Tier 1 Winter Hockey has no place in Minnesota

[Froggy Richards]

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.

If they are only looking at a before and after then I have no problem with that. I see nothing wrong with any team playing a before and after. But that conflicts with the Youth Hockey Hub Article which started the discussion. The article reads:

Minnesota Hockey will approve the three organizations to play Tier 1 hockey for this year. The two schools (Wings and Northern Educate) will only be allowed sanctioning at the 16 and 18 level access. The Blades will play a before (Fall) and after (Spring) schedule similar to Team WI at the U16 and U18 level.

The only mention of a before and after is for the Blades. The article makes it sound like the other two wanted sanctioning year round. I admit that I don't know the details and maybe YHH is wrong.

Since the article came out Elliot has confirmed that two of the proposals are for U18 and only one for U16 and U18. We now know that no levels younger than this are or were ever being considered, which is great. I didn't realize this when I wrote the post because another poster on the board claimed that younger levels were on the table, which turned out to be wrong. But if anything other than before and after is allowed, then that gets the ball rolling and could open the door for younger levels in the future, which I think could be bad. I also did not realize that the Northern Wings even played a Tier 1, U18 fall schedule. I was only aware of their Spring and Summer teams at all other levels. Their website doesn't even mention anything about U18.

I do agree with you that Tier 1 at the lower levels makes no sense in MN. But I also know that you should never underestimate overzealous hockey parents.

According to Elliot the vote was last night so we should know soon what exactly was voted on and what was passed. I guess it's speculation until then.

[JSR]

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?

I didn't change anything. I tresearched both times and in both cases I was right. Numbers change so the argument has to change with it... again 5 years ago, you can "claim" a search function all you want but what would make you even search it... again, sad.... but nice try

[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

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.

Sorry Bluewhite, JSR is right. Just ask him.

[JSR]

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.

Sorry Bluewhite, JSR is right. Just ask him.

I wasn't debating that the rate dwarfs Michigan, note he said Michigan not Mass..... I debated that the useage of the word "dwarf" when compared to Mass was no longer applicable with their rise in participation.... I am right, froggy just can't admit when he is wrong, I can

[Froggy Richards]

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

Misery loves company.......

[Bluewhitefan]

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.

Sorry Bluewhite, JSR is right. Just ask him.

I wasn't debating that the rate dwarfs Michigan, note he said Michigan not Mass..... I debated that the useage of the word "dwarf" when compared to Mass was no longer applicable with their rise in participation.... I am right, froggy just can't admit when he is wrong, I can

Just for the sake of beating a dead horse - you disagreed to his statement about rate using numbers data, and explicitly saying "this is not technically true" while quoting his comment about rate. So, in essence, you were, in fact, debating his rate comment. Also his quote stated that MN rates dwarf that of "every other state", not specifically MA. Given the relative rates of participation, this is technically a true statement, although it is arguable as to whether, in the case of MA, that our 1% actually "dwarfs" the .7% of MA.

[JSR]

Sorry Bluewhite, JSR is right. Just ask him.

I wasn't debating that the rate dwarfs Michigan, note he said Michigan not Mass..... I debated that the useage of the word "dwarf" when compared to Mass was no longer applicable with their rise in participation.... I am right, froggy just can't admit when he is wrong, I can

Just for the sake of beating a dead horse - you disagreed to his statement about rate using numbers data, and explicitly saying "this is not technically true" while quoting his comment about rate. So, in essence, you were, in fact, debating his rate comment. Also his quote stated that MN rates dwarf that of "every other state", not specifically MA. Given the relative rates of participation, this is technically a true statement, although it is arguable as to whether, in the case of MA, that our 1% actually "dwarfs" the .7% of MA.

Let's beat the deadhorse, I said "this is not technically true" because his statement about "rate" incuded the statement "every other state". To my knowledge Massachussetts is a state and to me the difference between .77% and 1% is not dwarfing. Hence his statement is "techincally false" not true. You even admit so when you say it's arguable.

The primary reason for the not pick is because that is what froggy likes to do, combine that with his overzealous homerism and it's hard to to debate him on this stuff. Had he said something less homerish like "MN has the best participation rate of any state in the country" that would have been fine, but no, he had to go overboard with his "dwarfing" comment. MN is a great state for hockey and does a ton of things right and people should look to them for how to do alot of things, but to just blindly think your system is "perfect" and cannot be rivaled ever, thats the stance froggy always takes and that is how you go down the road of devaluing what you have. Ther eis no such thing as standing still, you either evaluate, evolve and change and grow (appropriately) or you shrink and die, there is no in between, froggy's approach would be the latter

[terrymoore1717]

The Blades are truly a non-profit. We are designated as such under the law. We are also that in reality. Over the years, none of our directors has ever been paid and most actually donate money so kids can skate or travel that can not afford it.

For 25 years we have existed along side MH and will continue to do so. For many years we have been certified in the "before" season of September and October. We have now requested permission from MH to play before and after (not during) the high school season at U16 and u18 levels. Our expectation is that the extra games and national exposure will help keep some top players in Minnesota HS hockey. Not to mention the fun of playing for a National Champioship.

This past season, only ten Minnesota graduating (2013) seniors went straight to the USHL in the fall. More HS-eligible Minnesota players made the league. The clear message is that the USHL teams want players for two years so the team can have the advantage of their development. Except for exceptional players, the USHL is not very interested in players they think will leave for college after one year. USHL coaches have told me this.

To a player, the message is to leave early or take your chances.

We want to entice HS players to stay in Minnesota. We think the before and after competition is the best way to do that while maintaining Minnesota's current system.

[YouthHockeyHub]

I will say this, covering this topic since April when the bids for Tier I were submitted has been a major rollercoaster ride.

I apologize to any that have read my articles and been confused. If it were easy to decipher and the MNH party line were strong...my articles would have been way more clear.

I hope to have an official statement from MN Hockey tomorrow or Monday on the site. That is until MN Hockey meets on June 20-22. Then it could change again (see rollercoaster above).

TS

[Bleed Maroon and Gold]

I would say that I am in favor of having the before and after season for U16 and U18 only. I agree with Terry that this could potentially keep more kids playing high school hockey. Of course not all but some could choose to stay over leaving. I am not a fan of having Tier 1 at the U14 level at all and hope MNH does not approve that. I am not in favor of a kid going to a school such as Achiever but some parents will always want their kid to go get that better education. I hope MNH approves the U16 and U18 before and after and sticks to the community based hockey for in season.

[SCBlueLiner]

I would say that I am in favor of having the before and after season for U16 and U18 only. I agree with Terry that this could potentially keep more kids playing high school hockey. Of course not all but some could choose to stay over leaving. I am not a fan of having Tier 1 at the U14 level at all and hope MNH does not approve that. I am not in favor of a kid going to a school such as Achiever but some parents will always want their kid to go get that better education. I hope MNH approves the U16 and U18 before and after and sticks to the community based hockey for in season.

After all the back and forth on this board and listening to and reading all the arguments for and against I think this is the most reasonable solution. My biggest concern from the outset was letting the horse out of the barn and destroying the current system. While some might decry the current system and its lack of "choice" one cannot deny that it produces results. More kids playing hockey than anywhere else, more players moving on to D1 than anywhere else, and more players moving on to pro careers than anywhere else.

[Bleed Maroon and Gold]

I would say that I am in favor of having the before and after season for U16 and U18 only. I agree with Terry that this could potentially keep more kids playing high school hockey. Of course not all but some could choose to stay over leaving. I am not a fan of having Tier 1 at the U14 level at all and hope MNH does not approve that. I am not in favor of a kid going to a school such as Achiever but some parents will always want their kid to go get that better education. I hope MNH approves the U16 and U18 before and after and sticks to the community based hockey for in season.

After all the back and forth on this board and listening to and reading all the arguments for and against I think this is the most reasonable solution. My biggest concern from the outset was letting the horse out of the barn and destroying the current system. While some might decry the current system and its lack of "choice" one cannot deny that it produces results. More kids playing hockey than anywhere else, more players moving on to D1 than anywhere else, and more players moving on to pro careers than anywhere else.

I agree with you and I think if MNH sets the precedent and only allows before and after season and states that they will not allow full season tier 1 membership. I think if MNH can set something in stone on what they will accept will make things easier in the future.

[Froggy Richards]

I would say that I am in favor of having the before and after season for U16 and U18 only. I agree with Terry that this could potentially keep more kids playing high school hockey. Of course not all but some could choose to stay over leaving. I am not a fan of having Tier 1 at the U14 level at all and hope MNH does not approve that. I am not in favor of a kid going to a school such as Achiever but some parents will always want their kid to go get that better education. I hope MNH approves the U16 and U18 before and after and sticks to the community based hockey for in season.

After all the back and forth on this board and listening to and reading all the arguments for and against I think this is the most reasonable solution. My biggest concern from the outset was letting the horse out of the barn and destroying the current system. While some might decry the current system and its lack of "choice" one cannot deny that it produces results. More kids playing hockey than anywhere else, more players moving on to D1 than anywhere else, and more players moving on to pro careers than anywhere else.

I agree with you and I think if MNH sets the precedent and only allows before and after season and states that they will not allow full season tier 1 membership. I think if MNH can set something in stone on what they will accept will make things easier in the future.

I agree that this would be a great solution as well. Before and After all you want but no Tier 1 in the Winter. That wouldn't affect Association Hockey at all and if it keeps even one kid home, even better. I'm sure MN Hockey would love this too, but I doubt it's that simple for them. I'm guessing they can't just put this in stone. After all, they already allow Winter Tier 1 with Shattuck. They would probably be opening themselves up to problems. So I'm guessing that this isn't ever going to go away, we're probably going to have to deal with it every year or two.

[luckyEPDad]

What exactly can the MHSL or MHA do to prevent Tier 1 winter hockey? You can prevent those players from playing in the high school league, but what prevents them from playing a schedule like SSM?

[Froggy Richards]

What exactly can the MHSL or MHA do to prevent Tier 1 winter hockey? You can prevent those players from playing in the high school league, but what prevents them from playing a schedule like SSM?

In order to be classified as Tier 1, you have to have permission from Minnesota Hockey. MSHSL has nothing to do with it.

[YouthHockeyHub]

MN Hockey issued a statement to YHH today on their Tier I decision.

Here is link to the story:

http://bit.ly/1ltHoUG

TS

[about22pandas]

That's...surprising. I'd figure their decision would have been opposite. This means Cheater will play Shattuck to go to Nationals, so that's interesting.

Here is article for lazy people:

Ability Academic, Formerly Achiever Academy gets Approval for Next Year
The Decision is In
At the April Minnesota Hockey meeting, three organizations applied for Tier I status. Two of them, the Minnesota Blades and the Northern Wings applied for Before/After status. The third, Ability Academic and Athletic (AAA) applied for full Tier I status ages Squirt through High School (ages 9-18).

In a landmark decision, Minnesota Hockey approved the application for AAA as long as they are a member of an affiliate MN Hockey association. Many believe that will be North St. Paul.

AAA will not be allowed sanctioning for Squirts or PeeWees (U10 and U12). Their U14 team will not be allowed to play in local association District, Region or State playoffs. This would not preclude them from playing non-league or tournament games versus MNH sanctioned teams.

The two non-profit organizations, the Minnesota Blades and Northern Wings were not given approval for their request for Before/After play next season. MN Hockey currently has a provision in their rules that prohibits players from a Before/After hockey.

[luckyEPDad]

That's...surprising. I'd figure their decision would have been opposite. This means Cheater will play Shattuck to go to Nationals, so that's interesting.

I'm surprised that you are surprised. I don't see how there could have been any other decision. Shattuck set a precedent for a Tier 1 hockey magnet school in Minnesota. Before and after winter season AAA hockey would be something new. Minnesota doesn't like things that are new.

[Froggy Richards]

That's...surprising. I'd figure their decision would have been opposite. This means Cheater will play Shattuck to go to Nationals, so that's interesting.

I'm surprised that you are surprised. I don't see how there could have been any other decision. Shattuck set a precedent for a Tier 1 hockey magnet school in Minnesota. Before and after winter season AAA hockey would be something new. Minnesota doesn't like things that are new.

I was surprised at first too but after thinking about it makes a lot of sense if they want to cement the precedent of Tier 1 at Private Schools only. It allows another Tier 1 option for the kids who want it with minimum affect on Association Hockey. If the demand is there in the future, they can add another Private School or two, cap it off at 3 or 4 and call it a day. Everybody wins.

[SCBlueLiner]

Any chance any of the "traditional" privates move their programs from MN HS varsity to Tier 1 in the future?

Just speculating here.

[about22pandas]

EPDad - just surprised since for me it that would have had best effect on HS hockey (their baby), since Duluth & Blades would have their team play for 3 weeks end of year and then try to get to nationals.

Opening Cheater up means that anyone really could create their own as long as its a private "school".

This leads to what Blueliner mentioned, having privates move their program from HS to Tier 1, or simply create a Tier 1 all together. I could see the privates in Rochester/Duluth/St Cloud and the lower quality HSs in the cities go from HS to Tier 1 to attract more and better players. Probably not the most realistic thing, but a possibility nonetheless.

[Froggy Richards]

EPDad - just surprised since for me it that would have had best effect on HS hockey (their baby), since Duluth & Blades would have their team play for 3 weeks end of year and then try to get to nationals.

Opening Cheater up means that anyone really could create their own as long as its a private "school".

This leads to what Blueliner mentioned, having privates move their program from HS to Tier 1, or simply create a Tier 1 all together. I could see the privates in Rochester/Duluth/St Cloud and the lower quality HSs in the cities go from HS to Tier 1 to attract more and better players. Probably not the most realistic thing, but a possibility nonetheless.

It's extremely doubtful that any of the traditional privates would do this. Hockey is important at those schools, but it's far from their number one focus. Most of those Students are Multi-Sport athletes and Academics will always be the #1 priority at those schools. It's hard to tout yourself as a leading Academic Institution if your hockey players are traveling the Country and never in school. And remember, there was nothing stopping these schools from applying for Tier 1 before, so this changes nothing.

Contrary to what a lot of people say on here, the vast majority of parents send their kids to Traditional Private schools for the Academic opportunities and to be with like-minded students. (Priorities, Socio-Economics, etc.) The Athletics and Activities certainly factor in, but if that was their only focus they could open enroll or move to Edina and save the Private School tuition.

This will most likely be limited to the current and future, "Hockey Academies." And a lot of these "Students", er, "future Wayne Gretzky's" will most likely be from out of state like they were last year at Achiever. And there is no guarantee that they will have any success with this.

I think it's a great solution. Shouldn't affect Association Hockey much if at all, and people can quit whining about MN Hockey having a monopoly, not allowing Tier 1, blah blah blah...... Tier 1 is here folks, Go get your Tier 1 on!

[JSR]

That's...surprising. I'd figure their decision would have been opposite. This means Cheater will play Shattuck to go to Nationals, so that's interesting.

I'm surprised that you are surprised. I don't see how there could have been any other decision. Shattuck set a precedent for a Tier 1 hockey magnet school in Minnesota. Before and after winter season AAA hockey would be something new. Minnesota doesn't like things that are new.

I was surprised at first too but after thinking about it makes a lot of sense if they want to cement the precedent of Tier 1 at Private Schools only. It allows another Tier 1 option for the kids who want it with minimum affect on Association Hockey. If the demand is there in the future, they can add another Private School or two, cap it off at 3 or 4 and call it a day. Everybody wins.

So, I was right, the Achiever thing proves that U14 will also be offered, not just U16 and U18 and also year round Tier 1 was approved. Technically it's always been approved at Schattuck and this is just an extension of that at Achiever but still, you said out right it was only U16 and U18 and only B&A that was on the etable at that meeting, clearly that information was incorrect and more than that was on the table.... just sayin....

[Froggy Richards]

I'm surprised that you are surprised. I don't see how there could have been any other decision. Shattuck set a precedent for a Tier 1 hockey magnet school in Minnesota. Before and after winter season AAA hockey would be something new. Minnesota doesn't like things that are new.

I was surprised at first too but after thinking about it makes a lot of sense if they want to cement the precedent of Tier 1 at Private Schools only. It allows another Tier 1 option for the kids who want it with minimum affect on Association Hockey. If the demand is there in the future, they can add another Private School or two, cap it off at 3 or 4 and call it a day. Everybody wins.

So, I was right, the Achiever thing proves that U14 will also be offered, not just U16 and U18 and also year round Tier 1 was approved. Technically it's always been approved at Schattuck and this is just an extension of that at Achiever but still, you said out right it was only U16 and U18 and only B&A that was on the etable at that meeting, clearly that information was incorrect and more than that was on the table.... just sayin....

You might want to go back and read that again with your bifocals on. I quoted a District Director who posted that it was only U18 and U16. I never said anything about only Before and After being on the table either, that was SW Prez.

Come on, be happy JSR, you got your Tier 1 in Minnesota. You won! You get to drive 5 hours to play that Powerhouse over at Achiever Academy! Spend some money while you're here.

[JSR]

I was surprised at first too but after thinking about it makes a lot of sense if they want to cement the precedent of Tier 1 at Private Schools only. It allows another Tier 1 option for the kids who want it with minimum affect on Association Hockey. If the demand is there in the future, they can add another Private School or two, cap it off at 3 or 4 and call it a day. Everybody wins.

So, I was right, the Achiever thing proves that U14 will also be offered, not just U16 and U18 and also year round Tier 1 was approved. Technically it's always been approved at Schattuck and this is just an extension of that at Achiever but still, you said out right it was only U16 and U18 and only B&A that was on the etable at that meeting, clearly that information was incorrect and more than that was on the table.... just sayin....

You might want to go back and read that again with your bifocals on. I quoted a District Director who posted that it was only U18 and U16. I never said anything about only Before and After being on the table either, that was SW Prez.

Come on, be happy JSR, you got your Tier 1 in Minnesota. You won! You get to drive 5 hours to play that Powerhouse over at Achiever Academy! Spend some money while you're here.

I did not win or lose anything. I just enjoy the discussion. We were playing in MN long before this decision occurred so my time and travel are no different now than they were before.....