HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Now that registration for most associations is complete, did we have the big moves that everyone was worried about?

Did the west st. paul association get a bunch on new bantams that are going to st. thomas? north st. paul for Hill? Richfield for Holy etc...etc..?

Are we going to have the super teams that everyone was worried about?

or did the new rule just do what it was suppose to. Let a few kids play with their classmates?

CNF,

You kinda hit the nail on the head. "let a few kids play with their classmates." Why do a few fussy parents get their way at the expense of 98% of all families that were fine playing where they lived and, in most instances, already go to school.

Then, for the rule change authors to sit down and feel like they had to re-write a rule that had worked fine for the vast majority for 60 some years. Quite a bit of work for them, and difficulty for several associations and DD, just to satisfy a selfish few.

Still makes absolutely no sense. I'm not sure formation of super teams was ever a concern. We already have some super big associations with super teams. Chaos was the concern. Mission accomplished. Were you one of the selfish few or just like slinging crap because it doesn't concern you?

Youth Hockey = Play where you live
High School Hockey = Play with your school

I apologize in advance, as I fall on the "slinging crap because it doesn't concern me" sid of the aisle.

Maybe I misread the posts by many on both sides of this issue, but I get the feeling that some think the new policy is loaded with choice. As written, it most definitely is not. Squirts (10U), peewees (12U), and bantams (14U) have made or will make a one-time choice of 'where you live' or 'where you go to school' (if there is a difference) - those kids will stick with that choice until they're done (or get a waiver). Mites can choose either 'live' or 'learn' while they are mites but must play where they go to school when they become squirts (or get a waiver). This policy may or may not have much impact this year; I think you'll start to see the impact, about which SW Prez worries, at the squirt level in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:Now that registration for most associations is complete, did we have the big moves that everyone was worried about?

Did the west st. paul association get a bunch on new bantams that are going to st. thomas? north st. paul for Hill? Richfield for Holy etc...etc..?

Are we going to have the super teams that everyone was worried about?

or did the new rule just do what it was suppose to. Let a few kids play with their classmates?

Has had zero impact for our association.

Community Based wrote:CNF,

Still makes absolutely no sense. I'm not sure formation of super teams was ever a concern. We already have some super big associations with super teams. Chaos was the concern. Mission accomplished. Were you one of the selfish few or just like slinging crap because it doesn't concern you?

Youth Hockey = Play where you live
High School Hockey = Play with your school

I can't say i care either way on this, however just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong.

In my personal opinion we should be developing our elite players for the game beyond youth and HS. there should be 8-10 MN hockey sponsored Elite teams at the Major and Minor Bantam level that compete nationally.

Everyone else then can play youth hockey were you live, go to school, where grandma lives...who cares it will be rec hockey for them....

Just an FYI for everyone.

DD will meet on the topic this weekend.
It has been a problem for some and the DD's will review, determine if the rule needs tweeking, overhaul or scrapping (with a new approach to the classmate issue).

Elliot,

Have the DD's considered the All district teams, similar to Select 15's for all year long compitition?

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:
In my personal opinion we should be developing our elite players for the game beyond youth and HS. there should be 8-10 MN hockey sponsored Elite teams at the Major and Minor Bantam level that compete nationally.

Everyone else then can play youth hockey were you live, go to school, where grandma lives...who cares it will be rec hockey for them....

Perhaps you mean "endorsed" or "supported". Do you really mean sponsored? Wow, that would be radical. Or at least a precursor to the HPC portion of the ADM.

Minnesota is developing players for college and professional hockey. I can't understand why you would suggest a USA Hockey affiliate sponsors an in-season team when no other affiliate does.

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:Elliot,

Have the DD's considered the All district teams, similar to Select 15's for all year long compitition?

It has been discussed in the past.

It is on the Discernemnt committee agenda...
my guess would be that if something were done it woudl be closer to a befroe and after thing.

O-townClown wrote:
Perhaps you mean "endorsed" or "supported". Do you really mean sponsored? Wow, that would be radical. Or at least a precursor to the HPC portion of the ADM.

Minnesota is developing players for college and professional hockey. I can't understand why you would suggest a USA Hockey affiliate sponsors an in-season team when no other affiliate does.

Why not, why shouldn't Mn the "state of hockey" be the first to set up players at an elite level. Why is this a bad Idea? 10 teams of the Best kids in the State competing against each other all season along with teams like Shattuck, Capitals, Jr Blues....etc etc.

It technically gives all MN kids a chance to compete for a national Title. (if you don't think that is a big deal ask the kids who did it before 2002). It creates even more national exposure for Mn kids ala the select 15s. And most importantly it would be tough competition all year long and last time I checked competition was good... it makes kids better.

As far as sponsor vs endorse or support it is all semantics. When Mn hockey helps set up the teams (by district for example) and allows them to play in MN and other states, the kids win. Sure there are cost, the kids pay some, sponsors, and Mn hockey could cover it.

I can see it now the Hormel Hams out of sothern mn colors... Blue and Yellow of Course. The Golden Plump Chicken Hawks, The 3m Post its, The Best Buy Beasts, The Ecolab Cleaners, and on and on it goes.

North Dakota has what I believe is a 14 year-old team that plays pre-season games, some during season and then post including the Tier II national.

community based:

Youth Hockey = Play where you live
High School Hockey = Play with your school[/quote]

So where does this child play hockey? He lives in the city of Eagan, but his school district 196, sends him to a PUBLIC school in Burnsville. Are saying that this boy should play for Eagan. Currently and prior this child would play hockey for Burnsville.

Because a few thousand children reside in Lakeville, but these particular kids public school district is 192. They according to the state go to school in Farmington. Currently and prior they would play for Farmington.

"youth hockey = play where you live" You are stating that in this case, the boy must play for Eagan. And the Farmington hockey kids must now play for Lakeville.

As long as you limit the number of teams. 10 at those levels us too many. 4 sounds better, six might be accepable.

And do you do this for girls, too? If so, it'd probably be the death of girls hockey at the association level.

Why not, why shouldn't Mn the "state of hockey" be the first to set up players at an elite level. Why is this a bad Idea? 10 teams of the Best kids in the State competing against each other all season along with teams like Shattuck, Capitals, Jr Blues....etc etc.

It technically gives all MN kids a chance to compete for a national Title. (if you don't think that is a big deal ask the kids who did it before 2002). It creates even more national exposure for Mn kids ala the select 15s. And most importantly it would be tough competition all year long and last time I checked competition was good... it makes kids better.

As far as sponsor vs endorse or support it is all semantics. When Mn hockey helps set up the teams (by district for example) and allows them to play in MN and other states, the kids win. Sure there are cost, the kids pay some, sponsors, and Mn hockey could cover it.

I can see it now the Hormel Hams out of sothern mn colors... Blue and Yellow of Course. The Golden Plump Chicken Hawks, The 3m Post its, The Best Buy Beasts, The Ecolab Cleaners, and on and on it goes.

Chuck, love your ranking but have to disagree with you on this one. for the following reasons.
1.Hockey would go to an exclusive group. It is already heading there at break neck speed due to ice cost, equipment cost. We are losing the best atheletes out of each age group simply due to cost. Outstate feels this pinch already.
2. Cost of travel teams would kill a lot of folks shot at having multiple kids playing in various teams. Travel would quickly escalate the cost.
3. Squirt and pee wee development would be hindered greatly (Bylsma example in Michigan) in the golden years of development. 5 hours of travel to play a 2 hour game touch the puck for a 1:20 not a good move.
4. Herb Brooks vision which by the way is rapidly fading in this state of 'growing the pyramid' would be all but gone.
5. The late bloomers would never exist, ever. Those stories would go away for good. Forget this kids name who played at Eden Prairie youth program, went to BSM to be coached by Ken Pauley developed late and went on to NHL, (defensemen) big kid.
Hybrid model for youth after season perhaps. Match the Minnesota age with National age possible but relegating hockey development to a select few is nothing short of a very bad idea in my opinion.

Chuck Norris Fan wrote: Why is this a bad Idea?

Because Minnesota does a great job already of developing hockey players...the notion that your changes would improve things is just guesswork.

Oldtimer raises all the good points.

O-townClown wrote:

Chuck Norris Fan wrote: Why is this a bad Idea?

Because Minnesota does a great job already of developing hockey players...the notion that your changes would improve things is just guesswork.

Oldtimer raises all the good points.

Hear, hear! (Or maybe it should be here here! - was never sure of that usage.)

northwoods oldtimer wrote: Chuck, love your ranking but have to disagree with you on this one. for the following reasons.
1.Hockey would go to an exclusive group. It is already heading there at break neck speed due to ice cost, equipment cost. We are losing the best atheletes out of each age group simply due to cost. Outstate feels this pinch already.
2. Cost of travel teams would kill a lot of folks shot at having multiple kids playing in various teams. Travel would quickly escalate the cost.
3. Squirt and pee wee development would be hindered greatly (Bylsma example in Michigan) in the golden years of development. 5 hours of travel to play a 2 hour game touch the puck for a 1:20 not a good move.
4. Herb Brooks vision which by the way is rapidly fading in this state of 'growing the pyramid' would be all but gone.
5. The late bloomers would never exist, ever. Those stories would go away for good. Forget this kids name who played at Eden Prairie youth program, went to BSM to be coached by Ken Pauley developed late and went on to NHL, (defensemen) big kid.
Hybrid model for youth after season perhaps. Match the Minnesota age with National age possible but relegating hockey development to a select few is nothing short of a very bad idea in my opinion.

1. Cost, is what sponsors, mn hockey are for ... lets offset the cost

2. The purpose of 8-10 teams is so there would be less travel, playing mostly mn teams vs outstate would save money. Plus there are many outstate teams will to travel here to play us.

3. & 4 This is a major and minor bantam idea only... squirts and peewees stay in the same community based hockey ("building the pyramid")

5. Other bantam kids at the same age level would be still playing in the community based programs keeping our current system as the blueprint. Every year any kid (late bloomer or not) has an opportunity to make these teams in open (FREE) tryouts. This is not a $300 tyrout deal to just make money. Oh ya they all go on to play HS or Juniors or what ever they want after.

This is not an idea to spurn development of the whole. We claim we develop kids now correct? The current program would not change therefore not hurt the masses. However there would be a great opportunity for 170 kids ..... why deny that to them if it does not take from the others?

C-dad wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

Chuck Norris Fan wrote: Why is this a bad Idea?

Because Minnesota does a great job already of developing hockey players...the notion that your changes would improve things is just guesswork.

Oldtimer raises all the good points.

Hear, hear! (Or maybe it should be here here! - was never sure of that usage.)

You honestly believe that MN does a "GREAT" job already? Sure it is good, and we have a lot of elite players but is it because we just churn out so many players that good ones come along? or is it our "GREAT" development. If you look a the Elite and I mean the very top players in the country most are from places other than the "state of hockey"

FYI -The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:

C-dad wrote:

O-townClown wrote: Because Minnesota does a great job already of developing hockey players...the notion that your changes would improve things is just guesswork.

Oldtimer raises all the good points.

Hear, hear! (Or maybe it should be here here! - was never sure of that usage.)

You honestly believe that MN does a "GREAT" job already? Sure it is good, and we have a lot of elite players but is it because we just churn out so many players that good ones come along? or is it our "GREAT" development. If you look a the Elite and I mean the very top players in the country most are from places other than the "state of hockey"

FYI -The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

You logic doesn't add up. It should be flipped flopped. Maybe the places other than the "state of hockey" produce more top elite players because there are so many more players outside MN than in. I believe there are 9-10 times as many in the US.
BTW, if MH sponsors those teams it does come at the expense of the masses. Who do you think pays MH's budget?

MN Hockey, USA hockey has destroyed Minnesota Hockey. Yes we do build better robots indeed. But oldtimers are loing enough in the tooth to recall a day when minnesota kids could put a licking on teams simply because they never gave you the puck. Now today our kids are amazing they can flip a puck up one side down the other, spin it, dangle it like no other but cannot find an open man on a 3 foot outlet pass nor find that open man on the backside for an easy tap in. Thanks to usa hockey our great coaches have left the game. Despite this we do churn out some talent thanks to the programs and coaches who remain steadfast and the kids who get it as well.

spin-o-rama wrote:

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:

C-dad wrote: Hear, hear! (Or maybe it should be here here! - was never sure of that usage.)

You honestly believe that MN does a "GREAT" job already? Sure it is good, and we have a lot of elite players but is it because we just churn out so many players that good ones come along? or is it our "GREAT" development. If you look a the Elite and I mean the very top players in the country most are from places other than the "state of hockey"

FYI -The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

You logic doesn't add up. It should be flipped flopped. Maybe the places other than the "state of hockey" produce more top elite players because there are so many more players outside MN than in. I believe there are 9-10 times as many in the US.
BTW, if MH sponsors those teams it does come at the expense of the masses. Who do you think pays MH's budget?

we are 52,000 of the 460,000 in the country

only MI, MA, and NY are close for indiviual states.

northwoods oldtimer wrote:

Why not, why shouldn't Mn the "state of hockey" be the first to set up players at an elite level. Why is this a bad Idea? 10 teams of the Best kids in the State competing against each other all season along with teams like Shattuck, Capitals, Jr Blues....etc etc.

It technically gives all MN kids a chance to compete for a national Title. (if you don't think that is a big deal ask the kids who did it before 2002). It creates even more national exposure for Mn kids ala the select 15s. And most importantly it would be tough competition all year long and last time I checked competition was good... it makes kids better.

As far as sponsor vs endorse or support it is all semantics. When Mn hockey helps set up the teams (by district for example) and allows them to play in MN and other states, the kids win. Sure there are cost, the kids pay some, sponsors, and Mn hockey could cover it.

I can see it now the Hormel Hams out of sothern mn colors... Blue and Yellow of Course. The Golden Plump Chicken Hawks, The 3m Post its, The Best Buy Beasts, The Ecolab Cleaners, and on and on it goes.

Chuck, love your ranking but have to disagree with you on this one. for the following reasons.
1.Hockey would go to an exclusive group. It is already heading there at break neck speed due to ice cost, equipment cost. We are losing the best atheletes out of each age group simply due to cost. Outstate feels this pinch already.
2. Cost of travel teams would kill a lot of folks shot at having multiple kids playing in various teams. Travel would quickly escalate the cost.
3. Squirt and pee wee development would be hindered greatly (Bylsma example in Michigan) in the golden years of development. 5 hours of travel to play a 2 hour game touch the puck for a 1:20 not a good move.
4. Herb Brooks vision which by the way is rapidly fading in this state of 'growing the pyramid' would be all but gone.
5. The late bloomers would never exist, ever. Those stories would go away for good. Forget this kids name who played at Eden Prairie youth program, went to BSM to be coached by Ken Pauley developed late and went on to NHL, (defensemen) big kid.
Hybrid model for youth after season perhaps. Match the Minnesota age with National age possible but relegating hockey development to a select few is nothing short of a very bad idea in my opinion.

I think that was Andrew Alberts.