Mega, A, B, Small B, C and house

[goldy313]

Adding new Mega A level associations with their own state tournament isn't necessary. The next thing you know we'll have dozens of state tournaments at every level: Mega A, A, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, C4 and so on. Just give them all a trophy at registration and start the summer hockey season.

I agree, this whole state tournamnet thing has a lot to do with what's wrong with youth hockey today. You have associations sandbagging to win a state tournament instead of developing as many kids as possible. Rochester has 3 public high schools and fielded 1 Bantam A team last season and stacked a Bantam B team, why? To win a Bantam championship. MN Hockey has a hands off policy towards local associations for some very valid reasons but I think they need to have some clear guidelines on at what level and how many teams at that level associations can field given their number of players.

California has over 1200 high schools playing football, they have a grand total of 3 classes, Minnesota has about 370 and has 6 classes. Not everyone has to be a state champion, we have plenty of in season tournaments for that. It's probably a lot more indicitive of how good you are being the best of 400 vs. being the best of 60. Amazingly even though your chances of winning in California are far less than they are here kids still play.

MN Hockey, in my mind, should be about exposing as many kids to hockey as possible and then let the chips fall as they may. You can't listen to the few over the needs of the many. Those who want to leave or want greener pastures can and should go, by and large they're what's killing hockey - the push for more, more, more isolates and worse, alienates the very people needed to keep hockey viable. When you need a family income of $100,000+ just to play in many places hockey will die. Hockey is struggling in our 2 biggest cities and not very strong in many others.

The answers probably aren't on a hockey 'bored", they're in a 3rd grade class in Austin, a 7th grade class in Bemidji, a PTA meeting in Delano, or a neighborhood street in St. Paul. The needed answers are in response to why did you quit playing hockey or why didn't you play hockey, not what would make hockey better for you.

[council member retired]

where is statsman101..... ?

he must come in and make a complete fool of himself and save our northwestern river friend. oh i forgot he declared his final post to the board 10 posts ago.

[elliott70]

I want to thank everyone for their posts. It is exactly what I was looking for; ideas, feelings, opinions.

Please keep adding.

[frederick61]

I want to thank everyone for their posts. It is exactly what I was looking for; ideas, feelings, opinions.

Please keep adding.

Many players do not develop because there is a lack of opportunity. This is not just a rural problem, but a city problem. To enrich the quality of competition, shouldn't something be done to reach these kids to keep them in hockey.

So Instead of creating a AAA level based the best players in strong districts, why not create an AAA only for the districts who need it. A district that is strong and growing and has off-season opportunities for its players does not need it. A district whose numbers are dropping or has limited opportunity for summer development would get a sponsored AAA team.

Then have Minnesota Hockey underwrite that team so that they will have a valid development and game schedule. They would play during the off season as a AAA team and the players would return to their associations for regular season.

The objective would be to establish an organization, under USA hockey rules, within district for those districts that met a TBD criteria. The organization could float among that districts associations year to year. The organization would have to have a minimum of three teams with requirements to draw from all association teams. But the organization basic rule that they must draw more players from the associations that need the boost the most.

[MoreCowBell]

There is so many AAA options in the summer now, why would you create another? It already is so watered down it really isn't AAA anymore.

[northwoods oldtimer]

Elliot do not mess with it, leave it be. MAHA has served Minnesota Hockey quite well for many years. The mega associations are simpy recruiting a better % of great atheletes to the great sport of ice hockey (Edina as example). Folks up north in some communities are not getting the best athletes out on the ice (cost?)....this is where the focus lies on the local program promoting the game and doing what Ike did at Edina. Put the best athletes in skates not tennis shoes. Think outside the box to make the game affordable....herd mentality does not cut it. Dare to make a change and watch some pilot program grow. Innovation not micro management will solve the riddle.

[Gump]

Elliot do not mess with it, leave it be. MAHA has served Minnesota Hockey quite well for many years. The mega associations are simpy recruiting a better % of great atheletes to the great sport of ice hockey (Edina as example). Folks up north in some communities are not getting the best athletes out on the ice (cost?)....this is where the focus lies on the local program promoting the game and doing what Ike did at Edina. Put the best athletes in skates not tennis shoes. Think outside the box to make the game affordable....herd mentality does not cut it. Dare to make a change and watch some pilot program grow. Innovation not micro management will solve the riddle.

Oldtimer -
You make no sense!
First, saying that "MAHA has served MN Hockey quite well for many years" is certainly up for debate. I would say that hockey in MN flourishes in spite of MN Hockey and it's micro management attitude.

You say to "leave it alone" and then later say "dare to make a change", try some pilot programs, innovate. Which is it???

Please clarify. Provide some ideas. How would you suggest addressing the issue presented before us?

[HockeyDadMN]

It appears to me that the primary issue is not classifications, but size.

The smaller associations can't compete with the mega associations and the mega associations don't allow a large enough number of players to compete at a competitive level.

I like the one A team per 75 players at each level idea, but why not make it 50-60. For every 50-60 players at any level an association has an A, B and C team. They can then choose if they want to add additional B or C teams, until the reach the next increment of 50-60. Associations that have less than 40 players at any level could choose to have A and B or C teams until they reached 60 players.

This would dilute the mega associations and create a competitive environment for the smaller associations.

If associations want to compete at the AAA or AA level, let them sponsor off-season teams to compete in the current private off-season tournaments. If you wanted to combine smaller associations into off-season teams, set threshold of 100-120 players, so any two or three associations could form a team per 100-120 players at that level. The mega associations could have multiple off-season teams if they had a multiple of the maximum number of players.

[TitanCoach]

Some people need to understand that a tier 1 option isn't the same as summer AAA hockey. Tier 1 (also called AAA) is an extremely competitive option enjoyed throughout North America - except in Minnesota. There are state tournaments, regional tournaments, a national title, and many international tournaments. The tier 1 classification means that there are no geographic boundries for players, unlike our tier 2 association hockey. That's really the key difference, boundries. BTW, Tier 1 and tier 2 teams can scrimmage each other and play in tournaments against each other - except in those Minnesota districts and associations with small minded leaders.

Summer AAA has turned into a marketing tool by people looking to cash in on some hockey parent's dreams. Every year more and more teams pop up and the summer AAA label doesn't seem to have a lot of meaning anymore. Some teams have tryouts and some teams are hand picked. Either way, skill isn't alway a factor in who makes a particular team. Several teams are very skilled and mainly A level players (Blades), and many other teams are filled with B level players. Teams are free to do whatever they want.

Just because you participate on a showcase AAA team doesn't mean that you know anything about tier 1 AAA hockey. They are completely different.

So, making a rule for associations to have multiple A teams based on numbers goes a long way toward solving the MEGA association question. Adding tier 1 as an option further helps solve the MEGA association question. Both will give many more players new opportunities. Someone said to do a pilot program and see what happens? Well here is your pilot program.

[HockeyDadMN]

TitanCoach wrote; "Some people need to understand that a tier 1 option isn't the same as summer AAA hockey. Tier 1 (also called AAA) is an extremely competitive option enjoyed throughout North America - except in Minnesota. There are state tournaments, regional tournaments, a national title, and many international tournaments."

I was referring to MN AAA summer hockey, where some elite MN teams do well against other elite AAA summer teams from the rest of the world. Blades, Machine, etc.

I am familiar with Tier 1 hockey, like the MWEHL and know several parents whose kids play for MWEHL teams. I also know parents who's kids play for Tier 1 teams in California, Colorado, Texas and other western states. They complain a lot about travel. As far as the rest of the country, I've heard that the Tier 1 teams aren't always elite and there doesn't seem to be many rules in some leagues.

The one common thread in conversations with Tier 1 parents is that they wish there was as much hockey played in their region as there is in MN. Many are envious of Minnesotans, because we have so many kids playing hockey and that we pay 1/10th to 1/50th of what they do for hockey. I was shocked to hear how much some are paying for their kids to play hockey. I truly thought I paid a lot for summer training and hockey teams, because I spend more than most MN parents, but I had Tier 1 parents tell me that having their kid play at Shattuck would save them money.

I think MN should field a few Tier 1 winter teams to play outside MN, but I'm not sure how many parents will want to pay for the travel.

[sorno82]

I would base the next proposal on restoring competiveness at all levels. Kids should practice with kids of similar abilities (which most do), and play against kids of similar abilities.

Some organizations get it and don't field an "A" team since that is where they are. At the "B" level, there is a huge range in abilities.

There are plenty of levels out there, but some (most) associations do not allocate their teams correctly. If Association X does not have the numbers to field a competitive team at that level, then they shouldn't. If an association has enough kids to field 5 competitive teams at that level, then they should.

If you lose the 10-15 future NHL draft picks each year to Tier 1, so be it. It might be what is best for that kid.

People just need to step back and do what is best for the kids. They want to have fun, and losing or winning by 7+ goals isn't fun for anyone.

Some parents are insane and you will never please them. If they think Johnny is the next Eric Johnson, they will live in an igloo in saskatoon if they think that will make the kid a star.

[edge]

Not sure what thread this would fall under.
elliott,
It is great that you use this forum as a way to get feedback. I'm not sure what the real issues are, but I don't think either way is the right one.
Don't you think this all started when Minnesota decided to stay with the June 30th cut off?
I remember when minnesota and north Dakota would send a team to the national tournaments, they where assoc. teams. I don't think we would have to go all AAA or nothing, or have some cities go AAA and some not that would be a hugh step backwards.
Couldn't Minnesota look at just going with the USA hockey Birth years and just deal with a jr gold level for all the additional 9th graders.
This way all teams across the nation would at least have the same age kids and then would have the different levels from there.

[greybeard58]

The last year Mn Hockey and USA Hockey were the same birth years was the 2001-02 season. When the change was made there were some numbers put together by Mn Hockey showing the way the change would affect the Minnesota players. These numbers included the Jan birth date, the July birth date and the Sept. birth date.It is not just the bantams that are affected, it is all levels having some players playing only one year at the level. This year the USA Dates are :
Bantam 1,1,1993-- Mn Hockey 7,1,1992
Peewee 1,1,1995-- Mn Hockey 7,1,1994
Squirt 1,1,1997--- Mn Hockey 7,1,1996

[Wally Schafer]

hello Greybeard

Is the data gathered by Mn Hockey available? I would like to see their study.

Thank you

[greybeard58]

Not sure if it still available. I just remember being at a District meeting and there were presentations on how the numbers were if the different dates were used.
If you remember Mn switched to a Sept 1 birth date for a few years then USA Hockey went to the July 1 birth date, and then a push to the Jan 1 date again. BTW Mn did switch from the Sept to July with USA Hockey. That was over 6 years ago.

[tomASS]

I would base the next proposal on restoring competiveness at all levels. Kids should practice with kids of similar abilities (which most do), and play against kids of similar abilities.

Some organizations get it and don't field an "A" team since that is where they are. At the "B" level, there is a huge range in abilities.

There are plenty of levels out there, but some (most) associations do not allocate their teams correctly. If Association X does not have the numbers to field a competitive team at that level, then they shouldn't. If an association has enough kids to field 5 competitive teams at that level, then they should.

If you lose the 10-15 future NHL draft picks each year to Tier 1, so be it. It might be what is best for that kid.

People just need to step back and do what is best for the kids. They want to have fun, and losing or winning by 7+ goals isn't fun for anyone.

Some parents are insane and you will never please them. If they think Johnny is the next Eric Johnson, they will live in an igloo in saskatoon if they think that will make the kid a star.

[Cowboy]

My kids are in a smaller association and I agree that the problem is in getting teams placed at the proper level. We usually have 2 teams per level and sometimes 3. The varsity coaches, who are all on the board, are pushing A levels very hard regardless of how a team may fare. This creates a lot of friction among board members and between the board and parents. Every year a lot of energy and time is spent trying to decide what levels we should play; one year we go A and win 2-3 games, the next year we go B and win 60-70% of our games which is proof to some that we should field A teams and it goes back and forth. There are several teams in our district in the same situation. (Our district, D10, includes many Mega size associations as well as several associations our size and smaller.)

If a new Mega A level were created, our varsity coaches would push to have us play up at that level as they want our kids to play as tough of schedule as possible, and it wouldn't solve problems for us or other associations in similar situations.

Something that would help us is the elimination of the rule that teams cannot play or scrimmage teams at other levels. Then for example we could play at the B1 level but still set up some games, scrimmages, or tournaments at the A level so our kids can both experience some success but also be challenged by playing higher level competition.

Also it would be nice if the state or district started taking a hands on approach to what level teams played. As a previous poster mentioned, there could be a formula of sorts used to determine where each association should place teams. For example the bottom 10% of teams at the A level are forced down to the B1 level; then the top 10% of B1 teams are forced up to the A level. Any movement would be subject to an appeal in case an association has an extremely talented group at a certain age and the talent really drops off after that for instance. Also if association 'X' already has an A team that finishes in the middle of the pack at that level but also has a B1 team that finishes at the top of the B1 level, next year they would have to field two A teams.

It may be a mess for the first couple years but after that things should fall into place.

[hockeyparent11]

Adding several independent, non-profit Tier 1 clubs will provide a host of benefits:

1. It will level out the competition. The biggest associstions will lose 3-5 players per level while the smaller associations might lose one. The smaller groups might already be losing this player (see Fire rosters). This flows through to B and C teams as kids move up to fill these roster spots.

2. More kids will get to play A and B hockey without skating 12 months per year.

3. It will provide a higher level for those families who want to commit more time and money to hockey.

4. Keeping them non-profit is consistent with Minnesota Hockey Philosophy and keeps the cost down.

5. Making them independent removes the politics. If a player is not picked for one team they can play for another. If nobody picks him, either he is not good enough or the "political problem" is probably in the mirror.

6. If six teams were authorized in Minnesota (maybe two north, one west, one south and two metro) you could put together a great season without the killer travel schedule of the Colorados and Californias.

[skillbuilder]

My kids are in a smaller association and I agree that the problem is in getting teams placed at the proper level. We usually have 2 teams per level and sometimes 3. The varsity coaches, who are all on the board, are pushing A levels very hard regardless of how a team may fare. This creates a lot of friction among board members and between the board and parents. Every year a lot of energy and time is spent trying to decide what levels we should play; one year we go A and win 2-3 games, the next year we go B and win 60-70% of our games which is proof to some that we should field A teams and it goes back and forth. There are several teams in our district in the same situation. (Our district, D10, includes many Mega size associations as well as several associations our size and smaller.)

If a new Mega A level were created, our varsity coaches would push to have us play up at that level as they want our kids to play as tough of schedule as possible, and it wouldn't solve problems for us or other associations in similar situations.

Something that would help us is the elimination of the rule that teams cannot play or scrimmage teams at other levels. Then for example we could play at the B1 level but still set up some games, scrimmages, or tournaments at the A level so our kids can both experience some success but also be challenged by playing higher level competition.

Also it would be nice if the state or district started taking a hands on approach to what level teams played. As a previous poster mentioned, there could be a formula of sorts used to determine where each association should place teams. For example the bottom 10% of teams at the A level are forced down to the B1 level; then the top 10% of B1 teams are forced up to the A level. Any movement would be subject to an appeal in case an association has an extremely talented group at a certain age and the talent really drops off after that for instance. Also if association 'X' already has an A team that finishes in the middle of the pack at that level but also has a B1 team that finishes at the top of the B1 level, next year they would have to field two A teams.

It may be a mess for the first couple years but after that things should fall into place.

A Mega level or multi levels would need to come with size and or previous history guidelines as to being allowed to field a team. If a mathmatical formula (with MN hockey or District level exceptions) could be agreed upon it would even the playing field and give kids and teams the chance to play against similarly skilled opponents and with similarly skilled teammates. It has to be about this idea in order to achieve maximum development and maximum fun for all players. You can not give associations choices as ego's, private agenda's, or a lack of knowledge creates the inequities that are the main problem. If clubs would have shown thier abilities to self manage this issue over the years rules would not be needed. Unfortunately they did not achieve this and likely won't on thier own going forward.

[MoreCowBell]

My kids are in a smaller association and I agree that the problem is in getting teams placed at the proper level. We usually have 2 teams per level and sometimes 3. The varsity coaches, who are all on the board, are pushing A levels very hard regardless of how a team may fare. This creates a lot of friction among board members and between the board and parents. Every year a lot of energy and time is spent trying to decide what levels we should play; one year we go A and win 2-3 games, the next year we go B and win 60-70% of our games which is proof to some that we should field A teams and it goes back and forth. There are several teams in our district in the same situation. (Our district, D10, includes many Mega size associations as well as several associations our size and smaller.)

If a new Mega A level were created, our varsity coaches would push to have us play up at that level as they want our kids to play as tough of schedule as possible, and it wouldn't solve problems for us or other associations in similar situations.

Something that would help us is the elimination of the rule that teams cannot play or scrimmage teams at other levels. Then for example we could play at the B1 level but still set up some games, scrimmages, or tournaments at the A level so our kids can both experience some success but also be challenged by playing higher level competition.

Also it would be nice if the state or district started taking a hands on approach to what level teams played. As a previous poster mentioned, there could be a formula of sorts used to determine where each association should place teams. For example the bottom 10% of teams at the A level are forced down to the B1 level; then the top 10% of B1 teams are forced up to the A level. Any movement would be subject to an appeal in case an association has an extremely talented group at a certain age and the talent really drops off after that for instance. Also if association 'X' already has an A team that finishes in the middle of the pack at that level but also has a B1 team that finishes at the top of the B1 level, next year they would have to field two A teams.

It may be a mess for the first couple years but after that things should fall into place.

A Mega level or multi levels would need to come with size and or previous history guidelines as to being allowed to field a team. If a mathmatical formula (with MN hockey or District level exceptions) could be agreed upon it would even the playing field and give kids and teams the chance to play against similarly skilled opponents and with similarly skilled teammates. It has to be about this idea in order to achieve maximum development and maximum fun for all players. You can not give associations choices as ego's, private agenda's, or a lack of knowledge creates the inequities that are the main problem. If clubs would have shown thier abilities to self manage this issue over the years rules would not be needed. Unfortunately they did not achieve this and likely won't on thier own going forward.

3-4 teams in the metro and thats it, so.MN and NW MN has to much distance between cities. Duluth and the east end of the range could possible make it work, but cost would be a hindrance. It's unfortunate that the whole state couldn't partake in this but you have to be realistic. And if outstate isn't included that shouldn't be a factor in making the decision in whether to do this or not. i'm sure kids in Sasakawan don't get the same opportunities as kids around Toronto get.

[wannagototherink]

First, Mark I would like to thank you for taking the time to ask the people you serve their opinions on this and all the matters you open up discussions on. It is refreshing to see someone who cares. While I'm not in your district (8 for me) It is still nice of you to listen and take in idea's. So Thank you!

Get away from aligning with the high school league. They are not concerned with developing players for the next level. They are there to provide an opportunity for extra-cirricular activities for students. (which by the way is just fine, since HS should be about learning anyway) And since they refuse to lengthen the season and period lengths Minnesota Hockey must abandon this line of thinking. This is a serious question, does Minnesota Hockey see a penny from the MSHSL from their tournament in March? I would assume no, but I don't know for sure.

Split the teams into 16 districts. Association teams moreless work how they work now. Go to a birth year age split, but do it so there are two years at each level, for example Peewee's would be 94/95's, Bantam's would be 93/92's. When you are a second year peewee or bantam you have the ability to tryout for the district team. House the district teams somewhere in the district, in rural Minnesota you might have to send your son to live with a teammate if you live 80 miles from the town where the team is housed. But I doubt anyone in Canada will feel bad for you, and if you aren't down with it, than stay with your association a play there. But there would have to be some sacrificing.

Tryouts for the team happen in August. They spend the month of September practicing and if need be, getting used to their new school or surroundings. Game schedule, starting Oct. 1st, each district team would play everyone twice for seeding, which would give them each 30 games. They could pick up an additional 20 - 30 games on their own by playing
by playing in tournaments or playing pickup games with other Tier 1 teams. At Christmas time, there is a two week break which the top players from the 16 district teams are picked to compete in an international tournament somewhere abroad. Following the break, the teams play through the end of the year. Based on there games against one another they play in a "state tournament" (everyone should love this, all the district teams go to the state tournament) With the winner moving on. **You could also do this at the U16 and U18 level and run it as a before and after with the high school kids, would take the money out the private owners of the two Elite Leagues, (again, I'm making an assumption that is where the money goes, I don't know for sure) and put minnesota hockey in charge of it.

For those who are first year players at each level, the district teams give them incentive to work hard that first year before getting to high school. It will keep the associations alive, make all teams more equal because you are removing the older "superstars" from the equation which I think levels the playing field. Because I don't care if you have 30 or 300 kids trying out, 60% of them are pretty interchangable between b's first line or a's third line.

As far as the squirts, they aren't playing for state tournaments are they? And shame on Edina if they had 200 squirts and only one Squirt A teams. That is selfish and greedy and shame on them for doing that. I guess it is me being naive, but nothing will work if people don't know the difference between right and wrong, and they or anyone else that does that is wrong. But I would have to imagine at some point those kind of decisions will hurt their program down the road like when these kids get to high school.

At the very least consideration of USA birth year policy should be adopted on some level. Our kids need to see what it is like to play like aged kids from around the company, especially our top kids.

Just ask the kids who went to Detroit last with Team Minnesota. My kids said it was night and day and it looked even worse from the stands. .

[wannagototherink]

First, Mark I would like to thank you for taking the time to ask the people you serve their opinions on this and all the matters you open up discussions on. It is refreshing to see someone who cares. While I'm not in your district (8 for me) It is still nice of you to listen and take in idea's. So Thank you!

Get away from aligning with the high school league. They are not concerned with developing players for the next level. They are there to provide an opportunity for extra-cirricular activities for students. (which by the way is just fine, since HS should be about learning anyway) And since they refuse to lengthen the season and period lengths Minnesota Hockey must abandon this line of thinking. This is a serious question, does Minnesota Hockey see a penny from the MSHSL from their tournament in March? I would assume no, but I don't know for sure.

Split the teams into 16 districts. Association teams moreless work how they work now. Go to a birth year age split, but do it so there are two years at each level, for example Peewee's would be 94/95's, Bantam's would be 93/92's. When you are a second year peewee or bantam you have the ability to tryout for the district team. House the district teams somewhere in the district, in rural Minnesota you might have to send your son to live with a teammate if you live 80 miles from the town where the team is housed. But I doubt anyone in Canada will feel bad for you, and if you aren't down with it, than stay with your association a play there. But there would have to be some sacrificing.

Tryouts for the team happen in August. They spend the month of September practicing and if need be, getting used to their new school or surroundings. Game schedule, starting Oct. 1st, each district team would play everyone twice for seeding, which would give them each 30 games. They could pick up an additional 20 - 30 games on their own by playing
by playing in tournaments or playing pickup games with other Tier 1 teams. At Christmas time, there is a two week break which the top players from the 16 district teams are picked to compete in an international tournament somewhere abroad. Following the break, the teams play through the end of the year. Based on there games against one another they play in a "state tournament" (everyone should love this, all the district teams go to the state tournament) With the winner moving on. **You could also do this at the U16 and U18 level and run it as a before and after with the high school kids, would take the money out the private owners of the two Elite Leagues, (again, I'm making an assumption that is where the money goes, I don't know for sure) and put minnesota hockey in charge of it.

For those who are first year players at each level, the district teams give them incentive to work hard that first year before getting to high school. It will keep the associations alive, make all teams more equal because you are removing the older "superstars" from the equation which I think levels the playing field. Because I don't care if you have 30 or 300 kids trying out, 60% of them are pretty interchangable between b's first line or a's third line.

As far as the squirts, they aren't playing for state tournaments are they? And shame on Edina if they had 200 squirts and only one Squirt A teams. That is selfish and greedy and shame on them for doing that. I guess it is me being naive, but nothing will work if people don't know the difference between right and wrong, and they or anyone else that does that is wrong. But I would have to imagine at some point those kind of decisions will hurt their program down the road like when these kids get to high school.

At the very least consideration of USA birth year policy should be adopted on some level. Our kids need to see what it is like to play like aged kids from around the company, especially our top kids.

Just ask the kids who went to Detroit last with Team Minnesota. My kids said it was night and day and it looked even worse from the stands. .

Oh yeah, and parents would be required to pay to be on the district team, however, it would be subsidized by Minnesota Hockey finding a corporate sponsorship.

[Cowboy]

Personally I would like to see the age classification kept as is. For most kids in Minnesota the pinnacle of their hockey career is going to be playing for their high school team. Therefore keeping kids at the same level as their classmates so they can move up through the program as a group makes sense.

Any district AAA teams or something along those lines could use the USA Hockey age classifications since it would be made up of kids from different communities anyway.

The more I think about it, maybe a MEGA A level would be a good thing. But don't let just any association opt up to play at that level, make sure they will be able to compete at the top level before letting them move up and if they are not putting competative teams on the ice move them back down. And do the same at each level. It seems that most agree that local associations are the ones causing the uneven playing field by not putting their teams at the proper level. I think in many cases this is because associations are being driven by varsity coaches or parents of top level players that want to see their kid playing the best competition without giving regard to what is best for the majority of the kids.

[MoreCowBell]

First, Mark I would like to thank you for taking the time to ask the people you serve their opinions on this and all the matters you open up discussions on. It is refreshing to see someone who cares. While I'm not in your district (8 for me) It is still nice of you to listen and take in idea's. So Thank you!

Get away from aligning with the high school league. They are not concerned with developing players for the next level. They are there to provide an opportunity for extra-cirricular activities for students. (which by the way is just fine, since HS should be about learning anyway) And since they refuse to lengthen the season and period lengths Minnesota Hockey must abandon this line of thinking. This is a serious question, does Minnesota Hockey see a penny from the MSHSL from their tournament in March? I would assume no, but I don't know for sure.

Split the teams into 16 districts. Association teams moreless work how they work now. Go to a birth year age split, but do it so there are two years at each level, for example Peewee's would be 94/95's, Bantam's would be 93/92's. When you are a second year peewee or bantam you have the ability to tryout for the district team. House the district teams somewhere in the district, in rural Minnesota you might have to send your son to live with a teammate if you live 80 miles from the town where the team is housed. But I doubt anyone in Canada will feel bad for you, and if you aren't down with it, than stay with your association a play there. But there would have to be some sacrificing.

Tryouts for the team happen in August. They spend the month of September practicing and if need be, getting used to their new school or surroundings. Game schedule, starting Oct. 1st, each district team would play everyone twice for seeding, which would give them each 30 games. They could pick up an additional 20 - 30 games on their own by playing
by playing in tournaments or playing pickup games with other Tier 1 teams. At Christmas time, there is a two week break which the top players from the 16 district teams are picked to compete in an international tournament somewhere abroad. Following the break, the teams play through the end of the year. Based on there games against one another they play in a "state tournament" (everyone should love this, all the district teams go to the state tournament) With the winner moving on. **You could also do this at the U16 and U18 level and run it as a before and after with the high school kids, would take the money out the private owners of the two Elite Leagues, (again, I'm making an assumption that is where the money goes, I don't know for sure) and put minnesota hockey in charge of it.

For those who are first year players at each level, the district teams give them incentive to work hard that first year before getting to high school. It will keep the associations alive, make all teams more equal because you are removing the older "superstars" from the equation which I think levels the playing field. Because I don't care if you have 30 or 300 kids trying out, 60% of them are pretty interchangable between b's first line or a's third line.

As far as the squirts, they aren't playing for state tournaments are they? And shame on Edina if they had 200 squirts and only one Squirt A teams. That is selfish and greedy and shame on them for doing that. I guess it is me being naive, but nothing will work if people don't know the difference between right and wrong, and they or anyone else that does that is wrong. But I would have to imagine at some point those kind of decisions will hurt their program down the road like when these kids get to high school.

At the very least consideration of USA birth year policy should be adopted on some level. Our kids need to see what it is like to play like aged kids from around the company, especially our top kids.

Just ask the kids who went to Detroit last with Team Minnesota. My kids said it was night and day and it looked even worse from the stands. .

16 Tier 1 teams from Minnesota, i don't think so, these teams would be middle of the pack at best nationally, i've seen these teams from other parts of the country, they are solid at least the upper half is, we are so arrogant in this state to think just because a player is from Minnesota he's a great player. And to go to 2 year age bracketing would mean that most kids would only play tier 1 every other year. Why not just do a two year trial with 3-4 teams and see how it goes, you could always go back to the present set up if it didn't work.

[hockeyparent11]

The age brackets should be Minor PW, major PW, Minor Bantam and major Bantam.

I agree that 16 teams is too dilutive. Detroit has four competitve organizations, but they recruit kids from all over the country. Chicago has four Tier 1 organizations, but not all are competitve at each age level. Wisconsin has four, one of which is the mostly-Minnesotan Fire team. (others are located in Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee)


3-6 teams for Minnesota, (including the Fire) is probably the right range.