Maddy

Thanks for the replies.. I should've provided a bit more detail and mentioned that I'm dealing with Peewee aged kids right now and dealing with dilemma of segregating kids by skill set.. At the younger ages it was a no brainer to separate kids by skill as the gap was definitely noticeable, therefore, Vet88's comments above were spot on for me. However, these kids are now are older, stronger, maturer and the gap in skill level has shrunk significantly - there really isn’t anyone that is light years ahead of the next kid anymore. What I'm starting to see at this age is the variation in growth, physicality, strong on the stick and hockey sense among these kids. I also have some late bloomers that possess very strong skill sets (extremely good skaters and speedy) however, slightly less on the physicality and maturity, etc side of things.. Ive since decided to take a more simpler approach, and followed the advice of another fellow MSH'er and set aside the physical and maturity aspect of things and focused more on how well the kid can skate (edge control and strength on edge, natural ability and agility, etc.). as a measuring stick for moving kids into the more skilled groups during station based training..

Back in the Mite days It was fairly common to see kids being split up into smaller groups by like-in-kind skill sets during station based training's.. With the new season kicking off, I’ve been noticing one of our coaches continuing to do this even at the peewee level. Is it appropriate to continue splitting players into groups by skill set during station based training's at this age level?

Absolutely. Im trying to understand both sides of the street when it comes to this concept. Traveling to surrounding cities has its benefits, meeting new kids, parents, exposure to different levels of the game, and breaks up the monotony of seeing/playing the same faces week in and week out, etc.. Im having the most difficulty understanding what the true intent of the In house only concept - in no particular order is it to accommodate the multi-sport kids, or the "I dont like to travel" anyway player, or is it to promote player retention at the younger level, reduce injuries or is it developing organic talent? Its hard for me to accept and support a new program when all we are told is that some other town in MN has implemented the change without telling us the ultimate goal the program is trying to achieve (head scratch). I guess if one doesn't like it there is always summer programs to participate in....

Curious on everyone's opinion on USA Hockey's promotion of in house only hockey leagues for Squirt programs? Good..Bad..Ugly?? I'm all for supporting new ideas to develop players, find solutions for increasing player retention from the squirt to peewee level but Nobody seems to have any evidence based information that In house hockey leagues is the solution. Is anyone experiencing similar change within their youth programs or aware of any technical based data that provides evidence that a in house/no travel policy is working? USA hockey has provided evidence that growth is attributed to other programs like USA Hockey 2 & 2 Challenges, Hockey for free programs, various learn to play programs, equipment grant programs, etc. but where is the evidence on in house league's?