Making USA Hockey Better

[coolsports]

We all have heard of the problems with USA Hockey from the current Olympic team to nationals so how should it be fixed. Even if you do not support this idea anything can be made better. What and where would you start!

[uvmcats]

We all have heard of the problems with USA Hockey from the current Olympic team to nationals so how should it be fixed. Even if you do not support this idea anything can be made better. What and where would you start!

Where are the problems identified? Is it from a study, news articles or a group of comments or postings? I guess I haven't been paying attention to know the problems.

[hockeytalk]

I would start by mimicking the boys programs and giving the girls more opportunities to play and develop at the international level such as having U18, U20 and U22 teams that would play against other countries such as canada, Sweden, Finland, etc. This would give the USA coaches opportunites to see more girls play at higher levels so as to pick the best possible younger kids to make their way toward playing on the national team. It would also give those girls playing at this level an opportunity to truly compare themselves to their peers both in and out of the US. As I have said before, having one week of festivals in Rochester and LP once a year which is picked by districts does not give a true indication of the talent that lies in the US. Some of the girls left out of LP from places such as Minnesota and the northeast are stronger than the strongest girls picked from different parts of the country. Thats not to say that there isn't a "diamond in the rough" out there somewhere, but the way it's done now is not a true indication of some of the talent. I believe the fees paid to usa hockey from girls programs can more than cover the expense it would be to have these teams.

[coolsports]

Where are the problems identified? Is it from a study, news articles or a group of comments or postings? I guess I haven't been paying attention to know the problems.

By going through the various threads many have indicated problems with the current selection of the Olympic team to the head coach. Others have indicated problems with how the nationals work. But beyond that, IMO everything can be made better. Just looking for ideas.

[SAMMEE]

My first suggestion would be that USA Hockey define it's mission. If the number one priority is National and Olympic Teams and raising money thru sponsors and advertising - that is fine - just say so!! Don't preach about development and numbers. Their own website shows that percentage increases in numbers of players is getting smaller each year.

I would discontine National Championships below the 16U level - you see the same clubs year after year and if a child has not made the AAAA Select Team by 11 yrs old - they are pretty much forgotten about. I see clubs flying in players to games and tournaments just to get the minimum number of games in for Nationals.

Some Canadian Clubs have every level from AAAA to ZZZZ so every kid has a chance to play and develope at their own level. Most US clubs have only one level and if a child is into multi-sports unless they are a top player - hockey becomes second or third.

Don't get me wrong - I have 40 years in the sport as a player; parent and coach and still play in the senior leagues and it is the greatest sport in the world from my point of view - but if I was 12 years old now my parents could not afford for me to play hockey and I would have problems now letting both of my sons play and I have a six figure income.

USA Hockey should remember that they depend on the volunteer parents and coaches and if the house league and development players did not by skates; sticks etc they would have not advertisement or sponsorship monies.

Best wishes for new year!!

[Icelady9]

The development camp in Lake Placid needs to be examined closely, let's review the boys camps, Canadian camps and let's rid ourselves of the referee training camp incorporated into the same venue. Lake Placid camps are great, let's just maximize its purpose.

I also agree with SAMMEE in dropping the national playdown below the U16 level. At nationals, some players participate in 10 qualifying games, sometimes playing with a team during 2 weekend tournaments, and then go on to win nationals? Who exactly does this benefit?

[Sweden]

i would like to see a LP or Rochester type camp for every birth year. Get the best 90's for a week, the best 89's for a week etc. That way both "hockey rich" area's and those area's not as talent laden get to send more players.

[kustomice]

Increase the opportunities for young athletes to participate in the sport!

Ice hockey (both boy's and girl's) has become a sport of the financial elite and by excluding the vast majority of young american athletes the US programs are missing out on much of the raw athletic talent availiable.

To improve Hockey in the United States (IMHO) USA Hockey needs to stop spending so much of its resources on Olympic and elite club programs and focus their efforts on re-building affordable community based programs that will allow the nation to take advantage of the huge number of talented young athletes that are yet to be discovered.

[BKDad]

Wow, what an open-ended question.

To me, the Olympic level takes care of itself. People will always be second guessing the decisions and the motives at that level. That is the nature of sports fans in this country. Just listen to sports talk radio. You'd think that kids getting a partial scholarship to State U should devote their entire life to carrying U's team to greater glory. Forget about being a student or a kid - they're there to represent the fans. But enough of that.

The development path in the United States is really inconsistent. The local organizations partly have to do with that, as well as politics. Enough people have discussed on this board some of the outrageous things that have happened within the various club programs under the USAHockey umbrella.

Instead of national camps for girls, my idea would be for each division to conduct programs more along the lines of the one sponsored in Minnesota. You can read more about this at:

http://www.codpmn.com/

I'm sure there are imperfections with this program as well, and I'm equally sure someone will point them out. Longer term skill and team building is much more practical at the local levels than with a national camp once a year.

Aside from Minnesota, the opportunities for most kids are pretty limited. They can choose a club team, but often these teams have minimal practices as has been pointed out in other threads here. The coaching can range from fabulous to, uhh, not so fabulous.

The usually pushed alternative is prep school play. Prep schools are often out of the reach for many people financially. Many kids also just want to stay home and keep being kids rather than being off away from their parents, family, and pets (not necessarily in that order!) In addition, how good are all these prep schools anyway with regard to hockey? Many schools win a lot of games, but often by playing the same group of achievers most of the game. Does breathing the same locker room air as these stars really help the others? Locally, the club teams at the U14 level play a number of games against area preps. Even playing with a short bench (players already enrolled at prep schools don't go to these games) the club teams often do pretty well. Like anyone else, they get blown out on occasion, but they also often win by one, tie, or lose by one. This is 14- and 13-year-olds against the preps. Don't misunderstand me, prep schools can be terrific places for a lot of kids who thrive there academically, athletically, and socially, but is that the system that is supposed to attract and develop female hockey players in the United States?

National camps should be for building teams that compete at the international level. The only womens' teams like that at present are the U-22 and the National Team. If more age levels are added, as with the boys, then obviously you'd have to establish national camps for those levels. Below the age of mid-teen, kids grow and develop physically at different rates, so trying to do much at the national level is pretty tough. Ask some of the coaches who work the U14 camps about that.

The national championship thing is a tough one. Even at the U12 level many of the teams are "All-Star" teams that are put together with the express purpose of trying to win at nationals. Is that good? If a team wins at that, it certainly showcases some of the players and is great marketing for the organization. Many of the parents love it; maybe even more than the kids.

This is a great topic that I'm sure will create lots of "spirited discussion."

[SAMMEE]

Discussion getting interesting especially for girls' hockey. I don't know how true but someone listed in the Prep School threads that the Minnkota District has only one team registered for Nationals in the 16U but MN pretty runs their own show and have a pretty large representation on National Teams; Olympics and Colleges. I was told that the Atlantic District has only one National bound team in the 12U - so they automatically go. I do not see where going to the Nationals can be something to be really proud of if you can be 0- 20 and still go.

USA Hockey might think about going 13 - 15 - 17U for girls. Most 19U teams that I have seen have very few 18/19 yr olds so they should try to be in line with the ages of players still in HS. Most of the 18's I have seen still in HS are usually prep school repeaters and as I have said we should have less emphasis on the "elite" players and more on getting the average player numbers and interest up. I believe the Canadian girls are 17U and if you check the D1/D3 committment threads you see a lot of Canadian girls going to US colleges - maybe they are doing something right.

[videohockey]

More NTDP opportunities, as previously mentioned. Since our US women go right on to college as 17 & 18 year old Freshmen, they play a year at the U19 level, then go off to college and are done. More NTDP's encourage continued development, and goals beyond making their college teams.

Top level girls hockey is tracked toward placing girls into colleges, which means we lose many girls at the HS level that don't make the top level teams - and they're not going off to play HS hockey for a variety of reasons. Retention of these girls is something that USAH should work on, as some of these players are skilled players. If USAH offers more to retain these girls, that will raise the level of the game from the "ground" on up. Perhaps USAH should Tier Girl's hockey?

[pal7]

samee...12 and under...not to many girls are around that you can fill a team with them...my daughter had to try out and make 17 and under when she was 12 because there wasn't ANY teams available for competition plus play for a boys team...it's not like little league you know...where tons of boys show up...

12 and under National winner can be proud for making the tournament even if there is only one in a district...they can be proud because they have a team period...

Nationals at that level is like mite hockey..but good experience for them so when they want to compete for the older levels they know what it is about and the commitment it takes...

[Hux]

To improve Hockey in the United States (IMHO) USA Hockey needs to stop spending so much of its resources on Olympic and elite club programs and focus their efforts on re-building affordable community based programs that will allow the nation to take advantage of the huge number of talented young athletes that are yet to be discovered.

I disagree. Using the auto industry/motor sports axiom, "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" winning International competitions will increase awareness of the sport, and help build a desire to play the game. A gold medal in Torino will result in a spike in membership come next fall.

However, in conjunction with that, they need to make available the resources to promote the sport from the ground up, particularly in urban areas. To do that they need the involvement of corporate sponsors, and those only come with being successful in marque events.

The unfortunate thing is that short of the Olympics, very little coverage is given the sport by the press. Even in a pretty solid hockey area like greater Boston, the local papers only have box scores or wire service blurbs about the National/Olympic team unless there is a game in Boston itself. As we all know, the sports pecking order in the US is NFL, MLB, NASCAR, NCAA Football, NBA, NCAA Hoop, and then the NHL.

As for the expense, particularly as applies to the girl's side of things, it really isn't all that elite, or more expensive than other pursuits. When you factor in the costs of participating in dance, gymnastics, horse back riding, piano etc. each week, hockey is pretty affordable. I live in a blue collar town, and several of the girls in my neighborhood are involved in two or three things a week over the course of the year. A conservative estimate would be $25 an activity, so you are loooking at $50-$75 a week. At just six months, the expenditure is the same as for hockey.

[daffee]

I would start by mimicking the boys programs and giving the girls more opportunities to play and develop at the international level such as having U18, U20 and U22 teams that would play against other countries such as canada, Sweden, Finland, etc. This would give the USA coaches opportunites to see more girls play at higher levels so as to pick the best possible younger kids to make their way toward playing on the national team. It would also give those girls playing at this level an opportunity to truly compare themselves to their peers both in and out of the US. As I have said before, having one week of festivals in Rochester and LP once a year which is picked by districts does not give a true indication of the talent that lies in the US. Some of the girls left out of LP from places such as Minnesota and the northeast are stronger than the strongest girls picked from different parts of the country. Thats not to say that there isn't a "diamond in the rough" out there somewhere, but the way it's done now is not a true indication of some of the talent. I believe the fees paid to usa hockey from girls programs can more than cover the expense it would be to have these teams.

I completely agree. Young women should have the same opportunites as young men to compete internationally at the U-17 to U-22 level. In other sports where the US women are very competitive internationally, they are competing at the Novice (U-16) levels internationally. It takes physical and mental preparedness to successfully compete internationally. Nothing prepares young athletes better for the mental toughness they need then putting on the USA team jacket and representing our country on an international platform at a young age. That said, I also think you would need to send the National Championship team at the U-16 or U-19 level as Team USA 1, and the runner-up as Team USA II, rather than trying to comprise a USA team at the U-16 or U-19 age of all stars. Not enough time to work together as a team to be effective/competitive.

[kustomice]

I disagree. Using the auto industry/motor sports axiom, "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" winning International competitions will increase awareness of the sport, and help build a desire to play the game. A gold medal in Torino will result in a spike in membership come next fall.

Kind of "chicken and egg" scenerio - If you win you can attract more talent but you can't win without the talent. I think if you look at other nations who are successful at the international level you find heavily subsidised participation for the youngest participants and support for community based programs rather than elite "AAA" type teams - two things that USA hockey does very little of.

However, in conjunction with that, they need to make available the resources to promote the sport from the ground up, particularly in urban areas. To do that they need the involvement of corporate sponsors, and those only come with being successful in marque events.
The unfortunate thing is that short of the Olympics, very little coverage is given the sport by the press. Even in a pretty solid hockey area like greater Boston, the local papers only have box scores or wire service blurbs about the National/Olympic team unless there is a game in Boston itself. As we all know, the sports pecking order in the US is NFL, MLB, NASCAR, NCAA Football, NBA, NCAA Hoop, and then the NHL.

And why do you think this is the case? If you increase exposure to the sport by including more of the population in the player/fan makeup hockey could come to rival any of those other sports.

As for the expense, particularly as applies to the girl's side of things, it really isn't all that elite, or more expensive than other pursuits. When you factor in the costs of participating in dance, gymnastics, horse back riding, piano etc. each week, hockey is pretty affordable. I live in a blue collar town, and several of the girls in my neighborhood are involved in two or three things a week over the course of the year. A conservative estimate would be $25 an activity, so you are loooking at $50-$75 a week. At just six months, the expenditure is the same as for hockey.

Maybe this does not seem like much $$ in your neighbourhood but I think it is still beyond what a lot of American families can afford. Certainly more than the cost to play hoops or soccer at the local boys and girls club.

[Hockeydad4two]

Maybe this does not seem like much $$ in your neighbourhood but I think it is still beyond what a lot of American families can afford. Certainly more than the cost to play hoops or soccer at the local boys and girls club.

What I thought he was talking about was the multiple activities every week adding up to the same as hockey. If you take the hoops and soccer and riding lessons and.... it begins to add up.

[uvmcats]

I agree with Kustomice and Sammee's points. USA Hockey focuses too much on its national teams at the expense of building a broad based youth hockey sports opportunity. It is a system that rewards those that can and want to spend their financial resources to advance their kids. A kid with moderate athletism who has parents with money will be able to develop enough skill for the early selection processes that will eliminate kids with better athletism who have fewer resources.

How many times have you hung around a rink during youth hockey sessions and heard mite parents worrying about whether their child will make the mite travel team? Hockey is one of the few sports that conciously trys to narrow the field at too young an age (even before growth spurts, etc.). How many times does a kid have to be told he or she doesn't measure up by the time they are twelve before they go and find something else to do. Hockey isn't a sport where you can take a 14 year old who never skated and develop a national level player. We need to bring in kids at early ages and ENCOURAGE them to continue to play not continuingly giving them messages that they don't measure up.

We need to spend money to build the floor of the program. Money needs to be spent on proper coaching and skill development. Stop holding national tournaments for levels pre high school and spend the effort and money on skill development and coaching. There was a comment earlier about parents getting together to form teams of 12 year olds to compete in national tournaments, that is exactly what is wrong with the organization of the sport.

Someone commented that hockey isn't like baseball in a community so you couldn't organize it like little league. Well, why not? Maybe USA Hockey should look into a geographical/population based organization like little league. Set the requirements so a geographical division had enough of a population base and ice time base to offer teams and programs for all levels of competition and non-competition. Players would work their way through the organization to their ability level and be able to get the competition that challenges their level. Maybe there would be enough participation that you could actually have local leagues before you worried about all stars.

The sport sells itself. It is a great game and can be a lifetime activity. Let's start developing the sport along that line and the olympics and colleges will reap the benefits from the greater participation.

[xk1]

Maybe USA Hockey should look into a geographical/population based organization like little league. Set the requirements so a geographical division had enough of a population base and ice time base to offer teams and programs for all levels of competition and non-competition. Players would work their way through the organization to their ability level and be able to get the competition that challenges their level. Maybe there would be enough participation that you could actually have local leagues before you worried about all stars.

What you have described is essentially what we have in MN. The geographical regions are the High School boundaries. Associations are built for each HS, if there aren't enough girls in an association co-ops are created until numbers increase. MN doesn't send girls to Nationals until U19 and even then there are only 2 teams, Shattuck and the Thoroughbreds. The vast majority of girls play for their HS teams during the winter.

[pal7]

This is all very nice talking about increasing programs..but the reality of it is that ice hockey is an EXPENSIVE sport..in an earlier post someone mentioned horseback riding...which is probably more expensive, but the point is until ice time is a lot cheaper, parents who can't afford the sport whether their kid is interested or not will not participate or spend the time driving them around to the locations that can get them better competition. I know of several parents who will not allow their kids to participate in the sport even though the child is interested..period.

Then you have the group that is commited to the sport...the organizations that these kids play for want to compete at higher levels, so they look for it in tournaments and the like, but how often will you see a team traveling 6-10 hours to play in a tournament, ( more expenses but self induced ) but can't be competitive with any local teams. They travel 6-10 hours to get their butts kicked by someone other than their weekly competition. But if they don't do this they will probably loose the stronger players to another organization that does...so the cirlce continues...better players will leave for better competition.

In Minnesota and up in New England I know of a lot of parents that have financial constrants that put in backyard mini rinks so their kids can get more ice time and it is more fun too and they only play at the local level until they are old enough (teens) and the parents are ready to make a financial commitment to the sport.

I am not sure how USA hockey is going to improve on the current setup by putting in more money unless you are talking about clinics and such. But again the better players won't show because the clinic is judged by it's weakest link.. and if you tier them by ability, then you will be starting the cycle all over again with Bobby or Bobby's parents wanting to know why the child didn't make the upper tier...and then you have the issue of "who knows who" and can get their friends kid in the better clinic...

Human nature doesn't change just because you through more money at a problem!

[pal7]

xk1...sorry you had posted while i was typing..your system sounds like it works just fine...

is it the same for boys as well or just for girls, because if it different then you will have the "gender equality people" yelling ...even though it works for the girls...

And no matter what you will always have "all star" teams around!!!
It's that human nature thing again.