The state of Girls hockey... is it bright?

[Lace'emUp]

In this discussion of allowing some type of dual AAA and association hockey to co-exist, it has been noted several times that there's "plenty" of ice time to achieve this. I'd have to disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but many of the ice arena's in the area are built with pubic funding. In some cases (lets use Blaine), the arena funding and upgrades to arenas are in partnership with an association or school district (the association or school district is paying part of the bill). Because of this, agreements are in place that give associations certain percentages of "prime time" ice.

If true, how much ice time will a AAA club really get their hands on? I know for a fact that a bigger AAA outfit in the area gets ice very very cheap (almost 1/2 of "prime time") to run their programs in the spring, summer and fall. I also know that club charges about $1500 per season for 4 tournaments, about 40 hours of practice ice, and dryland. Those numbers are similar to other AAA clubs throughout the Twin Cities.

If these clubs operated in "prime time", the cost will almost double to $3000 due to ice costs alone. Are "advanced" players willing to pay that? AND, can the AAA clubs even get any decent ice without disturbing agreements that are already in place between arena's and associations? For $3000, I can get association hockey AND summer AAA hockey, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

i am offering a solution with a choice. The idea is to grow the game. Triple A programs in other states cost 3 times as much.If kids are done with a sport by 9th grade something is broken. The biggest problem that associations face are the people who think that their kid is the next Gretzky or Amanda Kessel. Those people will pay whatever it takes. They are also the ones that want their kid to play up or play boys. Buy having a top end privately funded system you then take those people out of the association picture. Who cares where the Triple A programs find their ice. The idea is to make the game more affordable to all. If you allow triple A to operate and make association hockey more recreational say 20 teams that practice two times a week and play on weekends their will be plenty of ice and you might see the price actually go down. Again don't Start association play until Christmas break. Short season low cost. CAA played once a week from Jan through March we got plenty of games in and the kids had a ball.

You mention "having a top end privately funded system". Don't we already have that with "Choice"? It has been in place for years now, and it serves the people who want that very well. If that's the case, it appears that you simply want to see more "Choice" programs. It's supply and demand then, and if the demand was there for more "Choice", other private clubs would have jumped on it by now.

It also appears that cost of "prime time" club hockey or ice time availability are not an issue with your solution. That being the case, why not just attend Gentry or Bauer Emerson? Boat loads of ice time with specialized attention. It costs a lot, but that's not a factor here.

Here's my amendments to your possible solution. Just as MN Hockey has decided to run it's own Tier 1 teams, why not let each District run it's own AAA squirt, PW, bantam, 10U and 12U teams? Open tryouts, with the best 15-18 skaters and 2 goalies making each team. Taking advantage of the existing infrastructure in place (district management), teams can still have access to ice at reasonable costs and times. Plus, there can actually be an organized "league" where district teams play each other. Outstate districts would have issues with travel times for practices and games. But they'd have this issues either way - whether it's run privately or by the district. And again, cost is not an issue with your solution.

[zambonidriver]

In this discussion of allowing some type of dual AAA and association hockey to co-exist, it has been noted several times that there's "plenty" of ice time to achieve this. I'd have to disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but many of the ice arena's in the area are built with pubic funding. In some cases (lets use Blaine), the arena funding and upgrades to arenas are in partnership with an association or school district (the association or school district is paying part of the bill). Because of this, agreements are in place that give associations certain percentages of "prime time" ice.

If true, how much ice time will a AAA club really get their hands on? I know for a fact that a bigger AAA outfit in the area gets ice very very cheap (almost 1/2 of "prime time") to run their programs in the spring, summer and fall. I also know that club charges about $1500 per season for 4 tournaments, about 40 hours of practice ice, and dryland. Those numbers are similar to other AAA clubs throughout the Twin Cities.

If these clubs operated in "prime time", the cost will almost double to $3000 due to ice costs alone. Are "advanced" players willing to pay that? AND, can the AAA clubs even get any decent ice without disturbing agreements that are already in place between arena's and associations? For $3000, I can get association hockey AND summer AAA hockey, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

i am offering a solution with a choice. The idea is to grow the game. Triple A programs in other states cost 3 times as much.If kids are done with a sport by 9th grade something is broken. The biggest problem that associations face are the people who think that their kid is the next Gretzky or Amanda Kessel. Those people will pay whatever it takes. They are also the ones that want their kid to play up or play boys. Buy having a top end privately funded system you then take those people out of the association picture. Who cares where the Triple A programs find their ice. The idea is to make the game more affordable to all. If you allow triple A to operate and make association hockey more recreational say 20 teams that practice two times a week and play on weekends their will be plenty of ice and you might see the price actually go down. Again don't Start association play until Christmas break. Short season low cost. CAA played once a week from Jan through March we got plenty of games in and the kids had a ball.

You mention "having a top end privately funded system". Don't we already have that with "Choice"? It has been in place for years now, and it serves the people who want that very well. If that's the case, it appears that you simply want to see more "Choice" programs. It's supply and demand then, and if the demand was there for more "Choice", other private clubs would have jumped on it by now.

It also appears that cost of "prime time" club hockey or ice time availability are not an issue with your solution. That being the case, why not just attend Gentry or Bauer Emerson? Boat loads of ice time with specialized attention. It costs a lot, but that's not a factor here.

Here's my amendments to your possible solution. Just as MN Hockey has decided to run it's own Tier 1 teams, why not let each District run it's own AAA squirt, PW, bantam, 10U and 12U teams? Open tryouts, with the best 15-18 skaters and 2 goalies making each team. Taking advantage of the existing infrastructure in place (district management), teams can still have access to ice at reasonable costs and times. Plus, there can actually be an organized "league" where district teams play each other. Outstate districts would have issues with travel times for practices and games. But they'd have this issues either way - whether it's run privately or by the district. And again, cost is not an issue with your solution.

Good points the problem is the associations If the top end is independent of associations you don't get the political problem. If you have a-hole parents they get told to walk. ultimately with independent triple A you have no ties to political entities and tryouts and teams are picked without bias. tAll good ideas on this thread but in reality just a pipe dream.

[InigoMontoya]

If the top end is independent of associations you don't get the political problem. If you have a-hole parents they get told to walk. ultimately with independent triple A you have no ties to political entities and tryouts and teams are picked without bias.

This isn't true in the summer in MN. I imagine it isn't true during the winter in MA or MI, either.

[AggieSpirit]

I am an outsider from Texas.

Even with your valid concerns about the state of girls hockey there..... you have no idea how much WORSE it could be for girls hockey.

Where your rec teams are well under $1000, our rec team costs are over $1000 with 1 practice and 1 game per week - thanks to the Dallas Stars monopoly over the 10 rinks here in Dallas. In addition, any girls (or boys) who play travel are ineligible to play rec. Of course, there are NO all girls rec teams anywhere in Texas. If you want your daughter to get more practice time, and higher quality games, boys travel is your only option. But it runs concurrently to the rec season - so you lose community hockey experience. Of course the minimum total costs with all expenses for a season of travel hockey here is $7000. When your daughter hits U14(Bantam) and you don't want her to get checked - you "fortunately" have an all girls U14 option ---- The Dallas Stars Elite -- where your yearly fees will cost you easily $12,000 per child.

As a middle income family, we are grappling with a difficult decision. Tell my 2002 that she can no longer play, put her in boys checking hockey at an outrageous price where her head might get lopped off, or --- to uproot the family and move to a place like MN, ND, WI, or New England so she can continue playing the game she loves more than anything, but finally with girls, and at a cost for my family that is far more in line.

I know that wherever you go, there are imperfections with hockey. But at least you folks up there have far more viable options at a far more reasonable cost. So it can't be that bad.

[Snap Happy]

Good luck finding ice to skate on if you add winter AAA for girls... there's already not enough -- at least in our area.

I think there are some good points being made. One thought is instead of fighting the triple A model we should embrace it. A hybrid of our current system that allows our kids to try out for triple a teams. Second, the season seems to getting longer every year. Let the triple a teams hold their tryouts first under the direction of Minnesota hockey about the time associations hold their tryouts now. After all the triple a teams are done then have association tryouts. That would eliminate the need for the associations to have fall warm ups. The players that choose to play for the private triple a teams would then be excluded from their association rosters thus allowing the kids who have the competitive bug to move to a program that fosters those needs. The associations would then be able to offer a comparable program for all of the other kids at a reduced cost and intensity. Let's be clear the triple A level would be strictly private with no association ties. My assumption is with that hybrid model you would be catering to all types of players and more importantly the parents. Association hockey could then get back to what they were designed to do and offer an affordable opportunity for all kids to access hockey. The biggest advantage to this model is that the people who gripe the most about their kids being able to compete against the best would then have that opportunity and you would eliminate the cliques of people trying to control different programs. Which is allowed to happen way too much.
10 years ago U12 tryouts were held during the first week in November, now they are held the first week in October. Shorten things up make it attractive for families to play. Hockey parents are slaves to their schedules. If we want to grow the game we should make it easier to participate rather than harder.

[zambonidriver]

Good luck finding ice to skate on if you add winter AAA for girls... there's already not enough -- at least in our area.

I think there are some good points being made. One thought is instead of fighting the triple A model we should embrace it. A hybrid of our current system that allows our kids to try out for triple a teams. Second, the season seems to getting longer every year. Let the triple a teams hold their tryouts first under the direction of Minnesota hockey about the time associations hold their tryouts now. After all the triple a teams are done then have association tryouts. That would eliminate the need for the associations to have fall warm ups. The players that choose to play for the private triple a teams would then be excluded from their association rosters thus allowing the kids who have the competitive bug to move to a program that fosters those needs. The associations would then be able to offer a comparable program for all of the other kids at a reduced cost and intensity. Let's be clear the triple A level would be strictly private with no association ties. My assumption is with that hybrid model you would be catering to all types of players and more importantly the parents. Association hockey could then get back to what they were designed to do and offer an affordable opportunity for all kids to access hockey. The biggest advantage to this model is that the people who gripe the most about their kids being able to compete against the best would then have that opportunity and you would eliminate the cliques of people trying to control different programs. Which is allowed to happen way too much.
10 years ago U12 tryouts were held during the first week in November, now they are held the first week in October. Shorten things up make it attractive for families to play. Hockey parents are slaves to their schedules. If we want to grow the game we should make it easier to participate rather than harder.

I guarantee if Triple A goes to winter they will find ice.

[BluehawkHockey]

Here is an idea that District 10 floated a few years ago for girls. Put together semi permanent co-ops for all A level girls teams in the district. The district would put together the associations. Tryouts for A level teams at each age group would be held. Any girls not making the A level co-op team would then be on an association B team.

This would help ensure you could put an A level team on the ice that really had A level talent on it. It would have raised the level of competition at both the A and B level. So in District 10, there might have only been 8 U12 A teams.

Of course the associations didn't like it. They didn't want to commit to the semi-permanent co-ops. They didn't like losing control. It would have also required them to spend time, energy and money on the girls.

So now, 3 years later, almost all the associations have co-ops on the girls side. The girls on those top teams haven't had a chance to play together year after year. The level of competition has not gone up. More girls have opted to play boys hockey.

Could something like this work across the state, maybe? It probably doesn't serve those elite girls as well as a AAA model might. But it does keep those girls connected to their home association. It does make it easier for those HS coaches to be involved. It also keeps girls that might be playing HS hockey, playing together. Something AAA may not be able to do.