Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
alcloseshaver wrote:Most likely wouldn't be an option in sections but some schools are looking at letting students in the games for free. I like this trend.
Love the idea, but that logic only works if the high school gets both the ticket revenue and the concession stand profits. That's not the case at my local city-owned ice arena.blindref wrote: This makes a lot of sense
You figure half of the kids will buy some kind of food at the concession
stand. If you have 200-300 student fans at your game, you make more than if there are only 40 kids paying admission.
Much better atmosphere at the rink.
Agree with all of this above.green4 wrote:The tourney is lacking superstars? I don't buy that at all. The superstars have been at the tournament. The issue is the superstars have been leaving early. Tommy Novak, one of the most exciting players in awhile, went to the tourney twice. Dylan Malmquist has been there the last 3 years and he could be one of the top hornets of all time with a solid senior year. The Hornets were loaded with superstars last year, but they are so deep it can be hard to notice it. Bellows, Wait, and Zuhlsdorf are all very talented.Goalie-Dad wrote:I have been lucky enough to attend nearly every state tourney over the last 30 years. Over the last 5-10 years the charm of the games has faded because the stars are not there. People want to watch a superstar kid score goals for the underdog team. The last time people really got excited and on the edge of their seats during the game was when Aaron Ness would take off with the puck for Roseau. The loyal fans will always be at the games. But its the superstars that make the tourney exciting to watch and discuss at the water cooler.Froggy Richards wrote: I would agree. I've never gone to or watched the State Tournament to see any Individual Players. I watch it because of what it is and that isn't going to change.
Same could be said with Lakeville North.
At the tournament EP had superstars in Spinner and Snuggarud. Roseau had Yon. Eagan had one of the best goalies in the state with Lindgren. East maybe didnt have a superstar but Beaulieu was a very good player. That leaves Centennial and Stillwater as teams that lack a player with the caliber as those above, but they also played that underdog role as they had some big upsets to get to the tournament.
The superstars are there if you ask me.
Kind of funny! When I was reading Ken Pauley's points, I could not help but think of the Cable TV Commercials...about if this happens to you, there is a chain reaction of other events that will affect your life. Sorry, I thought it was funny. But in all seriousness, I do believe if “good players” leave and not play in the HS Hockey Tournament, most of anyone who watches or attends, and/or plays in the tournament could care less. Remember, this is one of the biggest high school athletic events in the country. The sun will come up the next day. I hope! Just my thoughts.Sats81 wrote:Agree with all of this above.green4 wrote:The tourney is lacking superstars? I don't buy that at all. The superstars have been at the tournament. The issue is the superstars have been leaving early. Tommy Novak, one of the most exciting players in awhile, went to the tourney twice. Dylan Malmquist has been there the last 3 years and he could be one of the top hornets of all time with a solid senior year. The Hornets were loaded with superstars last year, but they are so deep it can be hard to notice it. Bellows, Wait, and Zuhlsdorf are all very talented.Goalie-Dad wrote: I have been lucky enough to attend nearly every state tourney over the last 30 years. Over the last 5-10 years the charm of the games has faded because the stars are not there. People want to watch a superstar kid score goals for the underdog team. The last time people really got excited and on the edge of their seats during the game was when Aaron Ness would take off with the puck for Roseau. The loyal fans will always be at the games. But its the superstars that make the tourney exciting to watch and discuss at the water cooler.
Same could be said with Lakeville North.
At the tournament EP had superstars in Spinner and Snuggarud. Roseau had Yon. Eagan had one of the best goalies in the state with Lindgren. East maybe didnt have a superstar but Beaulieu was a very good player. That leaves Centennial and Stillwater as teams that lack a player with the caliber as those above, but they also played that underdog role as they had some big upsets to get to the tournament.
The superstars are there if you ask me.
Yes, it's the cost that is scaring off the families of potential mites and U8's, although the concussions aren't helping.karl(east) wrote: I do agree, though, that the cost of hockey is the biggest issue in the long run. It will continue to loom over the sport and, if unchecked, could turn hockey into a niche, country club style sport. Again, that's something that is far beyond the MSHSL's purview. It's hard to fight the market.
I would have to agree that $ is the biggest down fall in youth/high school hockey today. As the fees go up, the number of participants go down. One of my buds from south of the river said that for his son to be on a high school hockey team (varsity or jv) will cost him a registration fee of $600 and $1100 for a booster fee (buses, sports wear, coaches salary, etc.) WOW!almostashappy wrote:Yes, it's the cost that is scaring off the families of potential mites and U8's, although the concussions aren't helping.karl(east) wrote: I do agree, though, that the cost of hockey is the biggest issue in the long run. It will continue to loom over the sport and, if unchecked, could turn hockey into a niche, country club style sport. Again, that's something that is far beyond the MSHSL's purview. It's hard to fight the market.
But I think that Minnesota Hockey and MSHSL could fight the market and bring down the costs, if they really wanted to...
For starters, they could put the Christian Brothers back into business and mandate the use of wooden sticks.
Your mileage and participation fees may vary, depending on school district.Defensive Zone wrote: I would have to agree that $ is the biggest down fall in youth/high school hockey today. As the fees go up, the number of participants go down. One of my buds from south of the river said that for his son to be on a high school hockey team (varsity or jv) will cost him a registration fee of $600 and $1100 for a booster fee (buses, sports wear, coaches salary, etc.) WOW!
Great point, and I don't understand why more people don't realize it. Hockey is not that much more expensive than any other sport where you travel. Dance is a great example, it costs the same as hockey and sometimes more. I don't hear anyone complaining about Dance.SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
While today's mid- to low-level equipment may be better quality than the best available twenty or thirty years ago, it is still mid- to low-level relative to what is available today. And as your kids get older, and if/when they make youth "A" teams or high school rosters, the pressure to put the same high-end stick in their hands that everyone else on the team is using is intense. You can say that it is an individual choice, but take a close look at the skates and sticks out on the ice during high school game warm-ups...you'll be hard-pressed to see anyone playing with blue light specials.SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
It is easier to make that cost-benefit decision when you played the game yourself, and when you've grown up in the State. The demographics aren't favorable when you look at the young families in (and moving into) Minnesota. And saying "look what you get out of it in comparison" can be 100% true but still not make a difference. You can just as easily say "Yes, the cost of a new Mercedes is higher, but look what you get out of it compared to those other cars."Froggy Richards wrote: Yes, registration fees are higher but look what you get out of it compared to those other sports. An entire MN winter full of fun, friends and life lessons. The whole hockey being super expensive thing is mostly just false perception. Everything has a cost-benefit. Hockey is well worth it.
almostashappy wrote:While today's mid- to low-level equipment may be better quality than the best available twenty or thirty years ago, it is still mid- to low-level relative to what is available today. And as your kids get older, and if/when they make youth "A" teams or high school rosters, the pressure to put the same high-end stick in their hands that everyone else on the team is using is intense. You can say that it is an individual choice, but take a close look at the skates and sticks out on the ice during high school game warm-ups...you'll be hard-pressed to see anyone playing with blue light specials.SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
You can't ignore fundamental economics. The cost of renting a school gym for an hour-long practice is four or five times less than the cost of an hour of ice. The most expensive pair of basketball shoes for sale on the foot locker web site is $275. While a high quality baseball bat will cost as much as a high-end hockey stick, Easton offers a 1-year warranty on their bats, but only a 30-day warranty on their sticks.
Some may be quick to note that many/most youth hockey associations are willing to work with families going through financial difficulties. The problem there is getting those families that need the help to be willing to ask for it. It certainly doesn't help when that request has to be made to a fellow parent who is treasurer of the local association or high school booster club.
As for travel team costs in other sports...yes, kids are expensive, and there are some youth activities that are more expensive than hockey. The difference, in my opinion, is that private gymnastic clubs and dance studios have always been beyond the reach of blue-collar family incomes. The reason why we are the State of Hockey is that the sport has been played by blue-collar family kids, and has been an option for almost every family budget. It'll be a sad day when that's no longer the case, and when the best financial argument that can be made to take up the sport is that it's no more expensive than ballet.
It is easier to make that cost-benefit decision when you played the game yourself, and when you've grown up in the State. The demographics aren't favorable when you look at the young families in (and moving into) Minnesota. And saying "look what you get out of it in comparison" can be 100% true but still not make a difference. You can just as easily say "Yes, the cost of a new Mercedes is higher, but look what you get out of it compared to those other cars."Froggy Richards wrote: Yes, registration fees are higher but look what you get out of it compared to those other sports. An entire MN winter full of fun, friends and life lessons. The whole hockey being super expensive thing is mostly just false perception. Everything has a cost-benefit. Hockey is well worth it.
To bring this rant closer back to my original post, the biggest risk to the Tourney and MN high school hockey isn't that we're losing our best players to Ann Arbor or juniors. The biggest risk to our sport is that we are losing the state's best athletes to other sports, way back at the start of the pipeline.
How true! Can you imagine though a high school football player has to pay for his helmet, shoulder pads, jerseys, pants, and also have to pay rent on the use of the practice field and stadium during game days? Maybe in reality, this is closer than we think. Just my thoughts.puckbreath wrote:almostashappy wrote:While today's mid- to low-level equipment may be better quality than the best available twenty or thirty years ago, it is still mid- to low-level relative to what is available today. And as your kids get older, and if/when they make youth "A" teams or high school rosters, the pressure to put the same high-end stick in their hands that everyone else on the team is using is intense. You can say that it is an individual choice, but take a close look at the skates and sticks out on the ice during high school game warm-ups...you'll be hard-pressed to see anyone playing with blue light specials.SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
You can't ignore fundamental economics. The cost of renting a school gym for an hour-long practice is four or five times less than the cost of an hour of ice. The most expensive pair of basketball shoes for sale on the foot locker web site is $275. While a high quality baseball bat will cost as much as a high-end hockey stick, Easton offers a 1-year warranty on their bats, but only a 30-day warranty on their sticks.
Some may be quick to note that many/most youth hockey associations are willing to work with families going through financial difficulties. The problem there is getting those families that need the help to be willing to ask for it. It certainly doesn't help when that request has to be made to a fellow parent who is treasurer of the local association or high school booster club.
As for travel team costs in other sports...yes, kids are expensive, and there are some youth activities that are more expensive than hockey. The difference, in my opinion, is that private gymnastic clubs and dance studios have always been beyond the reach of blue-collar family incomes. The reason why we are the State of Hockey is that the sport has been played by blue-collar family kids, and has been an option for almost every family budget. It'll be a sad day when that's no longer the case, and when the best financial argument that can be made to take up the sport is that it's no more expensive than ballet.
It is easier to make that cost-benefit decision when you played the game yourself, and when you've grown up in the State. The demographics aren't favorable when you look at the young families in (and moving into) Minnesota. And saying "look what you get out of it in comparison" can be 100% true but still not make a difference. You can just as easily say "Yes, the cost of a new Mercedes is higher, but look what you get out of it compared to those other cars."Froggy Richards wrote: Yes, registration fees are higher but look what you get out of it compared to those other sports. An entire MN winter full of fun, friends and life lessons. The whole hockey being super expensive thing is mostly just false perception. Everything has a cost-benefit. Hockey is well worth it.
To bring this rant closer back to my original post, the biggest risk to the Tourney and MN high school hockey isn't that we're losing our best players to Ann Arbor or juniors. The biggest risk to our sport is that we are losing the state's best athletes to other sports, way back at the start of the pipeline.
Right on.
I had kids in hockey, and one in basketball.
The costs weren't even close.
That's short changing it a bit. I went on Hockeygiant.com for about 5 minutes and took the cheapest of every item of equipment including a hockey bag and it costs about $250. Without the bag it costs $210. Now thats fine if you want to play in pick up games with no checking, but if you are a kid, Im not sure you want to buy a $25 helmet when we know so much about concussions. Regardless of what league you play I would probably get better skates than the cheapest pair because those will probably be uncomfortable. Im not saying you should go overboard because there are options that are decent in quality and price.Froggy Richards wrote:You can outfit a new hockey player with brand new equipment for around $150-$180 today. .SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
Might want to add:green4 wrote: That's short changing it a bit. I went on Hockeygiant.com for about 5 minutes and took the cheapest of every item of equipment including a hockey bag and it costs about $250. Without the bag it costs $210. Now thats fine if you want to play in pick up games with no checking, but if you are a kid, Im not sure you want to buy a $25 helmet when we know so much about concussions. Regardless of what league you play I would probably get better skates than the cheapest pair because those will probably be uncomfortable. Im not saying you should go overboard because there are options that are decent in quality and price.
If I was going to get a person started with all new gear I would recommend quality skates, hemet and knee pads. After that, maybe a stick, but elbow, shoulder, gloves and breezers you could buy at the cheapest price and you would be fine. So with nicer skates, helmet and knee pads it would cost like $405 and thats without a bag. Thats also with a $20 wood stick so if you wanted a decent composite stick its more like $490.
When my son started Mites three years ago we bought a starter package. Brand new CCM equipment. It was the lowest end stuff you could buy but perfectly adequate for a Mite 1. The package had a bag, gloves, shins, shoulders, elbows and breezers for $79.99. Bauer Helmet was $49.99 (X-mas present from Grandma) and Bauer Vapor Youth skates were $49.99. He started with a $10 wood stick. Later in the year we upgraded to composite for $69.99.green4 wrote:That's short changing it a bit. I went on Hockeygiant.com for about 5 minutes and took the cheapest of every item of equipment including a hockey bag and it costs about $250. Without the bag it costs $210. Now thats fine if you want to play in pick up games with no checking, but if you are a kid, Im not sure you want to buy a $25 helmet when we know so much about concussions. Regardless of what league you play I would probably get better skates than the cheapest pair because those will probably be uncomfortable. Im not saying you should go overboard because there are options that are decent in quality and price.Froggy Richards wrote:You can outfit a new hockey player with brand new equipment for around $150-$180 today. .SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
If I was going to get a person started with all new gear I would recommend quality skates, hemet and knee pads. After that, maybe a stick, but elbow, shoulder, gloves and breezers you could buy at the cheapest price and you would be fine. So with nicer skates, helmet and knee pads it would cost like $405 and thats without a bag. Thats also with a $20 wood stick so if you wanted a decent composite stick its more like $490.
There's no question that we're trying really, really hard to make it really, really easy for parents to get their kindergarten-aged rug rats into hockey. In addition to cheap gear, registration fees for Mite1 players are $0 in many places as well (not counting MinnHockey/USAhockey membership). And how many Mite1 programs have 6am ice times at rinks 15 miles from home?Froggy Richards wrote: I originally forgot to factor the stick. So $190 got him started with equipment that was perfectly adequate for a beginner, Mite 1.
I also had a friend this year that bought equipment through the MN Wild program. $100 got him EVERYTHING, including skates, helmet and stick. This was open to any kid in the Duluth area when they were at the Heritage.
Granted, that is just entry level. But the idea is to get these people to see what Youth Hockey is all about and then make the decision on whether or not they see the cost benefit.
Full Disclaimer: My kids equipment three years later is A LOT more expensive than $190. He has two sticks that each cost more than that now.
almostashappy wrote:While today's mid- to low-level equipment may be better quality than the best available twenty or thirty years ago, it is still mid- to low-level relative to what is available today. And as your kids get older, and if/when they make youth "A" teams or high school rosters, the pressure to put the same high-end stick in their hands that everyone else on the team is using is intense. You can say that it is an individual choice, but take a close look at the skates and sticks out on the ice during high school game warm-ups...you'll be hard-pressed to see anyone playing with blue light specials.SCBlueLiner wrote:We are our own worst enemies when we talk about the cost to play hockey. When recruiting it's the first objection we get because the perception is out there that it costs so much to play. Truth is that hockey, while expensive, is not much different than any other travel sports these days, or dance, ballet, cheer, etc. Actually, I am surprised at the reasonable cost of high quality hockey equipment these days. Years ago when I played equipment was expensive (given inflation). Today you can get mid to low-level equipement that is much better than anything I ever had. You can also spend a ton of $$, but that is an individual choice.
The cheapest sports I can think of for my son to participate in are youth football (and we all know how that sport is trending), rec baseball, and rec soccer. Notice the rec part in those sports. Travel soccer, baseball, travel anything costs money.
Kids are expensive. I think we all know this.
You can't ignore fundamental economics. The cost of renting a school gym for an hour-long practice is four or five times less than the cost of an hour of ice. The most expensive pair of basketball shoes for sale on the foot locker web site is $275. While a high quality baseball bat will cost as much as a high-end hockey stick, Easton offers a 1-year warranty on their bats, but only a 30-day warranty on their sticks.
Some may be quick to note that many/most youth hockey associations are willing to work with families going through financial difficulties. The problem there is getting those families that need the help to be willing to ask for it. It certainly doesn't help when that request has to be made to a fellow parent who is treasurer of the local association or high school booster club.
As for travel team costs in other sports...yes, kids are expensive, and there are some youth activities that are more expensive than hockey. The difference, in my opinion, is that private gymnastic clubs and dance studios have always been beyond the reach of blue-collar family incomes. The reason why we are the State of Hockey is that the sport has been played by blue-collar family kids, and has been an option for almost every family budget. It'll be a sad day when that's no longer the case, and when the best financial argument that can be made to take up the sport is that it's no more expensive than ballet.
It is easier to make that cost-benefit decision when you played the game yourself, and when you've grown up in the State. The demographics aren't favorable when you look at the young families in (and moving into) Minnesota. And saying "look what you get out of it in comparison" can be 100% true but still not make a difference. You can just as easily say "Yes, the cost of a new Mercedes is higher, but look what you get out of it compared to those other cars."Froggy Richards wrote: Yes, registration fees are higher but look what you get out of it compared to those other sports. An entire MN winter full of fun, friends and life lessons. The whole hockey being super expensive thing is mostly just false perception. Everything has a cost-benefit. Hockey is well worth it.
To bring this rant closer back to my original post, the biggest risk to the Tourney and MN high school hockey isn't that we're losing our best players to Ann Arbor or juniors. The biggest risk to our sport is that we are losing the state's best athletes to other sports, way back at the start of the pipeline.
Froggy Richards wrote:What's the quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics?almostashappy wrote: Despite a brutal recession, hockey participation has grown in MN in the last 5 years. How do you figure we're losing the best athletes? Nothing against Basketball or Wrestling, but they aren't even in the same league as Hockey, and those are the other Winter sport options.
Minnesota
2002-03: 44,868
2008-09: 52,333
2012-13: 53,935
Ten-Year Growth: 9,067 (20.2%)
Five-Year Growth: 1,602 (3.06%)
Notes: The self-proclaimed State of Hockey certainly has a strong case for such a title. Despite a slight drop after a record-high 54,951 registered in 2011-12, it has the highest hockey-playing population in the country. Minnesota’s raw growth over the last 10 years is rather impressive, seeing as you wouldn’t expect a well-established hockey state to continue such a dramatic rise. However, 20.2 percent growth for the country’s biggest hockey state over a 10-year span is nuts. Especially due to the fact that Minnesota’s vaunted high school league is not affiliated with USA Hockey, meaning many of its players may not be registered with the organization. So Minnesota’s numbers could be even higher. It’s quite impressive overall.
It would have been nice if you had posted a link to your copy-and-pasted data/text. Not that it was too hard to find with a google search:
http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2013/09 ... 2003-2013/
A 20% increase in youth hockey players over a 10 year period where the number of Minnesota residents under the age of 18 increased by only 1% is impressive. It is also, however, misleading. As I suspected, the raw numbers include both boys and girls (not to mention adult memberships). There was an explosive growth in the number of community-based girls hockey teams over that period of time, and I'd expect that the lion's share of that 20% growth came from there. Since this is a boys hockey forum, and since apples and orange comparisons have limited value, it would have been better if you could have compared the number boys playing the sport over that same time interval.
I don't think that I ever claimed that we are currently losing the best athletes to other sports. I did say that was a strong risk. And total participation rates have nothing at all to do with the quality/skills/athleticism of those players. Comparisons in participation rates between boys hockey, boys basketball and boys wrestling might be useful, if you had them. But I'm afraid that we're past the point where we can consider other winter sports as hockey's only competition. More and more young athletes are (for better or worse) focusing on only a single sport and playing/training for it year-round. So it's really whether Minnesota's most athletic children are picking hockey as their main sport, instead of any other sport (e.g. football, lacrosse).
And again, it's about the pipeline. Things may be fine now, but look ten years down the road, when today's Mite1's are in high school. There's a reason why associations are bending over backwards to keep their numbers up at the lower age levels.
almostashappy wrote:You said the biggest risk is that we're losing our best athletes to other sports, "Way back at the start of the pipeline." And that it's not just Winter sports anymore, but all sports that kids are specializing in.Froggy Richards wrote:What's the quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics?almostashappy wrote: Despite a brutal recession, hockey participation has grown in MN in the last 5 years. How do you figure we're losing the best athletes? Nothing against Basketball or Wrestling, but they aren't even in the same league as Hockey, and those are the other Winter sport options.
Minnesota
2002-03: 44,868
2008-09: 52,333
2012-13: 53,935
Ten-Year Growth: 9,067 (20.2%)
Five-Year Growth: 1,602 (3.06%)
Notes: The self-proclaimed State of Hockey certainly has a strong case for such a title. Despite a slight drop after a record-high 54,951 registered in 2011-12, it has the highest hockey-playing population in the country. Minnesota’s raw growth over the last 10 years is rather impressive, seeing as you wouldn’t expect a well-established hockey state to continue such a dramatic rise. However, 20.2 percent growth for the country’s biggest hockey state over a 10-year span is nuts. Especially due to the fact that Minnesota’s vaunted high school league is not affiliated with USA Hockey, meaning many of its players may not be registered with the organization. So Minnesota’s numbers could be even higher. It’s quite impressive overall.
It would have been nice if you had posted a link to your copy-and-pasted data/text. Not that it was too hard to find with a google search:
http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2013/09 ... 2003-2013/
A 20% increase in youth hockey players over a 10 year period where the number of Minnesota residents under the age of 18 increased by only 1% is impressive. It is also, however, misleading. As I suspected, the raw numbers include both boys and girls (not to mention adult memberships). There was an explosive growth in the number of community-based girls hockey teams over that period of time, and I'd expect that the lion's share of that 20% growth came from there. Since this is a boys hockey forum, and since apples and orange comparisons have limited value, it would have been better if you could have compared the number boys playing the sport over that same time interval.
I don't think that I ever claimed that we are currently losing the best athletes to other sports. I did say that was a strong risk. And total participation rates have nothing at all to do with the quality/skills/athleticism of those players. Comparisons in participation rates between boys hockey, boys basketball and boys wrestling might be useful, if you had them. But I'm afraid that we're past the point where we can consider other winter sports as hockey's only competition. More and more young athletes are (for better or worse) focusing on only a single sport and playing/training for it year-round. So it's really whether Minnesota's most athletic children are picking hockey as their main sport, instead of any other sport (e.g. football, lacrosse).
And again, it's about the pipeline. Things may be fine now, but look ten years down the road, when today's Mite1's are in high school. There's a reason why associations are bending over backwards to keep their numbers up at the lower age levels.
The start of the pipeline in Hockey nowadays is roughly age 4-6. A few kids start after that, but not many. What other sports are kids specializing year round in at age 4-6?
I'm not trying to beat you up here, I'm just not connecting the dots.