HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

This rumor would be a terrible direction for IGH to turn. Kids having fun is all about skating at the correct level. The more kids you have the more of them end up skating at the proper level. When you have 3-4 B level players on an A team the trickle down effect is huge. First the A team isn't as successful because they have 3-4 players that are B level. I should add, it's not that fun for the weaker kids, or their parents, as the season wears on. It's a long season and things end up being said that the player and parents both end up hearing. Add a potential political play by some IGH parents and that becomes magnified throughout the entire season. Believe me, your secret is already out and it's June. Want to live with that until March? Then the B team has problems because the 3-4 better B level players were miss placed on the A team. Now the B team has less success, and fun, as they're carrying 3-4 B2/C level players. I'll repeat, the more kids you have the more end up skating at the correct level. There's nothing wrong with being on a B team in fact most kids, and parents, will tell you that was their favorite year.

IGH and SSP also need to look to the future, beyond this single upcoming year. If they feel they're experiencing growth at the Mite level, like 100 new mites a year, then maybe they can see a future of going on their own. Otherwise, overall numbers are shrinking in many communities and are very unlikely to rebound. Rosemount and Farmington Associations may be examples where newer suburbs are growing, new housing, and the number of new youth hockey players is growing too. They appear to have a bright future if they stay well organized and have good leadership. Is IGH and SSP seeing the same growth in their community and in their youth hockey numbers? I doubt it.

The pissing match about whether it's a IGH team, or a SSP team, is stupid. Red helmet, maroon helmet, whatever. Ditch all that and co-op your associations teams to be the River Heights Rebels. A new brand that doesn't give ownership to anyone.

River Heights needs to be in the business of developing hockey players through their youth years. Where they go to high school, because they'll go to several, comes as the player enters 9th or 10th grade. Until then it's all River Heights.

I'm also always amazed that these organizations don't discuss these decisions with associations that have been through it. Maybe connect with a North Metro, or a Mpls-Park, and find out how their kids have all benefited from the co-op. How they've all become better players and had more fun because they played at the correct level. I heard about the Mpls-Park Bantam C team that won a Tournament. Never happens unless the Bantam A team has enough kids to fill the A team with A level players (one first year player). B1 had enough B1 players to go to State (almost all second year players), Bantam B2 was solid because the kids were at the correct level (more first year players). And then they get to Bantam C and they still have enough players to win a tournament. That's because they had the correct number of players playing on the correct level teams. That's cool.

Someone in IGH is about to tip the whole perfect model over which would be a huge mistake.

Night Train, your right on with your comments. The River Hiehgts takes away the pureity issue, and that comes from the parents. I would bet most of the players dont care what color sweater their wearing, aslong as they are competing, developing, and having fun. I think you look at the past three seasons of the River Heights program, they have been pretty succesfull on all levels. I feel thats partly because of the players playing at the right level.

I agree that it is imperative kids play at the correct level. I will throw out a couple of scenarios regarding numbers I have seen. Peewee level 22 skaters...do you go one or two teams? Peewee and bantam level 24 skaters...two or three teams?? Keeping in mind that the roster must be limited to 20 or do you cut? At what numbers do you create that second or third or fourth team or more team? I bring this up as a neighboring association recently had 44 bantams registered and skating... they fielded two bantam teams one A and one B...come playoff time they had to make some decisions and did cut players!!! Needless to say there was some upset parents and disappointed kids. In this situation would they have been better off fielding three teams? I have rarely heard the excuse of too much ice time...so I think running three teams with two lines is far better than running two teams with three lines and being over the roster limit.?

elliott70 wrote:

dogeatdog1 wrote:I hear a rumor that there will be no regional tourney this year only district then state? any confirmation.

Not true.
This is the final year of the 'new' region alignment.
If not adopted (or another plan adopted) then we revert back to the old plan.

Discussion of an 8 or 16 team district opton has been brought up but no action has been taken.

Check this out


http://www.minnesotahockey.org/site_mai ... aments.pdf

IGH you have some big problems. Let the kids play were they should. If your kid can't make the A team in the co-op then they should not be playing A's.. If you said in years past that you would alternate host cities why the change? I just dont't get it. Maybe they feel like since they have such a great hockey tradition in IGH that they can do it on there own.. FRUSTRATED

BarTender,
The minutes you referenced expressed concerns from D2 that they lost about $6,000 on the tourneys they hosted. I believe that D2 hosted a total of five tourneys in 2009. Three were regional tourneys (Junior Gold B held at the Super Rink, 12UA and 12UB held simultaneously at Stillwater) and two were state tourneys (U19A held at the Super Rink, U19B held at Tartan). A total of 55 games were played requiring 110 hours of ice under a two hour per game format. At $200 per hour, that makes the ice bill $22,000. If an adjusted format of 1 ½ hours was used, the adjusted ice bill would have been for 82.5 hours or for a saving of $5,500.

But the problem is game delays, tie games and resulting overtime that eats into the ice time that puts pressure on the district to schedule additional time “in case”. The U19A and U19B had no regional tourney (not enough teams). Eliminating the regional does nothing to reduce cost. The U12A and U12B each had three regional tourneys and one state tourney. Junior Gold B had only one regional that took 6 of 12 teams to the state along with two winning teams from the D8 districts. Not much of a regional to eliminate.

The Junior Gold B regional tourney should have recovered ice costs through team registration fees (12 teams entered and 30 hours of ice used results in a $500 team entry fee). Unfortunately other ways to recover costs at the Super Rink are limited. The U19A tourney had only two teams entered playing a best 2 out of three game format to advance to national tourney at the Super Rink. The ice bill would have been only $600, but the team entry fee would have to be less. Again, holding that tourney at the Super Rink limits ways to recover cost. It would be interesting to know how much the U12A and B regional tourneys at Stillwater cost D2.

D16 held two regional tourneys and one state tourney; D12 held three regional tourneys; D8 held three regional tourneys and one state; D6 held three regional tourneys and one state; D10 held two regional tourneys and two state tourneys; D15 held two regional tourneys one state tourney, D1 held two regional tourneys and one state tourney; D3 held three regional tourney and one state tourney; D5 held two regional tourneys and one state tourney; D11 had one regional and one state tourney; and finally D4 held two regional tourneys and one state tourney .

So D2 did have one more tourney to host then D8, D6 and D3 hosted (each with four tourneys). Some more thought should be given to the type of tourneys a district hosts as well as the number of tourneys. That would provide a better solution. Second, a district should chose venues that will optimize revenues and minimize costs to limit any potential loss. Finally some record of a tourneys financial success or loss should be kept by Minnesota Hockey to refer to in making decisions on hosts.

My point is that this is not an easy issue to resolve and in a tight economy, it will not get any easier. But eliminating regional tourneys would not make sense because most regional tourneys are played at the Bantam, Peewee, U14 and U12. This tourneys should at least break even between team fees and fan interest. Other levels have minimal regional tourneys due to fewer teams and the fan interest is not high (but I wish I had known about the U19A games, they would have been fun to see).

with Grandma paying twenty bucks to see her grandson play 2 games of hockey in a tournament, it's hard to believe that money is actually lost during tournaments.

I'd personally like to see Minnesota Hockey pony up the dough to host everything past the District tourneys. Don't they have little cash they could sacrifice each year. I believe every player in Minnesota pays a fee to Minnesotay Hockey, surely every penny isn't spent and a surplus exists. And I'm sure someone smart here will pull that number up.

[quote="jancze5"]with Grandma paying twenty bucks to see her grandson play 2 games of hockey in a tournament, it's hard to believe that money is actually lost during tournaments.

I'd personally like to see Minnesota Hockey pony up the dough to host everything past the District tourneys. Don't they have little cash they could sacrifice each year. I believe every player in Minnesota pays a fee to Minnesotay Hockey, surely every penny isn't spent and a surplus exists. And I'm sure someone smart here will pull that number up.[/quote]

HERE IS WHERE THEY LOSE ALL OF THEIR MONEY:

Banquets.....

Each District is required to provide a banquet for at least one player from each team and one parent. $20 per plate X 37 (17 players + 17 parents + 3 coaches) x 8 teams = $5,920.

A HUGE waste of money and of limited volunteer resources.

HELLO MN HOCKEY --- Eliminate the Banquets immediately. Someone please come on here and justify why MN Hockey should keep these banquets going.

I don't mind the banquets, in fact I think they are cool and are a nice way of making the state tournament experience special. But the expensive meal is a waste, most kids would rather have burgers or pizza than the fancy meal. They could cut the price in half easily by serving a meal that the kids would actually eat.

That being said, I think the meal is only free for the team (players and coaches). I think all parents must pay. But I could be wrong and am too lazy to check.

jancze5 wrote:with Grandma paying twenty bucks to see her grandson play 2 games of hockey in a tournament, it's hard to believe that money is actually lost during tournaments.

I'd personally like to see Minnesota Hockey pony up the dough to host everything past the District tourneys. Don't they have little cash they could sacrifice each year. I believe every player in Minnesota pays a fee to Minnesotay Hockey, surely every penny isn't spent and a surplus exists. And I'm sure someone smart here will pull that number up.

I agree.
At least for the major expenses of ice and ref and emt costs.

conditioningsucks wrote:

jancze5 wrote:with Grandma paying twenty bucks to see her grandson play 2 games of hockey in a tournament, it's hard to believe that money is actually lost during tournaments.

I'd personally like to see Minnesota Hockey pony up the dough to host everything past the District tourneys. Don't they have little cash they could sacrifice each year. I believe every player in Minnesota pays a fee to Minnesotay Hockey, surely every penny isn't spent and a surplus exists. And I'm sure someone smart here will pull that number up.

HERE IS WHERE THEY LOSE ALL OF THEIR MONEY:

Banquets.....

Each District is required to provide a banquet for at least one player from each team and one parent NOT TRUE. $20 per plate X 37 (17 players + 17 parents + 3 coaches) x 8 teams = $5,920.

A HUGE waste of money and of limited volunteer resources.

HELLO MN HOCKEY --- Eliminate the Banquets immediately. Someone please come on here and justify why MN Hockey should keep these banquets going.

Because it is an opportunity to bring all teams together at one time and 'honor' them.

Is it worth it.
Not in some venues.
Can it be done at less cost? Sure.
Eliminating it is not the answer in my book.
Minimizing costs (change the meal or make it just a dessert tray thing or... Use your imaginatin here) in those places it cannot be done without losing a lot of money should be done.

Thief River charged $11 a plate. It was a good meal, and everyone enjoyed it.

Parents pay their own way - coaches, players, refs, and us 'VIPS', eat for nothing.

So, 17 players (maybe more, maybe less), 3 coaches, 8 teams, 20 freebies
180 people at $15 per plate is $2700
Another 120 people (data shows about 300 - 350 attendees) at $5 margin is an offset of $600.
Net cost is $2100.
MN Hockey could put up $2500 to cover the banquet.

I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?

frederick61 wrote:I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?

If they are traveling with parents they will ONLY (?) need birth certificate and second type of ID.

I am not 100% sure but that was what I was told the last time I was at the border.

[quote="elliott70"][quote="frederick61"]I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?[/quote]

If they are traveling with parents they will ONLY (?) need birth certificate and second type of ID.

I am not 100% sure but that was what I was told the last time I was at the border.[/quote]


If traveling with one parent, they will need a certified letter from the other parent approving them to leave the country with the solo parent.

elliott70 wrote:

frederick61 wrote:I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?

If they are traveling with parents they will ONLY (?) need birth certificate and second type of ID.

I am not 100% sure but that was what I was told the last time I was at the border.

My understanding is all adults will need passports and that there is a children's passport. My question was directed more to the impact. Will the need for passports (and other things when traveling with kids) impact the number of games played by northern teams? Will the need to have passports (and the expense) reduce the number of games that the D16/D12/D11 teams play forcing more games played further south?

frederick61 wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

frederick61 wrote:I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?

If they are traveling with parents they will ONLY (?) need birth certificate and second type of ID.

I am not 100% sure but that was what I was told the last time I was at the border.

My understanding is all adults will need passports and that there is a children's passport. My question was directed more to the impact. Will the need for passports (and other things when traveling with kids) impact the number of games played by northern teams? Will the need to have passports (and the expense) reduce the number of games that the D16/D12/D11 teams play forcing more games played further south?

D16 does not play that often in Canada.
They comehere more often than the other way.
The exception is at the mite level with Baudette (LOW) kids going to Emo, Ontario. The same for I Falls.

So, no, it will not be a big impact for us.
If it were necessary to go to ND then it would be an impact.

[quote="frederick61"][quote="elliott70"][quote="frederick61"]I am planning my annual trip to Canada this summer and trying to remember to take my passport with so it does not occur to me that I didn’t as I head north on Highway 53 out of Duluth. But that makes me wonder how the passport situation will effect those peewee teams in the northern areas of D16 (East Grand Forks, Warroad, Roseau and LOW), in the northern areas of D12 (International Falls-should be really familiar with travel across the border), and in D11 (Duluth area teams normally schedule games with Thunder Bay teams)? Anybody see any impact in the coming season?[/quote]

If they are traveling with parents they will ONLY (?) need birth certificate and second type of ID.

I am not 100% sure but that was what I was told the last time I was at the border.[/quote]

My understanding is all adults will need passports and that there is a children's passport. My question was directed more to the impact. Will the need for passports (and other things when traveling with kids) impact the number of games played by northern teams? Will the need to have passports (and the expense) reduce the number of games that the D16/D12/D11 teams play forcing more games played further south?[/quote]\

travel by air: all need a passport
travel by car: adults need a passcard or passport
trAVEL by car: under 16 need birth certificate, over 16 drivers license and b-cert

It is not a bad idea to get your passport whether you need it now or not, as once you have it you will not need to worry about proving your I.D. with a birth certificate if you move to another state.

elliott70 wrote:

conditioningsucks wrote:

jancze5 wrote:with Grandma paying twenty bucks to see her grandson play 2 games of hockey in a tournament, it's hard to believe that money is actually lost during tournaments.

I'd personally like to see Minnesota Hockey pony up the dough to host everything past the District tourneys. Don't they have little cash they could sacrifice each year. I believe every player in Minnesota pays a fee to Minnesotay Hockey, surely every penny isn't spent and a surplus exists. And I'm sure someone smart here will pull that number up.

HERE IS WHERE THEY LOSE ALL OF THEIR MONEY:

Banquets.....

Each District is required to provide a banquet for at least one player from each team and one parent NOT TRUE. $20 per plate X 37 (17 players + 17 parents + 3 coaches) x 8 teams = $5,920.

A HUGE waste of money and of limited volunteer resources.

HELLO MN HOCKEY --- Eliminate the Banquets immediately. Someone please come on here and justify why MN Hockey should keep these banquets going.

Because it is an opportunity to bring all teams together at one time and 'honor' them.

Is it worth it.
Not in some venues.
Can it be done at less cost? Sure.
Eliminating it is not the answer in my book.
Minimizing costs (change the meal or make it just a dessert tray thing or... Use your imaginatin here) in those places it cannot be done without losing a lot of money should be done.

Thief River charged $11 a plate. It was a good meal, and everyone enjoyed it.

Parents pay their own way - coaches, players, refs, and us 'VIPS', eat for nothing.

So, 17 players (maybe more, maybe less), 3 coaches, 8 teams, 20 freebies
180 people at $15 per plate is $2700
Another 120 people (data shows about 300 - 350 attendees) at $5 margin is an offset of $600.
Net cost is $2100.
MN Hockey could put up $2500 to cover the banquet.

Banquets are not a waste of money because they add to the state tournament experience. This year In thief river falls all of the kids said the banquet was when it first hit them that they were there playing in the state tournament. How can you take that moment away from those kids who have worked so hard to get to that point. And as to lowering the price of food by just getting burgers or pizza that kids will eat, how many coaches do you think will allow there players to eat food like that the night before they play in the state tournament.

[quote="hockeyman84"]

Banquets are not a waste of money because they add to the state tournament experience. This year In thief river falls all of the kids said the banquet was when it first hit them that they were there playing in the state tournament. How can you take that moment away from those kids who have worked so hard to get to that point. And as to lowering the price of food by just getting burgers or pizza that kids will eat, how many coaches do you think will allow there players to eat food like that the night before they play in the state tournament.[/quote]

Hockeyman,

"Taking away the moment from kids" sounds good and emotional ---- but here are the plain facts.

District 2 lost $6,500 running three state tournaments.

In addition, they are fried out of volunteering. It takes a lot of volunteers to run a state tournament.

The three banquets probably cost the district $10,000 when you include food and hall rentals.

It comes down to what are you going to cut. I say get rid of the banquets. That one move alone will save many thousands of dollars and will not affect the quality of play on the ice. Yes, as Elliott pointed out, these banquets are probably a neat thing ---- but they are an extra that is unneccessary to run a great tournament.

A huge financial, as well as volunteer resources burden, will be taken away and we can focus on playing hockey.

conditioningsucks wrote:

hockeyman84 wrote:
Banquets are not a waste of money because they add to the state tournament experience. This year In thief river falls all of the kids said the banquet was when it first hit them that they were there playing in the state tournament. How can you take that moment away from those kids who have worked so hard to get to that point. And as to lowering the price of food by just getting burgers or pizza that kids will eat, how many coaches do you think will allow there players to eat food like that the night before they play in the state tournament.

Hockeyman,

"Taking away the moment from kids" sounds good and emotional ---- but here are the plain facts.

District 2 lost $6,500 running three state tournaments.

In addition, they are fried out of volunteering. It takes a lot of volunteers to run a state tournament.

The three banquets probably cost the district $10,000 when you include food and hall rentals.

It comes down to what are you going to cut. I say get rid of the banquets. That one move alone will save many thousands of dollars and will not affect the quality of play on the ice. Yes, as Elliott pointed out, these banquets are probably a neat thing ---- but they are an extra that is unneccessary to run a great tournament.

A huge financial, as well as volunteer resources burden, will be taken away and we can focus on playing hockey.

"they are an extra that is unneccessary to run a great tournmanet." If you took the banquet out of the program, what would set the state tournament apart from any other tournament during the year other than the title of the event? I agree completely with Hockeyman84 that "the banquet was when it first hit them that they were there playing in the state tournament", it was for our team. The setting, to have the trophies they were going to play for on display, to have all the fuss made over the teams, being brought up in front of the banquet hall to be interviewed and recognized, I know our team really enjoyed it.

The quality of play on the ice would not suffer, you have eight teams that have played at least 7 games and won at least 6 games to get to the torunament, these are the most deserving 8 teams in the state to be there, the officials have been graded and selected for these games and are more closely supervised than your typical regular season game so the quality of the games will always be high regardless of where the games are played.

So, with the inherent quality of the games and the title of the tournament aside, without the banquet, what would make the state tournament any different? The format is boring, 4 games on Friday, 4 games on Saturday, 3 games on Sunday, each team only plays one game a day. The two least fortunate teams are probably on the road home by 3:00 PM on Saturday. At least if you are one of those teams, you were part of something at the banquet and you have that memory.

I think the state tournament is as much about the "experience" as who takes home the biggest trophy and the banquet is a big part of making the event an experience. Last year we were discussing the "one-site" issue because it was about the "experience" of playing at the X, as well as a self inflated ego trip of some members of the Minnesota Hockey board, now this year we are talking about cutting out regions and eliminating the banquets. If we really get started on all these changes, pretty soon the state tournament will be a invitational jamboree of teams based on regular season records, where no scores are kept, played at the back four rinks at the Super Rink and all the players would get a $1.98 participation medal at the end. All this will be paid for by Minnesota Hockey and all off ice positions could be filled by minimum wage young adults.

Keep the banquets, keep the regionals! If the current system is a burden to some associations or districts, reexamine how the tournament sites are selected and award them to the sites that want them and can afford them, monitarily and volunteer wise, a complete bidding process.

Air Force 1 wrote:
Keep the banquets, keep the regionals! If the current system is a burden to some associations or districts, reexamine how the tournament sites are selected and award them to the sites that want them and can afford them, monitarily and volunteer wise, a complete bidding process.

You and Hockeyman still haven't sold me. Is it OK if we ask your parents to put up the money for the banquet as well as run clock, book, take tickets, sell sweatshirts, etc. (of course, they can't do it for your game as there is potential bias issues at a state tourney).

As far as a bidding process ---- what happens when no one bids because a) they lose money, and b) the associations and their volunteers in their district are tired of throwing big parties (better known as State Tournaments) for Wayzata, Edina, Eden Prairie, etc. ?

You and hockeyman view this from a 'What's in it for me' kids' perspective rather than the harsh realities that someone is losing money and their volunteers are fried after busting their butts working as managers, concession stand workers, clock workers, book, association fundraisers, tournament volunteering.

In light of this, pick your poison:

a) have mom and dad pay and volunteer to run the state tourney (including the banquet).
b) shorten game lengths to save money (perhaps three eight minute stop time periods to get the games done in 45 minutes).
c) referee with a 'one man' system in order to save money. Yeah, he'll miss offsides a lot, but the banquet was great!
d) increase the gate fee to $40 for the weekend, $75 for a family.
e) No EMTs. Yes, this would violate Minnesota Hockey rules, but it is more important to have our ego's stroked on Thursday night rather than have someone there when we break our neck on a check from behind on Saturday.

Hopefully you are getting my drift. If you like the banquets so much, come up with some ideas on how to pay for them and run them!

conditioningsucks, You are making far too much logical sense sighting raw data in dollar cost. This does not sit well with some. However you hit the nail on the head as something has to give and banquets are by far the most reasonable cut to make. Folks it WILL NOT impact the quality of the tournament or the experience.

District 2 hosted two state tourneys (U19A and U19B), not three state tourneys. The U19A state tourney had two teams entered and the U19B had six teams entered. The banquet bill for those two tourneys would really have to be pushed to reach a loss of $6,000. Something does not compute. I believe that D2 should look at how they hosted the state tourneys and regional tourneys to determine how they lost money and make recommendations both to D2 associations and to the state on their experience.

The minutes referenced are too vague.

conditioningsucks wrote:
Hopefully you are getting my drift. If you like the banquets so much, come up with some ideas on how to pay for them and run them!

Yeah, I get your drift, cut out anything that doesn't have to do with the game on the ice.

Pick your rink, tell the teams and refs where to report, maybe the players could dress at home so they can get right on the ice when they get there and then nobody would have to clean locker rooms, the refs could either come dressed or change in the utility closet, bring in a vending machine for snacks and drinks. And lets cut out the trophies too, those are just unecessary ego strokes too, and what do the teams do with them anyway, just bring them home and put them in a trophy case which is nothing more than a closet with glass doors and walls, nobody cares about them anyway. Does the tournament really matter anyway, except for a couple of associations, nobody agrees that the champion is the champion anyway because the whole process to get to the tourament and win it is flawed.

Seriously, between asscociation and summer hockey with two players, I have been to better tournaments. No matter what you say, I still think the banquet is an essential part of the "State" tournament, playing for a "State" title. I think a closer look needs to be made of the off ice administration of the respective tournament requirements, level, and location, and sponsorship oppurtunities. I think many cost reductions could be made before the experience is diminished for the kids.

conditioningsucks wrote:You and hockeyman view this from a 'What's in it for me' kids' perspective rather than the harsh realities that someone is losing money and their volunteers are fried after busting their butts working as managers, concession stand workers, clock workers, book, association fundraisers, tournament volunteering.

And what is this quote about?! Honestly, I don't know how to better myself because my kids enjoy hockey, it's never gotten me a pay raise or a promotion, reduced my taxes, got me a better deal on car insurance. The only personal well being I get our of it is I take a lot of joy of seeing the smiles on my kid's and their teammates faces they get from hockey. As far as what perspective I view this from, I have two kids that play, my wife and I working concession stand shifts, stat book, penalty box and clock, I sell my butt off during fundraisers and when it comes to tournaments, I love to work (we hosted a regular season tourney and a regional and I missed parts of two games). I am also a board member so my comittment doesn't end when the season does and there are plenty of things that don't deal with what goes on on the ice that need year round attention. Don't begin to lecture me about not understanding what an associtation deals with regarding budgeting and volunteerism! I can tell you this though, IF we were fortunate enough to be awarded a state tournament location here, we would EXHAUST ourselves to put on a first class show from the banquet to the trophy presentation.

And isn't that what is about, THE KIDS!