Youth team decision factors

[krisdrum 223]

Trying to settle a debate with a buddy on what is most critical in deciding what the priorities of youth athletes are.  I think we can all agree all of the factors are important, but I'm sure some bubble up to the top more than others.  Figured the hive mind would shine a light on different factors.  

To add a bit of color to the poll choices:

Development - better to have a coach focused on development vs. one focused on recruiting talent?

Performance - AAA, AA, A, Tier 1, Tier 2 - does it make a difference?  if so, is age a factor?  Is it better to be a smaller fish in a very competitive pond or a bigger fish is a less competitive pond?

Organization - does street cred/name recognition matter?  Do you take support the club offers in addition to practices/games into account?  Clinics, off-ice, etc.

Cost - balancing value vs. experience?  If you can afford it, do you automatically go with the most expensive program?  Or do you look at other factors to determine value? 

[BenBreeg 488]

Maybe it goes in your first category of development but to me it's culture.  What does the org value overall?  Yes, development but how are kids developed, what kind of atmosphere do they encourage/mandate?  Really a very holistic view.

 

[krisdrum 223]

35 minutes ago, BenBreeg said:

Maybe it goes in your first category of development but to me it's culture.  What does the org value overall?  Yes, development but how are kids developed, what kind of atmosphere do they encourage/mandate?  Really a very holistic view.

 

Ok, thanks.  So even broader.  Wouldn't in most/many cases culture be dependent on specific coaches?  At least in my experience the coaches tend to captain their own ship.  Maybe there are organizations that have more influence over that than others. 

[BenBreeg 488]

Maybe, depending on how big the org is I imagine it would be different, but there are orgs that have reputations as fun places to play, jackasses, etc.  Some of that can be taken with a grain of salt, some of it is probably valid.

[SirJW 207]

Other - Having fun. 

[the_game 452]

Having fun, making friends, developing as a person/player, where are they going to play the most and in all situations.

 

[chippa13 1844]

One shouldn't have to list "Fun" as an option in "Other". Regardless of all of the other things, if the kid isn't having fun then they'll never stick with the game long term.

[krisdrum 223]

52 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

One shouldn't have to list "Fun" as an option in "Other". Regardless of all of the other things, if the kid isn't having fun then they'll never stick with the game long term.

Completely agree and one of the reasons it never crossed my mind to add as a factor.  No fun = not the right team/organization/sport/whatever for you. 

[Vet88 673]

Age comes into it, what an 8 year old wants is totally different to what a 15 year old wants.

But regardless of age or level, I still think the following applies - Cast your mind back to when you were in school, there were crap teachers, good teachers and occasionally a GOAT and you never, ever wanted to miss one of their classes. Same with hockey, it all stems from the coach and everything else follows afterwards. It could be one of the worst run organisations in a team that gets it's arse kicked every single game but if the coach connects with the kids and makes them want to be there then the rest of it doesn't really matter.

[mtn 20]

I referee. I see a lot of orgs, I know a lot of coaches and directors, and I've learned a lot. My dad also served on the board of 2 different organizations throughout the years. 

 

First, who are the directors? How do they run practices? How do they manage their coaching staff? For anything other than AAA, is there a strong house league program? How do the coaches interact with their players? Referees? How do they comport themselves on and off the ice?

If I see a coach yelling and screaming at his players or the refs, and that coach is around for more than 1 season, there is a problem. I don't want to be involved with that organization. 

If I see an organization that isn't valuing equal ice time for a middling team at the AA level, I don't want to be involved with that organization. Obviously this one is most certainly not a hard and fast rule at almost any travel level, but a general guideline.

If I see players that are rude to the referees, and get a lot of penalties, I don't want to be involved with that organization. 

If I see teams that only succeed because of the strength of their top line, there may be a problem. I want to see development. 

 

The best, most successful teams that I see have coaches that are quiet during the game. A kid comes off the ice after making the mistake, the coach will grab the board and try to teach, not berate. Their kids may joke with you, but they're not insulting you. They're having fun, even when they're losing. 

 

And cost is of course a huge deal. I'm not made of money. 

[mtn 20]

2 hours ago, mtn said:

The best, most successful teams that I see have coaches that are quiet during the game. A kid comes off the ice after making the mistake, the coach will grab the board and try to teach, not berate. Their kids may joke with you, but they're not insulting you. They're having fun, even when they're losing. 

 

Reading this, I have one thing to add to it - When I say that the best programs have coaches that are quiet during the game, what I meant isn't what I wrote. I've seen some stellar coaches that are have yelled themselves horse by the end of every game, but they're yelling instruction to their players. They'll see things develop, and yell out their code word for a cycle or to regroup; yell out for their players to switch from an umbrella to an overload on the powerplay, or similar. I absolutely do not have a problem with that. 

When I say "quiet", I mean the coaches are coaching their team, and not worried about the things they can't control. They're not angry. They can be as loud as they want, but anger and complaining - whether it is about their players, their opponents, or the refs, very rarely accomplishes anything.