HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I agree. In an era when many are making great efforts to keep the game of hockey in the hands of the many and not the lucky few, the profiteers continue to push the cost up. It is unforced, most often preying on the belief that if we don't participate, others are getting ahead. Be careful who you follow. I feel this tournament is nothing more than a summer hockey event, disguised as an assocation winter tourney. It has to be done as a squirt or lower event so it can prey on the most vulnerable.

I heard very good things from people who attended last years Squirtacular, both in terms of the competition and the experience for the players. I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Lets see how many associations that attended that event sign up for this one. If they do, I guess that will tell the story. If they don't, we'll......I guess that will too.

I just registered our team for both Fargo and the Squirtacular. We played in both last year, they were the most expensive, but were also the best 2 we played in all year.

Fargo costs $950 plus a $680 gate fee.
From a metro perspective, the Squirtacular will be a fraction of the cost of Fargo, considering the cost of the 3 nights of inflated hotels, gas, food and booze.

The Moose is another expensive one we signed up for in White Bear. Well worth the cost considering how it's run and the competition that will be there.

BenDangle wrote:I just registered our team for both Fargo and the Squirtacular. We played in both last year, they were the most expensive, but were also the best 2 we played in all year.

Fargo costs $950 plus a $680 gate fee.
From a metro perspective, the Squirtacular will be a fraction of the cost of Fargo, considering the cost of the 3 nights of inflated hotels, gas, food and booze.

The Moose is another expensive one we signed up for in White Bear. Well worth the cost considering how it's run and the competition that will be there.

Still trying to figure out why "cost = better".... what if all the great competition decided that they were going to participate in an event that cost alot less together. Wouldn't everyone still be getting the great competition but at a fraction of the cost???? Help me out on why people flock to these overpriced events together instead of getting together and flocking to a much lower cost (and I am sure in most cases) and just as well run event?????

Thanksgiving FL Vanelli's squirt. 17 min stops. Four games in two days.950.00.

JSR wrote:

BenDangle wrote:I just registered our team for both Fargo and the Squirtacular. We played in both last year, they were the most expensive, but were also the best 2 we played in all year.

Fargo costs $950 plus a $680 gate fee.
From a metro perspective, the Squirtacular will be a fraction of the cost of Fargo, considering the cost of the 3 nights of inflated hotels, gas, food and booze.

The Moose is another expensive one we signed up for in White Bear. Well worth the cost considering how it's run and the competition that will be there.

Still trying to figure out why "cost = better".... what if all the great competition decided that they were going to participate in an event that cost alot less together. Wouldn't everyone still be getting the great competition but at a fraction of the cost???? Help me out on why people flock to these overpriced events together instead of getting together and flocking to a much lower cost (and I am sure in most cases) and just as well run event?????

Well, think of it this way. You're a weak program and you're looking for a tournament. Are you going to pay a ton of money for a tournament like Fargo or this one, only to get slaughtered in every game? Probably not. If you're in this thing, you'll want to get your money's worth and play competitive games. That raises the bar for the quality of play somewhat. Whereas if it were a cheap tournament, that weak program might be more willing to endure some rough games. Unless the top teams actively colluded to create their own tournament, an "elite" tournament needs to create an incentive structure to keep weaker teams out.

That, and people are drawn by the "glamour" of winning trophies in big-name tournaments that have been around for a while, or successfully market themselves as the next big thing. Considering the amount of attention given to some of these tournaments in the media or on this forum, it's not an irrational decision to fork over all that money.

Our team wants to play the best. I'm not sure that is a crime. No offense to tournaments with less prestige/less cost, but winning those and saving a few bucks is a waste of time.

We'd rather win (or at least try to) The Moose, Fargo, EP or Squirtacular than the BFE Cheapskate Cup and play second tier teams.

The list of past champions of these 3 tourneys is a list of the who's who in Squirt Hockey the past 10+ years, that's who we want to be. And guess what, we don't care if it costs 26 more dollars than the other tournament.

If you don't like the price, don't play.

BenDangle wrote:Our team wants to play the best. I'm not sure that is a crime. No offense to tournaments with less prestige/less cost, but winning those and saving a few bucks is a waste of time.

We'd rather win (or at least try to) The Moose, Fargo, EP or Squirtacular than the BFE Cheapskate Cup and play second tier teams.

The list of past champions of these 3 tourneys is a list of the who's who in Squirt Hockey the past 10+ years, that's who we want to be. And guess what, we don't care if it costs 26 more dollars than the other tournament.

If you don't like the price, don't play.

LOL..... "who's who of Squirt hockey".... sorry just about spit my drink out.... nevermind, that answers my question......

Well, think of it this way. You're a weak program and you're looking for a tournament. Are you going to pay a ton of money for a tournament like Fargo or this one, only to get slaughtered in every game? Probably not. If you're in this thing, you'll want to get your money's worth and play competitive games. That raises the bar for the quality of play somewhat. Whereas if it were a cheap tournament, that weak program might be more willing to endure some rough games. Unless the top teams actively colluded to create their own tournament, an "elite" tournament needs to create an incentive structure to keep weaker teams out.

That, and people are drawn by the "glamour" of winning trophies in big-name tournaments that have been around for a while, or successfully market themselves as the next big thing. Considering the amount of attention given to some of these tournaments in the media or on this forum, it's not an irrational decision to fork over all that money.

Interesting discussion but off.

Youth hockey associations are non profit organizations that serve other non-profit youth organizations. They have always priced their tournaments accordingly. Yes they're fundraisers but at a fair price. Bloomington aligned themselves with a for profit entity for this tournament.

JSR, nothing distinguishes this tourney from any other except it's more expensive.

This is a greedy money grab. Period, end of discussion. Tournaments are everywhere for $700 to $900.

Not so sure this is so far off from other tournaments to call it a greedy money grab.....

How much is the Edina Invitational? I couldn't find it on website, but if I recall was very high and charged at the door to get in.

Eden Prairie Prairie Shoot Out is $850, but does not include gate fee. Even at $30 charge at the door (which I think it is higher for most familes, I know it was for mine) that is $1360... Isn't charging my Bantam aged son to watch his squirt brother play more of a money grab Add in that I paid for my father and it was over $50 for weekend passes.....

WBL Moose $1250 including Gate for Squirts.

These are money makers for the assocations and while there are many options out there, many will pay for the "tradition" to play in these tournaments. Bloomington Association by alligning with "publicity" to attract top teams.

To call out Squirtacular just because it is alligned with YHH is not accurate in my opinon, as there are several others in the same price range.

FL Turkey day seems to be the best value with combination of 17 minutes periods and good competition. This is the second year, as such trying to build that "tradition" by creating value.....

Thanks Lamp- Last year we had OMG/Mpls/Chaska-Chan/Blaine/Elkriver/Maht/FL/SLP. Not bad for year # one. Looking to make it bigger and better this year.

Without getting into specific programs and tournaments, this thread is yet another reminder to me that there is a tremendous value for anyone that is able to get the better players together for teams and better teams together for games.

Across all youth sports there is a premium paid to anyone that can deliver on that promise.

I understand that the adults pay the bills, so they get to make the decisions. These "best of the best" tournaments however are created by the need for parents to be big time and have their 8-12 year old children make the adults feel big time. Without the parents egos the kids couldn't care less. So be it, that's what youth sports have become. A way for adults to get their egos fed because my 10 year old is a stud, or at least plays on a stud team. Great water cooler chat. The problem though is long term. And although we are starting to feel the results, it's only just beginning here. It puts the game in the hands of the few, which will drastically limit, not increase, the number of kids that actually mature and evolve into top players, let alone the number of kids that just play and enjoy the game. Kids quit early if they are not considered elite, or at least playing in elite tournaments by the time they are ten. Contrary to the ego opinion, the best hockey players cannot be identified at age 10, at least in any numbers. Massachusetts and Michigan have gone down this road and have seen their once great youth hockey programs reduced to near rubble. Yes, they have a FEW very good teams, but that's it. Minnesota youth hockey is headed down a bad road that others have traveled and are trying desperately to get off. This tournament is one of many examples of what is destroying the game of hockey in Minnesota, Adult ego satisfaction over kids being kids. I can't wait to see what association aligns itself with the future Miteacular Tournament.

This thread is sounding like support for Bo's movement conspiracy theory. Only the best parents have the best kids that play on the best teams that play in the best tournaments.

"Sponsorship" means one of two things. Either organizers benefit from financial contributions or the organizers use the financial contributions to lower costs for participants.

Tell me which of the two is in play here?

There's profit to be made at $800 per team.

[quote="SECoach"]I understand that the adults pay the bills, so they get to make the decisions. These "best of the best" tournaments however are created by the need for parents to be big time and have their 8-12 year old children make the adults feel big time. [u]Without the parents egos [/u]the kids couldn't care less. So be it, that's what youth sports have become. A way for adults to get their egos fed because my 10 year old is a stud, or at least plays on a stud team. Great water cooler chat. The problem though is long term. And although we are starting to feel the results, it's only just beginning here. It puts the game in the hands of the few, which will drastically limit, not increase, the number of kids that actually mature and evolve into top players, let alone the number of kids that just play and enjoy the game. Kids quit early if they are not considered elite, or at least playing in elite tournaments by the time they are ten. Contrary to the ego opinion, the best hockey players cannot be identified at age 10, at least in any numbers. Massachusetts and Michigan have gone down this road and have seen their once great youth hockey programs reduced to near rubble. Yes, they have a FEW very good teams, but that's it. Minnesota youth hockey is headed down a bad road that others have traveled and are trying desperately to get off. This tournament is one of many examples of what is destroying the game of hockey in Minnesota, Adult ego satisfaction over kids being kids. I can't wait to see what association aligns itself with the future Miteacular Tournament.[/quote]

I think you are right, alot of people want to brag about their kid, others want to at least shut the guy up that is aways bragging about his kid.

SECoach wrote:I understand that the adults pay the bills, so they get to make the decisions. These "best of the best" tournaments however are created by the need for parents to be big time and have their 8-12 year old children make the adults feel big time. Without the parents egos the kids couldn't care less. So be it, that's what youth sports have become. A way for adults to get their egos fed because my 10 year old is a stud, or at least plays on a stud team. Great water cooler chat. The problem though is long term. And although we are starting to feel the results, it's only just beginning here. It puts the game in the hands of the few, which will drastically limit, not increase, the number of kids that actually mature and evolve into top players, let alone the number of kids that just play and enjoy the game. Kids quit early if they are not considered elite, or at least playing in elite tournaments by the time they are ten. Contrary to the ego opinion, the best hockey players cannot be identified at age 10, at least in any numbers. Massachusetts and Michigan have gone down this road and have seen their once great youth hockey programs reduced to near rubble. Yes, they have a FEW very good teams, but that's it. Minnesota youth hockey is headed down a bad road that others have traveled and are trying desperately to get off. This tournament is one of many examples of what is destroying the game of hockey in Minnesota, Adult ego satisfaction over kids being kids. I can't wait to see what association aligns itself with the future Miteacular Tournament.

Kids quit hockey by age 10 if they aren't playing in "Elite" Tournaments???? I think somebody is grasping at straws here. Most 9 year old kids don't even know what an "Elite" tournament is. Unless of course they hear their parents complaing about how they are ruining the game of Hockey in Minnesota.

Froggy Richards wrote:

SECoach wrote:I understand that the adults pay the bills, so they get to make the decisions. These "best of the best" tournaments however are created by the need for parents to be big time and have their 8-12 year old children make the adults feel big time. Without the parents egos the kids couldn't care less. So be it, that's what youth sports have become. A way for adults to get their egos fed because my 10 year old is a stud, or at least plays on a stud team. Great water cooler chat. The problem though is long term. And although we are starting to feel the results, it's only just beginning here. It puts the game in the hands of the few, which will drastically limit, not increase, the number of kids that actually mature and evolve into top players, let alone the number of kids that just play and enjoy the game. Kids quit early if they are not considered elite, or at least playing in elite tournaments by the time they are ten. Contrary to the ego opinion, the best hockey players cannot be identified at age 10, at least in any numbers. Massachusetts and Michigan have gone down this road and have seen their once great youth hockey programs reduced to near rubble. Yes, they have a FEW very good teams, but that's it. Minnesota youth hockey is headed down a bad road that others have traveled and are trying desperately to get off. This tournament is one of many examples of what is destroying the game of hockey in Minnesota, Adult ego satisfaction over kids being kids. I can't wait to see what association aligns itself with the future Miteacular Tournament.

Kids quit hockey by age 10 if they aren't playing in "Elite" Tournaments???? I think somebody is grasping at straws here. Most 9 year old kids don't even know what an "Elite" tournament is. Unless of course they hear their parents complaing about how they are ruining the game of Hockey in Minnesota.

Actually the highest attrition rate is still at the pee wee age and in most of the country pee wee age is age 11..... not saying kids quit in masses because they aren't considered elite but I bet some have, even not in quantity, along with price, other activities or sports, grades, and other reasons but kids do quit around ages 10 to 13 in droves in all sports....

I just called Bloomington today - both A and C are full.

Tony will YHH be publishing a list of the entrants soon? I may need to move this summer.

Moderator's note: this thread was split off from the Squirtacular topic since it wandered off into bigger questions.

Unfortunately, the splitting tool didn't behave the way it was supposed to, and a handful of posts I'd intended to keep in the Squirtacular thread (namely the two right before this one) ended up here. I'd suggest that HockeyDad41 re-post his question to the relevant thread, and that any responses to his question go over there.

SECoach wrote:The problem though is long term.

Is it? Whenever I ask pro and college hockey players what they did at age 8 or 10 it generally involves playing on the highest level team available to them.

"The problem" isn't clearly defined, or at least it differs depending on who you ask.

I'm as big an advocate for participation and recreational sports as you'll find. However, the kids that really enjoy something are missing out if they don't have a chance to play - at least occasionally - with others like them. Had this discussion with a 9-year-old friend of my son today, and his sport is tennis.

O-townClown wrote:

SECoach wrote:The problem though is long term.

Is it? Whenever I ask pro and college hockey players what they did at age 8 or 10 it generally involves playing on the highest level team available to them.

"The problem" isn't clearly defined, or at least it differs depending on who you ask.

I'm as big an advocate for participation and recreational sports as you'll find. However, the kids that really enjoy something are missing out if they don't have a chance to play - at least occasionally - with others like them. Had this discussion with a 9-year-old friend of my son today, and his sport is tennis.

So what is the problem and answer? This post would indicate that any really good New Prague kids - at least occasionally - should be skating with Prior Lake.

InigoMontoya wrote:So what is the problem and answer? This post would indicate that any really good New Prague kids - at least occasionally - should be skating with Prior Lake.

I agree. Which is why the Minnesota model with association hockey in Winter and club hockey in Summer really captures it all. Of course that comes at a price, which I think this thread is about.

I don't see a low-cost foundation fulfilling all the perceived needs of parents. As a result there are a slew of additional hockey opportunities in your area.

I think that's a good thing.