Froggy Richards 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.
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.
I started in on a long, detailed response before deciding that few would be interested in reading it.
So in brief...no sport requires specialization at age 4-6. Not even hockey. The costs of playing youth hockey after the first couple of years are really, really high. They're higher than most other sports (but on par or even cheaper than ballet). My belief is that these high costs are a significant deterrent for lower- or middle-income parents who aren't highly motivated to make the financial sacrifice (i.e. those with a hockey cultural background). I think that this is a big reason why youth hockey numbers at the front end of the pipeline have dropped significantly. And from there, it becomes mostly a numbers game. If you have half as many kids learning to play, then you will eventually have fewer top-end athletes playing the sport in high school (unless you want to claim that rich families have a disproportionately high number of natural-born athletes).
If I'm right, then the solution to this problem would be to reduce the cost of playing hockey throughout the pipeline (not just at the start). Not an easy thing to do, when the quickest way to cut costs would be to reduce ice hours and amount of travel. You'd have some parents arguing that Little Johnny's inexorable drive to the NHL would stall if he wasn't playing full-sheet games at age 8, or playing full travel schedules in squirts. And since these gung-ho parents are the ones most likely to run (and campaign) for seats on the Association board that decides these things, their votes and voices will count more.
Low cost hockey option? http://www.minnesotahockey.org/recleague . And for those small towns all over the state the associations bend over backwards to make sure any family who wants their kid to play they'll find a way to cover the cost whether it is through volunteering, scholarships, sponsorships, etc. If you really want to play but can't afford it then hockey people will find a way to keep you in the game. That is just one of the great things about the people involved in this sport.
As for girls hockey, women are fans, they buy tickets to games, and apparel, and merchandise, and grow up and have little hockey babies who then become little hockey players. I think the growth in the girls game is great and will pay huge dividends down the road for both girls and boys hockey.
SCBlueLiner wrote:Low cost hockey option? http://www.minnesotahockey.org/recleague . And for those small towns all over the state the associations bend over backwards to make sure any family who wants their kid to play they'll find a way to cover the cost whether it is through volunteering, scholarships, sponsorships, etc. If you really want to play but can't afford it then hockey people will find a way to keep you in the game. That is just one of the great things about the people involved in this sport.
As for girls hockey, women are fans, they buy tickets to games, and apparel, and merchandise, and grow up and have little hockey babies who then become little hockey players. I think the growth in the girls game is great and will pay huge dividends down the road for both girls and boys hockey.
The only places that have rec leagues are the big cities in MN. I am not so sure that even a town the size of Duluth has one (although I have not checked to see) so the rec league does not really help the outlying towns much.
The basic problem is that in order to be able to compete for a higher end spot you have to play and train year around for hockey. It does start pretty early. They are always advertising new AAA summer teams and new spring and fall teams for kids to get onto and they get filled up. Little Johnny does not have to play on them but his competition is so he has to. It is a case of the haves (playing all year around) quickly out distancing the have nots (that kid who does not play all year around) which gets the have not kids a lower skill set. That lower skill set lands him on a B team who is coached by a parent who does it so his kid can play hockey. The A teams lots of times have either hired coaches or a father who was very serious about hockey and who played at a higher level so the coaching is better which gets those A kids farther in a season. Every year the gap grows. The AAA teams are all expensive and only want the high end kids so Little Johnny either can't get on one or gets on for the full cost and is on the 4th or 5th line and never ever sees the ice for a game. At some point the writing on the wall starts to add up. Your association slot is a B team which costs lots of money to play, gets killed because they don't have a decent team and you have NO shot at the A team. About the time that it starts to get expensive his parents talk him out of hockey and that is that. If Little Johnny was the older brother you are not gonna get the Little Benny after that because the parents are going to say there is no point in blowing the money on hockey when he will just end up like Johnny did.
Hockey is fast becoming a niche sport in MN and across the country. The assocation model (I know this is high school section but the association model is the foundation for high school hockey in MN so it is critical to MN High School hockey) is going to go away. Too few numbers, too much money and the good kids will be faced with spending lots of money to play a 25 game season or lots of money to play a 60 game season which will not be too tough of a choice for parents and kids to make. We will see consolidations in the coming years as the numbers drop and the talent leaves for greener grass on the other side of the border.
It was a fun run but unless something changes high school hockey in MN is gonna go the same route as it did in the other states where the kids who can leave will and the kids who can't will be stuck in town playing high school hockey which will make the state tourney your basic B1 touney and that is not gonna fill the Excel.
Froggy Richards 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.
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.
I started in on a long, detailed response before deciding that few would be interested in reading it.
So in brief...no sport requires specialization at age 4-6. Not even hockey. The costs of playing youth hockey after the first couple of years are really, really high. They're higher than most other sports (but on par or even cheaper than ballet). My belief is that these high costs are a significant deterrent for lower- or middle-income parents who aren't highly motivated to make the financial sacrifice (i.e. those with a hockey cultural background). I think that this is a big reason why youth hockey numbers at the front end of the pipeline have dropped significantly. And from there, it becomes mostly a numbers game. If you have half as many kids learning to play, then you will eventually have fewer top-end athletes playing the sport in high school (unless you want to claim that rich families have a disproportionately high number of natural-born athletes).
If I'm right, then the solution to this problem would be to reduce the cost of playing hockey throughout the pipeline (not just at the start). Not an easy thing to do, when the quickest way to cut costs would be to reduce ice hours and amount of travel. You'd have some parents arguing that Little Johnny's inexorable drive to the NHL would stall if he wasn't playing full-sheet games at age 8, or playing full travel schedules in squirts. And since these gung-ho parents are the ones most likely to run (and campaign) for seats on the Association board that decides these things, their votes and voices will count more.
This is spot on. Recruiting new kids and finding creative cost saving strategies should be the number one goal of MN Hockey and each individual association year in and year out. If we don't get todays kids in they won't sign their own up in 20 years. Must build new hockey families, focus on getting kids who didn't have a dad that played...
And as I have pointed out cost issues are being addressed with free equipment and low registration fees for mites. Rec leagues (if in the metro area) for older kids. In small towns there are scholarships and fundraising opportunities. Small towns need bodies and they do whatever they can to get/keep kids on the ice.
As to AAA hockey, that has expanded so much there are opportunities for players of almost any caliber to play during the summer and develop. Example A: http://www.northlandhockeygroup.com/ .
Every time you guys come up with some hyperbole about why hockey is becoming a rich kids niche sport I not only rebuke your argument by pointing out the efforts that are being made to address those issues but follow it up by providing concrete links to websites that support my claim. I can come up with more links if you would like. The point is the game is available at lower cost options to those who seek it and want to keep playing. Your only legitimate comeback is that it's not high level hockey, so why bother trying? Well, neither is rec soccer, nor rec baseball, nor rec anything.
Froggy Richards 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.
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.
I started in on a long, detailed response before deciding that few would be interested in reading it.
So in brief...no sport requires specialization at age 4-6. Not even hockey. The costs of playing youth hockey after the first couple of years are really, really high. They're higher than most other sports (but on par or even cheaper than ballet). My belief is that these high costs are a significant deterrent for lower- or middle-income parents who aren't highly motivated to make the financial sacrifice (i.e. those with a hockey cultural background). I think that this is a big reason why youth hockey numbers at the front end of the pipeline have dropped significantly. And from there, it becomes mostly a numbers game. If you have half as many kids learning to play, then you will eventually have fewer top-end athletes playing the sport in high school (unless you want to claim that rich families have a disproportionately high number of natural-born athletes).
If I'm right, then the solution to this problem would be to reduce the cost of playing hockey throughout the pipeline (not just at the start). Not an easy thing to do, when the quickest way to cut costs would be to reduce ice hours and amount of travel. You'd have some parents arguing that Little Johnny's inexorable drive to the NHL would stall if he wasn't playing full-sheet games at age 8, or playing full travel schedules in squirts. And since these gung-ho parents are the ones most likely to run (and campaign) for seats on the Association board that decides these things, their votes and voices will count more.
This is spot on. Recruiting new kids and finding creative cost saving strategies should be the number one goal of MN Hockey and each individual association year in and year out. If we don't get todays kids in they won't sign their own up in 20 years. Must build new hockey families, focus on getting kids who didn't have a dad that played...
Maybe you are onto something...recruit/register a large base of young kids. Will be hard, but do able with the right marketing/advertisement technique(s). Set up classes to develop/teach kids how to be little hockey players. Charge a class fee for the different age/skill levels. This class fee will cover their practice times and help offset some of the high cost that some of the higher teams endure.
I have a buddy and his daughter is a gymnast. She is not on the top team, but somewhere on the third or fourth team. He pay's (are you hockey parents sitting down?), $1000 a month for his daughter to train annually, travel, and compete. Wow! But he also says the younger gymnast (class kids) pay accordingly to help offset the cost for the high level traveling teams. Of course, this is a private business, but the model works. Just my thoughts.
SCBlueLiner wrote:And as I have pointed out cost issues are being addressed with free equipment and low registration fees for mites. Rec leagues (if in the metro area) for older kids. In small towns there are scholarships and fundraising opportunities. Small towns need bodies and they do whatever they can to get/keep kids on the ice.
As to AAA hockey, that has expanded so much there are opportunities for players of almost any caliber to play during the summer and develop. Example A: http://www.northlandhockeygroup.com/ .
Every time you guys come up with some hyperbole about why hockey is becoming a rich kids niche sport I not only rebuke your argument by pointing out the efforts that are being made to address those issues but follow it up by providing concrete links to websites that support my claim. I can come up with more links if you would like. The point is the game is available at lower cost options to those who seek it and want to keep playing. Your only legitimate comeback is that it's not high level hockey, so why bother trying? Well, neither is rec soccer, nor rec baseball, nor rec anything.
Saying that rec hockey is a good enough alternative for families who can't afford to pay PeeWee or Bantam registration fees sets up a two-tier system based on income. It might not make hockey a country club sport, but it certainly sets up Minnesota High School Hockey to become a country club sport.
SCBlueLiner wrote: The point is the game is available at lower cost options to those who seek it and want to keep playing.
We hockey enthusiasts must seek out new players. Can't rely on them seeking out opportunities to play. And BTW the link you provided for the AAA team is $675 for the summer. Yes, less than other programs, but not exactly throw away dough for your regular middle class family.
SCBlueLiner wrote:And as I have pointed out cost issues are being addressed with free equipment and low registration fees for mites. Rec leagues (if in the metro area) for older kids. In small towns there are scholarships and fundraising opportunities. Small towns need bodies and they do whatever they can to get/keep kids on the ice.
As to AAA hockey, that has expanded so much there are opportunities for players of almost any caliber to play during the summer and develop. Example A: http://www.northlandhockeygroup.com/ .
Every time you guys come up with some hyperbole about why hockey is becoming a rich kids niche sport I not only rebuke your argument by pointing out the efforts that are being made to address those issues but follow it up by providing concrete links to websites that support my claim. I can come up with more links if you would like. The point is the game is available at lower cost options to those who seek it and want to keep playing. Your only legitimate comeback is that it's not high level hockey, so why bother trying? Well, neither is rec soccer, nor rec baseball, nor rec anything.
Saying that rec hockey is a good enough alternative for families who can't afford to pay PeeWee or Bantam registration fees sets up a two-tier system based on income. It might not make hockey a country club sport, but it certainly sets up Minnesota High School Hockey to become a country club sport.
That is assuming that rec league is available, which it is not for most of the state of MN. Also, if we are talking about how to save the tourney and save MN high school hockey, none of that helps. Rec hockey does not. Kids who start for free as a mite and quit as a squirt because they can't afford it don't. Kids who can barely afford it so they don't do any summer stuff don't. All that they are is a body in a body count that gets to a point at which the kids who are good enough to move on take a look at the kids around them and figure that if they want to move up they have to move on.
MN high school hockey is a country club sport right now. It is full of kids who train year around and that cost lots of money. All in all this sport is crazy expensive to play and play well at the high school level. As I understand the people who are behind MN High School Hockey want to preserve it and preserve the state tourney mystique right now. That is cool but unless they make some changes to keep the kids who can move on from moving on it is not gonna happen.
SCBlueLiner wrote: The point is the game is available at lower cost options to those who seek it and want to keep playing.
We hockey enthusiasts must seek out new players. Can't rely on them seeking out opportunities to play. And BTW the link you provided for the AAA team is $675 for the summer. Yes, less than other programs, but not exactly throw away dough for your regular middle class family.
That number does not include coaching fees, hotels, food while at tournies, gate fees, gas to get there and back, and etc. It also does not include any practices so your kid will have fun playing some hockey this summer but will not really be progressing forward at a pace with that kid who played A last year. If you want to get your kid up to speed with practices and coaching and etc you are gonna have to go the Mpls/StP camp routes and those are not free. Or get him on one of those high end AAA teams who will probably not take him since he is not a high end player and that is what they cater to. If he does make it on that team you will write some rather large checks.
Oh the days, being now an emptynester hockey dad.
I agree the cost of hockey is keeping parents away from the sport. The early youth hockey days for Mites Squirts to introduce the game and associations help defer the costs is great. The problem starts when little Johnny starts to show promise and people start looking to AAA hockey,camps and summer teams that get expensive.
As noted Hotels,gate fees,travel,gas,food and so may other incidentals that go along with.
But....................one I have yet to hear is shear cost of hockey gear, sticks @ $275 a pop, skates $500 plus,helmets pads on and on. Not just one stick, I think one senior year we went through at least 10 or more and of course the wonderful warrenty is never any good or can't be replaced by the end of the season. This is the older kids but it starts young and just gets worse as kids grown and replacements are needed. The average family really struggles to meet those costs and we were at least lucky enough to be done before it got to this point. But still a great sport,just expensive and not sure how too ever get around it!!!
bstarr15 wrote:Oh the days, being now an emptynester hockey dad.
I agree the cost of hockey is keeping parents away from the sport. The early youth hockey days for Mites Squirts to introduce the game and associations help defer the costs is great. The problem starts when little Johnny starts to show promise and people start looking to AAA hockey,camps and summer teams that get expensive.
As noted Hotels,gate fees,travel,gas,food and so may other incidentals that go along with.
But....................one I have yet to hear is shear cost of hockey gear, sticks @ $275 a pop, skates $500 plus,helmets pads on and on. Not just one stick, I think one senior year we went through at least 10 or more and of course the wonderful warrenty is never any good or can't be replaced by the end of the season. This is the older kids but it starts young and just gets worse as kids grown and replacements are needed. The average family really struggles to meet those costs and we were at least lucky enough to be done before it got to this point. But still a great sport,just expensive and not sure how too ever get around it!!!
And all the while I am thinking "thank God I don't have a goalie as I can't imagine what that must cost to buy them gear".
When did high school sports become a product? Do kids need to play 40 High School games to get "noticed?" High School Hockey is a big deal in Northern Minnesota where most of the town turns out for a game. Eden Prairie has more students than the Town of Roseau, but who would you suspect draws more people to a game? Is it really broken? There is the High School season, Spring Elite leagues, Summer elite leagues, Fall elite leagues, National teams, Reebok teams, and Camps at every major hockey college in the region. Oh yah, There is the USHL. I don't get it? If a kid can play hockey, they will find him with what is available. Example EGF, Defending state champs with a strong returning class, Ausmus leaves to the USHL and Bowen returns to play High School. It's not like there is no attention playing in MN high school. This is a defending State Champion, not a 7th place sectional team. Why would you let your child leave and miss what should be their best year high school experience. I would not judge all who leave, but I do recall a number of kids being offered a D1 scholarship from teams that do not make it to St. Paul. If you can play, you can play anywhere! Stop the panic, the fear that your child might miss out on something! Please don't misunderstand my point and think you should only stay if you have a winning team. Every kid is not a star, and being a star in high school doesn't mean you will make the next level. If you have the ability you will be seen staying at home. People should check their Ego's and relax and enjoy a great "Product." Too many people want to judge this sport by number of scholarships, players that get drafted, and players that make a national team. Does anyone ever consider the pressure it puts on kids trying to play what is still a game? I guess that is what happens when parents have up to $40,000 invested in their child's sport.
Why would you let your child leave and miss what should be their best year high school experience.
Not to mention cheering (or playing) for the football team, having a girlfriend, being elected to the student senate, going to prom, drag racing beater cars on county roads, getting caught trying sneak into the house after hitting the kegger in the woods...16-22 are some of the best years of your life. They don't write country songs about going off to live with some other family...
ted2you wrote:When did high school sports become a product? Do kids need to play 40 High School games to get "noticed?" High School Hockey is a big deal in Northern Minnesota where most of the town turns out for a game. Eden Prairie has more students than the Town of Roseau, but who would you suspect draws more people to a game? Is it really broken? There is the High School season, Spring Elite leagues, Summer elite leagues, Fall elite leagues, National teams, Reebok teams, and Camps at every major hockey college in the region. Oh yah, There is the USHL. I don't get it? If a kid can play hockey, they will find him with what is available. Example EGF, Defending state champs with a strong returning class, Ausmus leaves to the USHL and Bowen returns to play High School. It's not like there is no attention playing in MN high school. This is a defending State Champion, not a 7th place sectional team. Why would you let your child leave and miss what should be their best year high school experience. I would not judge all who leave, but I do recall a number of kids being offered a D1 scholarship from teams that do not make it to St. Paul. If you can play, you can play anywhere! Stop the panic, the fear that your child might miss out on something! Please don't misunderstand my point and think you should only stay if you have a winning team. Every kid is not a star, and being a star in high school doesn't mean you will make the next level. If you have the ability you will be seen staying at home. People should check their Ego's and relax and enjoy a great "Product." Too many people want to judge this sport by number of scholarships, players that get drafted, and players that make a national team. Does anyone ever consider the pressure it puts on kids trying to play what is still a game? I guess that is what happens when parents have up to $40,000 invested in their child's sport.
