2nhockey

There is an ECHL team here and they do get 2-3 thousand people per game. But they aren’t doing well. Had an affiliation with Phoenix, lost that, then were affiliated with Minnesota and lost that. Last season they played unaffiliated and had to go to the city to get money to stay in operation and then later sold to an outside investment group. So even getting a few thousand people thru the doors and selling a few jerseys isn’t enough. At least not in this market.

I want to go back to the first post to address the notion of a multi-activity kid... I wholeheartedly agree with this. My daughter runs track (100m, 200m, and pole vault), plays soccer, hockey, clarinet, and violin, and occasionally hikes. In the offseason she is in the weight room. She is a multi-activity girl and all-around jock. Last year both her soccer and hockey coaches questioned her commitment to their teams because in soccer she wasn't playing club soccer, and for hockey because she wasn't working out with the team in the summer. Her soccer coach ultimately benched her. Her hockey coach was more understanding. Anyway, everybody always says to get off the ice, don't specialize. But, if you do take time off and don't specialize you'll be penalized. It puts everybody in a tough spot. Don't specialize = don't play. Do specialize = burnout... I have no solutions. I do mandate time away from whatever sport but as I'm doing that I know it is costing her opportunity to start or even play next season. Soccer tryouts are next week. She's a very durable center mid-fielder who doesn't tire on the field (thanks to her hockey conditioning and relentless weight room work). We already know she'll make the varsity team. I also know the coach is mad because she didn't play on his club team in the spring and early summer. I'm also sure that when he tells her she's lost her starting position that she'll not come back. Seems if you want to play, nevermind scholarships and all that, I mean just be allowed to play, the kids pretty much have to specialize.

My daughter's lightly used Mako 2's have had every steel rivet replaced. Her much heavier used Grafs have not had any replaced.

Thanks for that. I'm very confident I have the right size skate. Was fitted at a hockey shop. And tried on maybe 7-8 different skates (wear a size 12 shoes, and my CCM's are 10). The skate is actually comfy and after seeing an endless supply of horror stories about pain from skates I'm reluctant to switch skates. But, I hate the pump and feel like I should be getting an ankle wrap out of the skate. I used to dislike the lace locks but have grown to like them. Regardless, I'm sure it isn't a size issue - length or width.

I started skating a couple years ago and am using CCM 46k's. Last year I dabbled in some stick and puck sessions and a couple of very informal pick up games. About 3 weeks ago I joined a beer league team and it is the first time I've really worked the skates hard. I'm just learning how to do that hockey. And I'm not a good skater, though I do ok at the level I am playing. So my question is on the ankles of my skates. The CCM's do not wrap my ankles at all. Even when I lace the top 2-3 eyelets so hard that i give myself lace bite I still can squeeze the ankles of the skates in. Are skates supposed to offer minimal ankle support? Should a weaker skater be in more supportive skates?

My daughter has Speed Plates in her Mako 2's and says there isn't enough of an improvement over stock insoles to warrant the effort. She likes them well enough to keep them in, though.

My daughter wears Graf 535's and Easton Mako 2's. She wears the same size in both. FWIW, she has relegated her Mako's to back up status citing the Graf's comfort and better stance (both skates have been profiled). Her first game of the year is tomorrow night and she's been skating on the Easton since probably February so will be interesting to see how it goes.