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

[DMom]

let's all take the time to go to MNhockeyrankings.com and hit the link for Colorado (they can be found on any page of the associations who played them last week). Now look how many games they lost. Look at the teams they are playing from all over the country. Frankly, my kids have rarely lost to an out of state team in off-season or in-season play, here or out of town. you can argue that those kids are all 95's maybe playing 94s in minnesota, they also may be playing 96s--there are 96s playing A peewee in Minnesota. That's what makes Minnesota good for the player. the older 96 gets to be the biggest kid in the off-season birth year hockey, and than comes to in-season and is humbled by 94's checking the heck out of them. They become little men fairly quickly....if you play Tier one all year around, you don't get the experience of playing with kids two years older. Maybe the key is to let truly talented kids play up a level. I know our association is pretty strict against this, feeling that it takes an opportunity to play A away from another kid. I've always backed that because I think you develop more kids that way. Truly, why do we want more AAA teams? I think if the Fire were always undefeated that would be something to shoot for, but they aren't. Why don't we make the fire kids welcome, and let people know it's okay for their kids to try out (and contrary to popular belief I've never heard of an overwhelming number of kids at these tryouts, maybe 20-25) and try to send the best kids of each birth year with them? Why does the control have to be spread out over four teams? Jancze was right when they said that you would get #s3, 6 and 14 (or something like that) from the mega teams. You wouldn't get 1,2, and 3, just because of personal choice. The point is to take some talent from the megas to make them competitive? that isn't what would happen. They'd lose a couple kids that they could afford to lose, and others would lose kids they cannot replace.

[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. .

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.

Here is why I disagree with the 16 district teams being too diluted. Prior to USA hockey changing the age level to birth years the Minnesota State Champion participted at Nationals. At that tournament, Minnesota teams were very much competitive year in and year out. Now those teams from Minnesota that went to the national tournament were made up of association teams. I have to believe if we could get competitve teams coming out of individual associations than broadening that base to draw from would only increase the competitveness of the teams. I agree on any given year, there will only be one or two of those district teams that could comptete for a National Title. However, that is why there would be a "state tournament" to determine who that team is. In the meantime, we are exposing 272 kids to a national flavor of competition. (assuming there would 17 kids on each roster)

Secondly, by only having the district teams for the "second year player" at each level, gives the kids who didn't make the district team as a second year peewee incentive to work hard to make it as a second year bantam. Also by only having teams for the second year player, you would most likely partially eliminate the problem with kids making higher teams because, well they made it last year, he must be good.

Ultimately, what is the goal? For the higher end players I would hope it is to develope a high quantity of high quality players in Minnesota. Would all the kids on these teams make it to the NHL or WCHA in the end? Of course they wouldn't, but by exposing as many as possible to high competition you are increasing the odds. Same theory we see debated on this board all the times. The top teams are playing each other to get that competition and be better in the END.

We (Minnesota Hockey, and its members) have to stop talking out of both sides of our mouths. Is it important to win, or develope players? Of course the PC thing to say isn't Winning is important, yet we have the debates to what? See what we can do about having more kids, teams, associations win. The goal should be developing players that want to make the commitment excel and creating an atmosphere of fun for the kids who are in it for that reason, and that reason only. Despite what everyone seems to think, some kids are just in it because they love to play hockey as ONE of there activities. Which in my opinion is great. We have to find away to keep those kids happy as well as the kids that to excel.

[MoreCowBell]

I'm not sure but i thought when Minnesota competed nationally it was at the tier II level, corect me if I am wrong.

[elliott70]

Prior to USA hockey changing the age level to birth years the Minnesota State Champion participted at Nationals.

FYI (actually FEI(everyones))

The decision not to send teams to nationals and the age level were two separate decisions made at differnet times. Rationale and votes were unrelated.


Also, MN Hockey would entertain going to National from interested Tier II association teams. They would need to present in April or July for the following year.

[Gump]

Playing in a National Tier II tournament might be a good step in the direction of exploring Tier I options. It would take some logistics as I believe that the MN Hockey State Tourneys are about the same time as nationals (or maybe it's regions). It would be nice if our playoff structure selected the team rather than a pre-season registration.

I think the top MN association teams would do extremely well in the Natl Tier II tournament.

One question, though: wouldn't age be an issue?

[zboni99]

Someone mentioned that all the ideas for change are based on what is best for their kid. I agree with that. I want my kid to play with the kids in his grade. I hate the idea for bith year alignment for MN hockey. Through peewee's and now bantam's he has associated with the kids on the team that were his age as has all the other kids on his teams. I'm not saying they were not friendly and didn't interact but the first years primarly stuck together as did the second years. I'm sure glad my eighth grader is a 1st year bantam and not a second year playing with moslty ninth graders. How many people with children born after Sept. 1 want birthyear age alignment? I don't. I also think Tier 1 should be an available option with birthyear age alignment. All Tier 1 has to be is to be sanctioned by MN hockey so USA hockey will recognize the organizations. That way the teams don't have to register in Wisconsin. If you think there is going or should be some sort of non-profit subsidized tier 1 organization, you keep dreaming. Tier 1 will be private clubs and I think they will be metro based. These teams will be about winning and if you think the entire roster will be MN kids, continue dreaming. The tier 1 teams will be something from MN made or the Blades etc. etc. Four teams would really dilute the quality. They have the underlying organization and the connections and the ice(mn made). Will these teams play for a MN hockey title, No. Can they play other teams in Minnesota, Yes. If you don't want to play them then don't, but don't decide for other associations. If tier 1 doesn't get sanctioned then so be it. It doesnt affect my kids either way. I like the idea of going minor and major but rethinking the idea of designating the level of play. I think managing that would be a nightmare. It works for soccer but I just don't think it will work for MN hockey. I always keep hearing about the great player in the lousy organization. Let him/her waive out. What is that, 1 percent of kids playing. If he or she is that good it won't matter where they played.
Also, the person who spoke of the Edina squirts and one A team. Yes, they probably should have two. Should the two have to be equal, NO. So stop with the high road routine. Do I believe you or your association would have done better, NO.

Conclusion, Keep MN hockey as is and sanction MN based Tier 1teams.

[elliott70]

Playing in a National Tier II tournament might be a good step in the direction of exploring Tier I options. It would take some logistics as I believe that the MN Hockey State Tourneys are about the same time as nationals (or maybe it's regions). It would be nice if our playoff structure selected the team rather than a pre-season registration.

I think the top MN association teams would do extremely well in the Natl Tier II tournament.

One question, though: wouldn't age be an issue?

All teams interested in playing in Nationals need to make their intent known by ... October 1st, if memory serves me.
This includes all Tier I & II teams across the country.

A play-off is established to determine who will attend.
Once declared and eligible attendance is mandatory.

MN Hockey had a team decline one year and the fine to MN hockey was in excess of $2500 and sanctions enacted.

Yes, age would be an issue. Teams would need to register as pure bantam or peewee (although we have not had a peewee entrant for many, many years).

[wannagototherink]

I'm not sure but i thought when Minnesota competed nationally it was at the tier II level, corect me if I am wrong.

Ok, well if that is the case, than I can be man enough to admit my plan would not work.

I do think we need to have to be able to have the option to have our teams compete at that level though. Obviously, that would limit the amount of teams.

Maybe a situation where we have 4 regional teams. I do not however think the whole program needs to be blown up and the wheel rediscovered.

[Wally Schafer]

Is there any truth the rumor that Mn Made is working on creating a tier 1 team to play in a national trny at the peewee age level next year?

[hockeyparent11]

Conclusion, Keep MN hockey as is and sanction MN based Tier 1teams.

Simple and beneficial. I agree with Zboni.

[boardmember]

There is a belief in Minnesota hockey and on this board that Tier 1 hockey will ruin community based Association Hockey!

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE!!!

Lets assume that MN Hockey sanctions Tier 1 and allows 3 teams based out of the Metro area.

3 Teams
5 Levels 98,97,96,95,94
15 total teams
17 players per team
255 total players

In 2005-206 Minnkota District had 52,000 registered hockey players. I do not know how many players are registered in Minnesota in 2007-08 but I will assume a number around 24,000. Elliot probably knows the number!

15 Tier 1 teams across 5 levels with 255 players represents 1.1% of the the total registered hockey players in the State. NO way will losing 1.1% of the players in your Association erode the game or the competition.

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. ]

[Gump]

Thank you boardmember!

And if major programs only were tested, it drops down to around .55% of the registration.


Tier I in Minnesota makes sense and needs to be given an opportunity.

[Tenoverpar]

3 Teams
5 Levels 98,97,96,95,94
15 total teams
17 players per team
255 total players

Thats it, that would be the numbers...LOL, and everyone has their panties in a trussel over 255 out of 15,000+ kids...laughable.

Thanks boardmember for putting math into the equation, it's certainly an eye opener for the discussion.

[DMom]

is that for next year? there will still be 93's eligible for Bantams, or are you assuming if they are good enough to play tier one, they'll be good enough to play high school hockey

[boardmember]

is that for next year? there will still be 93's eligible for Bantams, or are you assuming if they are good enough to play tier one, they'll be good enough to play high school hockey

My example was for next winter, Major Squirt thru Major Bantam. I did not Include Minor Midget (U16) or Major Midget (U18).....Let include them, add another 102 players to the total

357 players
Est. 24,000 registered Mn players

1.5%

[Gump]

is that for next year? there will still be 93's eligible for Bantams, or are you assuming if they are good enough to play tier one, they'll be good enough to play high school hockey

Next year, 94 is major bantam. Those very few 93s that are still bantam elligible per the MN age rule have the option of playing a MN Hockey bantam schedule or playing for HS. Some associations may allow a player in this situation to play JG also.

Unless there was a Tier I midget program in place.

[MoreCowBell]

3 Teams
5 Levels 98,97,96,95,94
15 total teams
17 players per team
255 total players

Thats it, that would be the numbers...LOL, and everyone has their panties in a trussel over 255 out of 15,000+ kids...laughable.

Thanks boardmember for putting math into the equation, it's certainly an eye opener for the discussion.

I have not seen a compelling reason not to do this, most of the posts have ranged from indifference to full support. Elliott if you present this to Mn Hockey and get positive feedback, sign me up for an organizing commitee. Watch out Compuware, Belle Tire, St. Louis Blues of the world, Minnesota might just be on the map.

[boardmember]

Next year, 94 is major bantam. Those very few 93s that are still bantam elligible per the MN age rule have the option of playing a MN Hockey bantam schedule or playing for HS. Some associations may allow a player in this situation to play JG also.

Unless there was a Tier I midget program in place.

What a great development option for 10th graders that aren't quite ready for that HS roster spot.

1. Play JV 23 game schedule
2. Play JG 20+ game schedule
3. Play Tier 1 U16 50+ game schedule

[DMom]

http://www.myhockeyrankings.com/view_20 ... m_nbr=1079

if you go to myhockeyrankings.com and look at the Wisconsin Fire's record, they have only lost one game, or maybe two. They tied Eden Prairie. Maybe they should play Eden Prairie and Coon Rapids and Wayzata and Grand Rapids and Edina again, tell me that wouldn't get them just as competitive games. It's not like they would beat any of them by five goals. Yes, because we have older kids on the teams, but if it's about competition and not about egos than tell me why isn't one Tier one team enough? Kids can get just as good of competition here if they are allowed to play everyone. Why do they need to travel all over the country. I guess some one will have to explain that need to me, I am a little slow.

[Cornermukker]

is that for next year? there will still be 93's eligible for Bantams, or are you assuming if they are good enough to play tier one, they'll be good enough to play high school hockey

Next year, 94 is major bantam. Those very few 93s that are still bantam elligible per the MN age rule have the option of playing a MN Hockey bantam schedule or playing for HS. Some associations may allow a player in this situation to play JG also.

Unless there was a Tier I midget program in place.

The 93's would have the option to play HS only if the HS allows it. There are some that do not allow a player with Bantam eligibility, no matter how good they are, try out. They must play Bantam's.

[spin-o-rama]

The 93's would have the option to play HS only if the HS allows it. There are some that do not allow a player with Bantam eligibility, no matter how good they are, try out. They must play Bantam's.

I have heard of school districts having this policy. Yet, 9th grade is a High School sport age and MH and MNHSL are indepedent of each other.

What is the official High School League policy on this?

[elliott70]

I have not seen a compelling reason not to do this, most of the posts have ranged from indifference to full support. Elliott if you present this to Mn Hockey and get positive feedback, sign me up for an organizing commitee. Watch out Compuware, Belle Tire, St. Louis Blues of the world, Minnesota might just be on the map.

Okay, let's try and get this,
so the first question,

What is the one compelling reason to do this?
this needs to be a good answer...
or there will be no second question...

[MoreCowBell]

I have not seen a compelling reason not to do this, most of the posts have ranged from indifference to full support. Elliott if you present this to Mn Hockey and get positive feedback, sign me up for an organizing commitee. Watch out Compuware, Belle Tire, St. Louis Blues of the world, Minnesota might just be on the map.

Okay, let's try and get this,
so the first question,

What is the one compelling reason to do this?
this needs to be a good answer...
or there will be no second question...

I can give you a one word answer to this "CHOICE" it's rediculous that a Minnesota hockey player has to cross the border in order to play at a level that is available in 49 other states. The onus is on MN Hockey to show a compelling reason why not this is available in this state when people might choose this if it were available. No one would be forced to participate in this it's completely independant from MN Hockey, you just have to allow it.

[elliott70]

I have not seen a compelling reason not to do this, most of the posts have ranged from indifference to full support. Elliott if you present this to Mn Hockey and get positive feedback, sign me up for an organizing commitee. Watch out Compuware, Belle Tire, St. Louis Blues of the world, Minnesota might just be on the map.

Okay, let's try and get this,
so the first question,

What is the one compelling reason to do this?
this needs to be a good answer...
or there will be no second question...

I can give you a one word answer to this "CHOICE" it's rediculous that a Minnesota hockey player has to cross the border in order to play at a level that is available in 49 other states. The onus is on MN Hockey to show a compelling reason why not this is available in this state when people might choose this if it were available. No one would be forced to participate in this it's completely independant from MN Hockey, you just have to allow it.

Associations and other affiliates come to MN Hockey with their programs to be granted sanctioning with USA Hockey.

MN Hockey makes a determination from there.
Our first pre-req is non-profit. After that it is pretty open. Do you know how many requests have been made to put a Tier I program together. Do you know how many have been denied?

It would not, could not be independent of MN Hockey.
The problems with AAA, Tier I in other states is partly because they think they are independent. If you think those programs run independently and have not to answer to the USA Hockey affiliates they fall under, you are mistaken. USA Hockey, by law, operates amateur hockey and passes those rights on to its affiliates. Its affiliates govern those Tier I programs.

So again, I ask...

What is the compelling reason?

And try to do better, because I can pretty much guarantee, I will be one of few open minds sitting across from you.

[hockeyparent11]

Elliot is correct that Tier 1 teams are sanctioned by USA Hockey and that they are affiliates of their state districts. Tier 1 teams are "independent" in the sense that they have no geographic boundaries and get to pick their own coaches and players.

Elliot, it sounds like you are saying that any qualified non-profit organization could come to Minnesota Hockey and seek to be sanctioned as a winter Tier 1 affiliate. Do I understand correctly?

Is Minnesota hockey now willing to entertain a Tier 1 proposal?