LPH Article on USA Hockey

[YouthHockeyHub]

I can see I'm not alone in my frustration with the rigidity of the ADM message from USA Hockey. There are a lot of good ideas in there, but it comes across as holier-than-thou to me. One example is the implication that adherence will certainly create more top players. Really? How come so many of the best players in the world spent far more time on the ice than "recommended" in LTAD?

It isn't the only way.

I really like Jack's article. On balance, my feeling is USA Hockey does more harm than good and it takes feedback like this to force them to be better.

OTC - spot on.

I like USAH as a whole, it's way cleaner/easier and way more progressive than some of us old coots would like. But, I am not totally sold on MNH seceeding from USAH and going to an AAU model. That just seems like a step backward (note: I have not read Jack's article,yet, I'm only commenting on what has been posted or what has been implied here) and potentially filled with even more holes than we currently have with USAH.

I also think that there are so many died in the wool people on MNH Board that don't/can't possibly think this way or would push this way, so the argument is completely moot.

As for development...the ADM was NOT built with MN in mind. MN is a beast that USAH just tries to tolerate and work around...it's a simple fact of life that people need to accept.

Sidebar: MN is like Georgia for example in baseball. Georgia has traveling youth baseball at 8 years old (kids playing 60+ games at ages 7 and 8...they play year round, have huge participation, huge #s of MLB players, D1 players, etc). Compare that to MN and we just get started playing serious ball at 10 years old and we play 40 games if we are lucky.

[elliott70]

This is an interesting thread.

[elliott70]

It should be noted that several MNH district directors (now and in the past) have discussed this issue (MH being part of USAH).

[YouthHockeyHub]

Okay, I've read the article. And I agree with him on just about every point. Hard to argue with a former coach/trainer. Jack is a great servant to the game of hockey and more so MN Hockey.

Here is my only problem with the article. It doesn't offer a solution.

If USAH is not the answer, then what is?

The powers to be (i.e. MNH Board and it's DDs) would have a major mountain to climb to adopt their own association. Not to mention create a major chasm between our players and the rest of the nation.

As one expert up from out east said to me about MN Hockey, "Minnesota is the Iron Curtain of American hockey..." He was insuiating that we already do things our own way, are backwards in thinking, and think we are better than everyone else in the country.

So my challenge is this. If separating from USAH is so brilliant and so much better for us financially, creatively, and progressively. Then why don't we do it?

Here's why not:

1. A ton of work
2. Athlete rejection (can you imagine how few kids from MN that would get selected from MN to the best USAH teams and events?).
3. An internal divide amongst people here (pro USAH people vs. Pro MNH people).
4. We don't have a leader. MNH does not have a Herb Brooks right now. Someone to rally the troops and build a better mousetrap.

Until someone steps up and leads the charge, get use to cross-ice mite games, less and less body contact, and cute video modules that teach us how to notice if players are using drugs.

Like I've said a few times. The default of MN participating in USAH is way easier...it won't change or happen until someone takes Jack's article and pushes really hard. As much as I respect Jack and still remember everything he taught me, this charge cannot be lead with one article.

[nobama]

THEY ARE SCARED STRAIGHT IE WHERE YOU SEND YOUR NAUGHTY KIDS.

OF MN HOCKEY PULLING ITS SUPPORT TO USA HOCKEY.

MN HOCKEY REGISTRATION FEE IS ALL YOU NEED.

I VOTE FOR JACK TO RUN IT HE GETS IT.....

WE COULD HAVE 1 U17 AND 1 U18 MN TEAMS.

HINT THEY WOULD BEAT THE NATIONAL TEAMS.

CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE.

[SCBlueLiner]

A simpler solution would be for MN Hockey, who is the 800lb gorilla in the room at the USA Hockey meetings, to use its enormous size and influence to enact change within USA Hockey.

It would take an influential leader but be less of an undertaking than seceding from USA Hockey. There are just too many negatives for the kids, access to national teams at the top of the list, that make secession a viable option.

That's my 2 cents. Enact change from within.

[JSR]

THEY ARE SCARED STRAIGHT IE WHERE YOU SEND YOUR NAUGHTY KIDS.

OF MN HOCKEY PULLING ITS SUPPORT TO USA HOCKEY.

MN HOCKEY REGISTRATION FEE IS ALL YOU NEED.

I VOTE FOR JACK TO RUN IT HE GETS IT.....

WE COULD HAVE 1 U17 AND 1 U18 MN TEAMS.

HINT THEY WOULD BEAT THE NATIONAL TEAMS.

CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE.

Wait, are you saying that you think a MN U17 and U18 team would beat the U17 or U18 USNDTP teams...... sorry dude but you are completely delusional. MN has some great hockey players but that is not realistic if no other reason (and there are more) than the USNDTP teams play a full season schedule together and play a USHL schedule to boot, the MN kids are playing high school hockey and some Elite league hockey, hardly on par with a USHL schedule.....

[SCBlueLiner]

There are quite a few MN kids playing in the USHL. Enough so that a team could be made entirely of those kids and a few others that could compete.

[QuackerTracker]

There are quite a few MN kids playing in the USHL. Enough so that a team could be made entirely of those kids and a few others that could compete.

Who are they going to play? USHL is run by USA hockey. You plan is poorly thought out so far.

[old goalie85]

Canadian teams. They seem to have a nice # of top players. I was looking at the wild roster and 13 are from Canada/3 are from Mn/two from Sconnie [JSR]/2 from Finland. Maybe start our own deal w/Wis/Mn/ Ndak/SdaK ???

[elliott70]

A simpler solution would be for MN Hockey, who is the 800lb gorilla in the room at the USA Hockey meetings, to use its enormous size and influence to enact change within USA Hockey.

It would take an influential leader but be less of an undertaking than seceding from USA Hockey. There are just too many negatives for the kids, access to national teams at the top of the list, that make secession a viable option.

That's my 2 cents. Enact change from within.

But that is not the case....
There are so many votes out there...
and then the inner circle (exec comm)....

[QuackerTracker]

Canadian teams. They seem to have a nice # of top players. I was looking at the wild roster and 13 are from Canada/3 are from Mn/two from Sconnie [JSR]/2 from Finland. Maybe start our own deal w/Wis/Mn/ Ndak/SdaK ???

So your grand plan is going to have Wis and the Daks leave USA hockey as well as MN. Also Canadian sanctioned teams are probably not going to want to play an unsactioned team... You logic is too far flawed, it would never work.

[elliott70]

What USAH brings to the table...

SEE BELOW


to be continuied

[SCBlueLiner]

There are quite a few MN kids playing in the USHL. Enough so that a team could be made entirely of those kids and a few others that could compete.

Who are they going to play? USHL is run by USA hockey. You plan is poorly thought out so far.

USHL teams are a business, they will continue to go after the best players no matter where they are from even if MN Hockey leaves USAH.

As to another poster, I wouldn't doubt it one bit if MN Hockey were to leave that NoDak/SoDak would follow right along.

As for all this secession talk, I think it's a bad idea. Like I said, enact change from within.

[elliott70]

What USAH brings to the table...

1. A structure.
2. A rule book.
3. Resources for coaches.
4. Training of officials.
5. National events.
6. National teams.
7. Insurance.

Anything else?

What are the distractions?

1. Their fees (for just about everything).
2. Their mandates.

Anything else?

To a degree, Minnesota Hockey mirrors USAH.

Leadership at MH has for at least 22 years (my time of some involvemnt); ahs always stressed teh need to 'think ooutside the box'.
I have rarely seen that happen.

From where I sit, I see 4 alternatives.
1. Stay with USAH.
2. Leave and form something new.
3. Hybrid. -
Stay for the upper end of hockey (elite) and have 'sister' organization to run the association stuff.
4. Make some major changes in MH.

USAH affiliate:
Form teams by area at the upper level by birth year. Some areas obviously will struggle but make adjustments. Perhaps minimize the season for cost reasons and perhaps allow players to play with local teams. Follow USAH to the T.

'Sister' organization
Setting up a nopn-profit not difficult.
Photocopy what we have into the new organization.
Of course, those local assn that want to play other states and Canada will need to maintain their MH/USAH status,as well.

Now we need some leaders, some time, some money....

Okay, so let's stay with USAH.
Making changes within that organization are very, very difficult.

So what can we do...
make changes in MH.
We almost always are allowed to do what we want within our boundaries.

So what do we need to do/ what shoudl we do/ what could we do.....
???????????????????

As I have often heard, lets think outside the box...
and maybe, maybe we CAN make some changes.

[old goalie85]

District "all-star" teams that play birth year in a state/national tourny set up at the end of the mnhockey season.

[SCBlueLiner]

Don't quote me but I believe that for Tier 2 National Tournaments teams have to be association based (no All-star teams) and they have to play something like 20 games together. MN Hockey would be better off just changing the age bands to what USA Hockey uses and that way the Edinas of the state can go for National Title banners as well. I think that should be done anyway.

Tier 1 Nationals, I have no idea, maybe All-Star teams can compete for a NC.

[SnowedIn]

Don't quote me but I believe that for Tier 2 National Tournaments teams have to be association based (no All-star teams) and they have to play something like 20 games together. MN Hockey would be better off just changing the age bands to what USA Hockey uses and that way the Edinas of the state can go for National Title banners as well. I think that should be done anyway.

Tier 1 Nationals, I have no idea, maybe All-Star teams can compete for a NC.

Can compete at Tier 2 nationals if conform with the 2 year calendar age bands.

Tier 1. Need to compete under the tier 1 format with single calendar birth year. Add Tier 1 or find another format - maybe JSR or someone can shed some light on how Team WI, which seems like kind of a put together all star team, works at the various age levels?

[YouthHockeyHub]

Seems like a lot of the readers on here are on the same page (my kinda thread...good ideas, no back biting).

I am a big fan of 4 region teams or 2 North/South teams that play by birth year in the national circuit without getting in the way of the association season. Thus giving all of our kids a better picture of what USAH is doing.

Changing birth years will never happen, if you ask me. The rule change allows for older 9th graders to play Bantams instead of JV, thus giving more life to 10th graders whose spots may get taken by 9th graders and vice versa. The rule change increases participation and supports the High School Hockey flag that our state cherishes.

[Little King]

District "all-star" teams that play birth year in a state/national tourny set up at the end of the mnhockey season.

I'm hesistantly going to bite... There is already a process in place for this, it called the advanced, or Select 15,16,17. They are district/section based on birthyear.

I don't see the arguement for the MN kids not getting a shot at USNTDP teams, they get the same opportunities that AAA midget teams from around the country get, with the advanced(15,16,17) programs. No matter what the format, there will always be some politics involved... that is why you will always see even marginal players from strong bloodlines get opportunities that others don't... The players on the radar of decision makers get the best opportunities. Like all coaches, they miss kids every year. Some develop later, some not at all, some are studs, some are busts.

[JSR]

Don't quote me but I believe that for Tier 2 National Tournaments teams have to be association based (no All-star teams) and they have to play something like 20 games together. MN Hockey would be better off just changing the age bands to what USA Hockey uses and that way the Edinas of the state can go for National Title banners as well. I think that should be done anyway.

Tier 1 Nationals, I have no idea, maybe All-Star teams can compete for a NC.

Can compete at Tier 2 nationals if conform with the 2 year calendar age bands.

Tier 1. Need to compete under the tier 1 format with single calendar birth year. Add Tier 1 or find another format - maybe JSR or someone can shed some light on how Team WI, which seems like kind of a put together all star team, works at the various age levels?

Team WI competes for national titles at the Tier 1 level at the U14, U16 and U18 age levels (th eonly levels that have national tourneys anymore). Part of the rules for playing for TW is that you MUST play for your high school, in other words you cannot play Bantam hockey and play for TW, you can only play High School hocckey in the winter and then play TW in the before and after season. That is how they do it, if a kid played for a Tier 2 assoication Bantam team he would not be eligible to play for TW because you cannot play for both int he same season. Since High School hockey is not part of USAH or WAHA it is a "loop hole", to be fair it's a loophole that pretty much exists for any state that wants to follow the same model. Hence, if MN Hockey aligned with the calendar year birth year model that the rest of USAH world adheres to they could theoretically submit to have their Elite HS League teams compete for national titles

[57special]

Why doesn't MNH change the birthdate rules to conform with the rest of the continent?

[YouthHockeyHub]

Why doesn't MNH change the birthdate rules to conform with the rest of the continent?

"Changing birth years will never happen, if you ask me. The rule change allows for older 9th graders to play Bantams instead of JV, thus giving more life to 10th graders whose spots may get taken by 9th graders and vice versa. The rule change increases participation and supports the High School Hockey flag that our state cherishes."

[elliott70]

Why doesn't MNH change the birthdate rules to conform with the rest of the continent?

MH does conform to USAH.

[MrBoDangles]

THEY ARE SCARED STRAIGHT IE WHERE YOU SEND YOUR NAUGHTY KIDS.

OF MN HOCKEY PULLING ITS SUPPORT TO USA HOCKEY.

MN HOCKEY REGISTRATION FEE IS ALL YOU NEED.

I VOTE FOR JACK TO RUN IT HE GETS IT.....

WE COULD HAVE 1 U17 AND 1 U18 MN TEAMS.

HINT THEY WOULD BEAT THE NATIONAL TEAMS.

CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE.

Wait, are you saying that you think a MN U17 and U18 team would beat the U17 or U18 USNDTP teams...... sorry dude but you are completely delusional. MN has some great hockey players but that is not realistic if no other reason (and there are more) than the USNDTP teams play a full season schedule together and play a USHL schedule to boot, the MN kids are playing high school hockey and some Elite league hockey, hardly on par with a USHL schedule.....

I'm not sure if that's what he was talking about, but it would be close the last couple of years if you think about the talent (if they all stayed for U16/17/18 teams) from Minnesota. I actually think it could be closer than you think if you take away up to a quarter of the USNDTP that are Minnesotans, Grab the leading scorers from the USHL that are Minnesotans. Keep the two leading scorers and best defensemen from Shattuck that are Minnesotans. Grab the two future NHL first rounders and couple others that went to the CHL.... And this is before tapping into the high school ranks.

I'd probably - actually - put my money on them some years.