Tier 1 Winter Hockey has no place in Minnesota

[Froggy Richards]

This week MN Hockey is discussing the idea of allowing Winter Tier 1 teams to be chartered and participate in MN.

Doug Riseborough, (Former NHL Player, GM of the Wild and a Canadian) says that the best Youth Hockey in the WORLD is being played right here in Minnesota. Why is that? What sets MN apart from every other State in the country?

It's simple. In Minnesota, hockey is Community based and thus supported by the entire community. The communities build and maintain the arenas and outdoor rinks and provide the support system to keep them successful. The entire community is invested. There are very few towns in MN, regardless of size, that don't have at least an outdoor rink maintained by the community. This keeps hockey affordable in MN and available to the masses. This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Other States don't have this commitment from the community. So they were forced to create Tier 1 Hockey, where 14 kids from 3 States come together from 14 different communities to form teams. In most States, very few can afford the Thousands of Dollars, the cross-country travel, and the time commitment to make this happen. In most cases, Hockey has become a game that is available to a very small number of kids in other parts of the country.

In Minnesota, kids grow up dreaming of one day putting on that High School Jersey and playing for their High School. They go to all of the games and wait outside the locker rooms trying to get a glimpse of the players. They see them out in the community and know who they are. This drives their passion and commitment for the game. How many kids grow up dreaming of pulling on that Honey Baked or Little Caesar's Jersey? How many have even heard of these teams? How many people are in the stands for those games? I'd be willing to bet you could add up the attendance for both teams for an entire 50 game season and it wouldn't equal one Section Final in Minnesota.

Some will say, "This is America, what's wrong with choices? Create competition and allow the chips to fall where they may." That works in a lot of instances, but not in today's youth sports culture. All of us here are hockey parents, so we know better than any that most hockey parents don't think rationally when it comes to our kids. If we allow these teams, many will think they MUST spend the money, travel the country, give up their lives and their kid's childhood or Little Johnny will fall behind. And there will be people lined up all across the State that will happily take your money, because they have the answer for how to create the Elite hockey player. If you don't take advantage of it, Little Johnny won't be considered Elite, and you can't afford to allow that for your kid. Your kid deserves better. Sometimes we have to be saved from ourselves. For every disillusioned parent that falls for this, it's one more family that is removed from the Community hockey system. If it snowballs, then the community based programs will suffer, and we will become another Massachusetts. Reach out and ask them how it has worked out for them.

MN produces more Division 1 and Pro players than any other State in the Country. As long as we maintain our Community based programs and continue to improve them, it will only get better. If we fall to the fallacy that Little Johnny will fall behind unless we spend X amount of dollars and put on X amount of miles, then we will become just like every other State. Other States are tired of being so far behind Minnesota in hockey and would love to level the playing field. Ask yourselves why they are pushing for Tier 1 in Minnesota.

The below link is to the contact page for the MN Hockey Board of Directors, along with the District Directors from every District across the State. Please take the time to e-mail President Margenau, along with the Director from your District with your thoughts on this topic. Please act quickly as this is being discussed right now. Once we open Pandora's box, then the Money takes over like it has in everything else in the country. We can influence this outcome if everyone acts. Let's preserve the game and keep it available to everyone, so that they have the same opportunities that we did. Or else someday we'll be sitting around the campfire with our Grandkids, telling them, "Back when I was a kid everyone could play hockey. No, seriously, they could, I'm not kidding."

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/show/86521-board

[JSR]

This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

[SCBlueLiner]

A loud roar of applause for this poster.

[Froggy Richards]

This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

Number of Players (2012-2013)

Minnesota: 53,935
Michigan: 51,929
Mass: 46,716

Population

Michigan 9,876,187
Mass 6,587,536
Minnesota 5,344,861

[MWS coach]

I do get a good laugh out of how one sided opinions are when it comes to the Tier 1 topic!

It is either, if it happens doom and gloom which also has the take that the only reason anyone would do tier 1 is they think little Johnny is falling behind.

Or, we need to have a choice, it is not fair we don't have a choice.

First, my opinion is Tier 1 is not needed in Minnesota and our model IS the envy of the rest of the nation.

That said, if done properly (in limited fashion) I don't think doom and gloom is necessarily a forgone conclusion.

The first thing to realize is the only way actual tier 1 happens in Minnesota is if MN Hockey allows it and sanctions it. Without a membership card, you are not a part of the club which includes USA Hockey. You simply can not play.

In order to have that happen and not have doom and gloom, then you need to create a limited number of charters (2-4) and have them run by a non profit board (just like every assocation in Minnesota). In the event you open up the flood gate and allow a charter to a tier 1 team that is for profit, yes then doom and gloom and the abolition of assocation hockey as we know it today is in great risk.

A limited number of teams would not dilute the talent pool so much that what we know today would still exist just as it does today.

Like I said, not for me, but for those that really do want the national competition all year around, so be it. I really don't think there would be this grand exodus of players. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

I do think there is a lot more to it then just the falling behind. I think many people realize there is great opportunity to play teams from outside of Minnesota (I will add a lot of really good teams). Summer hockey has influenced the minds of many as they head off to Winnipeg, Chicago, Detroit, Boston... and so on for summer hockey. In addition, for many parents, they see the upside not only of games, but the development during practices with many more high end kids. Take your pick of top end summer teams and compare that to level of kids on association team. Is 10-15 much strong on the 2000 Orange team then 10-15 on just about every association?

In the end, does that equate to a much stronger player and increase the chance they will some day be the 1%? I don't think so, but many families have a lot of disposable income that they would gladly contribute in the event that it just may make a difference... While yes, there are some that would jump all over this, I don't think that is the masses (especially if done in limited fashion).

Revolution while based out of Des Moines was basically a MN team. They had a team at 04 and 99 level. The other levels did not get enough of a commitment of players to form teams. A few practices a winter in Des Moines was enough to make a family decide not to participate, yet those were a minimal part of the travel schedule? I just don't see the doom and gloom coming about, just my two cents.

[SCBlueLiner]

"In order to have that happen and not have doom and gloom, then you need to create a limited number of charters (2-4) and have them run by a non profit board (just like every assocation in Minnesota)."

If it has to happen than this is is the way it should happen. Nobody should be profiting off this.

[MWS coach]

"In order to have that happen and not have doom and gloom, then you need to create a limited number of charters (2-4) and have them run by a non profit board (just like every assocation in Minnesota)."

If it has to happen than this is is the way it should happen. Nobody should be profiting off this.

Exactly... If you look at Mass, that is really what changed is it went from non-profit to for profit...The snowball started rolling down the hill and just kept getting bigger and bigger.

[JSR]

This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

Number of Players (2012-2013)

Minnesota: 53,935
Michigan: 51,929
Mass: 46,716

Population

Michigan 9,876,187
Mass 6,587,536
Minnesota 5,344,861

Thank you for posting those stats and proving my point

[DrGaf]

This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

Number of Players (2012-2013)

Minnesota: 53,935
Michigan: 51,929
Mass: 46,716

Population

Michigan 9,876,187
Mass 6,587,536
Minnesota 5,344,861

MN = 1%
MA = 0.7%
MI = 0.5%

Ever notice how they all start with "M"?

Do we have numbers for Montana and Mississippi? Maine or Missouri?

I think we stumbled onto something here.

[DrGaf]

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

Number of Players (2012-2013)

Minnesota: 53,935
Michigan: 51,929
Mass: 46,716

Population

Michigan 9,876,187
Mass 6,587,536
Minnesota 5,344,861

Thank you for posting those stats and proving my point

Uh, I don't think it does. Lawn darts and hand grenades argument.
Half a percent in that large of a number means something.

[JSR]

In order to have that happen and not have doom and gloom, then you need to create a limited number of charters (2-4) and have them run by a non profit board (just like every assocation in Minnesota). In the event you open up the flood gate and allow a charter to a tier 1 team that is for profit, yes then doom and gloom and the abolition of assocation hockey as we know it today is in great risk.

There are nonprofit Tier 1 teams in the nation? Really? I don't think exist in WI or IL and I think most of them in Michigan are for profit..... If they are technically listed as non-profit then you wouldn't know it if you've ever been part of any of them

A limited number of teams would not dilute the talent pool so much that what we know today would still exist just as it does today.

Totally agree with this

Revolution while based out of Des Moines was basically a MN team. They had a team at 04 and 99 level. The other levels did not get enough of a commitment of players to form teams. A few practices a winter in Des Moines was enough to make a family decide not to participate, yet those were a minimal part of the travel schedule? I just don't see the doom and gloom coming about, just my two cents.

The Revolution had a 2000 team last year as well. We played them

[JSR]

Number of Players (2012-2013)

Minnesota: 53,935
Michigan: 51,929
Mass: 46,716

Population

Michigan 9,876,187
Mass 6,587,536
Minnesota 5,344,861

Thank you for posting those stats and proving my point

Uh, I don't think it does. Lawn darts and hand grenades argument.
Half a percent in that large of a number means something.

I don't think the difference between Mass and MN is significantly different enough to call it "dwarfing", hence proving my point because he used the phrase "all other states".... so yes proves my point definitively. thanks though

[Froggy Richards]

Thank you for posting those stats and proving my point

Uh, I don't think it does. Lawn darts and hand grenades argument.
Half a percent in that large of a number means something.

I don't think the difference between Mass and MN is significantly different enough to call it "dwarfing", hence proving my point because he used the phrase "all other states".... so yes proves my point definitively. thanks though

I also used the word "rate." Not total numbers.

Definition of rate: A value describing one quantity in terms of another quantity. (Numbers vs. Population in this instance)

Mass has 1.2 MILLION more people than MN and 7,219 less hockey players. Dr. Gaf wins this round.

[JSR]

Uh, I don't think it does. Lawn darts and hand grenades argument.
Half a percent in that large of a number means something.

I don't think the difference between Mass and MN is significantly different enough to call it "dwarfing", hence proving my point because he used the phrase "all other states".... so yes proves my point definitively. thanks though

I also used the word "rate." Not total numbers.

Definition of rate: A value describing one quantity in terms of another quantity. (Numbers vs. Population in this instance)

Mass has 1.2 MILLION more people than MN and 7,219 less hockey players. Dr. Gaf wins this round.

I understood the first time around and your still wrong, but I shouldn't have expected anything less from the biggest MN homer on this board

[MWS coach]

C'Mon guys, CHEESEHEADS are never wrong!!!

Only a little over 7000 more MN players then Mass, close enough right?

[MWS coach]

In order to have that happen and not have doom and gloom, then you need to create a limited number of charters (2-4) and have them run by a non profit board (just like every assocation in Minnesota). In the event you open up the flood gate and allow a charter to a tier 1 team that is for profit, yes then doom and gloom and the abolition of assocation hockey as we know it today is in great risk.

There are nonprofit Tier 1 teams in the nation? Really? I don't think exist in WI or IL and I think most of them in Michigan are for profit..... If they are technically listed as non-profit then you wouldn't know it if you've ever been part of any of them

A limited number of teams would not dilute the talent pool so much that what we know today would still exist just as it does today.

Totally agree with this

Revolution while based out of Des Moines was basically a MN team. They had a team at 04 and 99 level. The other levels did not get enough of a commitment of players to form teams. A few practices a winter in Des Moines was enough to make a family decide not to participate, yet those were a minimal part of the travel schedule? I just don't see the doom and gloom coming about, just my two cents.

The Revolution had a 2000 team last year as well. We played them

I know they are all for profit, that is a big part of what drives the price skyward. I get it, Blades are a non-profit, but are they really?

I stand corrected on 2000 team, but still none at 2003, 2002, 2001... Of 6 levels were only able to put together three teams with one per level, not overwhelming departures

[elliott70]

What I do not understand is why a Wisconsin man is so interested in starting Tier I hockey in Minnesota.

[SCBlueLiner]

What I do not understand is why a Wisconsin man is so interested in starting Tier I hockey in Minnesota.

Simple. It gives those teams more local/regional opponents to play so they won't have to fly to Pittsburgh, Boston, Dallas, etc. Tier 1 proponents want to spread Tier 1 so it gives their players more chances to make more teams and more teams to play against. It keeps their costs down.

Edit to add: they also want a shot at Minnesota kids because they want to see how they stack up and if they really are as good.

[Froggy Richards]

I don't think the difference between Mass and MN is significantly different enough to call it "dwarfing", hence proving my point because he used the phrase "all other states".... so yes proves my point definitively. thanks though

I also used the word "rate." Not total numbers.

Definition of rate: A value describing one quantity in terms of another quantity. (Numbers vs. Population in this instance)

Mass has 1.2 MILLION more people than MN and 7,219 less hockey players. Dr. Gaf wins this round.

I understood the first time around and your still wrong, but I shouldn't have expected anything less from the biggest MN homer on this board

I've been called worse. You know what they say, Chicks dig the long ball!

So, I'm wrong eh? I guess that means you were wrong when you posted the exact same thing in April of 2009 then?????

JSR

Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:36 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying but I think I have to disagree. While I do agree that Minnesota could probably put together several teams of equal magnitude and that overall depth is vastly greater in Minnesota we are talking about a single team. Because Wisconsin's best players are spread out all over the state putting together the "best" team is difficult at the youth levels (a little eaiser at the high school levels) where as because of overall depth you could do one just in the Metro area. However, theoretically if you could put together the "best" team from Wisconsin (just one team, 15 skaters and two goalies) I think the match up would be pretty even. You are correct about depth in one sense but I think you are overstating it by limiiting it to 3 or 4 players, that is silly. Again Minne could probably put together 3 or 4 of these teams and Wisky only one but we are only talking about ONE team here and that's a huge difference. As fr the comment about being sadnwhiched in between two great hockey states. Yes Minne and Michigan are fantastic hockey states but Minnesota has the great hockey history and is an anomoly in it's percentage of population participating in the sport (no one else has that), with Michigan they actually have about the same percentage of their population participating in the sprot as Wisconsin but the difference is they have twice the population and hence a little over twice as many kids playing the sport. It's not AS MUCH about losing kids to basketball as it is we do not have the tradition of Minnesota or the population of the other big hockey states. In order the states with the largest numbers of USA Hockey registered players are:

Michigan (50,000+)
Minnesota (50,000+)
New York (44,000+)
Massachussetts (41,000+)
Illinois (22,000+)
California (21,000+)
Wisconsin (17,000+)
Pennsylvania (15,000+)

By just pure numbers Wisconsin is the 7th largest hockey state in the country. Look at the states listed above and consider (aside from Minnesota, the exception to the rule) how vastly larger the populations of those other states are compared to Wisconsin, when taken into consideration Wisconsin actually is doimg well and continues to grow.

[JSR]

What I do not understand is why a Wisconsin man is so interested in starting Tier I hockey in Minnesota.

I'm not. I am not the one starting Tier 1, that is others. Ultimately I really could care less if you do it or not up there. I just find the discussion interesting and like to chime in on it or start the topic for fun. No differently than you guys liking to post on other topics relating to kids hockey.

[JSR]

What I do not understand is why a Wisconsin man is so interested in starting Tier I hockey in Minnesota.

Simple. It gives those teams more local/regional opponents to play so they won't have to fly to Pittsburgh, Boston, Dallas, etc. Tier 1 proponents want to spread Tier 1 so it gives their players more chances to make more teams and more teams to play against. It keeps their costs down.

Edit to add: they also want a shot at Minnesota kids because they want to see how they stack up and if they really are as good.

It's Minnesota people who are driving this, not outsiders. So I think you are off base. See my post above, we have ample competition for our team that is just as close, if not closer than Minneapolis, so having 1 or two teams up there is not that big of a deal

[JSR]

I also used the word "rate." Not total numbers.

Definition of rate: A value describing one quantity in terms of another quantity. (Numbers vs. Population in this instance)

Mass has 1.2 MILLION more people than MN and 7,219 less hockey players. Dr. Gaf wins this round.

I understood the first time around and your still wrong, but I shouldn't have expected anything less from the biggest MN homer on this board

I've been called worse. You know what they say, Chicks dig the long ball!

So, I'm wrong eh? I guess that means you were wrong when you posted the exact same thing in April of 2009 then?????

JSR

Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:36 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying but I think I have to disagree. While I do agree that Minnesota could probably put together several teams of equal magnitude and that overall depth is vastly greater in Minnesota we are talking about a single team. Because Wisconsin's best players are spread out all over the state putting together the "best" team is difficult at the youth levels (a little eaiser at the high school levels) where as because of overall depth you could do one just in the Metro area. However, theoretically if you could put together the "best" team from Wisconsin (just one team, 15 skaters and two goalies) I think the match up would be pretty even. You are correct about depth in one sense but I think you are overstating it by limiiting it to 3 or 4 players, that is silly. Again Minne could probably put together 3 or 4 of these teams and Wisky only one but we are only talking about ONE team here and that's a huge difference. As fr the comment about being sadnwhiched in between two great hockey states. Yes Minne and Michigan are fantastic hockey states but Minnesota has the great hockey history and is an anomoly in it's percentage of population participating in the sport (no one else has that), with Michigan they actually have about the same percentage of their population participating in the sprot as Wisconsin but the difference is they have twice the population and hence a little over twice as many kids playing the sport. It's not AS MUCH about losing kids to basketball as it is we do not have the tradition of Minnesota or the population of the other big hockey states. In order the states with the largest numbers of USA Hockey registered players are:

Michigan (50,000+)
Minnesota (50,000+)
New York (44,000+)
Massachussetts (41,000+)
Illinois (22,000+)
California (21,000+)
Wisconsin (17,000+)
Pennsylvania (15,000+)

By just pure numbers Wisconsin is the 7th largest hockey state in the country. Look at the states listed above and consider (aside from Minnesota, the exception to the rule) how vastly larger the populations of those other states are compared to Wisconsin, when taken into consideration Wisconsin actually is doimg well and continues to grow.

Mass's participation numbers grew considerably from 2009 to 2014, hence was right back then but still right now.... glad to see you have that much time on your hands to go looking for something posted 5 years ago though, that isn't sad or anything....

[Froggy Richards]

LOL, It's called a Search Function, took me two minutes. You change your argument whenever it suits you. I knew it would be there, just had to type it in. Why waste time debating when I can just paste your own words?

[Bluewhitefan]

This is why participation rates in MN dwarf that of every other state.

Techincally this is not true. Michigan's enrolled USA Hockey numbers are on par with Minensota's as are Massachussettes, the number of kids they send to D1 re not but technically participation numbers are similar

Numbers are on par, but rate is not. MN rate dwarfs that of MI, assuming one would consider a rate of double to be significant enough to dwarf the other.

[SWPrez]

Froggy,

Your post is somewhat deceptive....stating that Tier I will be allowed by MN Hockey and it will decimate community hockey...so call the MN Hockey Board.

Here is what I understand is going on:

Duluth Wings and MN Blades are requesting to skate BEFORE & AFTER the high school season for 18U and 16U. Both of these programs have had these 18U and 16U teams for over a decade. They have only played in the fall and not in the spring. They are requesting the opportunity to play after the conclusion of the high school hockey season. In doing this, they are requesting Tier I status so that their teams can compete against Shattuck to go to nationals.

Their requesting Tier I does not effect community based hockey at all. What it does do is give more kids opportunities for national exposure when many college coaches seasons have ended and they have time to look at kids at Nationals....what's wrong with giving MN kids more opportunities in front of scouts and coaches?

This should be a no-brainer for MN Hockey. It does not damage community based hockey in any way. It does not damage the 'crown jewel of MN Hockey - the State High School hockey tourney. It give more MN kids exposure on a national basis.

Last year, MN High school hockey lost 41 players to juniors, Midget Major and Minor....MN needs to be creative in having options in addition to the Elite League - which, has lost some of its luster over the last several years due to 'inside baseball' and drifting from its original mission (a league mainly formed to keep and showcase seniors playing in MN and providing them exposure for post high school play) when they decided to open the league up for younger players who ultimately leave at their junior or senior year. Having more options will keep more kids playing in the high school ranks.

It is my understanding that Achiever Academy or some other school is also requesting Tier I status. I really don't know much about this situation.

We have great hockey here. I do not believe there is any way that Tier I at younger levels can compete here - it just costs too much to run and operate arenas for private operations and community rinks are the key to keeping community based hockey affordable. Yes, MN Made seems to do OK....but how much room is there for more MN Made's? There are only so many kids and parents that want to pay that kind of money. The model runs out of bodies pretty quick and Tier I really would be limited - plus...imagine the cost for all of the travel....$15k+ per season? Not many takers on that when we have a much less expensive product in our community based set up that provides excellent local competition.

Your message makes it sound like the MN Board is reviewing Tier 1 at all levels...I think you are mistaken...they are reviewing Tier 1 at a high school before/after season...again, something that has all positives for MN kids and MN Hockey, and no negatives.