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

Discussion of Minnesota Girls Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)

hockeychopper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 am

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

Post by hockeychopper » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:01 am

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are around the "health" of girls hockey. More from a youth perspective. Are the youth pipelines filling back up? Creative recruiting ideas from associations? Will we see more co-op's moving forward?

BluehawkHockey
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am

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

Post by BluehawkHockey » Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:51 am

hockeychopper wrote:Just curious what everyone's thoughts are around the "health" of girls hockey. More from a youth perspective. Are the youth pipelines filling back up? Creative recruiting ideas from associations? Will we see more co-op's moving forward?
I don't think it is bright right now. I would say it peaked a year or two ago and is on a downward slide currently. I wish it was still ascending and hopefully it is just a small downward blip.

I think we will be seeing a lot more co-ops. I don't think most associations want to put any effort into growing the girls game. They don't have time for that while they try to make their sons the next Gretzky.

We will see high schools suffering the consequences of this over the next few years. I've heard of several high schools that may be only fielding a Varsity team in the next few years because the numbers coming up won't support a JV and Varsity. There will also be more co-ops at the HS level in the next few years.

Hopefully, Minnesota Hockey will see the trend and start making an effort to help the districts and associations attract and retain girls hockey players.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:22 am

Is there even any interest in girls' youth hockey any more (or is there just no interest in this forum)? The last couple years March has been a pretty active month for threads - antics of coaches and parents at state, the eighty best girls at each age group all in St Cloud (not in Plymouth), antics of coaches and parents at AAA, whether some tournaments were better than others, kids playing down, the watering-down of AAA (summer) hockey... This winter, and so far this spring, there have been a couple parents interested in 12A, and that's about it.

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:25 am

Associations that work the hardest on recruiting are growing girls hockey. Some associations have been slow to grasp the new approach of doing extensive pro-active recruiting of both boys and girls. Much different than 10-15 years ago when associations didn't have to worry about the new extra effort involved in growing the game.

Minnesota hockey does have funds for recruiting efforts. I seem to remember they offer $500 for an approved, developed and executed effort.

Any stories about growing or shrinking girls numbers at specific associations?

In the metro certain suburbs rise and fall as the overall demographic ages. Someone mentioned to me that Prior Lake already reached their apex and is experiencing declining numbers now. They were probably never concerned with recruiting but now it has to be part of their associations plan for growth.

Coachk
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:27 pm

Post by Coachk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:03 am

observer wrote:Associations that work the hardest on recruiting are growing girls hockey. Some associations have been slow to grasp the new approach of doing extensive pro-active recruiting of both boys and girls. Much different than 10-15 years ago when associations didn't have to worry about the new extra effort involved in growing the game.

Minnesota hockey does have funds for recruiting efforts. I seem to remember they offer $500 for an approved, developed and executed effort.

Any stories about growing or shrinking girls numbers at specific associations?

In the metro certain suburbs rise and fall as the overall demographic ages. Someone mentioned to me that Prior Lake already reached their apex and is experiencing declining numbers now. They were probably never concerned with recruiting but now it has to be part of their associations plan for growth.
Sorry Observer, there was much recruiting going on back 10 to 15 years ago. Alot of going to organizations and helping them start a girls program from nothing. Fond memories now, a lot of uncertainly back then.

hockeychopper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 am

Post by hockeychopper » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:08 am

Are the number of girls playing squirts and pee-wees cutting into the girls numbers to make a difference? I assume it's some of the higher end kids playing with the boys and is it more "outstate" than in the metro due to overall numbers?

Observer, I think you nailed it. Some of the associations really didn't need to recruit new skaters they just showed up and played. Is it getting to the point now where association need to "sell their product" so to speak so the families keep their kids in the association rather than going to a Mn Made, etc?

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:23 pm

hockeychopper wrote:Are the number of girls playing squirts and pee-wees cutting into the girls numbers to make a difference? I assume it's some of the higher end kids playing with the boys and is it more "outstate" than in the metro due to overall numbers?

Observer, I think you nailed it. Some of the associations really didn't need to recruit new skaters they just showed up and played. Is it getting to the point now where association need to "sell their product" so to speak so the families keep their kids in the association rather than going to a Mn Made, etc?
Absolutely, associations need to sell themselves, to promote themselves, to provide a better product.

The girl in my house just completed her "U10" season. She has gone back and forth between girls and boys hockey in the winter. We moved to a new association two years ago. She played girls and did not like it. Because of a number of reasons, she and some teammates (all would have played U10A for this association) went to the Choice League this past season. My daughter had a good year, has been invited to play in the Super League, and will accept that invite.

There has been absolutely no attempt, by anybody from the association, to even ask why she switched to MN Made or if she'd like to return. However, the local girls' varsity coach regularly communicates with us to come watch her play.

To come back to the questions posed by hockeychopper. Yes, I do think the number of girls playing squirts and peewees makes a difference insofar that a great majority of these girls are difference makers for programs. If they were playing girls the quality of play might improve, which might make other girls better, which could lead to better retention and better recruiting abilities. It's somewhat of a chicken or egg argument, I realize, because many of the girls playing boys are good because they play boys.

As for recruiting, it has to be done with vigor because associations don't have a monopoly on playing options anymore, and it's a fair bet it's the better kids that leave and hurt the associations. There's also the side effects. Why let a family walk out the door that has the financial ability and/or desire to pay for hockey (let's face it, hockey's expensive)? And why foster a situation where a group of parents sit around with other parents at Made or at AAA and talk about why they left an association? It's simply a better practice to recruit everyone, even current players and parents, and keep them from leaving.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Thoughts

Post by zambonidriver » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:08 pm

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.

hockeychopper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 am

Re: Thoughts

Post by hockeychopper » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:22 pm

zambonidriver wrote:I Association hockey could then get back to what they were designed to do and offer an affordable opportunity for all kids to access hockey.

Zamboni, I agree on what you said about association hockey allowing all kids an "affordable" opportunity. So from the sounds of it, make association hockey more like rec hockey or even playground hockey then make the AAA, MN Made, etc. more of the showcase for the upper end girls? I also would like to see the season shortened. By the time fall camp starts and the season ends, these kids have been going non-stop 6 months or more.

BluehawkHockey
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Thoughts

Post by BluehawkHockey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:52 pm

It is possible a hybrid could work but I think there are a couple barriers, besides MN Hockey, to it. First, the opportunity to play against other teams is pretty limited until you get enough groups up an running. So unless you get a lot of groups to start up at one time, there won't be competition between organizations. Only competing against the same 3 or 4 teams all season is going to be boring. AAU may be the solution to this.

Second, ice time. Most associations have a pretty tight grip on the ice at the arenas they play at. If you think they will give up any of those hours easily to the competition, you might be drinking too much. So these AAA groups are going to need to have their own rinks. That makes it a high cost of entry for the AAA groups. MN Made have done a fine job of doing this but I don't know of any other groups with their own rinks or the stomach to take this on.


Providing an association with $500 to help recruit is laughable. When it takes at least $15k to run a team for a season, the $500 doesn't really do anything. Associations are going to need to do a lot more to try to get and keep girls playing hockey. I just don't think they care enough to do it. When MN Hockey forced the associations to support girls hockey, it worked and at least some effort was made. I would say the majority of association boards are made up of dads who are focused on the boys in the association. It is easier to focus on the boys and when was the last time one of the girls in the association made it to the NHL.

I think the only association in District 10 that didn't have a co-op on the girls side was Centennial. For everyone else, the girls numbers are down. I'm sure some associations in the state are growing the girls side but I think they are the exception, not the norm.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

more thoughts

Post by zambonidriver » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm

There are already more triple aaa teams than I can think of on the bothe the boys and girls sides.
There is enough Ice in the are to make this work. Triple a is entirely private so if you are on one of those teams you may be carting your kid from CI to Lakeville, that is the sacrifice most people are willing to make. Associations would have to change their structure and make their teams rec type teams Let's be clear under the model I would propose aa a b and c would be eliminated and all the teams would be coed at the association level, thus freeing up ice time to be sold to triple aaa organizations. The idea is to make hockey accessible for everyone and grow the game. The people on the upper end would be eliminated from the model as they would be on private teams.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:45 pm

It seems like 'AAA' and 'shorter season' pull in opposite directions.

BluehawkHockey
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am

Re: more thoughts

Post by BluehawkHockey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:38 pm

zambonidriver wrote:There are already more triple aaa teams than I can think of on the bothe the boys and girls sides.
There is enough Ice in the are to make this work. Triple a is entirely private so if you are on one of those teams you may be carting your kid from CI to Lakeville, that is the sacrifice most people are willing to make. Associations would have to change their structure and make their teams rec type teams Let's be clear under the model I would propose aa a b and c would be eliminated and all the teams would be coed at the association level, thus freeing up ice time to be sold to triple aaa organizations. The idea is to make hockey accessible for everyone and grow the game. The people on the upper end would be eliminated from the model as they would be on private teams.
Yes, there are lots of AAA teams but there are only a couple groups running programs in the winter when ice is scarce. So those summer AAA programs need to switch to run all year. The barrier to running all year is going to be getting ice in the winter. MN Made works because they have their own rinks. If you think an association that has been paying the mortgage on it's own rink for years is going to easily give up that ice, I think you are wrong. Should they, yes. But will they? I doubt it. And if they do, it will definitely be at a higher hourly rate than they pay. Remember, most of these summer AAA programs are paying lower off-prime summer rates. Increase their ice costs by 40% or more and the costs will really shoot up.

I think the real solution to get more girls into hockey and keep them is for Minnesota Hockey and each of the Districts to develop some programs to help the associations attract and retain girls. They also need to put some pressure on the associations to actually make an effort to support girls hockey. I also think the high school programs need to be more involved with the girls in youth hockey. Get the girls to want to play HS hockey and maybe more of them will stick with it.

goaliedad31
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:17 am

Post by goaliedad31 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:38 am

What is the goal here? It should be to build a strong and competitive high school team. For most of our girls playing high school hockey is the crowning achievement. Playing with their friends and growing and developing as a team is what they are going to remember. For few of them, it will also be to play college hockey. But unlike the boys program, the route to college hockey for the girls is solely through high school hockey.

I think that having girls going off and playing with the boys and other AAA programs ultimately diminishes that experience. IMO unless your girl is capable of playing AA boys hockey at the Peewee and Bantam levels (which is probably 4-5 girls in the state), she should be playing girls hockey.

We have 3 girls who will play with the boys next year at the B level. One may sneak onto an A team, but none will make AA. With those girls in the girls program we would be a top ten team. Without them we will struggle.
Having seen their development, I think they would have progressed more on a competitive girls team than they have playing B boys hockey. And they would be developing the friendships that make it fun. When they finally come over at the high school level, they are not likely to have the friendships and rapport they would otherwise have had.

Sometimes I think it is more about the parents and being able to say my girls is good enough to play with the boys than it is about creating a great experience for their daughter. Work harder at creating a good association team instead of year round AAA teams, because in the end they will be playing high school hockey.

hockeychopper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 am

Post by hockeychopper » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:25 am

goaliedad31 wrote:What is the goal here? It should be to build a strong and competitive high school team. For most of our girls playing high school hockey is the crowning achievement. Playing with their friends and growing and developing as a team is what they are going to remember. .
I agree about building a strong/competitive HS team, but that seems to be getting harder to do as families are choosing to go the way of private schools, open enrolling and trying to chase the state tourney dream. I'm curious as to how many HS Girls coaches are "truly" involved in the youth program in the community where they coach. Not just showing up from time to time but really investing their time in the youth program. I support 100% if families choose the private schools for reasons other than hockey/sports but I'm not sure that's the case in many instances. Are AAA teams (families) pulling kids away from their home association just so they can continue to play with kids they play with over the summer? Are associations/Districts making it too easy for kids to waiver out? Does it make sense for more co-op's on the girls side due to the numbers?

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:32 am

goaliedad31 wrote:What is the goal here? It should be to build a strong and competitive high school team. For most of our girls playing high school hockey is the crowning achievement. Playing with their friends and growing and developing as a team is what they are going to remember. For few of them, it will also be to play college hockey. But unlike the boys program, the route to college hockey for the girls is solely through high school hockey.

I think that having girls going off and playing with the boys and other AAA programs ultimately diminishes that experience. IMO unless your girl is capable of playing AA boys hockey at the Peewee and Bantam levels (which is probably 4-5 girls in the state), she should be playing girls hockey.

We have 3 girls who will play with the boys next year at the B level. One may sneak onto an A team, but none will make AA. With those girls in the girls program we would be a top ten team. Without them we will struggle.
Having seen their development, I think they would have progressed more on a competitive girls team than they have playing B boys hockey. And they would be developing the friendships that make it fun. When they finally come over at the high school level, they are not likely to have the friendships and rapport they would otherwise have had.

Sometimes I think it is more about the parents and being able to say my girls is good enough to play with the boys than it is about creating a great experience for their daughter. Work harder at creating a good association team instead of year round AAA teams, because in the end they will be playing high school hockey.
My proposal is to grow girls hockey as a whole. Here are the main problems I see with the growth of girls hockey.
1. Too expensive for the average family.
2. High school coaches robbing younger and younger ages to fill their J.V programs.
3. The late bloomers are pushed out of hockey before they can bloom.
4. Associations look at girls programs as an afterthought.
5. Winning is put ahead of development
6. The recognition that girls play sports for different reasons than boys.
Solutions to these are relatively simple
1. Allow triple A programs to operate during the winter.
A. These are private programs that find their own ice and set their own fees and start in October
B. Tryouts are open to the public and each organization can have 1 team at each level on both the boys and girls sides.g
2. Local association hockey starts during Christmas break at a considerably reduced price. Basically the cost of a practice jersey and ice 3 times a week and refs. Do away with levels abc and just divide by age. Basically recreation hockey.
3. With all inclusive recreation hockey kids can join at any age and develop at heir own pace. The late bloomers can bloom and choose to try out for their high school team or continue with recreational association hockey.
A. The advanced players would play in the triple A programs and when the reach high school would then tryout for their high school teams.
B. There are enough triple A programs right now to support this and other programs would start.
4. Boys and girls could join recreational association hockey and be placed in equal numbers on their local teams. Then the associations would not be pressured to win at the abc level because there would be no abc level. Just age divisions. All levels practice two days a week and play games on sat and Sunday.
5. Being there are no abc teams and no pressure to really win development could be stressed.
6. The girls who are competitive could tryout for the triple aaa programs and the girls who want to play for other reasons could play for them.
What this model does is takes politics out of the system.
The people who want their children on a real competitive track would have the triple A option these teams being privately funded and run by their owners groups you then take the people who try to take over the associations for their own child's interest out of the equation.
The associations would have there power restored because they don't have to cow-tow to the overzealous parent who wants their child to be pushed. Because the associations can then refer the people to their mission statement and by-laws and tell these people by choosing to play association hockey they have agreed to abide by the rules of the association.
Now for this to work mn hockey and all of the hockey associations throughout the state would have to sign off. Which we all know would never happen.
Remember Herb Brooks was considered a crack pot at one time.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:22 am

hockeychopper wrote:
goaliedad31 wrote:What is the goal here? It should be to build a strong and competitive high school team. For most of our girls playing high school hockey is the crowning achievement. Playing with their friends and growing and developing as a team is what they are going to remember. .
I agree about building a strong/competitive HS team, but that seems to be getting harder to do as families are choosing to go the way of private schools, open enrolling and trying to chase the state tourney dream. I'm curious as to how many HS Girls coaches are "truly" involved in the youth program in the community where they coach. Not just showing up from time to time but really investing their time in the youth program. I support 100% if families choose the private schools for reasons other than hockey/sports but I'm not sure that's the case in many instances. Are AAA teams (families) pulling kids away from their home association just so they can continue to play with kids they play with over the summer? Are associations/Districts making it too easy for kids to waiver out? Does it make sense for more co-op's on the girls side due to the numbers?
A couple of points:

1) It might not even be chasing the dream of playing in a state tourney. It can be as simple as enrolling to play with other AAA friends in high school, or (and this is significant) enrolling into a school with good coaches or ones you've met in the past through offseason hockey.

2) I regularly speak with the JV coach for my local high school, as his daughter and mine play on a common AAA team. He is beyond dismayed with the poor coaching in the youth association on the girls' side, but does not feel it's the high school coaches' place to impose upon the youth association and its decisions.

I regularly dispute this, as the association provides his team with its talent, and therefore he absolutely has a right to interject and work with the association. But the schism remains and it hurts both entities as a result. The youth association continues to provide a product deemed unacceptable to the high school, and the high school, in turn, receives unprepared players.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:28 am

It seems like 'AAA' and 'Too expensive for the average family' pull in opposite directions.

It seems like 'The people who want their children on a real competitive track would have the triple A option' and 'The late bloomers are pushed out of hockey before they can bloom' pull in opposite directions.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:46 am

InigoMontoya wrote:It seems like 'AAA' and 'Too expensive for the average family' pull in opposite directions.

It seems like 'The people who want their children on a real competitive track would have the triple A option' and 'The late bloomers are pushed out of hockey before they can bloom' pull in opposite directions.
I guess I wasn't clear the idea is to grow the game. Their are two types of girls that play the first is the real competitive group that take it very seriously and the others who join for purely social reasons. By having a hybrid system you can take care of both and allow the associations to do what they were designed to do and that is offer the game in a relaxed fun atmosphere to all age and skill levels and the people who are win at all cost can play triple A.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:27 am

I guess that assumes a clear distinction between the 'two types of girls'. I don't think that bell curve has two humps. My guess is you have about 70% of girls that fall within 1 standard deviation of wanting a combination of competitive and social - if anything, given the barriers to entry you presented, I'd say most MN girls hockey players probably fall on the right slope. The A-B system as it currently exists covers almost all of them. One of the things that irritates parents of the boys is that the girls already have a built-in system for the higher achievers, that is cost efficient and local - squirt and peewee hockey.

I'll also disagree a bit with the AA-only comment from gd31. (I'll preface by saying, if good options are available for girls on the girls side (good teammates, good competition, good coaching), I'd love to see the exceptional girls play with the girls - I think it's good for girls hockey. On any team, in any sport, at any level, somebody has to be the best player, hopefully one that can learn to improve, while also helping those around her become better. That said, not all girl options are good options - for many of the reasons already stated on this thread.) I've seen girls play squirt and peewee B hockey, and in my experience, it hasn't been an exceptional fit for anyone involved (not saying there aren't examples out there where it was the best option...), however, a case can be made for A hockey (not just AA). First example let's use the bell cow, Edina. Making the 12A team (even the white team) is a great option, one that most competitive girls and parents around the state would snatch up quickly. The hornets Peewee AA team is great, the Peewee A team is very, very good - a girl that didn't make the AA team, but played on the A team would experience a little faster paced, little more skilled, little more physical game than she would at 12A. Without starting an argument, we can all imagine to ourselves how the 12's would compete against that peewee team head-to-head (and while you imagine, could the peewee A team hold their own with the speed and physicality of the girls high school game?). Second example, Orono has had a lot of success at the bantam A and peewee A level, but has struggled a little with girls numbers. The 12 program does OK, but a girl from that program playing on that peewee A team could make a case that she may end the season more prepared for girls high school hockey than her classmates on the 12A team.

hockeychopper
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 am

Post by hockeychopper » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:43 am

A common thing I hear not only in this thread but in many others as well is, there are a lot of really good ideas that get thrown out but the common theme is MN hockey and the associations will never allow this to happen. Has anyone from a girls perspective ever really pushed the envelope so to speak and really tried to push these ideas up the chain? I know girls hockey is always a back burner topic at best but can't we get enough voices together to make a push to get these things talked about? Isn't there a girls hockey rep on the board at MN Hockey? If so what the heck are they doing about this? These are all great topics and great discussions but it seems as if these get dismissed as quickly as they are brought up.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:58 am

hockeychopper wrote:A common thing I hear not only in this thread but in many others as well is, there are a lot of really good ideas that get thrown out but the common theme is MN hockey and the associations will never allow this to happen. Has anyone from a girls perspective ever really pushed the envelope so to speak and really tried to push these ideas up the chain? I know girls hockey is always a back burner topic at best but can't we get enough voices together to make a push to get these things talked about? Isn't there a girls hockey rep on the board at MN Hockey? If so what the heck are they doing about this? These are all great topics and great discussions but it seems as if these get dismissed as quickly as they are brought up.
I proposed an idea to my home association a few years ago to grow the game similar to the way the CAA in St. Paul works Passed it on to our girls director and our association president I don't think it was talked about. The problem with associations is that there is only one voice representing the girls programs usually that girls director is so overloaded with other issues it is hard to reform anything. Let's face it associations are political entities and unless you have some highly courageous people things will be done the same way as always. Just a fact of the way things are. Girls in the hockey community are not as important as boys a prime example is the coverage of girls hockey on Youth Hockey Hub. The state tournament coverage this year was proof of that.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:59 am

hockeychopper wrote:A common thing I hear not only in this thread but in many others as well is, there are a lot of really good ideas that get thrown out but the common theme is MN hockey and the associations will never allow this to happen. Has anyone from a girls perspective ever really pushed the envelope so to speak and really tried to push these ideas up the chain? I know girls hockey is always a back burner topic at best but can't we get enough voices together to make a push to get these things talked about? Isn't there a girls hockey rep on the board at MN Hockey? If so what the heck are they doing about this? These are all great topics and great discussions but it seems as if these get dismissed as quickly as they are brought up.
I proposed an idea to my home association a few years ago to grow the game similar to the way the CAA in St. Paul works Passed it on to our girls director and our association president I don't think it was talked about. The problem with associations is that there is only one voice representing the girls programs usually that girls director is so overloaded with other issues it is hard to reform anything. Let's face it associations are political entities and unless you have some highly courageous people things will be done the same way as always. Just a fact of the way things are. Girls in the hockey community are not as important as boys a prime example is the coverage of girls hockey on Youth Hockey Hub. The state tournament coverage this year was proof of that.

Lace'emUp
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:37 am

Post by Lace'emUp » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:26 pm

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.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:49 pm

Lace'emUp wrote: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.

Post Reply