Thoughts on the American Development Model (ADM)

[Law Goalie 147]

USAH needs to concentrate on bringing players into the sport. They (USAH) claims participation numbers are going up, but, we certainly aren't seeing it at the youngest ages, where it is needed most. I read yesterday on NHL.com where the following was written:

"In a sobering stat, USA Hockey's Bob Mancini, a regional manager of its American Development Model, said that 44 percent of USA Hockey's youth players stop playing the game before they reach the age of nine."

Today, USA Hockey's Dave Ogrean says each NHLer should wear his country's flag on his jersey in every NHL game to signify hockey's global presence. What the fuck is he doing on a panel worrying about this when hockey in the US has much bigger problems?

USA Hockey's priorities are completely misplaced and sooner than later, there won't be new players coming in to line USAHs coffers.

Find and replace USA Hockey with Hockey Canada, and it all still applies.

There's one area in Toronto where enrollment is down EIGHTY percent (80%) inside a decade, and it's flat or weaker elsewhere. There's a rather interesting plan in place, but I think HC will do everything it can to undermine it.

This 'hockey summit' in Toronto is the biggest joke of all. The entire thing is about elite level hockey. It's as though nobody wants to admit that the basis of the game is eroding beneath their feet.

There are players from Team Canada World Jr Championship teams that never make the NHL, too.

It's all part of the plan. They want bult-in burnouts who peak at 18 instead of 25 or 30, and break down physically or mentally, so they can claim that 'we win at every level.' It's like measuring financial success by the constant illusion of growth - that's how you end up with Enron and junk bonds.

[frankie56 0]

Yeah, the NATIONAL TEAM development program. These kids are supposed to be the "Best of the Best" with more resources available than any other team, yet they finish 5th worst in the league.

NTDP kids are U17 or U18, they play in a league full of 18-20 year olds. The U18 and the U17 teams share a spot in the league. The U18 is quite competitive, the U17 has a tougher time. Play in the USHL is to train only. Their primary focus is to win at the international level. Success at that level is what they should be judged by.

[Chadd 916]

There are say 40 NDTP players each year(17s & 18s) while the number of "average junior players" is well over 200 minimum, considering OHL, WHL, and QMJHL. How can we compare 40 vs 200+?

Ratios? What percentage of NTDP kids play 100, 200, etc... games in the NHL relative to American kids that play in other developmental organizations.

[frankie56 0]

Of course, if it were up to me I'd prefer to see juniors taken out of the American system, use a U18 midget model, with a focus on sending prospect to play college hockey. That's the model of player development that most Americans understand, and I think it would help popularize hockey. If there's one thing Americans love it's college sports.

The jump between midget AAA and college is too big. The average age of a hockey freshman is 20. Most college D1 and even some D3 coaches want their recruits to play a few years Jr before starting school. Probably only a handful of players (usually goalies) go directly from midget AAA to NCAA D1. The vast majority play Jr first.

In addition, both the USHL and NAHL cost very little where midget AAA is VERY expensive.

[Chadd 916]

Just to clarify, do you mean what percentage play in AHL, ECHL, CHL (Central), SPHL, Europe?

No, while those leagues do have developmental aspects to them, I would just compare to pre-pro leagues. Obviously most of the NTDP kids go through college or junior as well, so that would make the comparison difficult. Of course, that just helps USAH hide the problems. Just like forcing adult leagues to sign up has covered much of the youth hockey losses over the last few years.

[iceNsteel 0]

The jump between midget AAA and college is too big. The average age of a hockey freshman is 20. Most college D1 and even some D3 coaches want their recruits to play a few years Jr before starting school. Probably only a handful of players (usually goalies) go directly from midget AAA to NCAA D1. The vast majority play Jr first.

In addition, both the USHL and NAHL cost very little where midget AAA is VERY expensive.

Part of that is because the existing NCAA programs have come to use American juniors as player development. If you increased the number of schools in Div I that would spread the talent and decrease that step a bit. If the junior leagues were gone the NCAA programs would also have to adapt to that. The cost argument doesn't really work here. If you're playing in the USHL or NAHL then you more than likely played AAA midget. Obviously, mom and dad afforded it. Not to mention with the prospect of college scholarship at 18 that extra season of midget hockey would be an easy sale.

[BarDownGinos 3]

Except the more Div I schools you have the thinner the talent pool gets. You're talking about watering down the system so it's easier to play DI. Who cares if your scholarship comes at 18 or 20? Is there that much of a difference between a guy who plays juniors for 2 years and the freshman college football player who automatically red shirts his first year, barely plays his second year, becomes a starter at 20 and plays two seasons? He leaves at 22 assuming he actually took enough classes all 4 years(doubtful the way football is ran today), more than likely he's had a medical gray shirt season in there, so thats 5 years in school, and probably at least one more to actually get a degree from the place. You're looking at 6 years in school, 24 years old and you played 2 full seasons. Whereas the kid who spends two years in the USHL comes in with 2 seasons of upper level hockey under his belt, steps in right away and plays, and more than likely walks out with a degree after 4 seasons.

[jcp2 2]

I see a lack of formal coaching training for the volunteer coaches to be a problem. There is also no good program to introduce parents to being hockey parents. The amount of gear, dressing and undressing time, and rigid scheduling is a problem for many families, especially if both parents have to work. It's really hard to be a hockey mom or dad in that circumstance.

In my house, hockey competes with tennis, figure skating, swimming, gymnastics, dance, baseball, and music, on top of school. Aside from transportation, all of the others require minimal prep time at the venue for my wife if I cannot go. She dreads hockey if I'm not available to dress and undress, and I know other young players who skip hockey if dad is at work.

[Chadd 916]

I see a lack of formal coaching training for the volunteer coaches to be a problem. There is also no good program to introduce parents to being hockey parents. The amount of gear, dressing and undressing time, and rigid scheduling is a problem for many families, especially if both parents have to work. It's really hard to be a hockey mom or dad in that circumstance.

Having been through USA Hockey level I and II coaching seminars, I can assure you that they are utterly useless. They have an opportunity to teach methods and techniques, but the only thing they actually tell you is to not touch the kids and please sign the bottom line on the check.

[Lostkoz 0]

Having been through USA Hockey level I and II coaching seminars, I can assure you that they are utterly useless. They have an opportunity to teach methods and techniques, but the only thing they actually tell you is to not touch the kids and please sign the bottom line on the check.

I also agree that the USA Hockey Level I and II Seminars are lacking. Maybe some kind of coach mentoring program could help here? I have learned more about coaching by working with an experienced coach than from those manuals and seminars.

[BarDownGinos 3]

You start getting into useful material about halfway through the Level 3 clinic. I haven't gotten to go through the Level 4 clinic yet but I'm sure its fairly useful. The problem is, most coaches are only going to get 1 and 2, which don't teach anything as previously stated. This is where having the better coaches at the bottom comes in handy, or having an assistant that played at a high level around to actually show the kids how to do things. I was an assistant on a midget minor team a couple of years ago with my roommate. The head coach was a nice guy, could tell you WHAT you needed to do but couldn't show you HOW. Fortunately he had us around to actually run through the drill or show the kids the technique he was talking about. He realized this about halfway through the season, and became more of a GM and game coach and let us run practices.

[Law Goalie 147]

That's exactly why coaching shouldn't be level-based but context-based. Most sports have been going this way for decades, and hockey is way, way behind.

An NHL coach might, might have amassed enough general coaching experience (ie. his 10,000 hours) to run a tyke house-league team, and he might as a result of those hours be a better identifier of talent at that age, but that doesn't mean he has any ability or knowledge in childhood education or pediatric physiology.

Conversely, of course, someone who was a world-class sports educator would be a dismal failure as an NHL coach. That's more about a kind of specialised ego management than anything else, with a little strategy and in-game tactical work involved.

[jcp2 2]

Having been through USA Hockey level I and II coaching seminars, I can assure you that they are utterly useless. They have an opportunity to teach methods and techniques, but the only thing they actually tell you is to not touch the kids and please sign the bottom line on the check.

I have level I and I agree completely. The methods and techniques section consisted of "here's the CD and here's the book". Most of the time was spent listening to an older USA Hockey rep wax poetic about the old days, listening to the area head ref about coaches who were not respectful of referees, and listening to a high school women's basketball coach on how girls are different than boys when it comes to coaching. I'll take the last part back. Most of the guys were "listening", just with their eyes and not with their ears.

[Chadd 916]

I have level I and I agree completely. The methods and techniques section consisted of "here's the CD and here's the book". Most of the time was spent listening to an older USA Hockey rep wax poetic about the old days, listening to the area head ref about coaches who were not respectful of referees, and listening to a high school women's basketball coach on how girls are different than boys when it comes to coaching. I'll take the last part back. Most of the guys were "listening", just with their eyes and not with their ears.

I remember my first coaching clinic, they asked how many people were making up a practice plan and using it on the ice. It was the only mention of a practice plan all day.

[iceNsteel 0]

Except the more Div I schools you have the thinner the talent pool gets. You're talking about watering down the system so it's easier to play DI.

I already noted that adding schools would thin the talent pool and reduce the step up between midget and NCAA hockey. Of course, by your logic we should shrink the NHL back to, say, 16 teams. Just imagine the talent pool then, you'd have some teams with marquee players on their third and maybe fourth lines. Wouldn't do much for the exposure of the sport. As it stands if you aren't in Colorado, Minnesota, or the north east chances are you have no exposure to Div I hockey. I'm more concerned with long term growth of the sport. Plugging hockey into the traditional American system creates exposure for the game. A school puts together a decent hockey team and they're one season away from getting their student base and alumni fired up about hockey. When that fan base has kids that influences them to maybe put junior in hockey.

Who cares if your scholarship comes at 18 or 20? Is there that much of a difference between a guy who plays juniors for 2 years and the freshman college football player who automatically red shirts his first year, barely plays his second year, becomes a starter at 20 and plays two seasons? He leaves at 22 assuming he actually took enough classes all 4 years(doubtful the way football is ran today), more than likely he's had a medical gray shirt season in there, so thats 5 years in school, and probably at least one more to actually get a degree from the place. You're looking at 6 years in school, 24 years old and you played 2 full seasons. Whereas the kid who spends two years in the USHL comes in with 2 seasons of upper level hockey under his belt, steps in right away and plays, and more than likely walks out with a degree after 4 seasons.

Because American elite junior hockey is basically the ugly cousin of Canadian elite junior hockey. The instance on having this level of hockey somewhere overlapping high school and college ages is almost a statement that hockey is not an American game. Rather a Canadian game that some Americans are playing. It's almost like listening to American rugby players learning and using loads of British expressions because American rugby lacks identity.

As for completing degrees, I have no doubt hockey players would do better in that area. However, that has a lot more to do with the background of your average college hockey player (middle and upper middle class) than your average college football player.

[frankie56 0]

I already noted that adding schools would thin the talent pool and reduce the step up between midget and NCAA hockey. Of course, by your logic we should shrink the NHL back to, say, 16 teams. Just imagine the talent pool then, you'd have some teams with marquee players on their third and maybe fourth lines. Wouldn't do much for the exposure of the sport. As it stands if you aren't in Colorado, Minnesota, or the north east chances are you have no exposure to Div I hockey. I'm more concerned with long term growth of the sport. Plugging hockey into the traditional American system creates exposure for the game. A school puts together a decent hockey team and they're one season away from getting their student base and alumni fired up about hockey. When that fan base has kids that influences them to maybe put junior in hockey.

Because American elite junior hockey is basically the ugly cousin of Canadian elite junior hockey. The instance on having this level of hockey somewhere overlapping high school and college ages is almost a statement that hockey is not an American game. Rather a Canadian game that some Americans are playing. It's almost like listening to American rugby players learning and using loads of British expressions because American rugby lacks identity.

As for completing degrees, I have no doubt hockey players would do better in that area. However, that has a lot more to do with the background of your average college hockey player (middle and upper middle class) than your average college football player.

Not sure how how going to a model where families pay 10K a season to play midget AAA promotes the growth of the sport.

[iceNsteel 0]

Not sure how how going to a model where families pay 10K a season to play midget AAA promotes the growth of the sport.

Again, if you're playing in the USHL you've almost certainly already played AAA midget hockey, you're parents managed it. The fact is paying for the extra season would be far less of a difficult decision than facing the prospect of uprooting your 16 year old, sending him half way across the country, to live with strangers, and doing so at a time in his life when he may not be ready for it. How many hockey careers end because parents decline to allow that?

[Law Goalie 147]

Or because the children of said parents said no, and the parents honoured that.

And, just by the by, if hockey players have a better undergraduate completion rate than any other sport, that is purely accidental, and/or eccentric to the norm. Nothing in hockey encourages education, except in the excruciatingly narrow sense of courage by ducats.

[frankie56 0]

Again, if you're playing in the USHL you've almost certainly already played AAA midget hockey, you're parents managed it. The fact is paying for the extra season would be far less of a difficult decision than facing the prospect of uprooting your 16 year old, sending him half way across the country, to live with strangers, and doing so at a time in his life when he may not be ready for it. How many hockey careers end because parents decline to allow that?

Why take the USHL/NAHL option away from kids/families? Just because some kids are not ready to leave home, some are. If it's not your cup of tea, stay home. I don't think there is a Junior team anywhere that FORCES kids to play for them, and for some it's the only way they will get to continue on in hockey.

Youth hockey is obscenely expensive as it is, and because you pay one year, does not justify continuing to pay more years than you need to. Believe it or not, saving 20-30K might be the best thing to do for some families.

I'm talking about the USHL and to a lesser extent the NAHL. The USHL is a younger highly skilled league where almost all go on to play D1 hockey. If you are a high end player, good enough for D1 schools to look at you, you will probably play 16AAA as a 15 year old, and 18AAA as a 16 year old, then have USHL/NAHL as an option.

I agree it's probably not worth leaving home to play in a Tier 3 junior league, but that certainly is something every family can decide for themselves

[goblue9280 33]

My thoughts as a mite hockey parent...

To give some context, I have a 7 year old who has been playing mites for the past 1.5 years in Houston, TX. The "house" league here consists of around 6-8 teams at the mite, squirt, peewee and bantam levels. There are 4 rinks around the suburbs. For us, the other 3 rinks are all about an hour away form our home rink.

We don't really offer a mini-mite program (just not enough kids), so our mites are 5-8 years old. Our setup has consisted of:

• one practice (1hr) - skill development focus through small ice games... shared ice with squirts
  
• one cross ice session (1hr) - 3 on 3 or 4 on 4 split up by skill... shared ice with squirts
  
• one full ice game
  

This has worked great for us. But now the governing body of Texas has mandated that we eliminate all full-ice games, and only do cross-ice jamborees. Cross-ice jamborees being where all of the teams meet at one of the fours rinks and play cross-ice games... with coaches serving as refs and no score-keeping.

Obviously there are pros and cons to this. On the positive side, cross-ice is a great format. The kids get so many puck touches that their development is greatly increased. Helping to keep cost down (for most programs) is also another benefit that will help with the growth of the game.

However, my main issues with this are:

• cost - instead of 2 home/2 away full ice game, we play 1 home/3 away jamborees... the cost savings per family by sharing ice will be zeroed out by the added cost/time commitment associated with the extra away session.
  
• position play/learning rules - not really an issue for the 5/6 year olds, but the older, skilled players definitely enjoy learning proper positioning.
  
• eliminates training opportunity for youth referees.
  

My understanding of the ADM at the mite level is it has two major goals: to retain kids and keep costs down. In a small market like Houston where the teams are so spread, I just don't see the ADM accomplishing this.

[zebra_steve 11]

I have recently gotten back into the coaching side of things with a mite aged daughter. As well as what I do on the officiating side, I am a level 4 coach with 8 years of High School level coaching experience. Now there is a definite difference between coaching mites, and bantam\midget players and it will make you pull your hair out - a lot easier to deal with the older kids messing around or not paying attention vs the youngsters that simply don't have the attention span. Over the past year I have also worked the learn to play and skills & scrimmage development programs. We opted to structure these programs along the ADM model. Basically, the emphasis at mite and squirt levels is skills development. Close area drills with and without the puck. Fast paced, upbeat drills that maintain the kids interest. Non traditional drills that combine several skills in a FUN way for the kids. What the parents have noticed (and commented to us about) is how much the kids have improved.... The close area and cross ice games and scrimmages help the kids to develop and be comfortable with and around the puck while mitigating the effect of the one kid that has developed skating and stick handling skills beyond the others. Cross ice makes it harder for that kid to grab the puck and skate away from the others and score 12 or 15 goals a game. That kid usually gets caught skill wise by peewee and then gets passed up going to bantam. All of the sudden he doesn't have the room to skate that he used to, and now kids can catch him and out skate him.... How many of you have tried to teach positioning, fore checking, break outs to 8 year olds..... I feel that it's a lot easier after you lay some groundwork with 3 on 3 close area or cross ice work. Full ice practices are wasted on mites and squirts unless you can break it down into stations to better utilize the expensive ice time.

The general idea of the cross ice requirement is that nearly every other sport has reduced size fields and equipment for the younger ages... shorter bases, smaller balls and goals, 200 ft to the center field fence vs 410 feet..etc. the football field is a noted exception to this.

In general, I like the ADM model as I understand it for developing the skills of players. I think that ideally they should be played on a "studio rink" that has all of the correct lines and markings on the ice - albeit proportionately smaller. Play it 5 on 5 As you normally would... still able to train players and officials that way. Problem is we don't have the facilities required so we go cross ice...... But now we still need some sort of portable separators to divide the ice - and a lot of rinks and organizations are going to balk at buying them.

[iceNsteel 0]

Why take the USHL/NAHL option away from kids/families? Just because some kids are not ready to leave home, some are. If it's not your cup of tea, stay home. I don't think there is a Junior team anywhere that FORCES kids to play for them, and for some it's the only way they will get to continue on in hockey.

Youth hockey is obscenely expensive as it is, and because you pay one year, does not justify continuing to pay more years than you need to. Believe it or not, saving 20-30K might be the best thing to do for some families.

I'm talking about the USHL and to a lesser extent the NAHL. The USHL is a younger highly skilled league where almost all go on to play D1 hockey. If you are a high end player, good enough for D1 schools to look at you, you will probably play 16AAA as a 15 year old, and 18AAA as a 16 year old, then have USHL/NAHL as an option.

I agree it's probably not worth leaving home to play in a Tier 3 junior league, but that certainly is something every family can decide for themselves

The fact that junior teams cannot somehow physically compel someone to play is fairly meaningless. If you make it forced part of the player development scheme you're forcing players into a corner. Again, this comes back to what's best for the sport in the long haul, not what's going to get a few families a couple free seasons of hockey.

1.Junior hockey in the U20 model simply doesn't make sense in modern society. While it is an ingrained part of hockey in Canada, it's not here. Most people don't even know what junior hockey is, and there's not much of a fan base for it. Not the case with college sports.

2.For families that want their kid to play juniors, there's always the CHL. The three CHL leagues are the premier junior leagues anywhere.

3.In addition to bringing hockey into the American mainstream in terms of player development we'd take a lot of families out of a difficult decision. It's simply stupid to have promising hockey careers cut short because families and/or the players are unwilling to uproot themselves and massively disrupt their educations to play in the ugly cousin American juniors.

4.It would be a positive step in developing greater levels of high school hockey, which could certainly offer financial relief.

[BarDownGinos 3]

The fact that junior teams cannot somehow physically compel someone to play is fairly meaningless. If you make it forced part of the player development scheme you're forcing players into a corner. Again, this comes back to what's best for the sport in the long haul, not what's going to get a few families a couple free seasons of hockey.

1.Junior hockey in the U20 model simply doesn't make sense in modern society. While it is an ingrained part of hockey in Canada, it's not here. Most people don't even know what junior hockey is, and there's not much of a fan base for it. Not the case with college sports.

2.For families that want their kid to play juniors, there's always the CHL. The three CHL leagues are the premier junior leagues anywhere.

3.In addition to bringing hockey into the American mainstream in terms of player development we'd take a lot of families out of a difficult decision. It's simply stupid to have promising hockey careers cut short because families and/or the players are unwilling to uproot themselves and massively disrupt their educations to play in the ugly cousin American juniors.

4.It would be a positive step in developing greater levels of high school hockey, which could certainly offer financial relief.

Well unless you can get Hockey Canada to drop all junior hockey outside of the CHL or get the NCAA to ban any player that has played junior hockey you're only making the problem worse. If you wiped US Junior hockey off the map today all the DI coaches would just head North and raid the BCHL, AJHL, OPJHL, etc like half of them currently do. You would then be forcing players to go to another country to get a chance at a US college scholarship. US juniors is fine. It actually competes with the CHL and has bettered our Tier 1 Northern neighbors on occasion. The problem has been the massive influx of junior teams in horrible markets. The USHL works pefectly except in Chicago and Indy, why? Because they're big cities, there's no way to build a fan base, that's why teams like Lincoln and Omaha and Des Moines have done great. They're in isolated markets and they're a unique draw. The NAHL worked in its previous form because most of the teams had an entire youth system backing them. Outside of these two leagues it costs thousands to play junior hockey, when you should really only have to pay billet fees and maybe a grand for the season, instead you have teams like those in the EJHL that charge 7G's for the season on top of billets if you aren't a hometown kid. People see money in junior hockey except they don't understand the dirty economics of it and they don't care about the product they put on the ice, if mommy and daddy have a big enough bank account, there is a junior team for little johnny somewhere. Juniors has lost the aura it once had. It used to be a big deal to make ANY junior team, guys would go to the ends of the earth to play and now its just the next step. I had a friend from Fort Wayne, Indiana who ended up in Cold Lake, Alberta in the Northeast Alberta Jr. B league because he wanted to play that badly. Look up Cold Lake on a map and tell me if its a place you would WANT to go let alone spend 2 years playing there. The entire system would right itself if you wiped 50% of the junior teams off the map and if USAH would take a step back, give there heads a shake and stop f***ing s**t up.

[Chadd 916]

Well unless you can get Hockey Canada to drop all junior hockey outside of the CHL or get the NCAA to ban any player that has played junior hockey you're only making the problem worse. If you wiped US Junior hockey off the map today all the DI coaches would just head North and raid the BCHL, AJHL, OPJHL, etc like half of them currently do.

The problem is the college coaches are expecting other people to develop their players for them, instead of doing it themselves. At 20 or 21 you are usually stronger, faster and smarter than at 18. If the kids aren't going to be going to the NHL early, just about every coach would rather have the older players. Especially in third or fourth line roles.

[zebra_steve 11]

The problem is the college coaches are expecting other people to develop their players for them, instead of doing it themselves. At 20 or 21 you are usually stronger, faster and smarter than at 18. If the kids aren't going to be going to the NHL early, just about every coach would rather have the older players. Especially in third or fourth line roles.

Well, If the kids were actually taught skills instead of systems from mini-Mite through PeeWee................