HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

greybeard58 wrote:First the Minn High school season does not start until Nov. 15,2010. A high school coach can not set a roster before then.

What District is the association located in?

How many players are at the Bantam level including the 4 players?

Has the association already declared their teams to the District?

Has the association even talked with the coach about leaving the 4 players at the Youth level and playing at the A level this year?

By the way why not start a new thread as most of the discussion is not about the cost of travel for the fire?

Wow! What a great place to get answers from all different angles. We will be moving to Dist. 6 and including the 4 moving there is approx. 40-45 bantams. With the HS coach taking these players up, our HDC decided to apply for B1 status because there is not much BA level players left to compete. No one will ? the HS coach on how he can give these players a spot without a tryout for fear of reprecussions on some of the returners at the HS level. Rumor is that a couple of these parents approached the HS coach last year and threatened to leave for another HS if they were not moved up for the 2010-2011 season and therefore the other two followed suit. I am no great HS hOCKEY MIND but is'nt there some kind of rules that prevent this sort of thing from happening? I mean with these players being held spots on the Varsity, are they telling returning players that np matter how much they may have improved over the summer and no matter how well you do in tryouts, 4 of them have to go to make room for the 4 Bantams??? They aren't even making them try out with the bantams and their parents have already joined the Blue line club. I should mention that I have a Bantam and a HS player.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Again, I still will not buy it when comparing apples to apples. I know for a fact that Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake could not come close to forming 2-3 tier 1 teams and a bunch of tier 2's with the same numbers as all of Florida. Even if the three flew in a few ringers it wouldn't be enough. If I added up kids from small out of the loop associations it would be even farther from happening.

Reading back through a couple of these topics has really shown me how you bounce around on your story.......

I have not bounced around one bit. How many Tier II teams are their in Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake at the Pee Wee level? It must be 15.

You could easily form two Tier I teams that will finish with a national ranking of about 75, just like the Panthers Alliance will at Pee Wee 98. That's well above the rank for the Everblades 99, I'll bet.

I don't think you understand about the Tier I landscape. It is like you assume all Tier I teams are better than all Tier II teams.

Let me know where you feel I've bounced around and I'll clarify for you. Florida does a pretty good job despite extremely low participation. The paradox is that a kid like my son can play a lot of hockey because there is not much competition for ice time. Rinks are open year 'round, so it is easy to play through the summer.

If it bothers you to have a good player on a weak team, you'd be miserable here if your son played in half of our programs. If he were in the other half you'd be miserable because the competition for most games is really weak. (I'm driving 2 1/2 hours to Jacksonville and getting a hotel room for two games that will probably be 9-2 this weekend.)

If you exercise your choice to not be in either half you will easily spend $7,500-10,000 this year for hockey because the team needs to play out of state. And your kid will be labeled an ice whore because he's always at skate n' shoots and clinics because his team doesn't practice during the week.

Knock yourself out.

So is the development horrible in Florida? Or is that you live a ways from a rink that makes it horrible.

I'm talking about development not about your horrible hassles in Hockey. We have many here in Minnesota that ENJOY the hassles of going to big name tournaments in Canada etc..... You do it for a reason like people in Minnesota do it for a reason. Minnesotans don't have all the Floridians rights in the winter though.

You get to choose your horrible hassles, we don't.... Think about it!

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:

Pudda_Puck_In_Her_Ear wrote: did we ever figure out if Fire costs more than association hockey

Association 1,200-2600
Fire 2,500

Main cost of youth travel hockey is travel. Isn't the total tally for some Fire teams more like $7,500? I seem to remember seeing them entered in events that required a flight. I'll ask some of my friends.

Winter association= 4 tournaments x $500 for all weekend costs
gas and meals out for games $1000
gas and meals etc for practice $ 500........etc etc
The only difference is possibly some airline tickets that they get cheap...... Forced to have a fun trip with family.

royals dad wrote: I have tried to keep up with ADM and for the life of me can not understand how mite/squirt/peewee year round tier 1 would fit with it. Per USA Hockey it is not a set of rules but rather guidlines:

I agree. I don't see AAA mite / squirt hockey inline with ADM in any way. The AAA programs that are really focused on development and only play a handful of tournaments are close to being inline with ADM. The Problem is that the schedule forces a player to choose between Hockey and other sports.

During the spring when school is still in session there is just no way to play Hockey and another sports (or two) at the same time without give a less than 100% commitment to one or all sports being played.

AAA Hockey seems to line up well with the ADM for older kids PW and up when more focused development is required and competition starts becoming more important.

lkool wrote:

royals dad wrote: I have tried to keep up with ADM and for the life of me can not understand how mite/squirt/peewee year round tier 1 would fit with it. Per USA Hockey it is not a set of rules but rather guidlines:

I agree. I don't see AAA mite / squirt hockey inline with ADM in any way. The AAA programs that are really focused on development and only play a handful of tournaments are close to being inline with ADM. The Problem is that the schedule forces a player to choose between Hockey and other sports.

During the spring when school is still in session there is just no way to play Hockey and another sports (or two) at the same time without give a less than 100% commitment to one or all sports being played.

AAA Hockey seems to line up well with the ADM for older kids PW and up when more focused development is required and competition starts becoming more important.

Straight from USA Hockey on ADM for Peewee age players "Keep the top level as broad as possible. This allows better players greater success and pushes lesser players to emulate "

Pulling the top players to a year round Tier 1 AAA program still seems to me to be at odds with what ADM is trying to do.

royals dad wrote:

lkool wrote:

royals dad wrote: I have tried to keep up with ADM and for the life of me can not understand how mite/squirt/peewee year round tier 1 would fit with it. Per USA Hockey it is not a set of rules but rather guidlines:

I agree. I don't see AAA mite / squirt hockey inline with ADM in any way. The AAA programs that are really focused on development and only play a handful of tournaments are close to being inline with ADM. The Problem is that the schedule forces a player to choose between Hockey and other sports.

During the spring when school is still in session there is just no way to play Hockey and another sports (or two) at the same time without give a less than 100% commitment to one or all sports being played.

AAA Hockey seems to line up well with the ADM for older kids PW and up when more focused development is required and competition starts becoming more important.

Straight from USA Hockey on ADM for Peewee age players "Keep the top level as broad as possible. This allows better players greater success and pushes lesser players to emulate "

Pulling the top players to a year round Tier 1 AAA program still seems to me to be at odds with what ADM is trying to do.

I wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating for a year round AAA program. I was referring to AAA hockey as it is now.

Personally I never want to see winter AAA / Tier 1 whatever you want to call it, in Minnesota.

If Winter AAA was ever allowed by Minnesota Hockey you would have a few years of transition where you would probably see some really strong teams from Minnesota, but then it would get watered down. More teams would form and fight for the top players.

You would just be privatizing winter hockey. You would end up with a bunch of private hockey programs that put out Tier I, and Tier II teams. They would probably have "recreational" programs for all the other kids.

You would really just end up replacing the current association model with a private model, but nothing would be much different. Hockey would be run like youth soccer is today.

MrBoDangles wrote: So is the development horrible in Florida? Or is that you live a ways from a rink that makes it horrible.

I'm talking about development not about your horrible hassles in Hockey. We have many here in Minnesota that ENJOY the hassles of going to big name tournaments in Canada etc..... You do it for a reason like people in Minnesota do it for a reason. Minnesotans don't have all the Floridians rights in the winter though.

You get to choose your horrible hassles, we don't.... Think about it!

You do have a choice ... MOVE

MrBoDangles wrote:So is the development horrible in Florida? Or is that you live a ways from a rink that makes it horrible.

I'm talking about development not about your horrible hassles in Hockey. We have many here in Minnesota that ENJOY the hassles of going to big name tournaments in Canada etc..... You do it for a reason like people in Minnesota do it for a reason. Minnesotans don't have all the Floridians rights in the winter though.

You get to choose your horrible hassles, we don't.... Think about it!

Since nobody has ever agreed on the definition of development, I'm not sure I understand the first question. I'll answer using my definition.

Players in Florida get better, or develop, because they want to. Not because our affiliate (SAHOF), model, or clubs have any secret sauce.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Again, I still will not buy it when comparing apples to apples. I know for a fact that Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake could not come close to forming 2-3 tier 1 teams and a bunch of tier 2's with the same numbers as all of Florida. Even if the three flew in a few ringers it wouldn't be enough. If I added up kids from small out of the loop associations it would be even farther from happening.

Reading back through a couple of these topics has really shown me how you bounce around on your story.......

I have not bounced around one bit. How many Tier II teams are their in Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake at the Pee Wee level? It must be 15.

You could easily form two Tier I teams that will finish with a national ranking of about 75, just like the Panthers Alliance will at Pee Wee 98. That's well above the rank for the Everblades 99, I'll bet.

I don't think you understand about the Tier I landscape. It is like you assume all Tier I teams are better than all Tier II teams.

Let me know where you feel I've bounced around and I'll clarify for you. Florida does a pretty good job despite extremely low participation. The paradox is that a kid like my son can play a lot of hockey because there is not much competition for ice time. Rinks are open year 'round, so it is easy to play through the summer.

If it bothers you to have a good player on a weak team, you'd be miserable here if your son played in half of our programs. If he were in the other half you'd be miserable because the competition for most games is really weak. (I'm driving 2 1/2 hours to Jacksonville and getting a hotel room for two games that will probably be 9-2 this weekend.)

If you exercise your choice to not be in either half you will easily spend $7,500-10,000 this year for hockey because the team needs to play out of state. And your kid will be labeled an ice whore because he's always at skate n' shoots and clinics because his team doesn't practice during the week.

Knock yourself out.

For starters..... You have gone from Minnesota being able to support 2-3 tier1 teams to 3,4,5....... to Forest lake, Anoka, Wayzata able to each earn tier 1 status IF ALLOWED. I'm laughing with you, not at you.

Your tune changes constantly

MrBoDangles wrote:Your tune changes constantly

And on the flip side yours does not change. Regardless of the topic. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that 'when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount'.

MrBoDangles wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Again, I still will not buy it when comparing apples to apples. I know for a fact that Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake could not come close to forming 2-3 tier 1 teams and a bunch of tier 2's with the same numbers as all of Florida. Even if the three flew in a few ringers it wouldn't be enough. If I added up kids from small out of the loop associations it would be even farther from happening.

Reading back through a couple of these topics has really shown me how you bounce around on your story.......

I have not bounced around one bit. How many Tier II teams are their in Anoka, Wayzata, and Forest Lake at the Pee Wee level? It must be 15.

You could easily form two Tier I teams that will finish with a national ranking of about 75, just like the Panthers Alliance will at Pee Wee 98. That's well above the rank for the Everblades 99, I'll bet.

I don't think you understand about the Tier I landscape. It is like you assume all Tier I teams are better than all Tier II teams.

Let me know where you feel I've bounced around and I'll clarify for you. Florida does a pretty good job despite extremely low participation. The paradox is that a kid like my son can play a lot of hockey because there is not much competition for ice time. Rinks are open year 'round, so it is easy to play through the summer.

If it bothers you to have a good player on a weak team, you'd be miserable here if your son played in half of our programs. If he were in the other half you'd be miserable because the competition for most games is really weak. (I'm driving 2 1/2 hours to Jacksonville and getting a hotel room for two games that will probably be 9-2 this weekend.)

If you exercise your choice to not be in either half you will easily spend $7,500-10,000 this year for hockey because the team needs to play out of state. And your kid will be labeled an ice whore because he's always at skate n' shoots and clinics because his team doesn't practice during the week.

Knock yourself out.

For starters..... You have gone from Minnesota being able to support 2-3 tier1 teams to 3,4,5....... to Forest lake, Anoka, Wayzata able to each earn tier 1 status IF ALLOWED. I'm laughing with you, not at you.

Your tune changes constantly

I am not sure about Forest Lake or Wayzatam but Anoka would not be a Tier 1 Team. When they complete against Blaine, they get destroyed. Blaine would probably make Tier 1.

MrBoDangles wrote:For starters..... You have gone from Minnesota being able to support 2-3 tier1 teams to 3,4,5....... to Forest lake, Anoka, Wayzata able to each earn tier 1 status IF ALLOWED. I'm laughing with you, not at you.

Your tune changes constantly

If Minnesota is to embrace Tier I hockey and create a model that facilitates that I assume these Tier I progams should be nationally competitive at the highest level. So yes, that means 2 or 5 or whatever number you want as long as it is low. All of Michigan has just five Tier I programs.

Things break down real fast once you get outside the Metro area.

If the goal is to field teams competitive with the 2nd or 3rd (when there is one) team in hockey backwater Florida, you are looking at dozens. How many Tier I programs in Massachusetts? I can't even count that high. And there Tier I is a total joke. It is really just a Tier II club system as far as competitive level.

Remember, because players are a little older, District 6 teams face a stronger schedule than virtually every Tier I team at the Pee Wee and Bantam level. There is extremely high level hockey being played in Minnesota.

Having Minnesota adopt a Tier I model with multiple programs makes no sense if the goal is to offer this holy grail of competitive levels. Watering it down would really just be a migration from the community-based model envied nationally to a club option. I think Minnesota can get there with Tier II just the same, yet we don't see that discussed on this message board.

Keep moving the shells around.

royals dad wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Your tune changes constantly

And on the flip side yours does not change. Regardless of the topic. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that 'when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount'.

Furthest thing from a dead horse... Changes in Minnesota Hockey are happening all around you.

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:For starters..... You have gone from Minnesota being able to support 2-3 tier1 teams to 3,4,5....... to Forest lake, Anoka, Wayzata able to each earn tier 1 status IF ALLOWED. I'm laughing with you, not at you.

Your tune changes constantly

If Minnesota is to embrace Tier I hockey and create a model that facilitates that I assume these Tier I progams should be nationally competitive at the highest level. So yes, that means 2 or 5 or whatever number you want as long as it is low. All of Michigan has just five Tier I programs.

Things break down real fast once you get outside the Metro area.

If the goal is to field teams competitive with the 2nd or 3rd (when there is one) team in hockey backwater Florida, you are looking at dozens. How many Tier I programs in Massachusetts? I can't even count that high. And there Tier I is a total joke. It is really just a Tier II club system as far as competitive level.

Remember, because players are a little older, District 6 teams face a stronger schedule than virtually every Tier I team at the Pee Wee and Bantam level. There is extremely high level hockey being played in Minnesota.

Having Minnesota adopt a Tier I model with multiple programs makes no sense if the goal is to offer this holy grail of competitive levels. Watering it down would really just be a migration from the community-based model envied nationally to a club option. I think Minnesota can get there with Tier II just the same, yet we don't see that discussed on this message board.

Keep moving the shells around.

Like you said, "Things break down real fast once you get outside the metro area" You said it! ....... You nailed it! ........ Shouln't those kids have the option in the winter of playing at the same level?

You say it, you get it, then you spew some tripped out garbage to something away from the point. Kids should not be stuck in associations that can't meet their needs. A kid with A or tier 1 potential forced to play b-1 or b-2 is a joke.

Fact is that associations in the metro "break down" compared to the D6 type teams. Shouldn't all the kids have a fair shake to play a their personal skill level?

Now we will hear...... I have to drive 40 miles
2 1/2 hours to Ft. white beach
Tier 1 is terrible, but I like to talk about it
Florida kids are as good as they want to be because of all
the ice, but then you say the skill level is horrible.
You then say we have a bunch of kids at prep schools
and the USHL, but then say the skill level is terrible.
BLAW, BLAW, BLAW,

MrBoDangles wrote:

royals dad wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Your tune changes constantly

And on the flip side yours does not change. Regardless of the topic. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that 'when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount'.

Furthest thing from a dead horse... Changes in Minnesota Hockey are happening all around you.

No doubt about it, Minnesota Hockey is one of the most progressive hockey organizations in the country. From education of coaches, game limits, training philosophy, and goaltender training we lead the way for USA hockey and have never stopped changing. I have seen and been involved with many of the changes over the last 20 years and I am very proud of what has been accomplished and look forward to many more years working to improve hockey in Minnesota.

There were people who brought things like Carp and Buckthorn to Minnesota as an improvement. Now they are a problem, that is what your in season for profit open geographic hockey model will be as well. Ever tried to de buckthorn land? ick makes my back hurt to even think about it.

MrBoDangles wrote:

royals dad wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Your tune changes constantly

And on the flip side yours does not change. Regardless of the topic. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that 'when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount'.

Furthest thing from a dead horse... Changes in Minnesota Hockey are happening all around you.

Yep.......just like health care reform....you can either have a seat at the table (and a say in the matter) or eventually it will get crammed down your throat

royals dad wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:

royals dad wrote: And on the flip side yours does not change. Regardless of the topic. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

The tribal wisdoms of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that 'when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount'.

Furthest thing from a dead horse... Changes in Minnesota Hockey are happening all around you.

No doubt about it, Minnesota Hockey is one of the most progressive hockey organizations in the country. From education of coaches, game limits, training philosophy, and goaltender training we lead the way for USA hockey and have never stopped changing. I have seen and been involved with many of the changes over the last 20 years and I am very proud of what has been accomplished and look forward to many more years working to improve hockey in Minnesota.

There were people who brought things like Carp and Buckthorn to Minnesota as an improvement. Now they are a problem, that is what your in season for profit open geographic hockey model will be as well. Ever tried to de buckthorn land? ick makes my back hurt to even think about it.

Do the top level kids in your association play b-2? Do you know if your kids have ice hours for practice yet? We don't. Does your local association have a home rink? Ours doesn't..................

No doubt about it, Minnesota Hockey is one of the most progressive hockey organizations in the country. From education of coaches, game limits, training philosophy, and goaltender training we lead the way for USA hockey and have never stopped changing. I have seen and been involved with many of the changes over the last 20 years and I am very proud of what has been accomplished and look forward to many more years working to improve hockey in Minnesota.


So the question is ..What do you think future improvements will be ??

Mr Bo Dangles asked:
Do the top level kids in your association play b-2? Do you know if your kids have ice hours for practice yet? We don't. Does your local association have a home rink? Ours doesn't.............

I would also like to hear your answer to Bo's question..

Looks like that 20 years of improvement hasn't reached into where ever it is that Bo's kid is playing. Perhaps we could address that in the next 20 years !!

All the great kids play for the fire

Quasar wrote:

Mr Bo Dangles asked:
Do the top level kids in your association play b-2? Do you know if your kids have ice hours for practice yet? We don't. Does your local association have a home rink? Ours doesn't.............

I would also like to hear your answer to Bo's question..

Looks like that 20 years of improvement hasn't reached into where ever it is that Bo's kid is playing. Perhaps we could address that in the next 20 years !!

I don't think he lives in the metro. I grew up in a rural area, everyone should know that if you live in a less densely populated area you will have fewer options for more than just hockey. I can choose between 5 major grocery stores within a few miles from my house. That said my oldest daughter did play a year of B on the girls side because we couldn't field an A team and she was ready to be done with boys teams, she went from A boys to B girls. We are surrounded by mega associations but we have a different demographic so we are relatively small. It didn't really hurt her development but we did need to find some extra things that year to help her out.

I have yet to hear of an association that does not skate an A team that refuses to allow waivers of A level players (if yours did then appeal to the district). That is a big part of the reason for the waiver process. If the expectation of Minnesota Hockey from you is that we are to plunk a new arena in every community then force enough kids from that community to play so each one has A, B1, B2, and C available don't hold your breath. If you think we will throw away the association model and bring the summer landscape to winter again don't hold your breath.

If by change your talking about continuing to get better at teaching the game, evolving the rules, growing the sport, developing new coaches, developing new refs, improving safety, refining goalie training,... Then yes I see that change continuing for Minnesota Hockey and I hope it never stops.

If the thought is that we will get more "Wisconsin" based teams that fill up with Minnesota players. Fine I hope Minnesota Hockey takes a stand and makes sure that our "tier 2" association teams no longer play any games against Tier 1 or Unclassified teams. Furthermore I hope they enforce making it a one way trip. If you want what the rest of the country has you got it, welcome to the world of 2 hour drives to practice and plane trips to games.

Bo, it is hard to respond to your schizophrenic rants. You obviously have a problem with your local association, but the response is to label all of Minnesota Hockey a Stone Age, regressive organization.

Wanting the ability to remove a player from an environment you deem less than optimal, you feel every kid should have the option to play for the Wisconsin Fire.

Great. Go do it.

Opening up Tier I hockey, basically throwing out something that works best when compared to all other areas if you consider all relevant criteria, probably won't help a standout player in Little Falls, Alexandria, Proctor, or Biwabik. As it is, these kids can play for the Fire, no?

The reality is that there just may not be as many malcontents ready to abandon their current environment. It used to be pretty easy...kids would just move. I can think of two NHL players from my HS, a first-team All-WCHA player, a National Champion blueliner at Wisconsin, a WCHA starting goaltender, and still another Division I player - all in a five year window in the late 80s. None of these kids began in our youth association. They joined in Squirts, Pee Wees, or even High School.

It's still that easy. So now you'll say you don't want to move. Minnesota has allowances for programs forming co-ops. They have allowances for waivering kids to other associations if their needs are unmet. They have provisions to play where you go to school. Are you really unable to find a better environment?

It isn't that your cheese has moved; your defeatest mindset is that everyone in the world sits atop a MOUNTAIN of cheese and you'll never have any. Get serious...the Sunshine State is home to the hockey model of envy?!

I'm happy here, which says more about me than it does about Florida. Who are you unhappy with? Your association? Those running Minnesota Hockey? Its rules? USA Hockey?

Might I suggest you look in the mirror?

Another poster asked about your own experiences. What were they? Where we come from frames our views. My Bantam team had three players drafted by NHL teams, and one played for a few teams at that level. First off, this was my Bantam B team...so don't act like there is no possible way you can get better if you aren't playing Tier I. Keith Ballard has logged many years in the NHL. Second, you would never guess which three those were if you watched video (which my best friend has plenty of) from that season. You wouldn't. Nobody would. And finally, by me playing with them, it didn't automatically turn me into an elite player.

Yes, I'd feel differently if my experience was that every player from District 6 was better than every player from Detroit Lakes or Brainerd. Somehow, as miraculous as it sounds to you, guys from those areas can become much better than kids on the Wisconsin Fire or Florida Everblades.

Best of luck. I don't know who to feel sorry for, you or the kid in the back seat. My sense is that the upcoming season will be a self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in no enjoyment.

royals dad wrote:

Quasar wrote: I would also like to hear your answer to Bo's question..

Looks like that 20 years of improvement hasn't reached into where ever it is that Bo's kid is playing. Perhaps we could address that in the next 20 years !!

I don't think he lives in the metro. I grew up in a rural area, everyone should know that if you live in a less densely populated area you will have fewer options for more than just hockey. I can choose between 5 major grocery stores within a few miles from my house. That said my oldest daughter did play a year of B on the girls side because we couldn't field an A team and she was ready to be done with boys teams, she went from A boys to B girls. We are surrounded by mega associations but we have a different demographic so we are relatively small. It didn't really hurt her development but we did need to find some extra things that year to help her out.

I have yet to hear of an association that does not skate an A team that refuses to allow waivers of A level players (if yours did then appeal to the district). That is a big part of the reason for the waiver process. If the expectation of Minnesota Hockey from you is that we are to plunk a new arena in every community then force enough kids from that community to play so each one has A, B1, B2, and C available don't hold your breath. If you think we will throw away the association model and bring the summer landscape to winter again don't hold your breath.

If by change your talking about continuing to get better at teaching the game, evolving the rules, growing the sport, developing new coaches, developing new refs, improving safety, refining goalie training,... Then yes I see that change continuing for Minnesota Hockey and I hope it never stops.

If the thought is that we will get more "Wisconsin" based teams that fill up with Minnesota players. Fine I hope Minnesota Hockey takes a stand and makes sure that our "tier 2" association teams no longer play any games against Tier 1 or Unclassified teams. Furthermore I hope they enforce making it a one way trip. If you want what the rest of the country has you got it, welcome to the world of 2 hour drives to practice and plane trips to games.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my request. I do understand where your coming from, and I commend you for your years of service to Minnesota hockey. I think it can be said that not all associations are created equal. Your approach to improvement is as you stated
"teaching the game, evolving the rules, growing the sport, developing new coaches, developing new refs, improving safety, refining goalie training" This is a natural progression and one that must be continued.
I think what a lot of people are trying to say is the organization of the district/association model needs a little up dating. I agree that the things you mentioned have all occurred. The problem as I see it is that very little has improved in the way associations conduct their business.. It should not be so difficult to understand that some people are looking for a little more flexibility. In the age of twitter, face book, u-tube and instant communication, such as this forum, the business model needs to catch up to the technical advancements you are rightly proud of.

Quasar wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my request. I do understand where your coming from, and I commend you for your years of service to Minnesota hockey. I think it can be said that not all associations are created equal. Your approach to improvement is as you stated
"teaching the game, evolving the rules, growing the sport, developing new coaches, developing new refs, improving safety, refining goalie training" This is a natural progression and one that must be continued.
I think what a lot of people are trying to say is the organization of the district/association model needs a little up dating. I agree that the things you mentioned have all occurred. The problem as I see it is that very little has improved in the way associations conduct their business.. It should not be so difficult to understand that some people are looking for a little more flexibility. In the age of twitter, face book, u-tube and instant communication, such as this forum, the business model needs to catch up to the technical advancements you are rightly proud of.

Also please understand that I believe it is like Anarchy and Democracy existing in the same place, it does not work. We have a unique situation in Minnesota and it allows us a unique system, no other state can have what we have. I strongly believe it would be a shame to loose it.

royals dad wrote:

Quasar wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my request. I do understand where your coming from, and I commend you for your years of service to Minnesota hockey. I think it can be said that not all associations are created equal. Your approach to improvement is as you stated
"teaching the game, evolving the rules, growing the sport, developing new coaches, developing new refs, improving safety, refining goalie training" This is a natural progression and one that must be continued.
I think what a lot of people are trying to say is the organization of the district/association model needs a little up dating. I agree that the things you mentioned have all occurred. The problem as I see it is that very little has improved in the way associations conduct their business.. It should not be so difficult to understand that some people are looking for a little more flexibility. In the age of twitter, face book, u-tube and instant communication, such as this forum, the business model needs to catch up to the technical advancements you are rightly proud of.

Also please understand that I believe it is like Anarchy and Democracy existing in the same place, it does not work. We have a unique situation in Minnesota and it allows us a unique system, no other state can have what we have. I strongly believe it would be a shame to loose it.

Yes I agree .. That's why I think the mounting pressure for choice should be handled within the current structure so that years of hard work are not lost for the want of a little more freedom of choice. Call it what you will, AAA, Tier 1, or super A, the choice league, the Fire, The dirty SOBs, it doesn't matter, the pressure will continue. I think that it is in the interest of everyone associated with Minnesota hockey to start looking for a solution, rather than ignoring the problem.