BONUS – Download a Free Copy of this Blog in PDF Format HERE

Last night I had dinner with my wife’s siblings as my sister in law was in town for a conference.

During dinner, my sister in law shared with me that my 12-year-old nephew had quit Hockey.

WHAT?  My nephew quit a sport he once loved and when I asked her why her response was “he quit because a lot of teammates were not getting play when it was their turn as the coach was focusing on winning games”

He was playing peewee recreational team and was one of the stronger players because two years ago when he aspired to play rep (competitive level) they were advised by several parents that the only way he would make one of the rep teams (the association had 3 rep teams for peewee age group at the time) is if they signed a contract that was the only sport he was going to play.

Again, WHAT?

He opted to keep playing rec (house) so could continue to play soccer, ski, and other activities.

My head was spinning,

1. He was playing rec (house) and coaches are not permitted to run short benches.
2. He would have to sign a contract to play only hockey when he loved many other sports?

She further shared that parents they have talked to in the community have said their kids also quit hockey for the same reasons and the associations overall membership has dropped by a few hundred kids the last few years as a result.

This is a MINOR hockey association who have recreational coaches focusing on winning at all costs and not promoting multi-sport participation which are two of the major issues that is leading to kids quitting.

This just a couple of days after I shared an article on our social media pages called “Why ‘Shortening the Bench’ in competitive youth sports” can be a good thing written by Jamie Strashin for CBC Sports.

 

Soon after I posted, I received comments from parents in Canada and Australia who shared the same belief as I, that it was so short-sighted, although kids may win a game, perhaps get more games as a result, kids just want to play and in the instance of my nephew he quit because he did not think it fair for his teammates to sit on the bench when it was their turn to play.

Why did they sit?  Not because they were tired or were being disciplined, but an adult pulled them back to one their “more skilled” teammates out in their place.

I have been against short benches since I started coaching youth sports and still am, regardless if it is competitive or recreational levels.  The very fact that my nephew quit because his teammates were being deprived of ice time shows that he GETS IT even at 12 years old and I will applaud him for doing so when I see him next.

Ironically when I was up in Whitehorse running clinics this past season, I had one of the coaches come to me and expressed the very same concerns, her son was one of the top players on his atom “development” team and was getting much more ice time than his teammates, at times he was being told by coaches to stay out for 2-3-4 minutes at time.

Like the 10 year old player reference in the CBC article, her son was also 10, but in lieu of being held back for another player to take his turn, in his case stay out for shifts much longer than should have had.

Just two more examples of the adultification of youth sports.

Here is my take on running short benches;

#1 – Coaches choose the players for their teams, whether it be competitive or recreation

If you PICK THEM – you play them.

The coach that was quoted in the CBC article, whom is a non-parent coach, “I chose them to be on the team because I thought they were good enough.  If they aren’t in a position to succeed, it’s my fault”

I could not agree more, it the coaches responsibility to develop ALL players on the team and they focus on doing so early in the season, as the season evolves and all players improve, collectively the team improves and ‘Voila’ Winning is a byproduct not the focus.

#2 – I believe that coaches that run short benches either (a) don’t have the training needed to develop the skills of all players or (b) think that winning at all costs is more important than giving all players an opportunity to contribute in all situations

90% of kids would rather play on a losing team than sit on the bench for a winning team

#3 – All parents pay the same fees, so all players PLAY. There are already lawsuits in the USA coming forth from parents due to the thousands of dollars they are paying for their kids to play to be reimbursed for their prorated fees and have others pay more for their kids that PLAY more.

#4 – Having surveyed hundreds of kids on my teams over the years what is not fun about youth sports, one of the top 3 answers I have received is “when coaches play their favorites” especially when it comes to crunch time in close games where associations have implemented fair ice policies to permit coaches to use their discretion to win games. Again, kids just want to have their opportunities to contribute to the outcomes of the games just like all their other teammates.

‘YOU WIN OR LOSE AS A TEAM’

There are so many examples I can cite, not just from Hockey, but others sports now as we continue to partner with various sports groups but the one that comes to mind for me over and over was a player whom I invited to play with our 3 on 3 hockey teams who was a great kid with great parents.

In our last season when all the boys were aging out of minor hockey (17 years old), we opted to play both small ice and full ice 3 on 3 and in our first couple of games of each, he would go out for a few shifts and I noticed he was gasping for air.

In the second game I walked up to him and said T, you ok?

To which he said with a big smile on his face, yep, just need to get back into game shape.

I then asked … “but you played on the Midget A2 this year (where they would have had 2 practices, 2 games, a dryland per week) so don’t understand why not in game shape”?

He replied “because I quit with 10 games left in the season because I was only getting a handful of shifts per game.  The coaches was playing his favorites most of the games including power play, penalty kill, pissed me off as I just wanted to play so I quit”.

“My dad complained to the executive but they did not do anything, argued that it was rep hockey and only house had fair ice policies (where coaches are not permitted to run short benches).”

I shook my head in disbelief, just as I do every time I think of it.

#5 – In this particular article, 10-year-old players were the focus, which it he Atom age group, and regardless if they are playing recreationally or rep it is still a development age group

All kids, regardless of level, are to play and if a coach in BC had ran short bench in Atom he would have been suspended for doing so.

The main reason why coaches should not run short benches is the message you send to the kids, their parents …. Sorry kid, you are just not good enough be out there in key situations or give us a chance to score.

I believe this is one of the contributors why parents act up in the stands, if they come to game after game as I have and many other parents I know and watch their son or daughter sit on a bench when it is their turn to play knowing we all paid the same for them to do so, is no wonder why parents get emotional, angry as is evident daily in print, TV and social media.

Don’t get me started on the coaches that think they get a get out of jail free card for peewee and above, they should still be rolling all their lines all the way through minor hockey, when they are no longer playing to play, then they can earn their ice time (i.e. Major Junior and above)

The ONLY exception where you would tell kids to sit on the bench depriving them of playing time (or any minor sport for that reason) is if you have to discipline your players.

As the same coach in the article referenced, if they are not listening, screwing around may have to sit them a few shifts.

Other reasons, if they take a bad penalty or don’t get a penalty called on them for things like slashing, cross checking, knee on knees, head contact, hitting from behind, poor sportsmanship, using foul language, criticizing their team mates or not respecting their coaches, fellow or opposing players/coaches or officials including the scorekeeper/time keeper.

The very reason why short benches have become so common and we are turning a blind eye towards same is the shift in youth sports to win at all costs in lieu of just letting kids play kids for the love of the game.

Look at the past decade when teams go deep into the Stanley Cup Playoffs, when players or coaches are interviewed after games, including when they put the hardest trophy in sport to win above their head they say “all 4 lines contributed, we had a lot of confidence and we HAD FUN.

Hmmm .. aren’t these the best players in the WORLD?  Making Millions of Dollars a year even in the salary cap era?

Here is a great presentation from one of our For the Love of the Game Virtual Event guest speakers, VJ Stanley, that he did for a USA Hockey Level 4 coaches (equivalent to HP 1 level Coaches in Canada) and early in his presentation shares insight why coaches should PLAY all their kids in minor in hockey. About 7 minutes in to the presentation shows a vide when he talked to Ryan Callaha when he was captain of the New York Rangers.

 

Any coach can run short benches and play their “favorites” to win games.

GREAT coaches develop all their players and provide them the opportunity to contribute to the outcome of games and in doing so build their confidence and competence and winning becomes a byproduct as a result.