Calhockey.com
Hockey Discussions => Mite Hockey => Topic started by: RX22 on May 26, 2016, 04:09:58 PM
-
Does any one Know if AAU has any Ice Teams in So Cal , Looking for a Mite team that plays Full Ice.
Thx
-
There used to be but the kids aged out and the parents who ran it stopped running it
-
The kids aged out and SCAHA effectively killed it by increasing the percentage allowed to play up from 25% to 50% and up. However, I read somewhere (CAHA rule book?) that starting in 2017-2018, NO Mites will be allowed to play up at all. I would not be surprised to see AAU make a comeback at that point.
-
I hope that isn't true
-
I also heard from a Jr Ducks coach that starting in 2017-18 season Mites can't play up.
-
I sort of agree and disagree with that. While I think that cross-ice is good, and I definitely see the value in it... I just think there's an upper limit to those benefits and those benefits start to really drop off at about the two-year mark. Kids are getting ready to start spreading out and moving the puck around and making some plays. They're also moving faster and shooting further and can use the extra space.
You already have a lot more kids starting at 4 and 5 and then moving up to Mites at 5 and 6 because in-house is not challenging enough. If you lock the 8-year-olds into that level it's going to be pretty interesting. They are going to have to move Mites from T1/T2 to A/BB/B like everything else.
And I thought you had to do a King's tournament to get your Mite that AAA designation :p
-
The kids aged out and SCAHA effectively killed it by increasing the percentage allowed to play up from 25% to 50% and up. However, I read somewhere (CAHA rule book?) that starting in 2017-2018, NO Mites will be allowed to play up at all. I would not be surprised to see AAU make a comeback at that point.
This
-
I originally resisted the move to all cross ice but after the change I have done a 180. I don't see any advantage to skating full ice at this age and size. In fact I think it requires more skills to lean to pass and find your open ice on the smaller surface. In reflection of my youth no one had back yard rinks that were full ice. Public outdoor ice is nearly always shared. I think if MN and Canadian high school kids can develop on smaller ice Johnny 7 and 8 year old probably can as well.
-
SCAHA rule book 19.04
Starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (U8) may play up.
I knew I had read it somewhere. So it's official, folks.
-
I doubt this rule will hold, I don't think scaha is interested in competing with an AAU league.
-
FYI: http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf
Page 20
section 19.04
"Starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (U8) may play up"
-
FYI: http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf
Page 20
section 19.04
"Starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (U8) may play up"
I've seen that. I am fairly confident that when the clubs do the math and figure out that they will lose thousands in dues and lose dozens of players to a competing league the scaha board which is made up of reps from those clubs will ease up on that rule and do what is in their best interest.
-
Let's hope so. I know plenty of parents with kids that are a year apart that want to keep them together simply because managing two sets of practice and game schedules is prohibitive.
-
FYI: http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf (http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf)
Page 20
section 19.04
"Starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (U8) may play up"
I've seen that. I am fairly confident that when the clubs do the math and figure out that they will lose thousands in dues and lose dozens of players to a competing league the scaha board which is made up of reps from those clubs will ease up on that rule and do what is in their best interest.
I am fairly confident they won't.
Checkout the Brick thread and how many 02 Brick players are playing AAA as second year Bantams. Being a stand out at Mite and Squirt has little to do with Bantam/Midget results.
I can't see SCAHA CAHA changing the rules because there are a handful of parents certain they spawned the next Hall of Famer.
-
FYI: http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf (http://www.scaha.com/scaha/downloads/SCAHA-Guidebook.pdf)
Page 20
section 19.04
"Starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (U8) may play up"
I've seen that. I am fairly confident that when the clubs do the math and figure out that they will lose thousands in dues and lose dozens of players to a competing league the scaha board which is made up of reps from those clubs will ease up on that rule and do what is in their best interest.
I am fairly confident they won't.
Checkout the Brick thread and how many 02 Brick players are playing AAA as second year Bantams. Being a stand out at Mite and Squirt has little to do with Bantam/Midget results.
I can't see SCAHA CAHA changing the rules because there are a handful of parents certain they spawned the next Hall of Famer.
Can you cite the CAHA rule? As far as I know there isn't one. Don't know why scaha has an issue with 8yr Olds playing up when apparently CAHA and USA Hockey don't give hoot.
As for the 02 Brick team, I have no idea how many are playing AAA but I do know that they did so poorly at the brick tournament that California almost lost their bid. The 03''s saved it and I bet 80% of them are playing AAA bantam next year.
-
I think you are correct in that neither CAHA or USA hockey has a rule in place yet. They will. Full is is being discouraged strongly while ADM is promoted.
Coming from a climate where everyone learned to skate outdoors and no one had a full sheet I think the idea that 8 year olds need full ice and should being playing up is without much merit. I was resistant to the ADM model but have done an about face.
My son is a Bantam Major and I think he gets a ton of development from his 3 on 3 work. How much development come from watching the best mite skate up and down the length of the ice with the puck? If you want your 8 year old to develop by carrying the puck up and down the ice by himself put him in stick handling class. Same thing. Hockey is a confined space sport.
-
I think you are correct in that neither CAHA or USA hockey has a rule in place yet. They will. Full is is being discouraged strongly while ADM is promoted.
Coming from a climate where everyone learned to skate outdoors and no one had a full sheet I think the idea that 8 year olds need full ice and should being playing up is without much merit. I was resistant to the ADM model but have done an about face.
My son is a Bantam Major and I think he gets a ton of development from his 3 on 3 work. How much development come from watching the best mite skate up and down the length of the ice with the puck? If you want your 8 year old to develop by carrying the puck up and down the ice by himself put him in stick handling class. Same thing. Hockey is a confined space sport.
I think SCAHA went too far in the universal ban of playing up. A better system would allow a very small number of "elite" Mites to petition to play up in Squirts (top 10-15 in their birth year for example). That would bring the masses back to ADM and let the top kids have an option.
I don't think sending an elite 8 year old to play against 9-10 year olds in Squirts will allow him to carry the puck up & down the ice by himself -- in fact, the goal would be the exact opposite -- the older kids would defend him tougher, push him out of his comfort zone, etc. in practice and in games. In Mites, that elite kid is already skating circles around the weaker/younger 6-7 year olds, even though it is a reduced-sized environment.
Here's the current climate for that age group that I'm seeing: the top kids simultaneously play SCAHA Mites and in-house because they are searching for additional game-action because SCAHA only offers 8-12 jamborees per season. The in-house league allows playing up (sometimes forces them to play up because they are "elite"). So, the kids play a Squirts level in-house game with full-ice, referees, a scoreboard, and stats available on the internet -- then turn around to play "club hockey" with mini-nets and no score keeping in the scattered jamborees. It has the feel of a end-of-practice scrimmage rather than a legit game. I don't see the kids/parents forking over $3000 for another season of that.
-
I think you are correct in that neither CAHA or USA hockey has a rule in place yet. They will. Full is is being discouraged strongly while ADM is promoted.
Coming from a climate where everyone learned to skate outdoors and no one had a full sheet I think the idea that 8 year olds need full ice and should being playing up is without much merit. I was resistant to the ADM model but have done an about face.
My son is a Bantam Major and I think he gets a ton of development from his 3 on 3 work. How much development come from watching the best mite skate up and down the length of the ice with the puck? If you want your 8 year old to develop by carrying the puck up and down the ice by himself put him in stick handling class. Same thing. Hockey is a confined space sport.
I think SCAHA went too far in the universal ban of playing up. A better system would allow a very small number of "elite" Mites to petition to play up in Squirts (top 10-15 in their birth year for example). That would bring the masses back to ADM and let the top kids have an option.
I don't think sending an elite 8 year old to play against 9-10 year olds in Squirts will allow him to carry the puck up & down the ice by himself -- in fact, the goal would be the exact opposite -- the older kids would defend him tougher, push him out of his comfort zone, etc. in practice and in games. In Mites, that elite kid is already skating circles around the weaker/younger 6-7 year olds, even though it is a reduced-sized environment.
Here's the current climate for that age group that I'm seeing: the top kids simultaneously play SCAHA Mites and in-house because they are searching for additional game-action because SCAHA only offers 8-12 jamborees per season. The in-house league allows playing up (sometimes forces them to play up because they are "elite"). So, the kids play a Squirts level in-house game with full-ice, referees, a scoreboard, and stats available on the internet -- then turn around to play "club hockey" with mini-nets and no score keeping in the scattered jamborees. It has the feel of a end-of-practice scrimmage rather than a legit game. I don't see the kids/parents forking over $3000 for another season of that.
I would readily agree that mini nets and no score keeping is BS to put it mildly.
I have watched the mites tournament play though. I never saw that super stand out kid that would just skate circles around everyone else precisely because it is a confined space. Make it full ice and now that superior skater just grabs the puck and off he goes with the lesser skaters far behind. For me it comes down to how the game is really played. You put 12 huge bodies on a little sheet of ice, much of it on ONE THIRD of that ice and play a game of hockey. If that is not on the same scale as ADM I don't know what is.
-
I still don't understand the urge to play up. At a certain point you can't play up, and for good reason.
-
I think you are correct in that neither CAHA or USA hockey has a rule in place yet. They will. Full is is being discouraged strongly while ADM is promoted.
Coming from a climate where everyone learned to skate outdoors and no one had a full sheet I think the idea that 8 year olds need full ice and should being playing up is without much merit. I was resistant to the ADM model but have done an about face.
My son is a Bantam Major and I think he gets a ton of development from his 3 on 3 work. How much development come from watching the best mite skate up and down the length of the ice with the puck? If you want your 8 year old to develop by carrying the puck up and down the ice by himself put him in stick handling class. Same thing. Hockey is a confined space sport.
I think SCAHA went too far in the universal ban of playing up. A better system would allow a very small number of "elite" Mites to petition to play up in Squirts (top 10-15 in their birth year for example). That would bring the masses back to ADM and let the top kids have an option.
I don't think sending an elite 8 year old to play against 9-10 year olds in Squirts will allow him to carry the puck up & down the ice by himself -- in fact, the goal would be the exact opposite -- the older kids would defend him tougher, push him out of his comfort zone, etc. in practice and in games. In Mites, that elite kid is already skating circles around the weaker/younger 6-7 year olds, even though it is a reduced-sized environment.
Here's the current climate for that age group that I'm seeing: the top kids simultaneously play SCAHA Mites and in-house because they are searching for additional game-action because SCAHA only offers 8-12 jamborees per season. The in-house league allows playing up (sometimes forces them to play up because they are "elite"). So, the kids play a Squirts level in-house game with full-ice, referees, a scoreboard, and stats available on the internet -- then turn around to play "club hockey" with mini-nets and no score keeping in the scattered jamborees. It has the feel of a end-of-practice scrimmage rather than a legit game. I don't see the kids/parents forking over $3000 for another season of that.
I would readily agree that mini nets and no score keeping is BS to put it mildly.
I have watched the mites tournament play though. I never saw that super stand out kid that would just skate circles around everyone else precisely because it is a confined space. Make it full ice and now that superior skater just grabs the puck and off he goes with the lesser skaters far behind. For me it comes down to how the game is really played. You put 12 huge bodies on a little sheet of ice, much of it on ONE THIRD of that ice and play a game of hockey. If that is not on the same scale as ADM I don't know what is.
You said it yourself, superior skaters vs lesser skaters. Why not just put the lesser skaters with the lesser skaters and the superior skaters with the superior skaters? And if a kid's ability level is the same as those that are a year older or a level higher, what's the bfd if he plays up? Why is everyone so interested in being the youth hockey police? My older son's whole team played up in Sq bb and it was great for their development and way more fun for him than adm.
Puck yeah if scaha told you next year that your bantam could only play 3 v 3 and no real games you would blow a gasket. I don't think anyone is arguing that small area games have no value, we just want our kids to get the same opportunities to play up that other kids have historically been given.
My younger kid did 2 years of mini mites cross ice followed by a year of track 2 cross ice travel plus mite inhouse. Next season he will play track 1 cross/half ice travel and Squirt inhouse. Is it unthinkable that after 4 years of organized cross ice hockey that he may be ready to move up to full ice? USA Hockey is losing mite players to AAU in Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Massachussets. SCAHA lost playes here as well a few years ago and will lose playes again next year if they don't come to their senses and let the 15 or 20 percent of 8 year olds that are ready to move up play up. The demand will make a market.
-
I still don't understand the urge to play up. At a certain point you can't play up, and for good reason.
Urge to play up? Top level Mites may say:
(1) They want realistic games. Mites don't even play 3 period games or keep score.
(2) Double the amount of games. 24 vs 12.
(3) Chance to participate in playoffs, rather than ending the season in mid-February.
(4) Playing with/against kids at their skill level, not just their age level
(5) Coaching and drills at practice more appropriate to their skill level
(6) Learning the skills, rules & strategies of blue line play.
(7) Their in-house buddies already play full ice games with a functional scoreboard (at 1/5th the cost).
(8 SCAHA let them start playing Mites when they were 5 or 6, do they really need 3-4 years of this?
(9) Most of the top level Squirt talent is playing up in PeeWee already, so they'll fit right in with the remaining Squirts.
[/size][size=78%](5) If you're good enough to play up, you're likely dominating at your current level already -- staying for more will be boring, lead to lazy habits[/size]
[/size](5) Although Mites is technically for kids aged 7-8, there are plenty of 6 year olds, and some 5s too. Do they really need 3-4 years of jamborees?
-
I still don't understand the urge to play up. At a certain point you can't play up, and for good reason.
Urge to play up? Top level Mites may say:
(1) They want realistic games. Mites don't even play 3 period games or keep score.
(2) Double the amount of games. 24 vs 12.
(3) Chance to participate in playoffs, rather than ending the season in mid-February.
(4) Playing with/against kids at their skill level, not just their age level
(5) Coaching and drills at practice more appropriate to their skill level
(6) Learning the skills, rules & strategies of blue line play.
(7) Their in-house buddies already play full ice games with a functional scoreboard (at 1/5th the cost).
(8 SCAHA let them start playing Mites when they were 5 or 6, do they really need 3-4 years of this?
(9) Most of the top level Squirt talent is playing up in PeeWee already, so they'll fit right in with the remaining Squirts.
[size=78%](5) If you're good enough to play up, you're likely dominating at your current level already -- staying for more will be boring, lead to lazy habits[/size]
(5) Although Mites is technically for kids aged 7-8, there are plenty of 6 year olds, and some 5s too. Do they really need 3-4 years of jamborees?
First I always say identify the truth and then form an opinion. I believe the truth is that 7 and 8 year olds really don't give a damn about playing up. Dad does. It is most every Dad with a kid in travel hockey that wishes there son would grow up to be that next standout player.
There really isn't THAT much difference between a great 8 year old and a good 8 year old.
One still has the option of full ice in-house if full ice is really that important you can play both.
Full ice in-house games are hard to watch.
Playing up doesn't always result in an increased rate of development. My son was asked to play up to PW Defense as a SQ Center. Not because I thought he was the next Rob Blake, but the PW team needed him. It stunted his offensive mind set playing with bigger kids. He was just as fast but not as tall or strong as kids two years older.He made up for it by trying to get back to a stronger position. He became far more defensive minded and it literally took a couple seasons for his offensive confidence to start shining again.
Be careful what you wish for. You don't want to sacrifice that next Madano to the ego stroke of having a player play up.
Given the choice again I would not have allowed my son to play up.
I say if your son is a mite that is step ahead of the crowd, let him dominate. He will gain a better skill set by polishing his superior skill at mite than trying to compete with older players.
UNLESS of course your son is going to be playing Pro in Sweden at 15 then by all means play up. ;D ;D
-
Father of 7 Year-Old Sues NHL to Allow Son to Declare for 2017 Entry Draft
ANAHEIM, CA—While the 2017 NHL entry draft is set to be a memorable one, it is not for the usual reasons. It of course will feature skilled forwards with superb stickhandling, talented goalies, and hulking defensemen, but it will also include Wyatt Blaze Smith, a prospect who many say is much too young for the draft. Smith, 7, recently finished his mite minor season with the Anaheim Jr. Ducks, and, according to his father (Mike Smith), was “an absolute standout player.†Wyatt’s parents stated that they were committed to making Wyatt’s NHL dreams a reality, and that it was “an easy decision†to sue the NHL when it was discovered that Wyatt could not be drafted until 2027. After consulting an agent, it was decided that it would be best if Wyatt were able to declare for the 2017 draft, to give scouts a little more time to see him play and identify him as a first-round prospect. Smith’s father added that he had already taken some time to think about which organizations he would like his son to play
for, although he declined to specify, and added that he
definitely would not take no for an answer when it came to his son’s draft eligibility. Bringing the NHL to court was no easy feat, and the Smiths spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure that Wyatt could be drafted in 2017. Months of proceedings resulted in the league being forced to grant Wyatt the ability to declare ten years ahead of schedule. While the Smiths were excited about the development and looked forward to their son being drafted, they stated that they would be sure to toughen Wyatt’s daily training regimen and diet so that he would be ready for the level of competition in the NHL. Questions are being raised as to Smith’s preparedness to play in such a difficult league, when he has yet to play a full-ice game, let alone one with stop-time. In addition, Wyatt has never played a set position (although his father is certain he should play center), and this is a bit of a red flag. When NHL scouts were questioned on whether they would consider adding Smith to their draft list, the answers were not positive. Randy Sexton, the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Director of Amateur Scouting, laughingly remarked that, “If he’s still losing his baby teeth and needs someone to help him open the door every time there’s a line change, I don’t think anyone’s gonna take him.†Along with his inexperience, concerns are emerging about his size. Smith has yet to break four feet in height or sixty pounds in weight, and it is highly unlikely that he will have a major surge in growth ahead of the draft. When asked about the uncertainty around his son’s play, Mike Smith stated that, “It’ll be tough, but we’re doing our best to help him achieve his goals. We’ve got him on the ice for eight hours each day now with sprints and weightlifting mixed in, so the hockey part is coming together. In terms of size, we have no doubts that he’ll bulk up a good bit ahead of next year. We’ve been having him eat a high-protein diet and drinking Muscle Milk with each meal of the day. I’ve even got some growth hormone stuff being imported from Russia as we speak! He’ll get drafted, alright!†The hockey community anxiously awaits the news of whether or not Wyatt will be drafted, which will be determined next June in Chicago.
-
I think after 2 years in Mites, some kids have pretty much got all they are going to get out of it. Sure, they are going to continue to develop skills in the small areas, but that can be achieved in 3x3s, 4x4s, clinics and practices (and from what I've seen of good squirt practices, that's all included). What they don't really get too much of in Mites is positioning and rotation, defensive and offensive zone coverage, and for the love of God actually passing and moving the puck around.
I know some Mites playing up to squirts that aren't the fastest skaters, aren't the best shooters, etc. But their hockey sense and situational awareness is at a point where they are amazing team players.
And for the record Hicks threatened to player roller for a year if he couldn't play up and had to do cross-ice again. We had a long conversation about it and I told him it would be good for him to stay in Mites because he could be in the top end of his age group for a change and would have better opportunities. It wasn't what he wanted.
-
I think after 2 years in Mites, some kids have pretty much got all they are going to get out of it. Sure, they are going to continue to develop skills in the small areas, but that can be achieved in 3x3s, 4x4s, clinics and practices (and from what I've seen of good squirt practices, that's all included). What they don't really get too much of in Mites is positioning and rotation, defensive and offensive zone coverage, and for the love of God actually passing and moving the puck around.
I know some Mites playing up to squirts that aren't the fastest skaters, aren't the best shooters, etc. But their hockey sense and situational awareness is at a point where they are amazing team players.
And for the record Hicks threatened to player roller for a year if he couldn't play up and had to do cross-ice again. We had a long conversation about it and I told him it would be good for him to stay in Mites because he could be in the top end of his age group for a change and would have better opportunities. It wasn't what he wanted.
Kids should always get what they want.......
I have no dog in the fight. To each there own. You will see things differently in years to come.
A the Memorial Day tournament some other dads and I were watching the PWA games. We laughed to ourselves and asked "were our kids that bad back then?" Remember you are not seeing your player through objective eyes. I thought my son was a very solid PWA player, now PWs all look slow and uncoordinated. Even the ones that have a Dad that is sure his son is a stand out.
-
That's the most interesting thing to me. My son is going into his bantam major year this season. When I watch squirts and a lot of peewee games I always think how small and slow the kids are, and often wonder if my son and his teammates were that small and slow. They probably were.
I have seen plenty of really talented younger players with the ability to play with older kids. However, it gets to a point, and it can happen as early as 1st year peewee, where the other kids are too big and too strong. The kid playing up that was fast isn't fast anymore, and a lot of times the non-little Johnny who was slow and uncoordinated hits a growth spurt and start getting some muscle growth - all of a sudden he's a lot better than he was two years ago.
To each their own. Fun is the most important thing. After peewee the game changes a great deal. The kids are all at various stages of puberty. Some of them are pushing 6' tall +130 lbs in bantam, some haven't broken past 5' yet.
-
Kids should always get what they want.......
Someone else on the thread was saying that parents are making the decision to make the kids play up and that the kids could probably care less. I was trying to dispute that through real example. So now I'm the bad parent for "letting my kid get what he wants"? Sheesh.. I should know by now you can't win on this board.
I think probably you read that wrong and I didn't state it well. He definitely doesn't get everything he wants. I did say we had a long conversation about it. We honestly debated it on and off from between the last Mite jamboree and the first Squirt Tryout. I had the Mite tryouts blocked on my calendar up until a few days before.
I do empower my son to make a lot of decisions. But I also make him weigh out the pros and cons, as well as the responsibilities and ramifications of those decisions. Just giving them what they want I agree is not the way to go. But to make decisions regarding what they do without their input is IMHO just as bad.
My son still plays because it's still fun. He doesn't have any delusions about being in the NHL and neither do I. At the end, his decision was that it was going to be more fun to play full ice, to have real scores and real stats, and have offsides and icing and real penalties. He also doesn't expect to get that much ice time during the games and he doesn't expect his particular team to win very many games. Those are the sort of things we debated pretty hard during the off season.
-
Kids should always get what they want.......
Someone else on the thread was saying that parents are making the decision to make the kids play up and that the kids could probably care less. I was trying to dispute that through real example. So now I'm the bad parent for "letting my kid get what he wants"? Sheesh.. I should know by now you can't win on this board.
I think probably you read that wrong and I didn't state it well. He definitely doesn't get everything he wants. I did say we had a long conversation about it. We honestly debated it on and off from between the last Mite jamboree and the first Squirt Tryout. I had the Mite tryouts blocked on my calendar up until a few days before.
I do empower my son to make a lot of decisions. But I also make him weigh out the pros and cons, as well as the responsibilities and ramifications of those decisions. Just giving them what they want I agree is not the way to go. But to make decisions regarding what they do without their input is IMHO just as bad.
My son still plays because it's still fun. He doesn't have any delusions about being in the NHL and neither do I. At the end, his decision was that it was going to be more fun to play full ice, to have real scores and real stats, and have offsides and icing and real penalties. He also doesn't expect to get that much ice time during the games and he doesn't expect his particular team to win very many games. Those are the sort of things we debated pretty hard during the off season.
I am not questioning your parenting skills in the slightest. It is none of my business. But you gotta admit you invite it when you say that "the boy threatened to play roller" key term being threatened. As I said, to each their own. If you and others think it important to play up for WHATEVER reason go for it. They are your kids. I just passed on my experience and my perspective. It may not apply in the slightest to someone else.
Hindsight is great though. I personally don't think it matters a twit what the kids play until Bantams as long as they get plenty of ice time. I also don't think level matters much until 16U. But that is advice worth just what you paid for it. Puberty is the great equalizer. Hockey is a late developing sport. One of my son's friends a few years older started in house at 12 years old, a real bender. Never played above A. He just made WSHL Junior A. Growing 18 inches and being as strong as an ox when you are 18 can't be learned playing up.
-
USA hockey certainly cares. ADM recommendations came from them, and they very much are pushing their agenda, that cross ice, maximization of ice usage, increased repetitions, and the importance of small area games, and the skills that develop in enclosed areas are much more important than full ice and team concepts for the u8.
I was recently at a regional USA hockey function, and they had a presentation with video openly mocking and criticizing video of coaches who were employing old school, full ice, kids in a line coaching. One of the coaches being ridiculed was a well known NHL'er. They don't want kids playing up in order to miss all the recommendations of ADM. In fact they are pushing for more of that up into the U12 and U14, and point out that every NHL team uses small area games in their practices.
-
I'm Canadian and small outdoor ice is the norm even with boards, etc. On a lake you won't bother to scrap off a full size rink.
I like the ADM and even at Bantam level we do small area drills all the time. My only thought would be that ADM should be supported by power skating and a sport for stamina, like soccer (never thought I'd say that) lacrosse or swimming.
In my experience, and this is only my opinion, there is nothing more complimentary to hockey than swimming.
-
full ice mite hockey is only for the parents! cross ice isn't as exciting to watch, but the kids will develop more skills
-
Don't know why scaha implemented the no player up rule for mites. Not a CAHA or USA Hockey rule. May take up the appeals process on this one. One size does not always fit all.
-
Probably to slow the "play-up" culture that seems to start with mites and continue into Pee Wee. My hunch is if SCAHA leaves the rule in place there will little to no successful appeals of the rule. Much like the few that have tried to play up from minor years. The answer will be a flat "no." The last thing I would think SCAHA wants to be is evaluating individual players on a regular basis. What a mess that would be. Just my 2 cents
-
Players should be able to play up if that is where their skill level is. Or they should add AA at Squirt level.
-
Players should play with their age group. Just think of the more true lifelong friends they will make hanging out with their age group. So what if their skills may be better than some of the kids. Hey they will just get more touches to the puck and be that much better. (Kids at that age are there for the fun. (Let them enjoy the fun while it lasts before life becomes one big presssure cooker!)
And please do not add a squirt AA! Coaches just need to really make the B players play B and A players play A without the influence of money.
-
Don't know why scaha implemented the no player up rule for mites. Not a CAHA or USA Hockey rule. May take up the appeals process on this one. One size does not always fit all.
I would venture a wild guess that the top 50% of player's parents think their kid should be playing up. There seems to be a tendency for parents with their oldest or their only kid playing hockey that their kid is a stand out and should be playing up.
Austin Matthews never played up and he seems to have developed just fine.
-
Wayne Gretzky played with 10 year olds when he was 6 and he turned out fine too. A good rule to go by is if your kid won't be in the top 20% in the older age group then playing up is ill advised. I am not so concerned with playing up as I am with spending thousands of dollars to watch my kid have to do another year of cross ice games which he really doesn't want to do. He wants to move on and I think he is ready. He is born in March 09 and next year will be his 4th or 5th year of hockey. A kid born in December 08, just 4 month older, could be in his 2nd year of hockey playing Squirt B and gets to (or really has to) play full ice. Who would benefit more from cross ice? If small area games are so beneficial for development then why aren't B level teams at all levels playing cross ice? People make the argument that after mites kids play small area games in practice. That"s true and it is also true that small area games are good for development at any level. But the other levels aren't banned from playing full ice on Sunday. The whole system of advancing based on age rather than skill level makes little sense (except for pee wee to bantam when checking starts). Scaha clubs are either going to lose mites to an insurgent aau league or local house leagues which already play full ice 5 on 5 games at the mite level (tsc, lakewood, palos verdes, probably many others).. I have already talked to some people who say they won't have their younger kids play travel now until squirts.
Another issue for some clubs is that they are limited as to how many kids they can have in their mite program due to ice availability. If you create a log jam at the top of the mite level then you are potentially being forced to shut out kids at the bottom end of the level who want play but can't get a roster spot. You could have an 8 yr old player that could do fine at Squirt bb but his not being allowed to move up could keep a 6 or 7 year old out of travel hockey all together. Doesn't make sense.
-
Wayne Gretzky played with 10 year olds when he was 6 and he turned out fine too. A good rule to go by is if your kid won't be in the top 20% in the older age group then playing up is ill advised. I am not so concerned with playing up as I am with spending thousands of dollars to watch my kid have to do another year of cross ice games which he really doesn't want to do. He wants to move on and I think he is ready. He is born in March 09 and next year will be his 4th or 5th year of hockey. A kid born in December 08, just 4 month older, could be in his 2nd year of hockey playing Squirt B and gets to (or really has to) play full ice. Who would benefit more from cross ice? If small area games are so beneficial for development then why aren't B level teams at all levels playing cross ice? People make the argument that after mites kids play small area games in practice. That"s true and it is also true that small area games are good for development at any level. But the other levels aren't banned from playing full ice on Sunday. The whole system of advancing based on age rather than skill level makes little sense (except for pee wee to bantam when checking starts). Scaha clubs are either going to lose mites to an insurgent aau league or local house leagues which already play full ice 5 on 5 games at the mite level (tsc, lakewood, palos verdes, probably many others).. I have already talked to some people who say they won't have their younger kids play travel now until squirts.
Another issue for some clubs is that they are limited as to how many kids they can have in their mite program due to ice availability. If you create a log jam at the top of the mite level then you are potentially being forced to shut out kids at the bottom end of the level who want play but can't get a roster spot. You could have an 8 yr old player that could do fine at Squirt bb but his not being allowed to move up could keep a 6 or 7 year old out of travel hockey all together. Doesn't make sense.
full ice mite hockey is just breakaway after breakaway. the problem with letting kids play up is that everyone thinks their kid is better than they are. there are the few kids that should move up, but who's going to be the judge?...can't be the parents or the coaches!
-
full ice mite hockey is just breakaway after breakaway. the problem with letting kids play up is that everyone thinks their kid is better than they are. there are the few kids that should move up, but who's going to be the judge?...can't be the parents or the coaches!
Full ice mite hockey is breakaway after breakaway because of the disparity of talent between the top and bottom. You have kids that have been playing one or 2 years against kids that have been playing 4 or 5. It's always the same one or two kids that are on the breakaway. Those are the kids you move up. It's not brain surgery.
-
full ice mite hockey is just breakaway after breakaway. the problem with letting kids play up is that everyone thinks their kid is better than they are. there are the few kids that should move up, but who's going to be the judge?...can't be the parents or the coaches!
Full ice mite hockey is breakaway after breakaway because of the disparity of talent between the top and bottom. You have kids that have been playing one or 2 years against kids that have been playing 4 or 5. It's always the same one or two kids that are on the breakaway. Those are the kids you move up. It's not brain surgery.
If it's so easy, why are so many kids playing up that shouldn't be? at some point it has to stop
-
full ice mite hockey is just breakaway after breakaway. the problem with letting kids play up is that everyone thinks their kid is better than they are. there are the few kids that should move up, but who's going to be the judge?...can't be the parents or the coaches!
Full ice mite hockey is breakaway after breakaway because of the disparity of talent between the top and bottom. You have kids that have been playing one or 2 years against kids that have been playing 4 or 5. It's always the same one or two kids that are on the breakaway. Those are the kids you move up. It's not brain surgery.
If it's so easy, why are so many kids playing up that shouldn't be? at some point it has to stop
The problem isn't that too many mites are playing up in squirts. It's too many squirts playing peewee. Peewee gets diluted by kids playing up that probaby shouldn't and Squirt gets diluted by not having those kids in their division anymore. This rule doesn't solve that problem.
-
full ice mite hockey is just breakaway after breakaway. the problem with letting kids play up is that everyone thinks their kid is better than they are. there are the few kids that should move up, but who's going to be the judge?...can't be the parents or the coaches!
Full ice mite hockey is breakaway after breakaway because of the disparity of talent between the top and bottom. You have kids that have been playing one or 2 years against kids that have been playing 4 or 5. It's always the same one or two kids that are on the breakaway. Those are the kids you move up. It's not brain surgery.
If it's so easy, why are so many kids playing up that shouldn't be? at some point it has to stop
The problem isn't that too many mites are playing up in squirts. It's too many squirts playing peewee. Peewee gets diluted by kids playing up that probaby shouldn't and Squirt gets diluted by not having those kids in their division anymore. This rule doesn't solve that problem.
I'm sure those parents are saying the same thing about Mites playing up and how it's diluting Squirts.
-
I think it IS a domino effect kids play up into squirts play 2 years and of course they should play up into Pee Wee. It's kind of silly to say the play up problem is only in PeeWee and not in Squirts. It's all related. I actually think it starts even further down in Track 1/Track 2. Kids are starting "ADM" Track 1/2 younger than before. When Mites were full ice kids were mostly 7 and 8 year olds. Very few kids from what I could see played up as a 6 year old into mites at least at our club. This year I got an email from a club recruiting mite down to 2011's. So now kids are playing "travel hockey" in track 1/2 at a younger age and parents naturally feel after 2 years of cross ice it's time to "play up." Now I'm not saying kids playing younger is bad but it is contributing to the play ups IMO.
-
the problem when you get down to it is the fact that compared to traditional hockey markets we don't have a level of participation to have our levels on par with the levels of those markets. We have one or two birth year teams at each age level that can compete in Detroit or Toronto playing against kids their own age but here they need to play up to get a similar level of competition. The 03 and 05 Kings come to mind as well as the 05 and 06 Ducks. Those teams have played up as a team and have developed into nationally recognized teams because of it. If they had stayed in their age group, we would be hearing complaints that they should be playing up. The 03 Kings destroyed Squirt A and PeeWee A when they played up. In PeeWee A they were 16-0 with 159 goals for and 16 against. That's an average victory margin of of 10-1. Can anyone honestly say that this team should have stayed in Squirt A? The only rational argument here is that they should have played up another level in Peewee AA.
-
the problem when you get down to it is the fact that compared to traditional hockey markets we don't have a level of participation to have our levels on par with the levels of those markets. We have one or two birth year teams at each age level that can compete in Detroit or Toronto playing against kids their own age but here they need to play up to get a similar level of competition. The 03 and 05 Kings come to mind as well as the 05 and 06 Ducks. Those teams have played up as a team and have developed into nationally recognized teams because of it. If they had stayed in their age group, we would be hearing complaints that they should be playing up. The 03 Kings destroyed Squirt A and PeeWee A when they played up. In PeeWee A they were 16-0 with 159 goals for and 16 against. That's an average victory margin of of 10-1. Can anyone honestly say that this team should have stayed in Squirt A? The only rational argument here is that they should have played up another level in Peewee AA.
there are some kids that can play up, but probably less than 10% of the amount of kids that are currently playing. SCAHA would have to hold a weekend tryout to evaluate who should or could play up. Imagine what that would be like when all the Little Gretzky's don't get the right to play up. And if you leave it up to the parents and coaches you'll continue to have the mess we have now. Easiest solution is to not let anyone play up! It'll all work itself out.
-
the problem when you get down to it is the fact that compared to traditional hockey markets we don't have a level of participation to have our levels on par with the levels of those markets. We have one or two birth year teams at each age level that can compete in Detroit or Toronto playing against kids their own age but here they need to play up to get a similar level of competition. The 03 and 05 Kings come to mind as well as the 05 and 06 Ducks. Those teams have played up as a team and have developed into nationally recognized teams because of it. If they had stayed in their age group, we would be hearing complaints that they should be playing up. The 03 Kings destroyed Squirt A and PeeWee A when they played up. In PeeWee A they were 16-0 with 159 goals for and 16 against. That's an average victory margin of of 10-1. Can anyone honestly say that this team should have stayed in Squirt A? The only rational argument here is that they should have played up another level in Peewee AA.
there are some kids that can play up, but probably less than 10% of the amount of kids that are currently playing. SCAHA would have to hold a weekend tryout to evaluate who should or could play up. Imagine what that would be like when all the Little Gretzky's don't get the right to play up. And if you leave it up to the parents and coaches you'll continue to have the mess we have now. Easiest solution is to not let anyone play up! It'll all work itself out.
An extra year of mite is not going to make a bit of difference. At Bantam you will never be able to guess who played up and who didn't. 10% is WAY high. We are going to have a juggernaut in 10 years with all these prodigies hitting the NHL at the same time.
Somewhere out there practicing on a little back yard pond in the North is a kid that 6 years is going to skate circles around the SoCal mite that needs to play up.
-
not letting mites play up though doesn't keep squirts from playing peewee, so how does that sort it out? as I said before squirt right now is diluted because too many 06's are playing peewee, not because too many mites are playing squirt. scaha could easily solve it by limiting player ups to birth year teams and then limiting player up roster spots on mixed teams to anywhere from 1 to 3 spots. The GTHL in Toronto, for instance, allows their squirt aged teams to add up to three mite aged players on their roster, who have to be 8. Their are a lot of ways to skin this cat, there is plenty of daylight between the wild west that this has become and the one size fits all no exception rule they have implemented.
-
not letting mites play up though doesn't keep squirts from playing peewee, so how does that sort it out? as I said before squirt right now is diluted because too many 06's are playing peewee, not because too many mites are playing squirt. scaha could easily solve it by limiting player ups to birth year teams and then limiting player up roster spots on mixed teams to anywhere from 1 to 3 spots. The GTHL in Toronto, for instance, allows their squirt aged teams to add up to three mite aged players on their roster, who have to be 8. Their are a lot of ways to skin this cat, there is plenty of daylight between the wild west that this has become and the one size fits all no exception rule they have implemented.
I think the only way to possibly do it is birth year teams. My son played up as a squirt to PW and in hindsight is may have been detrimental. It made him less offensive minded and much more defensive. One year is a lot at that age. I would not do it again if I had to do over. I did not seek to have him play up he was asked. Looking at old pix there was a big difference in size between him and the 2nd year PWs. The cream will rise to the top by Bantams and Midgets. Let them have fun at mites.
-
not letting mites play up though doesn't keep squirts from playing peewee, so how does that sort it out? as I said before squirt right now is diluted because too many 06's are playing peewee, not because too many mites are playing squirt. scaha could easily solve it by limiting player ups to birth year teams and then limiting player up roster spots on mixed teams to anywhere from 1 to 3 spots. The GTHL in Toronto, for instance, allows their squirt aged teams to add up to three mite aged players on their roster, who have to be 8. Their are a lot of ways to skin this cat, there is plenty of daylight between the wild west that this has become and the one size fits all no exception rule they have implemented.
I think the only way to possibly do it is birth year teams. My son played up as a squirt to PW and in hindsight is may have been detrimental. It made him less offensive minded and much more defensive. One year is a lot at that age. I would not do it again if I had to do over. I did not seek to have him play up he was asked. Looking at old pix there was a big difference in size between him and the 2nd year PWs. The cream will rise to the top by Bantams and Midgets. Let them have fun at mites.
"Let them have fun at mites"!!! that's what the parents forget. It's a game and these kids 6, 7 and 8 years old...Mites and squirts is the time they should be having fun and loving the game, but parents need to develop a future NHL'r
-
not letting mites play up though doesn't keep squirts from playing peewee, so how does that sort it out? as I said before squirt right now is diluted because too many 06's are playing peewee, not because too many mites are playing squirt. scaha could easily solve it by limiting player ups to birth year teams and then limiting player up roster spots on mixed teams to anywhere from 1 to 3 spots. The GTHL in Toronto, for instance, allows their squirt aged teams to add up to three mite aged players on their roster, who have to be 8. Their are a lot of ways to skin this cat, there is plenty of daylight between the wild west that this has become and the one size fits all no exception rule they have implemented.
Come on A51, that 07 team was assembled in the womb. They are going to Quebec..........this year.
I think the only way to possibly do it is birth year teams. My son played up as a squirt to PW and in hindsight is may have been detrimental. It made him less offensive minded and much more defensive. One year is a lot at that age. I would not do it again if I had to do over. I did not seek to have him play up he was asked. Looking at old pix there was a big difference in size between him and the 2nd year PWs. The cream will rise to the top by Bantams and Midgets. Let them have fun at mites.
"Let them have fun at mites"!!! that's what the parents forget. It's a game and these kids 6, 7 and 8 years old...Mites and squirts is the time they should be having fun and loving the game, but parents need to develop a future NHL'r
-
#4BobbyOrr has the better of the arguments here. If the kid has superior skills/size & fits in best with the year-up's class, then he should be playing up (or at least have the option). Simply stating that the play-up year won't matter by the time he's a bantam is pure speculation -- maybe during that year he plays up, he plays for an awesome coach he would not have normally met. Maybe he meets his new best friends, who motivate themselves to work hard as a group and ultimately win nationals like the old LAHC group. Anything's possible.
As for the notion that we should just let the mites "have fun" while they're young, that sounds great -- problem is, SCAHA has watered down the mites games so badly, that it hardly constitutes "fun" in any real hockey or competitive sense. It's a scrimmage game, at best.
No score is kept.
Games are 17 minutes long. (One period only)
There are no standings.
There are no stats.
About half the games, seemingly at random, are played with mini-nets.
No power plays or short-handed play.
Ultimately, no playoffs or champion.
Note to SCAHA: Want to avoid the rush to play-up into squirts? Make mites more interesting for the players and parents! Most of the parents are on-board with the small area games (virtually everyone is on-board with the half-ice version), it's the other, easily fixable, stuff listed above that make us want to bail out.
-
My kid is older, so I didn't know some of this mites stuff.
it's horrifying, like you guys said, half ice is great, but the rest is ridiculous.
The Russians, Canadians, Finns, Czechs, Slovaks, Swedes and Bahamians are keeping score, trust me.
We skated in the back yard until a) the streetlights came on b) someone's mom was screaming from the back porch, c) we lost the puck. The score might be 17-3 but then it would be "next goal wins" and the game is on.
The South Koreans, right now, are living in Finland and eating moose meat and training for TWO YEARS away from home because they don't want to be humiliated at their Winter Olympics.
Just saying'.
-
#4BobbyOrr has the better of the arguments here. If the kid has superior skills/size & fits in best with the year-up's class, then he should be playing up (or at least have the option). Simply stating that the play-up year won't matter by the time he's a bantam is pure speculation -- maybe during that year he plays up, he plays for an awesome coach he would not have normally met. Maybe he meets his new best friends, who motivate themselves to work hard as a group and ultimately win nationals like the old LAHC group. Anything's possible.
As for the notion that we should just let the mites "have fun" while they're young, that sounds great -- problem is, SCAHA has watered down the mites games so badly, that it hardly constitutes "fun" in any real hockey or competitive sense. It's a scrimmage game, at best.
No score is kept.
Games are 17 minutes long. (One period only)
There are no standings.
There are no stats.
About half the games, seemingly at random, are played with mini-nets.
No power plays or short-handed play.
Ultimately, no playoffs or champion.
Note to SCAHA: Want to avoid the rush to play-up into squirts? Make mites more interesting for the players and parents! Most of the parents are on-board with the small area games (virtually everyone is on-board with the half-ice version), it's the other, easily fixable, stuff listed above that make us want to bail out.
I guess my point is the use of "maybe" Maybe anything. He is just as likely to get a lousy coach as a great coach.
My other point would be even if true..... so what? In the grand scheme it will be a lot of nothing.
What is the best thing that could happen? The boy plays up and does fine. It won't make the difference in a D1 scholarship in 12 years anyway. The worst? Playing up against bigger stronger faster kids gets him injured.
So the kid scores 5 goals a game and out plays other 7 and 8 year olds. What is the huge downside? I have never seen a kid that gets tired of scoring.
In reality the chances of the stand out mite being a standout in 8 years are low. Many won't even be playing the game after they get the taste knocked out of their mouth at Bantam or start chasing skirts. Is it really important to play up at mites to be a great beer league player?
Playing up should probably just be abandoned. There is nothing so profound at the next level between mite, squirt and pw that it will make an ounce of difference in the long haul
-
I wonder what percent of players that have college scholarships would point back to playing up (if they did) as a mite or squirt as one of the pivotal choices that lead to their success.
-
I wonder what percent of players that have college scholarships would point back to playing up (if they did) as a mite or squirt as one of the pivotal choices that lead to their success.
I don't know what the percentage is, but I am sure it would start with a .0 something.
:)
-
Last weekend I watched an 09 track 1 team beat an 08 track 1 team in a full ice controlled scrimmage by about 8 goals. Next year all of those 08's are required to play squirts (full ice). All of those 09's will be required to play cross ice. How does this make sense?
-
Last weekend I watched an 09 track 1 team beat an 08 track 1 team in a full ice controlled scrimmage by about 8 goals. Next year all of those 08's are required to play squirts (full ice). All of those 09's will be required to play cross ice. How does this make sense?
How does it make sense? I think it is pretty clear. They are 08 and 09s.
In 5 years you won't be able to tell which kid was on the winning or losing team in your example.
It is simple, playing up does NOT equal a fast track.
People that believe their kid needs to play up are kidding themselves. I know an 02 that was a REAL standout at Squirt and PW. The maturity in his skating and moves was really something to watch as a 2nd year Squirt. I couldn't believe the boy was a squirt. He went on to play AAA PW, first year AAA BTN and now 2nd year AAA BTN. He is not a stand out anymore. Low/Middle of the pack at best. Everyone caught up. That's what happens in hockey.
-
Im lucky because my boys didn't have to go through this ADM nonsense...and it is nonsense. You are paying the same amount of cash for less ice. Its a scam. No teaching/learning of offsides, icing, penalty kill. Lets call it for what it is, another cash grab. Also, playing up isn't the evil its made out to be as long as you are objectively looking at your child's skill set.
-
Im lucky because my boys didn't have to go through this ADM nonsense...and it is nonsense. You are paying the same amount of cash for less ice. Its a scam. No teaching/learning of offsides, icing, penalty kill. Lets call it for what it is, another cash grab. Also, playing up isn't the evil its made out to be as long as you are objectively looking at your child's skill set.
Why is it important to learn offsides, icing and PK at 7 and 8? It's not. There are kids that don't even play the game until they are 9 or 10. My son was around 9 1/2. How is it that they become top players?
A kid can watch on game live or on TV and understand icing, offsides and PK. PK at mites? Really? I really think advocates of playing up should print out these post and open them up and read them in 5 years for a good chuckle.
-
ADM is not perfect.
But, the kids playing ADM get to handle the puck more and work on the boards more and that's what is important. Also the ice size is proportional to their size. No one ever mentions that.
Actually, cross ice is approximate to a back yard or neighborhood rink back home, or even what you'd scrape off the lake. Nobody scrapes off an NHL size rink for little kids.
Yes offsides will drive you nuts at this age, but as someone else posted, they can learn all that on TV.
As for playing "Up", it has to be decided on an individual basis. Playing "Up" to sit on the bench is a joke. You want your kid having a regular shift, PP and PK time, and "the coach trusts him" situations (last minute of game, one goal lead).
There is also the social aspect. Kids want to play with their friends. Leave your ego out of it.
-
Ok. For argument sake...if playing up is so bad and its all about fun and a social environment why not just play in house? Plenty of good options at paramount, Anaheim and TSC. Heck of a lot cheaper and they get pizza and trophies at the end of the year which are 2 things kids love.
-
Ok. For argument sake...if playing up is so bad and its all about fun and a social environment why not just play in house? Plenty of good options at paramount, Anaheim and TSC. Heck of a lot cheaper and they get pizza and trophies at the end of the year which are 2 things kids love.
So traveling to other cities, seeing new sites, museums, restaurants, culture etc should only be for those destined for the NHL? Sorry Johnny 8, fun is only for in-house kids, you future Hall of Famers must play up. Bock to lahders for you Borislav, vee haff verk to do.
-
I think the playing up issue is getting a little convoluted, it's more about getting to move on to full ice games than it is about playing with older kids.
-
This was an interesting thread. Enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
My son is playing his first season of SCAHA hockey. He is 5 and a birth year 2011. He is one of the better kids on his team and I've been worried about him playing Mites for 3 MORE years after this one.
I see the merits for the little ones aged 5-6 but I do agree that a good number of the 7-8 year olds are ready for a larger ice surface like half ice. Not to mention the size differences between the small 5 year olds and large 8 year olds is pretty dramatic.
Maybe someone here more knowledgeable can help me out but why isn't there a division below mites? Maybe make the 5-6 year olds play like they do now and at 7-8 let them play half-ice and start keeping score and stats? Does SCAHA just assume all those kids need to be in in-house?
My son played in the 6U in house at TSC last year as a 4 year old and had fun but its sooo far from our house in San Dimas. Our only option without driving to far for practices is travel hockey with older kids. I wish there was a better in house option for my son so he wasn't stuck playing 4 years of SCAHA mites. I fear he is going to get burnt out playing with no score, rankings, stats and no full games other than in tournaments.
-
This was an interesting thread. Enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
My son is playing his first season of SCAHA hockey. He is 5 and a birth year 2011. He is one of the better kids on his team and I've been worried about him playing Mites for 3 MORE years after this one.
I see the merits for the little ones aged 5-6 but I do agree that a good number of the 7-8 year olds are ready for a larger ice surface like half ice. Not to mention the size differences between the small 5 year olds and large 8 year olds is pretty dramatic.
Maybe someone here more knowledgeable can help me out but why isn't there a division below mites? Maybe make the 5-6 year olds play like they do now and at 7-8 let them play half-ice and start keeping score and stats? Does SCAHA just assume all those kids need to be in in-house?
My son played in the 6U in house at TSC last year as a 4 year old and had fun but its sooo far from our house in San Dimas. Our only option without driving to far for practices is travel hockey with older kids. I wish there was a better in house option for my son so he wasn't stuck playing 4 years of SCAHA mites. I fear he is going to get burnt out playing with no score, rankings, stats and no full games other than in tournaments.
So there always seems to be a rush to get to full ice as quickly as possible. The MOST important thing is to do the age appropriate functions geared towards the human body's chronological development. Humans develop 80-90% of their synapses in their brains between ages 3 and 8. Our synapses develop based on our experiences, the more experiences the more synapses. This helps as they got older since the more synapses that are developed the faster the brain processes information and the faster the body moves as a result. You may want your 8u child who is an advanced athlete to progress to full ice as soon as possible but they will touch the puck less and have less decision making experiences. I know of a kid who is playing in the USHL right now, played 4 years of cross ice hockey in track 2 so he could play with his friends and get the age appropriate training. He was always the best player on the team and the 4 years of cross ice in house did not stunt his development at all.
-
This was an interesting thread. Enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
My son is playing his first season of SCAHA hockey. He is 5 and a birth year 2011. He is one of the better kids on his team and I've been worried about him playing Mites for 3 MORE years after this one.
I see the merits for the little ones aged 5-6 but I do agree that a good number of the 7-8 year olds are ready for a larger ice surface like half ice. Not to mention the size differences between the small 5 year olds and large 8 year olds is pretty dramatic.
Maybe someone here more knowledgeable can help me out but why isn't there a division below mites? Maybe make the 5-6 year olds play like they do now and at 7-8 let them play half-ice and start keeping score and stats? Does SCAHA just assume all those kids need to be in in-house?
My son played in the 6U in house at TSC last year as a 4 year old and had fun but its sooo far from our house in San Dimas. Our only option without driving to far for practices is travel hockey with older kids. I wish there was a better in house option for my son so he wasn't stuck playing 4 years of SCAHA mites. I fear he is going to get burnt out playing with no score, rankings, stats and no full games other than in tournaments.
lmfao...at that age, score, rankings, and stats only matter to the parents. You should keep your kids from looking at stats as long as you can, and definitely never let them know this board exists!
-
This was an interesting thread. Enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
My son is playing his first season of SCAHA hockey. He is 5 and a birth year 2011. He is one of the better kids on his team and I've been worried about him playing Mites for 3 MORE years after this one.
I see the merits for the little ones aged 5-6 but I do agree that a good number of the 7-8 year olds are ready for a larger ice surface like half ice. Not to mention the size differences between the small 5 year olds and large 8 year olds is pretty dramatic.
Maybe someone here more knowledgeable can help me out but why isn't there a division below mites? Maybe make the 5-6 year olds play like they do now and at 7-8 let them play half-ice and start keeping score and stats? Does SCAHA just assume all those kids need to be in in-house?
My son played in the 6U in house at TSC last year as a 4 year old and had fun but its sooo far from our house in San Dimas. Our only option without driving to far for practices is travel hockey with older kids. I wish there was a better in house option for my son so he wasn't stuck playing 4 years of SCAHA mites. I fear he is going to get burnt out playing with no score, rankings, stats and no full games other than in tournaments.
So there always seems to be a rush to get to full ice as quickly as possible. The MOST important thing is to do the age appropriate functions geared towards the human body's chronological development. Humans develop 80-90% of their synapses in their brains between ages 3 and 8. Our synapses develop based on our experiences, the more experiences the more synapses. This helps as they got older since the more synapses that are developed the faster the brain processes information and the faster the body moves as a result. You may want your 8u child who is an advanced athlete to progress to full ice as soon as possible but they will touch the puck less and have less decision making experiences. I know of a kid who is playing in the USHL right now, played 4 years of cross ice hockey in track 2 so he could play with his friends and get the age appropriate training. He was always the best player on the team and the 4 years of cross ice in house did not stunt his development at all.
Maybe I'll just keep my kid in cross ice until he'e 16, then he can really dominate!
-
This was an interesting thread. Enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
My son is playing his first season of SCAHA hockey. He is 5 and a birth year 2011. He is one of the better kids on his team and I've been worried about him playing Mites for 3 MORE years after this one.
I see the merits for the little ones aged 5-6 but I do agree that a good number of the 7-8 year olds are ready for a larger ice surface like half ice. Not to mention the size differences between the small 5 year olds and large 8 year olds is pretty dramatic.
Maybe someone here more knowledgeable can help me out but why isn't there a division below mites? Maybe make the 5-6 year olds play like they do now and at 7-8 let them play half-ice and start keeping score and stats? Does SCAHA just assume all those kids need to be in in-house?
My son played in the 6U in house at TSC last year as a 4 year old and had fun but its sooo far from our house in San Dimas. Our only option without driving to far for practices is travel hockey with older kids. I wish there was a better in house option for my son so he wasn't stuck playing 4 years of SCAHA mites. I fear he is going to get burnt out playing with no score, rankings, stats and no full games other than in tournaments.
lmfao...at that age, score, rankings, and stats only matter to the parents. You should keep your kids from looking at stats as long as you can, and definitely never let them know this board exists!
I meant scores and team standings, which would result in playoffs and not just ending the season with a regular game like every other week.
I do agree that at age 5-6 kids should just be out there and play but I also see the viewpoint that at age 7-8 kids could play half ice all season instead of starting in Jan like they do now.
Also, scores don't just matter to parents. Every kid on our team knows the "score" of each game/period they play even though they don't keep score. Our kids have the most fun at tournaments where they do keep score and team standings. Part of the thrill of sports is the competition and I think there should be a healthy balance of what USA hockey is trying to do now and playing actual games (cross or half ice) where there is a winner and loser. Learning adversity and perseverance through losing is an important thing. To think my son will play mite for 4 years and never really win or lose other than in tournaments is a bit concerning. But thats just my opinion. I do like ADM and the cross ice games are awesome for the little ones his age. He is having fun this year and hopefully my concerns for 2-3 years from now are proven to be moot.
-
USA hockey has its head so far up its ass it is a joke. every major hockey market - MI, IL, NY, and New England has developed a sizeable AAU full ice mite league since USA HOCKEY mandated cross ice. if you don't give the customer what they want they hey will get it elsewhere.
-
There is no magic formula to this. Each kid is different, my youngest sucked at mite age cross ice and could never keep up with the play of the little speedsters. Now 2 years later my little Gretzky does great on the full ice as 2nd year squirt (when he feels like trying, but that is a different subject).
-
Chicago AAU mite full ice:
http://chicagounitedhockey.com/index.php/teams (http://chicagounitedhockey.com/index.php/teams)
Michigan (7 divisions of full ice mite hockey!):
http://mayhl.rsportz.com/ (http://mayhl.rsportz.com/)
New England:
http://www.neaau.org/sports/hockey (http://www.neaau.org/sports/hockey)
There are many more. here's a good article on it:
http://cayhockey.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-mite-hockey-battleground.html (http://cayhockey.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-mite-hockey-battleground.html)
-
Ever wonder why high level player and Pros don't practice on full ice?
AAU doesn't market full ice to kids, they market full ice to egos.
-
Pretty sure I saw the Kings practicing full ice on sunday. 2 on 1's, 3 on 2's, etc. My 9 year old's team does full ice drills
-
My son never even skated until a 2nd year squirt. It's a miracle he can even stand up an a pair.
He went to a 1 public skate in April, did a dozen stick times, joined an in house team mid season, played one full in house season in the summer and then played Squirt BB travel in the fall. He was the top defenseman on the team even with all those full ice mites that had been playing for 5 years. No prodigy, Mites experience just doesn't matter all that much.
To each their own.
-
Informal poll, how much are the fees for the mite travel program at your rink (not including uniforms and extras, just the basic fees)?
-
Informal poll, how much are the fees for the mite travel program at your rink (not including uniforms and extras, just the basic fees)?
The Jr Ducks fee information is available on their website (for all levels).
http://www.jrducks.com/abbbmite
For mites (Track 1 or 2), cost was $2215 this season
For squirt, cost was $3485
Does not include jerseys or tournaments
-
USA hockey has its head so far up its ass it is a joke. every major hockey market - MI, IL, NY, and New England has developed a sizeable AAU full ice mite league since USA HOCKEY mandated cross ice. if you don't give the customer what they want they hey will get it elsewhere.
A pretty bold statement. The ADM model (or similar) is now being used by a number of other countries who see the benefits of each level of progress. I highly suggest reading some articles by Dave Starrman, he's currently doing play by play at the World Juniors. His insight on the ADM model, especially cross ice, might make you change your mind a little bit.
Hockey is a game of trial and error. The more opportunities you have to find out what works and what doesn't, the more successful you will become. A good mite player playing full ice has to make very few decisions over the course of a game. A good mite playing cross ice has to make dozens and dozens more decisions, both with and without the puck. It's all about the touches no matter what level your kid is playing. Enjoy the ride, it goes by way faster than you think!
My statement is not a critique of the ADM philosophy so much as it is a critique of USA Hockey instituting a top down, one size fits all, rigidly mandatory system which is causing thousands of families to leave USA hockey for AAU. That combined with SCAHA locking out 8 year olds at the squirt level is a recipe for losing participants. At the end of the day, it is the parents who pay the ice bills and the USA Hockey membership dues. The parents in other markets are voting with their wallets and USA Hockey and SCAHA and soon probably CAHA are all deluding themselves when they should be facing reality and adapting their program to take into consideration what the people who pay the bills actually want. They need to face the reality that they have lost thousands of kids at the mite level.
-
USA is very successfully increasing their membership. 10% since 2010. Well over a half million now. I couldn't even find stats on AAU total membership. I don't think USA Hockey is overly concerned about a handful of parents that insist the only way to johnny's NHL Career is full ice by 8 years of age. Kids in Northern climates stake out a piece of ice on a public rink or a section of pond smaller that ADM and seem to play the game fairly well.
#4BO I would say that USA is not a mandatory system. You have the option of AAU. It is a free market, if full ice is in that high of a demand for mites then the market will provide the option. I think most parents are just fine with the ADM model. The exception is the mite that skates a little better than the new kids and Dad thinks that his Son is destined. It means nothing by Bantam...Nothing.
-
#4BO I would say that USA is not a mandatory system. You have the option of AAU. It is a free market, if full ice is in that high of a demand for mites then the market will provide the option.
That's my whole point PY! All of the traditional hockey markets have booming AAU mite leagues! Michigan, Illinois, New England, New York, there is obviously a demand. On just a cursory search of the Chicago United Hockey league website I just counted 68 AAU travel teams. That's probably close to a thousand kids. Just in Chicago. There is no way that USA hockey isn't feeling the pinch in those markets. As a matter of fact you can read the state by state USA hockey report, see link below. Massachusetts total boys 8U participation dropped 7% from 14-15 to 15-16 and their number of new participants dropped 17.5% in that same year! Do you think that almost 20% fewer kids are taking up hockey in Massachusetts, or do you think they are playing somewhere other than USA hockey?
http://www.2and2challenge.com/page/show/2578887-2015-2016-affiliate-reports (http://www.2and2challenge.com/page/show/2578887-2015-2016-affiliate-reports)
-
I am not sure the charts are reflecting what you suppose they are. There are other factors. Most would consider MN a hockey traditional market and it seems unaffected. The charts don't express birth year populations. Not every years has the same amount of kids available to join or a heavy birth year could age out.
MN is losing High School teams. Why? It isn't USA Hockey. Hockey participation for MN boys is down 12%.
I believe this trend is specialization. Kids don't play 2 or 3 sports anymore. I also believe it is for a couple of different reasons. Hockey doesn't end anymore. It is nearly nonstop year round. Expense is another. It is now an economic decision if Johnny can play hockey and baseball. Both cost a ridiculous amount of money compared to years past. I also think it is a difference in parenting. Parents never even used to show up to a practice. Now they are emotionally invested in Johnny making a top team, there is no time for a 2nd sport. Off Season scrimmages and private lessons are the norm. Hockey is now a business like any other. You don't buy a weeks worth of groceries at Von's and then go to Ralphs and buy another weeks worth of groceries.
-
Informal poll, how much are the fees for the mite travel program at your rink (not including uniforms and extras, just the basic fees)?
We paid $1,950 for Track 2. That doesn't include the "Jersey" package. That ran another $450 or so. Game, practice and warm-up stuff.
We get 2 practices a week and we are supposed to get 1 off-ice session a week. Our coach has been very hit and miss with the off-ice sessions.
-
So, with SCAHA still stalling around with addressing the 09 mites playing-up rule, has the AAU group made any progress in establishing an alternative league? It looked like Aliso Viejo had a lucrative monopoly for full ice mites play, and was set to cash in on large groups of 09s defecting from SCAHA, but then they flipped and created Gold Rush SCAHA teams.
Apparently the SCAHA folks made some mild effort at addressing the rule at their March meeting:
Commissioner’s Report Chris Carcerano opened the discussion on reviewing the No Mite Player-up SCAHA rule that will take effect starting in the 2017-2018 season. No motion presented, therefore rule remains as is, no Mite player-up.
Who wants my money for next season?
-
So, with SCAHA still stalling around with addressing the 09 mites playing-up rule, has the AAU group made any progress in establishing an alternative league? It looked like Aliso Viejo had a lucrative monopoly for full ice mites play, and was set to cash in on large groups of 09s defecting from SCAHA, but then they flipped and created Gold Rush SCAHA teams.
Apparently the SCAHA folks made some mild effort at addressing the rule at their March meeting:
Commissioner’s Report Chris Carcerano opened the discussion on reviewing the No Mite Player-up SCAHA rule that will take effect starting in the 2017-2018 season. No motion presented, therefore rule remains as is, no Mite player-up.
Who wants my money for next season?
Apparently they have changed Mite Track ! and 2 back to Mite A and B and Mite A will only play half ice, no cross ice. So I guess that is a small change in the right direction.
-
Just wondering if I'm dyslexic. As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements. Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible. Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.
-
It's 8 and under as of 12/31/17. 8u is inclusive of 8 yr olds ( 8 AND under) u8 is exclusive (under 8 ). USA Hockey defines mites as 8u (8 and under). So unless your kid turns 9 in 2017 you are SOL
-
This is my interpretation of the clear language of Rule 19.04 as well. At all other places in the SCAHA, CAHA, and USA Hockey rules, the age groups are referred to as 8U, 10U, etc (meaning age 8 and under, 10 and under, etc.)
But, in new Rule 19.04, the good folks at SCAHA specifically reverse that universally-used language. The Rule says "starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (u8) may play up."
They could have (a) just said no mite aged player can play up, or (b) said no might aged player (8U) can play up -- but they did not.
Instead, they used the "u8" language, meaning "under 8" which is certainly different than 8U for an eight year old kid.
We all have to assume that they chose their words carefully and are not just using words/rules willy-nilly, right?
So, the CLEAR interpretation of their chosen words is ... if your kids is 8 by the time of tryouts, your kid can play squirts. They are no longer "under 8."
Just wondering if I'm dyslexic. As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements. Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible. Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.
-
This is my interpretation of the clear language of Rule 19.04 as well. At all other places in the SCAHA, CAHA, and USA Hockey rules, the age groups are referred to as 8U, 10U, etc (meaning age 8 and under, 10 and under, etc.)
But, in new Rule 19.04, the good folks at SCAHA specifically reverse that universally-used language. The Rule says "starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (u8) may play up."
They could have (a) just said no mite aged player can play up, or (b) said no might aged player (8U) can play up -- but they did not.
Instead, they used the "u8" language, meaning "under 8" which is certainly different than 8U for an eight year old kid.
We all have to assume that they chose their words carefully and are not just using words/rules willy-nilly, right?
So, the CLEAR interpretation of their chosen words is ... if your kids is 8 by the time of tryouts, your kid can play squirts. They are no longer "under 8."
Just wondering if I'm dyslexic. As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements. Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible. Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.
it still says "mite aged player" and a kid that doesn't turn 9 in 2017 is a mite aged player. it's a little wonky the way they worded it, but the likelihood of getting around that on what they will perceive as a technicality will be slim to none and slim just left the building, as Chick Hearn would say.
-
Well, that's the issue, right?
The Rule does NOT say "no mite aged player may play up"
Instead, it says "no mite aged player (under 8) may play up"
I see a difference there.
In fact, it might actually be a smarter rule. By age 8, the kids are skating better, passing better, and ready to play competitive games -- let's try keeping score and not using the mini nets. Or at let the kids/parents have the option to do so. At the same time, it keeps some of the smaller/younger kids down in Mite (through a rather arbitrary age cut-off, but it is no less rational than a Dec 31 cut off)
-
ha, automatically turned (under 8) into a sunglasses face -- good grief.
Well, that's the issue, right?
The Rule does NOT say "no mite aged player may play up"
Instead, it says "no mite aged player (under 8 ) may play up"
I see a difference there.
In fact, it might actually be a smarter rule. By age 8, the kids are skating better, passing better, and ready to play competitive games -- let's try keeping score and not using the mini nets. Or at let the kids/parents have the option to do so. At the same time, it keeps some of the smaller/younger kids down in Mite (through a rather arbitrary age cut-off, but it is no less rational than a Dec 31 cut off)
-
I agree with you that 8 year olds may be ready to move up, but the fact is that no matter how they worded it until last year 8 year olds could play up. Now they changed the rule. If they were still allowed to play up then what would be point of making a new redundant rule that mirrors the rule already in place? If they wanted to continue to do what they have always done then they didn't need to change any rules.
-
#4 BobbyOrr you say they have changed the rule. Can you please tell me where this changed rule is written. I have not read anywhere where the rule is written differently than what has been discussed. I have heard peoples interpretation of the rule but still see it written (u8)
I am not sure of SCAHAs interpretation of (u8). Or the reason why they chose this year to enforce their "new rule" of no 8yr olds playing up but it seems to me they didn't do a very good job of letting the parents know. It would be very easy to send out emails or have a new rule change for 8yr olds listed on their website but it is not. Something doesn't seem right. Why not write the rule stating you can't play Squirts until your 9. Thanks in advance for any info.
-
Worth noting rule 6.15 of CAHA (which supersedes Scaha) states 8U players in their last season may play up. I think anyone that would appeal this rule would win. Scaha can't make rules that differ from Caha unless approved by the Board of directors. I'm going to look into this, I think every 09 player should that wants a tryout for Squirts.
-
The SCAHA meeting minutes from last may show the rule change (scroll down to page 3):
http://scaha.com/minutes/2SCAHA%20Minutes_5_11_16_for%20posting.pdf (http://scaha.com/minutes/2SCAHA%20Minutes_5_11_16_for%20posting.pdf)
I actually explored the CAHA preeminence rules also. I had an email exchange with Laura Cahn from the CAHA Youth Council, which I have posted below. I doubt any 09 parent wants their kid to play up more than I would like to see mine. I think he is ready and I think I should have a say in the matter. However, I think I have reached acceptance in the "stages of grief" over this because I doubt there is anything we can do to change it in time for our kids to play up next year. We can bark at the moon about it but that won't do us any good so why bother.
Here is the email exchange:
On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:24 PM, XXXXXX> wrote:
Dear Laura,
The CAHA website lists rule changes for next year but it says those are not the only rule changes, only the changes necessary for immediate release. Do you know when the other rule changes will be announced and do you know if any of the changes affect the mite to squirt player up rules? Currently according to the CAHA guidebook a last year mite can play squirt.
Thanks,
XXXXX
From: Laura Cahn [mailto:lauracahn@yahoo.com (lauracahn@yahoo.com)]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:36 PM
To: XXXXXX>
Subject: Re: CAHA rule changes
Hi XXXXX. Yes, CAHA allows a mite to play Squirt if he/she is in their last year of that age division.
Scaha may have a rule (I'm assuming you're with a SoCal club) that doesn't allow this so you may want to check with them.
Hope that helps,
Laura Cahn
CAHA Youth Council Chairperson
On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:51 PM, XXXXXX> wrote:
Yes I am a SCAHA club member parent, thank you for the quick response. SCAHA in fact has issued a rule that states that starting next year no mite age player may play up but both the SCAHA and CAHA guidebooks state that SCAHA must adopt CAHA’s rules and regulations and that CAHA’s rules take precedence. SCAHA’s rule seems to be in conflict with CAHA’s, which in my reading means that CAHA’s rule should take precedence. Am I mistaken in understanding how CAHA’s preeminence works and would appealing this be an avenue worth pursuing?
XXXX
From: Laura Cahn [mailto:lauracahn@yahoo.com (lauracahn@yahoo.com)]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:05 PM
To:XXXXX>
Subject: Re: CAHA rule changes
The local leagues (Scaha and NorCal) have the right to make rules more stringent than CAHA but not more lenient.
Therefore, scaha adopting that rule is appropriate and would most likely be upheld by the State under appeal.
Take care,
Laura Cahn
CAHA Youth Council Chairperson
-
Worth noting rule 6.15 of CAHA (which supersedes Scaha) states 8U players in their last season may play up. I think anyone that would appeal this rule would win. Scaha can't make rules that differ from Caha unless approved by the Board of directors. I'm going to look into this, I think every 09 player should that wants a tryout for Squirts.
SCAHA's Rule 17.01 says "SCAHA has the authority to enact any rules or regulations that do not conflict with USA Hockey or CAHA rules, regulations or policies."
Notably, there is nothing in there about "more lenient/more strict"
CAHA has a rule specifically allowing kids in their final year of an age category to play up. (CAHA 6.15)
SCAHA's new rule 19.04 disallowing final year mites from playing up certainly "conflicts" with that CAHA rule.
I would then say the new Rule is beyond SCAHA's authority (under it's own Rule 17.01 which prohibits making rules that conflict with CAHA rules).
-
That could be true but CAHA will still say no and then what is the next step? A lawsuit? I would think that any court would give CAHA broad latitude to define what constitutes a conflict in their rules. I would doubt a court would call this a conflict, mainly because it is more strict than the CAHA rule and CAHA doesn't care.
-
You guys taking lawyers with you to tryouts?
-
Worth noting rule 6.15 of CAHA (which supersedes Scaha) states 8U players in their last season may play up. I think anyone that would appeal this rule would win. Scaha can't make rules that differ from Caha unless approved by the Board of directors. I'm going to look into this, I think every 09 player should that wants a tryout for Squirts.
SCAHA's Rule 17.01 says "SCAHA has the authority to enact any rules or regulations that do not conflict with USA Hockey or CAHA rules, regulations or policies."
Notably, there is nothing in there about "more lenient/more strict"
CAHA has a rule specifically allowing kids in their final year of an age category to play up. (CAHA 6.15)
SCAHA's new rule 19.04 disallowing final year mites from playing up certainly "conflicts" with that CAHA rule.
I would then say the new Rule is beyond SCAHA's authority (under it's own Rule 17.01 which prohibits making rules that conflict with CAHA rules).
I know if my son was destined for "the show" I would stop at nothing to make sure he played up as a mite. I would get a dream team of lawyers and take it all the way.
You never know how much that 8 year old will develop in a season of playing up as a mite. It could be the difference in being a first round draft pick right?
-
You guys taking lawyers with you to tryouts?
No just my mortgage broker
-
I know if my son was destined for college, I would not want some overzealous parent volunteers making a rule saying he had to repeat the 2nd grade for no reason.
I know if my son was destined for "the show" I would stop at nothing to make sure he played up as a mite. I would get a dream team of lawyers and take it all the way.
You never know how much that 8 year old will develop in a season of playing up as a mite. It could be the difference in being a first round draft pick right?
-
I guess it's easier to put us all in a box that way no one has to do anything right? I think its fair to say that we all agree that some mite players are worthy of playing up. I am sure that is why the rule was implemented in the first place. So why take that right away? No one has a reasonable explanation. They say safety. Well if our child isn't ready shouldn't that be determined at tryouts? As for people that think we are doing this for our egos or think our child is the second coming of the Great one. I say what benefit will my son gain from a 3rd season of track 1? Would you spend the money to have him learn the sane drills for a 3rd year because someone who doesn't know my child thinks its best. I've watched my child grow as a better hockey player in his first year of track 1 because all the kids were better than him Then I watched him plateau the 2nd year when our club decided to pllay to the middle and combine the track 1 and track 2 teams for practice. He was bored. You should be rewarded for putting in the hard work. You definitely shouldn't have your rights taken away. That's what my argument is. A written rule is a rule. The way it written. U8 means under 8 no matter what was meant. #4 Thaks for the info but I wonder if asked can Laura tell you when the Scaha rule was brought up in fron of the Board of directors? When was this approved because they should have a record of it. Okay that's all for now I need to take my Great One to Power skating class.
-
I suggest you print out this thread and save it so when your son is a Bantam IF he is still playing hockey, you can take it out and read it for a good chuckle.
-
Why play up ? Can't you enjoy watching your sons or daughters have fun.
Fun 1[/size].[/color]
enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure.
( or is that long gone by now)
They are 7 & 8. Stop living thur them and just enjoy the short time that still want to be around you. Which for some I can promise its too late.
-
Why can't anyone tell me why it's so important to keep these kids from playing up? Instead I get ignorant opinions about me.
-
Cause there is not point,
What is the hurry ?
Reasons why not ?
They are not as good as you think they are and a 10 yr old will hurt them in the boards.
You really want your 8yr with locker room talk from the older players.
They at 8 do not know how to block shots and the gear is youth side not Jr.
They have no idea who to go into the corners properly( heads down, ( your superstar is not exception) they go with their heads down and they are going to get hurt.
Oh and maybe we wont enjoy it ( have you even asked your kid) odds are no. He will develop with players he will skate with for the next 5 or 6 years,
Maybe cause you will never listen to what anyones says, Anyways so do what ever you want, But do not ask if you do not want a answers you do not like. Stop living thur your kids.
There is a fine line between crazy parent and not involved- you have already crossed over to the dark side.
Why dont you listen to people who have been thru it already.
I could ask you whats the rush?
-
You had me listening until you felt the need to bash me as person/ parent. Nothing to learn here. Thanks for your time.
-
You had me listening until you felt the need to bash me as person/ parent. Nothing to learn here. Thanks for your time.
Come on Vag-B-REAL....
YOU need to develop a much thicker skin than that.
That may be another reason for you.
Don't be the parent that walks in carrying your kids hockey bag.
-
Here are more reasons not to play up ( I will be nice about it)
More of a leadership roll from your son or daughter. If he or she stays , He will be at the bottom if he or she moves up. less ice time, Less learning development.
More chances for concussions ( yes last season a kid played up ) he had 3 in one season and yes he is still playing.
If he stays, he will learn how to make other players better on his team.( this is important)
He will learn when and how to set up players. if he moves up he will be 3rd line, no PP or no PK. He needs to learn this.
"He will be picked on , Yes he will ( by teammates and kids on other teams)
You will not hear about it. They will be mean to him or her. Why put him or her thru this?
BTW other parents will not be happy either.
"He will have more ice time" if he plays were he should.
Many organizations will not even allow players to play up for many of these reasons". He is getting by on his skating alone at this age.
Average weight of a 8 yr old is 56 lbs- Anywhere from 75 -85 lbs. "This is not good numbers in the corners."
If they do play up its more money for less ice time and setting it up for a very un happy experience.
I know from experience.
-
Or like in my Son's experience playing up. (He was asked, I didn't seek it) He lost a lot of confidence. He went from being the fastest Squirt skater to low middle skater at PW. He got way too defensive trying to compensate for the bigger boys speed. He couldn't stick handle through the bigger boys like he had previously. They were also 20lbs heavier and stronger on the puck. It took a lot to get his confidence back.
My son played up and the NHL still hasn't called. Unless your son truly is a phenom and can dominate and stand out even while playing up, it is in all likelihood a bad idea. But if you are anything like my Ex Wife, you don't actually want "advice" you want "agreement".
Best of luck to your boy where ever he plays. It is the best game on the planet.
-
In my experience playing up was a great experience for my kid, but he played on a birth year team that played up from mites to squirt bb as a group. Since they were all the same age there were no locker room issues. If we are talking about an individual playing up on a team with older kids then a good rule of thumb that I once read is as follows: if the kid will be in the top 25% producers at the older level then playing up could be a good idea. If not, then there is no reason for him to play up. That means he would be a top line or key 2nd line forward or top pair type defenseman on the older team. My younger kid is a good player and I would play him up if I could but by no means do I think that playing another year of mites will hobble his future prospects (if he even has any to begin with). He has played in some high level out of town full ice spring tournaments and played well but since he has a good core group of teammates I am not too concerned with what level they play on 15 Sundays next year. The development will happen more in the practices in which they are pushing each other to get better. When my older kid played up some of the kids that got "left behind" are now on his team and I see no difference in their skill level that can be attributed to not playing up.
-
Reasons why not ?
They are not as good as you think they are and a 10 yr old will hurt them in the boards.
You really want your 8yr with locker room talk from the older players.
They at 8 do not know how to block shots and the gear is youth side not Jr.
They have no idea who to go into the corners properly( heads down, ( your superstar is not exception) they go with their heads down and they are going to get hurt.
Oh and maybe we wont enjoy it ( have you even asked your kid) odds are no. He will develop with players he will skate with for the next 5 or 6 years,
Maybe cause you will never listen to what anyones says, Anyways so do what ever you want, But do not ask if you do not want a answers you do not like. Stop living thur your kids.
There is a fine line between crazy parent and not involved- you have already crossed over to the dark side.
Why dont you listen to people who have been thru it already.
I could ask you whats the rush?
Oilers1966 - you mentioned “10 yr olds will hurt them,†is that what you guys are coaching down there in San Diego? I’m sure there’s ZERO tolerance on CHECKing in Squirt and last I checked, the Oilers didn’t carry a SquirtA team, which if the 10 yr old was any good, he would have played up with the good/BIG boys.
Ok, you may not be playing out of San Diego, but if you’re seeing 8U players skating in the corners with their heads down… it’s the Coach, NOT the kid. Maybe your club needs new/better Coaches, because NOT all 8U players skate into the corner with their heads down. Plus, what "locker room talk" are 10 year olds having that is SO inappropriate for an 8 year old... maybe some parents need to have a sit down with their kids and check some browsing history.
DELETE DELETE CLEAR ALL...
Or like in my Son's experience playing up. (He was asked, I didn't seek it) He lost a lot of confidence. He went from being the fastest Squirt skater to low middle skater at PW. He got way too defensive trying to compensate for the bigger boys speed. He couldn't stick handle through the bigger boys like he had previously. They were also 20lbs heavier and stronger on the puck. It took a lot to get his confidence back.
My son played up and the NHL still hasn't called. Unless your son truly is a phenom and can dominate and stand out even while playing up, it is in all likelihood a bad idea. But if you are anything like my Ex Wife, you don't actually want "advice" you want "agreement".
Best of luck to your boy where ever he plays. It is the best game on the planet.
Puck Yeah – I believe there’s a huge difference in playing up from Mite age to Squirt vs. Squirt age to PeeWee. Game speed difference is surely faster from Squirt to PeeWee. From Track1 to SquirtB…NOT so much. I agree that if Mite player "truly is a phenom and... stand out" then player may have a case to play up, however, I disagree with "dominate." Mite age player does not have to score every other goal or assist, but if the Mite age kid makes an impact on the team... by all means, let the kids play.
Maybe you both (Oilers1966 & Puck Yeah) forgot this was the MITE Hockey Discussion Group.
-
B-Real - it’s a terrible rule, but your child was born a year (maybe 2) too late. I despise promoting rink hopping/club jumping, what ever the term crazy parents use these days... but maybe it's time to look elsewhere for development growth. I didn't look through the thread to read if you mentioned where you were from, but it's already May and tryouts are next month. Good luck.
-
Reasons why not ?
They are not as good as you think they are and a 10 yr old will hurt them in the boards.
You really want your 8yr with locker room talk from the older players.
They at 8 do not know how to block shots and the gear is youth side not Jr.
They have no idea who to go into the corners properly( heads down, ( your superstar is not exception) they go with their heads down and they are going to get hurt.
Oh and maybe we wont enjoy it ( have you even asked your kid) odds are no. He will develop with players he will skate with for the next 5 or 6 years,
Maybe cause you will never listen to what anyones says, Anyways so do what ever you want, But do not ask if you do not want a answers you do not like. Stop living thur your kids.
There is a fine line between crazy parent and not involved- you have already crossed over to the dark side.
Why dont you listen to people who have been thru it already.
I could ask you whats the rush?
Oilers1966 - you mentioned “10 yr olds will hurt them,†is that what you guys are coaching down there in San Diego? I’m sure there’s ZERO tolerance on CHECKing in Squirt and last I checked, the Oilers didn’t carry a SquirtA team, which if the 10 yr old was any good, he would have played up with the good/BIG boys.
Ok, you may not be playing out of San Diego, but if you’re seeing 8U players skating in the corners with their heads down… it’s the Coach, NOT the kid. Maybe your club needs new/better Coaches, because NOT all 8U players skate into the corner with their heads down. Plus, what "locker room talk" are 10 year olds having that is SO inappropriate for an 8 year old... maybe some parents need to have a sit down with their kids and check some browsing history.
DELETE DELETE CLEAR ALL...
Or like in my Son's experience playing up. (He was asked, I didn't seek it) He lost a lot of confidence. He went from being the fastest Squirt skater to low middle skater at PW. He got way too defensive trying to compensate for the bigger boys speed. He couldn't stick handle through the bigger boys like he had previously. They were also 20lbs heavier and stronger on the puck. It took a lot to get his confidence back.
My son played up and the NHL still hasn't called. Unless your son truly is a phenom and can dominate and stand out even while playing up, it is in all likelihood a bad idea. But if you are anything like my Ex Wife, you don't actually want "advice" you want "agreement".
Best of luck to your boy where ever he plays. It is the best game on the planet.
Puck Yeah – I believe there’s a huge difference in playing up from Mite age to Squirt vs. Squirt age to PeeWee. Game speed difference is surely faster from Squirt to PeeWee. From Track1 to SquirtB…NOT so much. I agree that if Mite player "truly is a phenom and... stand out" then player may have a case to play up, however, I disagree with "dominate." Mite age player does not have to score every other goal or assist, but if the Mite age kid makes an impact on the team... by all means, let the kids play.
Maybe you both (Oilers1966 & Puck Yeah) forgot this was the MITE Hockey Discussion Group.
There will always be parents that insist how important it is that their Mite play up just like there will be parents that pay $15K/year for elite private Kindergartens. Both are convinced that it is going to make a difference in the kid's success. To each his own. I believe it will not make a ounce of difference in either case and I believe the numbers strongly favor that belief.
-
It looks like Canada is moving to the ADM model as well. I think most people that do not have an emotional investment in their 7 year old being a phenom are starting to agree that it is a good idea.
https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/news/2017-coach-policy-puts-emphasis-on-development
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
I think you missed the bigger point.
So, there is still the possibility of turning out the next Gretzsky by age seven? The bigger point is that thinking people are realizing the lack of importance that full ice has on development. Even in traditional hot beds of hockey.
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
I think you missed the bigger point.
So, there is still the possibility of turning out the next Gretzsky by age seven? The bigger point is that thinking people are realizing the lack of importance that full ice has on development. Even in traditional hot beds of hockey.
I am not missing the bigger point, the fact is many of these kids will be 9 years old before the half ice season is over, not 7. Most mite A kids for this year are already 8. There is a huge difference between a 6 yr old and a 9 yr old. I don't deny that small area games have some value as well but you can't tell me that full ice games for 8 and 9 yr olds have no value. The bigger point (which you have apparently missed) is that USA Hockey and the local associations are mandating a long term development plan so they can have a better chance of picking the best 24 guys at 18 and up and beating Canada without any consideration for what parents of 7, 8, and 9 year olds and those kids actually want. What about the kids that just want to play A/B hockey and aren't gunning for the USNTDP and the NHL? Who the hell cares if they play full ice if that is what they want? Why do you even care?
A kid can play one year of Mite level inhouse at 8 and then play full ice Squirt B at 9 but a kid that started inhouse mini mites at 4, mites at 5, travel track 2 at 6 and track 1 at 7 isn't ready for ANY full ice at 8? Many of these kids have been playing in full ice spring tournaments against the best of their age group in places like Chicago (won Chitown Shuffle), Toronto (lost in OT to the Toronto Bulldogs in semis of a Brick Series tournament), and Minnesota (won the MN Brick Series tournament).
In my son's baseball little league there is a 6 year old playing Minors with 9 and 10 year olds and nobody cares because he is a hell of a player. He even pitches. Nobody is trying to say that because of his age he should still be hitting off of a tee ONLY. And this is a league that regularly sends it's all star teams to regionals and states, it is a very competitive league.
Just like anywhere else in life, these zero tolerance like zero exception rules are almost always a bad idea.
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
I think you missed the bigger point.
So, there is still the possibility of turning out the next Gretzsky by age seven? The bigger point is that thinking people are realizing the lack of importance that full ice has on development. Even in traditional hot beds of hockey.
Just like anywhere else in life, these zero tolerance like zero exception rules are almost always a bad idea.
The fact is I don't really have a dog in the fight. I just find it silly that so many people believe that it is imperative that a mite or squirt have the utmost in competition and skill level to develop. Hockey is a a late developing sport. How many 18-19 y.o. defenseman do you see going in the first round? There are so many more factors that go into who makes it to high level hockey than if the kid plays full ice or not at 8 years old. The funnel gets tighter and tighter, interest wanes, GPA becomes important, girls, and unfortunately for some the mighty 6 pack becomes more attractive.
Parents need to ask themselves "are you doing what you thought you would be doing when you were 12, 13, 14 or 15? Are you doing what your parents wanted for you at that age?"
It has nothing to do with zero tolerance. It has to do with overall agenda and perspective.
-
My perspective is these kids may be playing another sport by the time they get to high school, who knows? Why put such drastic limitations on them at the early stages? Why not mix it up? At the older levels they have a mixture of small area games (in practice) and full ice games in season and tournaments. When it comes down to it I think the local associations are on board more because it makes the ice more profitable with more kids on the ice than for anything having to do with development.
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
I think you missed the bigger point.
So, there is still the possibility of turning out the next Gretzsky by age seven? The bigger point is that thinking people are realizing the lack of importance that full ice has on development. Even in traditional hot beds of hockey.
Just like anywhere else in life, these zero tolerance like zero exception rules are almost always a bad idea.
The fact is I don't really have a dog in the fight. I just find it silly that so many people believe that it is imperative that a mite or squirt have the utmost in competition and skill level to develop. Hockey is a a late developing sport. How many 18-19 y.o. defenseman do you see going in the first round? There are so many more factors that go into who makes it to high level hockey than if the kid plays full ice or not at 8 years old. The funnel gets tighter and tighter, interest wanes, GPA becomes important, girls, and unfortunately for some the mighty 6 pack becomes more attractive.
Parents need to ask themselves "are you doing what you thought you would be doing when you were 12, 13, 14 or 15? Are you doing what your parents wanted for you at that age?"
It has nothing to do with zero tolerance. It has to do with overall agenda and perspective.
Well said.
If I had to do it all again, at 7/8 years old I'd put them in roller. Much less expensive and developed their hands.
-
I didn't see any mention of 7 year olds in that article, just 5 and 6 year olds at the "initiation" level which is analogous to our "mini mite" level in the states (under 7 years old).
I think you missed the bigger point.
So, there is still the possibility of turning out the next Gretzsky by age seven? The bigger point is that thinking people are realizing the lack of importance that full ice has on development. Even in traditional hot beds of hockey.
Just like anywhere else in life, these zero tolerance like zero exception rules are almost always a bad idea.
The fact is I don't really have a dog in the fight. I just find it silly that so many people believe that it is imperative that a mite or squirt have the utmost in competition and skill level to develop. Hockey is a a late developing sport. How many 18-19 y.o. defenseman do you see going in the first round? There are so many more factors that go into who makes it to high level hockey than if the kid plays full ice or not at 8 years old. The funnel gets tighter and tighter, interest wanes, GPA becomes important, girls, and unfortunately for some the mighty 6 pack becomes more attractive.
Parents need to ask themselves "are you doing what you thought you would be doing when you were 12, 13, 14 or 15? Are you doing what your parents wanted for you at that age?"
It has nothing to do with zero tolerance. It has to do with overall agenda and perspective.
Well said.
If I had to do it all again, at 7/8 years old I'd put them in roller. Much less expensive and developed their hands.
Both my boys played both ice and roller. One stayed in roller and plays weekly now in adult leagues the other stayed with Ice and now plays juniors and is looking for that college spot. I have learnt that being the very best Squirt/PW/Bantam whatever means nothing.
Your son needs to develop to be the very best 18/19 year old player.