HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Quasar wrote:
If I am misstating a fact please show me where.. The law suit already decided and in the books states that USAH being the governing body of amateur hockey in the united cannot be a monopoly..

AAU clubs in Michigan can, and are entering USHA tournaments, and because of the law they seem to be co-existing.

That can't happen. I read a very long e-mail today about it. I believe they are entering USA Hockey teams in USA Hockey tournaments and I believe AAU teams are playing in AAU tournaments.

AAU ain't gonna let USA Hockey teams play without their money and we know USA Hockey isn't going to let AAU teams play without paying their registration fee.

Here are the costs as I've been told:

The Tournament Director registers for a non-athlete membership which is $16.00.
Then the facility/tournament files for a Club Membership which is $60.00.

Once those are approved the facility/tournament can run as many AAU events as they want.

The sanction fee is $50.00 each day of the event.

Each player participating would have to register for an athlete membership which is $14.00. That is good for a year for ice/inline.
Each coach registers for a non athlete membership which is $16.00.

Referee registers for a non-athlete membership which is $16.00.

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:
If I am misstating a fact please show me where.. The law suit already decided and in the books states that USAH being the governing body of amateur hockey in the united cannot be a monopoly..

AAU clubs in Michigan can, and are entering USHA tournaments, and because of the law they seem to be co-existing.

That can't happen. I read a very long e-mail today about it. I believe they are entering USA Hockey teams in USA Hockey tournaments and I believe AAU teams are playing in AAU tournaments.

AAU ain't gonna let USA Hockey teams play without their money and we know USA Hockey isn't going to let AAU teams play without paying their registration fee.

Here are the costs as I've been told:

The Tournament Director registers for a non-athlete membership which is $16.00.
Then the facility/tournament files for a Club Membership which is $60.00.

Once those are approved the facility/tournament can run as many AAU events as they want.

The sanction fee is $50.00 each day of the event.

Each player participating would have to register for an athlete membership which is $14.00. That is good for a year for ice/inline.
Each coach registers for a non athlete membership which is $16.00.

Referee registers for a non-athlete membership which is $16.00.

If they have a team called the Sharks is it sanctioned by both USA hockey, and the AAU?

I seem to recall reading some time ago that they were co-existing
As a matter of fact I believe they display both logos on their web site...

Can you clear this up for me??

OT,
IL does wish it was 5% but they have 4 charters and no more are coming because they probably only should have 3 if not 2. WI has 3 charters and other clubs have recently tried to get one and they were denied.

Yes there are open question and decisions to be made. But to paint a horror story on the face of this is ridiculous. Reasonably speaking the MH model, as successful as it is, and as protective as people are of it, is not going anywhere and any Tier 1 system will be limited to protect this system just like WI and IL and the rest of the states, protects theirs. Nothing will be dismantled because the MH Tier 2 system works very well and private clubs will not take over anything because they can't for the reasons I have already posted. Yes there is a process, but it is not a difficult one and has been done dozens of times across our continent. MH will not charter 30 teams or even 10 teams because that would be unreasonable and unprecedented and stupid. And we are not operating on the assumption of craziness.

Badger, I'm sorry to say you are on your own island of disregard and oblivion and I can't help you with that. You have the facts, choose to ignore them and so the wild west exists in your mind.

SnowedIn: Read my 9:47 post.

I said I agree with you! But if private clubs force MNHockey to allow Tier 1. It is my opinion clubs will keep asking for more teams to provide more opportunities. I think the MNMade v. D6 shows my point.

So if WI is turning down new charter requests, they are restraining trade? Correct? If they prove that in court, a judge will force WAHA to grant another charter. And where would it stop? If a claim can be made for supply/demand, they will win?

UNLESS, it is determined a sanctioning body can in fact restrain trade, thereby creating a fixed number of charters. Or a monopoly.

You're just saying it can't happen. I'm saying it could. And if money is involved, it will!

SnowedIn wrote:OT,
IL does wish it was 5% but they have 4 charters and no more are coming because they probably only should have 3 if not 2. WI has 3 charters and other clubs have recently tried to get one and they were denied.

Yes there are open question and decisions to be made. But to paint a horror story on the face of this is ridiculous. Reasonably speaking the MH model, as successful as it is, and as protective as people are of it, is not going anywhere and any Tier 1 system will be limited to protect this system just like WI and IL and the rest of the states, protects theirs. Nothing will be dismantled because the MH Tier 2 system works very well and private clubs will not take over anything because they can't for the reasons I have already posted. Yes there is a process, but it is not a difficult one and has been done dozens of times across our continent. MH will not charter 30 teams or even 10 teams because that would be unreasonable and unprecedented and stupid. And we are not operating on the assumption of craziness.

Badger, I'm sorry to say you are on your own island of disregard and oblivion and I can't help you with that. You have the facts, choose to ignore them and so the wild west exists in your mind.

Snowedin, Thank you for a breath of fresh air and clarity !!

When I talk about private clubs, I mean in conjunction with the existing system. The sky will not fall. It is already here, and alive and well in Edina. I'm sure all the well meaning people involved in every aspect of Minnesota hockey can, and will, work it out,

But, to ignore the exploding summer hockey scene, and it's effect on hockey in Minnesota's future is short sighted at best.

Quasar wrote:If they have a team called the Sharks is it sanctioned by both USA hockey, and the AAU?

I seem to recall reading some time ago that they were co-existing
As a matter of fact I believe they display both logos on their web site...

Can you clear this up for me??

Quasar:

Absolutely a team can register with both USA Hockey and AAU. In Massachusetts it isn't AAU, but I believe the EHF straddles the same concept in that some of their play is under USA Hockey and some isn't.

Gives new meaning to Summer Hockey. "Summer. But summern't!"

Do you now see what I've been telling you for the past two years? Tier I hockey isn't the most likely scenario for Minnesota Hockey when there are other avenues that seem far more likely. I assume you do because a recent post of yours suggested, "we have to get away from the Tier I nomenclature," to describe the advent of high-level hockey choices.

BadgerBob82 wrote:SnowedIn: Read my 9:47 post.

I said I agree with you! But if private clubs force MNHockey to allow Tier 1. It is my opinion clubs will keep asking for more teams to provide more opportunities. I think the MNMade v. D6 shows my point.

So if WI is turning down new charter requests, they are restraining trade? Correct? If they prove that in court, a judge will force WAHA to grant another charter. And where would it stop? If a claim can be made for supply/demand, they will win?

UNLESS, it is determined a sanctioning body can in fact restrain trade, thereby creating a fixed number of charters. Or a monopoly.

You're just saying it can't happen. I'm saying it could. And if money is involved, it will!

Show me where in the world any Tier 1 club has sued their state to allow them to be granted a charter to add their team. I don't know of one. If there is were they successful? This is what I'm hanging my hat on. What are you hanging your hat on - MM vs D6. This was a lawsuit about a private enterprise (that provides hockey training to willing partipants, that doesn't play any games outside of their rink) claiming antitrust against D6.

Now if a group of people decided they wanted to form their own league and fully insure it themselves they probably could. MH cannot stop that from happening. Its a private enterprise like MM. But without USAH approval they would not be sanctioned and would not be able to play competition outside of this league and the league would probably not be very successful or worth its weight.

But that's not what we are discussing. We are discussing a legitamite State Adopted Tier 1 program, like that set up in every other major hockey state. Your scenario cannot exist - and if it did it would be after an unprecedented legal battle that would change hockey across every state and in Canada. I am not hanging my hat on this scenario. But you are.

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:If they have a team called the Sharks is it sanctioned by both USA hockey, and the AAU?

I seem to recall reading some time ago that they were co-existing
As a matter of fact I believe they display both logos on their web site...

Can you clear this up for me??

Quasar:

Absolutely a team can register with both USA Hockey and AAU. In Massachusetts it isn't AAU, but I believe the EHF straddles the same concept in that some of their play is under USA Hockey and some isn't.

Gives new meaning to Summer Hockey. "Summer. But summern't!"

Do you now see what I've been telling you for the past two years? Tier I hockey isn't the most likely scenario for Minnesota Hockey when there are other avenues that seem far more likely. I assume you do because a recent post of yours suggested, "we have to get away from the Tier I nomenclature," to describe the advent of high-level hockey choices.

My new position on the whole question has been answered by Snowedin.
I have no vote, nor will I ever, but if I did I think I would cast it in favor of Snow's position.

For Bob: The nice thing about the law is they know how to sort it all out ..

Quasar wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:If they have a team called the Sharks is it sanctioned by both USA hockey, and the AAU?

I seem to recall reading some time ago that they were co-existing
As a matter of fact I believe they display both logos on their web site...

Can you clear this up for me??

Quasar:

Absolutely a team can register with both USA Hockey and AAU. In Massachusetts it isn't AAU, but I believe the EHF straddles the same concept in that some of their play is under USA Hockey and some isn't.

Gives new meaning to Summer Hockey. "Summer. But summern't!"

Do you now see what I've been telling you for the past two years? Tier I hockey isn't the most likely scenario for Minnesota Hockey when there are other avenues that seem far more likely. I assume you do because a recent post of yours suggested, "we have to get away from the Tier I nomenclature," to describe the advent of high-level hockey choices.

My new position on the whole question has been answered by Snowedin.
I have no vote, nor will I ever, but if I did I think I would cast it in favor of Snow's position.

For Bob: The nice thing about the law is they know how to sort it all out ..

I also have zero vote in MN but if I did I think I'd be on board with snowedin as well.....

O-townClown wrote:Snowed, at what age do you feel the better players need to play with and against each other in order for the state to turn out more elite players?

Bo, is an association that only practices once a week indicative of a systemic problem at the Affiliate level? Or is it more of a failure at the local program level?

Q, you see only six teams. Per age group or per birthyear? If the Affiliate makes a move from present residency rules to full-blown choice it could be 50. I don't know if they are coded Tier I, Tier II, Rec, or something else. If posts on this board are an indication, there are many people anxious to have program choice because the local association fails them.

OTown, It's more of a that's what you get. Shouldn't there be options for the "failure" association kids since they don't really care who's at fault?

jancze5 wrote:I remember 5 years ago when I was on the WE NEED TIER 1 AAA side of this argument....I would still like to see it and some of you are repeating the same points many of us have made but the fact is that we don't need TIER 1 AAA here, we need a LONGER hockey season or a change to the current formatting to allow for a more structured out of season. Everyone here is right, there are 18 levels of AAA, too many but the reality is kids are playing year-round. The answer is to embrace the year round and provide a structure to best benefit all levels while maintaining the IN SEASON model for high school and youth hockey.

How do we do that? No idea, that's why I'm here listening to you fools listen to my foolish advice.

Good post!

So, where is the best place to have a young child (Squirt) play hockey at?
For MN Made, Association, AAA programs or etc.....I want the very best for my child and willing to spend the money to get him to the next level.

I look forward to feedback.

Go Wild!

gowild5555 wrote:So, where is the best place to have a young child (Squirt) play hockey at?
For MN Made, Association, AAA programs or etc.....I want the very best for my child and willing to spend the money to get him to the next level.

I look forward to feedback.

Go Wild!

Build a rink in your back yard..... Skate, skate, skate.........and skate

Save your money. Two more birthdays and he will reach the Pee-Wee level.

Well, off to Youngstown, OH on Friday as we travel way too far and spend "way too much money" for the oldest son to play 5 Tier 1 league games......

But you know what my son said out of no where this morning when I drove him to school, he said it's the most excited he's ever been to play a game (which says ALOT considering how much he has always shown his love of hockey) and you know, that is priceless.....

Bet your son ends up playing some teams that are located closer to your home than Youngstown.

How long has Youngstown had Tier 1 AAA teams? What age? What League? Do you know his first 3-4 opponents?

JSR wrote:Well, off to Youngstown, OH on Friday as we travel way too far and spend "way too much money" for the oldest son to play 5 Tier 1 league games......

But you know what my son said out of no where this morning when I drove him to school, he said it's the most excited he's ever been to play a game (which says A LOT considering how much he has always shown his love of hockey) and you know, that is priceless.....

Good luck, and above all have fun!!

How much is too much to buy lifetime memories.... yes you are correct...PRICELESS

Go Wisconsin !!!!

observer wrote:Bet your son ends up playing some teams that are located closer to your home than Youngstown.

How long has Youngstown had Tier 1 AAA teams? What age? What League? Do you know his first 3-4 opponents?

I'll take that bet......

The host city is Youngstown, didn't say they had a team.... The host team is the Pens Elite out of Pittsburgh and Youngstwon is pretty close to there and is used by them frequently.

The league is the "Tier 1 Elite Hockey League"

http://tier1elitehockeyleague.pointstre ... ckeyleague

The league brings the teams together for "showcases" now. This theoretically cuts down on travel for all teams during the season, so we play all the teams through a handful of showcases. So this weekend while in Youngstown his team will be playing the Cleveland Barons (OH) on Saturday, then Oakland Grizzlies (MI) later that night, then Sunday TPH Thunder (TN), then later Sunday night Pens Elite (PA), then Belle Tire (MI) on Monday morning then traveling home.

I don't see Chicago Mission, Compuware, Little Ceasars? Are they in a different Tier 1 league?

edgeless2 wrote:I don't see Chicago Mission, Compuware, Little Ceasars? Are they in a different Tier 1 league?

They're in the High Performance League, I believe...

http://www.hphl.us/

Sounds fun. Bell Tire should be tough.

edgeless2 wrote:I don't see Chicago Mission, Compuware, Little Ceasars? Are they in a different Tier 1 league?

Those teams, along with Team Illinois (TI) and Chicago Young Americans (CYA), used to be in the Tier 1 Elite Hockey Leage, left just last year to form their own league called the High Performace League. My son's team will play the Mission twice this season but those are just non league "games" as we have close enough proximity (about an hour and a half drive) to just play them as well as CYA and TI during the season.

old goalie85 wrote:Sounds fun. Bell Tire should be tough.

Yea should be alot of fun. I think the Barons are pretty good at my sons age as well but we'll find out this weekend I guess

JSR wrote:

edgeless2 wrote:I don't see Chicago Mission, Compuware, Little Ceasars? Are they in a different Tier 1 league?

Those teams, along with Team Illinois (TI) and Chicago Young Americans (CYA), used to be in the Tier 1 Elite Hockey Leage, left just last year to form their own league called the High Performace League. My son's team will play the Mission twice this season but those are just non league "games" as we have close enough proximity (about an hour and a half drive) to just play them as well as CYA and TI during the season.

I can't think of a better reason why I'm an association hockey fan than this. So the 5 teams listed above we're at the pinnacle, Tier 1 elite hockey, and it wasn't Elite enough so they had to break off and create the High Performance League. The grass is just never green enough when hockey becomes all about the individual is it?

Amazing.

Section 8 guy wrote:

JSR wrote:

edgeless2 wrote:I don't see Chicago Mission, Compuware, Little Ceasars? Are they in a different Tier 1 league?

Those teams, along with Team Illinois (TI) and Chicago Young Americans (CYA), used to be in the Tier 1 Elite Hockey Leage, left just last year to form their own league called the High Performace League. My son's team will play the Mission twice this season but those are just non league "games" as we have close enough proximity (about an hour and a half drive) to just play them as well as CYA and TI during the season.

I can't think of a better reason why I'm an association hockey fan than this. So the 5 teams listed above we're at the pinnacle, Tier 1 elite hockey, and it wasn't Elite enough so they had to break off and create the High Performance League. The grass is just never green enough when hockey becomes all about the individual is it?

Amazing.

What you fail to see is that associations at the A level also cater to the individual: The Average Player. Most A teams have maybe a few, give or take,top end players, a handfull of average players and some low end players. Practices are held back by the lower end players and do not challenge the high end players, making most practices average. The low end players benefit. The average may get a little better and the top players gain little to nothing and fall behind their counterparts that are being pushed in high tempo practices and play better competition.

Tier 1 caters to the high end individual. Association caters to the average individual and low end individual depending on what level they play at.

Each level of player should be challenged