Thoughts on Youth Hockey AA and A divisions...

[elliott70]

The difference between A - B and AA - A, would be that AA - A could play each other, allow large associatins to have multi A teams...
smaller associations to have an A team and still be competitive...

For those with a strong interest in winning tournaments including state it would make (hopefully) those events more competitive...

Is this something Minensota Hockey should consider?

[MNHawker]

Why not make a MN HOCKEY “rule”, which goes something like this:
It’s based on Number Registered for the Association, based on Level

Say Peewee’s
• Less than 15 Kids (Play B)
• 15-30 kids (A & B or B & C)
• 31-45 (ABC)
• 46-60 (ABBC)
• 61-75 (AABBC)
• 76-90 (AABBBC)
• 91-105 (AABBBBC or AABBBCC)
• 106-120 (AAABBBBC)

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Why not make a MN HOCKEY “rule”, which goes something like this:
It’s based on Number Registered for the Association, based on Level

Say Peewee’s
• Less than 15 Kids (Play B)
• 15-30 kids (A & B or B & C)
• 31-45 (ABC)
• 46-60 (ABBC)
• 61-75 (AABBC)
• 76-90 (AABBBC)
• 91-105 (AABBBBC or AABBBCC)
• 106-120 (AAABBBBC)

Hawk - I personally hate this idea because it takes control away from the associations (which may be your goal I recognized). Numbers are important, but they do not guarantee that players are in their right skill level for development purposes.

I enjoy the AA thought but think that it should be voluntary... I wonder how many associations would "choose" to field an AA team. My guess is around 30-40...

District play doesn't have to change necessarily, keep everything the same except that at the end of the year the AA teams take part in a 3 week playoff starting at the end of February just like districts do now.

Lots of things to work out of course, including a better playoff system than the one I lay out... but its doable.

I admit the unknown is whether more associations than I anticipate feel the need to have a AA team to feel like a top quality ass'n...

[nhl'er]

Either create a AA and A division or require associations that have greater than 'X" number of players per level(Squirt,PeeWee,Bantam) to field two A teams.

[MrBoDangles]

Now we are going to spread the gap of competition even more? Jimmy the kid in Mora stuck playing b-2 Hockey because of the borders he lives behind, and now this? Minnesota Hockey should be looking into bringing the competition level closer together. By thinking about going to AA, are they not just saying we shouldn't stop there and lets go to tier 1 "AAA" and just have rec leagues in smaller communities?

They will soon be changing the name from Minnesota Hockey to Bernie's Hockey with this stupid way of thinking.

[royals dad]

I admit the unknown is whether more associations than I anticipate feel the need to have a AA team to feel like a top quality ass'n...

I keep thinking of the scene in the movie Spinal Tap where Nigel tries to explain that his amp is louder because it goes to 11 instead of 10. If it is all the same kids, in the same associations just some called AA I don't think it is really a change, you just added another state tournament. I think this is a tweak that really would not improve MN Hockey.

All the people who want Tier 1 really are saying they want hockey without geographic boarders. There is nothing you can do to the current association model to fix that other than blowing it up. Just look to soccer and fastpitch for examples of that in MN youth travel sports. Are we stronger because we are different or are we held back because we are different? I am still in the camp that the strength of MN Hockey is that our model for winter hockey allows more kids to get involved and stay involved for longer periods of time. Still reading all the threads and keeping and open mind but have not seen anything that would have me believe otherwise.

[JaginCake]

I think the day of MN hockey having a set rule on numbers of teams at the different levels based on number of participants is long overdue. Mn Hockey has a long history of doing what has been best for Hockey in Minnesota. (Mid year age cut off, 2 age groups playing together) Making the large associations field more teams at the "A and B" levels will help even the playing field across the state. (look what parody's done for the NFL) At a time where AAA hockey seems to be gaining more and more support MN hockey has to be pro-active. Hockey in Minnesota over the years has become very centered on High School Hockey. This tradition is what makes Minnesota unique. We have become the only state with a viable HIGH SCHOOL hockey tradition. AAA hockey has destroyed High School hockey out east. Why? The options it gave parents and the control it took away from the "IN" groups in associations. The opportunity for parents to allow their kids to play at the level they want or believe them able to play is paramount. Nothing is more frustrating than to be told by other parents that "my" child isn't good enough to play with them. The condescending remarks that it is for that kids safety?? Or they wouldn't have any fun as they wouldn't be able to keep up? This being made by individuals who are trying to limit the competition and many times trying to keep there social circle together.

[Survey]

My vote is NO, they shouldn't even have a split at High School....they should be talking about going back to just one class for all.

[JaginCake]

My vote is NO, they shouldn't even have a split at High School....they should be talking about going back to just one class for all.

Another person voting to help usher in AAA hockey and ending High School Hockey.

Another great part of AAA fans they love to tell everyone why the Minnesota model sucks while they are trying to convince us that out east helps develop more D1 and pro players? I think the numbers favor MN or are close. Populations East Coast 100 million people MN 5 million? MN shouldn't even be close in numbers of D1 or better players

[Survey]

My vote is NO, they shouldn't even have a split at High School....they should be talking about going back to just one class for all.

Another person voting to help usher in AAA hockey and ending High School Hockey.

Another great part of AAA fans they love to tell everyone why the Minnesota model sucks while they are trying to convince us that out east helps develop more D1 and pro players? I think the numbers favor MN or are close. Populations East Coast 100 million people MN 5 million? MN shouldn't even be close in numbers of D1 or better players

Actually before you voice your opinion on someone you don't know you should get your facts straight.

A. I can't stand the AAA hockey scenario..all AAA is now is who has money to pay for their kid to be on it. I for one will never allow my kid (who isn't born yet) to play AAA hockey if he chooses to even play hockey.

B. AAA hockey doesn't have the best competition anymore because, like i stated above, anyone can be on a AAA team.

C. I want one class (16 team tournament) as then you can truly determine who the best school is in state. Granted some teams will never get to the tournament but some teams never get there anyway.

[MrBoDangles]

My vote is NO, they shouldn't even have a split at High School....they should be talking about going back to just one class for all.

Another person voting to help usher in AAA hockey and ending High School Hockey.

Another great part of AAA fans they love to tell everyone why the Minnesota model sucks while they are trying to convince us that out east helps develop more D1 and pro players? I think the numbers favor MN or are close. Populations East Coast 100 million people MN 5 million? MN shouldn't even be close in numbers of D1 or better players

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

[nofinish]

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

Here's one theory,
The serious hockey families that are willing to spend the time and money on what it takes to get little johnny to D1 tend to settle in or move to communities with hockey development reputations such as Blaine, Edina, Wayzata, etc.
In other cases, families in smaller associations that recognize that johnny may have extraordinary talent then move or open enroll in the better hockey associations.
The rich get richer.

[JaginCake]

My vote is NO, they shouldn't even have a split at High School....they should be talking about going back to just one class for all.

Another person voting to help usher in AAA hockey and ending High School Hockey.

Another great part of AAA fans they love to tell everyone why the Minnesota model sucks while they are trying to convince us that out east helps develop more D1 and pro players? I think the numbers favor MN or are close. Populations East Coast 100 million people MN 5 million? MN shouldn't even be close in numbers of D1 or better players

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

1st check out Lets Play Hockey or MNhockeyhub.com There lists of D1 recruits shows many if not most players coming from smaller associations.

Blaine is a great association who probably sees many of its best athletes more involved in Football than Hockey. The remaining one or two who stay in hockey have to be dedicated to continue to practice and develop. They also are physically gifted. Athletes that play at the highest levels are born and developed not just developed. I would almost guess that they are genetic anomalies. That may be why you don't see one family dominate a single sport generation after generation. Anyway for their teams to be good those few kids have to perform at a high level all the time. Associations that are larger there upper teams tend to have 5 or 6 kids that can take over a game. They are not called on to do that every night to keep there teams competitive. Jimmy might not be for it tonight and well Johnny will take over. Smaller associations Jimmy doesn't have a choice he has to be the "one". All told the large associations cheat there upper kids by having exclusive teams because those kids do not have to perform every time the play and practice. If the larger associations are forced to have more teams the top players have to show up and compete every night.

[Towelie]

Thanks for that novel

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

I think the day of MN hockey having a set rule on numbers of teams at the different levels based on number of participants is long overdue. Mn Hockey has a long history of doing what has been best for Hockey in Minnesota. (Mid year age cut off, 2 age groups playing together) Making the large associations field more teams at the "A and B" levels will help even the playing field across the state. (look what parody's done for the NFL) At a time where AAA hockey seems to be gaining more and more support MN hockey has to be pro-active. Hockey in Minnesota over the years has become very centered on High School Hockey. This tradition is what makes Minnesota unique. We have become the only state with a viable HIGH SCHOOL hockey tradition. AAA hockey has destroyed High School hockey out east. Why? The options it gave parents and the control it took away from the "IN" groups in associations. The opportunity for parents to allow their kids to play at the level they want or believe them able to play is paramount. Nothing is more frustrating than to be told by other parents that "my" child isn't good enough to play with them. The condescending remarks that it is for that kids safety?? Or they wouldn't have any fun as they wouldn't be able to keep up? This being made by individuals who are trying to limit the competition and many times trying to keep there social circle together.

Jag, are you saying that "The opportunity for parents to allow their kids to play at the level they want or believe them able to play is paramount." is a bad thing? I'm confused by that statement. It seems to me that the "opportunity" should absolutely be paramount... and frankly, always will be, which is why ass'n hockey will only exist so long as parents believe that their kid is being best served through them...

I think that is why the AA proposal was put forth... (BTW, there is an informal "club" amongst the Edinas, EP's, Wayzata's and OMG's each and every year - go look at how many times they play eachother - so the AA concept is basically enlarging the elite teams to keep the players and parents satisfied that they are playing the challenging competition that makes them better).

Take away the parents and player ability to play with the best (i.e. force two A teams) and that is the end of Ass'n hockey in MN.

[MrBoDangles]

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

Here's one theory,
The serious hockey families that are willing to spend the time and money on what it takes to get little johnny to D1 tend to settle in or move to communities with hockey development reputations such as Blaine, Edina, Wayzata, etc.
In other cases, families in smaller associations that recognize that johnny may have extraordinary talent then move or open enroll in the better hockey associations.
The rich get richer.

Good theory! So what if we take a 3-5 A capable kids, from 3 close in proximity associations, and bring in a Blaine caliber coach....... My theory is that= 1. You would be developing more top end talent
2. More kids would strive to make this top team because currently in a small association they don't really have to try to make the team.
3. Small associations would be developing more A level players
4. Small associations would start to be able to form there own A teams after a while.
5. People won't have to move for Hockey.
6. Mega associations won't get stronger from move-ins
7. The current wide gap will get closer.
8. More top end teams for current A teams to play..... they will get better.
9. More parents would strive for their kids to make this team.
10. Less kids would leave for MM, Fire, etc.
11. Would end the 1 or 2 kids on the B team scoring 99% of the goals.
12. Would form new go to players on the B teams

And on, and on.

I think this would make Minnesota Youth Hockey a place that every player would want to play in. Just my opinion.

[JaginCake]

To clarify coach

I am not a fan of AAA hockey
I am a huge fan of the High School Hockey in Minnesota
75-90% of most associations are B and C players put there by so called experts

I believe that most associations give parents little choice in where there kids will end up playing. We have to "trust" the experts.

AAA gives parents more choice because check book hockey means if you can pay someone will take you at a level a parent believes there child capable of playing

Associations need to take parent consideration into account (pro-active) vs. waiting until AAA has really done damage in the Fall and Winter, than it will be to late.

The underlying fight is High School and Association Hockey vs AAA Hockey.

[the_juiceman]

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

Here's one theory,
The serious hockey families that are willing to spend the time and money on what it takes to get little johnny to D1 tend to settle in or move to communities with hockey development reputations such as Blaine, Edina, Wayzata, etc.
In other cases, families in smaller associations that recognize that johnny may have extraordinary talent then move or open enroll in the better hockey associations.
The rich get richer.

Good theory! So what if we take a 3-5 A capable kids, from 3 close in proximity associations, and bring in a Blaine caliber coach....... My theory is that= 1. You would be developing more top end talent
2. More kids would strive to make this top team because currently in a small association they don't really have to try to make the team.
3. Small associations would be developing more A level players
4. Small associations would start to be able to form there own A teams after a while.
5. People won't have to move for Hockey.
6. Mega associations won't get stronger from move-ins
7. The current wide gap will get closer.
8. More top end teams for current A teams to play..... they will get better.
9. More parents would strive for their kids to make this team.
10. Less kids would leave for MM, Fire, etc.
11. Would end the 1 or 2 kids on the B team scoring 99% of the goals.
12. Would form new go to players on the B teams

And on, and on.

I think this would make Minnesota Youth Hockey a place that every player would want to play in. Just my opinion.

you make some good points--I like it!

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

To clarify coach

I am not a fan of AAA hockey
I am a huge fan of the High School Hockey in Minnesota
75-90% of most associations are B and C players put there by so called experts

I believe that most associations give parents little choice in where there kids will end up playing. We have to "trust" the experts.

AAA gives parents more choice because check book hockey means if you can pay someone will take you at a level a parent believes there child capable of playing

Associations need to take parent consideration into account (pro-active) vs. waiting until AAA has really done damage in the Fall and Winter, than it will be to late.

The underlying fight is High School and Association Hockey vs AAA Hockey.

Jag - I would hate to be in your association as it sounds terrible... Do you know who runs the associations? Parents! A good association has good parental involvement. You seem to have an issue with whoever the "experts" are... They are usually hired help. If they do a bad job get rid of them the next year.

I really have a problem with the defeatist attitude of "they" screw everything up... IF you aren't involved trying to make things better or at least shining light on corruption within - then you are equally culpable.

This focus on "High School Hockey" by Jag is troublesome... the focus of each and every hockey association should be player development - not "getting our public high school to the state tourney". What about the private schools within the boundaries?

A zealous focus on "High School Hockey" misses the mark... youth hockey should be about fun and development. Going 10-35 for the purpose of getting 1 or 2 kids "A" level talent so they can lead the charge on the varsity team someday disservices all the kids who should have been at different levels and missed out on learning how to have the puck on their stick and make plays.

Frustrating... GET OVER the HIGH SCHOOL hockey OBSESSION please...

[Towelie]

Solid Post.

jag see my signature

[greybeard58]

Numbers for Div I & III Men and Women 2010 TOP 12 States

TOTAL ALL LEVELS COLLEGE MEN/WOMEN
D I MEN D III M D I W D III W TOTAL U.S. ALL
STATE 2010 2010 2010 2010
MINN. 185 238 119 269 811 19.91% 14.53%
MASS 106 357 75 137 675 16.57% 12.10%
N.Y. 107 173 24 83 387 9.50% 6.94%
MICH 127 85 25 64 301 7.39% 5.39%
WIS. 46 79 16 62 203 4.98% 3.64%
ILL. 59 58 34 39 190 4.66% 3.41%
PA. 57 67 16 21 161 3.95% 2.89%
CT 32 59 19 40 150 3.68% 2.69%
CAL. 49 56 13 25 143 3.51% 2.56%
N.J. 21 68 18 20 127 3.12% 2.28%
CO. 32 32 14 24 102 2.50% 1.83%
N.H. 13 62 5 21 101 2.48% 1.81%
1049 1627 441 956 4073 82.27% 60.05%

ASIA 5 3 8 0.14%
CANADA 477 436 302 159 1374 24.62%
EUROPE 32 64 26 3 125 2.24%
Total Players 1558 2132 769 1121 5580 87.06%

TOTAL 2000-2010 U.S.
NHL DRAFT TOTAL
%
MINN. 150 24.47%
MASS 75 12.23%
MICH 77 12.56%
N.Y. 67 10.93%
ILL. 28 4.57%
CAL. 30 4.89%
WIS. 22 3.59%
PA. 21 3.43%
N.J. 15 2.45%
CT 23 3.75%
OHIO 12 1.96%
ND 9 1.47%
N.H. 10 1.63%
CO. 11 1.79%
ME 8 1.31%
MO 7 1.14%
ALASKA 6 0.98%
IND. 4 0.65%
RI. 4 0.65%
GA. 5 0.82%
MD 3 0.49%
WASH 3 0.49%
ARIZ 2 0.33%
NC 2 0.33%
OR 1 0.16%
IDAHO 1 0.16%
WASH D.C. 1 0.16%
TEX 6 0.98%
ALA. 1 0.16%
IOWA 0.00%
MONT 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
TENN. 0.00%
UTAH 3 0.49%
VERMONT 0.00%
VIRGINIA 1 0.16%
W.VA 0.00%
NEV. 1 0.16%
NEB 0.00%
FLA. 3 0.49%
S.D 0.00%
OK 1 0.16%
TOTALS 613 100%


From the NHL WEB SITE:

NHL
STATE
CAN 325 55.27%
EUR 146 24.83%
ASIA 2 0.34%
AFRICA 0.00%
CARRIBEAN 0.00%
MINN. 20 3.40%
MICH 18 3.06%
MASS 14 2.38%
N.Y. 20 3.40%
ILL. 6 1.02%
PA. 9 1.53%
CAL. 2 0.34%
CT 3 0.51%
WIS. 5 0.85%
N.J. 3 0.51%
N.H. 1 0.17%
CO. 0.00%
ALASKA 3 0.51%
OHIO 1 0.17%
MO 1 0.17%
ME 0.00%
RI. 0.00%
WASH 1 0.17%
TEX 0.00%
ND 3 0.51%
MD 1 0.17%
IND. 1 0.17%
VERMONT 0.00%
ARIZ 0.00%
VIRGINIA 0.00%
FLA. 0.00%
IOWA 1 0.17%
NEV. 0.00%
GA. 0.00%
NC 0.00%
ALA. 0.00%
OR 0.00%
IDAHO 0.00%
MONT 0.00%
TENN. 0.00%
UTAH 0.00%
NEB 1 0.17%
KENTUCKY 0.00%
OK 0.00%
NEW MEX 0.00%
WASH D.C. 0.00%
KANSAS 0.00%
WYOMING 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
W.VA 0.00%
S.D 0.00%
MISS 0.00%
DE 1 0.17%
TOTALS 588 100.00%

FROM THE AHL WEB SITE
AHL
STATE
CAN 1650 56.56%
EUR 440 15.08%
ASIA 2 0.07%
AFRICA 1 0.03%
CARRIBEAN 1 0.03%
MINN. 151 5.18%
MICH 103 3.53%
MASS 112 3.84%
N.Y. 103 3.53%
ILL. 55 1.89%
PA. 34 1.17%
CAL. 28 0.96%
CT 28 0.96%
WIS. 32 1.10%
N.J. 14 0.48%
N.H. 10 0.34%
CO. 14 0.48%
ALASKA 15 0.51%
OHIO 19 0.65%
MO 16 0.55%
ME 8 0.27%
RI. 8 0.27%
WASH 6 0.21%
TEX 4 0.14%
ND 12 0.41%
MD 3 0.10%
IND. 5 0.17%
VERMONT 5 0.17%
ARIZ 2 0.07%
VIRGINIA 5 0.17%
FLA. 4 0.14%
IOWA 2 0.07%
NEV. 2 0.07%
GA. 5 0.17%
NC 3 0.10%
ALA. 1 0.03%
OR 3 0.10%
IDAHO 1 0.03%
MONT 2 0.07%
TENN. 1 0.03%
UTAH 2 0.07%
NEB 3 0.10%
KENTUCKY 0.00%
OK 1 0.03%
NEW MEX 0.00%
WASH D.C. 0.00%
KANSAS 0.00%
WYOMING 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
W.VA 0.00%
S.D 0.00%
MISS 1 0.03%
DE 0.00%
TOTALS 2917 100.00%

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Graybeard...

Interesting stats... but without knowing how many total hockey players the posted numbers come out of (example 20 NHLers for 45,000 kids playing) its awfully hard to put meaning to it...

[MrBoDangles]

Numbers for Div I & III Men and Women 2010 TOP 12 States

TOTAL ALL LEVELS COLLEGE MEN/WOMEN
D I MEN D III M D I W D III W TOTAL U.S. ALL
STATE 2010 2010 2010 2010
MINN. 185 238 119 269 811 19.91% 14.53%
MASS 106 357 75 137 675 16.57% 12.10%
N.Y. 107 173 24 83 387 9.50% 6.94%
MICH 127 85 25 64 301 7.39% 5.39%
WIS. 46 79 16 62 203 4.98% 3.64%
ILL. 59 58 34 39 190 4.66% 3.41%
PA. 57 67 16 21 161 3.95% 2.89%
CT 32 59 19 40 150 3.68% 2.69%
CAL. 49 56 13 25 143 3.51% 2.56%
N.J. 21 68 18 20 127 3.12% 2.28%
CO. 32 32 14 24 102 2.50% 1.83%
N.H. 13 62 5 21 101 2.48% 1.81%
1049 1627 441 956 4073 82.27% 60.05%

ASIA 5 3 8 0.14%
CANADA 477 436 302 159 1374 24.62%
EUROPE 32 64 26 3 125 2.24%
Total Players 1558 2132 769 1121 5580 87.06%

TOTAL 2000-2010 U.S.
NHL DRAFT TOTAL
%
MINN. 150 24.47%
MASS 75 12.23%
MICH 77 12.56%
N.Y. 67 10.93%
ILL. 28 4.57%
CAL. 30 4.89%
WIS. 22 3.59%
PA. 21 3.43%
N.J. 15 2.45%
CT 23 3.75%
OHIO 12 1.96%
ND 9 1.47%
N.H. 10 1.63%
CO. 11 1.79%
ME 8 1.31%
MO 7 1.14%
ALASKA 6 0.98%
IND. 4 0.65%
RI. 4 0.65%
GA. 5 0.82%
MD 3 0.49%
WASH 3 0.49%
ARIZ 2 0.33%
NC 2 0.33%
OR 1 0.16%
IDAHO 1 0.16%
WASH D.C. 1 0.16%
TEX 6 0.98%
ALA. 1 0.16%
IOWA 0.00%
MONT 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
TENN. 0.00%
UTAH 3 0.49%
VERMONT 0.00%
VIRGINIA 1 0.16%
W.VA 0.00%
NEV. 1 0.16%
NEB 0.00%
FLA. 3 0.49%
S.D 0.00%
OK 1 0.16%
TOTALS 613 100%


From the NHL WEB SITE:

NHL
STATE
CAN 325 55.27%
EUR 146 24.83%
ASIA 2 0.34%
AFRICA 0.00%
CARRIBEAN 0.00%
MINN. 20 3.40%
MICH 18 3.06%
MASS 14 2.38%
N.Y. 20 3.40%
ILL. 6 1.02%
PA. 9 1.53%
CAL. 2 0.34%
CT 3 0.51%
WIS. 5 0.85%
N.J. 3 0.51%
N.H. 1 0.17%
CO. 0.00%
ALASKA 3 0.51%
OHIO 1 0.17%
MO 1 0.17%
ME 0.00%
RI. 0.00%
WASH 1 0.17%
TEX 0.00%
ND 3 0.51%
MD 1 0.17%
IND. 1 0.17%
VERMONT 0.00%
ARIZ 0.00%
VIRGINIA 0.00%
FLA. 0.00%
IOWA 1 0.17%
NEV. 0.00%
GA. 0.00%
NC 0.00%
ALA. 0.00%
OR 0.00%
IDAHO 0.00%
MONT 0.00%
TENN. 0.00%
UTAH 0.00%
NEB 1 0.17%
KENTUCKY 0.00%
OK 0.00%
NEW MEX 0.00%
WASH D.C. 0.00%
KANSAS 0.00%
WYOMING 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
W.VA 0.00%
S.D 0.00%
MISS 0.00%
DE 1 0.17%
TOTALS 588 100.00%

FROM THE AHL WEB SITE
AHL
STATE
CAN 1650 56.56%
EUR 440 15.08%
ASIA 2 0.07%
AFRICA 1 0.03%
CARRIBEAN 1 0.03%
MINN. 151 5.18%
MICH 103 3.53%
MASS 112 3.84%
N.Y. 103 3.53%
ILL. 55 1.89%
PA. 34 1.17%
CAL. 28 0.96%
CT 28 0.96%
WIS. 32 1.10%
N.J. 14 0.48%
N.H. 10 0.34%
CO. 14 0.48%
ALASKA 15 0.51%
OHIO 19 0.65%
MO 16 0.55%
ME 8 0.27%
RI. 8 0.27%
WASH 6 0.21%
TEX 4 0.14%
ND 12 0.41%
MD 3 0.10%
IND. 5 0.17%
VERMONT 5 0.17%
ARIZ 2 0.07%
VIRGINIA 5 0.17%
FLA. 4 0.14%
IOWA 2 0.07%
NEV. 2 0.07%
GA. 5 0.17%
NC 3 0.10%
ALA. 1 0.03%
OR 3 0.10%
IDAHO 1 0.03%
MONT 2 0.07%
TENN. 1 0.03%
UTAH 2 0.07%
NEB 3 0.10%
KENTUCKY 0.00%
OK 1 0.03%
NEW MEX 0.00%
WASH D.C. 0.00%
KANSAS 0.00%
WYOMING 0.00%
S.CAR 0.00%
W.VA 0.00%
S.D 0.00%
MISS 1 0.03%
DE 0.00%
TOTALS 2917 100.00%

Could you imagine if all the Minnesota kids had the opportunities like the power association's kids do. The percentages would be so much higher.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Could you imagine if all the Minnesota kids had the opportunities like the power association's kids do. The percentages would be so much higher.[/quote]

Great insight! Can you also imagine if every kid on the planet had a mommy and daddy who loved them??? Or if everyone would accept state-assigned jobs without pay in exchange for a flat and cable TV???

C'mon man... stay within the realm of possibility.... OR do you really think that Minnesota Hockey needs to start redistributing resources and players to make all associations equal?????

[spin-o-rama]

Graybeard...

Interesting stats... but without knowing how many total hockey players the posted numbers come out of (example 20 NHLers for 45,000 kids playing) its awfully hard to put meaning to it...

It does not separate youth and adult, but check out page 10
http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/ ... 01011f.pdf
All Players
District 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05
Atlantic 33,773 33,623 32,688 32,560 31,046 32,408
Central 53,592 51,453 50,666 51,026 50,678 53,412
Massachusetts 43,445 42,115 41,960 43,927 44,586 44,515
Michigan 51,404 52,022 52,371 52,204 54,194 56,121
Mid-American 32,051 30,094 28,788 28,642 28,363 29,079
Minnesota 53,450 52,333 51,014 N/A N/A N/A
Minnkota N/A N/A N/A 56,166 52,536 52,709
New England 33,472 34,074 33,611 33,968 33,542 34,122
New York 46,389 45,185 44,150 42,229 40,801 41,409
Northern Plains 12,076 11,651 11,242 N/A N/A N/A
Pacific 38,251 37,900 38,006 37,366 33,326 32,844
Rocky Mountain 36,882 37,510 38,752 41,310 38,582 35,175
Southeastern 39,807 38,015 38,346 37,640 34,423 33,451
TOTALS 474,592 465,975 461,594 457,038 442,077 445,245