Breck vs Alaska Oilers U16 Tier 1 9/25 in Eden Prairie

[TheHockeyDJ]

According to the link, it looks like the Alaska Oilers U16 Tier 1 has scheduled at game vs Breck HS in Eden Prairie on Monday at 7:15. I've always been curious to see MN HS teams vs Tier 1 teams.

http://www.alaskaoilers.com/schedule/te ... son=382941

[Stang5280]

According to the link, it looks like the Alaska Oilers U16 Tier 1 has scheduled at game vs Breck HS in Eden Prairie on Monday at 7:15. I've always been curious to see MN HS teams vs Tier 1 teams.

http://www.alaskaoilers.com/schedule/te ... son=382941

There was a really nice Hockey Hub article last year, written by one of Centennial’s assistants, regarding the Cougars’ trip to Colorado. Centennial played a round robin against two suburban Denver high schools and the Rocky Mountain Roughriders (a mix of their U16 and U18 teams). Centennial handled all three teams with relative ease, including two extremely rough (pardon the pun) games against the Roughriders. (I would add that Colorado hockey is notoriously goonish.)

Given that the Alaska Oilers are about on the same level as the Roughriders (from the Tier I rankings I could find), I would expect Breck to come away victorious. We’ll see how it plays out, but a matchup against a top Tier I program like Victory Honda or Belle Tire might be a better measuring stick.

[goldy313]

Crazy, since this would break MSHSL rules.
To the best of my knowledge this is outside the MSHSL season and contact period.
Is Breck planning on leaving the MSHSL? That would be news.

[TheHockeyDJ]

I think it is just a scrimmage. As previously mentioned, Centennial has gone to Colorado and New York to play for several years in July. Anyways, I get tired of hearing about stupid rules. Drop the puck.

[TheHockeyDJ]

Alaska 12-2 over Breck according to the Oilers website. Wth???

[BP]

Alaska 12-2 over Breck according to the Oilers website. Wth???

If it was Alaska's U16 team - maybe Breck didn't have any of their older guys - just the young guys. I'd assume that was the case.

[kniven]

I think it is just a scrimmage. As previously mentioned, Centennial has gone to Colorado and New York to play for several years in July. Anyways, I get tired of hearing about stupid rules. Drop the puck.

agreed

[TheHockeyDJ]

Alaska 12-2 over Breck according to the Oilers website. Wth???

If it was Alaska's U16 team - maybe Breck didn't have any of their older guys - just the young guys. I'd assume that was the case.

Ok, that would make a bit more sense. The Alaska team did lose to both the MN Blades and the MN Blizzard, both close games though.

[jpiehl]

I have to say I do enjoy seeing people reason away any success a Tier 1 team may have against a Minnesota team. The fact is that Tier 1 is a very good model for the top end player, whether Minnesota chooses to acknowledge that or not. Speculative reasoning as to why a given result occurred is nothing more than that.

[The Exiled One]

I have to say I do enjoy seeing people reason away any success a Tier 1 team may have against a Minnesota team. The fact is that Tier 1 is a very good model for the top end player, whether Minnesota chooses to acknowledge that or not. Speculative reasoning as to why a given result occurred is nothing more than that.

I don't disagree with that, but the community model is better for late bloomers and most other hockey players.

Of course, Breck is not exactly a good example of the community model.

[yesiplayedhockey]

Couldn't agree more... Tier 1 is a nice option for some spring and fall hockey but in Minnesota there's little or no value in it come winter. I know this topic has been beat to death but Minnesota parents are flat out nuts to pull their kid out of their association and put them into a Tier 1 program in the winter

I have to say I do enjoy seeing people reason away any success a Tier 1 team may have against a Minnesota team. The fact is that Tier 1 is a very good model for the top end player, whether Minnesota chooses to acknowledge that or not. Speculative reasoning as to why a given result occurred is nothing more than that.

I don't disagree with that, but the community model is better for late bloomers and most other hockey players.

Of course, Breck is not exactly a good example of the community model.

[MrBoDangles]

The old tear down this wall debates on here....

I still can't believe there was a time when talented - small association kids -were not allowed to try out for HP..

Minnesota Hockey has had a big time awakening in recent years.!. Some things are much improved!

[BP]

I have to say I do enjoy seeing people reason away any success a Tier 1 team may have against a Minnesota team. The fact is that Tier 1 is a very good model for the top end player, whether Minnesota chooses to acknowledge that or not. Speculative reasoning as to why a given result occurred is nothing more than that.

I agree with you 100% that it is a good hockey and acknowledge it. But what I was saying, if Breck had all their seniors, there is no way it would be 12-2 - especially with the scores vs. Blades and Blizzard. Just saying I am assuming the older guys didn't play seeing this was a U16 team. Nothing more and the Tier 1 is very good hockey.

[JoltDelivered]

The old tear down this wall debates on here....

I still can't believe there was a time when talented - small association kids -were not allowed to try out for HP..

Minnesota Hockey has had a big time awakening in recent years.!. Some things are much improved!

I never knew that about small associations. That's a bit disheartening.

But then again having had multiple children go through the HP program over the years I have noticed some serious flaws so I guess it's not surprising.

On the Tier 1 front, I have thought for years that we have had the best of both worlds in Minnesota. Highly competitive community based hockey in the winter that continuously churns out top end talent year after year and outstanding Tier 1 hockey (or what we Minnesotans like to call AAA hockey) in the summer. Programs like The Machine, The Blades, etc... are essentially structured like Tier 1 programs drawing kids from all over (even outside the state) to build the best possible teams of what most would consider top end kids.

I have never understood why people take sides or why this is even a debate. Minnesota has proven for decades that the tier 1 model and the community based model can not only coexist but thrive in the same geography. If you're a hockey player why would you want to live anywhere else? The options in Minnesota to develop your game and at a price that is suitable to Mom & Dad's wallet are incredible.

[JoltDelivered]

I have to say I do enjoy seeing people reason away any success a Tier 1 team may have against a Minnesota team. The fact is that Tier 1 is a very good model for the top end player, whether Minnesota chooses to acknowledge that or not. Speculative reasoning as to why a given result occurred is nothing more than that.

I don't disagree with that, but the community model is better for late bloomers and most other hockey players.

Of course, Breck is not exactly a good example of the community model.

Exiled...From time to time I see players classified as late bloomers and I have always been curious as to how that label gets applied. What are your thoughts on that? I have always thought it's a bit of an unfair classification but I don't think people do it with malice or ill-will...they just do it based on their own filters.

In my opinion I think many use the HP program as a measuring stick in Minnesota when applying that label. I think players who don't get nominated for the tryout or do but don't make St. Cloud as a 15 or the national camp as a 15 or 16 but then have success as a 17 or 18 year old get labeled as late bloomers. The fact is they're not late bloomers at all. They just didn't get picked during the process for any number of reasons. I guess another way of looking at it is I have a hard time reconciling how a 17 or 18 year old excelling and developing in any sport can be called a late bloomer.

On the inverse I rarely see people use the term "early bloomer" but I think everyone on this board can think of at least three of their own examples. I think they are FAR more common than what people would historically classify as late bloomers. These are kids who excel at pee wees, bantams & even high school but plateau when they hit 18, 19 or 20. Many of which found themselves in St. Cloud as 15's and were looking ahead to great futures. I can think of several examples of my own but the one that often comes to mind is the defenseman from my home association who played on every top team from squirts on up in both winter and summer, made the HP national camp as a 15, chose to leave HS as a senior for the Jr ranks and 18 months later was working as a bar back in one of our local watering holes. I always ask myself...What happened?. What I realize now is he bloomed early...

[jpiehl]

The old tear down this wall debates on here....

I still can't believe there was a time when talented - small association kids -were not allowed to try out for HP..

Minnesota Hockey has had a big time awakening in recent years.!. Some things are much improved!

I never knew that about small associations. That's a bit disheartening.

But then again having had multiple children go through the HP program over the years I have noticed some serious flaws so I guess it's not surprising.

On the Tier 1 front, I have thought for years that we have had the best of both worlds in Minnesota. Highly competitive community based hockey in the winter that continuously churns out top end talent year after year and outstanding Tier 1 hockey (or what we Minnesotans like to call AAA hockey) in the summer. Programs like The Machine, The Blades, etc... are essentially structured like Tier 1 programs drawing kids from all over (even outside the state) to build the best possible teams of what most would consider top end kids.

I have never understood why people take sides or why this is even a debate. Minnesota has proven for decades that the tier 1 model and the community based model can not only coexist but thrive in the same geography. If you're a hockey player why would you want to live anywhere else? The options in Minnesota to develop your game and at a price that is suitable to Mom & Dad's wallet are incredible.

Yes, some Districts had rules that you were not allowed to try out if you didn't play on an A team. So if all your association was fielding was a B1 team, you had no chance. That seems to be going away now.

The Minnesota model works well if you happen to be in an association with a minimum of 3 teams per level, but unfortunately does not serve a high end player that lives in the footprint of an association with 2 or even 1 team at a level with no other options allowed. To say they can play a higher level during the offseason and then come back ignores the fact that they will not see the same in season development as the player that can continue to play at a high level during the winter. And also requires any player in that situation to play hockey year round to maybe not fall behind. Granted, many of those players will play year round regardless, but not all.

[MNHockeyFan]

Some very good points, JoltDelivered, but there's one I disagree with. You acknowledge that some players are "early bloomers" while saying others who don't get noticed early on are not "late bloomers". On the contrary I do think some kids take longer to develop their skills and compete level (for many different reasons) while others level off at an earlier age (early bloomers). For every kid who falls into this camp there's another one who continues to develop and begins to stand out from their peers at an older age. And then there's the very rare player who's really good at every level and continues to make great strides year after year, from peewees all the way until finally reaching his peak in the NHL.

[The Exiled One]

Exiled...From time to time I see players classified as late bloomers and I have always been curious as to how that label gets applied. What are your thoughts on that? I have always thought it's a bit of an unfair classification but I don't think people do it with malice or ill-will...they just do it based on their own filters.

In my opinion I think many use the HP program as a measuring stick in Minnesota when applying that label. I think players who don't get nominated for the tryout or do but don't make St. Cloud as a 15 or the national camp as a 15 or 16 but then have success as a 17 or 18 year old get labeled as late bloomers. The fact is they're not late bloomers at all. They just didn't get picked during the process for any number of reasons. I guess another way of looking at it is I have a hard time reconciling how a 17 or 18 year old excelling and developing in any sport can be called a late bloomer.

Not exactly how I define "late bloomer". In my mind, late bloomers are literally behind the curve in any number of categories including skill, talent, height, strength, etc. Like, it's obvious they're not a standout, but then they grow, or they lift weights, or they train, or they get comfortable with their own frame and they eventually rise to the top of their peer group. It's not just that they didn't get picked for SOME reason at 15, it's that they didn't get picked for GOOD reason at 15.

In the community model, there is always a home for late bloomers, even if it's on a C team or a junior gold team. It keeps participation rates up and these kids still have the opportunity to play alongside their more skilled peers on more occasions than in a club based system.

And, obviously, this is a better system for kids who'll never develop enough to play at higher levels. There's still plenty of fun to be had playing C hockey and Junior Gold!

[JoltDelivered]

The Minnesota model works well if you happen to be in an association with a minimum of 3 teams per level, but unfortunately does not serve a high end player that lives in the footprint of an association with 2 or even 1 team at a level with no other options allowed. To say they can play a higher level during the offseason and then come back ignores the fact that they will not see the same in season development as the player that can continue to play at a high level during the winter. And also requires any player in that situation to play hockey year round to maybe not fall behind. Granted, many of those players will play year round regardless, but not all.

Yeah I can see that point and it makes sense. I guess this is why young families sometimes move...to find a better development situation or stronger association for their player. And it doesn't stop there either, players even move from "big" association to "big" association all the time looking for greener pastures.

[JoltDelivered]

Some very good points, JoltDelivered, but there's one I disagree with. You acknowledge that some players are "early bloomers" while saying others who don't get noticed early on are not "late bloomers". On the contrary I do think some kids take longer to develop their skills and compete level (for many different reasons) while others level off at an earlier age (early bloomers). For every kid who falls into this camp there's another one who continues to develop and begins to stand out from their peers at an older age. And then there's the very rare player who's really good at every level and continues to make great strides year after year, from peewees all the way until finally reaching his peak in the NHL.

Yeah maybe I worded that wrong and good clarification. I've just always been very hesitant to use the label "late bloomer'.

[MrBoDangles]

The old tear down this wall debates on here....

I still can't believe there was a time when talented - small association kids -were not allowed to try out for HP..

Minnesota Hockey has had a big time awakening in recent years.!. Some things are much improved!

I never knew that about small associations. That's a bit disheartening.

But then again having had multiple children go through the HP program over the years I have noticed some serious flaws so I guess it's not surprising.

On the Tier 1 front, I have thought for years that we have had the best of both worlds in Minnesota. Highly competitive community based hockey in the winter that continuously churns out top end talent year after year and outstanding Tier 1 hockey (or what we Minnesotans like to call AAA hockey) in the summer. Programs like The Machine, The Blades, etc... are essentially structured like Tier 1 programs drawing kids from all over (even outside the state) to build the best possible teams of what most would consider top end kids.

I have never understood why people take sides or why this is even a debate. Minnesota has proven for decades that the tier 1 model and the community based model can not only coexist but thrive in the same geography. If you're a hockey player why would you want to live anywhere else? The options in Minnesota to develop your game and at a price that is suitable to Mom & Dad's wallet are incredible.

Yes, some Districts had rules that you were not allowed to try out if you didn't play on an A team. So if all your association was fielding was a B1 team, you had no chance. That seems to be going away now.

The Minnesota model works well if you happen to be in an association with a minimum of 3 teams per level, but unfortunately does not serve a high end player that lives in the footprint of an association with 2 or even 1 team at a level with no other options allowed. To say they can play a higher level during the offseason and then come back ignores the fact that they will not see the same in season development as the player that can continue to play at a high level during the winter. And also requires any player in that situation to play hockey year round to maybe not fall behind. Granted, many of those players will play year round regardless, but not all.

Yeah, What a bunch of ? that were running the show... Every association lost kids as soon as parents saw their kid had talent and knew their age level couldn't form an A (A was the highest) team... And then these same folks send out their Minnesota Hockey Magazine and talk all about how they're trying grow the game in smaller associations.

[JoltDelivered]

Not exactly how I define "late bloomer". In my mind, late bloomers are literally behind the curve in any number of categories including skill, talent, height, strength, etc. Like, it's obvious they're not a standout, but then they grow, or they lift weights, or they train, or they get comfortable with their own frame and they eventually rise to the top of their peer group. It's not just that they didn't get picked for SOME reason at 15, it's that they didn't get picked for GOOD reason at 15.

That's probably a better way of defining the late bloomer however, having four kids go through youth hockey over the last 17 years and using your definition above I can't think of one player in all my years that I have come across in our association that fits that description and we're in a pretty good sized association (6-8 teams per level). I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying I don't think I've never seen it. I think the way you describe the scenario...it's pretty extreme and just really rare and yet I hear the term late bloomer all the time. Maybe to say it a different way, I've never seen a low level squirt/pee wee (B2, C) excel past their peer group and be considered at the top of their peer group by the time they hit 17/18/19 (which I define as a top 2 or 3 player at their age group). Sure I see players leap frog each other all the time like a B1 player jumping up to an A or even AA level over the course of a few years and if that's what you mean then I would agree...but not to the top of their peer group. But I'm sure there are some examples out there and would love to hear about them. Those would be cool stories.

[The Exiled One]

I've never seen a low level squirt/pee wee (B2, C) excel past their peer group and be considered at the top of their peer group by the time they hit 17/18/19.

I should clarify, a late bloomer doesn't have to finish at the top of their peer group, they've just advanced in relation to their peer group. Even a kid who was a 2nd year peewee C who eventually made the varsity team could be considered a late bloomer and is definitely better off in a community model.

[O-townClown]

Late bloomers are always really big. All of the NHL guys that fit the description.