This Community is For Sale - For more information contact: admin@calhockey.com

Author Topic: AAU  (Read 82745 times)

Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2016, 08:33:35 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 08:39:09 AM by Puck Yeah »

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2016, 05:48:35 PM »
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.




Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2016, 06:39:56 PM »
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. 

BigDuke6

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • LR Justice +21/-14
Re: AAU
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2016, 10:33:39 PM »
I still don't understand the urge to play up.  At a certain point you can't play up, and for good reason.

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2016, 11:13:13 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 11:36:39 PM by #4BobbyOrr »

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2016, 12:14:49 AM »
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?


Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2016, 07:26:53 AM »
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

HatTrick

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • LR Justice +2/-0
Re: AAU
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2016, 08:01:48 AM »
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.

hicksDad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • LR Justice +5/-9
Re: AAU
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2016, 09:49:47 AM »
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.

Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2016, 10:25:11 AM »
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.

BigDuke6

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • LR Justice +21/-14
Re: AAU
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2016, 11:03:33 AM »
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.

hicksDad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • LR Justice +5/-9
Re: AAU
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2016, 01:29:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 01:29:53 PM by hicksDad »

Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2016, 02:15:10 PM »
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.

lcadad

  • AHL
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • LR Justice +151/-121
Re: AAU
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2016, 05:50:22 PM »
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. 

Crash

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • LR Justice +24/-169
Re: AAU
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2016, 07:57:01 PM »
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.