Wisconsin Fire

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

except we aren't inventing anything. just accomodating those who choose that rout. AAA/Tier 1/NTDP/Shattuck already exist to the benefit of many.

Making that benefit more accesible to Minnesota kids/families who wish to follow that route doesn't hurt anyone. Just opens different doors.

you can have both if the appetite is there

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

We do have 3 Tier 1 teams and the do not take anything away from our high school hockey. In fact if you go to a Tier 1 game you'll see parents and siblings in the stands and that is about it. At high school games you'll find students, teachers, friends, parents, siblings, youth hockey kids etc.... It's a great atmosphere and 95% of the crowd doesn't even know what Tier 1 MM hockey is or that it even exists to go watch. Tier 1 hockey does not detract or take anything away from High School hockey in the state sit exists in, I really doubt it would do anything to the great tradition in MN.

Exactly. Having a few Tier 1 programs is not going to make a dent in the Juggernaut which is Minnesota High School hockey. Protectionists would have you believe that Tier 1 Hockey is some kind of cancer which will eat away at the fabric of the Association/High School model.

However, the real strength of Minnesota Hockey is in the sheer volume of kids that have the opportunity to participate thanks to an army of dedicated and talented volunteers at the grass-roots level (the Associations). Having a handful of each Associations top players particpate in State endorsed Tier 1 programs doesn't detract from that.

Both can exist in harmony in the State of Hockey.

[O-townClown]

except we aren't inventing anything. just accomodating those who choose that rout. AAA/Tier 1/NTDP/Shattuck already exist to the benefit of many.

Making that benefit more accesible to Minnesota kids/families who wish to follow that route doesn't hurt anyone. Just opens different doors.

you can have both if the appetite is there

Yes, you are inventing something. Rules to govern Tier I teams based in Minnesota, where hockey is community-based. It isn't as simple as just throwing a switch.

When you figure out how to make the NTDP and Shattuck more accessible to Minnesota families, let me know. That'd be an achievement.

I'm not sure I understand the sentence "Making that benefit more accesible to Minnesota kids/families who wish to follow that route doesn't hurt anyone." What benefit?

Minnesota kids and families are free to follow whatever route they want. A kid from Minnesota can play on any Tier I team that will take them, no? Everblades have a 98 team they might be interested in...if they are good enough the rumor is you get scholarshipped.

What exactly are these kids not able to do? Byfuglien played Major Midget. He's a Minnesota kid.

In another post you reference protectionists feeling that Tier I is a cancer. Isn't the reality that status quo is working quite well, so much so that it is the envy of other affiliates?

Here's an idea. Take a bunch of Minnesota kids that want to play Tier I and have them play on a team based in another state. Almost all the games are in Chicago, Detroit, and Ontario anyway.

I'd be supportive of Tier I hockey for Minnesota if someone could show me how it will work. For now, community-based in season hockey is terrific and for those looking for more there is the unregulated off season.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Yes, you are inventing something. Rules to govern Tier I teams based in Minnesota, where hockey is community-based. It isn't as simple as just throwing a switch.

>> There are already rules in place governing Tier 1 hockey. Extending them to Minnesota is not difficult - only as difficult as we want to make it.

When you figure out how to make the NTDP and Shattuck more accessible to Minnesota families, let me know. That'd be an achievement.

>> Speaking entirely in terms of hockey, speciifically, the Tier 1 hockey offered through organizations like Shattuck. Making it more accesible is as easy as expanding the number of Tier 1 teams in the state.

I'm not sure I understand the sentence "Making that benefit more accesible to Minnesota kids/families who wish to follow that route doesn't hurt anyone." What benefit?

>> The many benefits enjoyed by players all over the continent who are playing Tier 1 hockey. Those benefits are defined differently by the individuals who partake, can include but limited to, playing at Tier 1 events, playing in a 1 year window, playing with and against the best in your age group ... every family/player who participates in Tier 1 hockey has their own reasons. Just because YOU don't recognize the benefits, doesn't mean others don't.

Minnesota kids and families are free to follow whatever route they want.

>> Really? The Minnesota families I talk to who believe in Tier 1 hockey, prefer to play for a Minnesota team in the winter season. Tell me how they follow that route?

A kid from Minnesota can play on any Tier I team that will take them, no? Everblades have a 98 team they might be interested in...if they are good enough the rumor is you get scholarshipped.

>> I am sure they would, and some out of state teams do ... ideally Tier 1families would like to play for a Minnesota Tier 1 team

What exactly are these kids not able to do? Byfuglien played Major Midget. He's a Minnesota kid.

>> Currently not able to play it at home unless you're at Shattuck.

In another post you reference protectionists feeling that Tier I is a cancer. Isn't the reality that status quo is working quite well, so much so that it is the envy of other affiliates?

>> I'm sure it's the envy of some. Not so much others ... depending on who you talk to. I've heard it heralded and I've heard it mocked. The status quo works quite well for some, not so well for others ... again, depending on who you talk to.

Here's an idea. Take a bunch of Minnesota kids that want to play Tier I and have them play on a team based in another state.

>> Here's a better idea. Take a bunch of Minnesota kids who want to play Tier 1 and have them play on a team based in their home state.

I'd be supportive of Tier I hockey for Minnesota if someone could show me how it will work.

>> It needn't be difficult. There are many different ways it could work. It could be a club system or it could be handled by district.

For now, community-based in season hockey is terrific and for those looking for more there is the unregulated off season.

>> I agree. Community-based in season hockey is terrific. It's a great system that works for many. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. But we need not be so protective of it, or enamored with it that there is no room for other, also-succesful models - Tier 1 being one of them. It need not be all or nothing. It can easily be both.

[O-townClown]

Whose:

What problem are you trying to solve? I still can't tell. Yes, I get it. You think MAHA (what they called it when I played) should register Tier I teams. Why?

You cite the benefit of playing in a one-year window. The interesting part for me is that USA Hockey doesn't have one-year windows. MAHA has chosen to run Mites, Squirts, Pee Wees, etc... as USA Hockey lays them out, albeit with a different cutoff. Communities in Minnesota could field teams with first-year and second-year players. High A hockey is mostly second-years. Interesting sidenote - when I was a first-year Pee Wee not one kid made the A (17 players) or B (17 more) travel team. Yes, some were plenty good...like the one that went on to score 150 points in the WCHA. (we all played in-house)

Several people have noticed the "buffet" approach from people when the talk about USA Hockey and its rules. They'd like to go to the smorgasbord and select the things they like, ignoring the steamed broccoli.

You want Minnesota to register Tier I teams, but - again, I hate to dewll on it - can't lay out how this looks. By District? So now MAHA itself is actually in the business of forming teams. Do they subsidize them as well? Tier I rules get away from geographically bound rosters. Can my son play on one of these district teams? If not, then Minnesota would still by "playing by different rules" than the rest of USA Hockey's Districts and Affiliates.

Are these teams formed by clubs? If so, which ones? Is there an application process like USA Hockey has for the High Performance Clubs. Uh-oh, we didn't cover that yet either. What is the timeframe for these clubs? Do they have a one-year charter to field Tier I teams, or does it g on forever? What happens to them when HPCs come online?

Who do these teams play? Is there a Minnesota league where these three/five/dozen teams play each other over and over, or do they routinely go to Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto? Or will there be a seismic shift and now the national teams all want to come to Minnesota?

USA Hockey presently offers four national championships for Tier I...soon to be three. Is it really about having a Minnesota team compete for, maybe win, a USA Hockey National Championship? U14 (Bantams), U16 (Minor Midget), U18 (Major Midget). That's all there is to win. Top players in the Metro area probably play an approximation of Tier I Midget at public schools like Edina, Eden Prairie, Centennial, etc.. or the top private schools. (Watch, you'll throw out the best U18 team or something - most teams don't play anywhere close to that level. There were 112 teams on the MyHockey ranking for U18...Shattuck's computer rank is #1.)

Is it about playing 80 games? The Philadelphia Jr. Flyers played 83.

Is this more about youth or HS?

Youth hockey in Minnesota runs well. Hence those at MAHA see no need to make radical changes. In the off-season they let the unregulated stuff fill whatever void you see. Shouldn't people be happy?

You say hockey in Minnesota is mocked by people you talk to. Who? Are these people knowledgeable? Do they have a stake in the game? Or are they parents from Michigan that say, "you know, we aren't impressed by the scores of scholarship players that state turns out annually." Who is saying this, and - most importantly - should we be listening to them?

Keep bangin' that one note. Minnesota could have so much more if they allowed Tier I. Despite your persistence, that approach won't get you very far.

You are insistent on solving some problem that most others don't see. Begin by defining what the problem is and show how your solution solves the problem without resulting in new problems.

"Some people want it," isn't an actionable solution.

Methinks MAHA won't alter their stance any time soon. So many questions remain. And where there aren't questions there are solid concerns.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Making a laundry list of questions that don't have simple answers doesn't mean the answers aren't there or can't be readily had.

Throwing answers at your questions would only open the door to another list of questions for each answer presented. That's the intention of your post - an attempt to muddy the waters on a pretty simple concept.

Every year MAHA solves much bigger issues than wether or not to have a handful of Tier 1 teams and if let the questions keep us from the answers we wouldn't get very far.

I am not suggesting that MAHA is broken, but it would be foolish to think it's perfect. There is ALWAYS room for improvement, additions, subtractions.

Tier 1 is an easy addition to an already strong program. The nuts and bolts of it are simple logistics that are easily worked out in committees. No matter how hard you try and make it look complicated.

[O-townClown]

You conceptual "always room for improvement" stance and subseqent evading of these questions is precisely why MAHA has not acted to change the landscape. It is not an "easy addition". The questions I've thrown out don't have simple answers, and you agree. So let's not act like anything is an easy addition in any way, shape, or form.

I'm muddying the waters? Hardly. Any discussion on an important matter needs to include these basic questions, else we find ourselves asking, "how did this happen?" if things don't go as planned.

The notion that MAHA says it is okay to have any number of Tier I teams (aside from Shattuck-St. Mary's) and there isn't a whole lot of consternation is laughable. Someday when you have a week I'll share stories from our affliate about just this year.

It just isn't as easy as you let on. Sure, it's easy to throw out some what-ifs when you don't have to stick around and deal with any fallout.

Gotta ask...who is on these committees? Selecting those would be harder than selecting the players!

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

OTC:

I'm not that far off base with you. Agreed that all of your questions would need to be addressed if MAHA were to actually follow through, but they certainly don't have to be addressed by one individual on this forum. There is a time and place for everything. This isn't the place.

MAHA implemented the "Participation Rule" last year which was much more difficult than anything we are talking about, or the 78,000 post re-districting thread is another good example. This year they are experiementing with 1:30 penalties. That had questions. All of these issues have their own t's to cross and i's to dot - none of which could (or should) be answered in a single post on this forum.

So, don't take my reluctance to post a 10-20 page proposal on Tier 1 Hockey here in the forum as a lack of answers. The fact that there are questions - and inevitable answers - doesn't mean a concept lacks merit. Far from it. So let's not act like these questions of yours (or others) can't be dealt with.

I could answer all of your questions, but to what end? I have very clear ideas on how I WOULD DO IT, but what does it matter - I don't have the power to do those things. Minnesota Hockey has beaurocrats that do.

None of what you are asking is difficult at all, (relatively speaking), but me posting my personal opinion on those logistics here only opens the door for opponents of Tier 1 hockey to swoop in and make pre-emptive attacks on a personal hypothesys. It's not constructive. I might present to a planning commitee but not on a forum - particulary on one as juvenile as this one often gets.

These forums are conceptual mediums, where we often sum up often complicated thoughts and ideas in a single post with a paragraphs or two.

If Minnesota Hockey commissioned a planning committee to sit down and address these questions, hammer out these logistics, and put forth a solid proposal on Tier 1 hockey, I'd be happy to volunteer whatever time it took to get it right. It's all do-able.

The conceptual "we are the envy of the world" stance, (besides not being true), is an easy excuse for preserving status quo without having to consider the available options.

Again, not suggesting that Minnesota isn't a great place to play hockey - it is - but it can be even better. We have a unique situation in Minnesota where we can have the best High School Hockey program in the world fed by strong Associations AND a Tier 1 system that rivals anywhere else in the world. We also have people who want both, hence the demand. You might not - but some of us do.

So far, protectionists have kept it out (save Shattuck), but I believe we will have Tier 1 hockey in Minnesota eventually, and when we do, folks will wonder what all the fuss to keep it out was about.

[greybeard58]

Let’s start with some interesting numbers for this year’s NHL draft there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3. Since 2000 the totals are: American born 613 players, Minn.-150, Michigan-77, Mass.-75, New York-67 and California 30. Last year at Mens Div.I there were 1022 American born players, Minn.-was under 200 for the first time since 2003 with 196, Michigan -125, Mass.-101, New York-100 then ILL. with 63.
Some really good numbers Div.I &III -Men and Women total American born players 3,735 players. Minn.-804, Mass.-591, New York-383, Mich.-278, ILL.-181, Wis.-166, Conn.-130, Pa.-129, Calif.-126 and NJ-121. No one else over 100, seems that Minnesota with community based Youth and Girls along with a strong High school program has given more players the opportunity to play at a higher than the states with a strong Tier I teams.
It has also been stated by the President of USA Hockey Ron DeGregorio at least 2 different times at Mn Hockey meetings that if the Affiliates had a chance to start over they would copy the model Minnesota uses and would do away with the present Tier I set up of all star teams. This is not hear say but I have heard the words myself and so has Elliott 70.
To change to Minnesota teams being classified at the Tier I level first the birthdates would have to be changed and then the Association’s A level teams would be registered at the Tier I level and could then be eligible to go to the National tournament. To form All-star teams the governing documents would have to be changed and that takes a 2/3 vote of the Board and in all reality the votes are not there even though someone would give a presentation to the board. Remember the High schools have 2 voting members also 13 District Directors and say if 27 are present it would only take 10 nay votes to kill. It has been a struggle just to keep the Thoroughbreds going even though they have a grandfather situation; they have been allowed only 1 team for many years.
Another question is what happened to the Skinner Academy? I was under the impression that he was trying to get a Shattuck style school in the North suburbs?
There are more college and pro scouts watching Minnesota Hockey on any given weekend than anywhere else in the country.
If you have a chance talk with the players and coached that have played in the state tournament finals at the High school and Youth who also played in the National tournament and you will find out the National tournament was OK but they will smile with pride when talking about the Bantam or Peewee championship and really smile when talking about playing at the Civic Center, Old Met or the Exel Center and playing for your town and High school. I have worked all the National tournaments held in Minnesota metro area since 1996, and the Under 14 tournaments in Edina and Bloomington were nice but for fan attendance it didn’t compare to what we have at our own State tournaments at the Bantam or High school levels.
You can talk about Tier I here but until someone does the legwork and has a presentation to the Mn. Hockey board it just is not going to happen.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

good stuff greybeard. perhaps it's time for a presentation to the board.

[O-townClown]

good stuff greybeard. perhaps it's time for a presentation to the board.

Make it.

Your supposition is that a committee working to hammer out how to make Tier I happen in Minnesota could come up with a blueprint.

I don't disagree.

What I do see is that this committee won't happen, for all the reasons mentioned by greybeard.

This discussion is like any one on why Division I college football ends with bowls and the BCS rather than a playoff. Yeah, anyone can sketch out the bracket. Such an idea won't have traction until enough of the stakeholders are shown how they aren't harmed by such a change.

Status quo for a while I think.

[MrBoDangles]

good stuff greybeard. perhaps it's time for a presentation to the board.

Make it.

Your supposition is that a committee working to hammer out how to make Tier I happen in Minnesota could come up with a blueprint.

I don't disagree.

What I do see is that this committee won't happen, for all the reasons mentioned by greybeard.

This discussion is like any one on why Division I college football ends with bowls and the BCS rather than a playoff. Yeah, anyone can sketch out the bracket. Such an idea won't have traction until enough of the stakeholders are shown how they aren't harmed by such a change.

Status quo for a while I think.

Was Minnesota harmed by having the Fire around?

[JSR]

Let’s start with some interesting numbers for this year’s NHL draft there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3. Since 2000 the totals are: American born 613 players, Minn.-150, Michigan-77, Mass.-75, New York-67 and California 30. Last year at Mens Div.I there were 1022 American born players, Minn.-was under 200 for the first time since 2003 with 196, Michigan -125, Mass.-101, New York-100 then ILL. with 63.
Some really good numbers Div.I &III -Men and Women total American born players 3,735 players. Minn.-804, Mass.-591, New York-383, Mich.-278, ILL.-181, Wis.-166, Conn.-130, Pa.-129, Calif.-126 and NJ-121. No one else over 100, seems that Minnesota with community based Youth and Girls along with a strong High school program has given more players the opportunity to play at a higher than the states with a strong Tier I teams.
It has also been stated by the President of USA Hockey Ron DeGregorio at least 2 different times at Mn Hockey meetings that if the Affiliates had a chance to start over they would copy the model Minnesota uses and would do away with the present Tier I set up of all star teams. This is not hear say but I have heard the words myself and so has Elliott 70.
To change to Minnesota teams being classified at the Tier I level first the birthdates would have to be changed and then the Association’s A level teams would be registered at the Tier I level and could then be eligible to go to the National tournament. To form All-star teams the governing documents would have to be changed and that takes a 2/3 vote of the Board and in all reality the votes are not there even though someone would give a presentation to the board. Remember the High schools have 2 voting members also 13 District Directors and say if 27 are present it would only take 10 nay votes to kill. It has been a struggle just to keep the Thoroughbreds going even though they have a grandfather situation; they have been allowed only 1 team for many years.
Another question is what happened to the Skinner Academy? I was under the impression that he was trying to get a Shattuck style school in the North suburbs?
There are more college and pro scouts watching Minnesota Hockey on any given weekend than anywhere else in the country.
If you have a chance talk with the players and coached that have played in the state tournament finals at the High school and Youth who also played in the National tournament and you will find out the National tournament was OK but they will smile with pride when talking about the Bantam or Peewee championship and really smile when talking about playing at the Civic Center, Old Met or the Exel Center and playing for your town and High school. I have worked all the National tournaments held in Minnesota metro area since 1996, and the Under 14 tournaments in Edina and Bloomington were nice but for fan attendance it didn’t compare to what we have at our own State tournaments at the Bantam or High school levels.
You can talk about Tier I here but until someone does the legwork and has a presentation to the Mn. Hockey board it just is not going to happen.

I don't get why Aosssciaiton's would have to change their A teams to AAA? Tier 1 AAA do not and should not have anything to do with association teams. Should be totally separate and different organizations. I also don't get why you'd revamp your birthdate stuff. That stuff applies to association hockey, you already have in place verbage that accounts for spring and summer AAA teams being birth year based, why would that not be sufficient to jsut migrate to the Tier 1 teams. Again Tier 1 AAA hockey has nothing to do with association teams, or atleast it doesn't in WI and nor should it. I get some states with much smaller hockey populations do it differently. And for youth hockey why would you need to make "all star teams" you wouldn't, you just hold try outs like all other AAA orgainizations. Those who choose to tryout pay to do so, they try out, if they make it, great, if not they go back to their associations. No harm no foul. At the high school level you already have AAA all star teams in place. It's called the Elite League. Frankly, why you don't let your Elite League teams compete for the MM and mm national championships is beyond me. Team Wisconsin is made up entirely of High School players, TW plays in the Elite League, come spring they enter themselves in the State, District and National Championship playoffs. For state they playoff against the Jr. Gamblers, Jr Admirals and the Capitols. In Districts they playoff against teams int he Central District. In MN you'd have the 4 Elite League teams and Shattuck playing off for state, and I don't think Shatuck as to play off for nationals so your state winner would go directly to nationals (no district playoff). I don't get why that would be so taboo?? It is a post high school season thing that happens after the state tourney (atleast here anyway). I don't get it, it seems like the opponents are over complicating the situation. Maybe because we've had both for so long I am used to it down here and maybe because we're coming at things from the "reverse angle" so to speak we don't have the fears you guys have. In other words AAA was "THE" thing historically in our state, if you didn't play AAA here you probably weren't any good, but recently association hockey and high school hockey have become very viable options for kids and really good kids at that. One of the very best 97 players in our state has never played Tier 1 hockey and never will. Mor eplayers who played high school hockey (and TW) have received scholarships in the last 7 years than those who played Tier 1 hockey. That says alot about H.S. hockey and the Elite League B&A program, and that also says that the assciation and high school model work, but I also would not want to get rid of the Tier 1 teams eitehr. They serve a good purpose here. IE, exceptional kids who play in communities with small/poor associations and high schools that cannot help promote theiir talent as one example. Like I said, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you think and frankly your neighbors to the east here have a reasonably decent blueprint of how it can work in relative harmony, meanwhile we look to our neighbors to the west to see how we can conitnue to improve our High Schools and Assciations.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Such an idea won't have traction until enough of the stakeholders are shown how they aren't harmed by such a change.

That sums it up best.

The onus is square on the shoulders of those who want Tier 1 hockey to convince the powers that be that it (Tier 1 hockey) is not a cancer waiting to gut the Association/High School model. Those supporters (I am one of them) must show how the 2 models can live in harmony, not just philisophically, but logistically.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Let’s start with some interesting numbers for this year’s NHL draft there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3. Since 2000 the totals are: American born 613 players, Minn.-150, Michigan-77, Mass.-75, New York-67 and California 30. Last year at Mens Div.I there were 1022 American born players, Minn.-was under 200 for the first time since 2003 with 196, Michigan -125, Mass.-101, New York-100 then ILL. with 63.
Some really good numbers Div.I &III -Men and Women total American born players 3,735 players. Minn.-804, Mass.-591, New York-383, Mich.-278, ILL.-181, Wis.-166, Conn.-130, Pa.-129, Calif.-126 and NJ-121. No one else over 100, seems that Minnesota with community based Youth and Girls along with a strong High school program has given more players the opportunity to play at a higher than the states with a strong Tier I teams.
It has also been stated by the President of USA Hockey Ron DeGregorio at least 2 different times at Mn Hockey meetings that if the Affiliates had a chance to start over they would copy the model Minnesota uses and would do away with the present Tier I set up of all star teams. This is not hear say but I have heard the words myself and so has Elliott 70.
To change to Minnesota teams being classified at the Tier I level first the birthdates would have to be changed and then the Association’s A level teams would be registered at the Tier I level and could then be eligible to go to the National tournament. To form All-star teams the governing documents would have to be changed and that takes a 2/3 vote of the Board and in all reality the votes are not there even though someone would give a presentation to the board. Remember the High schools have 2 voting members also 13 District Directors and say if 27 are present it would only take 10 nay votes to kill. It has been a struggle just to keep the Thoroughbreds going even though they have a grandfather situation; they have been allowed only 1 team for many years.
Another question is what happened to the Skinner Academy? I was under the impression that he was trying to get a Shattuck style school in the North suburbs?
There are more college and pro scouts watching Minnesota Hockey on any given weekend than anywhere else in the country.
If you have a chance talk with the players and coached that have played in the state tournament finals at the High school and Youth who also played in the National tournament and you will find out the National tournament was OK but they will smile with pride when talking about the Bantam or Peewee championship and really smile when talking about playing at the Civic Center, Old Met or the Exel Center and playing for your town and High school. I have worked all the National tournaments held in Minnesota metro area since 1996, and the Under 14 tournaments in Edina and Bloomington were nice but for fan attendance it didn’t compare to what we have at our own State tournaments at the Bantam or High school levels.
You can talk about Tier I here but until someone does the legwork and has a presentation to the Mn. Hockey board it just is not going to happen.

I don't get why Aosssciaiton's would have to change their A teams to AAA? Tier 1 AAA do not and should not have anything to do with association teams. SHould be totoally separate and fiferent organizations. I also don;t get why you'd revamp your birthdate suttf. That stuff applies to association hockey, you already have in place verbage that accounts for spring and summer AAA teams being birth year based, why would that not be sufficient to jsut migrate to the Tier 1 teams. Again Tier 1 AAA hockey has nothing to do with association teams, or atleast it doesn't in WI and nor should it. I get some states with much smaller hockey populations do it differently. And for youth hockey why would you need to make "all star teams" you wouldn't, you just hold try outs like all other AAA orgainizations. Those who choose to tryout pay to do so, they try out, if they make it, great, if not they go back to their associations. No harm no foul. At the high school level you already have AAA all star teams in place. It's called the Elite League. Frankly, why you don't let your Elite League teams compete for the MM and mm national championships is beyond me. Team Wisconsin is made up entirely of High School players, TW plays in the Elite League, come spring they enter themselves in the State, District and National Championship playoffs. For state they playoff against the Jr. Gamblers, Jr Admirals and the Capitols. In Districts they playoff against teams int he Central District. In MN you'd have the 4 Elite League teams and Shattuck playing off for state, and i don;t think Shatuck as to play off for nationals so your state winner would go directly to nationals (no district playoff). I don't get why that would be so taboo?? It is a post high school season thing that happens after the state tourney (atleast here anyway). I don't get it, it seems like the opponents are over complicating the situation. Maybe because we've had both for so long I am used to it down here and maybe because we're coming at things from the "reverse angle" so to speak we don't have the fears you guys have. In other words AAA was "THE" thing historically in our state, if you didn't play AAA here you probably weren't any good, but recently association hockey and high school hockey have become very viable options for kids and really good kids at that. One of the very best 97 players in our state has never played Tier 1 hockey and never will. Mor eplayers who played high school hockey (and TW) have received scholarships in the last 7 years than those who played Tier 1 hockey. That says alot about H.S. hockey and the Elite League B&A program, and that also says that the assciation and high school model work, but I also would not want to get rid of the Tier 1 teams eitehr. They serve a good purpose here. Ie, exceptional kids who play in communities with small/poor associations and high schools that cannot help promote theiir talent as one example. Like I said, I don't think it's as big of a deal as you think and frankly your neighbors to the east here have a reasonably decent blueprint of how it can work in relative harmony, meanwhile we look to our neighbors to the west to see how we can conitnue to improve our High Schools and Assciations

It sounds like you guys are getting it figured out. Trials and tribulations along the way, no doubt, but at least you are giving your membership those options. Not sure all of that would work in Minnesota, but certainly a good model to look at. There are others as well ...

[JSR]

It sounds like you guys are getting it figured out. Trials and tribulations along the way, no doubt, but at least you are giving your membership those options. Not sure all of that would work in Minnesota, but certainly a good model to look at. There are others as well ...

By no means is it all figured and there are definitely some trials and tribulations. Down here it's kidn of funny. The "old time guys" are the Tier 1 guys down here and they fight tooth and nail against the associations and specifically they fought against the creation of TW because they saw that as them losing kids to High School and the Elite League, and it has happened to some degree (it's funny because the opponents to Tier 1 up there are worried about losing H.S. kids to Tier 1, where down here Tier 1 is losing kids to H.S...... irony is funny...). Some of the Tier 1 parents also get quite colorful when TW plays the Capitols or the Jr. Admirals etc... in the state deal. I jsut see the debate you guys are having and it's humorous in a way because it is almsot like both of us are trying to get to this poitn in the middle so to speak but we're both going toward it from completely different sides of the spectrum. I do beleive that both can live in harmony but one thing I think is tantamount is that year round Tier 1 AAA organizations must be kept entriely separate from assocations. I know there are models out there but in states where the populations of hockey players are significant I believe this is a must.

[StillAnEagle]

Let’s start with some interesting numbers for this year’s NHL draft there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3. Since 2000 the totals are: American born 613 players, Minn.-150, Michigan-77, Mass.-75, New York-67 and California 30. Last year at Mens Div.I there were 1022 American born players, Minn.-was under 200 for the first time since 2003 with 196, Michigan -125, Mass.-101, New York-100 then ILL. with 63.
Some really good numbers Div.I &III -Men and Women total American born players 3,735 players. Minn.-804, Mass.-591, New York-383, Mich.-278, ILL.-181, Wis.-166, Conn.-130, Pa.-129, Calif.-126 and NJ-121. No one else over 100, seems that Minnesota with community based Youth and Girls along with a strong High school program has given more players the opportunity to play at a higher than the states with a strong Tier I teams.
It has also been stated by the President of USA Hockey Ron DeGregorio at least 2 different times at Mn Hockey meetings that if the Affiliates had a chance to start over they would copy the model Minnesota uses and would do away with the present Tier I set up of all star teams. This is not hear say but I have heard the words myself and so has Elliott 70.
To change to Minnesota teams being classified at the Tier I level first the birthdates would have to be changed and then the Association’s A level teams would be registered at the Tier I level and could then be eligible to go to the National tournament. To form All-star teams the governing documents would have to be changed and that takes a 2/3 vote of the Board and in all reality the votes are not there even though someone would give a presentation to the board. Remember the High schools have 2 voting members also 13 District Directors and say if 27 are present it would only take 10 nay votes to kill. It has been a struggle just to keep the Thoroughbreds going even though they have a grandfather situation; they have been allowed only 1 team for many years.
Another question is what happened to the Skinner Academy? I was under the impression that he was trying to get a Shattuck style school in the North suburbs?
There are more college and pro scouts watching Minnesota Hockey on any given weekend than anywhere else in the country.
If you have a chance talk with the players and coached that have played in the state tournament finals at the High school and Youth who also played in the National tournament and you will find out the National tournament was OK but they will smile with pride when talking about the Bantam or Peewee championship and really smile when talking about playing at the Civic Center, Old Met or the Exel Center and playing for your town and High school. I have worked all the National tournaments held in Minnesota metro area since 1996, and the Under 14 tournaments in Edina and Bloomington were nice but for fan attendance it didn’t compare to what we have at our own State tournaments at the Bantam or High school levels.
You can talk about Tier I here but until someone does the legwork and has a presentation to the Mn. Hockey board it just is not going to happen.

Let me play DA for a miunte... What concerns me here is that the parts don't add up to the whole (speaking only to the numbers provided above). For example you said, "there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3", but when you add up 17+10+7+4+3 you get 41. Where are the other 16 kids from? This goes for the other data you provided too - "since 2000", "Div 1", etc. Furthermore, you only list what states they are from and not if they played Tier 1 or for their respective states HS league. Of the non-Minnesota kids you list what if they all (or even a majority) played Tier 1? -I'm willing to bet that the majority of the Michigan kids at least played Tier 1. Then you have numbers that look something like - 40 kids who played Tier 1 got drafted vs the 17 MN kids who played MN HS. You really need to compare MN HS league kids to Tier 1 (any state) kids to compare apples to apples. Please don't get me wrong here. I would love to continue to believe that MN hockey and it's format is superior to everyone else (it's what I believe now). But I want the real facts to back it up.

BTW - I've been thinking about the MN hockey vs Tier 1 hockey scenario for a while now... not that it makes me any "smarter" in regards to the issue, but that it makes me more curious the more I think about it....

[JSR]

Let’s start with some interesting numbers for this year’s NHL draft there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3. Since 2000 the totals are: American born 613 players, Minn.-150, Michigan-77, Mass.-75, New York-67 and California 30. Last year at Mens Div.I there were 1022 American born players, Minn.-was under 200 for the first time since 2003 with 196, Michigan -125, Mass.-101, New York-100 then ILL. with 63.
Some really good numbers Div.I &III -Men and Women total American born players 3,735 players. Minn.-804, Mass.-591, New York-383, Mich.-278, ILL.-181, Wis.-166, Conn.-130, Pa.-129, Calif.-126 and NJ-121. No one else over 100, seems that Minnesota with community based Youth and Girls along with a strong High school program has given more players the opportunity to play at a higher than the states with a strong Tier I teams.
It has also been stated by the President of USA Hockey Ron DeGregorio at least 2 different times at Mn Hockey meetings that if the Affiliates had a chance to start over they would copy the model Minnesota uses and would do away with the present Tier I set up of all star teams. This is not hear say but I have heard the words myself and so has Elliott 70.
To change to Minnesota teams being classified at the Tier I level first the birthdates would have to be changed and then the Association’s A level teams would be registered at the Tier I level and could then be eligible to go to the National tournament. To form All-star teams the governing documents would have to be changed and that takes a 2/3 vote of the Board and in all reality the votes are not there even though someone would give a presentation to the board. Remember the High schools have 2 voting members also 13 District Directors and say if 27 are present it would only take 10 nay votes to kill. It has been a struggle just to keep the Thoroughbreds going even though they have a grandfather situation; they have been allowed only 1 team for many years.
Another question is what happened to the Skinner Academy? I was under the impression that he was trying to get a Shattuck style school in the North suburbs?
There are more college and pro scouts watching Minnesota Hockey on any given weekend than anywhere else in the country.
If you have a chance talk with the players and coached that have played in the state tournament finals at the High school and Youth who also played in the National tournament and you will find out the National tournament was OK but they will smile with pride when talking about the Bantam or Peewee championship and really smile when talking about playing at the Civic Center, Old Met or the Exel Center and playing for your town and High school. I have worked all the National tournaments held in Minnesota metro area since 1996, and the Under 14 tournaments in Edina and Bloomington were nice but for fan attendance it didn’t compare to what we have at our own State tournaments at the Bantam or High school levels.
You can talk about Tier I here but until someone does the legwork and has a presentation to the Mn. Hockey board it just is not going to happen.

Let me play DA for a miunte... What concerns me here is that the parts don't add up to the whole (speaking only to the numbers provided above). For example you said, "there were 57 American born players drafted. Minn.-17, Michigan-10, Mass.-7. New York-4 and California 3", but when you add up 17+10+7+4+3 you get 41. Where are the other 16 kids from? This goes for the other data you provided too - "since 2000", "Div 1", etc. Furthermore, you only list what states they are from and not if they played Tier 1 or for their respective states HS league. Of the non-Minnesota kids you list what if they all (or even a majority) played Tier 1? -I'm willing to bet that the majority of the Michigan kids at least played Tier 1. Then you have numbers that look something like - 40 kids who played Tier 1 got drafted vs the 17 MN kids who played MN HS. You really need to compare MN HS league kids to Tier 1 (any state) kids to compare apples to apples. Please don't get me wrong here. I would love to continue to believe that MN hockey and it's format is superior to everyone else (it's what I believe now). But I want the real facts to back it up.

BTW - I've been thinking about the MN hockey vs Tier 1 hockey scenario for a while now... not that it makes me any "smarter" in regards to the issue, but that it makes me more curious the more I think about it....

That is smart. I mean aren't those numbers just base don birth place, not where they played. For the MN numbers, how many of those played for the USNDTP. For the Wisconsin numebrs how many played WI H.S. versus in state Tier 1 versus out of state Tier 1 as we've got kids all over the place out there that were born here. I agree I'd mbe interested in more substantial data than just birthplace.

[greybeard58]

Here you go
MINN. 17
MICH 10
MASS 7
N.Y. 4
N.H. 1
CAL. 3
ALASKA
GA.
ARIZ 1
CO.
N.J. 1
IND.
ILL. 2
MD 1
MO 1
ME
WIS.
OHIO 1
PA. 2
CT 2
NC
VA 1
RI.
SD
ND
IDAHO
OK
NEV 1
ALA
UT 1
FL 1
WASH
TEX
TOTAL 57

MINN. 150
MASS 75
MICH 77
N.Y. 67
ILL. 28
CAL. 30
WIS. 22
PA. 21
N.J. 15
CT 23
OHIO 12
ND 9
N.H. 10
CO. 11
ME 8
MO 7
ALASKA 6
IND. 4
RI. 4
GA. 5
MD 3
WASH 3
ARIZ 2
NC 2
OR 1
IDAHO 1
WASH D.C. 1
TEX 6
ALA. 1
IOWA
MONT
S.CAR
TENN.
UTAH 3
VERMONT
VIRGINIA 1
W.VA
NEV. 1
NEB
FLA. 3
S.D
OK 1
TOTALS 613

DIVISION I DIVISION III

STATE 2009 % STATE 2009 % TOTAL
MINN. 196 19.18% MINN. 249 17.41% 445 18.15%
MICH 125 12.23% MICH 79 5.52% 204 8.32%
MASS 101 9.88% MASS 284 19.86% 385 15.70%
N.Y. 100 9.78% N.Y. 159 11.12% 259 10.56%
ILL. 63 6.16% ILL. 58 4.06% 121 4.93%
PA. 50 4.89% PA. 44 3.08% 94 3.83%
CAL. 45 4.40% CAL. 50 3.50% 95 3.87%
CT 33 3.23% CT 51 3.57% 84 3.43%
WIS. 44 4.31% WIS. 67 4.69% 111 4.53%
N.J. 30 2.94% N.J. 65 4.55% 95 3.87%
N.H. 17 1.66% N.H. 46 3.22% 63 2.57%
CO. 28 2.74% CO. 24 1.68% 52 2.12%
ALASKA 21 2.05% ALASKA 21 1.47% 42 1.71%
OHIO 28 2.74% OHIO 22 1.54% 50 2.04%
MO 24 2.35% MO 10 0.70% 34 1.39%
ME 3 0.29% ME 30 2.10% 33 1.35%
RI. 5 0.49% RI. 22 1.54% 27 1.10%
WASH 11 1.08% WASH 8 0.56% 19 0.77%
TEX 11 1.08% TEX 21 1.47% 32 1.31%
ND 8 0.78% ND 15 1.05% 23 0.94%
MD 3 0.29% MD 12 0.84% 15 0.61%
IND. 6 0.59% IND. 6 0.42% 12 0.49%
VERMONT 8 0.78% VERMONT 15 1.05% 23 0.94%
ARIZ 9 0.88% ARIZ 7 0.49% 16 0.65%
VIRGINIA 12 1.17% VIRGINIA 8 0.56% 20 0.82%
FLA. 10 0.98% FLA. 19 1.33% 29 1.18%
IOWA 3 0.29% IOWA 2 0.14% 5 0.20%
NEV. 4 0.39% NEV. 2 0.14% 6 0.24%
GA. 5 0.49% GA. 6 0.42% 11 0.45%
NC 2 0.20% NC 5 0.35% 7 0.29%
ALA. 2 0.20% ALA. 0 0.00% 2 0.08%
OR 1 0.10% OR 3 0.21% 4 0.16%
IDAHO 1 0.10% IDAHO 0 0.00% 1 0.04%
MONT 1 0.10% MONT 3 0.21% 4 0.16%
TENN. 2 0.20% TENN. 1 0.07% 3 0.12%
UTAH 0 0.00% UTAH 2 0.14% 2 0.08%
NEB 3 0.29% NEB 2 0.14% 5 0.20%
KENTUCKY 0 0.00% KENTUCKY 2 0.14% 2 0.08%
OK 2 0.20% OK 4 0.28% 6 0.24%
WASH D.C. 1 0.10% WASH D.C. 0 0.00% 1 0.04%
KANSAS 4 0.39% KANSAS 3 0.21% 7 0.29%
WYOMING 0 0.00% WYOMING 1 0.07% 1 0.04%
S.CAR 0 0.00% S.CAR 1 0.07% 1 0.04%
W.VA 0 0.00% W.VA 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
S.D 0 0.00% S.D 1 0.07% 1 0.04%
TOTALS 1022 100.00% TOTALS 1430 100.00% 2452 100.00%
ASIA 3
CANADA 508 CANADA 317
EUROPE 31 EUROPE 58
Total Players D1 1561 TOTAL D III 1808
WOMENS
DIVISION I DIVISION III

STATE 2009 % STATE 2009 % TOTAL
MINN. 128 28.89% MINN. 231 27.50% 359 28.00%
MICH 26 5.87% MICH 48 5.71% 74 5.77%
MASS 71 16.03% MASS 135 16.07% 206 16.07%
N.Y. 30 6.77% N.Y. 94 11.19% 124 9.67%
ILL. 29 6.55% ILL. 31 3.69% 60 4.68%
PA. 18 4.06% PA. 17 2.02% 35 2.73%
CAL. 17 3.84% CAL. 14 1.67% 31 2.42%
CT 18 4.06% CT 28 3.33% 46 3.59%
WIS. 14 3.16% WIS. 41 4.88% 55 4.29%
N.J. 9 2.03% N.J. 17 2.02% 26 2.03%
N.H. 4 0.90% N.H. 20 2.38% 24 1.87%
CO. 15 3.39% CO. 15 1.79% 30 2.34%
ALASKA 14 3.16% ALASKA 12 1.43% 26 2.03%
OHIO 3 0.68% OHIO 9 1.07% 12 0.94%
MO 1 0.23% MO 2 0.24% 3 0.23%
ME 4 0.90% ME 16 1.90% 20 1.56%
RI. 4 0.90% RI. 16 1.90% 20 1.56%
WASH 0.00% WASH 3 0.36% 3 0.23%
TEX 4 0.90% TEX 4 0.48% 8 0.62%
ND 4 0.90% ND 8 0.95% 12 0.94%
MD 5 1.13% MD 14 1.67% 19 1.48%
IND. 0.00% IND. 1 0.12% 1 0.08%
VERMONT 7 1.58% VERMONT 26 3.10% 33 2.57%
ARIZ 1 0.23% ARIZ 3 0.36% 4 0.31%
VIRGINIA 3 0.68% VIRGINIA 6 0.71% 9 0.70%
FLA. 2 0.45% FLA. 8 0.95% 10 0.78%
IOWA 0.00% IOWA 1 0.12% 1 0.08%
NEV. 0.00% NEV. 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
GA. 0.00% GA. 2 0.24% 2 0.16%
NC 4 0.90% NC 1 0.12% 5 0.39%
ALA. 0.00% ALA. 0.00% 0 0.00%
OR 2 0.45% OR 3 0.36% 5 0.39%
IDAHO 1 0.23% IDAHO 1 0.12% 2 0.16%
MONT 1 0.23% MONT 0.00% 1 0.08%
TENN. 0.00% TENN. 1 0.12% 1 0.08%
UTAH 0.00% UTAH 2 0.24% 2 0.16%
LA 1 0.23% LA 2 0.24% 3 0.23%
KENTUCKY 0.00% KENTUCKY 0.00% 0 0.00%
OK 0.00% OK 0.00% 0 0.00%
NEW MEX 0.00% NEW MEX 2 0.24% 1 0.08%
WASH D.C. 0.00% WASH D.C. 0.00% 0 0.00%
KANSAS 0.00% KANSAS 1 0.12% 1 0.08%
WYOMING 1 0.23% WYOMING 2 0.24% 3 0.23%
S.CAR 1 0.23% S.CAR 1 0.12% 2 0.16%
W.VA 0.00% W.VA 0.00% 0 0.00%
S.D 1 0.23% S.D 2 0.24% 3 0.23%
TOTALS 443 100.00% TOTALS 840 100.00% 1282 100.00%
ASIA 1
CANADA 272 CANADA 121
EUROPE 23 EUROPE 2
Total Players D1 738 TOTAL D III 964

[greybeard58]

Total all have fun

D I MEN D III M D I W D III W TOTAL U.S. ALL
STATE 2009 2009 2009 2009
MINN. 196 249 128 231 804 21.53% 15.85%
MASS 101 284 71 135 591 15.82% 11.65%
N.Y. 100 159 30 94 383 10.25% 7.55%
MICH 125 79 26 48 278 7.44% 5.48%
ILL. 63 58 29 31 181 4.85% 3.57%
WIS. 44 67 14 41 166 4.44% 3.27%
CT 33 51 18 28 130 3.48% 2.56%
PA. 50 44 18 17 129 3.45% 2.54%
CAL. 45 50 17 14 126 3.37% 2.48%
N.J. 30 65 9 17 121 3.24% 2.39%
N.H. 17 46 4 20 87 2.33% 1.72%
CO. 28 24 15 15 82 2.20% 1.62%
ALASKA 21 21 14 12 68 1.82% 1.34%
OHIO 28 22 3 9 62 1.66% 1.22%
VERMONT 8 15 7 26 56 1.50% 1.10%
ME 3 30 4 16 53 1.42% 1.05%
RI. 5 22 4 16 47 1.26% 0.93%
TEX 11 21 4 4 40 1.07% 0.79%
FLA. 10 19 2 8 39 1.04% 0.77%
MO 24 10 1 2 37 0.99% 0.73%
ND 8 15 4 8 35 0.94% 0.69%
MD 3 12 5 14 34 0.91% 0.67%
VIRGINIA 12 8 3 6 29 0.78% 0.57%
WASH 11 8 3 22 0.59% 0.43%
ARIZ 9 7 1 3 20 0.54% 0.39%
IND. 6 6 1 13 0.35% 0.26%
GA. 5 6 2 13 0.35% 0.26%
NC 2 5 4 1 12 0.32% 0.24%
OR 1 3 2 3 9 0.24% 0.18%
NEB 3 2 1 2 8 0.21% 0.16%
KANSAS 4 3 1 8 0.21% 0.16%
IOWA 3 2 1 6 0.16% 0.12%
NEV. 4 2 0 6 0.16% 0.12%
OK 2 4 6 0.16% 0.12%
MONT 1 3 1 5 0.13% 0.10%
TENN. 2 1 1 4 0.11% 0.08%
UTAH 0 2 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
WYOMING 0 1 1 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
S.D 0 1 1 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
IDAHO 1 0 1 1 3 0.08% 0.06%
S.CAR 0 1 1 1 3 0.08% 0.06%
ALA. 2 0 2 0.05% 0.04%
KENTUCKY 0 2 2 0.05% 0.04%
NEW MEXICO 2 2 0.05% 0.04%
WASH D.C. 1 0 1 0.03% 0.02%
W.VA 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
TOTALS 1022 1430 443 840 3735 100.00% 73.65%
ASIA 3 1 4 0.08%
CANADA 508 317 272 121 1218 24.02%
EUROPE 31 58 23 2 114 2.25%
Total Players D1 1561 1808 738 964 5071 100.00%

[StillAnEagle]

Total all have fun

D I MEN D III M D I W D III W TOTAL U.S. ALL
STATE 2009 2009 2009 2009
MINN. 196 249 128 231 804 21.53% 15.85%
MASS 101 284 71 135 591 15.82% 11.65%
N.Y. 100 159 30 94 383 10.25% 7.55%
MICH 125 79 26 48 278 7.44% 5.48%
ILL. 63 58 29 31 181 4.85% 3.57%
WIS. 44 67 14 41 166 4.44% 3.27%
CT 33 51 18 28 130 3.48% 2.56%
PA. 50 44 18 17 129 3.45% 2.54%
CAL. 45 50 17 14 126 3.37% 2.48%
N.J. 30 65 9 17 121 3.24% 2.39%
N.H. 17 46 4 20 87 2.33% 1.72%
CO. 28 24 15 15 82 2.20% 1.62%
ALASKA 21 21 14 12 68 1.82% 1.34%
OHIO 28 22 3 9 62 1.66% 1.22%
VERMONT 8 15 7 26 56 1.50% 1.10%
ME 3 30 4 16 53 1.42% 1.05%
RI. 5 22 4 16 47 1.26% 0.93%
TEX 11 21 4 4 40 1.07% 0.79%
FLA. 10 19 2 8 39 1.04% 0.77%
MO 24 10 1 2 37 0.99% 0.73%
ND 8 15 4 8 35 0.94% 0.69%
MD 3 12 5 14 34 0.91% 0.67%
VIRGINIA 12 8 3 6 29 0.78% 0.57%
WASH 11 8 3 22 0.59% 0.43%
ARIZ 9 7 1 3 20 0.54% 0.39%
IND. 6 6 1 13 0.35% 0.26%
GA. 5 6 2 13 0.35% 0.26%
NC 2 5 4 1 12 0.32% 0.24%
OR 1 3 2 3 9 0.24% 0.18%
NEB 3 2 1 2 8 0.21% 0.16%
KANSAS 4 3 1 8 0.21% 0.16%
IOWA 3 2 1 6 0.16% 0.12%
NEV. 4 2 0 6 0.16% 0.12%
OK 2 4 6 0.16% 0.12%
MONT 1 3 1 5 0.13% 0.10%
TENN. 2 1 1 4 0.11% 0.08%
UTAH 0 2 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
WYOMING 0 1 1 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
S.D 0 1 1 2 4 0.11% 0.08%
IDAHO 1 0 1 1 3 0.08% 0.06%
S.CAR 0 1 1 1 3 0.08% 0.06%
ALA. 2 0 2 0.05% 0.04%
KENTUCKY 0 2 2 0.05% 0.04%
NEW MEXICO 2 2 0.05% 0.04%
WASH D.C. 1 0 1 0.03% 0.02%
W.VA 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
TOTALS 1022 1430 443 840 3735 100.00% 73.65%
ASIA 3 1 4 0.08%
CANADA 508 317 272 121 1218 24.02%
EUROPE 31 58 23 2 114 2.25%
Total Players D1 1561 1808 738 964 5071 100.00%

Unless this tells me how many kids played Tier 1 hockey and how many played MN HS league, it doesn't help at all. Again, the comparision NEEDS to be MN HS league kids drafted vs Tier 1 (any state) kids drafted.

[greybeard58]

For those who want the last team played for in a lot of cases will list either high school or Juniors. The home address was the most consistent. Take the Tonordi son lives in Maryland, born in Mn and played for Shattuck, I counted him from Maryland. Would you credit Phil Kessel as from Wisconsin when the last team before turning pro was the University of Minn.
T.J. Oshie was born in the state of Washington but moved to Warroad and played Youth and High school in Mn. The states are where the players live not necessarily born.
If some one wants to take the time then go to the NHL web site and have fun all the information is there. Then go to Inside College Hockey or USCHO.com and go to every team site and for most have rosters for the past years. Not all have the new rosters for this years season.

[JSR]

For those who want the last team played for in a lot of cases will list either high school or Juniors. The home address was the most consistent. Take the Tonordi son lives in Maryland, born in Mn and played for Shattuck, I counted him from Maryland. Would you credit Phil Kessel as from Wisconsin when the last team before turning pro was the University of Minn.
T.J. Oshie was born in the state of Washington but moved to Warroad and played Youth and High school in Mn. The states are where the players live not necessarily born.
If some one wants to take the time then go to the NHL web site and have fun all the information is there. Then go to Inside College Hockey or USCHO.com and go to every team site and for most have rosters for the past years. Not all have the new rosters for this years season.

Yes I credit Phil Kessel as being from Wisconsin since he was born here, raised here, played here until he was 16 and continues to reside here in the off season

[greybeard58]

And so did I when he was drafted

[StillAnEagle]

For those who want the last team played for in a lot of cases will list either high school or Juniors. The home address was the most consistent. Take the Tonordi son lives in Maryland, born in Mn and played for Shattuck, I counted him from Maryland. Would you credit Phil Kessel as from Wisconsin when the last team before turning pro was the University of Minn.
T.J. Oshie was born in the state of Washington but moved to Warroad and played Youth and High school in Mn. The states are where the players live not necessarily born.
If some one wants to take the time then go to the NHL web site and have fun all the information is there. Then go to Inside College Hockey or USCHO.com and go to every team site and for most have rosters for the past years. Not all have the new rosters for this years season.

Lol - I've actually been to both NHL.com and USCHO numerous times doing exactly what you suggest.
I would call Phil Kessel a product of where he played his youth and HS hockey - which looks to me like Tier 1 and UNDTP. TJ Oshie would be a MN product because he played in our organization, not a Washington product because he drank the water there before coming here.
Last team played for isn't the product because many kids play Juniors after MN league or Tier 1.
I am mostly curious about the stats of kids who played MN youth and HS hockey vs kids that played Tier 1 (any state) - that get drafted. After we can determine a ratio, we then would need to determine if it's proportionate or not, and THEN we will know if the choice is MN hockey or Tier 1.