Follow the High School Model

[sorno82]

If Minn Hock wants to be a viable entity 5-10 years from now, they need to undergo major restructuring. There are so many issues that effect each association differently that going with the one size fits all mentality does not work anymore. Common sense prevails somewhat at high school level. For example, don’t expect Cambridge to compete with Edina since there is usually a big discrepancy in size and resources (Hence 5 or more classes in football, 2 in Hockey). Also, don’t think that Wayzata and Edina’s youth hockey success on the ice is a direct result of how well the board runs the program, but rather a result of the numbers and resources of the people who belong to those associations. These associations are volunteer organizations and should not be expected to run like a fortune 500 company, however, they do have a lot of great coaches who happen to have kids that play in the program, which raises the level of every kid who works hard. That is what separates these programs from the rest. I foresee a possible revolt occurring in the near future, most likely initiated from a large association.

Here is how Minn Hock can be true to their mission, and allow more associations to have successful programs.

- Set hard limits based on participation numbers for number of teams at each level- exceptions allowed based on quality of program like high school (Roseau)
o for example, need at least 60 kids to field an “A” team (exception on a case by case basis). For associations that do not meet this number, they can merge with another association to get to that number or waive out a legitimate “A” player if that player desires.
o If a program has multiple “B” teams, let them determine the number of B1 and B2 unless they have a history of having a lot of B2 level players playing B1 or lot of B1 level players playing B2. Enforce competitive balance at this level.
- Create a 2A level for associations over 100 players at a given level. Let them have a B1 team play at the A level if they choose (allow a play up option for quality programs).
- Allow kids to play for their school. If Blake wants to have a squirt or PeeWee team, let them as long as the kid is enrolled in that school – no restrictions on level.

You can either take the approach of knocking down the big associations or bringing up the small. If North Metro wants to play Wayzata at the “A” level, then merge with Osseo or Armstrong if you cannot compete on your own. I say bring up the small if they want to compete. If you want to stay small, then play at the level MinnHock sets for you.

The harsh reality is that I think Minnesota Made would be a major threat to Association hockey in the winter if they were not such A-holes. Having dynamic leadership with a good product with a private organization funding will make association hockey in the Metro obsolete in the near future. The seeds have been planted with the proliferation of the summer AAA teams. This will have an impact outstate also as the competitive landscape will be severely altered.

[Quasar]

T

he harsh reality is that I think Minnesota Made would be a major threat to Association hockey in the winter if they were not such A-holes. Having dynamic leadership with a good product with a private organization funding will make association hockey in the Metro obsolete in the near future. The seeds have been planted with the proliferation of the summer AAA teams. This will have an impact outstate also as the competitive landscape will be severely altered.

I believe the nose is already under the tent.. United AAA Hockey is a serious attempt to organize what is now a jumbled up mess. AAA hockey is here !! Minnesota hockey could embrace it ..Or ... they can keep their heads in the sand.. Either way, that horse is out of the barn!

[sorno82]

Minnesota hockey could embrace it ..Or ... they can keep their heads in the sand.. Either way, that horse is out of the barn!

That is my concern. They may feel a bit invincible since USA Hockey has given them Carte Blanche in Minnesota. They cannot, however, prevent someone from creating their own super league outside of the USA Hockey Jurisdiction. It is simple, just do an elite league set-up, only in the winter. Ice will not be a problem since the associations will have less players, thus less teams. It is a zero sum game when it comes to ice time. The revolt is already starting at the mite level-just wait until they get to the higher levels.

Open your eyes Minnesotoa Hockey-change is coming whether you like it or not, or if it is good for the game or not.

[Quasar]

It is simple, just do an elite league set-up, only in the winter.

While I believe that AAA hockey should remain a summer activity, I could easily see a true elite winter league sanctioned by MN hockey. It will come to this eventually when USA Hockey insists that Minnesota get with the ADM/HPC concept. Seeing as how they have all the regional directors in place, and Minnesota is the only viable hockey power in it's region, it will happen.
The MM choice league could be the foundation for the first ADM club in the state. When all those little guys get to Pee Wee age, they will be a real HPC (High Performance Club). The community based model is not threatened by this. In fact it's my contention that many of the problems in community based Minnesota Hockey are caused by the people that put competition ahead of all other things. If all those people were somewhere else, you would have real community based recreational hockey.
unfortunately all the "community based" advocates want their community to win ..win ..win.... So they are afraid of losing their elite players.. I think it's a simple as that !!

[O-townClown]

Sorn, the concern I have with your "hard numbers" policy is that a program can meet the standard by discouraging the low-end players from participating.

[Quasar]

Sorn, the concern I have with your "hard numbers" policy is that a program can meet the standard by discouraging the low-end players from participating.

If the top 20 % were playing somewhere else, there would be no low-end players !!!

[SECoach]

It is simple, just do an elite league set-up, only in the winter.

While I believe that AAA hockey should remain a summer activity, I could easily see a true elite winter league sanctioned by MN hockey. It will come to this eventually when USA Hockey insists that Minnesota get with the ADM/HPC concept. Seeing as how they have all the regional directors in place, and Minnesota is the only viable hockey power in it's region, it will happen.
The MM choice league could be the foundation for the first ADM club in the state. When all those little guys get to Pee Wee age, they will be a real HPC (High Performance Club). The community based model is not threatened by this. In fact it's my contention that many of the problems in community based Minnesota Hockey are caused by the people that put competition ahead of all other things. If all those people were somewhere else, you would have real community based recreational hockey.
unfortunately all the "community based" advocates want their community to win ..win ..win.... So they are afraid of losing their elite players.. I think it's a simple as that !!

I see two problems with this. The ADM calls for HPC at the Bantam level. In your example you use Pee Wees. Although you may not have meant Pee Wees the problem is that the way the current wind is blowing it will first be bantams, then pee wee, then squirt and of course then the 2001 born high performance mite team.

Secondly, "Elite Clubs" at the younger levels promotes keeping those players together over a long period of time. I promise you that a HPC at the bantam level would look very different than the HPC mite team. The year round AAA advocates are promoting a system that over time potentially "locks out" the players that become the top players later. I know many would like to believe that the best mites end up the best bantams....but that just ain't the case. Maybe for a few it happens that way but if others are not allowed to grow and develop we will have a system that puts out a couple great players and nothing more. That's what is happening in the rest of the country. The grass is looking pretty brown over there.

The bottom line is that whenever you separate very young talented players from the rest, you bank on them remaining the best players and you essencially designate the others as "rec" players. Your numbers will shrink and consequently you will produce fewer top players over time.

I wonder how many of the year round AAA advocates would quickly find that under that system, their kid isnt really that special and would yearn for the good old days?

I wonder how many young players that could have become special players would lose interest in the GAME that was their job since they were 7?

Let's go the way of the old Romanian gymnasts. Find the special ones...train the hell out of them from a very early age...win a bunch of gold medals...and let everyone think that our country is chock full of talented hockey players. The reality would be that we would have very few...the few would be very good...but there would be very few. Oh and the priveledged ones would lead a glorious childhood of 24/7/365 training. Maybe we should make them child actors instead. They seem to turn out as pretty solid adults.

Bring it on IM..you seem really testy lately.

[InigoMontoya]

Why ya gotta be hatin’? I’m not sure why I got called out here. But I’ll admit that I am a little testy.

Personally, I'm on the side of community based hockey. I think if everyone is on board and working hard toward the same goal without regard to any personal agenda, community based could get from each to their abilities and give to each to their needs, like communism.

However, not everyone gives to their fullest ability - in every area across the state there are some that do, and in some pockets of the state, most do – but statewide we have leaned on the philosophy of What's In It For Me. Parents, coaches, board members, cities that own rinks, have all hunkered down to make sure they get what they can for their kids, their careers, their status, their budgets instead of focusing on the physical, emotional, and spiritual development of each and every one of the kids trying to participate in hockey.

In addition, not everyone is receiving to the fullest of their needs. If the mission of MH is to allow every kid in MN an opportunity to learn and love the game of hockey recreationally, they are failing, and in that attempt they are failing the parents and kids that want to excel. If the mission is to develop every kid with the ability and the drive to succeed at the highest levels, they are failing, and they are failing a generation of kids that either can't reach that or don't want that.

There is the rub. In an attempt to be everything to everybody, MNH is missing the mark everywhere. There are 3 broad choices available for MNH to change: choose to develop the highest caliber hockey players/teams and allow community parks and rec departments and junior highs offer hockey to the masses; choose skill development and fun for the masses and allow a AAA type process to develop the elite; figure out a way that hockey can be offered, not just taught to the middle, not abandoning the strugglers or the performers – definitely the most work. Choice d) would be to continue the status quo, much like a failing communist country that has decided no matter how bad the situation is, the membership will continue on because there is simply no choice; that will continue to generate quitters that don’t see the point in playing bantam B or C if they know they’ll never make the ultimate goal of playing varsity, and defectors that see a better development opportunity for the kid with a chance.

The respect I have for the winter AAA advocates comes from the simplicity of their convictions. It is driven by a run for elite success (Romania doesn’t have a monopoly on taking little girls from their parents, every year our 4 and 5 year old daughters are shipped to Houston to live with strangers in a quest for Olympic gold). They know what they want, and they don’t pick examples from both sides of the fence to support their arguments. Good for them. I hope we come up with a different solution than what they propose, but good for them.

As for Roseau – I think what they accomplish up there year after year is fantastic. They prove that a community based model will work. They have built upon a strong tradition, and continue to improve it. Even though they are just below the Arctic Circle they continue to impress us all. That is precisely why they cannot be used as an example for those advocating the status quo – that is simply not how it works in most out state association, so quit pretending that it does.

That’s probably enough for now - have at it…

[sorno82]

Sorn, the concern I have with your "hard numbers" policy is that a program can meet the standard by discouraging the low-end players from participating.

Not sure I understand. The more you have participating, the higher level you can play. Therefor, I would think it would encourage associations to recruit players so they can play at a higher level. If they cannot get enough, then merge with another. You will have a better opportunity to place kids at the proper level. Kids playing at the proper level have more fun and develop better than if they are overmatched.

[Quasar]

The respect I have for the winter AAA advocates comes from the simplicity of their convictions. It is driven by a run for elite success (Romania doesn’t have a monopoly on taking little girls from their parents, every year our 4 and 5 year old daughters are shipped to Houston to live with strangers in a quest for Olympic gold). They know what they want, and they don’t pick examples from both sides of the fence to support their arguments. Good for them. I hope we come up with a different solution than what they propose, but good for them.

There should be a way to accommodate the needs of all within the MNH structure. Denial of the reality on the ground just delays the solution to the problem. Perhaps if we quit using the AAA nomenclature the discussion could become a little clearer. A lot of people believe that there could, and should be a higher level of competition within the MNH structure. This could lead to a situation where all the so called elite players would have their dream of whatever it is they are looking for. Then perhaps the rest of the kids could have the same tournament experience as the chosen few. To SW, I am not an expert on ADM/HPC I just know it is coming!!
MNH will have to deal with it sooner or later.

[play4fun]

[quote="sorno82"] Not sure I understand. The more you have participating, the higher level you can play. Therefore, I would think it would encourage associations to recruit players so they can play at a higher level. quote]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Participation is the key. With more kids comes the ability for associations to play them at the appropriate levels. With more kids comes more competition. With more kids comes more parents who volunteer their time and talents, more community involvement and support, more, more, more...

Small associaitions can work too. Outstate associations don't seem to have an identity crisis. They know who they are and what they can offer.

It's the smaller associations located around the metro that seem to struggle the most as they continually either compare themselves to the mega-associations, or they lose kids and parents to larger associations where there are more advantages with more resources.

It's been discussed on previous threads, but I agree with Sorno that it's time to add more classes at the youth level (e.g., A, AA).

For those that would say "just have the smaller associations play B1," get real. That option exists today but isn't used or enforced as each association makes up it's own mind about what it thinks is best for its kids (no disrespect to the DDs, but that's how it works in practice).

And the merger option isn't always the ticket either. Following with an example from this very thread, Cambridge continues its merger with North Branch this year. Combined, the population of those cities should be sufficient to provide enough hockey talent to field A level teams that compete well in District 10. However, word is that even with combined programs they struggle to field much more than a single line of A talent at any level.

Despite that fact (er, ahh, opinion), and against the advice of the majority, they will play again at the A level this year. Why? To win three or four games against smaller towns? Why not play B1 and prove something by winning at that level first? BECAUSE a few parents want their kids to have the opportunity to compete against the big associations at the top level of play. They become vocal, get a few key board members listen, and POOF!!! Instant A level teams without the talent to compete.

Take this sort of pressure and lobbying out of the hands of the parents and the boards of smaller associations and it could go a long ways toward ending some of political BS that plagues them from year to year. Following the HS model would be a good starting point.

[Quasar]

Participation is the key. With more kids comes the ability for associations to play them at the appropriate levels. With more kids comes more competition. With more kids comes more parents who volunteer their time and talents, more community involvement and support, more, more, more...

Ah ... As you say Ding ..Ding ... Ding

Now, how do you propose to make this happen ??

[greybeard58]

With all the talk of changing what is here in Minnesota. The question is:
Is it your intention for Minnesota to start producing the numbers that Michigan is currently producing? Illinois, New York, Mass.Wisconsin???

[O-townClown]

Not sure I understand. The more you have participating, the higher level you can play. Therefor, I would think it would encourage associations to recruit players so they can play at a higher level. If they cannot get enough, then merge with another. You will have a better opportunity to place kids at the proper level. Kids playing at the proper level have more fun and develop better than if they are overmatched.

You definitely do not understand my point.

If the rule is something like this:
<18 - field one team
18-32 - field two
33-45 - field three
46-58 - field four etc...

you can have a program that expects to have between 30-35 sign ups in a pickle. The mandate might be A/C at 30-32 skaters or A/B/C at 33-35. It could be a disaster for the program to have noncompetitive teams at both B and C in the latter example.

Associations should be able to choose where there teams play. It does make sense to have some minimum guidelines, but there is a state championship now for B1 at Pee Wee and Bantam so you run the risk of limiting the success of the biggest associations. This might lead to complaints that this is unfair.

Roster sizes in youth hockey are too big. I'm in favor of 9-10 for Squirt and 10-12 for Pee Wee. It would be much easier to develop skills by playing different positions. Ice time per game would be greater, which means you could reduce the number of games. Better ice utilization could be accomplished with shared-ice practices.

If a reformer could work to see a reduction in roster sizes it would make it easier for teams to find competitive 'slots' within the 3 (A/B/C at Squirt) or 4 (A/B1/B2/C) class system in Minnesota. In the current Edina Pee Wee A example, there is a chance the promise of more ice time per game - about 50% more on average - would be enough to get approval for two balanced A teams with 11 skaters each.

A big problem I see in our state is that kids on travel teams get shorted ice time in the interest of winning games. Even at Mite level. Reducing the number of players on the roster and narrowing the gap between the top and bottom player on a team offers many benefits.

[sorno82]

Is it your intention for Minnesota to start producing the numbers that Michigan is currently producing? Illinois, New York, Mass.Wisconsin???

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but I think the best way we can preserve what we have is to address the competition issues. The top players want to play the top players, so the talk of going Tier 1 is brought up. If the levels were partitioned by association size, you go a long way in addressing that issue. You see too many metro associations who for want of an "A" team, wreck it for the majority of the kids. They are overmatched at the "A" and "B" level. Kids do not like losing all the time, nor do top teams like playing a lot of games that are meaningless.

The tide has changed in the metro-kids associate with the AAA team their on over their association.

So Minnesota hockey can figure out a way to address this, or let some private entity take over. MM had the opportunity, but let it get away. Showcase will probably take a stab at it. Nothing is keeping Fire 2, 3, and 4 from starting up. So they cannot play other USA sanctioned hockey teams-most will not care.

Hopefully they will address this and not let it get stuck in committee for 3 years. When something takes their place as supreme ruler, they can just say that congress gives them the power to rule, which will be ignored.

[sorno82]

you can have a program that expects to have between 30-35 sign ups in a pickle. The mandate might be A/C at 30-32 skaters or A/B/C at 33-35. It could be a disaster for the program to have noncompetitive teams at both B and C in the latter example.

No- I would say no "A" team unless you have 60 kids (for arguments sake). You cannot have a "AA" team unless you have 100 kids (again for aguments sake). If you put 12-15 kids on an "A" team with an association with 60 kids, then you have 45-48 kids to distribute on 3-4 teams that could be made up of however you see fit (B1, B2, C). Allow exceptions for associations with proven performance. Associations could also merge to get to the number they want to form the right number of teams with the kids matched with their abilities.

The numbers 60-100 are picked for discussion, it could be 50 and 90 or 75 and 110 once some analysis of association size distribution completed.

[O-townClown]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Participation is the key. With more kids comes the ability for associations to play them at the appropriate levels. With more kids comes more competition. With more kids comes more parents who volunteer their time and talents, more community involvement and support, more, more, more...

Play:

I follow youth sports very closely, monitor my own feelings from our family's experiences, and frequently talk to other parents. Not only that, I've recently read four books on sports parenting in order to get outside perspective from experts in the field.

I have come to the conclusion that the biggest fallacy in youth sports is that participation and retention are low and that there is something that can be done to change this.

First off, virtually every sport (hockey, soccer, karate, etc...) says that 70% of those participating in that sport will leave it by the time they are 14. It gets repeated so much that people seem to put a lot of stock in it.

Two points:
1) If a kid is exposed to many activities at a young age, as they should be, it is not possible to continue to register for organized leagues in all. My 7-year-old is or has been a martial artist, soccer player, skateboarder, wakeboarder, hockey player, basketballer, flag footballer, swimmer, lacrosse player, and probably one or two things I'm drawing a blank on. There is more that a 70% chance he'll become that statistic for these activities. Did I mention he wants to go look at motorized dirt bikes tonight? He will continue to seek out new activities. And that's a good thing.
2) Kids, like adults, do the things they are good at. If they stop showing improvement or are far from the level of their peers they will go do something else. Some coaches that have worked with the less-skilled might argue that more of them should quit!! My son has a complete drum set in his bedroom. I've never heard what it sounds like. You cannot make kids play hockey. On top of that, you cannot make their parents excited if they see little success for their child. They'll go do something else. Do a YouTube search for 6-year-old guitar players, watch a few, and then pose the question, "would my son keep playing guitar if he were cut from the A and B guitar team?" Probably not.

Bob Bigelow, an ex-NBA player that gets paid to lecture on youth sports, would actually argue that creating more classifications at Pee Wee and below is a horrible idea. While you and I see that as a way to help kids play "at their level", he sees it as highlighting the differences in ability at too young of an age, an age (prepubescent) that we know may not be meaningful ultimately.

My point is that I don't think you will ever get past the fact that kids drop out from a sport. They choose to focus more of their time on others. They leave because they weren't enjoying it because they weren't very good.

I disagree with Bigelow's premise too in that he seems to think having every sport be recreational in nature through elementary school will lead to higher retention. Oh well.

USA Hockey's ADM is based on the long-term athletic development principles that pop up in other sports as well. The risk is that you might lose players that could have been great. I don't see that happening. An essential element for high-level success is a love for the game. Those kids don't quit. Andrew Alberts gets used as an example a lot. The ones that quit couldn't have been great ultimately or they wouldn't have quit.

One man's opinion.

[O-townClown]

No- I would say no "A" team unless you have 60 kids (for arguments sake). You cannot have a "AA" team unless you have 100 kids (again for aguments sake).

But if they'd go with a small roster size a program with 80 kids could easily compete at AA. Which is why you want the ability to handle exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Believe it or not, the present system in Minnesota is not 'broken' at all. If I have time I'll start a thread on how good you guys have it up there. Out-of-season club hockey married with in-season association hockey provides most of the best in both worlds.

I now see your numbers rule was only on the top level. Makes more sense now.

[sorno82]

Believe it or not, the present system in Minnesota is not 'broken' at all. If I have time I'll start a thread on how good you guys have it up there. Out-of-season club hockey married with in-season association hockey provides most of the best in both worlds.

98% agree, however Mr. Tearse even agrees that MinnHock does not properly accomodate the elite level. (My kids are no way near the elite level). I want MinnHock to succeed, I just think they are too resistant to adjust to changing times. I would prefer that mega associations go with two balanced "A" teams to address this issue, but that would also encounter too much self serving resistance.

I like the suggestion that if a parent thinks jr. has outskilled MN, then get a billet for the kid in Detroit or St. Louis, just like the kids from CA.

[greybeard58]

Sorono,
Right now the only state close to producing college players DI,DIII is Mass.Minn has led the nation in college players both men and women. If we follow the Mich or other states our numbers will drop do to lack of development at all levels

[sorno82]

Greybeard-I am advocating keeping the current system, just add some rules on what level you can play at. Mostly affects the metro. Forces associations to get better, merge, or get out ot the way. Reduces the demand for a rougue group to come in an cherry pick the top kids from the assciations, which usually results in top coaches leaving also.

[northwoods oldtimer]

[/quote]Believe it or not, the present system in Minnesota is not 'broken' at all. If I have time I'll start a thread on how good you guys have it up there. Out-of-season club hockey married with in-season association hockey provides most of the best in both worlds.

Please provide a thread to help some folks to better see the big picture of this pivotal issue in Minnesota. For some reason this past year the push for changing the lansdscape of Minnestoa hockey has been an ongoing hot topic on this board. Sometimes it is good to hear from outside sources and you have always done a great job of providing that perspective.

[O-townClown]

Northwoods:

I don't know when I'll have time to piece together my scattered thoughts. The gist of it is that "everyone" that rails against Minnesota Hockey says they are "totally wrong" about some issue (residency, player development, whatever) and that "all" the problems would be solved if they just *plug in solution that addresses the one problem this person seems affected by with total disregard to the concerns of others*.

It is obvious from this board that people don't agree on things so there will never be a one-size fits all solution. "Solutions" that bring down cost (one problem often identified) probably don't address the "need" (seen by some) to have the best players face better competition. While Hal Tearse or USA Hockey brass in Colorado may see a need for accelerating development of youth players, there is further disagreement on which age. Some parents want it real young and those without kids in the sport usually suggest around the second year of Bantams.

So here's my point: (And I'm not saying this hasn't been made by someone else before.)

If you look at how many people are well-served by the broad participation, play-by-grade-level model governed by Minnesota Hockey in-season

AND

how many people are well-served by the birthyear, "elite" offerings furnished by club hockey you don't see many people that aren't having their needs met.

Of course, the super player from Detroit Lakes whose parents are unable or unwilling to drive great distances so their Squirt can play on a "AAA" (not USA Hockey registered though, which is a point worth mentioning). However, changes to the present system cannot possibly "solve" this "problem".

There is no possible way anyone could possibly please all the constituents. Their desires are so different. Why do some act as though Minnesota Hockey should be able to satisfy everyone?

Presently I see complaints coming from both sides. Minnesota Hockey isn't doing enough to develop the best players. Minnesota Hockey isn't doing enough to keep the youth structure accomodating for the masses.

[Quasar]

Greybeard-I am advocating keeping the current system, just add some rules on what level you can play at. Mostly affects the metro. Forces associations to get better, merge, or get out ot the way. Reduces the demand for a rougue group to come in an cherry pick the top kids from the assciations, which usually results in top coaches leaving also.

This is the sanest post for quite some time.. I think it's a plea for accommodating the AAA group before they are forced to leave.. If MNH comes up with a way for the over achievers to remain in the program during winter, AAA as we know it, can stay a summer activity. Make no mistake, people looking for elite status will get there with or with out MNH. It is all about the metro.. If you doubt that, just visit a couple of AAA web sites..

[Tenoverpar]

same old same old...

Minnesota faithful..."we produce more"

AAA faithful..."that's only because we HAVE MORE"

Minnesota faithful..."take pride in your community"

AAA faithful..."my community coaches are terrible, we haven't produced a kid in 20 years, our high school coach is cemented and hasn't produced a kid in 30 years, GIVE ME AN OPTION"

Minnesota faithful..."you're an elitest"

AAA faithful.."you're stuck in the 80's"

Minnesota faithful.."move and pay 7K to a chicago team just to be on it

AAA faithful..."hmm, fair point, but if we had the option here I wouldn't need to move"

Minnesota faithful..."high school hockey tournament"

AAA faithful..."that's only 16 teams, what about the other 100"

Minnesot faithful...."STOP WHINING and go help your association get better by being involved instead of crying on here

AAA faithful..."I got nothin"

Minnesota faithful..."love the game because 99% of all players in any given birth year, in the WHOLE STATE are going to the beer league. The only things changing that are god given talent, hard work, coaching and genetics"

AAA faithful..."well I should be able to choose my coaches for my money"

Minnesota faithful..."99% of you that want to make that choice lack 1,2, or 3 of the other fundamentals, so why bother"

I'm gassed, the end.