Page 3 of 9
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am
by SnowedIn
royals dad wrote:Quasar wrote:
Minnesota Hockey will not allow AAA hockey in the state because they believe it will water down the High School league.
So ..if your one of the lucky ones tapped for varsity while still a bantam good for you. .. If not ..Tough...
How is this story any different if the kids go AAA vs Varsity? The kids left behind are still not good enough to have the same options. With AAA you just recreate this story much more often. I understand but disagree with your point of view but in this case your argument is backwards. The kids tapped for varsity arent lucky they are deemed good enough, the ones left behind are the same ones who would be left behind in year round AAA.
This is where Minn Hockey splits from ADM. ADM wants HPCs at Bantam (not lower) and Minn Hockey does not. ADM suggest Pewees play with a wide range of talent on teams and not in HPCs.
Close but you missed one part. ADM suggests that Peewees play with a wide range of talent on teams IN GAMES. For PW and below, games are important but practice is more important. In practices ADM/USAH recommends that kids of like skills practice together. The ADM skills practice is far superior and different than what probably most coaches run. So when kids are split out into different lines/stations, the best kids are grouped together and other like levels of kids are grouped together. Since all kids get the same quality practice kids will move into different groups as season/s move on. That's all good IF your coach or Association follows this philosophy. Its a great way to run things and everyone benefits. BUT until every Association coach follows this philosophy then the top kids will never develop as fast as they would in Tier 1. So there's the challenge to Association Hockey: Build a model that serves every skill level equally provides growth for every kid like the ADM model suggests, and talk of Tier 1 will fade. MN hockey can continue it's great High School Hockey tradition and develop even stronger talent at all levels.
If MN Hockey decides to maintain status quo then the Tier 1 hockey option should be provided as an alternative.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:33 pm
by Quasar
SnowedIn wrote:
So there's the challenge to Association Hockey: Build a model that serves every skill level equally provides growth for every kid like the ADM model suggests, and talk of Tier 1 will fade. MN hockey can continue it's great High School Hockey tradition and develop even stronger talent at all levels.
If MN Hockey decides to maintain status quo then the Tier 1 hockey option should be provided as an alternative.
Snowedin,
Thank you for your clear observation, and a post that makes the point .
Call it what you will ...Some kind of alternative should be available.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:37 pm
by O-townClown
MrBoDangles wrote:
- Best for most? (1) Your concern for the other kids is alarming. (2) Do you know how some of these top end kids are treated in these small associations? (3) Remember your comments about "pass the puck". You seem to get it every now and then....
- Your next comment???
- This comment you kinda explained the need for tier 1 from a small association standpoint.
- (4) Now YOU go back for the need for something else other than association hockey. I agree! Tier 1, Tier 2.. I agree! How about both?
- The last comment...... (5) So a Fire or Blades type player should be a sacrificial lamb and play with some c level skaters only to slow down their own development?
(6) You wouldn't even think of doing this to your own tier 1 kid......... (7) and if you say you would I call you a liar.
1 - Yes. In pointing out why Minnesota has not abandoned the association model it is important to highlight that Minnesota Hockey (and any affiliate) has an obligation to do what's best for most. Your lack of concern for others is the troubling part.
2 - It varies.
3 - I get it all the time.
4 - I don't see a need for Minnesota to abandon the association model. Hearing often from USA Hockey officials that they would like to see the rest of the nation adopt it makes it hard to see the net benefits - in aggregate - for abandoning it. What I have pointed out that any argument that Minnesota needs Tier I hockey to "solve" the "plight" of these hypothetical small assocation stars by providing "choice" is poppycock. Any Tier II club system would accomplish this, for even more players.
5 - First off, it won't slow down their development. In many cases it increases their individual skills because they will be relied on to carry the team. Second, categorizing a player as a sacrificial lamb just shows the horrible environment for the player - not within this association but within their own home. Not making a team and playing at a level supposedly below what is appropriate won't hold back a youth player in populated areas. Just the same, not fielding a team at A level won't hold a kid back as a
youth hockey player. (The discussion changes a bit when you get past Squirt/Pee Wee.)
6 - My son seems to be doing just fine. In an association with just two dozen players his level in a large state with less than 400 registered total. Is he a Tier I kid? Aha, there's the question. True Tier I is a very high level. Many programs field Tier I teams that aren't competitive with top teams. It isn't real hard to get on those teams, which is why the entire level is often derided as "checkbook hockey". Can kids that live in Minnesota play for the TPH Thunder or another team? I don't see why not if they can play for the Wisconsin Fire. There are oodles of teams that practice infrequently and play the Tier I or "AAA" circuit. Not what I have in mind, so we'll pass.
7 - Feel free to call me whatever you want. Don't let the facts stop you.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:39 pm
by royals dad
Quasar wrote:
Once you've been there you will understand...
I'm tired of the old nobody is good enough for AAA ..
If you bothered to read the original post about the kid left out, you'll get the gist of my post.
And apparently you don't understand the fact that there is no AAA in Minnesota for them to go to...
You have no idea where I have been in my 20+ years as a volunteer for Minnesota hockey. I left a role a as A coach in a big suburb association to coach in the inner city so most of that time was spent as a volunteer in small associations before I had kids. Now I am a parent volunteer in a small association. I have seen teams with legit tier 1 kids down to 1st year ankle skaters and have even had the challenge of coaching such a team.
When 8 blades and machine kids join select players off a few other clubs to for a team that is ranked 15th among Tier 1 teams I can be 100% certain the 3rd best bantam player from any team in the state is most likely not a tier 1 player. I believe we could support 2 maybe 3 tier 1 teams in the state. I also believe most people who think they have a tier 1 son will be on the outside looking in if those two teams are formed. They will end up still unhappy and will push to form more teams. Before you know it we will 40 AAA teams and a big mess on our hands.
Like it or not, fair or not, with in the rules or not we have the Fire in Minnesota. So yes it is here.
You assume anyone who disagrees with you isnt listening/reading or, is uniformed, or a moron. I have seen what happens when this is done to a sport and don't like the consequences so I am against it. I get the jist of it.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:50 pm
by O-townClown
Quasar wrote:
North Branch removed themselves from a co-op agreement with Cambridge/Isanti that allowed for A traveling peewee and bantam.
This statement was taken from their July 2010 board meeting minutes..
CI Co-Op – North Branch board members are not interested in a traveling co-op with Cambridge
Isanti for next. We may have some Bantam level players that may want to be waived to CI and
potentially some of our PeeWee level players, but we are not interested in a full co-op.
I understand they are signing waivers for A players both in Peewee and Bantam... I don't know anything about the situation in North Branch, but it looks like they opted out of A traveling.. Not quite the scenario envisioned by OTC....
In other words, it isn't Minnesota Hockey but the North Branch association that is "failing" (not my word choice) these supposed top players.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:50 pm
by observer
There are a number of small association players in the Elite League. How did that happen? Because they're good players and developed just fine in their small association, maybe even carrying the load which is good for development, and maybe an off season AAA team. 30 hours in the summer is closer to the norm. There are names on a few of the rosters that I don't even recognize from the summer AAA season so they may not have even done that. The cream does rise naturally and isn't manufactured.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:00 pm
by O-townClown
royals dad wrote: I also believe most people who think they have a tier 1 son will be on the outside looking in if those two teams are formed. They will end up still unhappy and will push to form more teams. Before you know it we will 40 AAA teams and a big mess on our hands.
"You don't know what you are talking about...."
"You have
no idea what it is like for a great player in a bad association..."
"You and everyone like you are against progress...."
"We have a
right to the
choice of where to play."
Royals, the sad thing is that your informed comments will be met with all these responses. I don't know why it is so hard for people on the one side of the issue to say, "yes. We understand. There are two sides to this issue."
When up against resistance, those asking for change usually have trouble explaining how to provide these choices without adversely affecting others.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:12 pm
by MrBoDangles
O-townClown wrote:MrBoDangles wrote:
- Best for most? (1) Your concern for the other kids is alarming. (2) Do you know how some of these top end kids are treated in these small associations? (3) Remember your comments about "pass the puck". You seem to get it every now and then....
- Your next comment???
- This comment you kinda explained the need for tier 1 from a small association standpoint.
- (4) Now YOU go back for the need for something else other than association hockey. I agree! Tier 1, Tier 2.. I agree! How about both?
- The last comment...... (5) So a Fire or Blades type player should be a sacrificial lamb and play with some c level skaters only to slow down their own development?
(6) You wouldn't even think of doing this to your own tier 1 kid......... (7) and if you say you would I call you a liar.
1 - Yes. In pointing out why Minnesota has not abandoned the association model it is important to highlight that Minnesota Hockey (and any affiliate) has an obligation to do what's best for most. Your lack of concern for others is the troubling part.
2 - It varies.
3 - I get it all the time.
4 - I don't see a need for Minnesota to abandon the association model. Hearing often from USA Hockey officials that they would like to see the rest of the nation adopt it makes it hard to see the net benefits - in aggregate - for abandoning it. What I have pointed out that any argument that Minnesota needs Tier I hockey to "solve" the "plight" of these hypothetical small assocation stars by providing "choice" is poppycock. Any Tier II club system would accomplish this, for even more players.
5 - First off, it won't slow down their development. In many cases it increases their individual skills because they will be relied on to carry the team. Second, categorizing a player as a sacrificial lamb just shows the horrible environment for the player - not within this association but within their own home. Not making a team and playing at a level supposedly below what is appropriate won't hold back a youth player in populated areas. Just the same, not fielding a team at A level won't hold a kid back as a
youth hockey player. (The discussion changes a bit when you get past Squirt/Pee Wee.)
6 - My son seems to be doing just fine. In an association with just two dozen players his level in a large state with less than 400 registered total. Is he a Tier I kid? Aha, there's the question. True Tier I is a very high level. Many programs field Tier I teams that aren't competitive with top teams. It isn't real hard to get on those teams, which is why the entire level is often derided as "checkbook hockey". Can kids that live in Minnesota play for the TPH Thunder or another team? I don't see why not if they can play for the Wisconsin Fire. There are oodles of teams that practice infrequently and play the Tier I or "AAA" circuit. Not what I have in mind, so we'll pass.
7 - Feel free to call me whatever you want. Don't let the facts stop you.
The thing you can't get through your thick skull is that a 2-3 tier 1 teams in MN would solve a lot of headaches for families. For the 97' kids that found a nice fit with the Fire there are at least 4 times that out there that would also like a option. The way it is now people are victims of a communist style governing body. In your way of thinking wouldn't it be a good thing for a dominant kid to move on so the next player could star.... Everyone would be happy!
I also think it's a riot that it's not a big deal that MINNESOTA HOCKEY'S REC LEAGUE is pulling away as many as 12 kids from some associations, at one level.............................................
I sure wish the MN Hockey governing body would move to Florida.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:17 pm
by MrBoDangles
observer wrote:There are a number of small association players in the Elite League. How did that happen? Because they're good players and developed just fine in their small association, maybe even carrying the load which is good for development, and maybe an off season AAA team. 30 hours in the summer is closer to the norm. There are names on a few of the rosters that I don't even recognize from the summer AAA season so they may not have even done that. The cream does rise naturally and isn't manufactured.
Come on Observer! Like I said before I like your Ideas........ but you are way off on the Elite League. Names? Associations?
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:22 pm
by JSR
I agree that palying for a small association in youth hockey does nto necessarily hinder development.
I further agree that "carrying the team" so to speak has it's positives and can help a player with certain skills and a level of confidence they may not get in a large association or AAA hockey.
I agree with the idea kdis and parents should have choices, but those choices should have some regulation.
What I disagree with, and if you aren't part of a small assocaition, is when the parents of the other kids (the ones not carrying the team so to speak) start chastising the really good player behind his back and to their own kids. I had a parent I my own small association ask his son and I quote "on that one play why did you pass the puck to Johnny?", the question was asked because his son is not a top player and does not see alot of touches in games, Johnny is the top player and touches the puck alot and scores alot of goals etc.... It was a pathetic question to ask a 9 year old kid. These same parents deride Johnny as a puck hog, and make snide comments about the kid and the parents behind their back. Despite he fact that Johnny is one of the nicest most unselfish kids you'll ever meet and he can't help it that he is that much better than his teammates (FYI, the teammates like Johnny and Johnny likes being on the team with his friends). The parents are good peope, never encourage the kid to be a puck hog, they are super active in their volunteerism etc... It coems down to petty jealousy, unfortunately, even though it's not Johnny or his parents fault, and even though the parents think he is progressing skill wise just fine at this age even though the program is small adn talent is wide ranged after a while having those things said about your child over and over again is taxing to the point you don;t want to deal with it anymore. All programs have their politics etc... but that specific type stuff seems more prevalent in small associations than larger ones or AAA teams.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:28 pm
by MrBoDangles
royals dad wrote:Quasar wrote:
Once you've been there you will understand...
I'm tired of the old nobody is good enough for AAA ..
If you bothered to read the original post about the kid left out, you'll get the gist of my post.
And apparently you don't understand the fact that there is no AAA in Minnesota for them to go to...
You have no idea where I have been in my 20+ years as a volunteer for Minnesota hockey. I left a role a as A coach in a big suburb association to coach in the inner city so most of that time was spent as a volunteer in small associations before I had kids. Now I am a parent volunteer in a small association. I have seen teams with legit tier 1 kids down to 1st year ankle skaters and have even had the challenge of coaching such a team.
When 8 blades and machine kids join select players off a few other clubs to for a team that is ranked 15th among Tier 1 teams I can be 100% certain the 3rd best bantam player from any team in the state is most likely not a tier 1 player. I believe we could support 2 maybe 3 tier 1 teams in the state. I also believe most people who think they have a tier 1 son will be on the outside looking in if those two teams are formed. They will end up still unhappy and will push to form more teams. Before you know it we will 40 AAA teams and a big mess on our hands.
Like it or not, fair or not, with in the rules or not we have the Fire in Minnesota. So yes it is here.
You assume anyone who disagrees with you isnt listening/reading or, is uniformed, or a moron. I have seen what happens when this is done to a sport and don't like the consequences so I am against it. I get the jist of it.
Did you see where the 97's are from? There are tier 1 team(s) in Florida,, I think Minnesota could throw together a few teams.
The 97 Fire went about .600 against good winter association teams.
The good winter associations are tier 1, I'm talking about the kids from tier 5,6,7 associations having some of the same opportunities.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:32 pm
by O-townClown
I fully understand. I also have thought this through, which you haven't, to know that having one or two Tier I teams would pull the top players from the top associations as well, leaving out those you are trying to help.
Tier I status usually comes when a program works its way up. For example, the Atlanta Fire are Tier I this year. They were a very strong Tier II club. Who gets these Tier I clubs? How about making one a co-op between D6 teams and the other a co-op between Centennial and White Bear. How again does this help the super Silver Bay player that I've been told we need to do this for?
When Minnesota Hockey's governance comes to Florida, be sure to tell them to be active in running our affiliate as well. We definitely can use the help.
Minnesota Made is not under USA Hockey, so you are right. It isn't a real big deal on that level. Just like the tournament near Boston that allowed checking for the 2003 division this summer.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:47 pm
by MrBoDangles
O-townClown wrote:
I fully understand. I also have thought this through, which you haven't, to know that having one or two Tier I teams would pull the top players from the top associations as well, leaving out those you are trying to help.
Tier I status usually comes when a program works its way up. For example, the Atlanta Fire are Tier I this year. They were a very strong Tier II club. Who gets these Tier I clubs? How about making one a co-op between D6 teams and the other a co-op between Centennial and White Bear. How again does this help the super Silver Bay player that I've been told we need to do this for?
When Minnesota Hockey's governance comes to Florida, be sure to tell them to be active in running our affiliate as well. We definitely can use the help.
Minnesota Made is not under USA Hockey, so you are right. It isn't a real big deal on that level. Just like the tournament near Boston that allowed checking for the 2003 division this summer.
The thing you should do is ask the Fire families if they're happy to have the fire option. Did they leave a situation they were not happy with? I would bet the farm........ How many more could be freed from the oppressive?
To sum it up, with options, families, can CHOOSE, the best route for their family, and player. It shouldn't be so third world.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:32 pm
by O-townClown
MrBoDangles wrote:To sum it up, with options, families, can CHOOSE, the best route for their family, and player. It shouldn't be so third world.
To sum it up, no affiliate comes close to developing players like Minnesota. Participation is higher there than anywhere else. Their approach is clearly working. It shouldn't be abandoned because it is "failing" some, who aren't being affected anywhere near as much as they believe.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:33 pm
by observer
There are a number of Elite League players from small associations even on the 4 metro teams. I counted over 10. Several players on the North, Wisconsin and Great Plains teams also are products of small associations. I even spotted a few from small associations that don't/didn't offer A level!
Get involved. Recruit at some community soccer games in the next few weeks. The time to grow is right now. All associations have peaks and valleys with numbers and talent. It happens because various leaders with energy pass through the association and then the next wave of parents take their eye off the recruiting ball because things seem good at the moment. The way to avoid that is to make recruiting the number one issue at your association and frankly it is. Staff a committee with mite and squirt parents that brainstorm ways to grow. MN Hockey helps with ideas and dollars. Solid numbers mean more revenue, more players, more teams and more fun for everyone as more kids skate at the appropriate level. Make sure it's not an on year followed by an off year but your community based hockey association grows every year.
What's your association's goal for growth this year? What are you doing to help?
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:38 pm
by Quasar
royals dad wrote:
You assume anyone who disagrees with you isnt listening/reading or, is uniformed, or a moron. I have seen what happens when this is done to a sport and don't like the consequences so I am against it. I get the jist of it.
Not true .. I assume you are listening or you wouldn't have replied.
This is a forum ..This is my opinion..Based on over 40 years around the sport in one way or another. I coached 6 years all ages all A level. So what ?? The comment was about having a high school varsity player nothing else.
Uniformed yes ..Moron ..never.... I don't know you, and even if I did I would not call you a moron... That came out of your mouth.
A couple of Tier 1 teams in the metro would hurt no one.
I think that's all I'm saying.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:43 pm
by MrBoDangles
O-townClown wrote:MrBoDangles wrote:To sum it up, with options, families, can CHOOSE, the best route for their family, and player. It shouldn't be so third world.
To sum it up, no affiliate comes close to developing players like Minnesota. Participation is higher there than anywhere else. Their approach is clearly working. It shouldn't be abandoned because it is "failing" some, who aren't being affected anywhere near as much as they believe.
We are the coldest. We have the most skaters. We are developing more NHL players than ever from the explosion of AAA summer Hockey.
Winter options is the last thing holding back Minnesota's potential.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:50 pm
by Quasar
MrBoDangles wrote:[
Winter options is the last thing holding back Minnesota's potential.
I agree with this statement !! I guess that makes me a closed minded , uniformed dufus .. So be it ....
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:52 pm
by MrBoDangles
observer wrote:There are a number of Elite League players from small associations even on the 4 metro teams. I counted over 10. Several players on the North, Wisconsin and Great Plains teams also are products of small associations. I even spotted a few from small associations that don't/didn't offer A level!
Get involved. Recruit at some community soccer games in the next few weeks. The time to grow is right now. All associations have peaks and valleys with numbers and talent. It happens because various leaders with energy pass through the association and then the next wave of parents take their eye off the recruiting ball because things seem good at the moment. The way to avoid that is to make recruiting the number one issue at your association and frankly it is. Staff a committee with mite and squirt parents that brainstorm ways to grow. MN Hockey helps with ideas and dollars. Solid numbers mean more revenue, more players, more teams and more fun for everyone as more kids skate at the appropriate level. Make sure it's not an on year followed by an off year but your community based hockey association grows every year.
What's your association's goal for growth this year? What are you doing to help?
Could you give some examples of the Elite players.
I sent you a pm about numbers.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:52 pm
by SnowedIn
O-townClown wrote:MrBoDangles wrote:To sum it up, with options, families, can CHOOSE, the best route for their family, and player. It shouldn't be so third world.
To sum it up, no affiliate comes close to developing players like Minnesota. Participation is higher there than anywhere else. Their approach is clearly working. It shouldn't be abandoned because it is "failing" some, who aren't being affected anywhere near as much as they believe.
Abandon? Don't think anyone said anything about scrapping Association Hockey. In fact I think everyone calling for options on this board will agree Association Hockey works very well on many levels. It keeps costs down. It makes hockey available to every kid. It is connected to the school so which brings a level of commaradary to the school community for those involved and spectators. It's great for all these and other reasons.
But what all of these voices are also saying is that Association Hockey does not work for everyone, and most comments specifically target top players, that want another option to development and play. Association Hockey is not providing these players with the benefits they are looking for. This is why every other state has Tier 1 and Tier 11 hockey, where Tier 1 can be supported, to satisfy these needs.
So to sum it up, Association Hockey is Great! Hockey in MN Hockey is Great! Another Option is necessary, to enable those of our top players that want accelerated development, that opportunity.
And Observer - constant recruiting is a good thing but will not fix the development gap that we are discussing here. You're talking about finding more numbers and diamonds in the rough that come from them. We're talking about improved development that will make make top players and strengthen development for all players.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:04 pm
by Quasar
I am waiting for someone to answer my question about the kid that is looking for somewhere to play because the High School Coach took 4 kids off his team. His dad would like to get him on an A team so he can continue to play at the level he's been playing at.
Ok ... Supporters of the Status quo, how about telling him what he can do for his kid. How about it O-Town, what do you think this dad should do about his situation??
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:09 pm
by observer
And Observer - constant recruiting is a good thing but will not fix the development gap that we are discussing here. You're talking about finding more numbers and diamonds in the rough that come from them. We're talking about improved development that will make top players and strengthen development for all players.
More numbers and more teams means more and better volunteers which means better development. If you're a PeeWee family and there are only enough kids for one team it may not help you today as 12 year olds don't fall from trees. But, if you had spent some time recruiting when your player was a mite a lot of what you're fussing about today wouldn't be occurring. You might have three balanced teams instead of one with no balance. You can help the younger families in your association understand the importance of growth.
If we only had another 5-6 strong players is a common complaint. That would have come with another 30 mites.
Some of the fussers just want to bail without giving the energy necessary for their community association to succeed. The foundation of a successful volunteer organization is that everyone pitches in. It's not just about Johnny it's about Johnny having 15 solid team mates.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:12 pm
by Quasar
SnowedIn wrote:
So to sum it up, Association Hockey is Great! Hockey in MN Hockey is Great! Another Option is necessary, to enable those of our top players that want accelerated development, that opportunity.
Yes .....Excellent point!
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:18 pm
by O-townClown
Quasar wrote:Ok ... Supporters of the Status quo, how about telling him what he can do for his kid. How about it O-Town, what do you think this dad should do about his situation??
Play in the association from mid-October through February and then augment the season with a more competitive Spring option.
The irony in this scenario is that it could become the norm if options to association hockey proliferate. Tier I clubs would be under the USA Hockey governance...in your HS scenario it is a non-USA Hockey team that took (swiped? poached?) the players.
You've pretty much proven that many kids will be adversely affected when the star kids bolt for the Fire and others like it.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:19 pm
by greybeard58
First the Minn High school season does not start until Nov. 15,2010. A high school coach can not set a roster before then.
What District is the association located in?
How many players are at the Bantam level including the 4 players?
Has the association already declared their teams to the District?
Has the association even talked with the coach about leaving the 4 players at the Youth level and playing at the A level this year?
By the way why not start a new thread as most of the discussion is not about the cost of travel for the fire?