Tier hockey

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:01 pm

edgeless2 wrote:Interesting read on AAU hockey program in Michigan where they already have Tier 1.

http://image.aausports.org/dnn/hockey/p ... un2012.pdf

Wow, what an interesting article. What did I say about adapting/changing or dying earlier. AAU doesn't have to listen to MN HOckey or USA Hockey, get enough people involved and AAU could just go and do what we've been discussing/debating without any need for proposals etc...... I think you are seeign in MI because I think they have an extreme to one side of the fence in that state with their structure, hoenstly I could see this happeneing in MN because it is also an extreme case only toward a different side of the fence. Want to keep AAU out of MN, better start thinking of ways to change and adapt...... just saying....

jancze5 · Post by **jancze5** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:10 pm

Only 23,734 more hits and this thread will catch the Miracle GOLD 03 one...keep going, the horse still has a pulse!!

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:13 pm

JSR wrote:
edgeless2 wrote:Interesting read on AAU hockey program in Michigan where they already have Tier 1.

http://image.aausports.org/dnn/hockey/p ... un2012.pdf
Wow, what an interesting article. What did I say about adapting/changing or dying earlier. AAU doesn't have to listen to MN HOckey or USA Hockey, get enough people involved and AAU could just go and do what we've been discussing/debating without any need for proposals etc...... I think you are seeign in MI because I think they have an extreme to one side of the fence in that state with their structure, hoenstly I could see this happeneing in MN because it is also an extreme case only toward a different side of the fence. Want to keep AAU out of MN, better start thinking of ways to change and adapt...... just saying....

Not sure you read the whole article. E.G.::::

We find a disturbing trend in Michigan. Too many young players have come into our sport only to leave a few years later. We’ve lost over 13,000 youth players during the past 10 years (that’s one-third). Some are the most advanced and some the least advanced.
Why are we losing so many players! I would suggest that some of the causes are; restrictive District rules, a lack of parity at almost every level, high costs, denial of and the over emphasis upon creating elite athletes and elite teams while ignoring those seeking simple recreation.

My emphasis. Yes, Minnesota should look to Michigan (and Massachusetts and New York and Illinois and Wisconsin) for an answer!!!!

AAU has emerged in MI as an alternative BECAUSE of tier 1's insidious effect on community based hockey, as a way to keep hockey local and affordable and approachable for non-elite players.

Last thing I'll say on this thread: If a Tier 1 choice means that much to you, go ahead and move (or start saving for Shattuck). Last I heard, the Interstates are open for business, even to Very Talented Hockey Parents.

Your NHLer will pay you back for all the time and $$$$ spent, I'm sure.

SnowedIn · Post by **SnowedIn** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:30 pm

Shinbone_News wrote:
JSR wrote:
edgeless2 wrote:Interesting read on AAU hockey program in Michigan where they already have Tier 1.

http://image.aausports.org/dnn/hockey/p ... un2012.pdf
Wow, what an interesting article. What did I say about adapting/changing or dying earlier. AAU doesn't have to listen to MN HOckey or USA Hockey, get enough people involved and AAU could just go and do what we've been discussing/debating without any need for proposals etc...... I think you are seeign in MI because I think they have an extreme to one side of the fence in that state with their structure, hoenstly I could see this happeneing in MN because it is also an extreme case only toward a different side of the fence. Want to keep AAU out of MN, better start thinking of ways to change and adapt...... just saying....
Not sure you read the whole article. E.G.::::

We find a disturbing trend in Michigan. Too many young players have come into our sport only to leave a few years later. We’ve lost over 13,000 youth players during the past 10 years (that’s one-third). Some are the most advanced and some the least advanced.
Why are we losing so many players! I would suggest that some of the causes are; restrictive District rules, a lack of parity at almost every level, high costs, denial of and the over emphasis upon creating elite athletes and elite teams while ignoring those seeking simple recreation.
My emphasis. Yes, Minnesota should look to Michigan (and Massachusetts and New York and Illinois and Wisconsin) for an answer!!!!

AAU has emerged in MI as an alternative BECAUSE of tier 1's insidious effect on community based hockey, as a way to keep hockey local and affordable and approachable for non-elite players.

Last thing I'll say on this thread: If a Tier 1 choice means that much to you, go ahead and move (or start saving for Shattuck). Last I heard, the Interstates are open for business, even to Very Talented Hockey Parents.

Your NHLer will pay you back for all the time and $$$$ spent, I'm sure.

Good of you to cherry pick your favorite quotes but you missed a few:

Quotes on District Rules:

"we don’t plan to restrict players from participating wherever they choose."

"Clearly, there isn’t anything wrong with having Districts for the purposes of Playoffs. However, Districts shouldn’t prohibit players from participating closer to home or with their cousins, neighbors or school-mates."

"Similarly, players with extraordinary skills should be free to play at an appropriate competition level, regardless where those opportunities are centered." ------kind of like how Tier 1 is set up to have the elite play against elite regardless of boundaries. The rest can play against players of like ability in association so they can better improve against like competition-------

Quotes on Parity of Play which supports elite players playing with elite, average with average and novice with novice because nobody benefits from mixing them:

"What we should really be working towards in Michigan youth hockey is providing opportunities for all, while at the same time trying to achieve a degree of parity at each level of play. There should be a place for the advanced players to be challenged by advanced competition. There should also be a place for those just starting out, those who maybe aren’t as advanced or may merely want to play with their friends.

We all need to be challenged in order to grow. When we have teams or programs lacking in parity then our young athletes don’t grow as they should. It can be argued that many adults spend too much time trying to create elite athletes and are ignoring kids who merely wish to play. For example, Michigan is completely upside-down with far more Travel and our House programs are almost non-existent.

However, it can also be argued that the worst thing we can do to young athletes is to create a one-size-fits-all program, which forces advanced players and beginners into the same programs. Truly advanced players should be competing against others of similar ability. A system allowing extremely advanced players and teams to compete against those just beginning or severely lacking in skills helps no players. The advanced don’t progress and get cocky because they aren’t challenged. The less advanced players get frustrated because they are in way over their head. And we see players of all skill levels leaving our sport."

--------we already have association hockey to capture the tier 2 level hockey with a lot of kids in it (with the only problem being that you get cornholed with a coach for better or worse). we don't have non-districted hockey for the elite athletes of which there may only be a few give or take on each A team. That's what tier 1 does - best players no boundaries-------

A no-brainer concept, very successful all over north america and will not hurt association or highschool hockey.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:30 pm

MrBoDangles wrote: Why didn't you "stay and try to make your association better"? I find it moronic that you're telling people to suck it up in communi(s)ty based Hockey while you bounce.

You can find it moronic, it really doesn't matter and I don't care. Five years of doing everything in my power to make things better. In the words of a friend, "nobody's been more loyal to the program than you."

The difference is, and I don't need any name-calling to make the point, is that a for-profit, rink run youth program is not equivalent to a parent run association operating out of a community-owned rink.

Of course you understand that since you spend a great deal of your time weighing the plusses and minusses of various youth hockey models across the country.

I'm all for choice. Minnesota Hockey can incorporate some elements that allow for choice without formation of Tier I teams. This is the "Tiered Hockey" thread where the originial poster (Skipperj) asked about teams registered Tier I.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:38 pm

oholene wrote:Clown,

Regarding "to allow rosters coded "Tournament" (rather than Tier I, Tier II, or Rec) for the months of September & October. Clubs could put together a preseason 10 game league and add in a trip to Warrior."

Is this how the Minnesota Blades do it?
Why only Sept and Oct?
Has this not been going on in Minnesota for years?
Can anyone other that the Blades do this?

Oho:

I don't believe that is how the Blades do it. My understanding is that only the Southeast District has "Tournament" as a dropdown on their CyberSport software. Perhaps someone that is a Registrar for their association can chime in

I suggest only for Sept/Oct because it would be added onto the calendar and would not be disruptive of status quo. Face it: the present system works well for a lot of people. Even the reformers have to admit the Minnesota model doesn't need a complete overhaul.

I can't answer about the Blades, how long they've been doing something, and whether others can too. If I lived there I would know more.

Want to know how things run down here and I can fill you in!

Unlike many, I don't see Tier I as imminent. It seems far more likely that minor tweaks could be made to create a "shoulder season" after school starts and before association hockey ramps up in early November. Across the rest of the country hockey is "in season" from Labor Day through mid-March.

Section 8 guy · Post by **Section 8 guy** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:46 pm

Just a perspective question......how big do we feel the target group of elite MN kids is that aren't getting adequate developmental opportunities currently? Most good players are adequately challenged playing straight forward A (now AA) level assn hockey......but some are not. Most great players are adequately challenged by playing A/AA level hockey plus elite AAA offerings in the offseason......but some are not.

There are kids that need a higher level of competition than those described above. How many kids at each level (sq/pw/bantam) do we feel fall into that category around the state?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:23 pm

O-townClown wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote: Why didn't you "stay and try to make your association better"? I find it moronic that you're telling people to suck it up in communi(s)ty based Hockey while you bounce.
You can find it moronic, it really doesn't matter and I don't care. Five years of doing everything in my power to make things better. In the words of a friend, "nobody's been more loyal to the program than you."

The difference is, and I don't need any name-calling to make the point, is that a for-profit, rink run youth program is not equivalent to a parent run association operating out of a community-owned rink.

Of course you understand that since you spend a great deal of your time weighing the plusses and minusses of various youth hockey models across the country.

I'm all for choice. Minnesota Hockey can incorporate some elements that allow for choice without formation of Tier I teams. This is the "Tiered Hockey" thread where the originial poster (Skipperj) asked about teams registered Tier I.

Did you have to move out of your community to find a better Hockey fit?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:59 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:Did you have to move out of your community to find a better Hockey fit?

No, but that's one of the many options. Choices are not limited to the following in our state:

* play where you live (team based 30-45 minutes from home usually with games no more than 4 hours away...unless you live in Jacksonville where you get no home games and travel 2-6 hours)

* play on another area team (team based 60-75 minutes from home)

* join another team in state as an OOA (out-of-area) player (teams are limited to no more than 2 and generally don't expect these players to make practice)

* get on a weekend-based in-state Tier I (or Independent AAA) team, cost runs around $17,000-18,000 for most families depending on how many parents travel to the games in Ontario, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, etc...

* join the Thunder, a Tier I program that covers the SE District and fly to practices every other weekend (held in either Huntsville, Atlanta, or Nashville)

* move away for Youth hockey (extremely common)

* send your kid to live with a host family in places like Chicago or Detroit (extremely common)

* play in-house where most kids have about a year of on-ice experience

* quit

What's most disappointing across our entire Affiliate is that we don't have the choice of having our kids play in the actual town where they live. Only one program draws many kids from 10-15 minutes from their rink.

I guess it begs asking, if things are that bad in Minnesota, how come kids don't get on the Thunder or another Tier I program that practices on weekends? It's pretty rare. We had the two Lakeville kids on the Everblades two years ago. I can rattle off 10 Central Florida families that fed kids to the Thunder, most for more than one season. We've got it so good with all the choices, yet some families still feel their needs are unmet.

In Minnesota I keep reading about the legions that are in terrible associations. Fire absorbed some, but is that the limit to how far people will go to provide a better hockey environment for their child?

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:53 pm

Most of this discussion is selfish. Most every elite player has been through similar situations and been fine. So much ends up being genetic. In many instances your beef is because the families ahead of you took their eye off the recruiting ball. 12 year old players don't fall from trees. Don't make the same mistake. Recruit now. More players equals more revenue, lower expenses, more and better teams, more kids playing at the appropriate level, more and better coaches, more and better volunteers. Problems solved.

Because of your experience and knowledge make sure you're doing your part to recruit 30 new mites this year so the young families don't have to fuss like you in the future.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:31 am

Velocity, Minnesota Made, HP and Selects programs, Total Hockey, High School Elite League, FHIT, Hat Trick, Super Rink, Minnesota Hockey Camps, Heartland Camp, Doug Woog Camp, Steffen, Herb Brooks Foundation, MAP, First Athlete... (Let's not even start on Goalie programs -- MEGA, Stauber, Carroll, Devinir, Pro Hybrid, etc. etc. etc.)

Yeah, boy howdy -- there just aren't any options for the elite hockey player in Minnesota. Wish I lived in Michigan or Mass where my kid could play Tier 1!

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:48 am

Also, please see GreyBeard's post on the high school forum regarding state-by-state breakdown of D1 hockey players last year. To wit:

The percent is of the American players

DIVISION I MEN
STATE 2012 %
MINN. 183 16.88%
MICH 130 11.99%
MASS 100 9.23%
N.Y. 89 8.21%
ILL. 70 6.46%
PA. 69 6.37%
CAL. 59 5.44%
CT 33 3.04%
WIS. 39 3.60%
N.J. 43 3.97%
N.H. 13 1.20%
CO. 35 3.23%
ALASKA 25 2.31%
OHIO 31 2.86%
MO 26 2.40%
ME 12 1.11%
RI. 8 0.74%
WASH 6 0.55%
TEX 12 1.11%
ND 6 0.55%
MD 8 0.74%
IND. 5 0.46%
VERMONT 7 0.65%
ARIZ 16 1.48%
VIRGINIA 6 0.55%
FLA. 18 1.66%
IOWA 5 0.46%
NEV. 3 0.28%
GA. 8 0.74%
NC 2 0.18%
ALA. 1 0.09%
OR 2 0.18%
IDAHO 0 0.00%
MONT 0 0.00%
TENN. 3 0.28%
UTAH 1 0.09%
NEB 4 0.37%
KENTUCKY 1 0.09%
OK 1 0.09%
NEW MEX 0 0.00%
WASH D.C. 1 0.09%
KANSAS 0 0.00%
WYOMING 1 0.09%
LA. 0 0.00%
S.CAR 0 0.00%
W.VA 0 0.00%
S.D 2 0.18%
DE 0 0.00%
TOTALS 1084 100.00%

CANADA 468
EUROPE 43
Total Players D1 1595

Why aren't Minnesota players doing better????!

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:30 am

O-townClown wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:Did you have to move out of your community to find a better Hockey fit?
No, but that's one of the many options. Choices are not limited to the following in our state:

* play where you live (team based 30-45 minutes from home usually with games no more than 4 hours away...unless you live in Jacksonville where you get no home games and travel 2-6 hours)

* play on another area team (team based 60-75 minutes from home)

* join another team in state as an OOA (out-of-area) player (teams are limited to no more than 2 and generally don't expect these players to make practice)

* get on a weekend-based in-state Tier I (or Independent AAA) team, cost runs around $17,000-18,000 for most families depending on how many parents travel to the games in Ontario, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, etc...

* join the Thunder, a Tier I program that covers the SE District and fly to practices every other weekend (held in either Huntsville, Atlanta, or Nashville)

* move away for Youth hockey (extremely common)

* send your kid to live with a host family in places like Chicago or Detroit (extremely common)

* play in-house where most kids have about a year of on-ice experience

* quit

What's most disappointing across our entire Affiliate is that we don't have the choice of having our kids play in the actual town where they live. Only one program draws many kids from 10-15 minutes from their rink.

I guess it begs asking, if things are that bad in Minnesota, how come kids don't get on the Thunder or another Tier I program that practices on weekends? It's pretty rare. We had the two Lakeville kids on the Everblades two years ago. I can rattle off 10 Central Florida families that fed kids to the Thunder, most for more than one season. We've got it so good with all the choices, yet some families still feel their needs are unmet.

In Minnesota I keep reading about the legions that are in terrible associations. Fire absorbed some, but is that the limit to how far people will go to provide a better hockey environment for their child?

What would you have done if you didn't have that option of getting away from your son's terrible (former) coach?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:28 am

Bo, if hockey programs had a captive market, it is more likely the org would have accomodated my son's request to play on a different team. Remember, prior to leaving the request was to play on an older (but lower level) team.

If they wouldn't do that, it would have made more sense for my son to just play in-house rather than on the Sq A team. (They have won a game, but they also lost 23-0 last weekend.)

Just like you and anyone that can't get their fill in Fall/Winter, my son would likely amp up his Spring/Summer skating.

So many people in our state whine and whine and whine about hockey in the Sun Belt. I've noticed a direct correlation between one's willingness to just accept what we have and their happiness level. So much easier to just work within the system we have rather than complain about what we don't. (One guy moved from Minnesota to our area and spent the first few years complaining about how bad all the kids were.)

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:12 am

Shinbone_News wrote:
JSR wrote:
edgeless2 wrote:Interesting read on AAU hockey program in Michigan where they already have Tier 1.

http://image.aausports.org/dnn/hockey/p ... un2012.pdf
Wow, what an interesting article. What did I say about adapting/changing or dying earlier. AAU doesn't have to listen to MN HOckey or USA Hockey, get enough people involved and AAU could just go and do what we've been discussing/debating without any need for proposals etc...... I think you are seeign in MI because I think they have an extreme to one side of the fence in that state with their structure, hoenstly I could see this happeneing in MN because it is also an extreme case only toward a different side of the fence. Want to keep AAU out of MN, better start thinking of ways to change and adapt...... just saying....
Not sure you read the whole article. E.G.::::

We find a disturbing trend in Michigan. Too many young players have come into our sport only to leave a few years later. We’ve lost over 13,000 youth players during the past 10 years (that’s one-third). Some are the most advanced and some the least advanced.
Why are we losing so many players! I would suggest that some of the causes are; restrictive District rules, a lack of parity at almost every level, high costs, denial of and the over emphasis upon creating elite athletes and elite teams while ignoring those seeking simple recreation.
My emphasis. Yes, Minnesota should look to Michigan (and Massachusetts and New York and Illinois and Wisconsin) for an answer!!!!

AAU has emerged in MI as an alternative BECAUSE of tier 1's insidious effect on community based hockey, as a way to keep hockey local and affordable and approachable for non-elite players.

Last thing I'll say on this thread: If a Tier 1 choice means that much to you, go ahead and move (or start saving for Shattuck). Last I heard, the Interstates are open for business, even to Very Talented Hockey Parents.

Your NHLer will pay you back for all the time and $$$$ spent, I'm sure.

I think you may have missed a few important parts yourself in all honesty

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:42 am

O-townClown wrote:Bo, if hockey programs had a captive market, it is more likely the org would have accomodated my son's request to play on a different team. Remember, prior to leaving the request was to play on an older (but lower level) team.

If they wouldn't do that, it would have made more sense for my son to just play in-house rather than on the Sq A team. (They have won a game, but they also lost 23-0 last weekend.)

Just like you and anyone that can't get their fill in Fall/Winter, my son would likely amp up his Spring/Summer skating.

So many people in our state whine and whine and whine about hockey in the Sun Belt. I've noticed a direct correlation between one's willingness to just accept what we have and their happiness level. So much easier to just work within the system we have rather than complain about what we don't. (One guy moved from Minnesota to our area and spent the first few years complaining about how bad all the kids were.)

But you left and had another option, right?

What's wrong with having options up here if you're in a bad situation like you had? Some people might be happy to pay the $2,600(tier 1) JSR pays to have another option....

Was it a parent coach that was the cause for you leaving?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:45 am

observer wrote:Most of this discussion is selfish. Most every elite player has been through similar situations and been fine. So much ends up being genetic. In many instances your beef is because the families ahead of you took their eye off the recruiting ball. 12 year old players don't fall from trees. Don't make the same mistake. Recruit now. More players equals more revenue, lower expenses, more and better teams, more kids playing at the appropriate level, more and better coaches, more and better volunteers. Problems solved.

Because of your experience and knowledge make sure you're doing your part to recruit 30 new mites this year so the young families don't have to fuss like you in the future.

What association are/were you involved with?

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:47 am

A 3 year track followed by a total of college players DI Men, D III Men, D I Women and D III Women.

2012 D I Men
MINN. 183
MICH 130
MASS 100
N.Y. 89
ILL. 70
PA. 69
CAL. 59
N.J. 43
WIS. 39
CO. 35
CT 33
OHIO 31
MO 26
ALASKA 25
TOTALS 1084
ASIA
CANADA 468
EUROPE 43
Total Players D1 1595

2011 D I MEN
MINN. 179
MICH 132
MASS 110
N.Y. 91
ILL. 59
PA. 59
CAL. 50
WIS. 45
CONN 31
N.J. 33
TOTAL 1051

ASIA
CANADA 477
EUROPE 32
Total Players D1 1552

2010 D I MEN
MINN. 185
MICH 127
N.Y. 107
MASS 106
ILL. 59
PA. 57
CAL. 49
WIS. 46
CT 32
CO. 32
N.J. 21
1049

ASIA
CANADA 477
EUROPE 32
Total Players 1558
One of these years I might find a way to keep the columns in line. Total numbers from last year Minn- 842,Mass-670, New York- 376 Mich - 322, no other state in the 200's. There are a large number of D III colleges out east and that reflects in the numbers.

Group DIV I MEN DIV III MEN-DIV I W DIV III W TOTAL % %
STATE 2011 2011 2011 2011 US ALL
MINN. 179 240 147 276 842 20.16% 14.73%
MICH 132 94 35 61 322 7.71% 5.63%
MASS 110 344 71 145 670 16.04% 11.72%
N.Y. 91 175 29 81 376 9.00% 6.58%
ILL. 59 67 30 42 198 4.74% 3.46%
PA. 59 81 15 24 179 4.29% 3.13%
CAL. 50 61 13 28 152 3.64% 2.66%
CT 31 68 20 43 162 3.88% 2.83%
WIS. 45 70 14 59 188 4.50% 3.29%
N.J. 33 80 12 24 149 3.57% 2.61%
N.H. 13 53 8 20 94 2.25% 1.64%
CO. 33 37 10 21 101 2.42% 1.77%
ALASKA 16 18 15 12 61 1.46% 1.07%
OHIO 36 23 5 7 71 1.70% 1.24%
MO 24 15 3 5 47 1.13% 0.82%
ME 7 25 4 19 55 1.32% 0.96%
RI. 8 16 3 15 42 1.01% 0.73%
WASH 6 15 0 5 26 0.62% 0.45%
TEX 14 24 4 6 48 1.15% 0.84%
ND 8 11 4 7 30 0.72% 0.52%
MD 7 12 6 14 39 0.93% 0.68%
IND. 7 10 0 2 19 0.45% 0.33%
VERMONT 8 22 6 21 57 1.36% 1.00%
ARIZ 16 6 4 9 35 0.84% 0.61%
VIRGINIA 7 12 1 7 27 0.65% 0.47%
FLA. 17 26 5 7 55 1.32% 0.96%
IOWA 4 6 1 5 16 0.38% 0.28%
NEV. 3 3 1 4 11 0.26% 0.19%
GA. 8 5 0 1 14 0.34% 0.24%
NC 2 7 5 4 18 0.43% 0.31%
ALA. 1 3 0 4 0.10% 0.07%
OR 1 4 1 6 0.14% 0.10%
IDAHO 1 4 1 2 8 0.19% 0.14%
MONT 0 5 1 6 0.14% 0.10%
TENN. 2 1 0 2 5 0.12% 0.09%
UTAH 1 3 2 6 0.14% 0.10%
NEB 6 3 1 10 0.24% 0.17%
KENTUCKY 1 0 1 0.02% 0.02%
OK 2 5 1 0 8 0.19% 0.14%
NEW MEX 1 0 1 0.02% 0.02%
WASH D.C. 1 1 0 2 0.05% 0.03%
KANSAS 1 2 1 0 4 0.10% 0.07%
WYOMING 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
LA. 1 0 1 0.02% 0.02%
S.CAR 2 1 0 3 0.07% 0.05%
W.VA 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
S.D 1 1 4 6 0.14% 0.10%
DE 2 2 0.05% 0.03%
TOTALS 1051 1664 475 987 4177 100.00% 73.05%

ASIA 5 2 7 0.12%
CANADA 472 443 297 182 1394 24.38%
EUROPE 29 73 26 12 140 2.45%
Total Players 1552 2185 798 1183 5718 100.00%

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:02 am

greybeard, good numbers to have. When you factor in state population & registered USA Hockey members MN is the clear cut winenr in advancing kids to college hockey, D1 or D3 atleast for sure quantity wise. It seems Mass is also quite good with a completely different model. I actually think MI is falling a little flat and short when you consider those factors. But interestingly, when you take those two factors I mentioned and add them to the equation WI must actually be doing a pretty dang good job, relatively speaking, in developing the skaters they have. I think our model here is sort of a "hybrid" of MN and Mass/MI.... just sayin.....

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:00 am

MrBoDangles wrote:What's wrong with having options up here if you're in a bad situation like you had?

Was it a parent coach that was the cause for you leaving?

Bo, program choice is a great deal different than Tier I hockey. It seems a lot of your comments are on threads about Tier I hockey, so please forgive me if I am mistaken at any point.

Judging from this board, there is a great deal of interest in Tier I or higher level hockey. What I don't see are threads about program choice. From the Affiliate viewpoint, Minnesota Hockey allows co-ops and individual programs are free to play elite players up in age. There's the school address too. I know these clauses don't solve every problem.

To this outsider it seems that limited program choice within the existing Tier II model is more likely than Tier I hockey. Even though we've been told, "It's coming!" over and over. I know...if I go back and read all your posts you are probably pretty consistent that you just want program choice.

I'd liken your plight to that of someone stranded in a bad part of town. A car pulls up and offers you a ride so you can get out of there. Do you hop in? If you are so desperate that anything sounds better, yes. If you are worried about where that car goes, no.

Remember, one or two or five Tier I orgs don't absorb all the unhappy families.

Non-parent coach, paid a small stipend if that matters.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:14 am

O-townClown wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:What's wrong with having options up here if you're in a bad situation like you had?

Was it a parent coach that was the cause for you leaving?
Bo, program choice is a great deal different than Tier I hockey. It seems a lot of your comments are on threads about Tier I hockey, so please forgive me if I am mistaken at any point.

Judging from this board, there is a great deal of interest in Tier I or higher level hockey. What I don't see are threads about program choice. From the Affiliate viewpoint, Minnesota Hockey allows co-ops and individual programs are free to play elite players up in age. There's the school address too. I know these clauses don't solve every problem.

To this outsider it seems that limited program choice within the existing Tier II model is more likely than Tier I hockey. Even though we've been told, "It's coming!" over and over. I know...if I go back and read all your posts you are probably pretty consistent that you just want program choice.

I'd liken your plight to that of someone stranded in a bad part of town. A car pulls up and offers you a ride so you can get out of there. Do you hop in? If you are so desperate that anything sounds better, yes. If you are worried about where that car goes, no.

Remember, one or two or five Tier I orgs don't absorb all the unhappy families.

Non-parent coach, paid a small stipend if that matters.

I'm saying that the $2,600 (JSR) option would have worked out great for YOU, if YOU, lived in (a free) Minnesota and had those same problems with your coach........ As YOU did in Florida.

You would be amazed at the number of families that are unhappy and stuck with their coaches in Minnesota. Those numbers flip in the Summer..

Are you happy with your son's new coach?

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:27 am

Bo: I can't tell for sure if you are talking specifically about your situation, or in general? In your situation, (22 kids and 1 goalie) I think you have options available without MN Hockey changing the whole program to appease you and a handful of others?

SnowedIn · Post by **SnowedIn** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:40 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:without MN Hockey changing the whole program

??? How would the whole program change by adding Tier 1 which is completely separate from the current program. The current program would not lift a finger.

That aside I don't think the problem of unhappy will be solved by a Tier1 system. It will for the top players that make the teams but for the general population the problem of being unhappy with coach and other things (of which there are many) would still be an issue for most.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am

Snowedin: Well, I suppose if MN Hockey added one sentence to their Handbook, "MN Hockey will allow the formation of USA Tier 1 teams."

Somehow, I would think it would add a few pages to the document and there would be a few committees formed, districts lobbying for provisions and associations getting involved as well. I suppose with the entrepreneurial incentives, the existing framework of summer AAA programs could handle the formation of these teams? But I just think there would be some changes to the existing MN Hockey rules and it would take time to get everyone's palms greased.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:57 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: I can't tell for sure if you are talking specifically about your situation, or in general? In your situation, (22 kids and 1 goalie) I think you have options available without MN Hockey changing the whole program to appease you and a handful of others?

General. Not my sitution

MNH sweeps the un-appeased under the rug and you've agreed.

The private sector is changing the "whole program" when MNH could be.. "Handful"?