USA hockey's new American Development model

[DarkStar50 679]

I think they're trying set up a concentrated system to win international competitions in order to make hockey more popular in the US, instead of continuing to grow hockey at the grass-roots levels to make hockey more popular in the US.

I talked to some people that attended the USA Hockey Mid Winter Meetings last week. The end goal of this program is not international competition for USA players developed, it is to get more USA developed players to the NHL. Between the NHL's seed money and USA Hockey's cronyism, both parties think this is the way to achieve that goal. And yes, there will be a lot of "death and destruction"( I am exaggerating, a bit, OK) left in the wake of young hockey players left behind in this plan.

One of my questions is how do you tell the Five Families of Michigan Hockey(Little Caesars, Compuware, Honeybaked, Belle Tire, and Victory Honda) to move over, we(USA Hockey) have our own people coming in to monitor what you do with your program. Every hockey organization is run differently with different means of getting to the same end goal: a USA Hockey Championship. There are going to be so many mistakes made along the way before this has any kind of true success or positive results to show for the effort. Finally, what happens when the NHL says, "You know what, this isn't working out the way WE want it to. So, we are pulling our money out this year. There will be no more NHL funds donated to this program." That day will come.

[Law Goalie 147]

interesting stuff

so much different from Hockey Canada's mentality of emphasizing fan (even over results) at the early stages of development... Initially I though it was all crap, but I'm really warming up to the concept lately - after all it does deliver results at the end (just look at Worl Jrs) so why limit kid's development by locking them into one sport & spoiling their childhood...

And believe me, the LTADM's for hockey are stone-age compared with most sports. The real problem, however, is getting even the vaguest notion of those ideas into the community. I still get coaches on Novice Select teams (not terribly august, here) having a mental meltdown when I suggest that they should have a goalie rotation of at least six, if not the entire team, in practices and in games. If one kid is really, really gung-ho, maybe give him an extra slot in that rotation.

Technically, Canada and the US are using nearly identical models. The real difference is in how that model is applied to the community. In this case, it looks like they've decided to pour a ton of cash into setting up a dedicated athlete burn-out program: rigourously identify the most prodigal talent as early as humanly possible and subject it to the worst possible conditions for growth in the interest of hyper-specialised, ultra-competitive performance. I wonder if they're using Asian pianists as an ideal...

I don't know what this is about, but it sure as hell isn't about developing healthy and successful athletes - let alone fostering a real community around the sport.

[MURedhawk 0]

Er, that's exactly what I was saying - elite senior hockey players are by definition all 'late bloomers'.

My bad. You are correct. Misread one of your points.

[iamcanadian 0]

Well, my question is what happens to the late bloomers in all of this? If you don't find your game until HS, do you just get shoveled under the rug?

The Detroit Red Wings will be the smart enough team to draft them

[RecLeagueHero 0]

This reminds me of Jimmy from Blades of Glory at the beginning of the movie. However, I kinda think that if you ARE good enough, you WILL get noticed by someone at some point, even if you are not in the elite league from age 12 and on. I'm assuming that kids that can't keep up will get booted from the program as they get older and new kids will be able to 'walk on'.

Lest forget that if you really are good enough, I'm sure you can get a spot as a walk on at a hockey college if you have the skills.

I'd love to see the money spent on some of the dumpy rinks we all play or played in, but that will never happen.

The problem is that's not really the case. First, these closed systems will intentionally turn blind eyes to anyone outside of their system. As someone else pointed out, these systems have to create the apperance that only they can develop truely elite hockey players. If you have tons of skaters coming into the program in the later stages it becomes obvious that you are not the only program that can develop an elite skater. At that point it becomes difficult for players outside of this mainstream elite program to get attention. Not unlike how football players at smaller high schools and prep schools can often have trouble getting serious attention for Div I schools, let alone from some of the big time football programs. There's always going to be an assumption that you really aren't that good, it's merely that your level of competition is that weak. When you create a system where there is one program for the "serious" hockey player and all the other gutted programs that manage to survive come out looking like house teams for kids that either don't have a lot of talent, or don't take hockey seriously.

Winning international competitions is never going to increase the popularity of hockey here. Sure, lot's of people will jump on a bandwagon like they did with the 1980 US Olympic team. But that never translated to anything lasting. I largely don't think these international competitions are going to generate much interest buried on some cable sports network that no one has ever heard of, like Versus. ;)

[DarkStar50 679]

USA Hockey will be having an online discussion today with Atlantic District representatives regarding this new program. The USA Hockey spin doctors will be out in full force for anyone interested in listening.

[steve66 45]

Any ideas how teams would apply to become one of the programs (assuming they drop this model into existing programs, rather than creating new franchises), or even what the criteria would be?

[DarkStar50 679]

At this point from what I understand all an organization needs to do is send in an application! I have gathered that USA Hockey has not exactly set the requirements in stone yet. Some organizations may have certain facilities but lack others( a gym on site as an example for off-ice training). There are a lot of unanswered questions to this point that today's meeting is supposed to address.

[Warriorsdman 1]

The association I play at in colorado is applying for this grant... I actually like the idea coonsidering the AAA teams we have here are always in the top 5 in the country (COlorado Thunderbirds). And the money could help to clean up facilities, etc.

[Chadd 916]

my two cents:

This is going to get more kids playing with, and against, other high level players. Playing with and against higher level players will make you a better player. It's certainly better than every dime going to ann arbor to benefit a very small number of kids. This could be a good thing for player development if done correctly, assuming you believe USAH will do the right thing.

There will still be alternate development paths for players. Prep schools will still be a viable alternative, especially for players whose parents want them to get a good education and not just dumb jocks. Late bloomers will still get scholarship offers, just as they always have.

I'll agree with those that think it will be hard for late bloomers to break into the league. Unless you're putting up huge numbers at a lower level, it's unlikely that you will get a chance. And even if you do get a chance, will you be put on a scoring line or will they just plug you into the third or fourth line and expect you to still produce?

[biff44 0]

Forget the myth of there being only a handful of 'late bloomers' - hockey is a late-specialisation sport. If you have your peak performance at twelve, odds are you'll be out of the sport by seventeen: wear & tear, injuries, good old late-teen malaise, you name it. Hockey is not figure skating or gymnastics: there are ZERO long-term competitive advantages to elite performance before physical maturity, let alone before puberty. The kids who play ten sports with moderate intensity at semi-competitive levels are going to be better athletes in the long run - they just won't be hockey players, because crap liek this will squeeze them out of the system.

This isn't going to cause USA Hockey to miss a few late bloomers: it's going to poison the roots of their entire development system by over-working the few early blooms. It may not actually kill the roots, but they will be weakened by fighting it off - and they're not in great shape at the moment, from what I've heard.

I have found hockey to very much be against the late bloomer! If you are a late bloomer, you can not get onto the high level travel teams that you need to be on to be scouted. You can not get invites to USA Hockey showcases, even if you are skating circles around the so-called marquee players. College scouts simply do not know your name. No amount of effort, training, camps, etc, seem to overcome the tide against the late bloomer!

True, many of the early marquee players fizzle out by the time they are 17, but that does not mean that a space opens up for the late bloomers--it is a pyramid and there are fewer slots open as you get older.

For every one David Peron that comes out of nowhere, there are 200 players that have been pampered thru their teen years.

[UMWhockey 0]

With all the ice time and development time they want these elite teams to have, I don't understand how the kids are going to be able to play another sport like they require. I guess school isn't important in any of this

[Chadd 916]

With all the ice time and development time they want these elite teams to have, I don't understand how the kids are going to be able to play another sport like they require. I guess school isn't important in any of this

This is about making pros, not making well rounded individuals or preparing them for life

Forget the myth of there being only a handful of 'late bloomers' - hockey is a late-specialisation sport. If you have your peak performance at twelve, odds are you'll be out of the sport by seventeen: wear & tear, injuries, good old late-teen malaise, you name it. Hockey is not figure skating or gymnastics: there are ZERO long-term competitive advantages to elite performance before physical maturity, let alone before puberty. The kids who play ten sports with moderate intensity at semi-competitive levels are going to be better athletes in the long run - they just won't be hockey players, because crap liek this will squeeze them out of the system.

This isn't going to cause USA Hockey to miss a few late bloomers: it's going to poison the roots of their entire development system by over-working the few early blooms. It may not actually kill the roots, but they will be weakened by fighting it off - and they're not in great shape at the moment, from what I've heard.

I have found hockey to very much be against the late bloomer! If you are a late bloomer, you can not get onto the high level travel teams that you need to be on to be scouted. You can not get invites to USA Hockey showcases, even if you are skating circles around the so-called marquee players. College scouts simply do not know your name. No amount of effort, training, camps, etc, seem to overcome the tide against the late bloomer!

True, many of the early marquee players fizzle out by the time they are 17, but that does not mean that a space opens up for the late bloomers--it is a pyramid and there are fewer slots open as you get older.

For every one David Peron that comes out of nowhere, there are 200 players that have been pampered thru their teen years.

Ok, so you don't get drafted. You still have the chance to work your way up from the bottom. Even David wasn't drafted in his first draft-eligible year as he wasn't playing in the Q at the time.

[Law Goalie 147]

Biff, my point was that hockey's talent-identification and development systems are grossly sub-optimal: they should be looking for 'late bloomers' (ie. late specialisers), but instead, almost every organisation I've seen is geared towards two things: non-competitive fun or pure competition. There are a variety of half-assed compromised stages between, depending on how deep the organisation is, but that's it.

Chadd, isn't the ultimate aim of any development system to produce both well-rounded human being AND professionals?-- with the professionals, of course, also being good people.

edit: I'm not saying that this is the end of USA Hockey - but that it's a horribly sub-optimal allocation of funds with some pretty sinister undertones.

[epstud74 24]

I hope this does not hurt MN HS hockey, which I consider to be the finest grass roots program in the US. A lot of history and tradition there and if MN wanted to, they could put together some of the nations best AAA and prep programs (Shattuck) but HS hockey is more important. I think USA hockey is fine as it is, we're increasingly putting in more and more kids into the NHL than in years past.

[Chadd 916]

Chadd, isn't the ultimate aim of any development system to produce both well-rounded human being AND professionals?-- with the professionals, of course, also being good people.

Depends on who is running the development and who is doing the evaluation. In most cases there is no quantification as to how the people succeed outside the world of sports and I wouldn't expect this to turn out any differently. Coaches and administrators will be judged solely based on the number of players they put into the pro/college ranks.

[Ahriman 1]

Chadd, isn't the ultimate aim of any development system to produce both well-rounded human being AND professionals?-- with the professionals, of course, also being good people.

Depends on who is running the development and who is doing the evaluation. In most cases there is no quantification as to how the people succeed outside the world of sports and I wouldn't expect this to turn out any differently. Coaches and administrators will be judged solely based on the number of players they put into the pro/college ranks.

You know this is gonna get a little off topic but I feel I need to express myself on a tangent about "well rounded" athletes.

I've personally always had a certain level of appreciation for hockey players not making headlines for poor behavior, felony charges, and domestic violence at both pro and college level seems to be a common theme for basketball and football and other sports to lesser degrees. I hope that however the development changes impact the skill level of the pro and college level players, I hope that the player's personal behaviors don't suffer for it.

(No I dont have any empirical evidence I'm just saying after five years of college, I can barely recall a WCHA player hitting the newsstand for off ice behavior while BigTen football and basketball players constantly filled the sports section for outrageous to felony behavior; and at the same time Sean Avery is the only NHL player I can remember making the news while players like Michael Vic, Ron Artest and others still ring much louder in my memory for far worse offenses.)

[Chadd 916]

Chadd, isn't the ultimate aim of any development system to produce both well-rounded human being AND professionals?-- with the professionals, of course, also being good people.

Depends on who is running the development and who is doing the evaluation. In most cases there is no quantification as to how the people succeed outside the world of sports and I wouldn't expect this to turn out any differently. Coaches and administrators will be judged solely based on the number of players they put into the pro/college ranks.

You know this is gonna get a little off topic but I feel I need to express myself on a tangent about "well rounded" athletes.

I've personally always had a certain level of appreciation for hockey players not making headlines for poor behavior, felony charges, and domestic violence at both pro and college level seems to be a common theme for basketball and football and other sports to lesser degrees. I hope that however the development changes impact the skill level of the pro and college level players, I hope that the player's personal behaviors don't suffer for it.

(No I dont have any empirical evidence I'm just saying after five years of college, I can barely recall a WCHA player hitting the newsstand for off ice behavior while BigTen football and basketball players constantly filled the sports section for outrageous to felony behavior; and at the same time Sean Avery is the only NHL player I can remember making the news while players like Michael Vic, Ron Artest and others still ring much louder in my memory for far worse offenses.)

Dany Heatley, Rick Tocchet, Mark Bell, etc... There are some significant cases in recent years.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

You know this is gonna get a little off topic but I feel I need to express myself on a tangent about "well rounded" athletes.

I've personally always had a certain level of appreciation for hockey players not making headlines for poor behavior, felony charges, and domestic violence at both pro and college level seems to be a common theme for basketball and football and other sports to lesser degrees. I hope that however the development changes impact the skill level of the pro and college level players, I hope that the player's personal behaviors don't suffer for it.

(No I dont have any empirical evidence I'm just saying after five years of college, I can barely recall a WCHA player hitting the newsstand for off ice behavior while BigTen football and basketball players constantly filled the sports section for outrageous to felony behavior; and at the same time Sean Avery is the only NHL player I can remember making the news while players like Michael Vic, Ron Artest and others still ring much louder in my memory for far worse offenses.)

There are fewer hockey players that you'll see having these sorts of troubles. Of course, hockey players tend to come from middle class back grounds and that's not the case with basketball and football. As such most of the pro's you hear about are really just involved in things they were mixed up in before hitting the big time.

[Jason Harris 31]

Where they need to put their money is into an empirical study whether there has been any effect of all this specialization of sport during the past 25 years.

From articles I've read, if there has been any change in the percentage of kids who "make it" because they've focused on one sport only, it's fairly marginal. Less than 1% of youth athletes today are getting scholarships, and it wouldn't surprise me that less than 1% of athletes from 25 years ago were getting scholarships. The only difference is the athletes of the past got to enjoy playing two or three other sports.

Basically, this program sounds like parents run amok taken to extreme, although all the participants will love it because they get to play a higher level of hockey and they'll kid themselves that they just changed their odds of making it, not realizing they had already been on the fast track anyway.

[jcp2 2]

Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I couldn't find anything relevant.

I had a chance to listen to the ADM presentation to our association this week, and it was focused mostly on increasing cross ice play and individual skill development for the younger age group (Mites and under). Personally, I like the direction that USA Hockey is going for this group, and if it means more ice time and puck time for the same fee for my mini mite (and me, helper parent "coach"), I'm all for it as well. Has anybody had experience with this type of program? Our association is split between "real hockey is full ice hockey" and "cross ice hockey is better for little kids". I have never formally played "real hockey" until late adulthood, but the other sport my mini mite does (tennis) does have graduated skill training, with actual competitive full court matches not occurring until the kids are 10-12.

[OhioBlue 0]

Wow is this for u16 and u18 only?

[Trooper 8]

Forget the myth of there being only a handful of 'late bloomers' - hockey is a late-specialisation sport. If you have your peak performance at twelve, odds are you'll be out of the sport by seventeen: wear & tear, injuries, good old late-teen malaise, you name it. Hockey is not figure skating or gymnastics: there are ZERO long-term competitive advantages to elite performance before physical maturity, let alone before puberty. The kids who play ten sports with moderate intensity at semi-competitive levels are going to be better athletes in the long run - they just won't be hockey players, because crap liek this will squeeze them out of the system.

This isn't going to cause USA Hockey to miss a few late bloomers: it's going to poison the roots of their entire development system by over-working the few early blooms. It may not actually kill the roots, but they will be weakened by fighting it off - and they're not in great shape at the moment, from what I've heard.

Excellent post. Early generalization and late specialization produces better players

.

[epstud74 24]

Maybe USA hockey needs an overhaul. If they want to get hurt HS hockey, I can see the State of Minnesota doing a big "FU" and continuing to work their own successful model and adding more fall elite league teams. Let the other states deal with it, but do not destroy the great tradition of HS hockey here in Minnesota. AAA midget hockey and prep hockey is big out east, but we dont need it here. If we wanted to, we could put together some juggernaut AAA teams, but why mess with a great tradition?

[ktang 34]

Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I couldn't find anything relevant.

I had a chance to listen to the ADM presentation to our association this week, and it was focused mostly on increasing cross ice play and individual skill development for the younger age group (Mites and under). Personally, I like the direction that USA Hockey is going for this group, and if it means more ice time and puck time for the same fee for my mini mite (and me, helper parent "coach"), I'm all for it as well. Has anybody had experience with this type of program? Our association is split between "real hockey is full ice hockey" and "cross ice hockey is better for little kids". I have never formally played "real hockey" until late adulthood, but the other sport my mini mite does (tennis) does have graduated skill training, with actual competitive full court matches not occurring until the kids are 10-12.

I like that idea. I've been coaching minor hockey for a little while (ages 8-15), and the cross-ice reduced-player games really help, at all age levels, because there is more repetition, passing, involvement, and small-space moves. Changes in situations (attack-defense-neutral) occur more often, and the players' reactions to these changes get better. Having more changes to situations makes the game more fun, too. Even NHL teams use cross-ice scrimmages.

There is a book "Hockey Coaching ABCs" that really goes into these concepts.