HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

breakout wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:A question, What is the cost for Compuware or HoneyBaked teams or the other teams that compete at this level.When a friends son was playing in the Tier1 National tournament for bantams in 1995 in Chicago, some parents of other teams were telling him the cost to play was about $15,000 not counting their travel.Also the way the parent sounded if you did not bring the money to the first meeting the next in line was added. Was this true or just a bunch of B.S.?

Keep in mind Waylon has deep pockets and feels the great game of hockey should only be played by kids residing in the top 1% income bracket.

Herb Brooks and Waylon were on the exact same page. It is amazing how great hockey minds think alike.

Was it broaden the pyramid or invert the pyramid

Breakout did I hit a nerve there?
I enjoy AAA hockey,I have been around it for alot of years now,bottom line is when your playing with the best AAA teams it is better hockey,I have had nothing but great experiences with AAA,except for my son getting cut from the Machine,HA HA.
________
Extreme Vaporizer

And what is with all this mumbo jumbo?Keep it Simple Stupid?It pay's better,leaves more $ for AAA hockey
________
UGGS

Breakout,
My question's posted to you were sincere :
________
Arizona Dispensary

I have had nothing but great experiences with AAA,except for my son getting cut from the Machine,HA HA.


That is because Bernie has choices about parent(s) and players

Waylon, you may have been cut instead of your player

Having said all that I am in no way trying to say that AAA is the greatest system, as it has it's share of faults. All I am trying to contribute ito this discussion is that EVERY SYSTEM CAN BE IMPROVED, including the "association" system in MN. Reading some of your threads, many associations have their own share of issues with politics and kids who are selected based on whose kids they are vs. merit. I would imagine that it would be extremely frustrating to be in that kind of a situation.

Very true.
That is why some of us give our 400 - 500 hours a year to MN Hockey.
To try and amke it better.

I believe the root of this post goes deeper than allowing AAA. I would like better development in the winter for my skater but he's a bubble A player and a peewee, so I don't think Bernie will have anything for him in the winter on both counts going forward.
So isn't the question "where can players of all levels get developed if it's not happening where they're playing in the winter".
For the record, "so far" this winter the first non parent coach my kid has ever had, is doing a nice job with our B1 peewee team as far as practice plan progression, quality high intensity drills etc. but it wasn't that way the three years prior to this. He was held back from reaching his potential those seasons yet we paid for that priviledge. Granted this season isn't perfect as we still have players on the team that don't belong that will limit our chances past districts but it's "as good as it gets" right now and that's kind of a sad statement in itself even though I'd trade game success for development in practice any day.
So isn't this once again, about better development and level appropriate play for all players, not just the best of the best AAA kids. That's all most of us want. More and more winter hockey options will be introduced going forward you can be sure, unless more selfless decisions are made in the ranks of association hockey or more controls from MN hockey are imposed or both, and I believe that's what this post is really all about. Families with players of many skill levels are frustrated and they want accountability and or options going forward. Some of these parents are off base and some are not but either way, I don't think a continuing lack of accountability and reducing players hockey development options will create better youth hockey down the road.

Hobey Faker wrote:

breakout wrote:

Hobey Faker wrote:I don't think minnesota hockey would have to change anything; except allow a certain number of clubs to form.
see how that goes before making any final judments. the clubs and partisapants would take all the risk up front.
Shattuck hasn't destroyed MN hockey, why would this?

Go start your own. You can head to Wisconsin and do it just like the Fire. Good Luck! Get back to us and let us know how it works out

same old song and dance! you still have not given a good reason not to try it.

Call me and I will tell you what the concerns are.

breakout wrote:I have had nothing but great experiences with AAA,except for my son getting cut from the Machine,HA HA.


That is because Bernie has choices about parent(s) and players

Waylon, you may have been cut instead of your player

Sorry Breakout,
He has been invited back,I guess his talent outweighd Bernie's Problems with me!
What team was that your son played for?how bout association?
________
BODY SCIENCE

[quote="elliott70"][quote="Hobey Faker"][quote="breakout"][quote="Hobey Faker"]I don't think minnesota hockey would have to change anything; except allow a certain number of clubs to form.
see how that goes before making any final judments. the clubs and partisapants would take all the risk up front.
Shattuck hasn't destroyed MN hockey, why would this?[/quote]


Go start your own. You can head to Wisconsin and do it just like the Fire. Good Luck! Get back to us and let us know how it works out [/quote]

same old song and dance! you still have not given a good reason not to try it.[/quote]

Call me and I will tell you what the concerns are.[/quote] Elliott Im Calling
so tell me what the concerns are lets get it out in the public It would not be right of me to hide this conversation from the kids who want to play a
birth year hockey like Tier1 Usa is doing instead of playing against kids
two years older where the risk of injury is even greater. Then when you
are the big kid on the ice you hold back because you do not want to hurt
some young kid who is 50Lbs smaller than you. Sounds like two years of
bad development is what Minnesota Hockey is all for No Exceptions or is
it No Choice..

5thgraders wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

Hobey Faker wrote: same old song and dance! you still have not given a good reason not to try it.

Call me and I will tell you what the concerns are.

Elliott Im Calling
so tell me what the concerns are lets get it out in the public It would not be right of me to hide this conversation from the kids who want to play a
birth year hockey like Tier1 Usa is doing instead of playing against kids
two years older where the risk of injury is even greater. Then when you
are the big kid on the ice you hold back because you do not want to hurt
some young kid who is 50Lbs smaller than you. Sounds like two years of
bad development is what Minnesota Hockey is all for No Exceptions or is
it No Choice..

Elliot- I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire. But 5th graders has a great point. Why the personal phone call? Can you just explain in this forum?

elliott70 wrote:

Mister Hockey wrote:I personally talked to the main man at North Dakota Hockey (JACK) three years ago and he told me that they wanted to pull out of the Minnkota District as soon as they could. Also, he said the birth year thing was a big reason for it. He told me that they were going to talk to South Dakota and I guess they did and pulled out. When the average age of the Minnesota Hockey staff is between 30-40 I believe things will turn for the better.

Sorry, again I disagree with you.

Someone in their late thirties may have an idea of how hockey works and what changes would be good, but a 30 year old generally has no or little experience in the local program let alone district, state or national goings on.

I am not saying 30 year olds should not be on the board but if you do the math to have 30-40 as the average age is not conceivable.
For one reason, it takes time. Uncompensated time. Most people in that age range have a huge committment to work and family and then to the local community. I am sorry Mister Hockey, but you, personally, need more gray hair.
Second, not alot of people jump forward to volunteer at the local level, forget about beyond that.
It is difficult to host a region or state event in the metro area because of the lack of volunteers. Tell me where you will get 27 plus volunteers to serve for the betterment of ALL hockey throughout the entire state. And then some of those volunteer to work for the good of hockey across the nation.
Sorry, but you don't get it.

Elliott, what is the make up of the Mn Board, is representation based upon per capita like say 1 board member for every 500 kids? Or is it as I suspect based upon regional territory. Meaning outstate may be over represented, since the vast majority of the players come from the metro area.

The idea that MN Hockey lines up with a players grade level doesn't fly. If you look at current squirt A teams, most have '98s, 97's and 96's playing on the team. Under the other method they would be only have '98's and '97's. No mater how you slice it teams will have mixed grades levels.

AAA isn't that different from what we have in MN, but they split the categories as Squirt Minor '98/Major '97, Peewee Minor '96/Major '95, Bantam Minor '94/Major '93 and have house and travel leagues.

Our A basically lines up with AAA and our B lines up with AA.

The biggest difference may be that some don't have community boundaries, which could be something to think about in MN.

Allowing teams to form across community boundaries may solve some of the big/small association problems.

MoreCowBell wrote: Elliott, what is the make up of the Mn Board, is representation based upon per capita like say 1 board member for every 500 kids? Or is it as I suspect based upon regional territory. Meaning outstate may be over represented, since the vast majority of the players come from the metro area.

Board make-up
President - elected by the board from general membership.
Immediate Past President -
Sec-Treasurer - same
VP Planning - same
VP Gold - same
VP Maroon - same
VP Tournaments - same
VP Publicity/Promotion - same
VP Hockey Ops - same
Contoller - same
Director Adults: elected by mens senior leagues
Director Juniors: elected by junior leagues
Director Women: elected by women's leagues
Director Boys HS: elected by HS coaches
Director Girls HS: eleceded by HS coaches
RIC: elected by MHOA members
CIC: appointed by MN Hockey board (non-voting)
12 District Directors: elected by associations from each district.

director emeritus - achieve a certain standing in hockey, a certain age, elected by board. non-voting. currently 4 of these individuals. Two are in attendance on regular basis and serve on committees. They are very helpful.

currently no immediate past president as Elmer Walls passed away.

basic 27 voting members on the board - 12 represent an area of the state.
the other 15 coudl be from anywhere.


Right now
President Elk River
Secretary Andover
VP planning New Hope
VP gold Duluth
VP tournaments Isanti
VP maroon Maple Grove
VP publicity Oakdale
VP hockey op Coon Rapids
controller Mankato
mens adult Edina
juniors Faribault
women adult Roseville
HS boys Plymouth
HS girls St Anthony
RIC Coon Rapids
CIC Plymouth
Directors
St Paul, Shoreview, Plymouth, Marshall, Dassel, Eden Prairie, So St Paul, Champlin, Cloquet, Hibbing, Fergus Falls, Bemidji

District 16 has 4.25% of youth & girl players in the state and has 3.7% of the voting.
Pretty fair representation.
District Directors have a problem with the ratio of 12 to the 27 - the 12 representing the kids but with a minority vote.
FYI - you may be surprised by the similarities and agreement amongst district directors.

If you are interested in the make up of the Mn Hockey board go to their web site.www.minnesotahockey.org All members are listed. The members who represent the boys and girls high school are elected by their associations, same for senior mens and womens, referees.

The President V.P.'s Sec.treasurer and comptroller are elected by the board.

The 12 District Directors are elected by the associations of the District they represent.

BoogeyMan wrote:

5thgraders wrote:

elliott70 wrote: Call me and I will tell you what the concerns are.

Elliott Im Calling
so tell me what the concerns are lets get it out in the public It would not be right of me to hide this conversation from the kids who want to play a
birth year hockey like Tier1 Usa is doing instead of playing against kids
two years older where the risk of injury is even greater. Then when you
are the big kid on the ice you hold back because you do not want to hurt
some young kid who is 50Lbs smaller than you. Sounds like two years of
bad development is what Minnesota Hockey is all for No Exceptions or is
it No Choice..

Elliot- I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire. But 5th graders has a great point. Why the personal phone call? Can you just explain in this forum?

Sorry, I did not see this post or the underlined part until today.

To summarize:
Concerns are
MN Hockey base premise is community based hockey. Allowing for something other than that would create some document problems. And it would create cause for philosophical policy. Not to say that either of these cannot be overcome, but it takes some work/time to blend somethings as we will not toss the community based association hockey.
(FYI - this is an item of discussion in the discernemtn committee.)
This may not seem to be that difficult, but when the mind-set, the documentation, and the vast numbers that prefer it the way it is; the change becomes a task. Philosophy is not an easy subject. I have condensed it to a few sentences here, but believe me it is a very time consuming, on-going body of thought.

The effect the change will have on local associations. The numbers game - needs study - gathering and analysis of information.

The increase in cost to individuals and perhaps how people will perceive playing AAA as required to advance their child. Thus making it an upward spiraling thing.

Non-profit based hockey as currently required. Would this be possible? What sort of control (if any is even needed) would there be on how people are paid? If for profit is used, how do you control the profit motive to the expense of the kids. Will the market control it? What avenue would there be for grievance? How would you sanction these teams if punishment is needed? This is a whole spectrum of operations, policies, procedures that need to be addressed PRIOR to going forward.

I am sure I have not listed everything (I am at work and do not have everything in front of me, and not until recently was I one of the lead guys on this).

Again, I am sorry for not responding sooner.
But this is not a do it, don't do it sort of thing. It requires analysis of all possible facets. As I wrote somewhere else, we have to look under the hood, not just kick the tires.

Just to add to board make-up.
70% of board is metro.
30% non-metro.

33.4% of the kids are non-metro.

elliott,
What about looking at the age brackets? Would MN ever modify it or go with USA hockey birth years?

edge wrote:elliott,
What about looking at the age brackets? Would MN ever modify it or go with USA hockey birth years?

There is strong opposition to going to birth years from several on the board. Most want to see us in alignment with HS.

Having said that, the real decision is at the association level.

If you want to field a bantam team with USA Hockey bantam ages that is entirely up to the local association. If they want major and minor (say as their A and B1 teams)they can use the birth years for those teams.

Having said that the local association still has to find a place for those slightly older kids, but U16 and junior gold teams are available in the metro area and some outstate areas.

Again, the local HS coach may have significant influence on those decisions, just as they do at the state level.

Thanks Elliott it does seem like a big age difference especially at the pee wee level. you could have 5th graders playing 8th graders. But i guess it would be the same if you took 2 birth years and put them together.

Bravo, Elliott. Nobody can ever accuse you of ducking the issue or failing to do your best to explain the posture of Minnesota Hockey.

[quote="elliott70"][quote="BoogeyMan"][quote="5thgraders"][quote="elliott70"][quote="Hobey Faker"][quote="breakout"][quote="Hobey Faker"]I don't think minnesota hockey would have to change anything; except allow a certain number of clubs to form.
see how that goes before making any final judments. the clubs and partisapants would take all the risk up front.
Shattuck hasn't destroyed MN hockey, why would this?[/quote]


Go start your own. You can head to Wisconsin and do it just like the Fire. Good Luck! Get back to us and let us know how it works out [/quote]

same old song and dance! you still have not given a good reason not to try it.[/quote]

Call me and I will tell you what the concerns are.[/quote] [u]Elliott Im Calling
so tell me what the concerns are lets get it out in the public It would not [/u]be right of me to hide this conversation from the kids who want to play a
birth year hockey like Tier1 Usa is doing instead of playing against kids
two years older where the risk of injury is even greater. Then when you
are the big kid on the ice you hold back because you do not want to hurt
some young kid who is 50Lbs smaller than you. Sounds like two years of
bad development is what Minnesota Hockey is all for No Exceptions or is
it No Choice..[/quote]

[b]Elliot- I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire. But 5th graders has a great point. Why the personal phone call? Can you just explain in this forum? [/b][/quote]

Sorry, I did not see this post or the underlined part until today.

To summarize:
Concerns are
MN Hockey base premise is community based hockey. Allowing for something other than that would create some document problems. And it would create cause for philosophical policy. Not to say that either of these cannot be overcome, but it takes some work/time to blend somethings as we will not toss the community based association hockey.
(FYI - this is an item of discussion in the discernemtn committee.)
This may not seem to be that difficult, but when the mind-set, the documentation, and the vast numbers that prefer it the way it is; the change becomes a task. Philosophy is not an easy subject. I have condensed it to a few sentences here, but believe me it is a very time consuming, on-going body of thought.

The effect the change will have on local associations. The numbers game - needs study - gathering and analysis of information.

The increase in cost to individuals and perhaps how people will perceive playing AAA as required to advance their child. Thus making it an upward spiraling thing.

Non-profit based hockey as currently required. Would this be possible? What sort of control (if any is even needed) would there be on how people are paid? If for profit is used, how do you control the profit motive to the expense of the kids. Will the market control it? What avenue would there be for grievance? How would you sanction these teams if punishment is needed? This is a whole spectrum of operations, policies, procedures that need to be addressed PRIOR to going forward.

I am sure I have not listed everything (I am at work and do not have everything in front of me, and not until recently was I one of the lead guys on this).

Again, I am sorry for not responding sooner.
But this is not a do it, don't do it sort of thing. It requires analysis of all possible facets. As I wrote somewhere else, we have to look under the hood, not just kick the tires.[/quote] Elliott thanks for answering , finally I
see I have you thinking as it took some time for you post a reply. I will be
a little easier on you this time or maybe not ? but you did Not even answer
the question you seemed to skirt the question. The question I will clean it
up a little bit so we all can understand what it is. Is Minnesota Hockey doing the right thing in allowing 6th graders 1996 birth year players on the
ice with 8th grade 1994' s. USA HOCKEY RULES do not allow this under Tier1 birth year. To each his own and the reason is INJURY but with Minnesota Hockey they are not answering the question of injury into the
mix of why or why not and that is wrong. Who is right USA HOCKEY birth
year or Minnesota Hockey Multiple birth year. Furthermore USA HOCKEY Handles all of the disputes and grievances It is in it's annual guide for 08. Tier1 USA HOCKEY has already looked under the hood and they said that
its car is running fine and is legal to drive in 49 States so lets do what is
right and award Tier 1 for those who wish to do it in Minnesota as a CHOICE.

Who is right USA HOCKEY birth
year or Minnesota Hockey Multiple birth year.

Yeah.

5thgraders wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

BoogeyMan wrote: Elliot- I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire. But 5th graders has a great point. Why the personal phone call? Can you just explain in this forum?

Sorry, I did not see this post or the underlined part until today.

To summarize:
Concerns are
MN Hockey base premise is community based hockey. Allowing for something other than that would create some document problems. And it would create cause for philosophical policy. Not to say that either of these cannot be overcome, but it takes some work/time to blend somethings as we will not toss the community based association hockey.
(FYI - this is an item of discussion in the discernemtn committee.)
This may not seem to be that difficult, but when the mind-set, the documentation, and the vast numbers that prefer it the way it is; the change becomes a task. Philosophy is not an easy subject. I have condensed it to a few sentences here, but believe me it is a very time consuming, on-going body of thought.

The effect the change will have on local associations. The numbers game - needs study - gathering and analysis of information.

The increase in cost to individuals and perhaps how people will perceive playing AAA as required to advance their child. Thus making it an upward spiraling thing.

Non-profit based hockey as currently required. Would this be possible? What sort of control (if any is even needed) would there be on how people are paid? If for profit is used, how do you control the profit motive to the expense of the kids. Will the market control it? What avenue would there be for grievance? How would you sanction these teams if punishment is needed? This is a whole spectrum of operations, policies, procedures that need to be addressed PRIOR to going forward.

I am sure I have not listed everything (I am at work and do not have everything in front of me, and not until recently was I one of the lead guys on this).

Again, I am sorry for not responding sooner.
But this is not a do it, don't do it sort of thing. It requires analysis of all possible facets. As I wrote somewhere else, we have to look under the hood, not just kick the tires.

Elliott thanks for answering , finally I
see I have you thinking as it took some time for you post a reply. I will be
a little easier on you this time or maybe not ? but you did Not even answer
the question you seemed to skirt the question. The question I will clean it
up a little bit so we all can understand what it is. Is Minnesota Hockey doing the right thing in allowing 6th graders 1996 birth year players on the
ice with 8th grade 1994' s. USA HOCKEY RULES do not allow this under Tier1 birth year. To each his own and the reason is INJURY but with Minnesota Hockey they are not answering the question of injury into the
mix of why or why not and that is wrong. Who is right USA HOCKEY birth
year or Minnesota Hockey Multiple birth year. Furthermore USA HOCKEY Handles all of the disputes and grievances It is in it's annual guide for 08. Tier1 USA HOCKEY has already looked under the hood and they said that
its car is running fine and is legal to drive in 49 States so lets do what is
right and award Tier 1 for those who wish to do it in Minnesota as a CHOICE.

Well, first you have to remember, USA Hockey established the two year window.
Prior to that for a period of time hockey used a 3 year period. Peewee hockey cover 7, 8 & 9th grade.

Second, USA Hockey still uses a two year period.

Third, there are several associations that need the two year period to field a team/teams (considering A&B). these assn are allover the state. It is not an outstate issue.

Fourth, most sports use a two year window.

Fifth, lots of associations allow move-ups creating an even larger disparity.

Sixth, HS hockey uses 3 years and occassionally 4 or 5 years. And not just in hockey, but in football and other sports where contact occurs.

Seventh, we have a safety committee. It reviews majors injuries and their casue. I have been involved with Mn Hockey since 1992. I do not recall one injury being the result of date of birth.

Eight - a kid born in June at the end of the two year window may very well be much larger thatn the kid born in July at the beginning of that time.


Nest issue, looking under the hood.
I spent last weekend discussing Tier I and other issues with Ron DeGregorio, President of USA Hockey. They are still looking under the hood. His statements were that MN Hockey community based hockey works and works very well.
I asked him point blank if he wanted MN to participate in Tier I & II national events. His answer was that the MN Hockey board new what was best for MN Hockey players. However, and of course, he would love to have us participate. But, and he stressed this, don't use AAA teams. Rather use the large associations in tier I and the smaller ones in Tier II.

We had at length discussions on the Ann Arbor programs and its benefits, the USA Hockey - NHL relationship, insurance costs, various law suits and the cost to USA hockey brought by for-profit organizations that feel they should not have to answer to USA Hockey affiliates, about potential fees increases, and the need for more information to be released to the membership - especially using something like Lets Play Hockey that is widely read.
We did not agree on everything, but we do respect each other.
Ron is a very intelligent man but also very much a hockey guy with a great heart.

I hope that helps.

Elliott, I think it would be wise to communicate with few other people on the USA Hockey Board, Ron DeGregorio is the new old guy running USA Hockey, we might want to think twice about recieving advice from an old goalie that played when they didn't wear face masks. Though I'm in favor of Tier 1 options, his suggestions of staying within community programs does not make as much sense as it might seem. It does solve the problem of dominant programs, it does not solve the issue of a superior player playing in a smaller association, and also suppose a player in a tier 1 community team does not want to do it or can't afford the up charge to do so. Based upon my experience most of the tier1 programs in the country are independant and as good as a top community team is now they might have trouble competing at this level.

The handling of disputes in USA Hockey for Tier I starts with the affiliate, in the case of the Fire the affiliate is WAHA. If Tier I would be in Mn the governing body would be Mn Hockey. USA Hockey is the appeals process. In the case on National tournaments all disputes and hearings are handled on the spot.
If you think all of the affiliates that have Tier I are happy, you might want to go to the USA Hockey web site and find the minutes for the affiliate presidents meeting, and when the minutes are posted from the winter meeting I would suggest you also read them. To further add to Elliott's statements there are a number iof states that is given the chance would follow the standard of Minnesota Hockey and not have Tier I teams. All is not well under the hood.