Def'n of Tier I

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:37 pm

What does it mean to you?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:47 pm

An option in a state thats slogan for their Hockey is "Good For Most, The Rest Are Toast"

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:59 pm

Tier 1 AAA National Rankings
Bantam

Major (103 Teams Ranked)
1. Belle Tire (MI) (41-5-2) 9.00
2. St. Louis Blues AAA (MO) (33-6-1) 8.00
3. Team Comcast (NJ) (22-1-5) 7.95
4. Bay State Breakers Non Elite (MA) (26-7-1) 7.59
5. ...(more) Minor (98 Teams Ranked)
1. Compuware (MI) (30-2-6) 9.13
2. South Shore Kings (MA) (18-1-1) 9.03
3. St. Louis Blues AAA (MO) (25-4-2) 8.18
4. Connecticut Jr Wolfpack (CT) (19-3-3) 7.84
5. ...(more)

PeeWee
Major (102 Teams Ranked)
1. St. Louis Blues AAA (MO) (19-2-0) 9.48
2. Little Caesars (MI) (33-4-3) 9.38
3. Compuware (MI) (18-3-5) 9.12
4. Chicago Mission (IL) (25-5-3) 8.42
5. ...(more) Minor (101 Teams Ranked)
1. Chicago Mission (IL) (59-3-0) 10.66
2. Little Caesars (MI) (32-8-2) 8.89
3. West Seneca Wings (NY) (9-0-1) 8.25
4. Bay State Breakers (MA) (26-3-1) 7.83
5. ...(more)

Squirt
Major (88 Teams Ranked)
1. Little Caesars (MI) (34-0-2) 11.14
2. Chicago Mission (IL) (14-3-1) 8.72
3. Honey Baked (MI) (34-5-4) 8.21
4. New Hampshire Avalanche (NH) (25-1-1) 8.09
5. ...(more) Minor (62 Teams Ranked)
1. Minutemen Flames (MA) (19-0-1) 11.23
2. Little Caesars (MI) (13-2-1) 10.56
3. Mid Fairfield Blues (CT) (16-1-0) 8.94
4. New Jersey Colonials (NJ) (30-1-2) 8.65
5. ...(more)

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:17 pm

USHL Enters into Affiliation Agreement with Tier 1 Elite League
May 18, 2011 - United States Hockey League (USHL)

Chicago, IL - The United States Hockey League and the Tier 1 Elite League today announced that they will enter into a national agreement that will make the Tier 1 Elite League the official youth hockey affiliate of the USHL.

The Tier 1 Elite League, the top elite youth hockey league in the United States, is comprised of top-tier youth hockey organizations throughout the U.S. competing in multiple age groups - from Squirt all the way up to Midget Major levels. From its base of 19 existing teams, the league recently granted membership to the D.C. Capitals, Milwaukee Junior Admirals, Oakland (Michigan) Junior Grizzlies, and the Thunder program based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Two youth programs affiliated with USHL Member Club ownership will also now join the expanding league, bringing the number of teams preparing for 2011-12 Tier 1 play to 25. The Rocky Mountain RoughRiders program, based in Westminster, Colorado, is operated by Tony Sdao, owner of the Cedar Rapids RoughRiders. They commence play in 2011-12 season along with the Las Vegas Storm, operated by Kirk Brooks, who is also the owner of the USHL's Tri-City Storm.

In the initial phase of the agreement, the USHL will bring its marketing, public relations, player development and organizational assets to the Tier 1 Elite League, and will work with the league's nationwide web of youth programs to develop enhanced standards of coaching, training, academic progress, cost controls, and stability - reflecting the standards observed by USHL Member Clubs. The USHL will have a consistent presence at the Tier 1 Elite League's schedule of national showcases, and the two organizations will enter into a planning phase for more and enhanced events.

"This represents the culmination of a lot of hard work with some of the most important development partners in youth hockey in the United States," said USHL Commissioner Skip Prince. "As with any partnership of this potential magnitude, we want to walk before we run, and see where we can be most effective with each other - but as you can see, this represents not only a commitment by the USHL to elite youth hockey at the league level, but the direct participation of our owners in Tier 1 League competition. This is the most effective way we know to implement USA Hockey's education-based development model at the elite level. We're excited about what this can mean for the growth of hockey in the U.S."

The strength of the Tier 1 Elite League programs was reflected in Monday's USHL Entry Draft, when a total of 56 players were selected from the league's programs, representing 26% of the 216 players drafted.

"The Tier 1 Elite Hockey League could not be more excited, as this affiliation has been in the planning stage for almost a year, said Larry Johnson, Commissioner of the Tier 1 Elite League. "Our goal is to move our players to the very best junior program in the United States, and this will improve our player's chances to make that next step. A great number of our players move on to the USHL now but this should open a great opportunity for the parents and the players to learn what to expect and what is expected of them to move to this level."

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:34 pm

What is the Difference between Tier I and AAA?

If you are confused by, or do not understand the meaning of the terms Tier I and AAA, they are not the same thing, and many people within the hockey community believe they mean the same thing – they do not.

USA Hockey does not recognize letter designations such as AAA, AA, A, B, except at the Junior Hockey Level (Texas Tornado is Junior A), nor do they recognize the terms Major and Minor as they relate to a specific birth year within an age group. Midget Minor U16 and Midget Major U18 are still 2-year age groups.

Many leagues and tournaments use these terms quite often for various reasons, but when it comes to USA Hockey and National bound competition, these terms are meaningless.

USA Hockey does not have "Major" or "Minor" divisions, only 2-year age groups such as U12, U14, U16, and U18 as indicated below.

USA Hockey uses two designations with which to classify teams for National bound competition. One is level of play, and the other is age classification. Excerpt from USA Hockey publication “Hockey Education Adult Resource” or H.E.A.R……

"All youth hockey for male and female athletes is broken down according to age level designated by birth year. The Youth levels are 8 & under (Mites), 10 & under (Squirts), 12 & under (PeeWee), 14 & under (Bantam), 16 & under (Midget Minor) and 18 & under (Midget Major). For female players, the Levels are Girls/Women’s 10 & under, 12 & under, 14 & under, 16 & under and 19 & under.

Within each age division, there is a further breakdown into ability levels such as House/Recreation, Tier I, and Tier II. No-check levels have also recently been added for 14, 16 and 18 & under age groups.

USA Hockey breaks down each age level even further into Tier II (intended to be community based travel teams) and Tier I (open try-outs with no geographic boundaries). There is an annual national championship opportunity at both Tiers for 12 & under, 14 & under, 16 & under, and 18 & under players. At the Girls/Women’s national level, there are no Tiers, but there are annual national championships at 12 & under, 14 & under, 16 & under, and 19 & under."

With all this being said, classifying a team as AAA does not mean it is or will be registered as a Tier I team to compete for State, Regional, or National Championships. The local association declares the Tier level of each team with USA Hockey no later than December 31st.

Tier I is the highest level of play, followed by Tier II, then House/Rec. The key distinguishing difference from Tier I to Tier II is that players may play for teams outside their local geographic area, as long as the team is Tier I.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:36 pm

I think that about covers it ....

What's yours?

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:56 am

That seems to sum it up !!!!!!!

Cdale · Post by **Cdale** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:07 pm

From USA Hockey website:
http://www.usahockey.com/sahof/default. ... &ID=225222

Q: What is the general definition of Tier 1?

A: Teams that have open tryouts with no geographic boundaries with the intent on playing at the highest level possible.

And ofcourse a bunch more Q/A information.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:06 pm

Cdale wrote:From USA Hockey website:
http://www.usahockey.com/sahof/default. ... &ID=225222

Q: What is the general definition of Tier 1?

A: Teams that have open tryouts with no geographic boundaries with the intent on playing at the highest level possible.

And ofcourse a bunch more Q/A information.

Thank you Cdale,

Much easier to understand than all that Gobbledy gook I posted!!

mackjogger · Post by **mackjogger** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:16 pm

Quasar wrote:
Cdale wrote:From USA Hockey website:
http://www.usahockey.com/sahof/default. ... &ID=225222

Q: What is the general definition of Tier 1?

A: Teams that have open tryouts with no geographic boundaries with the intent on playing at the highest level possible.

And ofcourse a bunch more Q/A information.
Thank you Cdale,

Much easier to understand than all that Gobbledy gook I posted!!

Can MN association A teams compete with U10 U12 U14 Tier 1 teams or would the summer AAA teams be a better match up?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:57 pm

mackjogger wrote:Can MN association A teams compete with U10 U12 U14 Tier 1 teams or would the summer AAA teams be a better match up?

Mack, the Top 10 Minnesota teams for Pee Wee and Bantam would have no problem competing with the bottom half of the Top 10 Tier I teams in the country. Of course, they are 6 months older.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:33 pm

Roseau 4
97 Fire 1

Roseau 4
97 Fire 2

Woodbury 6
97 Fire 2

*The Fire also won plenty of games against Mn association teams.

The 97 Fire team was ranked in the top 10 all season. The majority of the kids were from towns with smaller Hockey programs looking for a higher caliber of Hockey.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:06 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:Roseau 4
97 Fire 1

Roseau 4
97 Fire 2

Woodbury 6
97 Fire 2

*The Fire also won plenty of games against Mn association teams.

The 97 Fire team was ranked in the top 10 all season. The majority of the kids were from towns with smaller Hockey programs looking for a higher caliber of Hockey.

Let's also be fair and remember the Fire 97's were first year Bantam age kids playing for a birth year based team and I believe those teams you mentioned were Bantam A teams where the majority of players, I am assuming, were second year Bantams.... Just sayin that can represent quite a difference and not really an apples to apples comparison. If the Fire 1997 team played those same Bantam A teams this coming year that might be a better reprsentation but that still wouldn't be exactly rapples to apples either so it's tough to post results like that and really guage what they do or don't mean.

mackjogger · Post by **mackjogger** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:35 pm

O-townClown wrote:
mackjogger wrote:Can MN association A teams compete with U10 U12 U14 Tier 1 teams or would the summer AAA teams be a better match up?
Mack, the Top 10 Minnesota teams for Pee Wee and Bantam would have no problem competing with the bottom half of the Top 10 Tier I teams in the country. Of course, they are 6 months older.

thanks O TOWN. is that backed by facts/analysis or more of an opinion?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:50 pm

JSR wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:Roseau 4
97 Fire 1

Roseau 4
97 Fire 2

Woodbury 6
97 Fire 2

*The Fire also won plenty of games against Mn association teams.

The 97 Fire team was ranked in the top 10 all season. The majority of the kids were from towns with smaller Hockey programs looking for a higher caliber of Hockey.
Let's also be fair and remember the Fire 97's were first year Bantam age kids playing for a birth year based team and I believe those teams you mentioned were Bantam A teams where the majority of players, I am assuming, were second year Bantams.... Just sayin that can represent quite a difference and not really an apples to apples comparison. If the Fire 1997 team played those same Bantam A teams this coming year that might be a better reprsentation but that still wouldn't be exactly rapples to apples either so it's tough to post results like that and really guage what they do or don't mean.

I was being plenty fair... Roseau has TWO bantam teams and a good portion of them were first years. Would they of closed the gap with same age players? Maybe, maybe not. In the Woodbury game..? Maybe, maybe not. That's the way we're stuck playing the games for now.

Shattuck won the tier 1 national title and had good games against STA and Breck(birth year(s) based. Are you able to say they would have beaten Duluth East and Eden Prarie with the open age levels?

My money would be on Duluth East and Eden Prarie.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:01 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:
JSR wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:Roseau 4
97 Fire 1

Roseau 4
97 Fire 2

Woodbury 6
97 Fire 2

*The Fire also won plenty of games against Mn association teams.

The 97 Fire team was ranked in the top 10 all season. The majority of the kids were from towns with smaller Hockey programs looking for a higher caliber of Hockey.
Let's also be fair and remember the Fire 97's were first year Bantam age kids playing for a birth year based team and I believe those teams you mentioned were Bantam A teams where the majority of players, I am assuming, were second year Bantams.... Just sayin that can represent quite a difference and not really an apples to apples comparison. If the Fire 1997 team played those same Bantam A teams this coming year that might be a better reprsentation but that still wouldn't be exactly rapples to apples either so it's tough to post results like that and really guage what they do or don't mean.
I was being plenty fair... Roseau has TWO bantam teams and a good portion of them were first years. Would they of closed the gap with same age players? Maybe, maybe not. In the Woodbury game..? Maybe, maybe not. That's the way we're stuck playing the games for now.

Shattuck won the tier 1 national title and had good games against STA and Breck. Are you able to say they would have beaten Duluth East and Eden Prarie?

My money would be on Duluth East and Eden Prarie.

How about a District 10 all star team ?

If you could suit up the best fifteen kids in District ten, they would wax most Tier 1 teams playing anywhere ..

In fact any Minnesota district could put together an all star team that would be hard to beat by any one other than another Minnesota team.

Now if some one would just give us a chance..

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:04 pm

Top Bantam teams last season had several 95s. Most of the rest would be 96s with just a few, or no, 97s. After July 1 97s were still PeeWees.

mackjogger · Post by **mackjogger** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:25 pm

Quasar wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:
JSR wrote: Let's also be fair and remember the Fire 97's were first year Bantam age kids playing for a birth year based team and I believe those teams you mentioned were Bantam A teams where the majority of players, I am assuming, were second year Bantams.... Just sayin that can represent quite a difference and not really an apples to apples comparison. If the Fire 1997 team played those same Bantam A teams this coming year that might be a better reprsentation but that still wouldn't be exactly rapples to apples either so it's tough to post results like that and really guage what they do or don't mean.
I was being plenty fair... Roseau has TWO bantam teams and a good portion of them were first years. Would they of closed the gap with same age players? Maybe, maybe not. In the Woodbury game..? Maybe, maybe not. That's the way we're stuck playing the games for now.

Shattuck won the tier 1 national title and had good games against STA and Breck. Are you able to say they would have beaten Duluth East and Eden Prarie?

My money would be on Duluth East and Eden Prarie.
How about a District 10 all star team ?

If you could suit up the best fifteen kids in District ten, they would wax most Tier 1 teams playing anywhere ..

In fact any Minnesota district could put together an all star team that would be hard to beat by any one other than another Minnesota team.

Now if some one would just give us a chance..

OH COME ON Q ....LETS NOT GET CARRIED AWAY HERE!

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:28 pm

observer wrote:Top Bantam teams last season had several 95s. Most of the rest would be 96s with just a few, or no, 97s. After July 1 97s were still PeeWees.

Quite a few 97's played Bantam last year.

All the guys born before July. Kinda tough for a 13 year old, but if they make it, they usually come out of it ahead of the kids that played Peewee. Pretty obvious when they come together for AAA in the summer.
They get a lot tougher playing those 16 year old men....

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:33 pm

mackjogger wrote:OH COME ON Q ....LETS NOT GET CARRIED AWAY HERE!

Hey ..If not me ..Who??

Cdale · Post by **Cdale** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:13 pm

Quasar wrote:
Cdale wrote:From USA Hockey website:
http://www.usahockey.com/sahof/default. ... &ID=225222

Q: What is the general definition of Tier 1?

A: Teams that have open tryouts with no geographic boundaries with the intent on playing at the highest level possible.

And ofcourse a bunch more Q/A information.
Thank you Cdale,

Much easier to understand than all that Gobbledy gook I posted!!

LOL. Nah, I just typed in Tier I AAA hockey 'definition' to see what popped up...for kicks.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:48 pm

No Political Connections wrote:
Quasar wrote:
mackjogger wrote:OH COME ON Q ....LETS NOT GET CARRIED AWAY HERE!

Hey ..If not me ..Who??
Me??? I am not so sure that all of the districts could put together a team to do that. SOme of them are kind of thin and the talent range drops off quickly but I think that several of them could. I think a big sticking point though would be to get the top kids to tryout and then to actually take the best kids based on talent and not name or resume analysis.

Just a little exaggeration to make a point. I do it all the time..

I think we are going to find out what the top kids will to do shortly.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:35 am

mackjogger wrote:
O-townClown wrote:
mackjogger wrote:Can MN association A teams compete with U10 U12 U14 Tier 1 teams or would the summer AAA teams be a better match up?
Mack, the Top 10 Minnesota teams for Pee Wee and Bantam would have no problem competing with the bottom half of the Top 10 Tier I teams in the country. Of course, they are 6 months older.
thanks O TOWN. is that backed by facts/analysis or more of an opinion?

Mack, I'm sorry I have messed up my reply twice. I'm toggling back and forth between open windows while I'm trying to cut and paste the answer. Unfortunately I hit the BACK button twice on the wrong window and have lost the post. This will have to do.

1) Edina's Bantams (#1 in MN as ranked by My Hockey) played Shattuck (#3 national) a couple times and Dallas (#31). 8-5 win over the Texans in their first game, somewhat impressive when you consider the opponent had been playing for six weeks and had over a dozen games under their belt. Shattuck is a very tough opponent for Minnesota Bantam teams. They usually lose, as Edina did in these. Bantams can be a tough age becuase a few of the top kids are off playing Varsity for their community HS or a private school.

Remember, my response said to concede that the top five (maybe it is three) teams are a peg above the best community-based teams Minnesota fiels. Just like Edina's PW team this year was blowing out everyone at the end of the year, the top 2-3 teams in the rest of the country are sometimes much better than everyone else.

2) Three years ago the 1996 Colorado Thunderbirds were #14 in the country. They went 2-1-1 over holiday break facing Minnesota teams ranked between 7th and 12th.

Look around for other examples. Remember, Shattuck is almost always ranked at the top or near for Bantams. They aren't an average Tier I team or anything close.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:04 am

This has been interesting.

Quasar posted something about Junior hockey, where Tier I is level designation that is assigned to the USHL and nobody else. Then he cut and pasted something from a hockey club's website where they set the record straight that they are Tier I and not an Independent AAA team. Then there are some rankings, where tons of listed teams are not Tier I.

CDale's post is very interesting to me. Why? It's from our affiliate! We use the backbone provided by USA Hockey, so their website hosts our page. The Q&A is not from USA Hockey itself.

Here's the problem. Tier I for youth hockey isn't defined by USA Hockey, or if it is it isn't defined well. I can't find a definition in the Annual Guide. They also don't have a definition for Tier II. When I called Rae Briggle and asked for one, she said, "we really need the affiliates to define it for us." (Or something equivalent.)

Huh?

The affiliates want to know what USA Hockey wants it to be. Moving target here.

First off, Tier I and Tier II are codes used when rostering a team. The National Championships conducted by USA Hockey are open to teams with the appropriate designation. Conceptually, Tier I is the highest level of competition and teams can roster whatever registered players they want in order to field a strong team. Tier II means a team is not reaching all over for players. In Minnesota that means adhering to borders, here it means something different entirely.

For the upcoming season, we cut the state in four quadrants. There are 17 facilities in our state, so each zone has 3-6. Anyone that lives within 60 miles of any of the rinks in their whole zone is considered "in area". You can still register Tier II with kids from these huge areas, and then we allow two exceptions on top of that. One team this year will have kids from Savannah to West Palm and is based somewhere in between. (It would take six hours each way for these two to get together for a sleepover.)

The reason I ask the question is because posts on this board reference Tier I Tier I Tier I. The only benefit to being a Tier I program that I can see is that you are eligible for the USA Hockey National Championship. After this year, we're down to just Bantam, U16, and U18. Since Minnesota seems happy with their HS hockey, aren't we really just talking about having one team that would be able to go at Bantam age...and that's only if they get by Shattuck?

If the 'problem' is lack of 'program choice' by the oppressive monopoly, why is there no movement to loosen the Minnesota Hockey definition of what constitutes an allowable Tier II roster? Every reformer I've read wants Tier I.

If anyone has it, please post the Minnesota Hockey definition of Tier II. Does anyone in Minnesota get an approved roster that is coded Independent? (I'm guessing no. Maybe the Blades for their early-season stuff.) Why not push to expand use of that? I assume all Minnesota teams are rostered as Recreational for Mite and Squirt, so it isn't like Tier II is the only code on your CyberSport software. (Although Squirts may really be registered as national Pee Wees with a slew of starred underage players.)

It isn't like the Bauer Invite cares if you have a Tier I, Tier II, Recreational, or Tournament designation on your official roster.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:46 am

[quote="O-townClown"]This has been interesting.

Quasar posted something about Junior hockey, where Tier I is level designation that is assigned to the USHL and nobody else. Then he cut and pasted something from a hockey club's website where they set the record straight that they are Tier I and not an Independent AAA team. Then there are some rankings, where tons of listed teams are not Tier I.

This was meant as a joke, as in pulling your leg

The reason I ask the question is because posts on this board reference Tier I Tier I Tier I. The only benefit to being a Tier I program that I can see is that you are eligible for the USA Hockey National Championship. After this year, we're down to just Bantam, U16, and U18. Since Minnesota seems happy with their HS hockey, aren't we really just talking about having one team that would be able to go at Bantam age...and that's only if they get by Shattuck?

I guess you just haven't been listening!