I believe the future discussion, regarding formation of youth teams and organizations outside of the current youth hockey association structure, will be regarding allowing Tier 1 organizations to form in Minnesota. I'd be supportive of that. The school hosted youth teams are done.
The Fire has had many Minnesota kids on their rosters so the desire for these opportunities for players and families is out there. The Fire Hockey Club may be limited to the percentage of Minnesota players on their rosters based on their administrative issues and rule violations, as a Wisconsin "based" (registered) team, in the past. Could that mean fewer spots for Minnesota kids on the Wisconsin based teams this winter season? Fire tryouts were held this last weekend. Could the economy, and the cost of gas, be having an impact on the number of players trying out? Stronger than ever? A little weaker?
I don't think there will be additional Tier 1 team opportunities this winter in Minnesota. Should there be in the future? Will there be?
Minnesota Hockey Summer Meeting - June 27th – 29th, 2008
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
tier 1 teams
All good questions. I think MN Hockey had to do something - so they answered the question as to the direction they believe Association based hockey should go as it pertains to private school teams.
This quesiton and discussion has been around for many, many, many years. And, just because of this decision, doesn't mean the discussion is over. It just means that it will take a different direction.
Private school teams can still form as long as they work it out with an association, but for most private schools, the players live in different associations. Will we now start hearing about waivers again? Unfortunately different association look at waivers differently - so if St. Thomas forms a team within the West St. Paul Associaiton, then any of their players not from that association must obtain waivers to play for the St. Thomas bantam team. Some associations will grant the waivers and some will deny them - ultimately - is that fair? Or because it is not a uniform policy - does it just continue to raise questions and encourage disgruntled players?
This quesiton and discussion has been around for many, many, many years. And, just because of this decision, doesn't mean the discussion is over. It just means that it will take a different direction.
Private school teams can still form as long as they work it out with an association, but for most private schools, the players live in different associations. Will we now start hearing about waivers again? Unfortunately different association look at waivers differently - so if St. Thomas forms a team within the West St. Paul Associaiton, then any of their players not from that association must obtain waivers to play for the St. Thomas bantam team. Some associations will grant the waivers and some will deny them - ultimately - is that fair? Or because it is not a uniform policy - does it just continue to raise questions and encourage disgruntled players?
No youth hockey association will support development of a "second" bantam B team hosted by their organization. The concept was tested and failed, on several levels. That's part of the decision not to allow affiliate agreements. Most all youth hockey associations offer bantam B hockey and don't have the numbers to support two bantam b teams. Kids will complete their youth hockey years with their association teams and then move to their high school of choice. It's really the best way to handle it.