Tier hockey

[Quasar]

Snowed, at what age do you feel the better players need to play with and against each other in order for the state to turn out more elite players?

Bo, is an association that only practices once a week indicative of a systemic problem at the Affiliate level? Or is it more of a failure at the local program level?

Q, you see only six teams. Per age group or per birthyear? If the Affiliate makes a move from present residency rules to full-blown choice it could be 50. I don't know if they are coded Tier I, Tier II, Rec, or something else. If posts on this board are an indication, there are many people anxious to have program choice because the local association fails them.

Hi Town,

I guess when I wrote the post I was thinking about Midget aged kids. Midget Major, Midget Minor. I'm not big on any one younger than peewee playing at the elite level.

If we are talking about the 1 % , then I think 4 to 6 teams in any given age group would be the best we could do in the beginning .. While I love the goofiness of AAA summer hockey, I know there are only a few truly elite players in each birth year. The thing is, I don't want to see the basic Minnesota structure changed. Just a way for the 15 and 16 year old's to play at home before they leave for Juniors. That's why I like the district team concept. I'm for choice because there are instances where it would make a big difference for some kids stuck in bad situations.

Mostly I am advocating for a very small percentage of all the kids playing hockey in Minnesota. There is a problem for the kids leaving bantams for high school. If kid is a high level player moving into an average high school program he will suffer by playing with lesser talented kids. I would like to see the system changed to allow these few kids to move to a better situation. . I think this could be done without upsetting the apple cart...

As always just my opinion.....Q

[O-townClown]

Q, that's interesting. But can't an elite 15-year-old just play up in age on their HS team in Minnesota and be fine?

Common arguments for breaking up community-based Youth hockey in Minnesota are a need for Tier I so the best kids can face the best in North America and choice so families aren't at the mercy of the program where they live. What you just proposed may not include enough of the malcontents to get their support.

Said another way, does your proposal solve a problem that doesn't exist?

Ask one of the top 15 or 16-year-olds if they are adequately challenged in Minnesota and I think you'll find they are. "I play on the Varsity, in the Fall I do Blades, after the season there is the tryout for national camp, I've got a week at Select camp, and USA Hockey invited me to a tournament in Europe." He's fine.

Where I see things exploding are at the larger pool of players that are below that ability and age level, but have the desire to do the same.

[BadgerBob82]

Q: OK, if we are talking only about the Midget level, we are talking about 15-16 year olds. This is 9th and 10th graders? So lets use a local example for a player that would appear to be "Elite" for his age. Shane Gersich, can we agree he is a good player? (I don't know if his birthdate posted on HockeyHub is an error, but a 1995 birthyear makes him a Senior not a 10th grader.) Anyway, he leaves association hockey in 8th grade to play HS hockey. Has done very well yet has been challenged by his older teammates and opponents. He does plenty of off-season hockey. This would seem to be the player you think would play Tier 1 Midgets? My opinion is he would not because HS provides the challenge he needs for development and off-season stuff allows for additional development.

Where I see the potential need? Associations that feed mega-size high schools. You can find the enrollments and any school over 2,000 students could be classified as a "big school". But when you get around 2,500 to 3,500, I think you are at mega-sized? So you're a good hockey player that has played B1 then A each 2 year cycle in your association. Now you get to high school, and get cut in 10th grade as a 15 year old. You can play Jr. Gold but maybe Tier 1 or Tier 2 AAA Midget would be a better fit? For that, I can see a handful of metro based Midget teams as a viable program. And a few out-state players might ask to join rather than play HS hockey.

My point is, the ELITE player will not be doing that route. They will play HS hockey in 10th and 11th grade, then NDTP. So, in my opinion it will not be for the top 1,000 hockey players in MN HS. It would appeal to the kids cut from mega-sized high schools and some from out-state rural schools.

[SnowedIn]

Snowed, at what age do you feel the better players need to play with and against each other in order for the state to turn out more elite players?

Bo, is an association that only practices once a week indicative of a systemic problem at the Affiliate level? Or is it more of a failure at the local program level?

Q, you see only six teams. Per age group or per birthyear? If the Affiliate makes a move from present residency rules to full-blown choice it could be 50. I don't know if they are coded Tier I, Tier II, Rec, or something else. If posts on this board are an indication, there are many people anxious to have program choice because the local association fails them.

OT, That's debatable. Tier 1 everywhere else starts at Squirt Minor (1st year based on calendar year) or Major (2nd yr), and I think there are good arguements for and against starting at one of these years. Definitely by Pee Wee Minor.

[Quasar]

Q, that's interesting. But can't an elite 15-year-old just play up in age on their HS team in Minnesota and be fine?

Common arguments for breaking up community-based Youth hockey in Minnesota are a need for Tier I so the best kids can face the best in North America and choice so families aren't at the mercy of the program where they live. What you just proposed may not include enough of the malcontents to get their support.

Said another way, does your proposal solve a problem that doesn't exist?

Ask one of the top 15 or 16-year-olds if they are adequately challenged in Minnesota and I think you'll find they are. "I play on the Varsity, in the Fall I do Blades, after the season there is the tryout for national camp, I've got a week at Select camp, and USA Hockey invited me to a tournament in Europe." He's fine.

Where I see things exploding are at the larger pool of players that are below that ability and age level, but have the desire to do the same.

Good morning !!

If all things were as you lay them out no problem..

Last year one of the top scorers on a local metro team was an 8th grader.
This year he is going to a private. Most kids cannot afford the tuition for a private so they are left out. On the same team another top scorer was a 9th grader. This year he is playing for a new high school in the suburbs.
Most people can't move to satisfy residence requirements.

These two kid's are what you could call elite players. They were not happy! Because both their parents could do what was needed they are now in a better situation. However, I bet if there was another way to reach their goal of post high school play they would have taken it.

I wonder how many other players couldn't change their situation. I think there is a kid that was drafted by the WHL that's wondering if he's going to make his high school varsity team this year because of the numbers.

I mentioned the Cisar Brothers and their situation in a previous post...There are a lot more examples. Whenever you have a restrictive system these kind of things happen.

Last example.. This is hypothetical.. A kid is looking at his first year of high school in the ninth grade. He goes to tryouts and is the best kid on the team. Right away he knows he will go backwards in development if he stays on this team. He has no were to go because his parents are not well to do. I think he would tell you he is not fine!!




.

[SnowedIn]

First, I've seen "Tier 1 players". Nothing special. We just had one leave our association to play in Chicago. I've seen better players in other associations playing Tier 2.

Second, there are most certainly kids that have bought their way onto teams. Absolutely. These teams need to cash-flow. There are also kids who can't play Tier 1 AAA because their checkbooks aren't big enough.

Third, why should summer hockey only be reserved for the "elite"? Who determines if the kid is "elite"? So an 8 to 12 year old kid can be deemed elite and get to play in the summer and another "not elite" has to hang them up until winter? Stupid idea since these kids don't even have all their hair. It almost makes me love it when little Johnny Squirt elite gets passed by in Bantams. Let all kids who want to play in summer try out and play. There seems to be more and more levels of tournaments each year and coaches are figuring out where they should be playing.

Who said summer hockey should be reserved for the elite? Summer AAA hockey is open to everyone who wants to form a team or join a team. The acronym AAA was to identify elite hockey however summer hockey has been transformed to open hockey with everyone calling their team AAA so that acronym has very little meaning in the summer. You have to know a team or see the team play to see if they are an Elite, Average or Poor AAA team. There are Elite divisions and Open divisions in most tournaments and teams generally play where they belong.

Like I've posted several times, summer AAA hockey is completely different than In Season AAA (Tier1) where the top kids (elite players in their birthyear) try out for and make the small handful of teams DESIGNATED BY THE STATE.

[JSR]

Snowed, at what age do you feel the better players need to play with and against each other in order for the state to turn out more elite players?

Bo, is an association that only practices once a week indicative of a systemic problem at the Affiliate level? Or is it more of a failure at the local program level?

Q, you see only six teams. Per age group or per birthyear? If the Affiliate makes a move from present residency rules to full-blown choice it could be 50. I don't know if they are coded Tier I, Tier II, Rec, or something else. If posts on this board are an indication, there are many people anxious to have program choice because the local association fails them.

OT, That's debatable. Tier 1 everywhere else starts at Squirt Minor (1st year based on calendar year) or Major (2nd yr), and I think there are good arguements for and against starting at one of these years. Definitely by Pee Wee Minor.

Based on my observations and personal experiences I think the earliest Tier 1 AAA winter teams should start is Pee Wee monior and I can even see arguments for it being PW Major..... I fully understand that most start at Squirt Major (so this years 2002 birth year) but personally I do find that to be a bit too early, JMHO.

[jancze5]

I remember 5 years ago when I was on the WE NEED TIER 1 AAA side of this argument....I would still like to see it and some of you are repeating the same points many of us have made but the fact is that we don't need TIER 1 AAA here, we need a LONGER hockey season or a change to the current formatting to allow for a more structured out of season. Everyone here is right, there are 18 levels of AAA, too many but the reality is kids are playing year-round. The answer is to embrace the year round and provide a structure to best benefit all levels while maintaining the IN SEASON model for high school and youth hockey.

How do we do that? No idea, that's why I'm here listening to you fools listen to my foolish advice.

[JSR]

First, I've seen "Tier 1 players". Nothing special. We just had one leave our association to play in Chicago. I've seen better players in other associations playing Tier 2.

Second, there are most certainly kids that have bought their way onto teams. Absolutely. These teams need to cash-flow. There are also kids who can't play Tier 1 AAA because their checkbooks aren't big enough.

Third, why should summer hockey only be reserved for the "elite"? Who determines if the kid is "elite"? So an 8 to 12 year old kid can be deemed elite and get to play in the summer and another "not elite" has to hang them up until winter? Stupid idea since these kids don't even have all their hair. It almost makes me love it when little Johnny Squirt elite gets passed by in Bantams. Let all kids who want to play in summer try out and play. There seems to be more and more levels of tournaments each year and coaches are figuring out where they should be playing.

Who said summer hockey should be reserved for the elite? Summer AAA hockey is open to everyone who wants to form a team or join a team. The acronym AAA was to identify elite hockey however summer hockey has been transformed to open hockey with everyone calling their team AAA so that acronym has very little meaning in the summer. You have to know a team or see the team play to see if they are an Elite, Average or Poor AAA team. There are Elite divisions and Open divisions in most tournaments and teams generally play where they belong.

Like I've posted several times, summer AAA hockey is completely different than In Season AAA (Tier1) where the top kids (elite players in their birthyear) try out for and make the small handful of teams DESIGNATED BY THE STATE.

Example, there is a reason the "Fire" no longer exist. It is very difficult to get further charters for Tier 1 AAA status both state and nationally. It is HIGHLY REGULATED unlike summer hockey. Despite bob's doom and gloom scenario of "money" dictating the growth of Tier 1 clubs that couldn't be further from fact and teh "Fire" are very much proof of that. Let's remember folks clubs like the Chicago Mission and LA jr Kings and others have voices in this and their money speaks pretty loudly so if you think they are just going to allow 25 Tier 1 teams to form in MN regardless of talent level available you truly do not understand the landscape of Tier 1 hockey and how it is regulated. I suggest 5 clubs not jsut because I thought it woul dbe about right for MN but also becaus that is the max number I figured Tier 1 and USAH might realistically grant charter wise for MN, I base this on the idea that MI has roughly close to the same umber of USA Hockey registered memebrs as MN and has 5 main Tier 1 clubs, actually I think they may have just expande din the last year or two to 7 but up til very recently it's been 5. I think MN has probably more depth of talent but that won't matter IMO when it comes to granting Tier 1 charters. You might be able to make the case to grow to MAYBE 8 over time but I see that as the absolute maximum and no way it will get more than 5 to start.

[Quasar]

First, I've seen "Tier 1 players". Nothing special. We just had one leave our association to play in Chicago. I've seen better players in other associations playing Tier 2.

Second, there are most certainly kids that have bought their way onto teams. Absolutely. These teams need to cash-flow. There are also kids who can't play Tier 1 AAA because their checkbooks aren't big enough.

Third, why should summer hockey only be reserved for the "elite"? Who determines if the kid is "elite"? So an 8 to 12 year old kid can be deemed elite and get to play in the summer and another "not elite" has to hang them up until winter? Stupid idea since these kids don't even have all their hair. It almost makes me love it when little Johnny Squirt elite gets passed by in Bantams. Let all kids who want to play in summer try out and play. There seems to be more and more levels of tournaments each year and coaches are figuring out where they should be playing.

Who said summer hockey should be reserved for the elite? Summer AAA hockey is open to everyone who wants to form a team or join a team. The acronym AAA was to identify elite hockey however summer hockey has been transformed to open hockey with everyone calling their team AAA so that acronym has very little meaning in the summer. You have to know a team or see the team play to see if they are an Elite, Average or Poor AAA team. There are Elite divisions and Open divisions in most tournaments and teams generally play where they belong.

Like I've posted several times, summer AAA hockey is completely different than In Season AAA (Tier1) where the top kids (elite players in their birthyear) try out for and make the small handful of teams DESIGNATED BY THE STATE.

I agree !! Summer hockey in Minnesota has nothing to do with Tier1 , Elite, or anything else. It's a great way for any kid that wants to play in the summer to find a team that suits his ability.
I don't know where the idea that Tier1 would be 100 teams comes from.
As has been pointed out many times before, and again in this post there would only be a few teams regulated by the State to insure they lived up to the designation of Tier1.

[HockeyTalk18]

Just some stats on the topic of Tier 1 (SSM) VS MN HS in the Elite league
correct me if I'm wrong on any of these stats, I'm Human..

2012/2013
SSM is 5-0-1 vs Elite teams
4 of those games were within 3 goals


2011/2012 (SSM was the national Tier 1 Champs)
SSM was 14-1-1 vs Elite Teams
9 of those games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN Red vs SSM for Championship, SSM wins 5-3


2010/2011 (SSM was the national Tier 1 champs)
SSM was 11-5 vs Elite Teams
14 of thoseo games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN White vs SSM for Championship, MN White wins 5-4 ot


2009/2010 (SSM gets to Quarter finals of national Tier 1 tourney)
SSM was 10-4-2 vs Elite Teams
12 of those games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN Red vs SSM for Championship, MN Red wins 10-3

from what it looks like is MN puts 6 teams in the Elite league made up of all kids that played MN HS Hockey. For the NIT tourney I believe they put together 2 All star teams? correct me if i'm wrong

my take on that is MN hockey is not doing to shabby when put up against one of the best.. well.. for 2 of the last 3 years SSM was the best and somehow the MN HS boys found a way to beat them in the NIT tourney championship game when thrown together. I think SSM's record shows that they are a top team but when you can split up kids for a summer league into 6 different teams and even compete with them it has to say something? then when you put them into 2 teams the MN boys can beat them.

again, correct me if i'm wrong on any of this and the last part is just my opinion.

[Quasar]

I remember 5 years ago when I was on the WE NEED TIER 1 AAA side of this argument....I would still like to see it and some of you are repeating the same points many of us have made but the fact is that we don't need TIER 1 AAA here, we need a LONGER hockey season or a change to the current formatting to allow for a more structured out of season. Everyone here is right, there are 18 levels of AAA, too many but the reality is kids are playing year-round. The answer is to embrace the year round and provide a structure to best benefit all levels while maintaining the IN SEASON model for high school and youth hockey.

How do we do that? No idea, that's why I'm here listening to you fools listen to my foolish advice.

Okay ...Count me in !!!

[JSR]

Just some stats on the topic of Tier 1 (SSM) VS MN HS in the Elite league
correct me if I'm wrong on any of these stats, I'm Human..

2012/2013
SSM is 5-0-1 vs Elite teams
4 of those games were within 3 goals


2011/2012 (SSM was the national Tier 1 Champs)
SSM was 14-1-1 vs Elite Teams
9 of those games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN Red vs SSM for Championship, SSM wins 5-3


2010/2011 (SSM was the national Tier 1 champs)
SSM was 11-5 vs Elite Teams
14 of thoseo games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN White vs SSM for Championship, MN White wins 5-4 ot


2009/2010 (SSM gets to Quarter finals of national Tier 1 tourney)
SSM was 10-4-2 vs Elite Teams
12 of those games were within 3 goals
NIT Tourney
MN Red vs SSM for Championship, MN Red wins 10-3

from what it looks like is MN puts 6 teams in the Elite league made up of all kids that played MN HS Hockey. For the NIT tourney I believe they put together 2 All star teams? correct me if i'm wrong

my take on that is MN hockey is not doing to shabby when put up against one of the best.. well.. for 2 of the last 3 years SSM was the best and somehow the MN HS boys found a way to beat them in the NIT tourney championship game when thrown together. I think SSM's record shows that they are a top team but when you can split up kids for a summer league into 6 different teams and even compete with them it has to say something? then when you put them into 2 teams the MN boys can beat them.

again, correct me if i'm wrong on any of this and the last part is just my opinion.

Team Wisconsin does more or less fine year in and year out against MN's best and SSM as well usually? I am not sure I understan dyour point? Your talking about the very best players in all of MN coming together on allstar teams and still losing on a regular basis as being evidence everything is fine because atleast the games are close? Is that your take? I am truly asking, I am not being sarcastic or arumentative in tone or intent? I don;t think ANYONE is arguing that the best of the best in MN when brought together can't comepte nationally, of course they can, so can the best of the best in WI, I mean TW won a national title just a few years back, I don't think that is what the debate is about IMHO. I know Q and others have differeing opinions about when and where Tier 1 should start and how many teams etc.... but I don't think the argument has ever been about from anyone whether or not the best of the best from MN can compete or not..... that is just my read on the thread anyway maybe you disagree which is ok

[O-townClown]

JSR:

USA Hockey does not grant Tier I status. The local Affiliate does. When that happens, it will be a highly political process. Who are these five? Made, Blades, and something else would probably emerge as locks. Then the Northerners will have someone clamoring for representation so they aren't left out. The same will happen from the Eastern suburbs. And so on.

Tryouts will be held in April and there will be terrific players cut. There will be parents that need to be involved and don't like the makeup of some of the recognized teams. If the move has been made to club status and no longer just residential zoning, then comes the wave of Independent AAA teams.

I could care less if Minnesota Hockey recognizes my son's team as Tier I or not. A few posts above advocate beginning Tier I at 1st year Pee Wee - this year's 2001 borns. There's no national tournament for PW (2000-2001) and a team of 1st year Bantams (1999) has no chance of ever competing to win Nationals. That leaves 2nd year Bantams (this season for 1998), but Nationals is just one tournament and we can still play in Warrior, Bauer, EHF, anything in Canada, and several other high-level events. There is only one tournament I know of that requires Tier I status to enter. Other Tournament Directors simply do not care.

My experience is that parents don't either. Given a choice, most seek out the best team that is available to them at the time. Tier I, Tier II, Independent, AAA U18 Youth, Junior...doesn't matter.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

Quasar:

Seems like you are making up kids that don't exist. The truly elite player that doesn't have the money to go play Juniors? C'mon now...I've heard it all.

An argument can easily be made that program choice results in superior development. I've never said otherwise. Your hypotheticals about these that don't exist makes no sense. The Cisar brothers had choices on where to play by the time they were HS age.

One huge problem where I live is that parents don't know how the hockey path is laid out and as a result aren't aware of their options or don't know how to provide support when it is needed. That is a lot different than not having choices.

[JSR]

JSR:

USA Hockey does not grant Tier I status. The local Affiliate does. When that happens, it will be a highly political process. Who are these five? Made, Blades, and something else would probably emerge as locks. Then the Northerners will have someone clamoring for representation so they aren't left out. The same will happen from the Eastern suburbs. And so on.

Tryouts will be held in April and there will be terrific players cut. There will be parents that need to be involved and don't like the makeup of some of the recognized teams. If the move has been made to club status and no longer just residential zoning, then comes the wave of Independent AAA teams.

I could care less if Minnesota Hockey recognizes my son's team as Tier I or not. A few posts above advocate beginning Tier I at 1st year Pee Wee - this year's 2001 borns. There's no national tournament for PW (2000-2001) and a team of 1st year Bantams (1999) has no chance of ever competing to win Nationals. That leaves 2nd year Bantams (this season for 1998), but Nationals is just one tournament and we can still play in Warrior, Bauer, EHF, anything in Canada, and several other high-level events. There is only one tournament I know of that requires Tier I status to enter. Other Tournament Directors simply do not care.

My experience is that parents don't either. Given a choice, most seek out the best team that is available to them at the time. Tier I, Tier II, Independent, AAA U18 Youth, Junior...doesn't matter.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

Quasar:

Seems like you are making up kids that don't exist. The truly elite player that doesn't have the money to go play Juniors? C'mon now...I've heard it all.

An argument can easily be made that program choice results in superior development. I've never said otherwise. Your hypotheticals about these that don't exist makes no sense. The Cisar brothers had choices on where to play by the time they were HS age.

One huge problem where I live is that parents don't know how the hockey path is laid out and as a result aren't aware of their options or don't know how to provide support when it is needed. That is a lot different than not having choices.

The state affiliate grants it technically and they ARE USAH, they are the "same" as far as I am concerned in this instance, I was trying to use them interchangeably. If creating an Independent AAA team as your scenario suggests is so easy and so plausible then why do the Fire no longer exist in WI? It's because the Tier 1 AAA winter status is much more involved than just a national tournament......... What you are suggesting is the AAU route that MI is starting to see pop up but again that is TOTALLY seeparate from Tier 1 AAA winter hockey...... I will agree there is politics invloved I totally disagree that you will just see a bunch of independent pop up and start playing, too much evidence across the nation that that just can't happen

[SnowedIn]

JSR:

USA Hockey does not grant Tier I status. The local Affiliate does. When that happens, it will be a highly political process. Who are these five? Made, Blades, and something else would probably emerge as locks. Then the Northerners will have someone clamoring for representation so they aren't left out. The same will happen from the Eastern suburbs. And so on.

Tryouts will be held in April and there will be terrific players cut. There will be parents that need to be involved and don't like the makeup of some of the recognized teams. If the move has been made to club status and no longer just residential zoning, then comes the wave of Independent AAA teams.

I could care less if Minnesota Hockey recognizes my son's team as Tier I or not. A few posts above advocate beginning Tier I at 1st year Pee Wee - this year's 2001 borns. There's no national tournament for PW (2000-2001) and a team of 1st year Bantams (1999) has no chance of ever competing to win Nationals. That leaves 2nd year Bantams (this season for 1998), but Nationals is just one tournament and we can still play in Warrior, Bauer, EHF, anything in Canada, and several other high-level events. There is only one tournament I know of that requires Tier I status to enter. Other Tournament Directors simply do not care.

My experience is that parents don't either. Given a choice, most seek out the best team that is available to them at the time. Tier I, Tier II, Independent, AAA U18 Youth, Junior...doesn't matter.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

Quasar:

Seems like you are making up kids that don't exist. The truly elite player that doesn't have the money to go play Juniors? C'mon now...I've heard it all.

An argument can easily be made that program choice results in superior development. I've never said otherwise. Your hypotheticals about these that don't exist makes no sense. The Cisar brothers had choices on where to play by the time they were HS age.

One huge problem where I live is that parents don't know how the hockey path is laid out and as a result aren't aware of their options or don't know how to provide support when it is needed. That is a lot different than not having choices.

First on JSR's point regarding MN HS Elite vs SSM, I completely agree. You could say those Elite teams are Teir 1 teams if you agree that the selection/tryout? process was done right. So MN's best could compete with Tier 1 teams. The opposite is true about the average MN HS team.

OT you are completely wrong about Independent AAA teams. You cannot form an independent AAA team if the state does not allow it, and guess what? States do not allow it. There are independent AAA teams across the country. They are independent more because they don't belong to a specific AAA league so they have an independent schedule that they put together. However, they are approved by the state. The Tier 1 bylaws of the state are very specific and states protect their Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs from renegade teams forming like you suggest. Essentially if you did want to start your own team you would truly be on your own. You would not be affiliated with the state or USAH. This means you would not be sanctioned which means that you could not play in any tournaments because you have to be sanctioned in order to play in a tournament because the whole tournament would be deemed unsanctioned/uninsured if they let you in and you could not get official referees. Same holds true for any team that agrees to play if you get any. No insurance, no refs.

Get the picture. States and USAH take in season Tier 1 and Tier 2 very seriously. You play by the rules or you don't play. Practice all you like (uninsured on health waivers) but you don't play.

[BadgerBob82]

I think comparison to National Champion SSM to the HS Elites is a poor one. First SSM is not an all-star team thrown together with a couple practices and then playing games. Many of them have 1-3 years at SSM. The Elite teams have a high degree of nepotism in the selection process and I think it's fair to say there are better players around the state that are not on these teams. (For many reasons, not all players choose to play Elite league)

As for the example of Cisar family. The HS scoring title often goes to a good player on a team that plays a very weak schedule. Some of the best players in HS history, that played on strong teams with a strong schedule would have scored obscene numbers had they played a very weak schedule. So my question, are the Cisar brothers "elite" players or good players having their way with bad teams? Stated to the topic, are they Tier 1 material?

[Quasar]

JSR:

USA Hockey does not grant Tier I status. The local Affiliate does. When that happens, it will be a highly political process. Who are these five? Made, Blades, and something else would probably emerge as locks. Then the Northerners will have someone clamoring for representation so they aren't left out. The same will happen from the Eastern suburbs. And so on.

Tryouts will be held in April and there will be terrific players cut. There will be parents that need to be involved and don't like the makeup of some of the recognized teams. If the move has been made to club status and no longer just residential zoning, then comes the wave of Independent AAA teams.

I could care less if Minnesota Hockey recognizes my son's team as Tier I or not. A few posts above advocate beginning Tier I at 1st year Pee Wee - this year's 2001 borns. There's no national tournament for PW (2000-2001) and a team of 1st year Bantams (1999) has no chance of ever competing to win Nationals. That leaves 2nd year Bantams (this season for 1998), but Nationals is just one tournament and we can still play in Warrior, Bauer, EHF, anything in Canada, and several other high-level events. There is only one tournament I know of that requires Tier I status to enter. Other Tournament Directors simply do not care.

My experience is that parents don't either. Given a choice, most seek out the best team that is available to them at the time. Tier I, Tier II, Independent, AAA U18 Youth, Junior...doesn't matter.

Anyhow, that's what I see.

Quasar:

Seems like you are making up kids that don't exist. The truly elite player that doesn't have the money to go play Juniors? C'mon now...I've heard it all.

An argument can easily be made that program choice results in superior development. I've never said otherwise. Your hypotheticals about these that don't exist makes no sense. The Cisar brothers had choices on where to play by the time they were HS age.

One huge problem where I live is that parents don't know how the hockey path is laid out and as a result aren't aware of their options or don't know how to provide support when it is needed. That is a lot different than not having choices.

It's a problem when you are far away from the action.. The kid's do exist, and everyone involved in Minnesota high school hockey knows who they are. You make many assumptions.. You my friend are pushing a loaded cart up hill!!

This board is about discussion and ideas, yours, mine and everyone else

The reality is that the FREE MARKET is alive and well in Minnesota hockey. It will determine the eventual outcome by supply and demand..

It will be some kind of year around model that will be driven by private, for profit clubs. The cat is out of the bag, It is against the law for anyone to have a monopoly in hockey in the United States. It's just a matter of time .. So what you think, or what I think really doesn't mean much...

[Quasar]

I think comparison to National Champion SSM to the HS Elites is a poor one. First SSM is not an all-star team thrown together with a couple practices and then playing games. Many of them have 1-3 years at SSM. The Elite teams have a high degree of nepotism in the selection process and I think it's fair to say there are better players around the state that are not on these teams. (For many reasons, not all players choose to play Elite league)

As for the example of Cisar family. The HS scoring title often goes to a good player on a team that plays a very weak schedule. Some of the best players in HS history, that played on strong teams with a strong schedule would have scored obscene numbers had they played a very weak schedule. So my question, are the Cisar brothers "elite" players or good players having their way with bad teams? Stated to the topic, are they Tier 1 material?

OH MY GOD !!!! somebody ring a bell BOB and I agree!!!

As for the Cisar Bros. . They are both playing in Tier 2 Juniors
I think that answers the question

[BadgerBob82]

Q: I agree this discussion board is about bringing ideas and opinions together. You seem to state yours as fact? Not sure what cat is out of the bag? But if you are thinking private, for profit clubs are the wave of the future in MN, I THINK, you are wrong. They exist in other markets because there is no viable program except the handful of private clubs. It almost sounds like your opinion is private clubs that offer "year round hockey" are planning an anti-trust suit against MN and USA Hockey? Now that will be an interesting topic.

[BadgerBob82]

And I don't think the MN HS model will go away until it becomes insignificant.

I mean Neal Broten wins NCAA National Title, 1980 miracle on ice, Stanley Cup, over 1,000 of NHL games, yet he still says greatest hockey thrill was HS State Tournament.

I know STA players say the thrill of trouncing teams in a half full lower bowl isn't that cool, but until the real show is diminished, HS hockey isn't going anyway.

[SnowedIn]

And it shouldn't go away. Association and HS hockey are alive and well in MN. It's the best Tier 2 system in the country with no exceptions. But it isn't Tier 1 and that's a vertical opportunity that is feasible and a change that would bring MH forward IMO.

Bob, Read my post at 8:56. I was responding to OT but this is why the wild west will not come with Tier 1 hockey In Season. Not my opinion. Its a cold hard fact.

[Quasar]

Q: I agree this discussion board is about bringing ideas and opinions together. You seem to state yours as fact? Not sure what cat is out of the bag? But if you are thinking private, for profit clubs are the wave of the future in MN, I THINK, you are wrong. They exist in other markets because there is no viable program except the handful of private clubs. It almost sounds like your opinion is private clubs that offer "year round hockey" are planning an anti-trust suit against MN and USA Hockey? Now that will be an interesting topic.

If I state a fact... It is a fact!!

If I am misstating a fact please show me where.. The law suit already decided and in the books states that USAH being the governing body of amateur hockey in the United States cannot be a monopoly..

AAU clubs in Michigan can, and are entering USHA tournaments, and because of the law they seem to be co-existing.

It's all on their web site.. I took it as fact, not opinion..... If they were stating an opinion they didn't say so.... Until I hear otherwise I'll stand by my post.

[O-townClown]

JSR, Snowed:

All of this depends on how the rules are drafted. Since none of this exists, it is pure speculation and I have thrown out scenarios and none of us know how the Affiliate will handle. I get it...in your mind you have a vision for how you would do it. So might I. However, when you attempt to draw up rules for that it is very difficult.

It is not a good idea to use USA Hockey (the NGB) and a local Affiliate (recognized by USA Hockey) interchangeably because national offers virtually no guidance on definition of Tier I/II. "We really need the Affiliates to define that for us," I was told. Uh...maybe the Affiliates really need you to define it for them!

Illinois defines it as approximately the Top 10% players and they wish it was 5%. In another area everything funnels into Team Maryland. We can say, "Tier I is how you define it." I'm simply pointing out no matter how you define it you can expect to be challenged.

If Minnesota goes to a model where there is only what you have today with residency requirements and a set number of recognized Tier I programs there may be no problem. (I'm sure some posting here "see" that as the structure.) Since such a layout does practically nothing for all the malcontents in seek of program choice, my assumption is that there is some form of open Tier I and Tier II club structure in addition to the association model in place.

As I've said for a few years: someone needs to outline the step-by-step process they see for Tier I becoming a reality in Minnesota for me to agree that "It's coming!" as we've been told. I still don't see it, for all the reasons JSR, Snowed, and others mention.

Ask yourself this: who signs off on the roster? (Registrar.) What is she/he looking for? (Rules she follows.) Who generates a roster? (Association.) What are the rules regarding formation of a new association? (USA Hockey pretty much allows anyone to create one at any time.)

These rules all need to be written. That's not easy.

[BadgerBob82]

SnowedIn: I re-read your 8:56 post and I totally agree there are rules and regulations at the USA and State level.

But, I'm not talking about "the wild west" like summer hockey. I'm just saying if we start with 5 teams. A spirited club owner hires the right attorney, claims restraint of trade, judge likes their argument, here comes the next team. And so on.

I have looked at National Tournament Tier 1 results/scores. 20-0 games shouldn't happen. And if MN has 8 "thrown together all-star teams" that do ok against defending national champs, I bet we could have 20+ Tier 1 teams and send the top team to Nationals and do better than "ok".