HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Shinbone_News wrote:Oh, and another empirical comparison that speaks to this issue: Watch the Elite League teams play Shattuck-St. Mary's this year. Heck, watch any HS team play SSMA this year. Do the Sabres usually win? Yes, but not always. Are they blow-out games? Rarely. They are often tied or beaten by Elite League teams, and even a lowly single A team (Breck) tied them last year.

And let's not kid ourselves. Not only is SSM a Tier 1 AAA school, they are widely considered the best at nearly every level they play, including the top.

Minnesota kids do fine against Tier 1 AAA hockey.

Edina is very bad example, as they would not fare as well as you think in Tier I, and they are one of maybe 3 teams in Minnesota that could even compete. The rest of the state is far below that level.

U18 Hockey tends to be watered down as most of the Top players from elsewhere are playing Junior Hockey in the USHL, WHL, or with the National Development Program. But, that being said, Shattuck Prep is competing with essentially Tier I caliber HS All Star teams, and not HS Teams. Everyone has a bad game, the Breck game is an anomaly. Also, the top Shattuck kids leave after their junior years.

A model similar to the Elite league would be intersting at the younger ages. If you divided the state similarly I believe you could field 6-8 Tier I teams that could play elite local competition, travel less.

To answer the Made/Born argument, it isn't one or the other, it is both. You need both, Great Genetics, and Great Development to make it far. The prime skill development years are 11-14, and if you miss that period you are kind of out of luck. Minnesota kids have gotten better in the past 5-10 years, but so has the competition around the country. Players are way better now across the country than they were 20 years ago. AAA hockey development is the reason local players have kept up. Players are able to compensate for the weaker competition, and inconsistent development in the winter, by going nuts in the summer.

Finally, I think the wrong question is being asked. The question isn't what should/shouldn't happen, it is what WILL happen. Opting out to compete in Tier I/Junior is already happening in mass at the HS level. These are just a few recent examples, as I believe the trend is just beginning. I know of a number of 96 players that would jump at the hat to leave after their junior year to one of these programs.

1. Jack Walker 10th Grade WHL
2. Keegan Iverson 10th Grade WHL
3. Jack Glover 11th grade NDTP
4. Collins 11th grade NDTP
5. Ryan Norman 10th Grade SSM prep
6. Chase Phelps 11th grade SSM prep
7. Paul Bittner 11th grade WHL
8. Luke Voltin USHL 12th Grade
9. Tyler Cammarata 12th Grade
10. Hudson Fasching NDTP 12th grade
11. Mason Morelli NAHL
12. Vinny Letteri USHL 12th Grade
13. Hunter Miska NDTP 12th Grade
14. Clint Lewis NDTP 12th Grade
15. Ian McCoshen USHL 12th Grade
16. Michael Brodzinski USHL 12th Grade

This list is by no means definitive. There are more for sure. The point is, as HS hockey continues to bleed top talent, it will eventually become less competitive, and then almost all top players will leave early. I think this will happen sooner than you think. HS hockey will become more recreational.

This same wave affecting HS hockey, is bubbling beneath the surface in youth hockey. Mark my words, within the next five years this wave will come crashing through, right or wrong.

@Royal24: Not sure where you're coming from, but you make an interesting statement. Top SSM kids leave after Jr year. Where are these kids going?

You also state MN HS is on a path to become recreational hockey? My opinion is to take the NDTP and USHL/WHL out of any discussion. Any player chosen to the NDTP would be a fool to not accept the invitation. And any HS player capable of making a USHL or Major Jr roster would also be a fool to stay in HS.

If you want speak of a mass exodus to the lesser leagues (NAHL, MnJ, Russell Stover, etc) I'm all ears.

Quasar: Start with my Detroit thing. A friend of mine grew up in Detroit and has told me about the youth hockey there. It was a disaster. Players jumping from program to program usually for "grass is greener" mentality. The big name programs have long history. The others come and go dragging people along to the top or bottom. Constantly has said we don't realize how good we have it here for youth and HS hockey. Has said look at the summer AAA programs here. The constant movement of players, cliques following each other or coaches, chasing greener grass, etc. Yet the good players will always be good and the above average players will always scream they are being held back somehow. (My opinion Chicago area hockey is the same, but only have minimal experience with that)

Royal24 wrote:This list is by no means definitive. There are more for sure. The point is, as HS hockey continues to bleed top talent, it will eventually become less competitive, and then almost all top players will leave early. I think this will happen sooner than you think. HS hockey will become more recreational.

This same wave affecting HS hockey, is bubbling beneath the surface in youth hockey. Mark my words, within the next five years this wave will come crashing through, right or wrong.

Royals, your post makes me wonder. By tracking the number of Minnesota HS kids that leave early each year we know the number has actually declined. It was 40-45 around 2000 or so and we're seeing 15-20 now.

So is it possible that kids in the past were leaving for 12th and possibly 11th grade? Is it possible kids today are leaving for 10th grade and miss three years, meaning the cummulative effect is that we're missing MORE kids from the HS pool?

Just wondering.

Quasar: "The parents of the kids I'm talking about understand how it works. If your not good enough you don't make the team.. If you don't make the team you play at the next level."

I think that is well established with the summer AAA model. Started with a few truly ELITE programs. Has grown to point that AAA now needs qualifiers of ELITE, INVITE, OPEN, SUPER-DUPER. So you can propose any number of programs "to meet the needs" and that number will expand to meet the available dollars.

Less kids are leaving now. That point has been made over and over on this board and in lets play hockey/MSHL meetings. Some will always go. I remember a kid in the 80's had a hat trick first two games @ state. Had a ride to the U,but quit school the next monday and went up to Canada to "ride the bus". My point is that people will always think there is a better way. Highschool hockey will still be there at the end of the day.It will not become rec hockey.

My point is kids leaving any program "early" for a higher, more advanced level is fine. Associations scream about kids leaving Bantams early for HS. How is this a bad thing? People scream about kids leaving HS early for more advanced programs. How is this a bad thing? Colleges scream about kids leaving early for the pros. Again, how is this a bad thing?

But asking or demanding for a new level of play, and I would say at a parallel level, seems odd.

As for the cost. Our HS hockey costs $225. I've heard of some over $500. But to think a Tier 1 level for HS players could cost $1,000 is silly. That's $20,000 for a a roster of 20 players for a season. Let's start with coaches, will they be paid? If so, how much? Then let's talk about practice ice. If we are talking 20-25 weeks, 5-6 hours per week, that's $1,000 in practice ice per player. Now talk about games. $700 per game? 25 home games? $900 for home games per player. Now talk about travel to "play the best"? Add another couple thousand per player. You are easily at $4,000-$5,000 per player. And, they would not get their "needs met" staying in MN all season so travel could explode.

O-townClown wrote:Quasar, you would do well to re-read the thread from a year and a half ago on what Tier I means. If you are talking about "elite hockey" you should say you are talking about elite hockey.

Tier I means something. It is not the same as "elite hockey".

Guy goes into McDonald's and orders a ribeye. Clerk says they don't offer. "Just gimme one of them Big Macs, dang it!"

"For the future, a Big Mac is one of our hamburgers."

"Oh, I just call all beef a ribeye. You're confused. Keep up!"

Whatever.

Bo wants choice for those (like him) in a weak association. JSR sees benefits to overlaying Tier I atop Minnesota's community-based model with five programs. Quasar thinks changes need to be made and it could be as simple as a Fall Elite league for U16s and U18s.

Too bad Bo doesn't live in Massachusetts, JSR in Michigan, and Quasar Slovakia.

A challenge for Minnesota Hockey is that folks have a lot different vision for what reform would look like.

As I said in 2011, I see the cleanest path being to allow rosters coded "Tournament" (rather than Tier I, Tier II, or Rec) for the months of September & October. Clubs could put together a preseason 10 game league and add in a trip to Warrior.

Actually I live in WI and we have the choice here. All the choice in the world actually. We have different divisions of association hockey, we have Tier 1 from U10 through Midgets, we have high school hockey. We may not have as much depth and tradition and greatness as MN but we do have all of the choices. My kid can play for my local association, if a nearby association plays at a higher division he can tryout there and if he makes the "A" team he can play for them without having ot have a waiver from his association, he can tryout for a Tier 1 AAA winter team and play there if he makes it and needs no waiver, he can play high school hockey or Tier 1 midgets locally or far away (assuming he makes the team), he can also potentially play juniors in high school and has both far away and local options but that process is a bit different as we all know, all the choices available are here so I don't need to move. I am just offering some outside objective observations on how things could work up there is all.....

JSR, I know you live in Wisconsin. Pretty sure Q does too. My point is that what you are proposing for Minnesota is most like what exists in Michigan for Youth hockey.

Any roundtable discussion of folks familiar with all that asks if Minnesota is better served by the models in place for Michigan and Massachusetts results in the same conclusion. Compared to those places it is hockey paradise.

BadgerBob82 wrote:Q: "No need to give em a program that would cost around a grand! "

So you want to be taken seriously yet you think a Tier 1 AAA team would cost about $1,000? Or did you mean $10,000?

JSR: I understand you are saying a full program of U10-Midgets. I would agree the only way this works with complete age groups. You have suggested 5 programs? But what if my kid gets cut? Can we have 6 programs then? And if we need 5 programs to meet demand in the metro, how about having 5 out-state teams. But if you don't make the metro 5 teams, can you waiver to an out-state program? And what if too many imports are renting apartments in neighboring out-state program residency area. Can we create a few more programs, I mean to meet the needs of players locked out of Tier 1 due to no fault of their-own? Or can we do this like Detroit, you are free to play for any organization that will cash your check?

Cost depends on the age group bob. For Pee Wee's our Tier 1 organization charges $2,800 in fees plus travel costs. I have added up all of our travel to all the places we'll play and estimate travel, which includes gas, hotell and food etc... to be around $3,000 this year. So for this winter season costs should be around $5,800. Alot more than $1,000 but alot less than $10,000. Now, if my son played for say, the Chicago Mission, which he does not, then it would probably cost around the $10,000 grand yo mentioned but not all are that costly. I actually suspect if you implemented 5 Tier 1 teams in MN you could probably limit your travel to two big trips per winter and I bet your fees could be around $2,800 and your travel closer to $1,500 so a Tier 1 model could be easily implemented for around $4,300 per year IMHO, $5,000 tops and honestly it could benefit some of the WI Tier 1 clubs as well and might cut our travel expenses having those teams be part of things. Could change the landscape for alot of teams for the better.

To answer your other questions, again we limit our state to 3 Tier 1 teams, if you don't make those teams you go back and play for your association OR you can play for another association with eitehr a waiver OR by making the "A" team of a higher level organization. If you are on the "A" team of a Division 1 club and you don't make a Tier 1 team then you are porbably where you need to be anyway..... As for playing for "out state teams" yes absolutely, in WI I you can live in Eau Claire but if you want to drive that far yourkid can tryout for the Green Bay Gamblers or the Milwaukee Jr Admirals or the Madison Capitols, all f them are options so if you live in Edina and tryout for the Tier 1 team that is nearest to you and don;t make it you can absolutely tryout for the Mankato team and mayebe make that club. Honestly, that is the beauty of Tier 1's design, there are no district barriers so long as you live in the state and even then you can have state bylaws that say whatever you want them to say inlimiting number of programs, you can have them say that only players who reside in MN can play for those teams. As for renting apartments or whatever for meeting residency rules, hey more power to those people and the revenue they help generate for the local economy if they want to spend that money to do that. You rent an apartement in the cities,e ven though maybe you live in Iowa, so your kid can play for one of those Tier 1 teams then hey, you've established residency in the state, good for your, you can't control something liek that but honestly that is goign to not be an everyday occurrence when they have other Tier 1 otpions throughout the country that may be easier for them to gain access ithout renting an apartment, remember those are folks from out of state who are lookign to move their kid so they can move them anywhere with easier convenience, so to me it's fien if they do that but it's not the issue you think it will be.

O-townClown wrote:JSR, I know you live in Wisconsin. Pretty sure Q does too. My point is that what you are proposing for Minnesota is most like what exists in Michigan for Youth hockey.

Any roundtable discussion of folks familiar with all that asks if Minnesota is better served by the models in place for Michigan and Massachusetts results in the same conclusion. Compared to those places it is hockey paradise.

I disagree, honestly I think MN is an extreme case of a wonderful tradition that has been built but is unique in all of hockey society in this country. I think places like Michigan are also the extreme of Tier 1 hockey. I keep poitning to WI as it's not hockey paradise but I do think we are doing a couple f small things right. We are actually trying to take the best of MN and the best of MI in how we are grwoing hockey here. It's not perfect and we are NOT on par with either state but I think it's working and we are grwoing and getting better and while we are not producing droves of NHL and college players like those two states the ones we are producing are pretty darn good and our numebrs in the college and NHl ranks are growing, even if slowly. So that is why I say don't use MI as the doom and gloom of instituting Tier 1 in MN use places that limit it and are trying to grow association and high school hockey but do use LIMITED Tier 1 opportunites to compliment where deficiencies might reside is all. It can work and I think it could work in MN if done the right way....

BadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: "The parents of the kids I'm talking about understand how it works. If your not good enough you don't make the team.. If you don't make the team you play at the next level."

I think that is well established with the summer AAA model. Started with a few truly ELITE programs. Has grown to point that AAA now needs qualifiers of ELITE, INVITE, OPEN, SUPER-DUPER. So you can propose any number of programs "to meet the needs" and that number will expand to meet the available dollars.

Summer hockey is not regulated by USA Hockey. This is why sumemr and spring hockey are the wild wild west. Winter hockey is regulated by USA Hockey and it's local affilates (ie MN Hockey) so that situation is alot easier to manage.

O-townClown wrote:JSR, I know you live in Wisconsin. Pretty sure Q does too. My point is that what you are proposing for Minnesota is most like what exists in Michigan for Youth hockey.

Any roundtable discussion of folks familiar with all that asks if Minnesota is better served by the models in place for Michigan and Massachusetts results in the same conclusion. Compared to those places it is hockey paradise.

Depends whose at the roundtable. Big, big difference in MN is that rinks are community owned, keeping ice costs down, making hockey much cheaper than any other state, which keeps participation huge. As long as participation remains strong, communities will back the rinks and this will be the case. You can still have the participation paradise and add 4 or 5 Tier 1 teams to the mix as an option and the only harm will be to the people who will feel slighted that they lost some good players to Tier 1. MN hockey is great but it would be better, and produce even more higher end talent, if this option was out there. Of course the majority will either denounce it or not care about it because the majority of kids will not make those teams. That doesn't mean they shouldn't. Those that can should have the option. Those that want to bust a gut training to try and make a team should have that option.

JSR: I understand what you are saying and respect your view. But, after reading your post, it is just as I imagine and continue to ask how that is somehow a better option to what we in MN have?

For the Bo's of MN Hockey, I can agree MN Hockey needs to step in to make districts and associations do what's in the best interest of individual kids. Nobody should be trapped. But the handful of "trapped" kids don't warrant a move to private, boundry-less, renegade hockey leagues.

O-townClown wrote:JSR, I know you live in Wisconsin. Pretty sure Q does too. My point is that what you are proposing for Minnesota is most like what exists in Michigan for Youth hockey.

Any roundtable discussion of folks familiar with all that asks if Minnesota is better served by the models in place for Michigan and Massachusetts results in the same conclusion. Compared to those places it is hockey paradise.

JSR is simply saying that CHOICES are healthy. It leads to competition, fuels strong development, amongst other benefits.

Snowed, you're right! My assumption is that the folks invited to a roundtable represent different views. College coaches, NHL scouts, Minneota HS coaches, USHL Commissioner, USA Hockey brass, rink managers, parents, etc.... They won't agree, but the consensus views will include a lot of "what they have is great" comments.

SnowedIn wrote:

O-townClown wrote:JSR, I know you live in Wisconsin. Pretty sure Q does too. My point is that what you are proposing for Minnesota is most like what exists in Michigan for Youth hockey.

Any roundtable discussion of folks familiar with all that asks if Minnesota is better served by the models in place for Michigan and Massachusetts results in the same conclusion. Compared to those places it is hockey paradise.

Depends whose at the roundtable.

Agree. I've sat at both. It depends in who's making the argument and what the context us. I've heard those who know the game on both sides of this and anywhere/everywhere in between. Having experienced both Minnesota and elsewhere, I am in between. Love some things in Minnesota but there is room for improvement.t. JSR has it right. Choices are important

BadgerBob82 wrote:JSR: I understand what you are saying and respect your view. But, after reading your post, it is just as I imagine and continue to ask how that is somehow a better option to what we in MN have?

For the Bo's of MN Hockey, I can agree MN Hockey needs to step in to make districts and associations do what's in the best interest of individual kids. Nobody should be trapped. But the handful of "trapped" kids don't warrant a move to private, boundry-less, renegade hockey leagues.

I also udnerstand where you guys are coming from. MN hockey is the best in the country in some ways and I do not dispute that. I just am one for letting people have a little more freedom to make their own choices. Will it make it "better", that I do not know for sure but I honestly don't think it will make it worse, I think allowing for some choices while keeping some limitations so it does not become wild wild west summer hockey can be a good thing and since the model already exists, and since there are Tier 1 teams across the nation already I think allowing for a limited number of Tier 1 programs & teams in the state might be the easiest model to allow for a new expansion of hockey in MN. I like the district teams idea and the proposals for that, we also have that here in WI for Pee Wee age kids, it's called the Kohlman Cup, go to the WAHA website and look it up, it's a great thing for high level kids who play Tier 2 hockey to get additional training and games after the association winter season is over within their districts (we actually call them Regions here but same thing). Again it does not have t be "either or" it can be both.....

BadgerBob82 wrote:JSR: I understand what you are saying and respect your view. But, after reading your post, it is just as I imagine and continue to ask how that is somehow a better option to what we in MN have?

For the Bo's of MN Hockey, I can agree MN Hockey needs to step in to make districts and associations do what's in the best interest of individual kids. Nobody should be trapped. But the handful of "trapped" kids don't warrant a move to private, boundry-less, renegade hockey leagues.

Wow !! Great discussion ... Yes , I am From Wisconsin. Used to be from Minnesota.. I don't think district wide AA teams would be renegade as they would be controlled by Minnesota Hockey.

JSR ..Thanks for your input.. People really need to understand what other people are doing... Here in the far western part of the state we are all part of a larger metro area.. Too bad we couldn't have some kind of interchange between the hockey programs. It is alive and well during the summer. The idea that somehow interstate hockey would be the wild wild west is just wrong.. sorry ... straying from the subject...

Well at least we're talking about it ....That's something good

So Badger. You believe players moving around from program to program can be a bad thing, I believe the opposite is true. It forces development programs to provide value for each dollar spent. If you don't have a good product, or charge too much, people will leave. It allows like minded people to group together based on hockey values, as well as groups kids together based on talent.

On the other end of the spectrum it allows coaches to choose which players, and families to work with. I know with our program it tends to weed out the crazies, allowing sane people to group together. In the association hockey I am familiar with, everyone is grouped together unnaturally into one big stew. When Machine Orange families are mixed with more recreational families it creates quite a divide in expectations. This divide is one of the reasons I have seen few association seasons that have not experiences high levels of drama and conflict I do not see as much in AAA hockey.

Royal24 wrote:So Badger. You believe players moving around from program to program can be a bad thing, I believe the opposite is true. It forces development programs to provide value for each dollar spent. If you don't have a good product, or charge too much, people will leave. It allows like minded people to group together based on hockey values, as well as groups kids together based on talent.

On the other end of the spectrum it allows coaches to choose which players, and families to work with. I know with our program it tends to weed out the crazies, allowing sane people to group together. In the association hockey I am familiar with, everyone is grouped together unnaturally into one big stew. When Machine Orange families are mixed with more recreational families it creates quite a divide in expectations. This divide is one of the reasons I have seen few association seasons that have not experiences high levels of drama and conflict I do not see as much in AAA hockey.

Great post. the "drama' is almost nonexistant within the AAA organizations beyond the intitial drama of the kids who do not make the team. But once that is over there is virtually zero drama. Whereas winter hockey is chock full of it and I think you hit the nail on the head of the "why". The fact is there are different expectation levels of what assocaiton hockey should be. Even on "A" teams you have parents with "recreational" ideals and "competitive/development" driven ideals adn this is a major source of tension, resentment and conflict from both sides within associations. Allowing kids to "move around" doesn't solve all of this but it does allw options for all to find a place they are most comfortable, and again Tier 1 winter AAA hockey is much like summer AAA hockey in that the "drama" really is not present for two main reasons, one of the biggest is that you are with a bunch of like minded people and families who have similar mindsets of what theywant the hockey experience to be, the second is if you cause drama in AAA hockey they'll just boot you out , that doesn't happen in association hockey.

JSR wrote:

Royal24 wrote:So Badger. You believe players moving around from program to program can be a bad thing, I believe the opposite is true. It forces development programs to provide value for each dollar spent. If you don't have a good product, or charge too much, people will leave. It allows like minded people to group together based on hockey values, as well as groups kids together based on talent.

On the other end of the spectrum it allows coaches to choose which players, and families to work with. I know with our program it tends to weed out the crazies, allowing sane people to group together. In the association hockey I am familiar with, everyone is grouped together unnaturally into one big stew. When Machine Orange families are mixed with more recreational families it creates quite a divide in expectations. This divide is one of the reasons I have seen few association seasons that have not experiences high levels of drama and conflict I do not see as much in AAA hockey.

Great post. the "drama' is almost nonexistant within the AAA organizations beyond the intitial drama of the kids who do not make the team. But once that is over there is virtually zero drama. Whereas winter hockey is chock full of it and I think you hit the nail on the head of the "why". The fact is there are different expectation levels of what assocaiton hockey should be. Even on "A" teams you have parents with "recreational" ideals and "competitive/development" driven ideals adn this is a major source of tension, resentment and conflict from both sides within associations. Allowing kids to "move around" doesn't solve all of this but it does allw options for all to find a place they are most comfortable, and again Tier 1 winter AAA hockey is much like summer AAA hockey in that the "drama" really is not present for two main reasons, one of the biggest is that you are with a bunch of like minded people and families who have similar mindsets of what theywant the hockey experience to be, the second is if you cause drama in AAA hockey they'll just boot you out , that doesn't happen in association hockey.

Well said JSR & Royal in citing some of the other benefits of Tier 1 hockey. I think its really important to emphasize that competition between Tier 1 clubs is a huge key. The forces the clubs to get the best coaches, provide the best development model and year after year develop a track record that attracts players. For most it is about the coaches but different strokes for different folks. A coaching move may have many people moving to another club. What's wrong with that? Nothing! It's up to the club to replace with another top coach or risk losing players. Capitalism is a good thing.

In tier 2 and association hockey players are for the most part locked in already so they have no voice in who will coach them and most have no choice to move on if they don't like them.

O-townClown wrote:Quasar, you would do well to re-read the thread from a year and a half ago on what Tier I means. If you are talking about "elite hockey" you should say you are talking about elite hockey.

Tier I means something. It is not the same as "elite hockey".

Guy goes into McDonald's and orders a ribeye. Clerk says they don't offer. "Just gimme one of them Big Macs, dang it!"

"For the future, a Big Mac is one of our hamburgers."

"Oh, I just call all beef a ribeye. You're confused. Keep up!"

Whatever.

Bo wants choice for those (like him) in a weak association. JSR sees benefits to overlaying Tier I atop Minnesota's community-based model with five programs. Quasar thinks changes need to be made and it could be as simple as a Fall Elite league for U16s and U18s.

Too bad Bo doesn't live in Massachusetts, JSR in Michigan, and Quasar Slovakia.

A challenge for Minnesota Hockey is that folks have a lot different vision for what reform would look like.

As I said in 2011, I see the cleanest path being to allow rosters coded "Tournament" (rather than Tier I, Tier II, or Rec) for the months of September & October. Clubs could put together a preseason 10 game league and add in a trip to Warrior.

Massachusetts? This is coming from a guy that left his association because he didn't like the coach. Why didn't you "stay and try to make your association better"? I find it moronic that you're telling people to suck it up in communi(s)ty based Hockey while you bounce.

Plenty in Mn would like to switch around like you are able to.

We were fortunate to have a good out for our kid.

O-townClown wrote:Quasar, you would do well to re-read the thread from a year and a half ago on what Tier I means. If you are talking about "elite hockey" you should say you are talking about elite hockey.

Tier I means something. It is not the same as "elite hockey".

Guy goes into McDonald's and orders a ribeye. Clerk says they don't offer. "Just gimme one of them Big Macs, dang it!"

"For the future, a Big Mac is one of our hamburgers."

"Oh, I just call all beef a ribeye. You're confused. Keep up!"

Whatever.

Bo wants choice for those (like him) in a weak association. JSR sees benefits to overlaying Tier I atop Minnesota's community-based model with five programs. Quasar thinks changes need to be made and it could be as simple as a Fall Elite league for U16s and U18s.

Too bad Bo doesn't live in Massachusetts, JSR in Michigan, and Quasar Slovakia.

A challenge for Minnesota Hockey is that folks have a lot different vision for what reform would look like.

As I said in 2011, I see the cleanest path being to allow rosters coded "Tournament" (rather than Tier I, Tier II, or Rec) for the months of September & October. Clubs could put together a preseason 10 game league and add in a trip to Warrior.

Clown,

Regarding "to allow rosters coded "Tournament" (rather than Tier I, Tier II, or Rec) for the months of September & October. Clubs could put together a preseason 10 game league and add in a trip to Warrior."

Is this how the Minnesota Blades do it?
Why only Sept and Oct?
Has this not been going on in Minnesota for years?
Can anyone other that the Blades do this?

Interesting read on AAU hockey program in Michigan where they already have Tier 1.

http://image.aausports.org/dnn/hockey/p ... un2012.pdf