My daughter plays ice hockey (12U) and is dual rostered on a girl's team and a coed team with the same organization. She has different coaches for each team and is on the "Lower A" coed team. Her girl's team coach also coaches the "Upper A" coed team, where a significant number of the kids are also dual rostered on the girl's team. Both coed teams were entered into a tournament and were placed in the same bracket. The organization decided to force the Lower team to forfeit their game against the Upper team during the tournament because they were concerned about the game potentially creating resentment or issues amongst members of the teams. I am strongly of the opinion that they should let the kids play and that it is the coach's responsibility to ensure their players are respectful and show good sportsmanship regardless of whether they are the winning or losing team. In addition, I have deep concerns that it is sending the wrong message to the kids on both teams - that the upper team either cannot handle a potential upset or that they cannot win respectfully, and conversely, that the lower team is not good enough and shouldn't even try to play against a supposedly more skilled team. Guidance in both discussing this with the organization AND how to message this decision to the kids would be greatly appreciated.

Response by Positive Coaching Alliance Trainer, Former Youth Hockey Administrator

Thank you for sharing your recent challenge with PCA.  “Messy situations” sometimes happen in youth sports, and your story appears to be an example where stakeholders had different opinions on dealing with the situation at hand.  The philosophies of Positive Coaching Alliance come together in a platform of communication with all the stakeholders having a role. The leaders of your organization should focus on building the culture of the program in every decision they make. It’s important for coaches to focus on striving to win AND building life lessons that youth sports offer to young people. Parents should leave the coaching to the coaches and support and sometimes clarify for the athletes, the more difficult life lessons that may come about. The athletes themselves should focus on their own athletic development, making teammates better and honoring the game. When all the stakeholders are on the same platform of communication, you (will) have the ideal “development zone” for a youth sports experience.

Having led a youth hockey association of 800 players (and 1500 parents), I know first-hand the “messy situations” that can happen. In the spirit of proactive and transparent communication, our association board of directors created a “Parent Guide '' that spelled out how teams would be divided, and sometimes “tiered” if there was more than one team at the same ability level. For us, “tiering” meant that most of the better second-year players would play together (higher level) and most of the younger first-year players would play together (lower level) – a common practice in youth sports. The 2-3 “best” younger players may be invited to play with the older kids at the higher level, but they were never obligated to play at the higher level. Through our Parent Guide – a document that was signed by parents during registration, we set an expectation that those tiered teams would play against each other in league play and possibly tournaments. I believe we avoided some “messy situations'' by communicating those expectations at registration. There were mostly close games (+/- 3 goals) between the tiered teams. Parents did not complain about game results because we set an expectation early in the season. Coaches taught the life lessons learned in those games, even in the rare blowout, and the players showed up to the rink the next day ready to play again. The culture that we created also set an expectation that all stakeholders would “honor the game” regardless of the scoreboard outcome. There was no resentment that I was aware of, except the normal, short-term, disappointment of losing, or glee of winning one game.

Taking our experience into consideration, messy situations can still come about. Our process of making decisions once teams were formed was by a committee of our hockey-knowledgeable coaches which was formed in the preseason. Our “hockey committee” would have taken up such situations for resolution. Ultimately, it was the committee’s decision to make, and the other stakeholders would honor their decision, however difficult it may be.  In your case, coaches have a role to teach the life lesson of the decisions made, and parents have a role to help their children understand those lessons. Some of the brilliant lessons that youth sports teach kids are coping skills and learning resilience through those things that they cannot control. While I am a believer, too, of the idea to “let the kids play,” I also understand extenuating circumstances may be at play. For example, at 12U, body checking is allowed on youth teams. If I am a coach of a 12U team and I have not had time to teach how to give and receive a body check, I may be reluctant to play an overmatched opponent. I am also respectful of those who make hard decisions and may also have knowledge of other contributing factors and dynamics that I am not privy to which may also be private information regarding a player(s).

It is worth noting that our hockey association frowned upon our kids playing on more than one team. In fact, USA Hockey prevented kids from playing on two teams, at the same time, through their registration process. I understand that there may be exemptions to this rule in certain places in the USA. I am in favor of that exemption if it allows girls to play on girl-only teams within the context of USA Hockey’s Model for Long-term Athletic Development that offers guidance for the frequency of practice/play for each age group. I’m excited for your daughter to have both the youth hockey experience, and the girls hockey experience to complement each other.