AMATEUR ICE HOCKEY 2005 - a critical essay.

by Joe Nix, version of April 28, 2005

At the United States Hockey League Junior A All Star Banquet on February 4, 2003 Herb Brooks is quoted as having criticized USA Hockey for spending $2 million per year to train 40 kids. While not criticizing the players or coaches for their effort, Brooks said the money could be better used to train more kids across the country. He called for USA Hockey to use that money to help 4,000 players, not 40. Brooks also criticized some select teams, saying they did little to develop skills.

It is my observation among many that the whole concept of the National Team Development Program is both an anachronism and a flagship of the reigning 'elitism' in all public activities, politics being a prime example. With the burgeoning US Junior A programs there are enough teams in the USA to absorb these players and U$A Hockey Incorporated 'development' money could be distributed to aid teams traveling budgets. Apparently the National Development teams fly everywhere while most of their Junior A opponents bus. Apparently the development teams budget includes operating a two surface rink in Ann Arbor Michigan. Apparently Nike supplied much of their equipmment. I have noticed that the USA Hockey Reports, a paid subscription news service is strongly geared on rating players towards the development teams. Selecting 40 top players for one year on the National Development Team versus those 40 players generally playing that same  year with a Junior A team also hurts Junior A team development. I have witnessed some appalling roster turnover in Junior A with a few strong 'mainstay' players virtually 'making the team name'. 40 top players dispersed to those teams would enhance team identity, esprit de corps, fan interest and give a more reasonable opportunity for some of the weaker teams to 'gel'.

A possible justification for the National Development Team is USA Hockey's lack of faith that junior hockey leagues and teams will focus on developing players with above average potential.  Over and over on junior hockey forums a grand excuse for all sorts of 'win at all costs' behaviour and management is that 'it is a business and winning is the most important thing'.  I consider this a basic flaw in the structure of junior A hockey. The NAHL south division teams largely model themselves on the minor pro hockey format. Large staffs,  media releases confined largely to 'the stars' of the team, higher roster turnover than even minor pro hockey and an emphasis on attracting a 'good gate'.  Despite some teams efforts, generally the teams are not close with the local youth hockey programs. 

Paraphrasing a quote to a 'newbie' on a junor forum: You should realize first of all now that Juniors is a business. It's pro hockey without the salaries for the players with a bottom line of winning. The teams have no allegiances to anybody or anything but winning. Even the coaches who make harsh decisions regarding players are subject to the 'win or find another job' mentality. It's a business, and the owners are in it to make money. The only way you make money is to win, and that's the #1 priority of the owners.

Essentially the majority of the time the above is correct. I like to add that the making of money does not necessarily pertain to the rink and team operation. There are 'periphereals'  for the owners via using their team ownership as a billboard, an intro, an identity as a 'nice guy.

The junior image model seems to come from USA Hockey which as the dominate, near monopoly 'controlling body' for 'amateur hockey' in the United States leagues and teams puts out a slick, 'marketing' conjob, 'image consciousness' media presence wherein players and teams are referred to as 'products'. Their media is nothing but self promotion, sorely lacking in up to date news concerning all players and devoid of any public notice of suspensions and organization disciplines expected from 'the top' of an organization. In that they fail to follow the minor pro hockey format.

All my experience with amateur hockey has been with volunteer run organizations, unpaid coaches and never any fees for lessons, hockey schoola, etc., other than to meet basic ice and expense costs. Today the game down to the Mite level is often 'professionalized'. Hockey is supposed to be a fun game.

Monopolistic organizations such as USA Hockey Inc. do not have a history of reforming to appease 'the disgruntled'. Minor changes here and there, maybe. As in all endeavours they will 'follow the money' or more appropriately 'stick with the formula that brings them same'. Their 'PR' is so predictable I could 'write it in advance'.

There is only one solution to the current stifling trends in amateur hockey, independent regional organizations run by 'expenses only' amateurs. It worked extremely well in 'my day' when communications, facilities and equipment were vastly inferior to today.

We didn't call our teams a 'product' as if we were 'manufacturing'. We all had so much fun I think today it would be 'illegal'. We laughed off 'parental' problems such as the time a disgruntled Midget player's mother swung her pocketbook at the referee after the game. He ducked and explained his ruling to her. The rinks were so small the players and refs walked through the 'stands' to the ice surface.

Keep in mind, no internet, no cell phones, an old mimeo machine in my garage, non air conditioned cars in Southern California, no 'salaries' except for the few it took to run a rink. And some of us performed rink maintenance for no compensation. My first co-coach maintained the old Zamboni. One dad made benches with backs for the players, others fixed windows, mothers ran the snack bar during our rental times. And AHAUS sent out a newsletter containing no hype, no 'marketing' but lists of names approved for this and that, suspensions, reinstatements, etc. I still have some copies. Rinks and hockey were 'extended family' back then. Parents lived in the area, grandparents visited over holidays. There were no plastic smiles, anonymous, unresponsive staff nor barrages of chintzy, hype 'marketing' nor 'bargain' bunco schemes.

Ah yes, times have changed, generally public life has gone sterile, organizing is stifled with with 'PC' and legal ramification concerns.

Apparently from what I read something called 'the trap' predominates in professional and I presume 'TV copycat' hockey.

Apparently this trap 'shuts down' the neutral zone, that is between the two blue lines with clutch, grab, biff bang, 'experts' while 'the other team' has its most skillful playmakers on the ice. In 'real hockey' a 'four man defensive' position, taken by any set of players who happen to be on the ice against a major scoring offense is an 'old' play which in 'real hockey' is often a prelude to an offensive play from the 'four man' defense. I can recall some fast good scoring forwards (with two way brains) who would readily 'form up' in such a defense and often get a loose puck to dash into their offensive zone, alone if necessary, causing a rapid shift in play to their offensive zone.

Canadian and U.S. minor were heavily infected with 'yahoo slam bangism' hockey as TV 'images' and 'sounds' were promoted. How many coaches know that speakers were located and probably still are behind the dasher boards to amplify the sound of a routine check along the boards into a 'grand slam big deal'.

Consciousless 'fake wrestling match' trained cameramen focus on what many of us called 'the non-game' and reran clips of 'that hit'. Anything to bring in money at the gate, whether it was from baboons, drunken morons or loud rowdy caucous yahoos. From coaching over 30 years ago and observing minor hockey in recent years I would say the 'residual' has dissipated a great deal. I would like to think it is the influence of 'class players' on TV no matter where they 'are from'. And more experienced 'fathers' who do most of the coaching. The European 'phenomenon' cames via their development programs, organized for stages of development, 'step to step'. Over the years in 'huff and puff' senior leagues I played with natives of England, Holland, Czechoslavakia, Sweden and Hungary. All were 'open ice' opportunists. The two Swedes were fantastic close in puck controllers, engineers in the U.S. on a consulting mission. The Englishman and the Netherlander were instinctively 'always there', two of most facile playmakers I ever experienced.

In the U.S. the ratio of practice sessions to games is 3 to 1, then elite, traveling teams, 'playing up' and finally the acceptance of Junior and the proliferation of good rinks develop more 'class' players in the U.S. This is very important since class players create intensity and excitement on the ice for both teams. Those are the essential ingredients of 'real hockey'. I wouldn't be surprised to see it showing up more in the minors after 'the NHL' balloon' goes flat. Another aspect is 'the smaller player', the fast, digging, darting guys benefit more from an open game. I can recall a little guy with the Rangers, forgot his name who would 'go under' defenders 'range' in the corners and come out before the 'big guy' could make a move on him. Linsman was another one, the famous 'rat', a faceoff expert.

As for 'tugging and holding' , banging up under the stick of a 'clutch and grab' artist is a good retaliation. But the ref may see that as 'high sticking' while letting the 'light tug' with the end of the stick go since it did not 'impede the player's progress'. It may have infuriated and distracted him, however.

I see concentration on the play, positioning, analyzing the other team as so absorbing when one is on the ice that 'clutching and grabbing' seems like a distraction for the 'grabber'. I have seen it many times 'take the grabber' away from an optimum position on the ice. But then that was usually the type of player who 'didn't see the whole picture' very well either, because he was just plain good 'ol dumb' or less skilled.

In the '60's I was appalled at what 'airhead yank' parents expected and some demanded when signing a kid for beginner hockey. They wanted to make the goal larger so more kids could score without learning the game. Many bought their kids curved sticks and had them practice 'Bobby Hull' shots on which they wasted precious ice time. Jack Riley, West Point coach told me he kept the rink at West Point absolutely frigid to discourage the parents from telling him what to do..

In the fall of '98 at a large Peewee tournament in Anaheim I picked up a minor hockey association newsletter which actually said kids learn group discipline waiting on the ice in practice to take their turn. Things have sunk mighty low if parents accept this ignorance from an airhead mother.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS- Minor Hockey 1999

Having been away from ice hockey for 10 years, 1989-1999, my observations of 'the game today' may have some merit.

First minor (now 'youth) hockey I had watched since the early 70's was in N.W. Arkansas in 1999.

I immediately noticed the following.

1; the predominance of 'one hand on the stick' at all age levels.

2. an overall increase in straight ahead skating speed but usually with one hand on the stick as if in a practice skating drill. At first I guessed 'inline skating has done that', later I noticed it was predominant even in some of the pros.  Lighter sticks? Some theory that 'holding the stick with one hand increases your speed? Whatever, it's okay except many in youth hockey are hardly 'in the game' since their stick and related posture are not ready for proper action on the puck.

3. sticks carried too high, often 'shoulder height'. This was more noticeable in the older divisions.  The excuse for this is 'the mask' but I believe it's more related to using the stick well outside what the rule book says.

Overall I observed that Junior A is a poor 'facsimile' of what the teams think is Junior hockey in established leagues in Canada. At least in the southern sectors Far too much of the minor professional hockey league model is pathetically imitated in image making, organization, overstaffing, hype.  Juniors are 'supposed' to be a development stage but by institutionalizing the game, that is by stating 'hockey is a business' and 'a team is a 'product', there is a loss of 'innocence' and creation of a great pit of 'failed expectations'. Star players get star billing in lieu of being paid.

In Canadian Junior B most teams pay for billeting, $300-400 a month, sticks, travel to and from your home to the team's location, plus roundtrip at Christmas x-mas travel. Some teams reputedly pay player 'salaries' up to $1200 per month. 

Something like 3-4%  of former top Midget players, that is AAA and AA make it onto Junior teams. Given the enormous roster turnover, often 40% and higher per junior team many players change teams before the January-February 'roster freeze' dates.

Overall the skating is deficient although it looks 'flashier', faster but is the result of too much
skating conditioning time as well as more time in the weight room. There is not sufficient agility, flexibility on the skates. It seems to me many players would benefit from being regular dance floor participants. There are fancier descriptions of this by training and physiology types.  I think the whole concept of superior skating and positioning on the ice has taken a back seat to 'be ready to hit and take a hit' at any time.

The North American Hockey League (NAHL) junior games I watched were without a redline, further enhancing the 'long straight ahead' biff bang model of play. I got confused over what whistles were for and why they weren't blown at other times and the whole thing got boring and I lost interest. For the 2003-04 season the NAHL has a redline in two of it's three divisions adding to the anomaly of not playing by NCAA rules when their basic stated objective is to move players on to US colleges.

US Junior A hockey franchises, either Tier I, the United States Hockey League or Tier II the NAHL are businesses, owned by 'businessmen' who pay the franchise fee to the league and make arrangements with a 'home' ice rink. Players are responsible for some expenses. It varies per team.  This means that players are considered 'business assets' to produce hockey which will put fans in the paying seats. Their rights are 'owned' by the Junior team and compensation is a factor in whether a player gets traded. There are elaborate rules on how many players can be rostered at various time periods from 'camp' to 'roster freeze' date in January or February.  The NAHL teams are highly independent, team owners being the board of governors of the league.  There is a commissioner of the league and a very small office staff.  Into the 2003-4 season with a new commission having been appointed the almost invisible presence of 'the league office' improved to 'barely visible'.  Some key players changed teams after 'roster freeze' date  to all appearances because the league office had 'no clout' to enforce the rules.

The only ongoing oversight of the NAHL 'on the ice' is a head referee. There is no oversight  during a season from USAHockey in Colorado or it's district representatives. The Junior Council meets in June each year and most of the members are affiliated or own franchises.   When there is a disastrous, highly controversial incident it becomes obvious that all 'powers' involved seek to cover it up, hide it, minimize what is or went wrong and delay any corrective action.  The excuse for this is 'it's a business' and image rules, in fact is the truth standard.
Some coaches turn out to be bad 'for business' and get canned. Others may bring in the fans to see fights, the rah rah excitement, goon hockey and they may even have winning teams, ergo they are 'good for business'. Whether they are 'good for hockey' or the experience is good for more than those favored players being 'showcased' and promoted for D-1 scholarships is incidental, overlooked, ignored.  A few fit the 'old fashioned' altruistic model.

I had my suspicions some 'stars' were 'on something' and immune to enforcement of any rules, i.e., 'prima donnas'. More than one junior forum has brought out enough testimony for many observers/parents to give credence to my suspicions. From what I've gathered some teams are practically 'church camps' while others are 'anything goes' as long as we win and 'draw a good gate'.

A major criterion for measuring the value of a coach, a franchise, a league is how many players get to play D-1 from the team, whether on scholarship or not. This in an era when US colleges have abandoned intellectual stimulation for politicization, the number of colleges and students has mushroomed, many are hampered by Title IX 'parity' requirements and the job market grows increasingly instable.  The major criterion should be how many alumni enjoy stable employment and fruitful lives. In 'my day' most hockey players were non-college and over the years in adult hockey I learned that many made more money at trades occupations than I did with a 'D-1' degree in the 'corporate world'.