Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HockeyCoachHere t1_j1zom4i wrote

Reply to comment by IIIllllIIlllIIlllIIl in The next youth sports arms race by eddytony96

North Americans have largely decided its both dangerous and not egalitarian enough to have an open park with random kids playing with random teenagers and occasionally adults.

I think the outdoor hockey rinks at parks in Toronto are a GREAT microcosm of that.

They were traditional just a hang out for the community in the winter at the local park, but have shifted over the last 10 years to have every small slice of age groups and genders get their own little patch of the calendar and then forbid everyone else until their time. It’s become a “parent driven” activity, primarily because a handful of girls/women complained about the male dominated space and a handful of parents complained on behalf of their younger kids about a “teen dominated” space with some unfamiliar adults around.

So now, instead of a park, it’s a “facility” with strict rules and a strict schedule. Girls under 16 at 2pm, kids 6-10 from 3-4women 18+ at 4-5, kids 11-13 from 5-6 teens 13-16 from 6-8. Adults or 16+ 8-10.

That’s basically how Toronto rinks are now. Even 10 years ago it was “just a park”. The rules were “it’s Canada, don’t be a dick”. Kids played with adults and teens, everyone tries to make sure the young ones got to participate. Some people are dicks, but they got told off by others at the rink and often left.

Now they have to put up 3 signs to fit all the rules and the schedules change weekly.

It means there is no spontaneous play. You have to plan a day ahead to be there during your allotted time and your community rink may not be the best rink to go to, so you may have to drive.

It’s symbolic of the change in all sports, but rinks are EXTREMELY finite so they distill it into an easily measurable slice of culture.

18

IIIllllIIlllIIlllIIl t1_j1zuoqz wrote

I've read similar accounts to yours about hockey. The book mentioned described very similar accounts in youth soccer.

When I was young the fields were fairly badly managed. But to their credit none of them were cordoned off with fences. You could walk/drive up, walk onto the field, and play. In the new local park there's fences blocking you and they're only open on certain days to whoever's scheduled it. Much worse is that the league that allows you to play will close the fields at the slightest drop of rain.

In the book, one coach lamented the pristine fields that were never accessible and remarked: "Are we growing kids or growing grass!?".

It's bad. And it's driven by ignorant parents with no knowledge about the game or youth development in general but have more money than sense. There's an excess of people willing to spend whatever it takes. I take a dystopian view of the whole thing and believe that eventually we will spend our way through to the other end. Meaning, I think that we'll still probably see World Cup results despite our insistence on reducing the sports to small groups of relatively rich parents.

But as a coach I always say: there's no substitute for actually playing the game. Not driving long distances, not doing drills, not spending more money. Playing the game.

2

HockeyCoachHere t1_j20dkc2 wrote

I'm actually going to flip the script a little and argue that the INTENTION isn't to drive out community sport.

The outdoor rink example (over-scheduling) was driven by:

  • Over worry about injury
  • Over worry about children interacting with older people (teens/adults)
  • Complaints by a vocal minority of players (for example, there are dedicated women/girls times because some people complained about feeling uncomfortable in a male-dominated space)
  • Complaints by a vocal minority of parents (a handful of parent complaints about their sense that their young kid was subjected to a small amount of discomfort from being on the rink with older teens or whatever).

None of this is driven by "my kid should be a star player", but more the opposite. The "hard core" families were probably pushing for less scheduling so they can show up at the rink whenever.

But on another topic...

Hockey is also similar in its cost. The cost of ice time for youth hockey has doubled in 12 years. That drives the sport into a place that it's not accessible for many families.

But the reason for that isn't hyper-competitiveness. It's actually reasonable sounding demands.

The handful of parents who are in the "my son will play pro hockey" aren't driving the cost. They're PAYING the cost, but they're not driving it.

Here's a thing I post sometimes about how hockey rinks used to be:

The local rink (back when it was cheap and therefore accessible to everyone in the 70s) was:

  • run by some local guy, who was paid shit, not given any sick time and did it mostly as a passion
  • limited staffing- The rink guy would take a break and leave it unsupervised ; local coaches were given full run of the place, had keys to the building, could run the ice refinisher if nobody was around to help, etc.
  • were mostly unsupervised facilities - no safety monitor, no facilities monitor, limited janitorial, etc
  • were operated on a shoestring budget without a ton of concern for environmental issues (often ammonia leaks, frequently with cheap diesel generators)
  • were not terribly safe. Old slippery stairs, old dank locker rooms, little supervision for participants (except coaches and team officials). I'm thinking of specific rinks in Toronto here built in the 1950s and 1960s... but I've seen hallways outside of the locker rooms had beams every 10 feet at about 6' off the ground to hit your head on, the exit to the ice going straight into a staircase (always covered in ice), player benches with a drop off directly behind them, narrow locker rooms, shower stalls just in the corner of the locker room with no barriers or otherwise, urinals directly in locker rooms with no door or separate space, etc.
  • were not accessible at all. Stairways everywhere, obstructed hallways, no ramps, no elevators, no expanded shower stalls, no handrails, etc

Here's a list of things that I think drove the cost of indoor rinks to double in 15 years:

  • Hiring more people to make rinks highly supervised for safety and property protection
  • Paying rink staff professional wages with sick time, overtime, etc, while offering breaks without disrupting supervision (requires 3-5x the staff at 6-8x the budget).
  • Significantly reducing the amount of access coaches have to facilities, players, etc (goes along with increased supervision/staffing) done mostly for safety and compliance and having multiple layers of supervision to prevent coach abuse.
  • Making rinks more environmentally friendly - efficient chillers, careful inspection for leaks, regular review of energy usage, efficient air conditioning and heating in facilities, etc.
  • Making rinks more safe in general (no more leaky roofs, slippery staircases, temporary patches, etc)
  • Making rinks more accessible (all 75 indoor Toronto rinks had a $1m+ renovation to make them accessible - ramps, big showers, viewing platforms for wheelchairs, elevators, etc)
  • Making new facilities significantly nicer. Heated viewing areas, large locker rooms, ample atriums, nice fixtures, clean hallways, etc.
  • Decreased reliance on volunteers, coaches, etc. No more giving the figure skating coach the key to open up at 5am and the bantam hockey coach instructions to "run the zam and lock up after you leave". Instead, you have full-time professional staff that show up at 4:30am and leave after midnight (needing multiple shifts, etc).

Notice that none of the things that drove the complaints I have about hockey are even related to the "alpha parents" who try to push their kids into pro hockey.

Each of these sounds reasonable on its face. All of them are desirable.

But the sum total is doubling the cost of the sport and making it less accessible.

People are VERY loathe to discuss this. They want it all AND they want it cheap. When a local arena upped their ice cost by $100/hr everyone was upset.

When I pointed out that the only reason they did that is to pay for the $1m renovation whos primary goal was wheelchair accessibility (for a building that hosts ZERO sledge or other disabled hockey events) and if they didn't want that cost hike, they could consider maybe only upgrading specific arenas where sledge hockey is prioritized, rather than every single one, people were pretty upset with me for being "heartless" and "ableist". But there are legitimate tradeoffs here that people seem to have trouble discussing.

I feel like this is all driven by a "zero tolerance" of bad things, without weighing all the good things you accidentally get rid of when trying to chase away every single negative outcome.

6

IIIllllIIlllIIlllIIl t1_j20gxvn wrote

I feel this to the core. My personal solution was to try and find a way to start an organization that would allow kids to play without all of these inverse effects that happen but I kept coming to an issue with liability. Any organization I could run would need insurance and the venue would have to be sanitized of any possible risks to the point where I was beginning to doubt it was even possible.

The current culture doesn't seem to have room for what I was envisioning. I've lately held an intense interest in some sports that seem to have popped up out of nowhere. Pickleball is never going to be a massive professional sport, but when it comes to adoption it has taken our city by storm. All of the tennis courts which were completely empty are now pickleball courts. My hypothesis is that the closer a game looks to the real thing, the pro version, the less likely that the organized youth version of it will be adaptable to children.

The more it looks like a silly "game" (pickleball is similar to wiffleball in that the ball is a plastic silly thing) the more fun it will likely be for kids just picking it up in the local neighborhood. When the game mirrors a professional sport like hockey (on real nice looking professional rinks, and baseball with pro jerseys and pristine fields, and soccer on fields that would make the second leagues in England blush) it begins to take on these high stakes qualities that lowers the accessibility.

2

WarpTroll t1_j21ukvq wrote

I agree fully and think this is very true of a large number of other areas in life now as well. Cars, housing/rentals, education. So many things are cobbled together so everyone has access now we have to pay so it is safe, complete and everyone can have access.

1