Parent
WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 308
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: more competitive?
by Shannon
2) Re: more competitive?
by Mary Wood
3) ??Harvard Business School team???
by email@hidden (Pam Kocher)
4) Re: more competitive?
by email@hidden (Kristen M. Ede)
5) Re: more competitive?
by "Software Constructor"
6) Re: more competitive?
by email@hidden (C. Esther Jesurum)
7) Important Admin: list address configurations changed!
by Chuq Von Rospach
8) Playing Time
by Lea and Robert Sanford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:39:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Shannon
To: JACQUELINE TA
Cc: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: more competitive?
Message-ID:
I play on a womens team that has no special lines. In fact, we don't
have Power-play or penalty kill lines. Lines rotate normally and if
there is a penalty kill, two of the next forward line go out and the
remaining person goes out with the next lines center, then the remaining
two of that line go out. If everyone takes short shifts, this works out
perfectly and by the time the pk is over the next full line goes out.
With regard to 'competitive'...if you are a college team, sure. It'sto
be expected. But if everyone pays, why should anyone sit? It's a
recreation league. So what if you win the State Championship. Its all
for fun. I am one of the best skaters on my team, and while I would LOVE
to have as much ice time as I can get, I don't think that its fair. I can
remember playing on a mens team when I first started and always having to
sit during PP and PKs. It doesn't do anything for team morale. Our
womens team has both experienced and novice players, but each person is
treated equally and everyone is so encouraging, that our team improved
greatly during the year. The only way our players get better is to be in
those kind of situations. And the positive energy really makes us play
over our heads.
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, JACQUELINE TA wrote:
> question of how "competitive" a team is. This seems to mean
> that a team that is more competitive would naturally weight
> the playing time much more heavily towards the better
> players. Do teams who play equal times tend to lose a lot
> more than? It seems to me that a team with depth in talent
> would do better in the long run, and that can only be
> achieved by playing everyone. Also, even if someone (like
> me) can't skate so well, we can be good passers and still
> help the team.
>
>
<> <> <> Shannon Pelot Valerio <> <> <>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mary Wood
To: JACQUELINE TA
Subject: Re: more competitive?
Message-ID:
Yes, in my experience teams that are more "competitive" and play to win
do tend to win more games. Not all teams have this "depth in talent"
that would allow for equal playing time in close games. If they did,
then of course there would be no need to resort to "power lines" because
all lines would be power lines.
It also depends
on who you are playing against. When playing against a much weaker team,
the lesser skilled players would of course get more than their usual
playing time since it would not be a case of trying to win a close game.
Skating is central to hockey, and no matter how good sombody can pass, if
they can't get to the puck or skate with the puck with any degree of
agility they aren't in near as good a position to help the team win a
close game than somebody who could. I understand your desire for more
playing time, but that can be achieved by working harder to improve your
skills so that you are no longer one of the "weaker skaters". Ice Hockey
is a team sport, and the team comes first before the individual.
Skill improvement is in direct proportion to the time and hard work that
an individual puts in. Compare it to a work situation, would you expect
somebody who had just entered a trade to receive the same salary as
somebody who has been working at it for 20 years? One receives more pay
as one increases her knowledge and skills. The same applies to ice
hockey -- one will get more opportunities to play as one improves her skill.
So keep working at it, and you'll see opportunities open up as you earn them!
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, JACQUELINE TA wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for the encouraging replies! I have been
> trying to push for more equal playing time (for both me and
> the even newer players), but have not always been able to
> get the desired results. I hope others out there keep trying
> too.
>
> One thing I noticed was that some people said that it was a
> question of how "competitive" a team is. This seems to mean
> that a team that is more competitive would naturally weight
> the playing time much more heavily towards the better
> players. Do teams who play equal times tend to lose a lot
> more than? It seems to me that a team with depth in talent
> would do better in the long run, and that can only be
> achieved by playing everyone. Also, even if someone (like
> me) can't skate so well, we can be good passers and still
> help the team.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:19:22 -0400
From: email@hidden (Pam Kocher)
To: email@hidden
Subject: ??Harvard Business School team???
Message-ID:
Does anyone have information on how to contact the Harvard Business
School's women's ice hockey team? I am pretty sure there is one but can't
get any info from the school itself. Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Pam Kocher
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:11:19 -0400
From: email@hidden (Kristen M. Ede)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: more competitive?
Message-ID:
I have to agree with Mary Wood's reply (Re: more competitive?) ...
Teams that have a more competitive philosophy tend to win more games. What
you have to decide is whether you want to be on a team that plays to win, or
plays to play. Usually there is a happy medium somewhere in between. To
eliminate problems and to make sure everyone is on the same 'wave length' in
this regard, at the beginning of our last season, our team took a vote on
this exact topic. It was unanimous that we wanted to play to win and
therefore will have PK and PP lines and in important games and situations
the best Players will get the most ice..
It certainly worked well for us..In relation to the previous year we were
much more competitive with this format and this made us a much more
dedicated and proud team. As well, our increased level of competitivness
enabled us to attract a few more 'top' Players to our team, which will not
only increase our 'depth in talent' but will in turn raise the level of play
and skills of all the Players on our team.
Perhaps, using your desire to see more ice time will channel itself into the
motivating force that will make you skate even harder and practice (on your
own) a little more often so that in time you may be able to reap the rewards
of your hardwork like some of the 'top' Players from your team have before
you... Personally, it had that effect on me..
Good Luck in the upcoming season!
Kristen
#10
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 14:51:39 -0500
From: "Software Constructor"
To:
Subject: Re: more competitive?
Message-ID: <199608email@hidden>
What about in a mixed league?
Would that change your approach?
Sometimes skill cannot overbalance brawn.
Reeves and John Sinnott
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 16:53:05 EDT
From: email@hidden (C. Esther Jesurum)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: more competitive?
Message-ID:
In my mixed league, we generally go for even ice time unless we're
down or tied in the last five minutes. Then we go for mostly men, I
guess, but more specifically, we just put our best goal scorer's out.
When Katia Pashkevitch subs for us as she sometimes does, then, well,
we'll put her out, too.
Esther
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:05:04 -0700
From: Chuq Von Rospach
To: email@hidden, email@hidden,
Subject: Important Admin: list address configurations changed!
Message-ID:
Folks:
Just want to warn you of a minor but important change to the way the
mailing lists are configured.
We have changed the default for replies so that they now point to the
*mailing list*. Previously, these replies pointed to the original
poster of a message to the list. PLEASE be careful that you don't
accidentally send something to the list while you get used to the
change -- if you assume something will be sent privately, you might
make an embarassing mistake.
There are three reasons we made this change:
1) Most mailing lists on the Internet are configured this way. People
tend to be used to this format, and many have their mail clients
configured to assume it. By being different, it creates small problems
for many people.
2) Some mail gateways (ccMail is the worst offender) *assume* this
configuration is the only configuration for mail lists, and they send
error messages to the wrong address. This is why you people
occasionally get streams of errors -- these sites are sending them to
the original poster instead of where they belong. Unfortunately, you
can't fight city hall -- this change will cause the errors to go where
they belong: me.
3) A few new users, not understanding how mail lists work or reading
the instructions, simply started replying to messages screaming to get
taken off the list, sometimes in very hostile ways. Those mails, of
course, ended up going to random users of the lists and not the list
itself (and definitely not the admin). This isn't fun for either party.
This new configuration will at least steer these newbies into the
general direction of Laurie and myself, so we can deal with the issue
before it blows completely out of proportion.
I've been mulling over this change for about six weeks, looking over
the situation and analyzing the plusses and minuses. In some ways, it's
a little less convenient for some users (and more inconvenient for List
Admins, since we can't reply privately as easy while doing List Mom
work), and there's the potential for a few bloopers while people get
used to the new configuration -- but the advantages of protecting end
users from the list daemons and flamers, as well as simply getting
better in step with other mail lists, make this worth doing, and I
think overall, this will create a cleaner list environment.
Also, as we move forward, I'll be migrating the lists from ListProc to
SmartList, so this change (from what I can tell) will be coming sooner
or later, so we might as well get used to it now. Getting those error
messages out of your hair is worth a little bit of rebuilding mail
habits.
If you have any comments or feedback on this, feel free to drop me a line.
Chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach Software Gnome and Internet Tweaker
Apple Solutions Marketing Webmaster
( +-+ )
Plaidworks Consulting
( +-+ )
If you can't get your work done in the first 24 hours, work nights.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:23:18 +0000
From: Lea and Robert Sanford
To: Hockey List
Subject: Playing Time
Message-ID:
I offer the following thoughts for less skilled players wanting more ice
time:
1. Since *recreational* means different things to different people (from
*we're really here so we can go drink beer later* to *we may have day
jobs, but hockey is our life*) look for leagues with the words
*developmental* or *novice* in the titles. These are usually house
leagues where the point is to give everyone equal ice time.
2. Look for leagues that state up front that they are *for fun*. Clues
to this include: a portion of the sign-up fee goes towards a beer fund,
and a requirement that the championship team throws an end-of-season
party. (be careful to check these out beforehand, because they can
sometimes be very competitive)
3. Look for *old timers* leagues. The over-35 men's league here in
Houston will let any woman play regardless of age. I have talked to
several *old* players and they tend towards the
equal-ice-for-equal-money philosophy.
4. If you don't have any other choices, play in the lowest skill level
league offered. Even in Houston, the men's league offers AA, A, and B.
Spend some time going to games and talking to team captians; ask players
how they feel about less skilled, or new players. Identify the teams
that offer equal ice time and arrange to play on them.
I would like to know if other cities offer adult novice leagues.
Houston has two good house novice leagues (mixed) for adults. Is that
normal, or is it because hockey is a new sport here?
--Lea
(currently teamless
in Houston)
------------------------------
End of WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY Digest 308
*********************************