4th Line for HS team
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
4th Line for HS team
Our local HS coach is raiding the youth hockey program's U14 and U12 teams because he wants a fourth line for his varsity team. We are talking about pulling up 7th and 8th graders. Note: there is no JV team. I think this is really short-sighted. And HS coaches wonder why youth programs and high school do not see eye to eye.
I could possibly go along with moving players up to allow a team to put a varsity team on the ice (if all other options were exhausted). But what girls HS team needs a fourth line? What team regularly plays four lines? Answer: none that I know of. But I am sure that these younger players will improve through osmosis by sitting on a varsity HS bench; rather than playing on their U12 or U14 teams.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
I don't know many HS temas that play 4 lines.
The kids will get a lot out of practicing with the V every day, but will be lacking on game time I would imagine.
The exception to this would be if there was a JV, or if the younger players are as good or better than the older ones (always a "problem").
Also, I know some coaches may move kids up to give them a "transition" year where they will play but not be relied upon to carry the team. Without a JV, that is important, but at the same time, that is the dual purpose of the U14/JV. Of course, the problem is that a V coach can't pull a kid up from U14 to play in a V game, etc. This, along with the age changes a few years back, is probably what has driven so many to JV and taken kids from the U14 (and even 12) levels.
Most public school programs have to choose if they want to field a U14 or a JV. Those that don't have this choice are big like Edina, Park CG, etc. the other option is to look at more co-op youth U14's, etc.
I rarely agree with U12's playing HS unless they are extremely talented and have dominated the level before, and have no other options but to stay a 2nd year at a level they dominated. Multiple years of dominance are usually not productive in developing a player. One year is though, I believe, important.
The kids will get a lot out of practicing with the V every day, but will be lacking on game time I would imagine.
The exception to this would be if there was a JV, or if the younger players are as good or better than the older ones (always a "problem").
Also, I know some coaches may move kids up to give them a "transition" year where they will play but not be relied upon to carry the team. Without a JV, that is important, but at the same time, that is the dual purpose of the U14/JV. Of course, the problem is that a V coach can't pull a kid up from U14 to play in a V game, etc. This, along with the age changes a few years back, is probably what has driven so many to JV and taken kids from the U14 (and even 12) levels.
Most public school programs have to choose if they want to field a U14 or a JV. Those that don't have this choice are big like Edina, Park CG, etc. the other option is to look at more co-op youth U14's, etc.
I rarely agree with U12's playing HS unless they are extremely talented and have dominated the level before, and have no other options but to stay a 2nd year at a level they dominated. Multiple years of dominance are usually not productive in developing a player. One year is though, I believe, important.
4th Line & underclassmen
In the few instances it may have happened...or could happen, I have to say it's wrong in my opinion to prevent a youngster from playing varsity if they are clearly capable / qualified to play at that level. I personally believe it's a situation where the needs of or the benefit to the talented individual is primary...or should be.
I think this debate goes into what is best for a PROGRAM vs an Individual. I have seen too many girls high school coaches go nuts over the stud at U12 A and think they are just awesome, but they forget they are playing against other 12year olds not 18 year olds.
If you have an age group or a couple of age groups in a row that are successful. I believe it it best to keep all of them together, have them win together and build a foundation of knowing what to do in pressure situations. When they are the top dogs on their high school teams as 10th-12th graders they wouldn't have sat for the past 2-3 years on the bench waiting for their chance. I have also seen it tear age groups apart because you have two kids who are close in ability but one makes varsity and the other one is sent to U14, which is a lot easier to handle when you are in 9th-10th grade and you are at JV, but youth hockey and high school are two different animals. Also I think that coaching can get stale in development if they have the same coach for 4-5 years....Girls especially need to have their interests peaked more often than not and the same drills, coaching style and goals can get old.
Lastly I think parents are really missing the boat as far as wanting their 12-13 year old daughters in the locker room with a bunch of 17-18 year olds. Let kids be kids and if they are truely talented their talents will show no matter what level they play when they are 12-14 years old. If there is proper coaching and programs in place.
If you have an age group or a couple of age groups in a row that are successful. I believe it it best to keep all of them together, have them win together and build a foundation of knowing what to do in pressure situations. When they are the top dogs on their high school teams as 10th-12th graders they wouldn't have sat for the past 2-3 years on the bench waiting for their chance. I have also seen it tear age groups apart because you have two kids who are close in ability but one makes varsity and the other one is sent to U14, which is a lot easier to handle when you are in 9th-10th grade and you are at JV, but youth hockey and high school are two different animals. Also I think that coaching can get stale in development if they have the same coach for 4-5 years....Girls especially need to have their interests peaked more often than not and the same drills, coaching style and goals can get old.
Lastly I think parents are really missing the boat as far as wanting their 12-13 year old daughters in the locker room with a bunch of 17-18 year olds. Let kids be kids and if they are truely talented their talents will show no matter what level they play when they are 12-14 years old. If there is proper coaching and programs in place.
The players in question will be the 10th, 11th, and 12th forwards on the team. One of my spies has told me that the reason they are being "courted" to play on varsity is that the HS coach is afraid of losing them to the privates when they enter 9th grade; not because they will step in and play a major role for the team. Meanwhile the youth program is more than a little upset to lose two U14 players and one U12 player for the hypothetical possible reason that they may not enroll in their "home HS." Just wondering: do many coaches place 7th and 8th graders on their team because of fear of the players going to the privates?
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
The debate continues...
I agree with the idea that HS coaching can get "old" if for 4-5-6 years. This is why HS coaches may be better served to let their kids seek out other coaching in off-season or have "guest" instructors. I believe quality HS coaches can keep kids developing in season for multiple years however. How effectively is dependent upon the effort & quality of the creativity of the HS coach.
I think players should be given a year to "dominate" a level, at any level, but multiple years of domination (even HS) is not good for development. From this standpoint, you have to be careful to "hold back" kids that are that select few that need the challenge of a higher level. The academic equivalent is saying that you want your kid to repeat algebra after they aced it the year prior. So, you have to consider the development of the individual too - BUT a kid has to be ready to handle the HS locker room enviroment, etc. in addition to their hockey talent.
I believe kids that haven't dominated highest available youth level, and won't get HS ice time, shouldn't play HS hockey. If they have dominated and will play they should - IF they can handle the locker room/social aspects.
As to the gamble of taking young kids to HS to keep them from private schools, I don't think that's a good idea. Sitting on a bench as a young player likely does nothing for keeping a kid in the home HS. In fact, it may actually help convince them to leave sooner! Plus, that could be a lot of wasted time that the home public HS team spends developing the next private school star! But, to be honest, I would always take the best players that come to tryout as I think most coaches would - no matter where they may end up in HS.
A few years ago, I had 2 7th graders and an 8th grader come out for HS hockey, and I took them on the V only team. One of the 7th graders was U12 eligible, and the youth assn. wanted her to play U12 still after making that level look absolutely silly the year prior (wouldn't let her play up to U15). That kid scored 25 pts (in the strongest Lake Conf in many years before or since) that year as a HS player, and to NY twice for NDP. The other two players scored 20-30 pts that year and once to NY NDP each, and I expect all will play D1 if they so choose. Kids like this shouldn't be forced to play at a level that won't develop them.
The problem is that too many players that aren't at this level are "playing" HS too soon and them sitting the bench is not good at all even though the practices do the most for development.
I agree with the idea that HS coaching can get "old" if for 4-5-6 years. This is why HS coaches may be better served to let their kids seek out other coaching in off-season or have "guest" instructors. I believe quality HS coaches can keep kids developing in season for multiple years however. How effectively is dependent upon the effort & quality of the creativity of the HS coach.
I think players should be given a year to "dominate" a level, at any level, but multiple years of domination (even HS) is not good for development. From this standpoint, you have to be careful to "hold back" kids that are that select few that need the challenge of a higher level. The academic equivalent is saying that you want your kid to repeat algebra after they aced it the year prior. So, you have to consider the development of the individual too - BUT a kid has to be ready to handle the HS locker room enviroment, etc. in addition to their hockey talent.
I believe kids that haven't dominated highest available youth level, and won't get HS ice time, shouldn't play HS hockey. If they have dominated and will play they should - IF they can handle the locker room/social aspects.
As to the gamble of taking young kids to HS to keep them from private schools, I don't think that's a good idea. Sitting on a bench as a young player likely does nothing for keeping a kid in the home HS. In fact, it may actually help convince them to leave sooner! Plus, that could be a lot of wasted time that the home public HS team spends developing the next private school star! But, to be honest, I would always take the best players that come to tryout as I think most coaches would - no matter where they may end up in HS.
A few years ago, I had 2 7th graders and an 8th grader come out for HS hockey, and I took them on the V only team. One of the 7th graders was U12 eligible, and the youth assn. wanted her to play U12 still after making that level look absolutely silly the year prior (wouldn't let her play up to U15). That kid scored 25 pts (in the strongest Lake Conf in many years before or since) that year as a HS player, and to NY twice for NDP. The other two players scored 20-30 pts that year and once to NY NDP each, and I expect all will play D1 if they so choose. Kids like this shouldn't be forced to play at a level that won't develop them.
The problem is that too many players that aren't at this level are "playing" HS too soon and them sitting the bench is not good at all even though the practices do the most for development.
4th Line vs. Underclassmen
I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding the position of some. I get the impression that some feel that even if a 7th or 8th grader above average in skills / talent and subsequently well capable of playing HS varsity while at the same time has a strong desire to advance / play HS hockey, she should nevertheless stay with her youth hockey team solely for the well being of her youth hockey program and because her youth hockey coach wants her on his / her team? I'll never agree with that...some forced "holding back" of an individual, against her own wishes...if that is what is indeed being advocated. The fortunes of a youth hockey program is a heck of a responsibility to place on the shoulders, or hold over the head of a 7th or 8th grade kid, and in my opinion not a responsibility remotely belonging to such a kid, especially in light of potentially being in direct conflict with their own hopes and opportunities to advance towards those personal goals.
Last edited by brookyone on Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
...
I should probably clarify...
7th & 8th graders playing HS shouldn't have to be the norm year-after-year. In fact they should be very few on a short-term basis and really only the ones that are mature enough emotionally but also athletically to be successful at the higher level...
This being said, there are some situations that may still necessitate kids that don't meet this criteria playing HS. HS team viability on a short term basis (a year or two with limited numbers) may be one reason. A class A program may have to rely on these kids more than the biggest AA schools, and there are differences between public/private/metro/outstate/etc. teams, accessibility to options based on cost/travel/co-op potential HS & youth wise, etc., etc.
The reason that the current fragmented JV/U14 setup exists as it does is that the many options are needed to give kids the most possible options to participate in hockey. I'll be the first to admit that the system has its flaws, but I'm also not certain that I have(or anyone for that matter has) a better solution quite yet.
I've went back and forth on this as I've seen more of the issues in different settings. The more I look at this, I don't know that it's an easy decision between saying "No JV's" or "No U14's" If anything can be done, it's going to need to be a very unique compromise and collaboration between MN H & the MSHSL to keep as many as possible affordable opportunities available. To do what's best for the kids we may need to set some egos/agendas aside and be willing to truly compromise.
For all these reasons, I'm not so quick to rush to judgment relative to any HS coach that may be considering younger players on their HS roster. Until you know all the facts, rationale, etc. it's just too easy to not understand. Many may think that HS coaches maliciously or carelessly take youth kids to HS without agonizing over the implications of this. Trust me, this is NOT an easy decision for coaches. Additionally, we have to remember that we built G Hockey from the top down & not bottom up - in the "if you build it, they will come" mentality. I think this was necessary to get G hockey to where it is now and thank goodness that someone fought those battles for many years to get the teams started. BUT, I do think that this is catching up with us, or that we've never been able to completely get past this beginning and truly stabilize the youth ranks - even though great progress has been made in this general direction.
I've "rushed" kids to the HS level in three separate programs/teams - one an AA JV/V city co-op, once for a rebuilding V only AA Lake Conf team, and another a JV/V Class A Classic Suburban team. In one case, many of the 7th & 8th graders had never played organized hockey before coming to the JV (We recruited them off the streets), another was due to amazing talent of kids that nearly won a 12A state championship & need to keep a team viable, and the third will be to keep a program viable for a year or two with kids that too were top 12A players the couple years prior once again.
I don't consider any of these "wrong" reasons to look at moving kids up. However, in such situations where MANY kids on a HS roster are 7th/8th/9th graders a coach needs to adjust their schedule accordingly however. It doesn't do kids much good to get blown out consistently by playing a top Strength-of-Schedule (SOS) when you know you're acclimating them to the HS level. My hope would be that no one has to endure this sort of situation where you have an extremely young team and also an extremely difficult SOS. I had that one year, and it likely helped cost me my coaching job in the end.
7th & 8th graders playing HS shouldn't have to be the norm year-after-year. In fact they should be very few on a short-term basis and really only the ones that are mature enough emotionally but also athletically to be successful at the higher level...
This being said, there are some situations that may still necessitate kids that don't meet this criteria playing HS. HS team viability on a short term basis (a year or two with limited numbers) may be one reason. A class A program may have to rely on these kids more than the biggest AA schools, and there are differences between public/private/metro/outstate/etc. teams, accessibility to options based on cost/travel/co-op potential HS & youth wise, etc., etc.
The reason that the current fragmented JV/U14 setup exists as it does is that the many options are needed to give kids the most possible options to participate in hockey. I'll be the first to admit that the system has its flaws, but I'm also not certain that I have(or anyone for that matter has) a better solution quite yet.
I've went back and forth on this as I've seen more of the issues in different settings. The more I look at this, I don't know that it's an easy decision between saying "No JV's" or "No U14's" If anything can be done, it's going to need to be a very unique compromise and collaboration between MN H & the MSHSL to keep as many as possible affordable opportunities available. To do what's best for the kids we may need to set some egos/agendas aside and be willing to truly compromise.
For all these reasons, I'm not so quick to rush to judgment relative to any HS coach that may be considering younger players on their HS roster. Until you know all the facts, rationale, etc. it's just too easy to not understand. Many may think that HS coaches maliciously or carelessly take youth kids to HS without agonizing over the implications of this. Trust me, this is NOT an easy decision for coaches. Additionally, we have to remember that we built G Hockey from the top down & not bottom up - in the "if you build it, they will come" mentality. I think this was necessary to get G hockey to where it is now and thank goodness that someone fought those battles for many years to get the teams started. BUT, I do think that this is catching up with us, or that we've never been able to completely get past this beginning and truly stabilize the youth ranks - even though great progress has been made in this general direction.
I've "rushed" kids to the HS level in three separate programs/teams - one an AA JV/V city co-op, once for a rebuilding V only AA Lake Conf team, and another a JV/V Class A Classic Suburban team. In one case, many of the 7th & 8th graders had never played organized hockey before coming to the JV (We recruited them off the streets), another was due to amazing talent of kids that nearly won a 12A state championship & need to keep a team viable, and the third will be to keep a program viable for a year or two with kids that too were top 12A players the couple years prior once again.
I don't consider any of these "wrong" reasons to look at moving kids up. However, in such situations where MANY kids on a HS roster are 7th/8th/9th graders a coach needs to adjust their schedule accordingly however. It doesn't do kids much good to get blown out consistently by playing a top Strength-of-Schedule (SOS) when you know you're acclimating them to the HS level. My hope would be that no one has to endure this sort of situation where you have an extremely young team and also an extremely difficult SOS. I had that one year, and it likely helped cost me my coaching job in the end.
-
hockeyfinatic
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:35 am
JV or 14U
Here is another issue to think about. Lets say we get rid of a JV and have 14U teams. How many players should the varisty coach keep? We can roster 20 but we all know 20 won't play. It isn't worth keeping kids if they are not going to play. But then to cut a girl because she won't play takes away from the reasoning of having a high school sport.
That is why you need a JV - it gives everybody in grades 7-12 a place to play. JV or V.
Remember this is only for smaller schools - Class A and some Class AA.
That is why you need a JV - it gives everybody in grades 7-12 a place to play. JV or V.
Remember this is only for smaller schools - Class A and some Class AA.
Re: 4th Line vs. Underclassmen
In my statement, when I meant PROGRAM, I meant the whole program meaning youth, JV and varsity. They should all be working together. Any high school coach that does not take the time to support their youth program is nuts. Also any youth coach who is only in it for their own kid and bashes the high school coach shouldn't be in that position either. I believe a good coach at any level puts their needs aside and looks out for the best interests of all players in their program. There has to be open lines of communication between high school coaches, girls directors and Youth "A" coaches(non parents would be best in this case) and the parent of the child. I believe that is where a lot of animosity comes from, is that not everyone is always on the same page, and are unwilling to compromise their differences.
In my opinion it's not always the right thing to do to take one or two kids from an age group that has been successful to have them be the 5th or 6th d, or 10th-12th forward if they can be PLAYING on their youth team that is competitive with good coaching. If they won't be competitive meaning not enough numbers at all, then it is a different story. Sometimes taking two or three kids out of a U12 or U14 program damages the age group as a whole and makes them less competitive, especially at the U14 A levels.
I coached a team two years ago that took 2nd in state and our best player decided to stay and play youth hockey one more year because her friends were there. Her parents also made a good decision in the fact that they didn't feel her maturity level was quite there. The high school coach wanted her and by her staying her age group as a whole benefitted from it and she made 2nd-3rd line varsity as a 9th grader. They also had a feeling of what it takes to be a winning team and to do something as a group that they may never get to do again at any level. That player moved up and her friends had one more good year of youth hockey and they made it back to state the next year because they got a taste of what it takes and how much fun it was, they were willing to put in the work the 2nd year around.
With that being said if you have an 8th grader that can play in the top two lines or top 4 "D", is mature enough to be in that lockerroom with older gals, and will improve than I am all for it. By no means do I believe in holding someone back if their talent is too great for their level they have to play in but that is rarely the case.
It just pains me to see associations without good U12'A" and U14 A programs because all of their players are playing up in a JV program and since their jv program is filled up with young kids the older 10th and 11th graders quit hockey because they don't see any hope to make varsity some day. I coach other sports and I don't see too many 8th graders on soccer, softball,basketball, or volleyball rosters. I understand the sport is growing but in order for it to grow, it has to come from the bottom up, not the other way around. The "well" will eventually run dry...unless you are in edina, white bear lake, lakeville or eden prarie, where numbers are just too large for that to happen.
In my opinion it's not always the right thing to do to take one or two kids from an age group that has been successful to have them be the 5th or 6th d, or 10th-12th forward if they can be PLAYING on their youth team that is competitive with good coaching. If they won't be competitive meaning not enough numbers at all, then it is a different story. Sometimes taking two or three kids out of a U12 or U14 program damages the age group as a whole and makes them less competitive, especially at the U14 A levels.
I coached a team two years ago that took 2nd in state and our best player decided to stay and play youth hockey one more year because her friends were there. Her parents also made a good decision in the fact that they didn't feel her maturity level was quite there. The high school coach wanted her and by her staying her age group as a whole benefitted from it and she made 2nd-3rd line varsity as a 9th grader. They also had a feeling of what it takes to be a winning team and to do something as a group that they may never get to do again at any level. That player moved up and her friends had one more good year of youth hockey and they made it back to state the next year because they got a taste of what it takes and how much fun it was, they were willing to put in the work the 2nd year around.
With that being said if you have an 8th grader that can play in the top two lines or top 4 "D", is mature enough to be in that lockerroom with older gals, and will improve than I am all for it. By no means do I believe in holding someone back if their talent is too great for their level they have to play in but that is rarely the case.
It just pains me to see associations without good U12'A" and U14 A programs because all of their players are playing up in a JV program and since their jv program is filled up with young kids the older 10th and 11th graders quit hockey because they don't see any hope to make varsity some day. I coach other sports and I don't see too many 8th graders on soccer, softball,basketball, or volleyball rosters. I understand the sport is growing but in order for it to grow, it has to come from the bottom up, not the other way around. The "well" will eventually run dry...unless you are in edina, white bear lake, lakeville or eden prarie, where numbers are just too large for that to happen.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
fanatic - well said. I agree that a U14 does no good for a kid that won't play on the V but is too old for U14. That may be easier to find a U19 in the metro now, but not certain that this option exists in out-state areas.
In my mind, U14=JV when you have $$$ from HS for transportation, equipment, coaching, ice time, etc. AND when you need a place for non-V non-U14 eligible kids to play. Ideal world, we'd have non-HS U19 opportunities everywhere (like boys) but we know that isn't the case.
Really, U14, like JV, isn't very consistent as far as level of play from what I understand. This too is a product of the fragmentation of the U14/JV at times, but may be unavoidable even if a joint effort was achieved.
One thing that I hear some teams are doing is co-oping for JV only while maintaining separate V teams, although I'm not certain that this is truly OK by MSHSL standards. If it is, more HS teams could look at this for Non-V level Non-U14 eligible kids, and then too could work together to place U14 teams on the ice, although then the complication is that HS's can't pull kids up from U14 for V experience or injury/illness as they improve, etc. Also, some coaches like those U14 kids to skate V practice even if only playing JV for the added development...
I will say that if a team can pull a kid up to V from a JV only co-op, why couldn't they do the same for a U14 kid I wonder??? I think it's all doable, but it may come down to insurance and registration of HS kids with USA H, etc.
In my mind, U14=JV when you have $$$ from HS for transportation, equipment, coaching, ice time, etc. AND when you need a place for non-V non-U14 eligible kids to play. Ideal world, we'd have non-HS U19 opportunities everywhere (like boys) but we know that isn't the case.
Really, U14, like JV, isn't very consistent as far as level of play from what I understand. This too is a product of the fragmentation of the U14/JV at times, but may be unavoidable even if a joint effort was achieved.
One thing that I hear some teams are doing is co-oping for JV only while maintaining separate V teams, although I'm not certain that this is truly OK by MSHSL standards. If it is, more HS teams could look at this for Non-V level Non-U14 eligible kids, and then too could work together to place U14 teams on the ice, although then the complication is that HS's can't pull kids up from U14 for V experience or injury/illness as they improve, etc. Also, some coaches like those U14 kids to skate V practice even if only playing JV for the added development...
I will say that if a team can pull a kid up to V from a JV only co-op, why couldn't they do the same for a U14 kid I wonder??? I think it's all doable, but it may come down to insurance and registration of HS kids with USA H, etc.
Last edited by ghshockeyfan on Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ghshockeyfan
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
- Contact:
gopher -
I agree with almost all you said, but I just don't entirely agree that it is best to hold a kid back to help the rest of the youth team. I'm all about team first, but... Is it really best for an elite player to stay down to carry a team? There is something to be said for the best players to leave a youth team to force the rest of the team to step up and carry the load of that one or couple superstars that are otherwise sacrificing development at the next level.
Just my opinion.
I do agree though that it is nice to get all kids a chance to dominate at a level & hopefully win too, before they move up - AND always important that the kids are mature enough to make the move to HS first.
I agree with almost all you said, but I just don't entirely agree that it is best to hold a kid back to help the rest of the youth team. I'm all about team first, but... Is it really best for an elite player to stay down to carry a team? There is something to be said for the best players to leave a youth team to force the rest of the team to step up and carry the load of that one or couple superstars that are otherwise sacrificing development at the next level.
Just my opinion.
I do agree though that it is nice to get all kids a chance to dominate at a level & hopefully win too, before they move up - AND always important that the kids are mature enough to make the move to HS first.
4th line
There is no standard response to this question. Each organization must approach this situation uniquely. If a player can develop more by practicing with the varsity then on a U14 and there is room, then they should move up in the system. If one adopts the European model, where practice is more important then games, then why not move up to a higher level. The coaches know what is right and there are no standard rules that should supercede in these situations- players are human beings not a rulebook. Coaching is all about individual and team motivation- it never follows a rulebook.