Absolutely. The ice-time issue only applied to the competitive team - there were several tiers for everyone else, and everyone got equal playing time at those levels.
This is exactly the way it should be. They should even call it competitive league and developing league or something along those lines. People who just want to go have fun and not worry about playing time should be able to do that, especially as a kid, no matter the age.
There is no such thing as having to earn playing time when you are 5 years old, why is it different at 9, 10 or 11 on a recreational team? Some kids are just better than others and care more but it doesn't mean that they are having more fun out there because they are better.
When kids start to feel left out, there is a problem with how the kids are being treated. Learning life lessons from your atom coach about respect, responsibility and sportsmanship should be expected, but learning that winning isn't everything is also important to recreational athletes.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
It's better that you're not worse than to feel that you improved? I don't know if I agree with that. And it's most definitely not impossible to say. In this last year that I coached, I can honestly (and proudly) say that each and every kid improved. And I attribute that to making everyone feel enough a part of the team that they came and had fun working hard for/with each other every day.
I agree, I pulled 8 mins out of my butt. I've never tracked TOI for kids. The point is it should be relatively even, leaving room for PP PK (mostly those offset each other) and end-game situations.
I think you are twisting my words here. As I said, I was the captain of the team the next year, so I think things went ok.
Absolutely. The ice-time issue only applied to the competitive team - there were several tiers for everyone else, and everyone got equal playing time at those levels.
So my question here is; at what tier do you deam the league non competitive? I ask this becasue my Nephew was in a very similar situation this year in Atom. They were tier 3, here atom goes t1, t2 , t3 then house (really by the time they get to tier 3 there are about 100 kids who are the same calibre). But most parents/ players, even in house feel like AAA bantam is on the horizon.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
I think you are twisting my words here. As I said, I was the captain of the team the next year, so I think things went ok.
Im not twisting anything. You said "was I worse" was a more important question and it's absolutely not. It's nice that you were the captain the next season, so maybe you did improve, but being captain doesn't necessarily mean you were better. If you had a coach that gave you 5 mins each game purely because you were a first year, seems like the type of person who would give you captaincy purely because you were there last year, neither of which has anything to do with your skill or effort level. Especially when your 7 years old.
But did you improve because you grew/became more athletic over the off season? Or did you improve because all that watching from the bench really improved your skating and puckhandling skills?
So my question here is; at what tier do you deam the league non competitive? I ask this becasue my Nephew was in a very similar situation this year in Atom. They were tier 3, here atom goes t1, t2 , t3 then house (really by the time they get to tier 3 there are about 100 kids who are the same calibre). But most parents/ players, even in house feel like AAA bantam is on the horizon.
I think you're after a different definition of competitive here - all sports are competitive, to a greater or lesser degree.
I was using the term as in referencing the top team - i.e. I had no problem with uneven ice-time allotments on the top team. For all other levels, they should be pretty even. If a child isn't getting ice-time at one level, they should be down a level, no? That doesn't make their level non-competitive, in that definition of the word.
I think you're after a different definition of competitive here - all sports are competitive, to a greater or lesser degree.
I was using the term as in referencing the top team - i.e. I had no problem with uneven ice-time allotments on the top team. For all other levels, they should be pretty even. If a child isn't getting ice-time at one level, they should be down a level, no? That doesn't make their level non-competitive, in that definition of the word.
I actually think that at all levels, AAA, AA, A, B and lower it should be equal ice.
In fact I would suggest that the difference between the best & worst player on a AAA team would be less that the difference between the best & worst on a B team.
This is not predatory. Now we need to protect grown adults from where they spend their money? Give me a break.
And how does linking an article where a player made it who did not play spring hockey have any barring on this?
#1. Players in general did not play year round, etc 25 years ago. So it's not comparing similar circumstances. Plus he talks about how he practiced all summer.
#2. You don't believe that a player who practices and plays more is going to be better then a player who doesn't in a large sample size? Now of course they could play another summer sport and stay in good shape and develop other skillsets. However at the end of the day kids who play year round will be better in the long run on the average.
There has been talk of creating a recreational league for kids and not having any contact for example once they reach pee wee and beyond. This could be considered the less-competitive league for those who just want to play recreational. There is a place for this I believe in all sports. Now finding the right coaches for these less competitive leagues is another thing. More about fun and everyone playing, then earning ice time.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
You are right, playing a variety of sports throughout the year is better than specializing at a young age. I don't think people should be specializing in a sport until they are close to being done developing physically, ie later teens. Most of the high performance athletes from aged 15 - 18 should be playing more than one sport IMO.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
The Following User Says Thank You to foshizzle11 For This Useful Post:
Exact same reason I quit sports. Last sport I played was soccer, coach would never play me because he had a personal grudge, against a 14 year old. He was forced to put me in one game, I got 3 goals then decided to quit when the coach told me I'm an ungrateful little ####. Adults can be less mature than children quite often
These studies make me laugh. Really waiting untill post puberty is too loate in hockey. 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. And in the first 3 rounds there were only 4 kids where it could not be proven that they did or did not play spring hockey, and in the first 7 rounds it was something like 90% of the kids played spring hockey. The next group I know quite well is the 2001 born group, and the best (Alberta) kids in that group are all playing on at least one spring team.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
You are right, playing a variety of sports throughout the year is better than specializing at a young age. I don't think people should be specializing in a sport until they are close to being done developing physically, ie later teens. Most of the high performance athletes from aged 15 - 18 should be playing more than one sport IMO.
I know I'm harping a bit, but I don't think it can be overemphasized. Early specialization has become societal thing. Uninformed parents do it because they think it's what's best for their kid. The dispicable thing is that the proprietors of these "elite" leagues/teams are taking advantage, often times in spite of the fact that they know it's not what's best for the kids.
These studies make me laugh. Really waiting untill post puberty is too loate in hockey. 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. And in the first 3 rounds there were only 4 kids where it could not be proven that they did or did not play spring hockey, and in the first 7 rounds it was something like 90% of the kids played spring hockey. The next group I know quite well is the 2001 born group, and the best (Alberta) kids in that group are all playing on at least one spring team.
Ok chief, you got me. Your anecdotal evidence wins!
The Following User Says Thank You to Murph For This Useful Post:
http://www.sonntagsports.com/hockeyt...ion=game_sheet
There is a very good chance these kids played other sports as well but it doesn't matter what your study says, these are currently the best 16 year old hockey players in Western Canada and they all played spring hockey.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Of course some kids will burn out when playing year round. Others will become elite.
On the AVERAGE, playing more hockey will make you a better player.
No one is saying don't take a break to play baseball, soccer or lacrosse in the summer. But if you only play hockey for Oct to April odds are against you becoming an upper tier player.
http://www.sonntagsports.com/hockeyt...ion=game_sheet
There is a very good chance these kids played other sports as well but it doesn't matter what your study says, these are currently the best 16 year old hockey players in Western Canada and they all played spring hockey.
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.
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.
You are right, you and your little study know that Stamkos, Towes and Subban are much worse off because they played spring hockey. Just imagine, if they hadn't they would be some of the best players in the world.
[YOUTUBE]_315qlXyOsM[YOUTUBE]
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
Last edited by Derek Sutton; 05-07-2015 at 06:33 PM.
You are right, you and your little study know that Stamkos, Towes and Subban are much worse off because they played spring hockey. Just imagine, if they hadn't they would be some of the best players in the world.
...
Ummm... It's not me and my little study, it's the US Government and their really big study. That, and it's one of hundreds that say the same thing.
This kid should have tried harder, instead of being a whiny baby.
Wow, you're an #######.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”
― Carl Sagan
