HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

96 and 97 coach(former)/dads not playing nice. One with great both player and coaching credentials not allowed to coach. The other loves to work behind the scenes with the Board.

Stay tuned fans. Could get interesting.

Please explain further....thank you.

Stay tuned fans. Could get interesting.

Yawn - any warm body could coach a Wayzata association team to state with the number of kids at issue.

southernhockey1 wrote:Please explain further....thank you.

No disrespect, but if you have to ask it really isn't relavant to you. Just Wayzata politics.

What_Im_talkin_bout wrote:

southernhockey1 wrote:Please explain further....thank you.

No disrespect, but if you have to ask it really isn't relavant to you. Just Wayzata politics.

Then you shouldn't air your dirty laundry here.

No disrespect, of course.

yeah there is an agenda here - just out with it.

the poll combined with the topic heading, along with your whole two posts, with one of them reprimanding someone's interest is very disingenuous. IMO

tomASS wrote:yeah there is an agenda here - just out with it.

the poll combined with the topic heading, along with your whole two posts, with one of them reprimanding someone's interest is very disingenuous. IMO

You a ref now ?

Can't Never Tried wrote:

tomASS wrote:yeah there is an agenda here - just out with it.

the poll combined with the topic heading, along with your whole two posts, with one of them reprimanding someone's interest is very disingenuous. IMO

You a ref now ?

Perhaps a wordsmith?

Can't Never Tried wrote:

tomASS wrote:yeah there is an agenda here - just out with it.

the poll combined with the topic heading, along with your whole two posts, with one of them reprimanding someone's interest is very disingenuous. IMO

You a ref now ?

changing up tact from time to to time. I have so little of it that I have to use it sparingly.

Haven't heard the latest, but there is a faction of people who don't like LP for whatever reason. It is absolutely crazy since LP contributes a lot to the organization. I know some pushed to get him suspended for playing too many games at the squirt level a year ago and fought to keep him from being an "A" level coach, even though he is probably the most quailified. No one does everything 100% right, so those people who do not like him focus on the negative instead of all the positives.

What_Im_talkin_bout wrote:

southernhockey1 wrote:Please explain further....thank you.

No disrespect, but if you have to ask it really isn't relavant to you. Just Wayzata politics.

You created a topic in a public forum. It's relevant to anyone who wants to ask.

Lee

Just because someone played professionaly does NOT mean they have the correct mentality for youth hockey. That is the issue at hand. LP had different ideas and his conduct and decisions were at odds with the mission of the association. He managed the bench like it was a pro team. That mentality is not appropriate for assocation hockey and the decision to keep him away is valid. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was against the policies, better interest of the association, the kids and their parents. He knew all this and yet didn't change course. He should be coaching at a much higher level and leave youth hockey to the people who have the mentality and ability to follow the standards set by the association.

So how's Lance Pitlick taking all this?

mnhcp wrote:So how's Lance Pitlick taking all this?

Shiloh wrote:Just because someone played professionaly does NOT mean they have the correct mentality for youth hockey. That is the issue at hand. LP had different ideas and his conduct and decisions were at odds with the mission of the association. He managed the bench like it was a pro team. That mentality is not appropriate for assocation hockey and the decision to keep him away is valid. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was against the policies, better interest of the association, the kids and their parents. He knew all this and yet didn't change course. He should be coaching at a much higher level and leave youth hockey to the people who have the mentality and ability to follow the standards set by the association.

I don't have a dog in this fight and cannot reference anything in regards to how it handles his bench during Association hockey (other than coaching against him) but I can tell you:

1. he was always respectful to our team
2. my son has had a positive experience with LP during non-association programs. LP has always had a a positive attitude with the kids and did a very good job as an instructor.

LP is a good guy - change always ruffles feathers and I have to respect a person that is willing to stick their neck out for what they believe in.

gilmour wrote:

Shiloh wrote:Just because someone played professionaly does NOT mean they have the correct mentality for youth hockey. That is the issue at hand. LP had different ideas and his conduct and decisions were at odds with the mission of the association. He managed the bench like it was a pro team. That mentality is not appropriate for assocation hockey and the decision to keep him away is valid. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was against the policies, better interest of the association, the kids and their parents. He knew all this and yet didn't change course. He should be coaching at a much higher level and leave youth hockey to the people who have the mentality and ability to follow the standards set by the association.

I don't have a dog in this fight and cannot reference anything in regards to how it handles his bench during Association hockey (other than coaching against him) but I can tell you:

1. he was always respectful to our team
2. my son has had a positive experience with LP during non-association programs. LP has always had a a positive attitude with the kids and did a very good job as an instructor.

LP is a good guy - change always ruffles feathers and I have to respect a person that is willing to stick their neck out for what they believe in.

I have know Lance for a very long time and I can only say this: He is a great person and a very good coach. You are lucky to have him. For the good of those kids and the association...do pull this crap to get a quality coach to get sick of it and walk away.

I think the title of the thread is misleading. The only controversey in Wayzata hockey is whether to take the Denali or the Benz to the game.

Hockeydaddy wrote:I think the title of the thread is misleading. The only controversey in Wayzata hockey is whether to take the Denali or the Benz to the game.

I just about fell off my chair

RLStars wrote:

Hockeydaddy wrote:I think the title of the thread is misleading. The only controversey in Wayzata hockey is whether to take the Denali or the Benz to the game.

I just about fell off my chair

Bar stool

Haven't had teams against his often, but in a fairly big year-end game last season both he and his player were nothing but total class in a tough loss. My opinion - Great A level coach. Would love to have him in our coaching ranks.

Can't Never Tried wrote:

RLStars wrote:

Hockeydaddy wrote:I think the title of the thread is misleading. The only controversey in Wayzata hockey is whether to take the Denali or the Benz to the game.

I just about fell off my chair

Bar stool

Wheel chair!

LP coached my son last year at Wayzata and I have nothing but good things to say about him. I have older children, so we have seen a lot of different coaches in a lot of different sports over the years. LP is by far one of the best coaches we have ever come across. He was enthusiastic, very positive, and fun. The kids had a great time and in the process they also learned how to be better hockey players. During the entire year we never once heard a negative comment or complaint from a parent or kid on the team. During a midseason survey, he had the highest parent approval rating of any coach at Wayzata. Don't know what Shiloh's agenda is, but I have a feeling that LP stepped on somebody's toes and now they are going behind the scenes to stir up trouble. It is very unfortunate that one disgruntled parent tries to ruin it for everyone.

hockey24/7 wrote:LP coached my son last year at Wayzata and I have nothing but good things to say about him. I have older children, so we have seen a lot of different coaches in a lot of different sports over the years. LP is by far one of the best coaches we have ever come across. He was enthusiastic, very positive, and fun. The kids had a great time and in the process they also learned how to be better hockey players. During the entire year we never once heard a negative comment or complaint from a parent or kid on the team. During a midseason survey, he had the highest parent approval rating of any coach at Wayzata. Don't know what Shiloh's agenda is, but I have a feeling that LP stepped on somebody's toes and now they are going behind the scenes to stir up trouble. It is very unfortunate that one disgruntled parent tries to ruin it for everyone.

Clearly something happened and it was and is far more serious than what you just wrote, otherwise the assocation would not be willing to lose out in this case. I am completely unaware of how explaining something automatically means I have an agenda...other than to explain something. If I had an agenda, I would be trying to manipulate the situation. Providing accurate information to someone's cryptic post is NOT an indication of an agenda. I could care less one way or the other, just if idiots are going to post something with only 1/8 the information, it seems everyone would want to hear both sides. I think I provided one side with others, including yourself providing the other. Should I ask, what is your agenda or can we just state that we are both providing information as we know it for others to ponder??

Shiloh wrote:Just because someone played professionaly does NOT mean they have the correct mentality for youth hockey. That is the issue at hand. LP had different ideas and his conduct and decisions were at odds with the mission of the association. He managed the bench like it was a pro team. That mentality is not appropriate for assocation hockey and the decision to keep him away is valid. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was against the policies, better interest of the association, the kids and their parents. He knew all this and yet didn't change course. He should be coaching at a much higher level and leave youth hockey to the people who have the mentality and ability to follow the standards set by the association.

Wow what a post! LP is a top youth hockey coach and his players love skating for him. Shiloh says "LP had different ideas" oh no!, "he managed the bench like it was a pro team" please, say it isnt so. I'm sure the kids just hated that. And guess what, he is also developing one of the top AAA teams in North America and all of those players also love skating for him. Shame on him for all of his volunteer time for so many youth hockey players. Shiloh your right, he doesnt have the mentality (little league/association) to be coaching in your association . Can Wayzata give him a waiver to come and coach in our association.

Shiloh wrote:

hockey24/7 wrote:LP coached my son last year at Wayzata and I have nothing but good things to say about him. I have older children, so we have seen a lot of different coaches in a lot of different sports over the years. LP is by far one of the best coaches we have ever come across. He was enthusiastic, very positive, and fun. The kids had a great time and in the process they also learned how to be better hockey players. During the entire year we never once heard a negative comment or complaint from a parent or kid on the team. During a midseason survey, he had the highest parent approval rating of any coach at Wayzata. Don't know what Shiloh's agenda is, but I have a feeling that LP stepped on somebody's toes and now they are going behind the scenes to stir up trouble. It is very unfortunate that one disgruntled parent tries to ruin it for everyone.

Clearly something happened and it was and is far more serious than what you just wrote, otherwise the assocation would not be willing to lose out in this case. I am completely unaware of how explaining something automatically means I have an agenda...other than to explain something. If I had an agenda, I would be trying to manipulate the situation. Providing accurate information to someone's cryptic post is NOT an indication of an agenda. I could care less one way or the other, just if idiots are going to post something with only 1/8 the information, it seems everyone would want to hear both sides. I think I provided one side with others, including yourself providing the other. Should I ask, what is your agenda or can we just state that we are both providing information as we know it for others to ponder??

What??? - I am now dumber for having read that.

All 24/7 said was he, and others, liked the coach and appreciated him.

You on the other hand took a mean spirited approach towards a volunteer coach and it is quite obvious that you were personally affected.
Pretty obvious your agenda would be is to not have him coach squirts again and that you would prefer that he did not coach peewee's - why else would you publicly criticize him???

If you are just writing it to write it and weren't involved/affected than I don't know what to say other than that was pretty brutal.