What a difference a year makes

[Quasar]

Nope ..Not open minded about this. Open minded about how to get there..
open minded about doing it within, or outside the current system..
Open minded about discussing pro and cons..

But your right ..on the basic principal of choice for everyone My mind is made up..

Q, just gotta point out the hypocrisy. You started a thread, I listed the questions that people need answered in order to agree with you, and it was said I should go away since I am not qualified to have an opinion. *Smile* *Laugh*

What people realize is that creation of some Tier I teams means that a kid like Bo's might make the team, but more won't. Then what? The natives that are restless are now even moreso, and the programs these anointed ones came from are weakened by their loss.

While you may not be open minded, can you at least concede that this is a valid point? If not, then you are right and everyone that doesn't agree is stupid.

Me and several others concede that the plight of the proverbial huge fish in a tiny pond is a real concern, it just isn't one whose importance trumps all other matters.

OTC, you are a smart, connected, hockey person....I understand where you're coming from.. I just don't agree... I'm old and set in my ways..
In other words , you are wasting your time with me.. My mind is made up... I will concede you have many valid points, And I don't think everyone is stupid that disagrees with me. I guess we will see as time goes by.... I love the back and forth, and if you wish to keep trying ..Okay.. But like I said on the subject of choice .. I've made up my mind!!!

[O-townClown]

Q, we do agree then that there are valid points on both sides of the issue. We can respectfully disagree on how things should be handled going forward. And that's fine. That's what a cordial and reasonable discussion is about.

[Quasar]

Q, O: I like ahybrid of MH and T1 where you have a bantam minor age but based on the minnesota school year and keeping the high school system in mind. I believe that's a win-win for all involved. Sure its a little extra work come tourney time but minnesotans aren't the kind to shun work


So you can both be right on this one with year-to-year A teams(double the A playerd - kids will like that) and thefolks ( Mayo will embrace it as well as a step to reduce injuries

I could get behind something like this.. would you like to expand on this a little?
I think what your saying is that at Bantam age we could go to minor major. Minor being Tier 2, and major being Tier 1.. This could work if the tier 1 teams could be district wide for tryouts. To try this out each district could field one major Bantam team. Okay OT .. What do you think about this approach??

No wait ..That won't work .. Okay USA I'm waiting for the expanded version... I got sidetracked by the Tier 1 thing.. So are you saying just have two A teams per association at Bantam?? Not good.. Right now their are a whole bunch of associations that can't even put together 1 A team. How are they going to do two?? OMG... I'm starting to sound like OTC..... Help

How about One Bantam Minor, and one Bantam Major team per district. All the kids that don't make the District teams play at their association. large associations could still field an A team that could play against the District Bantam minors. Smaller associations could field B teams as they do now. All these teams could play within the Minnesota system..

Now whats wrong with that ???

[O-townClown]

How about One Bantam Minor, and one Bantam Major team per district. All the kids that don't make the District teams play at their association. large associations could still field an A team that could play against the District Bantam minors. Smaller associations could field B teams as they do now. All these teams could play within the Minnesota system..

Now whats wrong with that ???

There's nothing wrong with it, but that's akin to sketching out an NCAA football playoff on a napkin and asking if it would work. The problem isn't that something's wrong, it's that you can't ensure everyone will be on board.

First, USA Hockey does not have a Minor or Major anything. Those are naming conventions used by Tier I organizations and Tier I tournament organizers. It would be hard to enact rules using terms that really don't exist. (I'm not fully versed on all pages of the USA Hockey rule book, so feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.)

Second, there's going to be resistance from strong associations. Think of the Top 10 programs annually that are working toward a goal of hanging a banner for winning the Bantam or Pee Wee state championship. Do you think they are going to welcome options that will by definition target their top players?

Do you envision a "superleague" where these District teams play against each other? If so, why don't you just drive a dagger in the heart of youth hockey in lightly-populated Northwest Minnesota? Or could districts be free to pass and not field a team?

We'll see. Make the proposal and see how much traction you get. I don't have any role in Minnesota Hockey, but I definitely know what questions I'd expect you to answer if I did.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

How about One Bantam Minor, and one Bantam Major team per district. All the kids that don't make the District teams play at their association. large associations could still field an A team that could play against the District Bantam minors. Smaller associations could field B teams as they do now. All these teams could play within the Minnesota system..

Now whats wrong with that ???

There's nothing wrong with it, but that's akin to sketching out an NCAA football playoff on a napkin and asking if it would work. The problem isn't that something's wrong, it's that you can't ensure everyone will be on board.

First, USA Hockey does not have a Minor or Major anything. Those are naming conventions used by Tier I organizations and Tier I tournament organizers. It would be hard to enact rules using terms that really don't exist. (I'm not fully versed on all pages of the USA Hockey rule book, so feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.)

Second, there's going to be resistance from strong associations. Think of the Top 10 programs annually that are working toward a goal of hanging a banner for winning the Bantam or Pee Wee state championship. Do you think they are going to welcome options that will by definition target their top players?

Do you envision a "superleague" where these District teams play against each other? If so, why don't you just drive a dagger in the heart of youth hockey in lightly-populated Northwest Minnesota? Or could districts be free to pass and not field a team?

We'll see. Make the proposal and see how much traction you get. I don't have any role in Minnesota Hockey, but I definitely know what questions I'd expect you to answer if I did.

This is like sitting in a manager meeting and gettting the 30,000 foot view on a subject from the IT manager. No relevance and boring...lets fire the OTC and move on.

[Quasar]

How about One Bantam Minor, and one Bantam Major team per district. All the kids that don't make the District teams play at their association. large associations could still field an A team that could play against the District Bantam minors. Smaller associations could field B teams as they do now. All these teams could play within the Minnesota system..

Now whats wrong with that ???

There's nothing wrong with it, but that's akin to sketching out an NCAA football playoff on a napkin and asking if it would work. The problem isn't that something's wrong, it's that you can't ensure everyone will be on board.

First, USA Hockey does not have a Minor or Major anything. Those are naming conventions used by Tier I organizations and Tier I tournament organizers. It would be hard to enact rules using terms that really don't exist. (I'm not fully versed on all pages of the USA Hockey rule book, so feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.)

Second, there's going to be resistance from strong associations. Think of the Top 10 programs annually that are working toward a goal of hanging a banner for winning the Bantam or Pee Wee state championship. Do you think they are going to welcome options that will by definition target their top players?

Do you envision a "superleague" where these District teams play against each other? If so, why don't you just drive a dagger in the heart of youth hockey in lightly-populated Northwest Minnesota? Or could districts be free to pass and not field a team?

We'll see. Make the proposal and see how much traction you get. I don't have any role in Minnesota Hockey, but I definitely know what questions I'd expect you to answer if I did.

Who should determine the future of Minnesota hockey?? The Association that wants to hang a banner, or the board of Minnesota hockey? There are many questions to be asked. The most important one for Minnesota hockey is whether or not they want for profit AAA hockey to determine their future. I don't envision a super league. I envision adding to what we already have. It would be silly to think that Northern Minnesota couldn't put together a team or two. The strangle hold of the large associations will end one way or another. If Minnesota hockey cannot, or will not find a way, there are plenty of talented people in the private sector that will. People like you tend to think that summer hockey is the outlet for choice, and that that's good enough. But like other posters on this subject have pointed out, once people participate in freedom of choice in the summer leagues, they don't want to go back to the association model. Some people have already given up on winter hockey. Others will follow suit.
Your experience in Minnesota hockey as a player was not the norm. I think many of your opinions are formed based on your personal experience. You were a top player in a top district. I'm pretty sure you never had to worry about getting shuffled onto the C team.. Most people looking for a choice don't think they belong on the A team, However they would like the opportunity to at least have a fair shake. We all know that by and large the tryout system in association hockey is spotty at best, and stinks at worst. I don't have all, or any of the answers.. I have a few questions. You are a hockey insider and as such you have a preconceived Idea of what it's all about. People like me are looking in from the outside, and we see it a lot differently than you and your peers. We have nothing to lose .. Minnesota hockey has everything to lose. But I would venture a guess that they don't understand that, and they will only get it when it's too late. But ..Like I've said before in more than one post, It's not up to me it's up to the Dads and Moms that have mites and squirts in the program. I probably wont be making a proposal any time soon. But I can tell you that when I was running my business before I retired, I couldn't wait for my competitors to bankrupt me, I had to look at the situation and make decisions to stay in business. I'm pretty sure you have to do the same in your day job. Oh well... Like I said time will tell..

[Quasar]

There's nothing wrong with it, but that's akin to sketching out an NCAA football playoff on a napkin and asking if it would work. The problem isn't that something's wrong, it's that you can't ensure everyone will be on board.

First, USA Hockey does not have a Minor or Major anything. Those are naming conventions used by Tier I organizations and Tier I tournament organizers. It would be hard to enact rules using terms that really don't exist. (I'm not fully versed on all pages of the USA Hockey rule book, so feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.)

Second, there's going to be resistance from strong associations. Think of the Top 10 programs annually that are working toward a goal of hanging a banner for winning the Bantam or Pee Wee state championship. Do you think they are going to welcome options that will by definition target their top players?

Do you envision a "superleague" where these District teams play against each other? If so, why don't you just drive a dagger in the heart of youth hockey in lightly-populated Northwest Minnesota? Or could districts be free to pass and not field a team?

We'll see. Make the proposal and see how much traction you get. I don't have any role in Minnesota Hockey, but I definitely know what questions I'd expect you to answer if I did.

This is like sitting in a manager meeting and gettting the 30,000 foot view on a subject from the IT manager. No relevance and boring...lets fire the OTC and move on.

I tend to agree on the 30,000 foot view. But lets not fire OTC he keeps us informed on how the status quo is thinking.. And movin' on is already happening.. Just hang out at the super rink on a nice summer day..
Yep .. That train has left the station, and it ain't slowin' down ....

[O-townClown]

Your experience in Minnesota hockey as a player was not the norm. I think many of your opinions are formed based on your personal experience. You were a top player in a top district. I'm pretty sure you never had to worry about getting shuffled onto the C team.. Most people looking for a choice don't think they belong on the A team,

I most certainly was not a "top player" when anything mattered! But I was coachable and a good youth player, never beyond and I've never thought otherwise! But thanks...

Now I'll get to the point of the post. Making such assumptions is dangerous. Our assocation had such depth that there were two A teams, two B teams, a high-level in-house league, and a low-level house league. In today's parlance that's A/B1/B2/C.

Not one first year player made the Pee Wee A or B team where we were eligible. Not one. Despite a kid that scored 85 goals as a Squirt that would go on to score over 150 points in the WCHA. The thinking was that the second-years needed to play travel hockey or they'd be passed over for good.

In today's world there are awesome players that don't play A hockey as a first-year in the big associations and there are very good players down at B2. Especially if they have a "lousy" birthday.

If you think the proverbial huge fish in the tiny pond needs a choice and every kid in White Bear, Eden Prairie, Wayzata, and Centennial doesn't you are wrong. First-year players from the mega-associations could take many of the spots on these theoretical AAA or Tier I teams.

It's going to take a lot of club hockey to absorb all the kids that could potentially want to play out of their association. Tier I just scratches the surface for the elite players. Other clubs could be Tier II, or maybe they masquerade as Tier I by name and just aren't at that level of play.

I don't disagree that there are families who feel their needs are not fully met.

Why not just propose abolishment of all associations? Let market forces decide the landscape of Minnesota Hockey. The ultimate in choice, everyone can do what they want to do. Hey, it works so well in the rest of the country that Minnesota surely should follow. Libertarian hockey.

[C-dad]

Why not just propose abolishment of all associations? Let market forces decide the landscape of Minnesota Hockey. The ultimate in choice, everyone can do what they want to do. Hey, it works so well in the rest of the country that Minnesota surely should follow. Libertarian hockey.

And it works so well for travel soccer as well!

[old goalie85]

USA- thanks for the info on the two Nats...Just shows it keeps changing as they grow.