Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
HOCKEYBOYs[/b]exactly, and one of the issues of relying on tournaments for competition is that the Minnesota teams are put in different brackets and may never face each other. At some levels there have been years between a Blades and Icemen game, at others the Blades and Machine play every other game against each other. It has always seemed silly to me that you can go an entire off season and not play the other top notch teams in the area. Sometimes there's agreement for scrimmages but not as often as might be beneficial for the kids and it varies by coaches and by organization.imaloserbaby wrote:Here is how it works (imo):
Showcase has the most to protect - meaning, they have to protect their Showcase league, their tournaments, their Easton Showcase teams and their development centers (i.e. HB). So they try to leverage their assets against their local competition and one of those assets is their tournaments (Meltdown, Predator and Easton Cup) - if they think a local team or group of teams is a threat to any of things they are trying to protect than your chances of getting in to one of their tournaments is subsequently reduced or eliminated.
But they still need to have good teams in their tournaments so they work hard at finding quality non-local teams which is fine and totally their choice. If these non-local teams travel to their tournaments and do not play competitive games then the likelihood of having that very good team come back next year is reduced (why would someone want to bring their team to MN to win 9 to 0) so they need to have the games be competitive.
In the end, my guess is that the Blades and MM (Machine and Deuce) will always have a standing invitation to the Showcase tournaments but the rest of the local teams may have to play "wait and see" to see if they get in. The quality of the team will be evaluated and the local teams that can be the most competitive will get the first opportunity to say "yes, I will play in your tournament".
What Showcase may be doing is to leverage their tournaments by keeping out the local teams so that kids/parents will want to play for their Easton teams so they can play in the tournaments. Not so sure that parents will buy into spending the registration money to play for a Easton team just so that they can play in the Meltdown. I would think that parents want their kid, and subsequently make their decision based upon, to be on a team that:
* will their kid have fun, receive good instruction and be in an environement that is acceptable to their liking - want tournaments they play doesn't tend to be a huge factor in making a team decision so if people think Showcase is leveraging their tournaments to get the best players I don't think that will work out to good - but, I could be wrong.
Lastly, Showcase has made a commitment to building their Invite Level teams (Easton teams) and they will be obviously given two spots into their tournaments and the risk they run is that if these Easton teams are not competitive and the good non-local teams pound on them then Showcase is hurting themselves because it will get around that the tournament quality is not what it once was. So I think it is probably a pretty good assumption that Showcase will do whatever it takes to make their Easton teams to be as good as they can possibly be even if that means they say "no, you can't play" to some good local teams hoping
that parents will put their talented kid on a Easton Showcase team the following year.
I appreciate your take and I think as the kids get older and the parental sharp edges get rounded off then I do think it becomes less of an issue.jancze5 wrote:I guess that's one take on it, here's another. Who cares who plays for what teams when in the summer?
There is NO regulatory guidance on summer hockey that locks a player into a certain roster like our winter regulations.
I know plenty of 94 kids that donned 3 or 4 different jerseys last summer and had fun doing it and have 60 more kids they call teamates and friends around the state because of it. It really didn't matter and it basically was for injured or vacationing or other sport playing kids. Having higher caliber players on the ice in tournaments is a good thing. Period. Playing against your teamates from one team is a fun thing.
Splitting the D and scoring the game winner against your friends to send them packing from a tournament is priceless!
You lost me??? - what I am saying is that it may seem insignificant to you as to what SUMMER team you kid (or any kid for that matter) plays on but it is not insignificant for the people that manage teams and programs for a living.jancze5 wrote:So did you simply justify the reason why we DON"T need AAA winter hockey with that statement or what?
HOCKEYBOYs[/b]
I'm going to bet that if there are any changes this summer, they likely won't be improvements. - Not if the hysteria and attitudes displayed here are what's driving them.shoot the!@#$% wrote:[b]
Joe Dziedzic and Chris McAlpine make a good living off what you say did not help them
Joe owns and runs RBK hockey a AAA hockey club that runs during the baseball season
Chris is also involed in there camps
It may not have been good for them
20+ years ago but it is now.
Back to the thread AAA hockey will RBK play in the local tourney?
Data taken from websites, inside knowledge and estimates. Each data points may be off a couple practice hours or a game or 2.Jimbo99 wrote:
I have nothing against any of the supposed elite teams in the area but the often stated opinion that they have "proven programs" is a joke. They have proven recruiting efforts - and there's nothing wrong with that! It just is what it is.
Many kids thrive in actual "development programs". From FHIT to your association to your HS coach's summer program, to the weight bench in the basement, etc. or to a team/program like RBK where the game to practice ratio is much lower than average and the emphasis is on the skills needed to advance to the next level rather than winning summer tourneys or bragging rights - Many kids thrive on working hard - they're the ones who might go somewhere someday. (and if they don't? I still like the benefits gained from hard work).
My kid had options. We picked RBK and wouldn't have traded it for any of the rest.
Good luck to all.
Each birth year was a bit different. Our ratio was better than that. Though your stats do point out another obvious difference. Many parents (and kids) prefer the fewer hours over-all. It provides time for other sports/activities and/or to pursue other hockey avenues (mini-camps, weights, etc.). Your stats do not reflect the difference in emphasis. (winning/losing, skills vs. systems, attitude, etc.) My "inside knowledge" and "estimates" tell me the RBK way makes the most sense. While a lot of kids will follow their parents lead in believing that if you're not winning all the time, it's no fun and not worth doing - others have figured out that hard work alone can be fun, especially when done with good positive professional coaching. I believe RBK's staff is (on the whole) more experienced and as good or better than any of the rest. So I stand by my assertion: the elite teams do not represent "proven programs", just good recruiting and a different attitude.boardmember wrote:Data taken from websites, inside knowledge and estimates. Each data points may be off a couple practice hours or a game or 2.Jimbo99 wrote:
I have nothing against any of the supposed elite teams in the area but the often stated opinion that they have "proven programs" is a joke. They have proven recruiting efforts - and there's nothing wrong with that! It just is what it is.
Many kids thrive in actual "development programs". From FHIT to your association to your HS coach's summer program, to the weight bench in the basement, etc. or to a team/program like RBK where the game to practice ratio is much lower than average and the emphasis is on the skills needed to advance to the next level rather than winning summer tourneys or bragging rights - Many kids thrive on working hard - they're the ones who might go somewhere someday. (and if they don't? I still like the benefits gained from hard work).
My kid had options. We picked RBK and wouldn't have traded it for any of the rest.
Good luck to all.
Bottom line, the Practice to Game ratio from the "Elite" teams are as good or better than the RBK team. The hours spent on skill development by the "Elite" teams are almost double that of RBK. I would bet if you asked any parent from the Cyclones, Machine, Blades, Deuce, Icemen if their kids worked hard you would get a unanimous answer. As for recruiting, yes the better players ( parents) want to play and practice with these teams.
Team ............Practice Hours .......... Games......... P to Game Ratio
Cyclones .............. 110 ............ ..... 15 .......... 7.33
Machine ............... 110 .................. 25 ......... 4.40
Blades ................ 80 .................... 20 ......... 4.00
Deuce .............. 100 .. ................. 25 ......... 4.00
RBK ............... 55-60 ................ 15 ........... 3.67-4.00
Icemen ............... 70 ................. 28-35 ........... 2.0-2.5
Care to share which age groups these are? How did you get this info, I can't seem to find many of these teams listing their schedules on the web.Team ............Practice Hours .......... Games......... P to Game Ratio
Cyclones .............. 110 ............ ..... 15 .......... 7.33
Machine ............... 110 .................. 25 ......... 4.40
Blades ................ 80 .................... 20 ......... 4.00
Deuce .............. 100 .. ................. 25 ......... 4.00
RBK ............... 55-60 ................ 15 ........... 3.67-4.00
Icemen ............... 70 ................. 28-35 ........... 2.0-2.5
puckfan wrote:Care to share which age groups these are? How did you get this info, I can't seem to find many of these teams listing their schedules on the web.Team ............Practice Hours .......... Games......... P to Game Ratio
Cyclones .............. 110 ............ ..... 15 .......... 7.33
Machine ............... 110 .................. 25 ......... 4.40
Blades ................ 80 .................... 20 ......... 4.00
Deuce .............. 100 .. ................. 25 ......... 4.00
RBK ............... 55-60 ................ 15 ........... 3.67-4.00
Icemen ............... 70 ................. 28-35 ........... 2.0-2.5
Agreed! From what I heard coaches leave certain programs to start their own programs because they can do things better. When this happens kids will follow their coaches leaving teams short players. It appears that this might be a move to discourage players from bailing on their teams. Keep in mind some of these programs do this for a living. But some of these programs are offering more AAA teams which makes them part of the problem.imaloserbaby wrote:I appreciate your take and I think as the kids get older and the parental sharp edges get rounded off then I do think it becomes less of an issue.jancze5 wrote:I guess that's one take on it, here's another. Who cares who plays for what teams when in the summer?
There is NO regulatory guidance on summer hockey that locks a player into a certain roster like our winter regulations.
I know plenty of 94 kids that donned 3 or 4 different jerseys last summer and had fun doing it and have 60 more kids they call teamates and friends around the state because of it. It really didn't matter and it basically was for injured or vacationing or other sport playing kids. Having higher caliber players on the ice in tournaments is a good thing. Period. Playing against your teamates from one team is a fun thing.
Splitting the D and scoring the game winner against your friends to send them packing from a tournament is priceless!
But, if you ask who cares? - the answer is the organizations, and the people behind the organizations, that do this for a living - if they can't field the best teams and provide the best development than their livelihood is affected.
Especially at the younger ages I think the parents care too since they are spending a lot of money to be part of a program and they really want their kid to make the squirt A team.
Quack do you ever think before you "speak"? You state that some of these programs are offering more teams and that's a part of the problem.Agreed! From what I heard coaches leave certain programs to start their own programs because they can do things better. When this happens kids will follow their coaches leaving teams short players. It appears that this might be a move to discourage players from bailing on their teams. Keep in mind some of these programs do this for a living. But some of these programs are offering more AAA teams which makes them part of the problem.
I'm not here to tell people what to do. I was pointing out that one of the programs complaining about all the new teams has recently added two new teams at every age level in the past year. To me it's hard to believe the you can be critical of new teams forming and yet adding all these new teams. I'm not worried or concerned just pointing out the obvious.My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:Quack do you ever think before you "speak"? You state that some of these programs are offering more teams and that's a part of the problem.Agreed! From what I heard coaches leave certain programs to start their own programs because they can do things better. When this happens kids will follow their coaches leaving teams short players. It appears that this might be a move to discourage players from bailing on their teams. Keep in mind some of these programs do this for a living. But some of these programs are offering more AAA teams which makes them part of the problem.
I left an started my own team under an existing organization for a few very simple reasons.
1) The freedom to run our team as we see fit.
2) I was not in favor of playing in a "league". Many people are on here talking about development but the place I (an many others) started was 50 hours where about 10 were practice time.
1) I researched existing programs and felt that while many have some good aspects to them, they also had many things that I didn't agree with.
a)The main reason was so that all these talented hockey players that are also good at baseball, soccer, lacross etc had options. We allow them to miss hockey for other sports, in fact encourage them to participate in them. All we asked was that our program was their hockey priority.
b)I told them the 3 tournaments we were playing in and took our team intact, no outside players just for the tournament.
c) while some kids respond to different coaching techniques, I along with my other coaches felt we could offer skill development along with teaching how to play the game.
What is the problem with that?
Now I know this whole "keep these other Local teams out" has quite a bit to do with teams like us, but in the long run there are good tournaments out there to play in that would love to have us and we have discussed this with our parents ahead of time.