HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

So, I don't generally like to perpetuate or start rumors, especially when they are unsubstantiated that have very little facts behind them, so don't take this as even a rumor or anything. But I did hear an interesting idea being tossed around recently. As some of you know the big name Chicago and Detroit Tier 1 teams recently formed their own Tier 1 winter league and left the league they were formerly with. This has left them at odds with the former league and others. Further, it seems they are at the forefront of not being happy with certain recently insituted USA Hockey rule changes. This has lead to the "idea" (not plan) that these well funded, well known and well respected teams could in fact break away from USA Hockey and form their own deal. The idea being they could in fact play just eachother in the winter (which is basically what they are going to be doing anyway) and they'd of course be free to play at the numerous "non-USA Hockey" AAA tournaments held all over the USA including MN, Canada and other places in the before and after seasons affording them the ability to still play all the top talent that still plays within USA Hockey boundries during winter, just doing it in the off season. They'd have their own insurance, own bylaws etc..... This radical new "idea" if it were to be put in place would also open up the opportunity for other people that had the means, respect, and resources to start their own teams and apply for membership in the league (perhaps a MN Made for example might be able to get a sponsor and might be able to create a team to participate in this league for example, not saying they would just saying this would be one example). This would be a private enterprise that would not be part of USA Hockey or the states current USA Hockey affiliate so there would be virtually nothing they could do about said team starting up and becoming part of this league. I am not here to debate the merit of such an idea, nor debate anything else. I think though that any reasonable person would agree that something this bold would change youth hockey as we know it though, for better or worse I do not know but changed it would be.... Like I said, not sure if this will or won't ever happen, not sure how viable it would be, but the idea is floating around out there obviously......

My brother has had 2 kids go through the Mission program, so I know from him travel expenses were getting to be an issue after 2008. I think it was 2 seasons ago but the Mission cut down on their travel, they could play the other Chicago teams, Michigan teams and Madison without the expense and hassle of going to Dallas, St. Louis, Phoenix, Kansas City, etc, that changed last year.

If you read the Chicago Missions statement on their new league it puts cost containment and missed school at the the top of their list of grievences, 2 things USA Hockey doesn't seemed concerned about. I think you're stretching when thinking it's a back door Tier 1 plan or option instead of looking at why the teams left which is to contain costs and maximize time instead of the insane travel these kids were subjected to. A lot of the parents dreamed of a place like Minnesota where hockey was "easy" instead of the situation Tier 1 put them in. By easy I mean being able to leave for a game after school and be back by 11 PM the same day.

So they are going to more of a local league for winter and then AAA for summer. Are we moving towards them or are they moving toward us?

I guess my brain isn't elastic enough to get my head around this idea, but what problem does this solve exactly, other than just not liking the "monopoly" of USA Hockey and its goll dern rules? Are there hundreds of outlaw tournaments and teams out there that allowing checking in squirts or something that I haven't heard about?

I hear the Tier 1 travel complaint -- I have a sister with a Tier 1 Bantam in Chicago, and the cost has them literally dreaming of moving to Roseau. (Which, come to think of it, is the supreme irony: from Tier 1 to the epitome of community-based MN hockey), but I'm not sure what this outlaw league solution solves for???? Does USA hockey prevent them from playing more local games in the winter???

My observation, way way third hand from talking to my sister and reading the MyHockeyRankings regularly, is that all the talent gravitates to the top teams, who regularly crush all other teams. A .500 record is rare, teams are either crushing or crushed. And local associations are basically what we in MN call park-rec hockey. Not to defend USAHockey or anything, but speaking for my own association back here in humble old Minnesota, cost and reasonable hours are absolutely top priority as we head into ice-buying season.

On a completely different and provocative note, how about we call this new outlaw league "Minnesota Hockey." (Hey, MPR became American Public Radio/Media to compete nationally with NPR.)

... the grass is always greener.

goldy313 wrote:My brother has had 2 kids go through the Mission program, so I know from him travel expenses were getting to be an issue after 2008. I think it was 2 seasons ago but the Mission cut down on their travel, they could play the other Chicago teams, Michigan teams and Madison without the expense and hassle of going to Dallas, St. Louis, Phoenix, Kansas City, etc, that changed last year.

If you read the Chicago Missions statement on their new league it puts cost containment and missed school at the the top of their list of grievences, 2 things USA Hockey doesn't seemed concerned about. I think you're stretching when thinking it's a back door Tier 1 plan or option instead of looking at why the teams left which is to contain costs and maximize time instead of the insane travel these kids were subjected to. A lot of the parents dreamed of a place like Minnesota where hockey was "easy" instead of the situation Tier 1 put them in. By easy I mean being able to leave for a game after school and be back by 11 PM the same day.

No one said the reason they formed this new league wasn't because of what you mentioned. To my knowledge that is the primary reason they split off to form this new league. As I said, this is a new idea I literally just heard being floated around during the tourney last weekend. The "back door" was more of a comment on MN hockey not allowing Tier 1 AAA hockey currently and if the supposed idea ever came to fruition this would be a way for MN to have Tier 1 style teams in the winter, something that is currently not an option. I think you misread and misunderstood my post completely.

Shinbone_News wrote:I guess my brain isn't elastic enough to get my head around this idea, but what problem does this solve exactly, other than just not liking the "monopoly" of USA Hockey and its goll dern rules? Are there hundreds of outlaw tournaments and teams out there that allowing checking in squirts or something that I haven't heard about?

I hear the Tier 1 travel complaint -- I have a sister with a Tier 1 Bantam in Chicago, and the cost has them literally dreaming of moving to Roseau. (Which, come to think of it, is the supreme irony: from Tier 1 to the epitome of community-based MN hockey), but I'm not sure what this outlaw league solution solves for???? Does USA hockey prevent them from playing more local games in the winter???

My observation, way way third hand from talking to my sister and reading the MyHockeyRankings regularly, is that all the talent gravitates to the top teams, who regularly crush all other teams. A .500 record is rare, teams are either crushing or crushed. And local associations are basically what we in MN call park-rec hockey. Not to defend USAHockey or anything, but speaking for my own association back here in humble old Minnesota, cost and reasonable hours are absolutely top priority as we head into ice-buying season.

On a completely different and provocative note, how about we call this new outlaw league "Minnesota Hockey." (Hey, MPR became American Public Radio/Media to compete nationally with NPR.)

The "problem" it solves is for all of the MN people that are clamoring for Tier 1 hockey in MN. This idea does in fact solve THEIR problem. I know someone like you does not see it as a problem so it's hard for you to wrap your head around it but it does open the door for something not currently offered but wanted by some in MN......... Again I think you misunderstand and misread my OP

goldy313 wrote: their new league it puts cost containment and missed school at the the top of their list of grievences, 2 things USA Hockey doesn't seemed concerned about.

Say what!?

A recent ruling from the bench would allow kids to play for team Walser in the new league AND play for their local association.

JSR wrote:
The "problem" it solves is for all of the MN people that are clamoring for Tier 1 hockey in MN. This idea does in fact solve THEIR problem. I know someone like you does not see it as a problem so it's hard for you to wrap your head around it but it does open the door for something not currently offered but wanted by some in MN......... Again I think you misunderstand and misread my OP

Call me a naysayer, but I don't see this concept working without a deep pocketed sponsor.

With the exception of Minnesota Made that could accomodate (if they got rid of Peewee and squirt Choice programs to provide practice times for their Tier I teams through the winter), there is very little ice availability in the Twin Cities metro for Tier I programs between November 1st and February 28th. Rinks are owned locally and in most cases operate in cooperation with the local associations. Tier I teams are not going to step in front of taxpayer/local association ties.

I also think cost drivers are too much. A Tier I team from Chicago probably runs in the $8-10k range when you add in hotels, airfare, travel costs, etc. A Tier I team from Colorado is in the $12-15k range with all of their travel. Without a sponsor, you are looking at a Minnesota team running $10-12k per player. How many families are going to dole that out?

I just don't see any traction when one compares the quality of association hockey and its costs to running all over the country playing competition that may be just slightly better - and often worse. Not saying people won't do it...just saying our Minnesota Hockey system works pretty good and the associations control the ice.

The Fire didn't even have a sponsor.

SWPrez wrote:

JSR wrote:
The "problem" it solves is for all of the MN people that are clamoring for Tier 1 hockey in MN. This idea does in fact solve THEIR problem. I know someone like you does not see it as a problem so it's hard for you to wrap your head around it but it does open the door for something not currently offered but wanted by some in MN......... Again I think you misunderstand and misread my OP

Call me a naysayer, but I don't see this concept working without a deep pocketed sponsor.

With the exception of Minnesota Made that could accomodate (if they got rid of Peewee and squirt Choice programs to provide practice times for their Tier I teams through the winter), there is very little ice availability in the Twin Cities metro for Tier I programs between November 1st and February 28th. Rinks are owned locally and in most cases operate in cooperation with the local associations. Tier I teams are not going to step in front of taxpayer/local association ties.

I also think cost drivers are too much. A Tier I team from Chicago probably runs in the $8-10k range when you add in hotels, airfare, travel costs, etc. A Tier I team from Colorado is in the $12-15k range with all of their travel. Without a sponsor, you are looking at a Minnesota team running $10-12k per player. How many families are going to dole that out?

I just don't see any traction when one compares the quality of association hockey and its costs to running all over the country playing competition that may be just slightly better - and often worse. Not saying people won't do it...just saying our Minnesota Hockey system works pretty good and the associations control the ice.

Exactly!!! It might be the right fit for very few...... but it WILL be the right fit.

Did we already forget about the Fire and that they where mostly from Minnesota?

InigoMontoya wrote:A recent ruling from the bench would allow kids to play for team Walser in the new league AND play for their local association.

Other than a couple of months in D6 I believe this has always been the case. The only thing stopping non-association winter hockey in the past was economic feasibility.

As for cost, that all depends on how compelling the alternatives are. I know parents who wouldn't bat an eye at $15,000 per player if they "felt" they were getting good value (happy kids, accelerated development, short path to D1 and/or NHL). Compared to the numbers you need to run a handful of clubs there are a lot of people that think $15k isn't much money.

Driving from Mpls to Chicago and vise versa, is not much different than driving from Mpls to northern MN for a tournament. They could even meet in the Dells or Madison.

JSR, I didn't intend to sound snarky or strongly opinionated one way or another. I guess I just need it spelled out more clearly.

Are we basically saying that Tier 1 winter hockey is something that some Minnesota families want because they are not getting what they want from their local associations (MN Hockey)? Does this automatically implicate USAHockey, since MNHockey is an affiliate? Isn't Shattuck-Saint Mary's an example of a Tier 1 program in Minnesota?

If this is happening (or going to happen) in places other than Minnesota -- you suggest it may start in Chicago -- where Tier 1 hockey IS USAHockey, why? What exactly is their problem with USAHockey?

I'm sorry I'm so dense, I'm just confused about why or how it might be a "backdoor" into Tier 1 in Minnesota, when USAHOckey is already kinda moving in that direction here with HPC programs for example, and why exactly Chicagoans might wish to form an outlaw league. It's my assumption (probably wrong!) that it's not USAHockey who is against Tier 1 in MN. It's MNHockey.

If a lot of Minnesota families are feeling screwed by community-based association hockey because it is stifling their kids, I'm interested to hear more about why. And why Tier 1 hockey is a good answer to those worries. To me, it seems like lots of serious parents are always pushing for a new, somehow politics-free environment where their superstar son can achieve what they believe he should achieve. And there are so many options already out there, starting with spring/summer/fall AAA, which is a pure meritocracy. Ad if we think that the politics in summer AAA is tamer than it is in association, we're crazy -- cuz summer AAA is where all the serious parents, erm, I mean players, are.

If anything, MNHockey's rule limiting youth games is hugely expanding the summer offerings, and threatens to make winter hockey less relevant for long term development. You can have everything and more in summer AAA (if you have the $$$) and it seems to me it doesn't matter if you call it Tier 1 or not, or what season it falls into on the calendar.

Shinbone_News wrote:JSR, I didn;t intend to sound snarky or strongly opinionated one way or another. I guess I just need it spelled out more clearly.

Are we basically saying that Tier 1 winter hockey is something that some Minnesota families want because they are not getting what they want from their local associations (MN Hockey)? Does this automatically implicate USAHockey, since MNHockey is an affiliate? Isn't Shattuck-Saint Mary's an example of a Tier 1 program in Minnesota?

If this is happening (or going to happen) in places other than Minnesota -- you suggest it may start in Chicago -- where Tier 1 hockey IS USAHockey, why? What exactly is their problem with USAHockey?

I'm sorry I'm so dense, I'm just confused about why or how it might be a "backdoor" into Tier 1 in Minnesota, when USAHOckey is already kinda moving in that direction here with HPC programs for example, and why exactly Chicagoans might wish to form an outlaw league.

If a lot of Minnesota families are feeling screwed by community-based association hockey because it is stifling their kids, I'm interested to hear why. And why Tier 1 hockey is a good answer to those worries. To me, it seems like lots of serious parents are always pushing for a new, somehow politics-free environment where their superstar son can achieve what they believe he should achieve. And there are so many options already out there, starting with spring/summer/fall AAA, which is a pure meritocracy. Ad if we think that the politics in AAA is tamer than it is in association, we're crazy -- cuz AAA is where all the serious parents, I mean players, are.

"Feeling screwed" and "community based"

Association 1 - Squirt A, 70HRS of training, $1,080
Association 2 - Squirt A 120HRS of training, $ 1,390

If you live in the borders of association 1 you are stuck with it.

This is just one example of the flawed MONOPOLY.

Shinbone_News wrote:JSR, I didn't intend to sound snarky or strongly opinionated one way or another. I guess I just need it spelled out more clearly.

Are we basically saying that Tier 1 winter hockey is something that some Minnesota families want because they are not getting what they want from their local associations (MN Hockey)? Does this automatically implicate USAHockey, since MNHockey is an affiliate? Isn't Shattuck-Saint Mary's an example of a Tier 1 program in Minnesota?

If this is happening (or going to happen) in places other than Minnesota -- you suggest it may start in Chicago -- where Tier 1 hockey IS USAHockey, why? What exactly is their problem with USAHockey?

I'm sorry I'm so dense, I'm just confused about why or how it might be a "backdoor" into Tier 1 in Minnesota, when USAHOckey is already kinda moving in that direction here with HPC programs for example, and why exactly Chicagoans might wish to form an outlaw league. It's my assumption (probably wrong!) that it's not USAHockey who is against Tier 1 in MN. It's MNHockey.

If a lot of Minnesota families are feeling screwed by community-based association hockey because it is stifling their kids, I'm interested to hear more about why. And why Tier 1 hockey is a good answer to those worries. To me, it seems like lots of serious parents are always pushing for a new, somehow politics-free environment where their superstar son can achieve what they believe he should achieve. And there are so many options already out there, starting with spring/summer/fall AAA, which is a pure meritocracy. Ad if we think that the politics in summer AAA is tamer than it is in association, we're crazy -- cuz summer AAA is where all the serious parents, erm, I mean players, are.

If anything, MNHockey's rule limiting youth games is hugely expanding the summer offerings, and threatens to make winter hockey less relevant for long term development. You can have everything and more in summer AAA (if you have the $$$) and it seems to me it doesn't matter if you call it Tier 1 or not, or what season it falls into on the calendar.

Scroll this board for threads, I think there are no less than 30 threads debating the issue that some folks feel there is a need for Tier 1 hockey in the winter in MN while others disagree. Those threads will educate you on both sides of that issue pretty well.

Also, the new league that is being formed is with Chicago and Detroit teams who as I understand it were feeling the effects of traveling all over the place and wanted Tier 1 hockey without all the travel and travel expenses. But supposedly some parents with the teams of these leagues aren't happy with the new checking rules and some other things. With their deep pockets and big time sponsors there is a real feeling they COULD, not will but COULD, possibly break away from USA Hockey and go it alone in the winter. Then come spring and summer they coudl still play in all the same spring and summer AAA tourney's out there with no trouble.

What this does in MN is that MN Hockey would have no way of stopping it since it's not affiliated with USA Hockey or MN Hockey if somebody wanted to create a team. As for travel, the travel would be confined to the midwest with Chicago and Detroit being really the only destinations. And no I owuld not expect there to be a ton of teams popping up in MN but as you mentioned a MN Made would proabbly be capable as would one or two other areas of you fine state. I just think it's an interesting idea and it will be interesting to me to see if anyone has the balls to actually follow through with it or if it is just the pipe dreams of some disgruntled parents.

MrBoDangles wrote:

Shinbone_News wrote:JSR, I didn;t intend to sound snarky or strongly opinionated one way or another. I guess I just need it spelled out more clearly.

Are we basically saying that Tier 1 winter hockey is something that some Minnesota families want because they are not getting what they want from their local associations (MN Hockey)? Does this automatically implicate USAHockey, since MNHockey is an affiliate? Isn't Shattuck-Saint Mary's an example of a Tier 1 program in Minnesota?

If this is happening (or going to happen) in places other than Minnesota -- you suggest it may start in Chicago -- where Tier 1 hockey IS USAHockey, why? What exactly is their problem with USAHockey?

I'm sorry I'm so dense, I'm just confused about why or how it might be a "backdoor" into Tier 1 in Minnesota, when USAHOckey is already kinda moving in that direction here with HPC programs for example, and why exactly Chicagoans might wish to form an outlaw league.

If a lot of Minnesota families are feeling screwed by community-based association hockey because it is stifling their kids, I'm interested to hear why. And why Tier 1 hockey is a good answer to those worries. To me, it seems like lots of serious parents are always pushing for a new, somehow politics-free environment where their superstar son can achieve what they believe he should achieve. And there are so many options already out there, starting with spring/summer/fall AAA, which is a pure meritocracy. Ad if we think that the politics in AAA is tamer than it is in association, we're crazy -- cuz AAA is where all the serious parents, I mean players, are.

"Feeling screwed" and "community based"

Association 1 - Squirt A, 70HRS of training, $1,080
Association 2 - Squirt A 120HRS of training, $ 1,390

If you live in the borders of association 1 you are stuck with it.

This is just one example of the flawed MONOPOLY.

Like Bernie said (and it's funny coming from him) the grass is always greener. (Funny, because that's his business model, and it's a good one).

How about associations where kids going into Peewees have never even been taught backwards crossovers..? The grass gets MUCH greener.

Or a bantam that attends a stickhandling clinic, only to have his dad told that he needs to work on the skills they'll be addressing at the squirt session.

OK, so Tier 1 hockey is the answer? But MnMade and off-season AAA are not? It's a long way from here to there.

Here's the FAQ on the HPHL in question

http://www.chicagomission.com/Documents ... n_HPHL.pdf


the TOEHL is the Tier One Elite Hockey League that the 6 teams forming the HPHL left; the Madison Capitals, Cleveland Barons, Russell Stover, etc.


Good gracious it looks like government lingo with all the initials I've trhown about

I'd like to see an association hockey model that worked for everyone, everywhere.

I'm just not sure why such venom gets spit at the Tier I model. If it is as bad as you say it is for the kids, and as expensive as you say it is for the parents - then no one will want to participate. So why all the energy being spent on keeping it away? Offer the association model AND allow private enterprise to create their system - the beauty of a free market is that when nobody signs up, it'll go away.

Shinbone_News wrote:OK, so Tier 1 hockey is the answer? But MnMade and off-season AAA are not? It's a long way from here to there.

You know things are bad out there when families will make a three hour - round trip for a practice.

How much further do you want people to drive for the Made?