HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

JSR wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:For those who want the last team played for in a lot of cases will list either high school or Juniors. The home address was the most consistent. Take the Tonordi son lives in Maryland, born in Mn and played for Shattuck, I counted him from Maryland. Would you credit Phil Kessel as from Wisconsin when the last team before turning pro was the University of Minn.
T.J. Oshie was born in the state of Washington but moved to Warroad and played Youth and High school in Mn. The states are where the players live not necessarily born.
If some one wants to take the time then go to the NHL web site and have fun all the information is there. Then go to Inside College Hockey or USCHO.com and go to every team site and for most have rosters for the past years. Not all have the new rosters for this years season.

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

All that aside, he's not a product of Wisconsin hockey - he's a product of Tier 1 hockey. Madison Capitals. So that's where the "credit" goes.

StillAnEagle wrote:

JSR wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:For those who want the last team played for in a lot of cases will list either high school or Juniors. The home address was the most consistent. Take the Tonordi son lives in Maryland, born in Mn and played for Shattuck, I counted him from Maryland. Would you credit Phil Kessel as from Wisconsin when the last team before turning pro was the University of Minn.
T.J. Oshie was born in the state of Washington but moved to Warroad and played Youth and High school in Mn. The states are where the players live not necessarily born.
If some one wants to take the time then go to the NHL web site and have fun all the information is there. Then go to Inside College Hockey or USCHO.com and go to every team site and for most have rosters for the past years. Not all have the new rosters for this years season.

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

All that aside, he's not a product of Wisconsin hockey - he's a product of Tier 1 hockey. Madison Capitals. So that's where the "credit" goes.

Which is in Madison, WI and a member of WAHA, coached by coaches who live and work in WI, and based on his age he would have played his Mite and Squirt hockey for his hometown WI association before the Caps. So he is a product of Wisconsin Hockey

For a little more maybe useless information about a direct comparison with Mn Hockey and Tier I ;

National Tier I tournament teams
1994 and earlier for a number of years MAHA participated at the Tier II level at the National tournament as we were younger by 8 months

1995 Anoka made the crossover game
1996 Duluth East made the crossover game
1997 Osseo/Maple Grove placed 2nd
1998 Eden Prairie made the crossover game
1999 Rochester North and Edina host Edina made crossover game
2000 Eden Prairie and Bloomington Jefferson host Eden P made cross over game
2001 Centennial made the crossover game
2002 Wayzata
2003 USA Hockey went back to the Jan 1 birth date
The winners of the crossover games play for the Championship. The tournament consisted of 12 teams where teams played 4 games in 3 days to get to the cross over game.

Based on all the banter, is it safe to say the Fire will live at least one more year and all of the kids who made the teams will be allowed to play without repercussions down the road?

Does anyone have that answer yet?

JSR wrote:

StillAnEagle wrote:

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

All that aside, he's not a product of Wisconsin hockey - he's a product of Tier 1 hockey. Madison Capitals. So that's where the "credit" goes.

Which is in Madison, WI and a member of WAHA, coached by coaches who live and work in WI, and based on his age he would have played his Mite and Squirt hockey for his hometown WI association before the Caps. So he is a product of Wisconsin Hockey

Do the Caps play mostly WI teams? Do they play WI High School teams like Superior, Eau Claire Memorial, etc? If the majority of their games are against these weak teams, then yes by all means WAHA can claim him!.. Lloyd: You're it. ---you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!

MrBoDangles wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:good stuff greybeard. perhaps it's time for a presentation to the board.

Make it.

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

I don't disagree.

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

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

Status quo for a while I think.

Was Minnesota harmed by having the Fire around?

It must have been the Shattuck option that has harmed the hockey in this state.

StillAnEagle wrote:

JSR wrote:

StillAnEagle wrote:All that aside, he's not a product of Wisconsin hockey - he's a product of Tier 1 hockey. Madison Capitals. So that's where the "credit" goes.

Which is in Madison, WI and a member of WAHA, coached by coaches who live and work in WI, and based on his age he would have played his Mite and Squirt hockey for his hometown WI association before the Caps. So he is a product of Wisconsin Hockey

Do the Caps play mostly WI teams? Do they play WI High School teams like Superior, Eau Claire Memorial, etc? If the majority of their games are against these weak teams, then yes by all means WAHA can claim him!.. Lloyd: You're it. ---you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!

WAHA and the WIAA (whcih regulates high school hockey here) are completely separate entities. WAHA can absloutely claim the Caps. WAHA cannot claim high school hockey in the state of Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin can claim BOTH entities, and if the kid was born and raised here the state can also claim credit for both. Just like MN can by all means claim Schattuck, and claim a player at Schattuck if the player was also born and raised in MN. For the record the younger ages do play a majority of games agaisnt other Wisconsin teams, it isn't until MM and mm that they play a larger percentage of games against out of state teams. FYI, Tier 1 AAA hockey is not just for high school players, it starts at the second year squirt age and up. You are taking this way too seriously by the way.....

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

You asked him for more data and got it. Now you want it sliced different ways. I don't think it'll ever be presented exactly how you want it, so let's just work with what we have.

There are five top Michigan Tier I programs. They routinely billet kids so they can play there as Midgets, or even Bantams. Andrew Yogan was drafted this year...a Floridian. He has played in the OHL for three years. I know a kid played Bantams there last year. Dad is from Ontario and lives in Canada, but the hockey the boy played is all in the UK. (Dad is in the British Hockey Hall of Fame.) One kid I know is committed to Bowling Green - he played in Florida through age 15, then went to Detroit for two years and the USHL for two more. He's not going to show as a Florida kid when he gets drafted.

Is your assumption that Tier I is a better developmental option than Minnesota HS hockey? It might accelerate things a bit, but it certainly doesn't raise the ceiling. Phil Housley, Jamie Langenbrunner, Paul Martin...these guys played HS hockey. Erik Johnson didn't. So he gets drafted a little higher maybe, but is he somehow a better pro because of it?

We can't prove anything here, but we can look at trends. About half the guys that play in the NHL were not drafted. Not the stars, but it shows that a lot happens after age 18.

In Canada there are TONS of kids that don't grow up playing Tier I hockey that go on to professional careers. That's another question I have. Are people asking about Tier I at Pee Wee level, or beyond?

O-townClown wrote:

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

You asked him for more data and got it. Now you want it sliced different ways. I don't think it'll ever be presented exactly how you want it, so let's just work with what we have.

There are five top Michigan Tier I programs. They routinely billet kids so they can play there as Midgets, or even Bantams. Andrew Yogan was drafted this year...a Floridian. He has played in the OHL for three years. I know a kid played Bantams there last year. Dad is from Ontario and lives in Canada, but the hockey the boy played is all in the UK. (Dad is in the British Hockey Hall of Fame.) One kid I know is committed to Bowling Green - he played in Florida through age 15, then went to Detroit for two years and the USHL for two more. He's not going to show as a Florida kid when he gets drafted.

Is your assumption that Tier I is a better developmental option than Minnesota HS hockey? It might accelerate things a bit, but it certainly doesn't raise the ceiling. Phil Housley, Jamie Langenbrunner, Paul Martin...these guys played HS hockey. Erik Johnson didn't. So he gets drafted a little higher maybe, but is he somehow a better pro because of it?

We can't prove anything here, but we can look at trends. About half the guys that play in the NHL were not drafted. Not the stars, but it shows that a lot happens after age 18.

In Canada there are TONS of kids that don't grow up playing Tier I hockey that go on to professional careers. That's another question I have. Are people asking about Tier I at Pee Wee level, or beyond?

Simple! Tier 1 is a much better development option for a kid from a small High School or winter association. In our association we have 18 Peewees. Two (first year skaters) will get waived out and one WAS FORTUNATE enough to make the Fire. Try looking at the whole picture.

StillAnEagle wrote:I am mostly curious about the stats of kids who played MN youth and HS hockey vs kids that played Tier 1 (any state) - that get drafted. After we can determine a ratio, we then would need to determine if it's proportionate or not, and THEN we will know if the choice is MN hockey or Tier 1.

That's an apple and an orange.

The measurement to see if Minnesota is effective is to look at # of players drafted or # of players in college divided by the registered youth players.

Minnsota is overrepresented compared to others.

Shepherding all the top players to Tier I programs at a young age has the effect of hindering the development of a broad base of players.

Minnesota 53,450 players - 12,250 girls - 7,099 adult = about 34,100 youth boys
Total 474,592 - 61,612 - 134,982 = about 278,000

Does it look like Minnesota is accounting for 12.2% of:

• drafted American players
  NCAA Division I players
  NCAA Division III players
  Olympians
  National Team players

MrBoDangles wrote:Simple! Tier 1 is a much better development option for a kid from a small High School or winter association. In our association we have 18 Peewees. Two (first year skaters) will get waived out and one WAS FORTUNATE enough to make the Fire. Try looking at the whole picture.

Let's separate the two discussions - youth and high school.

In the case of youth, what you describe absolutely happens. You are saying I need to look at the big picture. How have I ever not? Our state has less than 400 (not a typo) registered Mites. 17 facilities. The 18 you mention is the norm here.

The big question is whether you create new problems by solving one. If kids are free to choose their club teams, how will your association handle it when you don't have eightteen, but eight? Is that even enough for a team?

By HS there isn't a huge problem. Kids can attend a Twin City private school if they live in the Metro and the "big fish" in the small ponds of Outstate hockey can play in the USHL if they truly are out of place. Detroit Lakes loses a kid this year and I believe other recent defections are from Sauk Rapids or some town up by St. Cloud. (My apologies, I can't remember.)

Tier I Major Midget hockey does not address this. It isn't like you'll have ten Tier I clubs in Northern Minnesota. There may not be any.

JSR wrote:

StillAnEagle wrote:

JSR wrote: Which is in Madison, WI and a member of WAHA, coached by coaches who live and work in WI, and based on his age he would have played his Mite and Squirt hockey for his hometown WI association before the Caps. So he is a product of Wisconsin Hockey

Do the Caps play mostly WI teams? Do they play WI High School teams like Superior, Eau Claire Memorial, etc? If the majority of their games are against these weak teams, then yes by all means WAHA can claim him!.. Lloyd: You're it. ---you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!

WAHA and the WIAA (whcih regulates high school hockey here) are completely separate entities. WAHA can absloutely claim the Caps. WAHA cannot claim high school hockey in the state of Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin can claim BOTH entities, and if the kid was born and raised here the state can also claim credit for both. Just like MN can by all means claim Schattuck, and claim a player at Schattuck if the player was also born and raised in MN. For the record the younger ages do play a majority of games agaisnt other Wisconsin teams, it isn't until MM and mm that they play a larger percentage of games against out of state teams. FYI, Tier 1 AAA hockey is not just for high school players, it starts at the second year squirt age and up. You are taking this way too seriously by the way.....

I'm taking this too seriously? What gave me away? Was it my quote from Dumb and Dumber? lol - you obviously didn't read what I said before about thinking that the MN philosophy was better, but was still trying to validate that... I'm not attacking here buddy nor am I taking this seriously at all...

O-townClown wrote:

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

You asked him for more data and got it. Now you want it sliced different ways. I don't think it'll ever be presented exactly how you want it, so let's just work with what we have.

There are five top Michigan Tier I programs. They routinely billet kids so they can play there as Midgets, or even Bantams. Andrew Yogan was drafted this year...a Floridian. He has played in the OHL for three years. I know a kid played Bantams there last year. Dad is from Ontario and lives in Canada, but the hockey the boy played is all in the UK. (Dad is in the British Hockey Hall of Fame.) One kid I know is committed to Bowling Green - he played in Florida through age 15, then went to Detroit for two years and the USHL for two more. He's not going to show as a Florida kid when he gets drafted.

Is your assumption that Tier I is a better developmental option than Minnesota HS hockey? It might accelerate things a bit, but it certainly doesn't raise the ceiling. Phil Housley, Jamie Langenbrunner, Paul Martin...these guys played HS hockey. Erik Johnson didn't. So he gets drafted a little higher maybe, but is he somehow a better pro because of it?

We can't prove anything here, but we can look at trends. About half the guys that play in the NHL were not drafted. Not the stars, but it shows that a lot happens after age 18.

In Canada there are TONS of kids that don't grow up playing Tier I hockey that go on to professional careers. That's another question I have. Are people asking about Tier I at Pee Wee level, or beyond?

No my assumption is not that Tier 1 is better. I'm not really assuming anything, but would like to continue to assume that MN hockey is the best.
I'm kind of just generalizing squirts all the way through HS or midgets. With more emphasis on the HS/midget group.
And just for the record I didn't specifically ask greybeard either to provide or slice the data. I would just love to see some raw numbers of our program vs theirs as far as kids that are drafted.

O-townClown wrote:

StillAnEagle wrote:I am mostly curious about the stats of kids who played MN youth and HS hockey vs kids that played Tier 1 (any state) - that get drafted. After we can determine a ratio, we then would need to determine if it's proportionate or not, and THEN we will know if the choice is MN hockey or Tier 1.

That's an apple and an orange.

The measurement to see if Minnesota is effective is to look at # of players drafted or # of players in college divided by the registered youth players.

Minnsota is overrepresented compared to others.

Shepherding all the top players to Tier I programs at a young age has the effect of hindering the development of a broad base of players.

Minnesota 53,450 players - 12,250 girls - 7,099 adult = about 34,100 youth boys
Total 474,592 - 61,612 - 134,982 = about 278,000

Does it look like Minnesota is accounting for 12.2% of:

• drafted American players
  NCAA Division I players
  NCAA Division III players
  Olympians
  National Team players

I guess to me it seems like if you just look at the state, then yes it looks like MN is overrepresented. But I don't think we can compare us to the other states (or can we?) because they more or less operate under different rules than we do (not true?). So the comparison to me would be MN philosophy vs everyone else. And if that's the case, then is MN over or underrepresented...

BTW no one "has" to answer that. It's just a question I've been asking myself.

Beard shared some data with me. I calculated out that 19.2% of NCAA Divsion I American players are Minnesotan. (I netted out the Canadians and Europeans in order to match the 12.2% USA Hockey figure.)

Wow, 'beard's data shows that from 2000 through 2010 the results are even more conclusive that Minnesota produces far more than their fair share of NHL Draft choices.

150 players, or 24.47% of the 613 Americans taken. This compares to 75 for MA, 77 for MI, and 67 for NY. No other state has more than 30 (California). Illinois has just 28.

Is your assumption that Tier I is a better developmental option than Minnesota HS hockey? It might accelerate things a bit, but it certainly doesn't raise the ceiling. Phil Housley, Jamie Langenbrunner, Paul Martin...these guys played HS hockey. Erik Johnson didn't. So he gets drafted a little higher maybe, but is he somehow a better pro because of it?

quote]

How long did Jamie Langenbrunner play high school, Clown?

trippedovertheblueline wrote:
How long did Jamie Langenbrunner play high school, Clown?

Three seasons at Cloquet.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Simple! Tier 1 is a much better development option for a kid from a small High School or winter association. In our association we have 18 Peewees. Two (first year skaters) will get waived out and one WAS FORTUNATE enough to make the Fire. Try looking at the whole picture.

Let's separate the two discussions - youth and high school.

In the case of youth, what you describe absolutely happens. You are saying I need to look at the big picture. How have I ever not? Our state has less than 400 (not a typo) registered Mites. 17 facilities. The 18 you mention is the norm here.

The big question is whether you create new problems by solving one. If kids are free to choose their club teams, how will your association handle it when you don't have eightteen, but eight? Is that even enough for a team?

By HS there isn't a huge problem. Kids can attend a Twin City private school if they live in the Metro and the "big fish" in the small ponds of Outstate hockey can play in the USHL if they truly are out of place. Detroit Lakes loses a kid this year and I believe other recent defections are from Sauk Rapids or some town up by St. Cloud. (My apologies, I can't remember.)

Tier I Major Midget hockey does not address this. It isn't like you'll have ten Tier I clubs in Northern Minnesota. There may not be any.

So the kid that made the Fire gets stuck playing b-1, or b-2 with some kids that should be playing C. This is your idea of development? Does Shattuck hurt Minnesota hockey? Does the Fire program hurt Minnesota hockey? If MN HS hockey is the best of all worlds, why would someone pay big money for Shattuck? If you say SSM does not hurt MN hockey, then you are saying that tier 1 doesn't hurt mn hockey.
Does SSM hurt MN hockey? Simple yes or no will do.

MrBoDangles wrote:So the kid that made the Fire gets stuck playing b-1, or b-2 with some kids that should be playing C. This is your idea of development? Does Shattuck hurt Minnesota hockey? Does the Fire program hurt Minnesota hockey? If MN HS hockey is the best of all worlds, why would someone pay big money for Shattuck? If you say SSM does not hurt MN hockey, then you are saying that tier 1 doesn't hurt mn hockey.
Does SSM hurt MN hockey? Simple yes or no will do.

You've blurred the discussion so much I can't tell if you are talking about youth or HS ages.

A Fire kid doesn't play on the Fire and is a B player? Then you are talking about youth. My Bantam team had three players selected in the NHL Draft. My Bantam B team. One played in the NHL. No, you aren't going to do irreparable damage to a youth hockey player at these ages. They will develop just fine.

If you are talking older ages, I'll repeat. Major Midget hockey does not do anything to help these kids that are playing at a level. If they had to get out of their situation they would attend one of the private schools in the Twin Cities.

Shattuck doesn't hurt Minnesota hockey, principally because they don't rely on Minnesota players.

StillAnEagle wrote:I guess to me it seems like if you just look at the state, then yes it looks like MN is overrepresented. But I don't think we can compare us to the other states (or can we?) because they more or less operate under different rules than we do (not true?). So the comparison to me would be MN philosophy vs everyone else. And if that's the case, then is MN over or underrepresented...

BTW no one "has" to answer that. It's just a question I've been asking myself.

Read what you wrote. Does that make any sense to you?

"I don't think we can compare us to the other states"

"The comparison to me would be MN philosophy vs everyone else"

I've compared Minnesota to the other areas, and Minnesota is WAY overrepresented.

Who does a better job of producing NCAA players or NHL Draft picks? Maybe Ontario, but that's a tough one to measure because of how many play Canadian Junior hockey.

The answer is so obvious when you look at data. Minnesota does not have a flawed player developmental model. Some people look at things only anecdotally and conclude Minnesota is lacking because they see a Patrick Kane, Sidney Crosby, or Alexander Ovechkin.

Yes, the Minnesota approach may be lacking to a very, very small degree when you look at producing the best of the best - a "best in generation" talent. However, this can't be proven scientifically because we just don't have enough of a sample size. The next ubergreat player might be from the Gopher State and then people wouldn't ask the question.

Several options are available to someone that is clearly better than their peers. The NTDP and USHL are chosen frequently by kids like Erik Johnson and Blake Wheeler.

What's missing here that you can prove is needed?

Nothing.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:So the kid that made the Fire gets stuck playing b-1, or b-2 with some kids that should be playing C. This is your idea of development? Does Shattuck hurt Minnesota hockey? Does the Fire program hurt Minnesota hockey? If MN HS hockey is the best of all worlds, why would someone pay big money for Shattuck? If you say SSM does not hurt MN hockey, then you are saying that tier 1 doesn't hurt mn hockey.
Does SSM hurt MN hockey? Simple yes or no will do.

You've blurred the discussion so much I can't tell if you are talking about youth or HS ages.

A Fire kid doesn't play on the Fire and is a B player? Then you are talking about youth. My Bantam team had three players selected in the NHL Draft. My Bantam B team. One played in the NHL. No, you aren't going to do irreparable damage to a youth hockey player at these ages. They will develop just fine.

If you are talking older ages, I'll repeat. Major Midget hockey does not do anything to help these kids that are playing at a level. If they had to get out of their situation they would attend one of the private schools in the Twin Cities.

Shattuck doesn't hurt Minnesota hockey, principally because they don't rely on Minnesota players.

It's all the same material that has been talked about.

Playing B hockey your second year of Peewees...... IS MUCH DIFFERENT.... than playing B first year in a large association.


Fact -They will not develop the same playing weaker competition.

The Fire are all youth! Look at the topic.

SSM has not hurt with some Minnesota players?

The Fire has hurt with MN players?

O-townClown wrote: What's missing here that you can prove is needed?

Nothing.

Two things ...

1.) Tier 1 Hockey - a major staple of player development throughout the world, including many US States and Canada

2.) most importantly - due directly to lack of access, the families RIGHT TO CHOSE which model best suits their needs/interests

What's missing here that you can prove is needed?

Two things ...

1.) Tier 1 Hockey - a major staple of player development throughout the world, including many US States and Canada

2.) most importantly - due directly to lack of access, the families RIGHT TO CHOSE which model best suits their needs/interests

3.) How about a players ability to compare himself to the the best players in the US and Canada in his age group??

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

O-townClown wrote: What's missing here that you can prove is needed?

Nothing.

Two things ...

1.) Tier 1 Hockey - a major staple of player development throughout the world, including many US States and Canada

2.) most importantly - due directly to lack of access, the families RIGHT TO CHOSE which model best suits their needs/interests

It's like you didn't read anything in the posts. Someone asked if Minnesota was turning out top players. Can you make the argument it isn't? I'd love to see it. By what measure is this model failing to develop players? It isn't.

People do not have a "right to choose" their youth program annually under the MAHA umbrella. They have a choice not to play. They have a choice to move.

Prove that this right is needed and you'll be on to something. You can't, and you know it.

Pointing out why the system is the way it is and why it isn't failing isn't very hard. It seems like you want to argue this. I don't. You aren't breaking any new ground here. Minnesota's hockey model works - well - and will continue to.