Nine Year Old Kelowna Boy Explains Leaving Hockey Team

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm in Springbank as well, and one advantage is that there are a huge number of teams in each division, which means that on each team the difference between the strongest and weakest skaters is usually not that great. In Pee Wee this year there were 12 teams which was a lot, or so I am told.

I've never had a placement process issue (maybe because I didn't care too much and preferred my kid being placed lower if he was on the bubble).

Our coaches have almost always rolled lines equally as much as possible. A couple coaches created stronger lines (but not PP units), which didn't sit too well with me, because it meant some of the lower lines didn't benefit from having to keep up (and didn't get the sweet passes from the star). And, as I said above, thought they could be tougher on kids who played a shift and a half by not changing when called (meaning some other kid got a half shift).

As an aside, Novice 2 is pretty high level in Springbank because of the number of kids. There were 14 teams the year my kid played Novice (he only played one year of N because he started late).

You're lucky, my time with Springbank teams was actually quite terrible and I experienced quite a bit of harassment from the coaches and abuse from teammates. I was tiny when I was younger and didn't grow until I was around 16 and boy did the Springbank teams ever take it out on me, makes me not want to enroll my kids when I have them. Worst time was when my coach punched me in the face and I missed a game because my nose wouldn't stop bleeding.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

You're lucky, my time with Springbank teams was actually quite terrible and I experienced quite a bit of harassment from the coaches and abuse from teammates. I was tiny when I was younger and didn't grow until I was around 16 and boy did the Springbank teams ever take it out on me, makes me not want to enroll my kids when I have them. Worst time was when my coach punched me in the face and I missed a game because my nose wouldn't stop bleeding.

Holy #### that is horrible.

What was the outcome of this?

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Again, I think you are stuck on the word "equal".

What would be a word that would be aesthetically more please to you?

No word

No need to lie

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Where did i say it wasn't worth trying to attain, if fact I said if you 100% committed to it you still wont achieve it.

There's too many variables there is no such thing as equal ice time.

I've found that the coach that believe they are certain they roll the lines and even find it easy are the worst at trying to equal the ice time on their team

If you have a specific set of reasons for why someone would ever miss time/gain more time, and lay them out for the parents and the kids before the season, there should rarely be issues.

-Disrespectful behaviour (this includes towards the opposition, teammates, coaches, etc); lack of effort; some carry over from practice or other issue. Are all reasons why someone would miss time on our teams.

- Will probably end up with set PP lines by mid-point of the season, but they are also subject to change based on effort. People not generally on PP will be PK. An easy justification because those who don't do PP in practice are generally doing the PKing. PP and PK time generally works out to the same. Do you have certain guys you'll put out at the start of each? Yeah probably, but as long as everyone is getting on eventually, complaints are minimal. If you have a bottom kid that is having a great game, give him a couple PP shifts. ** Also important to emphasize the role of PK and defensive prowess. You don't win without and kids sometimes have difficulty with the fact they may not score much. Help them be valuable in different ways and explain to them and the team WHY what they do is important.

If you keep those types of expectations and are consistent with the consequences (good or bad), there can't really be and justified complaining, and it works out as even as it can be. Some people will whine, but that will happen almost regardless. We had a situation where we swapped goalies each game with the exception that if they got a shutout, they got to play the next game. By the end of the seaons it was relatively even, with our lesser goalie actually playing more games, but come playoff time we had 4 games and used our better goalie in 3 of them. The other parent now smears our names as guys that only care about winning, even though his kid played more throughout the season. You will get people that are not satisfied regardless.

We had a kid that was a bubble player to make our team that was the focal point of the PP by the end of the season. You can't pigeon-hole kids that early, there's too much potential for improvement to think that anyone in their teenage years or younger can't improve on their current skills. And if you don't help them just because you have players that are already better, well, you're missing the point of coaching (AKA TEACHING).

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Holy #### that is horrible.

What was the outcome of this?

I quit playing hockey, will definitely get to know the coach if I have kids.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AcGold

You're lucky, my time with Springbank teams was actually quite terrible and I experienced quite a bit of harassment from the coaches and abuse from teammates. I was tiny when I was younger and didn't grow until I was around 16 and boy did the Springbank teams ever take it out on me, makes me not want to enroll my kids when I have them. Worst time was when my coach punched me in the face and I missed a game because my nose wouldn't stop bleeding.

Wow - when was this? What level?

I assume he punched you in the dressing room, since you would have had a cage on while on the ice. He wasn't seen or reported?

Standards may have changed. One Springbank team I know of a coach got investigated by the MHA (but cleared) when he was accused of yelling at a couple unfocussed kids on the bench.

ETA: The best player on my kid's PeeWee team this year was the smallest and the coaches loved him.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If you have a specific set of reasons for why someone would ever miss time/gain more time, and lay them out for the parents and the kids before the season, there should rarely be issues.

-Disrespectful behaviour (this includes towards the opposition, teammates, coaches, etc); lack of effort; some carry over from practice or other issue. Are all reasons why someone would miss time on our teams.

- Will probably end up with set PP lines by mid-point of the season, but they are also subject to change based on effort. People not generally on PP will be PK. An easy justification because those who don't do PP in practice are generally doing the PKing. PP and PK time generally works out to the same. Do you have certain guys you'll put out at the start of each? Yeah probably, but as long as everyone is getting on eventually, complaints are minimal. If you have a bottom kid that is having a great game, give him a couple PP shifts. ** Also important to emphasize the role of PK and defensive prowess. You don't win without and kids sometimes have difficulty with the fact they may not score much. Help them be valuable in different ways and explain to them and the team WHY what they do is important.

If you keep those types of expectations and are consistent with the consequences (good or bad), there can't really be and justified complaining, and it works out as even as it can be. Some people will whine, but that will happen almost regardless. We had a situation where we swapped goalies each game with the exception that if they got a shutout, they got to play the next game. By the end of the seaons it was relatively even, with our lesser goalie actually playing more games, but come playoff time we had 4 games and used our better goalie in 3 of them. The other parent now smears our names as guys that only care about winning, even though his kid played more throughout the season. You will get people that are not satisfied regardless.

We had a kid that was a bubble player to make our team that was the focal point of the PP by the end of the season. You can't pigeon-hole kids that early, there's too much potential for improvement to think that anyone in their teenage years or younger can't improve on their current skills. And if you don't help them just because you have players that are already better, well, you're missing the point of coaching (AKA TEACHING).

No ideal why you are quoting my post

my post have echoed the same thing.... people that say they are equal are lying and those that make a full effort to be equal will always admit no matter how hard you try it's impossible as too many variables happen within the game

My post is in regards to people that use a bunch of words to say how they are fair and roll the lines yet they go on about benching players, running PP PK units. 9 yearolds old don't need to be that ready for the NHL

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

No ideal why you are quoting my post

my post have echoed the same thing.... people that say they are equal are lying and those that make a full effort to be equal will always admit no matter how hard you try it's impossible as too many variables happen within the game

My post is in regards to people that use a bunch of words to say how they are fair and roll the lines yet they go on about benching players, running PP PK units. 9 yearolds old don't need to be that ready for the NHL

I was quoting it just because what I laid it out is what I would consider "equal" icetime. I agree that everyone having the exact same TOI is obviously a ridiculous expectation. Maybe "equal opportunity ice-time" might be a better way to put it. Either way, it's just semantics, and my point was that if you lay out expectations for what will result in increased/decreased ice time, it should be considered "equal" under those expectations.

Didn't really mean to make it seem like what your saying is wrong, but I don't think anyone is ever arguing that kids have ACTUAL equal ice time, because as you say, it's impossible. People that say they are proponents of equal time mean they are in favour of putting the next kid in line on the ice. My experiences are high-level Bantam, where PP/PK type of thing actually comes into play. But yeah for pretty much any league below that (maybe slight exceptions for div 1 PeeWee) should be "equal" time, no question. 9 year olds getting a couple shifts/period is ludicrous.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Wow - when was this? What level?

I assume he punched you in the dressing room, since you would have had a cage on while on the ice. He wasn't seen or reported?

Standards may have changed. One Springbank team I know of a coach got investigated by the MHA (but cleared) when he was accused of yelling at a couple unfocussed kids on the bench.

ETA: The best player on my kid's PeeWee team this year was the smallest and the coaches loved him.

It was in the parking lot, he was seen but not reported. It was in Bantam team 3 over a decade ago and I hold no grievance or grudge over it but hope that other kids don't experience such things. The situation when I played was quite predatory and there was little to no team atmosphere, parents beware who you leave your kids with.

[rotten42]

This sort of thing happened to my daughter on her grade 8 volleyball team. They had a coach that was a "win at all costs" type. They did eventually win the city championship. While I understand the will to win, it really didn't make sense at that level. More so it was the way the coach handled it. She was very abrasive. Unfortunately it soured my daughters love of the sport and she didn't join the team the next year.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So you have identified 4 out of how many players..........

Anecdotal evidence drives me nuts.

In that same vein: if any parent has a kid who really really really wants to be one of the NBA's best ever players, they should send their child to Nigeria to be a soccer goalkeeper and not touch a basketball until the age of 15. Then they will become one of the best centers ever.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Anecdotal evidence drives me nuts.

In that same vein: if any parent has a kid who really really really wants to be one of the NBA's best ever players, they should send their child to Nigeria to be a soccer goalkeeper and not touch a basketball until the age of 15. Then they will become one of the best centers ever.

I think you and Murph are mixed up between facts and anecdotal evidence.

[temple5]

This would be unacceptable if this was a house-league team, but its not. Its a team which is likely travelling all spring and summer to play hockey with a cost to parents likely 5K+

You are never going to get even shifts with a time and cost commitment like that. There are teams built for the kids to have fun and learn and teams built to travel and win.

Its not new, its being going on like that since at least the 80s. The only difference is now there are alot more spring/summer teams and so alot more parents and kids who think they are good enough to play when they likely arent and were just chosen to fill out the roster - and given the cachement area of Kelowna I would guess that to be the case. Similar case with alot of smaller town teams who have maybe 1-3 great players, 4-7 good players and the rest are roster filler.

I find it hard to believe the parent of this child didnt know the story going in. I was involved in spring/summer hockey when I was younger and I never once saw anyone on the bench crying. The kids were usually at worst meh about their ice time (I guess its possible they cried at home), although they all got to play in the 3rd at least in 1 or 2 shifts in the first 10 minutes if they didnt screw up.

The crying sounds as if maybe this is an "NHL" parent who has convinced their child that he is an elite hockey player when maybe he is just above average and would excel at a A or B division team vs AA or AAA as this one likely is.

[curves2000]

When it comes to parents and their kids in sports its funny how parents always brush off professional advice, even from pro players themselves.

Countless books, interviews, teams, ex players etc comment on how important it is for young hockey players to develop other skills such as baseball, basketball, soccer, golf etc. Boatloads of young players are on the ice year round for no reason but the parents think more ice time equals better hockey development.

In regards to what happened to this little guy its sad to hear and see. I hate to criticizes coaches but sometimes people forget that a coaches responsibility is to coach and teach. Heck there are probably a lot of pro sports coaches that forget this concept.

Its tough to argue that young players have a variety level of skill but its also tough to see the correlation between coach's spending quality time teaching and seeing improvement in their player.

I myself laugh and cringe at the same time when I look back on my time in minor hockey. For whatever reason I played the game at the start at a higher level than my age in some aspects and in some way below my age. For some reason at the beginning I really struggled with the concept of off-side. I was constantly putting my team off-side and I couldn't "get it". It wasn't until my coach after a while sat me down and actually went into great detail and explained it to me that I understood it. It sounds funny now but at the time it was a struggle for everyone involved but these days when I am watching a game I catch these off-sides quicker than almost anyone.

At the end of the day everyone wants to just have fun and enjoy it and I can't help but think that some of the crazy parents out there might have been the children who weren't given a fair chance growing up. Sometimes parents try to make up for their childhood through their children.

I am not a parent and am not involved in minor hockey so my experience is just from what I read and see on the news and from friends.

Thanks

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I think you and Murph are mixed up between facts and anecdotal evidence.

In a country where there are 10s of thousands of under-18 hockey players, if you're giving a specific example with a few names, then you're working with anecdotes.

To wit, you wrote:

The example I'm going to use is from the 1998 born group of hockey players (as that who i'm most familiar with). This was considered the deepst (WHL) draft in years (Benson, Steel, Clague, Patrick etc). Every kid drafted in the first round, I know for a fact played spring hockey.

Neato. But correlation doesn't mean causality, meaning that both your facts can be true but unrelated. I could probably data-mine that set for handedness (left or right shooter), hair colour, height at age 9, weight at age 7, etc... and find two true facts that I can imagine creates a new rule.

Also, for your interpretation to be valid, you need to consider a larger dataset and also consider the remaining data. What percentage of kids drafted in the subsequent round(s) played spring hockey? Does your observation hold true for all the years wherein draft data are available? Compile those data for every year and we'll have something to talk about... or, we can just ignore it like you ignored the published reference

[Jason14h]

Countless books, interviews, teams, ex players etc comment on how important it is for young hockey players to develop other skills such as baseball, basketball, soccer, golf etc. Boatloads of young players are on the ice year round for no reason but the parents think more ice time equals better hockey development.

The issue is I think people are associating summer or spring hockey with year round.

The minor hockey schedule is from Oct - end March? Thats leaves 6 months of non-hockey.

You can easily play in a spring league and do a fall camp and still play Soccer or baseball or Lacrosse.

Heck you can even do those while playing hockey, as lots of these athletes do.

But to think they on the average the players who get extra practice and ice time year round are going to be worst players then those who don't is comical.

[Jason14h]

In a country where there are 10s of thousands of under-18 hockey players, if you're giving a specific example with a few names, then you're working with anecdotes.

Nope. Actually giving 4 players who made it is not an example of being anecdotal.

Saying "The kids at edge are all spoiled brats who have no better chance because I don't like them" sure is though.

Just to help you out here is the definition "not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

In a country where there are 10s of thousands of under-18 hockey players, if you're giving a specific example with a few names, then you're working with anecdotes.

To wit, you wrote:



Neato. But correlation doesn't mean causality, meaning that both your facts can be true but unrelated. I could probably data-mine that set for handedness (left or right shooter), hair colour, height at age 9, weight at age 7, etc... and find two true facts that I can imagine creates a new rule.

Also, for your interpretation to be valid, you need to consider a larger dataset and also consider the remaining data. What percentage of kids drafted in the subsequent round(s) played spring hockey? Does your observation hold true for all the years wherein draft data are available? Compile those data for every year and we'll have something to talk about... or, we can just ignore it like you ignored the published reference

I used that age group because as I said, that is the group I'm the most familiar with. These are actual players, who played spring hockey and are the best in their age group, they are the rul, not the exception. Although I only know a handful of the 97's, 99's and 00's this is still the case. The 01 age group on Alberta is possibly stronger the the 98's were and again this is the case. We cannot compare kids who do not play spring hockey vs the kids who do, there is not one to make. Any kids that are going anywhere in hockey (and 1000's who will not) are playing spring to year round hockey, should they be? maybe not. But there is no way for you to prove that playing spring hockey has set them back. There is also no way to go back in time and prove that Stamkos would be a better player today had he not played spring hockey as was implied by Murph.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I used that age group because as I said, that is the group I'm the most familiar with. These are actual players, who played spring hockey and are the best in their age group, they are the rul, not the exception. Although I only know a handful of the 97's, 99's and 00's this is still the case. The 01 age group on Alberta is possibly stronger the the 98's were and again this is the case. We cannot compare kids who do not play spring hockey vs the kids who do, there is not one to make. Any kids that are going anywhere in hockey (and 1000's who will not) are playing spring to year round hockey, should they be? maybe not. But there is no way for you to prove that playing spring hockey has set them back. There is also no way to go back in time and prove that Stamkos would be a better player today had he not played spring hockey as was implied by Murph.

Jesus dude, stop putting words in my mouth. Do yourself a favour and go read the published, peer-reviewed research that was cited, which you STILL clearly haven't done. If AFTER reading it, you want to have an informed discussion on the content, then I'd be happy to have one.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Murph

Jesus dude, stop putting words in my mouth. Do yourself a favour and go read the published, peer-reviewed research that was cited, which you STILL clearly haven't done. If AFTER reading it, you want to have an informed discussion on the content, then I'd be happy to have one.

Originally Posted by Murph

I'm not disputing the fact that the kids played spring hockey. I'm arguing that they SHOULDN'T have, and if they hadn't, the research says that they would be better hockey players later in life. If you decide that you'd like to read the results of the research that I linked, let me know and we'll talk some more.

Are these the words you are alleging I put in your mouth because clearly they came from you, I just used Stamkos as an example in my post because based on the study, he should be a much better player then he is, the same would be true for Towes, Subban etc... You sure like to refer the study yet do not address the players (and theres 100's fo them) who have carved out nice careers for themselves even though they have had their development compromised by specializing in hockey at an early age.

I've read the study and then some, Jean Cote has for some reason made anti sports specialization his mission in life.