by Guest » Tue Apr 15, 2025 1:01 pm
Guest wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 11:54 am
Guest wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 9:31 am
Guest wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 9:00 am
Guest wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:38 am
Guest wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 7:38 pm
Guest wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 2:18 pm
Disagree with that opinion. He can make the jump, and maybe even be better for it if he gets good coaching and much more ice at A. Just my opinion and advice, my kid is entering U16AAA next season. Played select till U11, A U12-U13, AA U14 and AAA U15 and now U16.
Go slow, let them love the game. Not saying this is the right way, it worked for my son. What I will say is it allowed him to be a top player at every level before moving up and I think that benefitted him massively, also gave him the competitive edge to "make" that next level. Good luck and enjoy the ride!
This is bang on. Any coach who is tampering at U10/U11/U12 is pathetic and yoh should run. Hockey at this age should be about building kids up and learning to play.
*slow clap
People on here are so childish.
Yes, everyone agrees that it would be better for the integrity of the game if tryouts happened with zero previous commitments. But, its never going to happen. Teams are not going to miss out on players by "taking the high road" unless there is no viable competition. So, do coaches in Kingston feel the need to make commitments? Not sure, but I could see them not bothering potentially.
That being said, you might think that it will give your kid a better "more fair shot" at tryouts, but you are just then delaying the inevitable and allowing the teams that still don't care and still provide commitments prior to tryouts an unfair advantage. Maybe its the team you are trying out for that still makes the early commits and they are one of the only ones? Now you have LESS of a shot than you would have in todays world because they can literally create a super team without any competition from other teams.
Do you not think every coach knows either personally or through a web of connections the best players anyways? With social media (not just following player accounts) but coaches being connected with each other, live barn and in the case of 2015 and younger the advent of KSL where EVERYONE plays at the same location once a month - its easy to know the names. Hockey was always a "small world" now its even smaller.
So just stop with the crying, AAA hockey is what it is - there is no requirement to even want to be involved. But to cry about it being "unfair" is silly.
My kid plays hockey to develop life skills, including integrity, when integrity in leaders is lost before tryouts even begin there is a problem. I know most people who comment on this site are using minor hockey to get their kids to the NHL, feel free to ignore my comment. For the rest of us
Just to test this theory in real life… you’re a manager and you have an employee who’s underperforming. Your competitor has an employee who’s great and they haven’t been treated properly. Would you not find a way to bring the competitors employee over bettering your company? You don’t wait for them to apply you go get them.
This is real life stuff folks you’re just upset because your kid is the one underperforming
A good coach knows who the best players are on other team, will have intel on who's unhappy, who's looking to move, backdoor channels to let these families know there is a spot for them, and will attract the better players to your organization.
A coach who closes his eyes and crosses his fingers in hopes that he will have good players turn up a tryouts is a coach that organizations don't want.
This happens at all levels of hockey. I know of House League / Local League programs who actively recruit so they can build their select teams up.
Poor organizations that don't compete and attract better players can look right at their executive. These are the ones making decisions on coaching and aren't normally intouch with what they need in a coach.
[quote=Guest post_id=216649 time=1744732447]
[quote=Guest post_id=216582 time=1744723909]
[quote=Guest post_id=216558 time=1744722010]
[quote=Guest post_id=216552 time=1744720702]
[quote=Guest post_id=216403 time=1744673926]
[quote=Guest post_id=216283 time=1744654686]
Disagree with that opinion. He can make the jump, and maybe even be better for it if he gets good coaching and much more ice at A. Just my opinion and advice, my kid is entering U16AAA next season. Played select till U11, A U12-U13, AA U14 and AAA U15 and now U16.
Go slow, let them love the game. Not saying this is the right way, it worked for my son. What I will say is it allowed him to be a top player at every level before moving up and I think that benefitted him massively, also gave him the competitive edge to "make" that next level. Good luck and enjoy the ride!
[/quote]
This is bang on. Any coach who is tampering at U10/U11/U12 is pathetic and yoh should run. Hockey at this age should be about building kids up and learning to play.
[/quote]
*slow clap
[/quote]
People on here are so childish.
Yes, everyone agrees that it would be better for the integrity of the game if tryouts happened with zero previous commitments. But, its never going to happen. Teams are not going to miss out on players by "taking the high road" unless there is no viable competition. So, do coaches in Kingston feel the need to make commitments? Not sure, but I could see them not bothering potentially.
That being said, you might think that it will give your kid a better "more fair shot" at tryouts, but you are just then delaying the inevitable and allowing the teams that still don't care and still provide commitments prior to tryouts an unfair advantage. Maybe its the team you are trying out for that still makes the early commits and they are one of the only ones? Now you have LESS of a shot than you would have in todays world because they can literally create a super team without any competition from other teams.
Do you not think every coach knows either personally or through a web of connections the best players anyways? With social media (not just following player accounts) but coaches being connected with each other, live barn and in the case of 2015 and younger the advent of KSL where EVERYONE plays at the same location once a month - its easy to know the names. Hockey was always a "small world" now its even smaller.
So just stop with the crying, AAA hockey is what it is - there is no requirement to even want to be involved. But to cry about it being "unfair" is silly.
[/quote]
My kid plays hockey to develop life skills, including integrity, when integrity in leaders is lost before tryouts even begin there is a problem. I know most people who comment on this site are using minor hockey to get their kids to the NHL, feel free to ignore my comment. For the rest of us
[/quote]
Just to test this theory in real life… you’re a manager and you have an employee who’s underperforming. Your competitor has an employee who’s great and they haven’t been treated properly. Would you not find a way to bring the competitors employee over bettering your company? You don’t wait for them to apply you go get them.
This is real life stuff folks you’re just upset because your kid is the one underperforming
[/quote]
A good coach knows who the best players are on other team, will have intel on who's unhappy, who's looking to move, backdoor channels to let these families know there is a spot for them, and will attract the better players to your organization.
A coach who closes his eyes and crosses his fingers in hopes that he will have good players turn up a tryouts is a coach that organizations don't want.
This happens at all levels of hockey. I know of House League / Local League programs who actively recruit so they can build their select teams up.
Poor organizations that don't compete and attract better players can look right at their executive. These are the ones making decisions on coaching and aren't normally intouch with what they need in a coach.