Wisconsin Fire

[O-townClown]

3.) How about a players ability to compare himself to the the best players in the US and Canada in his age group??

This isn't that hard. There are a bazillion off season tournaments and camps. I was at one tournament this year where teams entered for a 2003 division. So unless you're talking about someone five years old I think you are covered.

And remember, Minnesota Hockey isn't concerned with a player. They are concerned with all the players. Their decisions reflect that. It's kinda how life works.

Can you imagine these comments coming out of the Soviet bloc in the 70s and 80s? Society was concerned with kollectiv and they turned out the greatest hockey teams ever.

The whole late-Boomer/Gen-X parent thing is an amusing study all its own.

[jancze5]

I'm with Who's Puck is it on this one O-town... it comes down the basic principle that I should have every right to choose how and where I would like to spend my money.

Yes, Minnesota does develop, year in and year out, NHL and D-1 Caliber players...BUT, with the number of players here, is that TOP end talent a result of the system or the pure numbers?

Personally, 3 years ago, I would have been totally Tier 1, but now I love the Association system we have. HOWEVER, the Twin Cities alone could easily house 3 Tier 1 teams and would easily fill those rosters with players that want to play Tier 1 and families willing to pay for it. The current system doesn't let it happen.

Either way, when you see high end players bailing out in high school...the question is why?

[InigoMontoya]

Either way, when you see high end players bailing out in high school...the question is why?

Code: Select all

Agree, but more to the point of this thread - when you see high end players bailing out at the youth level...the question is why?

[observer]

Because hockey is a game and doesn't really matter in the real scheme of life. It's entertainment only. There's a front page to the paper and a business section.

Graduating from college with a saleable skill, a finance degree, lawyer, ad exec, medical degree, etc. now that matters. The players you mention must have decided to get on with their life.

Who are the most successful people you know? Are they in business or playing a game?

[MrBoDangles]

I'm with Who's Puck is it on this one O-town... it comes down the basic principle that I should have every right to choose how and where I would like to spend my money.

Yes, Minnesota does develop, year in and year out, NHL and D-1 Caliber players...BUT, with the number of players here, is that TOP end talent a result of the system or the pure numbers?

Personally, 3 years ago, I would have been totally Tier 1, but now I love the Association system we have. HOWEVER, the Twin Cities alone could easily house 3 Tier 1 teams and would easily fill those rosters with players that want to play Tier 1 and families willing to pay for it. The current system doesn't let it happen.

Either way, when you see high end players bailing out in high school...the question is why?

It's a wonderful OPTION for a top end kid from a small association. It wouldn't even cross my mind if we lived in Minnetonka, Elk River, or Centerville.

[Puckstopper81]

I don't think anybody is wrong in this discussion. Both systems work well and turn out a lot of talent that eventually plays Div.III, Div.I, USHL, or even the NHL.

Wouldn't it be easier to just change MN hockey to age specific divisions (99,98,97,etc.)like Tier I. Have MN Hockey schedule games around the main AAA Tournaments in the country such as NikeBauer, Warrior(former Little Caesars/RBK), and Silver Sticks. If an organization wants to play (and pay for it) in these tournaments, they can without disrupting their community based hockey schedule. Then you have the best of both worlds.

[MrBoDangles]

So the kid that made the Fire gets stuck playing b-1, or b-2 with some kids that should be playing C. This is your idea of development? Does Shattuck hurt Minnesota hockey? Does the Fire program hurt Minnesota hockey? If MN HS hockey is the best of all worlds, why would someone pay big money for Shattuck? If you say SSM does not hurt MN hockey, then you are saying that tier 1 doesn't hurt mn hockey.
Does SSM hurt MN hockey? Simple yes or no will do.

You've blurred the discussion so much I can't tell if you are talking about youth or HS ages.

A Fire kid doesn't play on the Fire and is a B player? Then you are talking about youth. My Bantam team had three players selected in the NHL Draft. My Bantam B team. One played in the NHL. No, you aren't going to do irreparable damage to a youth hockey player at these ages. They will develop just fine.

If you are talking older ages, I'll repeat. Major Midget hockey does not do anything to help these kids that are playing at a level. If they had to get out of their situation they would attend one of the private schools in the Twin Cities.

Shattuck doesn't hurt Minnesota hockey, principally because they don't rely on Minnesota players.

It's all the same material that has been talked about.

Playing B hockey your second year of Peewees...... IS MUCH DIFFERENT.... than playing B first year in a large association.


Fact -They will not develop the same playing weaker competition.

The Fire are all youth! Look at the topic.

SSM has not hurt with some Minnesota players?

The Fire has hurt with MN players?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

It's like you didn't read anything in the posts. Someone asked if Minnesota was turning out top players. Can you make the argument it isn't? I'd love to see it. By what measure is this model failing to develop players? It isn't.

People do not have a "right to choose" their youth program annually under the MAHA umbrella. They have a choice not to play. They have a choice to move.

Prove that this right is needed and you'll be on to something. You can't, and you know it.

Pointing out why the system is the way it is and why it isn't failing isn't very hard. It seems like you want to argue this. I don't. You aren't breaking any new ground here. Minnesota's hockey model works - well - and will continue to.

I never said Minnesota wasn't turning out top players or that Minnesota doesn't develop players. Plenty of players develop in Minnesota. With programs around like the Blades, Shattuck, Minnesota Made, Velocity etc. etc. it's difficult not to produce top players. Minnesota is a hockey factory. I am not arguing that.

People DO NOT have the right to choose in Minnesota. It's just a stupid statement. t's like saing 1860's women had the right to vote. All they had to do was Choose not to - or move to Canada.

Your last statement may be the numbest of them all. Firstly, I'm not arguing the Minnesota system doesn't work - in fact, I believe (and I've said this many times) that it works well for many. You want to pretend it' a one-size fits all paradise for everyone and it just isn't. Pointing out why any system works isn't hard. The challenge is in identifying what can make it better - and in this case - for many of us - it's the right to play Tier 1 Hockey. That might not be important to a hockey dad in Florida, but for some of us who live here in Minnesota who don't have this option it is an issue.

If Tier 1 hockey isn't needed and isn't beneficial, as you contend, then what exactly are you (and other protectionists) afraid of? A useless program which lacks merit or benefits won't last long and won't need policy to keep it out.

[play4fun]

You've blurred the discussion so much I can't tell if you are talking about youth or HS ages.

A Fire kid doesn't play on the Fire and is a B player? Then you are talking about youth. My Bantam team had three players selected in the NHL Draft. My Bantam B team. One played in the NHL. No, you aren't going to do irreparable damage to a youth hockey player at these ages. They will develop just fine.

If you are talking older ages, I'll repeat. Major Midget hockey does not do anything to help these kids that are playing at a level. If they had to get out of their situation they would attend one of the private schools in the Twin Cities.

Shattuck doesn't hurt Minnesota hockey, principally because they don't rely on Minnesota players.

It's all the same material that has been talked about.

Playing B hockey your second year of Peewees...... IS MUCH DIFFERENT.... than playing B first year in a large association.


Fact -They will not develop the same playing weaker competition.

The Fire are all youth! Look at the topic.

SSM has not hurt with some Minnesota players?

The Fire has hurt with MN players?

Bo,your real issue is with your association. If they'd classify teams at the appropriate levels (i.e., no A teams unless its truly a good fit for the talent in the association), an occasional kid or two could waive out to an A level team in a neighboring association (like centennial, since you used them as an example of an association you'd be happy with).

You don't need Tier I to provide kids with an opportunity to play at an "appropriate" level. You're looking for a way to circumvent your association because you don't agree with how they classify their teams. If so, that's not a reason to add Tier I.

Plus, you don't know that the kids from smaller associations will make the Tier I teams even if those teams are added. I think there'd be lots of good skaters from Edina, EP, Wayzata, etc. who might try out for Tier I if they weren't sure of making their association's A team.

Tier I wouldn't be a cure-all.

[MrBoDangles]

It's like you didn't read anything in the posts. Someone asked if Minnesota was turning out top players. Can you make the argument it isn't? I'd love to see it. By what measure is this model failing to develop players? It isn't.

People do not have a "right to choose" their youth program annually under the MAHA umbrella. They have a choice not to play. They have a choice to move.

Prove that this right is needed and you'll be on to something. You can't, and you know it.

Pointing out why the system is the way it is and why it isn't failing isn't very hard. It seems like you want to argue this. I don't. You aren't breaking any new ground here. Minnesota's hockey model works - well - and will continue to.

I never said Minnesota wasn't turning out top players or that Minnesota doesn't develop players. Plenty of players develop in Minnesota. With programs around like the Blades, Shattuck, Minnesota Made, Velocity etc. etc. it's difficult not to produce top players. Minnesota is a hockey factory. I am not arguing that.

People DO NOT have the right to choose in Minnesota. It's just a stupid statement. t's like saing 1860's women had the right to vote. All they had to do was Choose not to - or move to Canada.

Your last statement may be the numbest of them all. Firstly, I'm not arguing the Minnesota system doesn't work - in fact, I believe (and I've said this many times) that it works well for many. You want to pretend it' a one-size fits all paradise for everyone and it just isn't. Pointing out why any system works isn't hard. The challenge is in identifying what can make it better - and in this case - for many of us - it's the right to play Tier 1 Hockey. That might not be important to a hockey dad in Florida, but for some of us who live here in Minnesota who don't have this option it is an issue.

If Tier 1 hockey isn't needed and isn't beneficial, as you contend, then what exactly are you (and other protectionists) afraid of? A useless program which lacks merit or benefits won't last long and won't need policy to keep it out.

Nailed! Enough said.....

[O-townClown]

I'm with Who's Puck is it on this one O-town... it comes down the basic principle that I should have every right to choose how and where I would like to spend my money.

Yes, Minnesota does develop, year in and year out, NHL and D-1 Caliber players...BUT, with the number of players here, is that TOP end talent a result of the system or the pure numbers?

Personally, 3 years ago, I would have been totally Tier 1, but now I love the Association system we have. HOWEVER, the Twin Cities alone could easily house 3 Tier 1 teams and would easily fill those rosters with players that want to play Tier 1 and families willing to pay for it. The current system doesn't let it happen.

Either way, when you see high end players bailing out in high school...the question is why?

The "pure numbers" would indicate 12.2% penetrations, not almost twice that.

You mention three Tier I teams in the Metro. Others have cited different numbers. I respect your opinion, but have to point out it isn't that simple.

So they hold tryouts. People applaud MAHA's decision to fill this need by giving the right to choose, solving the problem for the parents of a great player in a weaker association. Guess what happens?

The teams are formed and there are oodles of Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and Wayzata kids on them and it barely scratches the surface for the boy from St. Louis Park, Waconia, or Kennedy. Most of those that you thought this would help get cut, and up goes the claim there isn't enough Tier I hockey.

It isn't the panacea you think it is. Making changes to allow Tier I brings up other challenges and those need to be addressed. The most compelling arguments in favor of Tier I hockey in Minnesota always ignore those. Why is that?

Your final question asks why kids bail in HS. Could it be that they finally get to an age where things actually matter? And they are old enough so we have a pretty good handle on who the elite players are. The hockey pyramid is completely inverted. That's why I've separated the discussion for youth vs. HS. If there is a need for catering to the super half dozen each year the state could form Tier I Midget teams. But these players can simply go to the USHL, which is terrific, and accomplish the same thing.

Or they can stay in HS, play in the Elite League, and possibly still get drafted real early. Which kind of brings us back to wondering how many people Tier I would help and by how much.

[O-townClown]

It's a wonderful OPTION for a top end kid from a small association. It wouldn't even cross my mind if we lived in Minnetonka, Elk River, or Centerville.

If/when there is a Twin City-based Tier I team, the roster will read Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Edina, etc... In fact, the strong association families will be the least sensitive to the cost of out of state travel.

Some small associations would lose players, but it wouldn't be just small associations.

[MrBoDangles]

It's a wonderful OPTION for a top end kid from a small association. It wouldn't even cross my mind if we lived in Minnetonka, Elk River, or Centerville.

If/when there is a Twin City-based Tier I team, the roster will read Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Edina, etc... In fact, the strong association families will be the least sensitive to the cost of out of state travel.

Some small associations would lose players, but it wouldn't be just small associations.

Option was the KEY word... There are also plenty of top end players on top summer teams. Including small towns in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Fire is the same way. Just have to grow more corn out here to pay for it.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Which kind of brings us back to wondering how many people Tier I would help and by how much.

The real question is - who would it hurt?

[MrBoDangles]

It's all the same material that has been talked about.

Playing B hockey your second year of Peewees...... IS MUCH DIFFERENT.... than playing B first year in a large association.


Fact -They will not develop the same playing weaker competition.

The Fire are all youth! Look at the topic.

SSM has not hurt with some Minnesota players?

The Fire has hurt with MN players?

Bo,your real issue is with your association. If they'd classify teams at the appropriate levels (i.e., no A teams unless its truly a good fit for the talent in the association), an occasional kid or two could waive out to an A level team in a neighboring association (like centennial, since you used them as an example of an association you'd be happy with).

You don't need Tier I to provide kids with an opportunity to play at an "appropriate" level. You're looking for a way to circumvent your association because you don't agree with how they classify their teams. If so, that's not a reason to add Tier I.

Plus, you don't know that the kids from smaller associations will make the Tier I teams even if those teams are added. I think there'd be lots of good skaters from Edina, EP, Wayzata, etc. who might try out for Tier I if they weren't sure of making their association's A team.

Tier I wouldn't be a cure-all.

In no way is our association ready to play A.... as you know. It's in the near future though for the younger kids.

The reception of a kid that waives out and makes A is a nightmare IN EVERY WAY.

Another OPTION is always nice to have. Like you making the CHOICE your option.

In no way a cure-all...... only another option.

Good luck with football this fall.

[O-townClown]

1. People DO NOT have the right to choose in Minnesota. It's just a stupid statement. t's like saing 1860's women had the right to vote. All they had to do was Choose not to - or move to Canada.

2. You want to pretend it' a one-size fits all paradise for everyone and it just isn't. Pointing out why any system works isn't hard. The challenge is in identifying what can make it better - and in this case - for many of us - it's the right to play Tier 1 Hockey. That might not be important to a hockey dad in Florida, but for some of us who live here in Minnesota who don't have this option it is an issue.

3. If Tier 1 hockey isn't needed and isn't beneficial, as you contend, then what exactly are you (and other protectionists) afraid of? A useless program which lacks merit or benefits won't last long and won't need policy to keep it out.

1- It might be a stupid statement. It's also a fact.

2- Walk a mile in my shoes. I've spent more hours than you work in a week trying to sort out Tier I issues as a board member with my affiliate. When you have the right to choose it opens a huge can of worms. You don't have to believe me, but remember this: choosing is easy when your options are limited. It becomes harder when there are multiple options.

3- Remember, it isn't a question if a Tier I option would be good for a kid. The question is whether it is better in aggregate for all the kids.

[O-townClown]

The real question is - who would it hurt?

In order to change, burden of proof is on those wanting the change. Remember that.

[Quasar]

If/when there is a Twin City-based Tier I team, the roster will read Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Edina, etc... In fact, the strong association families will be the least sensitive to the cost of out of state travel.

Not Necessarily .. The roster could read District 2, 3, 4 Etc...More than enough players in each district to support 4 Peewe minor/major and Bantam minor/major teams.

One thing that's been missing in this conversation is the concept of team.
Hockey is after all a team sport... A exceptional player can stand out if he selects the right tournaments to enter.. There are only a few Minnesota teams that could play with the Top Tier 1 teams.

Really great team players are only able to develop as far as their Association team will let them.. That's ok for the traditional powers. But it is a real detriment to kids playing in small Associations.

Tier 1 would allow for play makers to develop their skills in a team setting.

I realize there are some that think the rest of the Hockey world is wrong, and that Minnesota has some magic bullet... They do ..it's called numbers!!!

[royals dad]

Our small association produced a great player in recent years. Watched him come up through 1st year bantams, he made every A team he was on much better. Left early to play HS and then left that early for NDP. If your a top 30 player in the state the association will build around you, the summer will allow you to play with peers, and you will be found. Not to mention advance 15s and the HS elite opportunities.

It seems to me that the NDP, NCAA, NHL draft kids are a fairly good mix of the super associations and the small ones. Any data wizards out there feel like talking that one. Don't keep bashing those of us who choose small associations, we have good ice times, great coaches, and less politics than our giant size neighbors. Plus if your not happy here open enroll out.

Also should be interesting to see how the weak economy effects numbers in Minnesota vs the rest of the country over the next few years.

[play4fun]

Bo,your real issue is with your association. If they'd classify teams at the appropriate levels (i.e., no A teams unless its truly a good fit for the talent in the association), an occasional kid or two could waive out to an A level team in a neighboring association (like centennial, since you used them as an example of an association you'd be happy with).

You don't need Tier I to provide kids with an opportunity to play at an "appropriate" level. You're looking for a way to circumvent your association because you don't agree with how they classify their teams. If so, that's not a reason to add Tier I.

Plus, you don't know that the kids from smaller associations will make the Tier I teams even if those teams are added. I think there'd be lots of good skaters from Edina, EP, Wayzata, etc. who might try out for Tier I if they weren't sure of making their association's A team.

Tier I wouldn't be a cure-all.

In no way is our association ready to play A.... as you know. It's in the near future though for the younger kids.

The reception of a kid that waives out and makes A is a nightmare IN EVERY WAY.

Another OPTION is always nice to have. Like you making the CHOICE your option.

In no way a cure-all...... only another option.

Good luck with football this fall.

PeeWee Choice may still have an opening or two... Come on down -- at least you're not in D6 and have that OPTION.

All I know is that MNH and D6couldn't have done any more this year to show that they are NOT about providing more opportunities for kids. How does eliminating options improve the sport for all? It doesn't.

It's ironic that their actions have only increased the push for more options, not fewer.

At least the kids have football. No politics there...

[play4fun]

Our small association produced a great player in recent years. Watched him come up through 1st year bantams, he made every A team he was on much better. Left early to play HS and then left that early for NDP. If your a top 30 player in the state the association will build around you, the summer will allow you to play with peers, and you will be found. Not to mention advance 15s and the HS elite opportunities.

It seems to me that the NDP, NCAA, NHL draft kids are a fairly good mix of the super associations and the small ones. Any data wizards out there feel like talking that one. Don't keep bashing those of us who choose small associations, we have good ice times, great coaches, and less politics than our giant size neighbors. Plus if your not happy here open enroll out.

Also should be interesting to see how the weak economy effects numbers in Minnesota vs the rest of the country over the next few years.

I can think of a few small associations that don't have good ice times, have something short of great coaches, and have just as much if not more politics than the large associations out there. If you're in a good spot, I'm happy for you. But, don't be too quick to paint others as malcontents who should just open enroll based on your experience.

[greybeard58]

The change needed to go to open Tier I in Minnesota will require a change in Philosophy at the board level. Second to make the change it will require a change in their governing documents and that requires a 2/3 majority, I believe their are now 29 voting board members, 20 yea votes needed.
The 2 High school reps will vote no, the 13 District Directors will vote no motion has failed. Since not one idea on Tier I hockey for any level has been presented to the board as of yet it is a moot point, if it were to be presented at the September, there would be discussion then might be sent to a committee then if wording changes are needed would then go to rules and then back to the original committee. To be put in play for the 2011-2012 season would have to be passed at the January meeting. With the current make up of the board it will not happen. You will have to convince the board that Tier I open is needed in Minnesota, remember they like a large number of others and that includes most associations do not feel Tier I open is needed. I would guess that they would change the birth dates to match USA Hockey and then classify their A level teams as Tier I and declare their intention to participate at the National tournament again and that would really put a damper on any waivers to play out state. The concept of District teams has been brought up on more then one occasion and has not had a whole lot of support.

[Quasar]

The change needed to go to open Tier I in Minnesota will require a change in Philosophy at the board level.

Greybeard, I agree with everything in your post... I think the quote above says it all. Just tooooo hard for anyone to contemplate..

I understand about the reluctance to use the districts.. The A team model will not work for obvious reasons.. In my opinion, the district model is the only way for ALL kids to have a shot at Tier 1 participation. I coached in the mid 70's. It's amazing to me that Minnesota Hockey thought is still pretty much the same as it was 35 years ago.

[royals dad]

I can think of a few small associations that don't have good ice times, have something short of great coaches, and have just as much if not more politics than the large associations out there. If you're in a good spot, I'm happy for you. But, don't be too quick to paint others as malcontents who should just open enroll based on your experience.

Associations of all sizes have those problems. Associations of all sizes and quality levels have malcontents as well. The picture has been painted on this thread that #1 Small associations are a bad place for a top player and #2 Winter hockey in Minnesota is void of choice. I think both of those contentions are BS and that is what I was trying to point out.

People want to break a system that isn't broken in order to fix a problem that is not really a problem. We have more choices within 1 hour of the metro for teams, development, camps, clinics, specialty coaches, and private school programs then any other spot in the USA. We are starting to see more elite summer teams traveling to Minnesota. We also have public school open enrollment and youth hockey now tied to school district. Not to mention USA Hockey itself removing "National Championship" tournaments at a younger level.

[O-townClown]

It seems to me that the NDP, NCAA, NHL draft kids are a fairly good mix of the super associations and the small ones. Any data wizards out there feel like talking that one. Don't keep bashing those of us who choose small associations, we have good ice times, great coaches, and less politics than our giant size neighbors. Plus if your not happy here open enroll out.

I've spoken about this anecdotally with several friends in professional hockey jobs. There are many guys who have benefitted greatly from being in a small association. Keith Ballard with Baudette is an example. Several of the big scoring Minnesotans in the NHL have been from a "lesser" program.

There are a lot of benefit. Puck time, confidence, and a chance to be The Man.

In a large associations it is easy to get buried. A friend that scouts for an NHL team said, if you move back to Minnesota, don't go to Edina.