Another discussion on Tier 1 AAA teams

[muckandgrind]

There have to be some guidelines that are followed. If choice was the criteria then we would have the option(for instance) for teams chosing to have checking at mites, 25 on a roster, or 7X7 play. They are not necessarily bad, but need to be weighed and a decision made if it gives a net benefit. The same with Tier I.

Jancze, you bring up a very good point about available ice. Local community rinks dedicate their prime time ice to the local associations. Not even Wally Shaver can buck this. There are other questions that need to be weighed. Some of mine are:

How many teams? What rule is going to dictate the limit? Are we fine with watered down hockey that is Tier I in name only (see summer hockey)? If you restrict the number, how will you legally be able to defend it when challenged?

How will teams be selected? What is the criteria? One argument for Tier I is that it gives the awesome player rotting on a small association losing team a chance to be on a winning team. How will you guarantee that the Tier I team will be a winning team with great coaching, team management, and development? Many use the Fire of example of positive Tier I experience. How does a startup guarantee that? The Fire still has slip-ups like the coach cert fiasco of last year. Tier I also won’t eliminate power struggles. The Fire had internal strife with a coach who played his kid the whole game. Tier I is not immune to the stereotypical association issues.

Will they be for profit or non profit? MH is dedicated to a non profit model. Tier I generally is not.

Will MH be pressed to provide scholarships for poor kids to play? Or will these teams only serve the affluent?

Those are just my off the cuff questions. There are probably many other concerns. The grass isn't always greener.

I agree with just about everything you said. There ARE some hurdles involved with getting it started, but I think it's something that's worthwhile and something that WILL eventually happen.

My bet is the MM will be the first one to offer a Tier I program in the winter. The groundwork is already being laid with their "Choice" hockey for Mites and Squirts in the winter. And as been said, they also have the ice.

[spin-o-rama]

MM is doing their own version of hockey. Like AAU hockey they can't play any usa registered teams, so are far from Tier I. Elliott once posted what Shattuck had to do to get their affiliation agreement. Any update on the Pride Academy?

What is the setup for Tier I and how do you keep it in balance so it doesn't get out of whack? We make fun of 2009 AAA tryouts going on now and college verbal commitments being made in junior high. This could be taken to a new level if we just "let it" happen.

[O-townClown]

I consider myself to be open-minded, but I have yet to hear a valid argument as to how a couple of Tier I teams could negatively impact MN Hockey as a whole.

You've heard them, you just ignore them. But you've cleverly covered yourself with the word "valid". If you are the arbiter you can deem any concern invalid.

Some of mine, like Spinner's, just off the top of my head:

1) By letting strong players leave from weak association teams you only exacerbate the imbalance between those associations and those from the uberprograms.
2) Catering to a model that will have inherently higher costs takes Minnesota Hockey further from its inclusive model. There are programs that will be unable to field a team when their top line runs off for a club team and little Timmy, whose single dad couldn't get him to the practices, no longer has a place to play that is appropriate for his level.
3) As mentioned so well by Jancze, the powers that be are at this point being asked by some to approve something they aren't sure of yet. Is it two teams that are capable of winning a National Tier I Championship or is it every unhappy father starting a club and lobbying parents to leave the coach they didn't like.
4) In the interest of ice time, will these teams practice before school like elite figure skaters? As many have mentioned there are municipal rinks that give preferential ice slots to the area HS and community hockey association.

Saying these concerns aren't valid without addressing them weakens your argument. It only shows that the proponents of Tier I aren't concerned with anyone else but themselves.

Many times I have said I see both sides of the issue. I don't have a dog in the fight. I do have experience with such matters, as evidenced by the perplexing response from my son's coach when I asked him a question last night about an opportunity to play one game one time for a program that didn't have enough skaters this weekend. ??? Strange stuff happens when you get into club hockey program politics. No weirder than community stuff, but don't for one minute think Tier I "choice" is a cure all.

[spin-o-rama]

muckandgrind, you said Tier I would be worthwhile.

So to all Tier I proponents: Why would Tier I be worthwhile? Explain how it would be a net benefit to MN as a whole.

Reasons given include: All upper level players languishing on crudy teams could play on a well run, winning team. It would impact a very small # of people overall. Its cost wouldn't be much more than association hockey. MN would sweep the national titles each year.

We need to step back from these Walter Mitty delusions and be realistic. Why would it be worthwhile?

[Vapor]

I'm curious on these players that have left their Assoc. to play with
a Tier 1/AAA team...did it accomplish the players/parents goal of getting
that scholarship or the USHL watch list ?? If you're that good, the scouts
will find you. Doesn't matter if you're playing at Eden Praire or Virginia. In most cases it seems that once the player starts to do well, the parents seem to think they're to good for the "smaller" association. If the assoc. is so bad, how is it that this player developed to the point that he/she needs to leave for a better team? Can't be that bad. Get involved and make it better if you don't like the way it's run. AAA has its place in the Summer, but how about let the kids play other sports and become a better athlete.

[Bruins]

Some of you guys are funny, suggesting Tier 1 hockey wouldnt work. If Tier 1 hockey were offered during the winter they would have to turn players away at tryouts for every level. Many of those players would be the kids of parents who bash Tier 1 hockey. Tier 1 hockey would be a hit here in Minnesota, I think we all know it, thats why it keeps being brought up. Look at the threads next to this one with many complaints about little league/association hockey. Wayzata, WBL, Hastings and Buffalo just to name a few, all getting ripped.

[blueice]

Here is our perspective on AAA hockey. We live in WI and my son plays for the Madison team. He left the association at the PW level because our small association can beat all the other small associations 10-0, 12-0, 15-1, etc. He saw maybe 6-10 shots a game and few quality shots. He brought the idea of playing for Madison up to us (his friend from the Madsion asked him to tryout). We went to the tryouts and he made the team. They gave us time to decide and it was a hard decision to leave the comfort of your association. He said he wanted to try it for the year and now we are on our 3rd year with the Caps. He loves everything about it. His favorite part, though, is that he makes a difference on the team. He is an integral part of his team and he has so much more passion for the game now. When he played in our association - he rarely broke a sweat in the games - he had nothing to do. It was all offense.
Someone has asked about the makeup of the other AAA team in WI (besides the Fire) - our sons' team the last couple of years is 15 WI kids, 1 IL and 1 from Iowa. Green Bay is all WI and Milwaukee is 16 WI and 1IL. They will change slightly from year to year, and team to team but there is at least 12-13 WI kids on any given team .
There are challenges when leaving your association but we have nothing against the association - there was nothing more they could do about the competition (they were not willing to play MN teams because of the age difference - if we were an A team -they felt it was beneath them to play a B1 team but that was the most approriate team to play - I tried to get these arranged but there were some parents that wanted "their perfect season" and voted against it) We have 2 younger sons that will be playing at the squirt level and love playing with their friends. My older son works every winter with the "rec" teams (C level) mite and squirt goalies in the association and enjoys it very much and the coaches love the extra pair of hands. (However, he is not allowed to work with the travel teams (we do not have goalie coaches) - a few of the Dads/Board members have made this quite clear) so with the difference in the politics is that the city "runs" the rec program and the "board" runs the travel teams and that is why he is asked every year to help out with the C programs - because they love the help and he loves to do it.
The politics will always be in every sport, but we are enjoying both association hockey and AAA hockey. Your true friends will be with you no matter what you decide to do. (that was a tough lesson for my son to learn). But the best part of AAA winter hockey - there was no need to do summer AAA hockey. We traveled alot and decided our summers should be for fun - he did baseball, golf, swimming and just relaxed. He kept his goalie skills up with 3 goalie camps throughout the summer and some local 3v3 hockey. He can't wait for the next week when his season begins.

[spin-o-rama]

Bruins,
explain how Tier I is going to work for people if most people are turned away. In what way will it be a "hit" here? Attendance at the MN Bantam A state championship is much greater than at Bantam nationals.

[mnhcp]

I'm curious on these players that have left their Assoc. to play with
a Tier 1/AAA team...did it accomplish the players/parents goal of getting
that scholarship or the USHL watch list ?? If you're that good, the scouts
will find you. Doesn't matter if you're playing at Eden Praire or Virginia. In most cases it seems that once the player starts to do well, the parents seem to think they're to good for the "smaller" association. If the assoc. is so bad, how is it that this player developed to the point that he/she needs to leave for a better team? Can't be that bad. Get involved and make it better if you don't like the way it's run. AAA has its place in the Summer, but how about let the kids play other sports and become a better athlete.

That's easy. It wasn't the association or his peers that devoloped or inspired them. It was themselves. They work their a**es off all summer and in the garage when the other bums sit on their a**es watering down the team. The skater isn't arrogant, selfish just disgusted that they aren't doing their part. So they say adios as they want to play with othe committed kids and families.

Now sure I'd love to change things. But "if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig". The kids and parents will only do as much as they want to and if the group or association isn't big enough or committed enough then they're tempted to do something different or better.

[O-townClown]

Some of you guys are funny, suggesting Tier 1 hockey wouldnt work. If Tier 1 hockey were offered during the winter they would have to turn players away at tryouts for every level. Many of those players would be the kids of parents who bash Tier 1 hockey. Tier 1 hockey would be a hit here in Minnesota, I think we all know it, thats why it keeps being brought up. Look at the threads next to this one with many complaints about little league/association hockey. Wayzata, WBL, Hastings and Buffalo just to name a few, all getting ripped.

Who is it that suggested Tier I hockey wouldn't work? It most certainly would. Will?

The relevant question isn't, "will it work?" You should be asking, "is there more damage done to community hockey than benefit gained by adding Tier I?" When you show that there is less damage,

and everyone agrees,

you'll have skinned the cat.

I'm beginning to think this is like a debate about a college football playoff. Nobody says it couldn't be done or wouldn't be cool. It hasn't happened yet because those in favor haven't been able to change the minds of the university Presidents or Big Ten and Pac Ten Commissioners.

There's no need to say people have said it won't work when people haven't. Tier I could thrive. At what expense?

[O-townClown]

Blue ice (better than yellow I s'pose) - thanks for sharing your story. Tier I hockey makes sense in areas where there is low participation. The suburbs of the Twin Cities are different. New Ulm, Windom, Two Harbors, Crookston? Yeah...low participation compared to Wayzata.

I'm guessing your association has another kid now in goal that isn't missing your son at all!

[mnhcp]

Some of you guys are funny, suggesting Tier 1 hockey wouldnt work. If Tier 1 hockey were offered during the winter they would have to turn players away at tryouts for every level. Many of those players would be the kids of parents who bash Tier 1 hockey. Tier 1 hockey would be a hit here in Minnesota, I think we all know it, thats why it keeps being brought up. Look at the threads next to this one with many complaints about little league/association hockey. Wayzata, WBL, Hastings and Buffalo just to name a few, all getting ripped.

Who is it that suggested Tier I hockey wouldn't work? It most certainly would. Will?

The relevant question isn't, "will it work?" You should be asking, "is there more damage done to community hockey than benefit gained by adding Tier I?" When you show that there is less damage,

and everyone agrees,

you'll have skinned the cat.

I'm beginning to think this is like a debate about a college football playoff. Nobody says it couldn't be done or wouldn't be cool. It hasn't happened yet because those in favor haven't been able to change the minds of the university Presidents or Big Ten and Pac Ten Commissioners.

There's no need to say people have said it won't work when people haven't. Tier I could thrive. At what expense?

BINGO, you nailed it!

[muckandgrind]

muckandgrind, you said Tier I would be worthwhile.

So to all Tier I proponents: Why would Tier I be worthwhile? Explain how it would be a net benefit to MN as a whole.

Reasons given include: All upper level players languishing on crudy teams could play on a well run, winning team. It would impact a very small # of people overall. Its cost wouldn't be much more than association hockey. MN would sweep the national titles each year.

We need to step back from these Walter Mitty delusions and be realistic. Why would it be worthwhile?

It doesn't HAVE to be worthwhile to MN Hockey "as a whole". Obviously, most kids won't take advantage of it for a couple of reasons. The most obvious one is that they are happy with their local associations.

But there ARE kids who play in less than stellar associations that this would benefit. Let's be honest. There are some good players stuck on bad teams. One of the best ways to help them develop is to put them on a team with players of similar ability so they can be pushed and challenged.

You probably won't see players from Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie, etc. flocking to Tier I teams, but they don't need to. They are already in good situations.

The only winter option outside of MN Hockey is the Xcel League (I believe that's the name of it). But it is a non-check, non-competitive league. If we can have an option for kids who don't want to play competitive hockey, why can't we also offer an alternative for kids who DO want to play at a high level and also allow them to better develop.

Obviously, players from Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie, etc. won't take advantage of this because they are already in a good situation. But how about the kid stuck on a dying association is District 1? How about the kid who should be playing at the A level, but their association doesn't have an A team?

It's all about creating OPTIONS...and right now there isn't alot of them.

but don't for one minute think Tier I "choice" is a cure all.

Of course not. I never said it was a "cure all", but it will benefit some kids. It doesn't NEED to benefit everyone, because most kids are already in a good situation.

[blueice]

O-Town,
My son's former teammates continue to beat teams 10-0 etc, yes they had another goalie to fill his shoes I guess my point of the AAA hockey is that it was an option for us and we were able to choose that option for our family.
I think if AAA became an option in the cities - you would get players like my son who need a little bit more from the smaller associations and you would also get the kids that are very good but not the best from the larger metro associations like Edina, EP, Wayzata (but they would be A players at most smaller associations). AAA hockey has been around awhile in WI - it is not the holy grail - if you ask people at associations throughout WI, they would tell you that they prefer community based hockey and that AAA hockey takes relatively few players to truly effect most associations. It is there but it is not a threat to take down community based hockey.

[spin-o-rama]

muckandgrind,
The "whole" comment was taken from your previous post where you said , "I have yet to hear a valid argument as to how a couple of Tier I teams could negatively impact MN Hockey as a whole." I turned it around to ask how it would benefit as a whole. Perhaps we should rephrase to, "how would Tier I provide a net benefit to MN?"

I like your platform that Tier I would serve the kid stuck on a dying small association team or whose association doesn't have an A team. You appear to be representing the little guy. But what is the cost? Otown mentioned that skimming the cream would be a further demise to small associations. How do you keep that from happening? How do you ensure that your campaign promises will be kept and these new teams don't become checkbook elite?

What makes you think that large associations' families won't participate? Have you looked at the Fire rosters? Have you noticed the new rules from Lakeville & Minnetonka(albeit unfair)? They are not small associations.

blueice- glad that your family has found a good hockey fit. Question: If the "Tier I" teams are made of kids that are association A minuses then is it really Tier I? And wouldn't these A2 & B1 teams already have plenty of competition in the current system?

[muckandgrind]

muckandgrind,
The "whole" comment was taken from your previous post where you said , "I have yet to hear a valid argument as to how a couple of Tier I teams could negatively impact MN Hockey as a whole." I turned it around to ask how it would benefit as a whole. Perhaps we should rephrase to, "how would Tier I provide a net benefit to MN?"

I like your platform that Tier I would serve the kid stuck on a dying small association team or whose association doesn't have an A team. You appear to be representing the little guy. But what is the cost? Otown mentioned that skimming the cream would be a further demise to small associations. How do you keep that from happening? How do you ensure that your campaign promises will be kept and these new teams don't become checkbook elite?

What makes you think that large associations' families won't participate? Have you looked at the Fire rosters? Have you noticed the new rules from Lakeville & Minnetonka(albeit unfair)? They are not small associations.

blueice- glad that your family has found a good hockey fit. Question: If the "Tier I" teams are made of kids that are association A minuses then is it really Tier I? And wouldn't these A2 & B1 teams already have plenty of competition in the current system?

"Further demise"? There are a few associations that are on life-support right now. They are already dying a slow death with dropping numbers. By losing a few players, it may force them to act and move forward with merging with other associations....which is a good thing. Keeping a player or two from leaving will not help that association in the long-run anyways. Numbers are dropping in some associations and will only continue to drop in the future.

Sure, there may be a couple of players from the large associations who leave...but so what? They have huge numbers anyways. I don't think it would be as many as you think, as there wouldn't be all that many Tier I teams anyways, initially. Let's say, for arguments sake, that three Tier I teams form. You're talking about 45 skaters and 6 goalies for each birth year. That's a drop in the buck when you look at the total pool of youth players in this state.

As far as cost. Hockey is already expensive...as we all know. Sure, Tier I may be a little more expensive than association based hockey, but that's the choice best left to the families. Is it better to spend $1500 for a kid to play hockey for a dying association and not develop (or have fun), or spend an additional $500-$600 for them to better develop and have fun? My answer is that it would be better spend the extra money, but that's MY decision and others may not agree.

[O-townClown]

We're all free to express opinions, but sometimes those opinions are flat-out wrong.

Parents from Eden Prairie, Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Centennial, Bloomington, and White Bear Lake would eat up the opportunity to play on high-level club teams. They already keep Minnesota Made afloat. You can say it is because they are close to the rink, the reality is that the rink is in Edina so it can be close to them.

You have made the case for these players in the lesser associations. What good comes of the Tier I move when those kids don't wind up on the AAA registered teams because they either aren't good enough or get frozen out of a roster spot because of politics? Many of these teams could be fully rostered before the tryout process.

The fact is that one all-star team from D6 could easily contend for the National Championship in Pee Wee and Bantam. Or one team fielded from the best players in any two communities like Wayzata, Edina, and Eden Prairie. Or one from Chaska, Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Lakeville. There is no way to open the door and then mandate a program form to siphon the top player from Mahtomedi, Mound, Mendota Heights, and Mounds View.

Players from these programs run the risk of being underserved for the same reasons those programs are already weak. Location, community and family economics, per capita rink figures, and more.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

Don't include Wayzata in that group. Probably less than 12 Wayzata kids on all MM AAA teams and Mite Choice combined last year.

[spin-o-rama]

You've lost me. You don't have a plan to make sure there isn't further demise in the small associations. Your survival of the fittest goes against MH's mission statement. You have already back peddled on your claim that large association kids won't be interested. And why do you claim these players won't be missed? Is that why tonka and lakeville made those dumb rules - because they aren't missed?
And you added the caveat that the big associations won't miss the few players because there would only be a "few" teams initially. What about when there are many Tier I and Tier II teams? Because people try to keep up with the Jones does that make the Jones right?
$2100 for a year of Tier I travel? I'd like to see that cost breakdown. MAYBE $2100 for now, but $10-15k is the figure thrown out nationally.

Your whole premise is that it won't be so bad...initially, with a foreshadowing of more to come. How is that a net benefit?

[muckandgrind]

You've lost me. You don't have a plan to make sure there isn't further demise in the small associations. Your survival of the fittest goes against MH's mission statement. You have already back peddled on your claim that large association kids won't be interested. And why do you claim these players won't be missed? Is that why tonka and lakeville made those dumb rules - because they aren't missed?
And you added the caveat that the big associations won't miss the few players because there would only be a "few" teams initially. What about when there are many Tier I and Tier II teams? Because people try to keep up with the Jones does that make the Jones right?
$2100 for a year of Tier I travel? I'd like to see that cost breakdown. MAYBE $2100 for now, but $10-15k is the figure thrown out nationally.

Your whole premise is that it won't be so bad...initially, with a foreshadowing of more to come. How is that a net benefit?

Again, the smaller associations are ALREADY dying. Losing or keeping a player or two isn't going to change that. Like I said, if anything, it will encourage them to look to merge with another association. And by combining their numbers, they will be better off.

For arguments sake, let's say you're right about kids leaving the bigger associations. Wouldn't the fact that some of these players leaving the larger associations create more of a competitive balance within MN Hockey as a whole? Right there would be a net-benefit to everyone.

And as far as cost goes...I don't think it would be as expensive as you think. Out east, the cost is higher because ice is more expensive. We have more rinks in Minnesota, thus the cost is cheaper. I have a friend who's kids play hockey in New York and they are being charged well over $200 an hour for ice. The other costs would be travel. But if you had a few teams in Minnesota, along with the Fire, Shattuck, and St. Louis, the travel expenses wouldn't be too bad because you can drive. And the cost for lodging isn't any more expensive than if there wasn't Tier I hockey.

[blueice]

Madison Capitols team, as I can only speak about them, are not A minus teams . Most small associations in the metro area have quite a few "A" players on them but because of the size of those associations they do not have 45 A players to choose from and maybe only have a good 10 or 11 kids to choose from and so I guess those teams can be consider an A minus or A2 team. WI hockey only has A, B, and C no B1,etc. Most associations in WI have small #'s to make their A teams from, including our larger cities of Madison and Milwaukee. WI associations usually only have 1 A team, 1 B team and maybe a C team. I was stating that if our association, when my son played for them, needed to play better competition they would of needed to play MN teams. Due to the USA hockey ages - MN A teams were 6 mos older and that is a big difference. My son's PWA team from the association(last year) was made up of 1/2 1995's and 1/2 1996's birth years - they could not compete against say a Woodbury PWA team that had a good deal of 1994 birth years. Puberty makes a big difference at that age and that is where you see the biggest shift to AAA hockey in our state at the 1st year PW age. You want to have good competition without a blowout hockey game one way or the other. Our association would of needed to play Woodbury's B1 team to have a more competitive game - the parents did not want to play a B1 team because most of them do not understand how strong the MN teams are. The Cap program has some very good players and we are competitive. Were we as good as the Fire team? No, and that is not a slam against the Madison program - the Fire has a good program and alot of those players come from strong summer MN AAA teams and they continue their success into the winter season (I actually enjoyed watching the 95 Fire team play ) . The Madison program at the different birth years can hold their own and it is good hockey to watch - my son's team last year was a little over a .500 team. They were competitive and as a parent of a goalie, every now and then I do miss the games where he has only 6 or 10 shots (because it is much more relaxing to watch) But my son enjoys the competition and that is the most important thing and I feel that is probably a reason most people would give as to why they play AAA. AAA hockey is a choice to families that want to try it - I think MN is fine without AAA - you do have the Fire for whoever wants to do it - your summer AAA teams are very good - is it Tier 1 - no because that's only a name given to teams during the winter season. You guys do have the best of both worlds - great winter hockey and great programs throughout the summer to try. When it comes down to it - does it really matter what you do during your youth hockey days - it is the HS hockey that people really take notice of and no one else in the country can match watch you guys have.

[O-townClown]

Blue, thanks again for sharing your thoughts. The reason some people are puzzled, like I am, about the yearning for Tier I hockey is that the rest of the country wouldn't have it if they had the participation numbers you see in Minnesota (or at least specifically the Metro area).

--

Kids in the Southwest suburbs go out of town once a year for a hotel-stay tournament. Other tournaments are local. It BLOWS PEOPLES MINDS when I tell them youth and HS teams in the Twin Cities play 90% of their games within a 30 minute radius of home. (My son plays 41 miles from our house for his home rink. Travel games in our state are usually 2 to 4 hours away.) The "hotels in Detroit and St. Louis are the same price as hotels in Duluth" argument doesn't apply.

Ice in Florida ranges from $250-325 per hour. The main facility in Orlando has about 45 adult teams playing weekly in 8 leagues (all different abilities). Program costs reflect the higher per hour ice charge, but the main difference is in travel. I don't know if these Tier I teams play in a 6-team statewide league or are two of the teams in a Midwestern league with teams from St. Louis, Chicago, and Madison

[spin-o-rama]

m&g, you are doing small associations a favor by sucking players and coaches out of their system? Please don't do me any of your "favors".

Nice flip-flop on players coming from large associations. There already is a system in place for competitive balance. It's A, B, C. And it allows for tweaking to maintain good balance. Some associations are doing 2 A teams, and there are B1 and B2 subsets to even it out.

It would be way more expensive than you are presenting and you know that. The machine charges $1800-2000 for a summer. And they are out of town to just a few tournaments. Their cost doesn't include travel. Got that cost breakdown ready? For Tier I, every other league game is going to be on the road. It isn't wrong for your proposal to be expensive. It is wrong to present it well under priced to garner support.

I've been told that MM is charging over $200/hour this winter. Where were you going to score that cheap ice?

blue-ice, thanks for clarifying my question and thanks for the kind words about hockey in MN.

[5thgraders]

[quote="spin-o-rama"]m&g, you are doing small associations a favor by sucking players and coaches out of their system? Please don't do me any of your "favors".

Nice flip-flop on players coming from large associations. There already is a system in place for competitive balance. It's A, B, C. And it allows for tweaking to maintain good balance. Some associations are doing 2 A teams, and there are B1 and B2 subsets to even it out.

It would be way more expensive than you are presenting and you know that. The machine charges $1800-2000 for a summer. And they are out of town to just a few tournaments. Their cost doesn't include travel. Got that cost breakdown ready? For Tier I, every other league game is going to be on the road. It isn't wrong for your proposal to be expensive. It is wrong to present it well under priced to garner support.

I've been told that MM is charging over $200/hour this winter. Where were you going to score that cheap ice?

blue-ice, thanks for clarifying my question and thanks for the kind words about hockey in MN.[/quote] Spin o Bama , Since when do you own the
players and the coaches this is America the land of choice. You are the
reason that Mn Hockey has fallen behind and can't seem to catch up. You are losing the Race to a pig with lipstick.

[O-townClown]

Spin o Bama , Since when do you own the
players and the coaches this is America the land of choice. You are the
reason that Mn Hockey has fallen behind and can't seem to catch up. You are losing the Race to a pig with lipstick.

It has? Who is Minnesota Hockey behind? Ontario? By some measures it has always been 'behind' Ontario. By most of those same measures it has actually caught up.

Minnesota Hockey is not behind. Enlighten me.