So if 95% of kids who play hockey aren't going to make the NHL (it's actually much worse than that), why aren't we cutting down on practices and just letting the kids have fun? This was a question asked in a Canadian newspaper article this week by none other than Don Cherry. In a story in the Londoner Newspaper in London, ONT, the article decries the loss of youth hockey players because of cost. Cherry makes an interesting point that is apparently lost on USA Hockey which, as you're aware, is actually increasing practice to game ratios. I think they both have it wrong.
First of all, Cherry's point that coaches should cut down on drills and let kids not going to the NHL scrimmage and play games, makes sense if you can determine at an early age that kids won't make the NHL. I say that's easy. I can determine at a very early age if a kid is going to win the lottery when they're older with about a 99.9% success rate. The chances are somewhat slimmer for those same kids to enter the NHL. I KNOW my kid's not going to the NHL and much like worrying about my launching a golf tee shot 300 feet into the foursome ahead of us - if I'm wrong, I'll apologize later. However, I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen in either case. But is that the goal? I'd like my son to play at a higher level, whether that be college, Europe, Junior A, whatever. I honestly don't care about my kid playing in the NHL. I'm hoping most parents are in the same boat, but I've met plenty who are not.
As for USA Hockey - the issue I have with ADM has always been "one size does not fit all." I've had three kids play hockey. One of them was a marginal house player, one was a decent second liner that eventually quit because he didn't want to work at it and the third has a "chance" to play at a higher level. While the level of instruction (and investment) we've made has been akin to their abilities, USA Hockey says they now should have all gone through the same program. I totally disagree. ADM is taking the fun away from a lot of kids who are going no where except to the rink to have fun. Should they be subjected to a four to one, five to one or eight to one practice ratio? Should they be foreced to play cross-ice? No they shouldn't. No more than an exceptional kid with promise should just be playing games all the time and not working on development. (Thus the reason I'm against AAA at an early age).
So what should we do? How about we let the parents decide on the regimen based on their skill level. Maybe I'm at an advantage because I played through high school myself and I've watched three of my kids go through different programs over the past 15 years, but I KNEW very early who had promise and who should be just playing for fun. Which of course brings me to the bigger problem. Too many travel teams and the loss of house leagues in the process. But alas that's another subject for another blog entry.
As for the cost? I can't remember the last time one of my kids' teams only paid $200 an hour for ice. Canada - me thinks you protest too much. We don't have subsidies here. Stop your whining about money. Maybe we just lock Cherry in a room with USA Hockey and let them go at it. I have a good idea who will win and it's the guy with the wardrobe borrowed from Liberace.
More articles can be found at: Mi Hockey Kid!
No comments:
Post a Comment