of the short bench issue. When he was on the "wrong side", my advice was to work harder and remember that feeling. Life isnt equal. It is, however, often fair. The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry.

If that were actually the case we probably wouldn't have a four page thread. But I know TONS of situations where a short bench has been used and the hardest working kids both on and off the ice were the ones shorted meanwhile the coaches son, the coaches buddies son and the kid the coach "recruited" because he was SUPPOSED to be a studd got the extra shifts, meanwhile the kids who were actually having more of a positive effect on the team or even on that game were the ones getting shorted.... That said, it brings up another point, even if you are on the side of shorting the bench don't you think a good coach recognizes who is playing well in THAT GAME and those are the kids who should be on the ice in those "critical" situations, ins tead what I observe is the same 5 guys (give or take) are always on the receiving end of the extra shifts no matter how they are playing in that game or how the other kids are playing... you said life isn't equal but it's fair I disagree I think life is not equal and it's often biased and unfair as well.....

[Froggy Richards]

Not so fast there Froggy, you blew the whistle and the puck is clear in site. How about a definition on who is being short benched. Not saying this is a practice that might benefit some coaches but if you have a record that isn't getting you that trophy why subject the association to the method. Many cases are not based on "working hard" in life's ever mentioned equation but if you have to sit and watch the chosen few with countless minutes on the ice with a losing record, I'd say this helps no one.

He did give a definition, he said, "The kids who put the most work in to make themselves the better players deserve to be on the ice more. Sorry." If this is indeed the case then I see nothing wrong with it. Remember, he's focusing on Bantam AA here and he points out that at that level it is still about winning. I agree. If all you want to do is have fun and don't care about winning then what's wrong with playing B or C?

[SECoach]

Knowing if and when, how much, and why to shorten a bench is a bit of an art form. We always have to remember that these are still kids, and even Bantam hockey is not played by men earning a living at it. To say at this level "it's about winning" is shortsighted in my opinion. Doing your best to win or at least compete is clearly always a part of things, but coaches pulling out all the stops to win games that are not meant to be won are where they often get in trouble. Coaches sometimes earn the right to make decisions like these by they way they handle them. The conversations they have with the players. their ability to make a young person feel valuable to the team, even if they called on someone else in a given moment. Although I respect the associations that make this a black and white subject, I also feel it sometimes takes away from the growth opportunities they need to provide their coaches. Parents often make that very difficult. Struggling is something that is a part of life and we need to ensure that our kids become accustomed to it, and develop some skills in that area. We all hate to see our kids struggle, but that's where lots and lots of learning happens. Play em all or try to win, do whatever...but do it with responsibility and respect for the players, who happen to be children.

[Froggy Richards]

Knowing if and when, how much, and why to shorten a bench is a bit of an art form. We always have to remember that these are still kids, and even Bantam hockey is not played by men earning a living at it. To say at this level "it's about winning" is shortsighted in my opinion. Doing your best to win or at least compete is clearly always a part of things, but coaches pulling out all the stops to win games that are not meant to be won are where they often get in trouble. Coaches sometimes earn the right to make decisions like these by they way they handle them. The conversations they have with the players. their ability to make a young person feel valuable to the team, even if they called on someone else in a given moment. Although I respect the associations that make this a black and white subject, I also feel it sometimes takes away from the growth opportunities they need to provide their coaches. Parents often make that very difficult. Struggling is something that is a part of life and we need to ensure that our kids become accustomed to it, and develop some skills in that area. We all hate to see our kids struggle, but that's where lots and lots of learning happens. Play em all or try to win, do whatever...but do it with responsibility and respect for the players, who happen to be children.

Amen, great post! For some reason we've forgotten that and I don't think our kids are better off for it. I'm guilty of it at times too, don't get me wrong. But I think for the most part this generation of kids is way too pampered. But of course, my Dad used to say the same thing.

[JSR]

Knowing if and when, how much, and why to shorten a bench is a bit of an art form. We always have to remember that these are still kids, and even Bantam hockey is not played by men earning a living at it. To say at this level "it's about winning" is shortsighted in my opinion. Doing your best to win or at least compete is clearly always a part of things, but coaches pulling out all the stops to win games that are not meant to be won are where they often get in trouble. Coaches sometimes earn the right to make decisions like these by they way they handle them. The conversations they have with the players. their ability to make a young person feel valuable to the team, even if they called on someone else in a given moment. Although I respect the associations that make this a black and white subject, I also feel it sometimes takes away from the growth opportunities they need to provide their coaches. Parents often make that very difficult. Struggling is something that is a part of life and we need to ensure that our kids become accustomed to it, and develop some skills in that area. We all hate to see our kids struggle, but that's where lots and lots of learning happens. Play em all or try to win, do whatever...but do it with responsibility and respect for the players, who happen to be children.

I can agree on this and when I see it done in this "way" I usually have no problem with it especially at teh Bantam and older levels. However, I see it done' responsibly" about 1 or 2 out of 10 times. It's the other 8 times that cause us to have this conversation. Too many irresponsible coaches who don't know how to handle it properly. Life is a struggle and sports help teach that and no one wants anyone pampered but when you put up thousands of dollars and a kid really is working his tail off and IS doingall the right things and still gets shafted because the coach is not "responsible" that is when we end up with rules against shorting the bench at all, it's coaches who are given an inch but take a mile that are the problem with this subject not the majority of parents in all honesty