No Squirt Left Behind

[Maddy 0]

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? 

[BenBreeg 493]

I would probably flip it around and ask what benefit travelling has for the squirt level.  Given the same ratio of practice to games, i can only see in-house as helping.  Just my opinion though.  We try not to go crazy with sports but when a winter sport like hockey starts the same week as fall soccer, it is hard to not have some months where you cant avoid a lot of chaos.  Being anchored at a single rink would help and be attractive over travel, even if the travel is only within the area.

[Maddy 0]

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....  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Maddy

[BenBreeg 493]

I don't know that at the squirt level I would put meeting other parents and kids (not even sure how that would work) as a benefit to travelling.  We meet lots of people through school and local baseball, hockey, scouting, etc.  Different levels of the game?  It is squirts, it isn't like when you compare western conf and eastern conf NHL styles or different types of hockey in different high-level leagues.  I don't feel it is monotonous to play baseball which is basically in-house, seeing the same people occasionally.

In youth sports people feel pressured into travel, tournament teams, year round participation, and as I said, it should be up to those people to show why it is beneficial, especially at younger ages.  I know of no research that advocates for accelerating this and lots against it.  I saw an 8 year old at the rink in the fitness place getting 1-1 private coaching, basically bodyweight plyos and stuff.  Can't imagine what it costs and how it was any better than him running around playing.  The oddity of seeing young kids at the rink showing up with ties on is another head-scratcher.

To me it all goes into the same lack of perspective bucket.

[Santos L Halper 90]

3 hours ago, Maddy said:

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? 

[snip]

In the end, this is USA Hockey's attempt to put 10U youth hockey in the proper perspective and attempt to promote DEVELOPMENT; as opposed to winning.

You hit on a lot of the reasons why (accommodate multi-sport athletes, promote retention, develop organic talent).  However, underpinning all of those is the fact that it's not lost on anyone in Colorado Springs how hypocritical it sounds for USA Hockey to expend a giant amount of time and energy promoting long term athlete development  - while at the same time hyping their Tier system, national championships, and elite level teams.  Those teams and events are SO elite that you simply can't be a part of them if you're not a single sport athlete, devoting multiple hours a week towards on-ice training...AND multiple MORE hours a week to hockey-specific off-ice training.  USA hockey knows this...and they know how much it costs to make anything approaching this level of commitment.  And, what's more, they know that, in the end, it is ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT CRAZY for ANYONE to be making that level of commitment as a 10U (or younger) player.  It is an incontrovertible truth that  NOTHING a player does (or doesn't do) at the 10U level really matters when it comes to his/her chances of 'going somewhere with hockey'...unless s/he gets so fed up with the game that s/he quits, of course.

As a coach, I see coaches of 10U 'elite' and 'travel' teams doing absolutely horrifying things like teaching 1-2-2 or 1-3-1 trap style forechecks to kids that don't have the mental capacity to understand either the tactical or strategic implications of a specific forecheck system - instead of letting them develop the actual SKILLS that will translate to their games as they get older. 

"But, knowing where the weak-side wing goes in a 1-2-2 is a skill," you say. 

No.  It isn't.  You know what you call the 14 year old that 'knows where to go in a 1-2-2'?  A Bantam B player.  The player that has developed the individual playmaking ability to step outside that 1-2-2 box and create magic is the AAA player.  You simply can't develop as a scorer...as a puck moving defenseman...as a weapon for your team...AS A HOCKEY PLAYER if all you're doing from 10U on is chasing team letters ('A', 'AA', 'AAA', 'Elite') as a result of pressure to 'be on the best team'. 

USA Hockey is throwing down their gauntlet and telling organizations/clubs that they need to forget about comparing themselves against the teams from the next town, remove the pressure to 'letter chase', and start developing their kids - ESPECIALLY at the 8U and 10U levels.  Kids quit because they (and their parents) feel all this pressure (both time and financial) to start chasing letters at a young age, instead of allowing development to happen organically.  The mindset of "10 year old Johnny isn't going to get better if he doesn't spend 8 hours a week on the ice" simply needs to go the fuck away.

BenBreeg is absolutely right when he says,

4 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

[snip] flip it around and ask what benefit travelling has for the squirt level.  [snip]

NONE! THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO 'TRAVEL' AT THE 10U LEVEL!

Personally, as a coach, I freaking LOVE this.  I wish all state level associations would ban all 8U and 10U participation in all post-season tournaments, there-by removing the vast majority of the incentive to engage in this stupid nonsense.  I wish club hockey didn't start until 12U, there-by allowing the good hockey players to continue being good ATHLETES, instead of gradually turning into robots that only play hockey.  And most of all, I wish that the damn parents would look at 10U hockey less like 'the first step to a college scholarship' and more like 'something my son/daughter does to get some exercise, learn life lessons, and have a Zamboni room full of fun while doing.'

Just my $0.02....😉

______________________

N.B.  Speaking of pressure - the worst, most despicable things that coaches and associations do are reserved for these ridiculous birth-year Brick tournament teams that become all-encompassing, psychosis inducing all-star teams that turn ordinary, normal hockey people into raving, salivating lunatics.  It takes about a picosecond for these teams to become 'pay to play' entities.  "Want to be on my Brick team? Well, that means committing to two private lessons a week and at least three extra sessions of ice time.  Oh, you can't afford that?  Sorry..."   

Kids quit EVERYTHING to be on these Brick teams - they quit school and start home-schooling, they quit all other sports, they quit being kids.  All for what?  A $15,000 trip to Edmonton the summer after their Squirt Minor year?  What.  The.  Ever-loving.  Hell?

"Oh, but Connor McDavid played in the Brick Tournament..." 

"News flash.  Your kid isn't Connor Fucking McDavid...and if he was, you'd already know it."

If you told a parent of ANY other youth sport what happens with the Brick teams, they'd laugh in your face at the absurdity of it all.  There is a special place in hell for the organizers of the Brick Tournament...and for the coaches/organizations that have perpetuated it and allowed it to get to this level of insanity.  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Santos L Halper
Clarity & grammar...

[jmiro 55]

I love the perspective of what Is the benefit of a U8 and U10 travel or elite team.  At least there is a huge gaping hole here needing to be filled.

1) kids that want to play can't afford it.  Yea we got the learn to play program free gear and only cost 150.  It's filled twice a year with 40 or More kids each time (just at this rink).  But when it comes time to move on the in house league has little respect, seems unorganized, and is barely filled.  The travel teams have a problem even fielding 20 players at U8 or 30 at U10.

2) pressure Santos nailed this.  The kid that wants to go to the rink and hang out with his friends enjoys hockey but isn't a hockey player yet will fall through the crack and quit.  Never had a chance to turn into a hockey player because pressure>fun.  

3) time.  8 year old missing thanksgiving with his family because of a tourney.  Not to mention all the other time spent traveling. I can't imagine being in a small market down south playing travel.  Even with the amount of rinks in pa it is a daunting task.  An important part of being kid is socializing, playing, and have fun.  Any time there in the road is less time they are doing this.

4)fun.  Some one said about meeting new people on the road. Sure but the benefits of inhouse or local league where you see the same kids.  They get to actually make a semblance of a relationship rather than single serving friends( yes that's a fight club reference).  Let's be honest when your kids at a tourney he usually just hangs out with his team if he isn't being rushed from game to game. These are important things at this age to learn. 

I think the documentary was called pond hockey.  What i took from it is the fun and creativity is being sucked from the game.  The best times i had, also some of the best learning, was when I got together on a pond or a roller rink and played some pick up with friends. To this day it makes my eye twitch when I go to a stick n shoot and a parent is having the it kid do drills rather than playing with the other kids and having fun.  I will admit I wasn't always like that.  Or my personal favorite "don't let your kid play online or dek hockey because it creates bad habits.". It's hockey with less pressure especially when it's pick up with their friends.  My child was in skating lessons for 2 yrs and what helped his skating the most is when went to public skates and they played tag.  Having fun.

I Get it nobody likes losing and it sucks but there has to be a balance.

I will say that our new hockey director gets this and already is making changes slowly but surely.  I honestly think USA hockey hockey is starting to look at retention rates and taking good steps to grow the sport.

[Venom1 1]

"In-house" Squirt programs are all fine and dandy for programs with enough teams to facilitate an "in-house" league.

What about the programs who don't have that ability? I really wish the city slickers out there with all the answers (apparently everyone on this thread) would think about the smaller communities once in a while. 

What's happening to our program is absolutely devastating:

All of the bigger communities around us are going to this model, so when our association tries to schedule games with them we're told "sorry, we have an in-house league for our squirts." 

So what do we have to do in order to get games? we end up having to travel further than what we would've had to travel before. We have two programs inside an hour's drive where we could get all the games we'd need. Instead, I had to take my son 2.5 hours away on Saturday. 

What ends up happening is we have parents that say "we're willing to travel an hour or so, but two hours is too far." This movement will slowly eat away at the smaller clubs and eventually we'll have parents that have to drive upwards of an hour not once, but 3-4 times a week for their kids to participate. 

I'll also disagree with the statement that "It is an incontrovertible truth that  NOTHING a player does (or doesn't do) at the 10U level really matters when it comes to his/her chances of 'going somewhere with hockey'...unless s/he gets so fed up with the game that s/he quits, of course." 

If we want to preach ADM, and it seems all of you are very familiar with this model, you'd know that the optimal "window for trainability" is between the ages of 9-12. This means that EVERYTHING our athletes do between the ages of 8-13 absolutely "really matters when it comes to his/her chances of 'going somewhere in hockey.'"

The letter chasing statement is one I'll agree with. A "bubble" kid is almost always better served being the top player at the lower level. They get more puck touches and generally see more playing time. I've seen a ton of "bubble" kids at the squirt level end up being great high school and junior players.

I think many forget that hockey is, in fact, a "TEAM" sport. systems should never take precedence over skill development, but the trend i'm seeing in the skill development communities is that the emphasis put on individual skill is put above all else. I've seen too many kids with amazing hands and feet that couldn't make or catch a pass to save their life. These are the same kids who end up quitting because they scored 150 goals a season up until the peewee level and can't make the adjustments needed to play at the next level. Why? because they don't know where to play in order to be effective! 

One man show hockey is great for YouTube content, but terrible for understanding the actual game. It's also not fun for the majority of players on the ice. We teach our Association kids that if they pass the puck, there's an opportunity to get it back. I've watched too many players make the right decisions, only to have a hot dog, Pavel Barber Wannabe try to go end-to-end through an entire team, lose the puck, and give up a goal against. 

Pond hockey is because the kids get the touches they don't sometimes get in a game. hockey is the most fun for everyone, when everyone gets touches, and everyone gets touches when others know where they're going to be. That comes from setting up basic systems. I'm not advocating teaching 1-2-2 foosball forechecking to 10U players, but I do teach three different breakouts and we have a controlled zone entry philosophy (get the puck as deep as you need, spread out, and work together). 

Our community has enough for exactly ONE 10U team, and that's only possible right now by double-rostering 4 mite players. This means we have a very wide range of players from AAA calibre, all the way down to one or two first-year skaters. When they leave here and begin to co-op with the other town, our kids stand out. they are stronger skaters, think the game faster, and generally speaking, are the better players on their respective tiered teams. In the last 15 years, our small club, which has less than 50 skaters from 10U to 6U, has produced on average 4 of the top 6 players yearly for the neighboring high school team, whose club is almost 70% larger than ours.

Unfortunately, most of these kids in the future will not even get an opportunity to play the game, as we'll be absorbed by our co-op in the next 10 years, and many of our parents will be unwilling to drive a 3, 4, or 5 year old an hour each day just to try hockey. 

I love the majority of USAHockey's philosophies, and I'm a big believer in station-based practices, cross-ice hockey, and ADM as it stands. But this is not a "No Squirt Left behind" philosophy, this is a "Destruction of rural association" movement. It will lead to less participation outside of urban areas 

[Blissy 1]

On 1/5/2021 at 8:55 AM, Venom1 said:

"All of the bigger communities around us are going to this model, so when our association tries to schedule games with them we're told "sorry, we have an in-house league for our squirts." 

Coming from an area with many facilities within a relatively small radius, I'll admit that I've never thought about your problem; but I can certainly see the problem that your community, and many others like it now face.

Obviously it's too late for this year, but maybe now is the time to begin laying the groundwork for next season.  Would it be possible to have your organization included in the "larger community's" league or association?  Obviously the preferred way would be to retain organizational autonomy and just be scheduled as any other team in that league's age group.  Absent the league's willingness to do that, if your organization is willing, they could offer to just become a part of the other organization, which would obviously be less than ideal, but perhaps better than subjecting families to 2.5 hour drives every weekend.

In traditionally non-hockey markets like where I live in Texas, we do not have the small community rinks like northern states do, so all hockey is in larger cities which typically can field enough teams of each age group to play within their city.  However, travel teams may not have enough competition within the smaller markets to make playing locally possible.  The arrangement that is used is to have Dallas be the hub city, which manages the league.  Travel teams that are members come from as far away as Tulsa, OK, and Houston, TX (both 4 hours from DFW, and 8 or more from each other).  There are smaller cities included as well:  Amarillo, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Austin, Shreveport LA. 

Anyway, this relationship allows teams to get the competition they need and want, without having to travel to tournaments every weekend.  There are even cases where Tulsa or Oklahoma City would travel to Dallas to play the San Antonio, or Shreveport team, for example.  I realize that I'm talking about "travel teams" here, and parents do sign up for the team knowing they'll have to travel, but within Dallas, there's enough competition that all of the organizations could get plenty of competition without having to drive more than an hour to play any of the local teams.  Adding these other teams to the league provides benefit to all of them.

Hope this helps in some way.  Best of luck!

[BenBreeg 493]

On 1/5/2021 at 9:55 AM, Venom1 said:

"In-house" Squirt programs are all fine and dandy for programs with enough teams to facilitate an "in-house" league.

What about the programs who don't have that ability? I really wish the city slickers out there with all the answers (apparently everyone on this thread) would think about the smaller communities once in a while. 

What's happening to our program is absolutely devastating:

...

I think many forget that hockey is, in fact, a "TEAM" sport. systems should never take precedence over skill development, but the trend i'm seeing in the skill development communities is that the emphasis put on individual skill is put above all else. I've seen too many kids with amazing hands and feet that couldn't make or catch a pass to save their life. These are the same kids who end up quitting because they scored 150 goals a season up until the peewee level and can't make the adjustments needed to play at the next level. Why? because they don't know where to play in order to be effective! 

 

1- Yes, smaller orgs have an issue and you have a valid point there, but none of us "city slickers" in the thread were intentionally slighting you, you don't need to go there

2- Passing and receiving is a skill, along with stickhandling, skating and shooting

3- If a peewee fails it's not because he doesn't have a foundation in systems....you can teach puck support, how to get open, basic reading of the play, etc. at the younger levels, those are the basics of systems, it's hockey, not football, not that complex

 

[Venom1 1]

Breeg, 

Agreed on point 1 and 2. My point is that passing, receiving, puck support and play reading are not being taught because they are not the "sexy" option. Parents want that "Pavel Barber" experience for their kids, and the skills sessions I'm seeing focus on those skills. The majority of ADM practices I've witnessed also focus on individual puck possession, or battle type drills. Very little to no passing is present. I'm Not saying I don't believe in ADM, either, because I truly believe in the benefits of ADM. The issue is that it's not being utilized to the extent USA hockey intended. 

Your #3 point is wrong. And I've seen it over a lifetime of hockey. The players most in danger of this are the over-developed ones. They dominate at the 8U, 10U, and even 12U levels because they can just take the puck and go end to end. Kids catch up to them in the size and speed category at that 12U level, though. Coaches don't coach those kids to move the puck, and no one incentivizes them to do so. The parents are happy because the kid is scoring bucket-loads of goals, and the coach is happy because his team is winning. Then all of a sudden, everyone's confused when this kid all of a sudden can't contribute effectively. It's because he's been playing a one-man game his entire life. Those kids don't get that foundation and wash out. 

I once saw a kid score 200 goals in his 8U season (full-ice, pre-ADM). Everyone was saying he was the next big thing, "going all the way," etc. He made Squirt "A" on reputation alone, and scored twice that season. He was a "C" player by peewee, and had quit by bantam. Why was he so dominant as a Mite? He could skate north/south and raise the puck.The kid scored 200 breakaway goals and never learned a thing about hockey.

There is absolutely a place to teach system hockey at the youth levels just as you described: puck support, how to get open, reading the play. The point I'm making is that I don't think USA hockey has done enough to help people understand how important this is to development. People here the word "systems" and start waving the finger (Breeg). Age-appropriate system introduction is paramount to teaching high IQ hockey players. 

My biggest fear as a coach is that someday I'm going to get this special kid who has all of the tools and I'll be so enamored with his raw talent that I won't make him distribute the puck to lesser-skilled players. If we don't force our kids to work on puck movement, we are doing them a great disservice (especially the "good" ones).

[BenBreeg 493]

I have seen passing taught in everything we have been involved with to this point with my 8 year old, from learn to play through ADM to any skills things we do, so my experience has been different than yours. 

As to point #3, its fine to disagree, but your experience does not conclusively mean I am wrong.  Coaching HS and ACHA, the kids with skill were the ones who performed, you can teach systems at any level.  That is my experience.  It forms my opinion, it doesn’t make you wrong.

[Bane 1]

On 9/7/2018 at 9:21 AM, Maddy said:

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? 

I think it comes down to competition level and program size. If your local facility has 4 to 8 teams per age group and the rink balances teams well, there is a lot of benefit to in house only, with evenly balanced competition. I believe that it does kids no good in their development to be playing on a team that always loses by a lot of goals or always wins by a lot. Kids need to experience all facets of the team game to develop. If your program is small and struggles to put more than two teams on the ice, having the kids play other towns is more beneficial in my opinion. It should also be noted that having a team go to another rink to play another house program is not travel, provided the other rink also balances their teams appropriately. 

On an individual player level though, the decision as to whether or not a player should play travel really depends on the challenge they are experiencing at the house level. I have coached travel and house, and I always tell the parents of players that I coach, that there is no need for true A, AA, AAA etc. play as long as your player is being challenged at the level they are at. If the player is absolutely dominating every game at house level, they should try travel as they need challenging competition to push them to develop further. If they are not dominating they should stay where they are.

Overall I tend to agree with USA hockey, I really don't think true A,AA,AAA travel hockey is needed at squirt and below.  I think that we could go a step further and save travel until U14. In a lot of places, travel hockey is really just a way to milk parents for thousands of dollars each year and doesn't provide a lot of return on investment, development wise. Ice time provides the largest benefit to development, and if house programs provided the same amount of ice that travel programs provide there would be similar development in house players without the expense of travel.