HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

itsmorefun wrote:Kids who leave to play for Shattuck (and their parents) don't get the same grief as kids who leave to play Tier One youth. Just makes a person wonder...

The kids who leave for Shattuck are often entertaining the 50 or so other Prep schools (mostly in New England) and Junior hockey options.

Also, have you spoken to people from Latvia, California, Texas, North Carolina, Belarus, Alaska, Norway, Nebraska, Washington, North Dakota, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin - and that's just this year's team - to see how they felt about losing a kid like Greiner, Sinz, Weberg, or Blueger?

Seriously, are you comparing the Edina kids that are 99s playing for the Fire with the Shattuck experience? Most often the Shattuck kids don't have a comparable option in their area and they make a decision to attend Prep school in Faribault.

HockeyMN1 wrote:

PuckU126 wrote:

HockeyMN1 wrote:No, good for MN hockey for doing this. These fire teams shouldn't exist anyways. They usually aren't the best teams in the state and kids should play with their cities. Anything to deter people from playing with the fire is good.

HockeyMN1 wrote:But they're probably 30 of the top 200 or so kids in the state. That does make a difference.

Now you're contradicting yourself... If they're not that good, what is the problem. And those 30 kids that do choose to play for the Fire are not the best in the state; a hand full of them maybe but not all.

The same reason the NHL All-Stars couldn't beat the Soviets. Also a lot of bigger youth programs that compete with the Fire (EP, Edina, Wayzata) also probably have 20 of the top 300 or so players at the A level. That combined with the friendships and history they have playing together can make them a better team than club all star teams.

NHL-All Stars with US citizenship are much different than the NHL-All Stars...

itsmorefun wrote:I still haven't heard any compelling reasons why there is a difference in how the Minnesota hockey world views Shattuck vs. youth Tier One.

If a person's philosophy is that "kids should play with their friends" or "Minnesota has the best hockey", or "Tier One steals all the good players", then why is it ok when these kids get to the high school level and play for Shattuck? They are still "leaving their friends", they are still leaving "the best hockey" and Shattuck is still "stealing all the best kids" (by the way... I don't believe any of that is true).

Kids who leave to play for Shattuck (and their parents) don't get the same grief as kids who leave to play Tier One youth. Just makes a person wonder...

Or leave for the UHL...many get grief and many programs would be much different now this year than they are.

My opinion is that it's a high school. Leaving for a high school is one thing, but leaving your friends to travel (and I'm guessing many attend the same HS) is different.

Shattuck is a great opportunity for young students to prepare for their future in one sport...soccer is also very good there. The thing to notice is that many of our top players are two or three sport athletes, these are one sport athletes.

[quote="O-townClown"][quote="itsmorefun"]Kids who leave to play for Shattuck (and their parents) don't get the same grief as kids who leave to play Tier One youth. Just makes a person wonder...[/quote]

The kids who leave for Shattuck are often entertaining the 50 or so other Prep schools (mostly in New England) and Junior hockey options.

Also, have you spoken to people from Latvia, California, Texas, North Carolina, Belarus, Alaska, Norway, Nebraska, Washington, North Dakota, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin - and that's just this year's team - to see how they felt about losing a kid like Greiner, Sinz, Weberg, or Blueger?

Seriously, are you comparing the Edina kids that are 99s playing for the Fire with the Shattuck experience? Most often the Shattuck kids don't have a comparable option in their area and they make a decision to attend Prep school in Faribault.[/quote]






So... now we're comparing experiences? That's a new one that I don't usually hear with this argument. I agree that the Shattuck experience is an exceptional opportunity, but who are we to judge the experience for those that choose a different youth hockey path? Unless you (or others) have experienced each of those levels and programs then I would contend that you can't make a valid argument.

As far as the kids go... I agree that many of those kids don't have a comparable option in their areas, but let's be clear... Shattuck Prep has at least 5-6 kids that come from Minnesota hockey associations and the U16 team has at least 6 kids - I'm not sure about the Bantam Tier One team. That would be comparable to the number of kids allowed on the Fire (can't remember the actual percentage allowed from one district, but it's close).

Again... just looking for the philosophies to be consistent... all I have gathered so far is that some of the Minnesota people "just don't like it", and I guess I don't think that's good enough...

O-townClown wrote:If Shattuck-St. Mary's entered their teams at the MSHSL level you would not be feeling the positive aura.

If Shattuck entered their teams at the MSHSL level they would have to abide by MSHSL rules. Their hockey team used to be in the MSHSL and they got drilled so they moved. They do play other sports in the MSHSL as a stand alone school or as a co-op with Bethleham Academy.

[quote="itsmorefun"]I still haven't heard any compelling reasons why there is a difference in how the Minnesota hockey world views Shattuck vs. youth Tier One.

If a person's philosophy is that "kids should play with their friends" or "Minnesota has the best hockey", or "Tier One steals all the good players", then why is it ok when these kids get to the high school level and play for Shattuck? They are still "leaving their friends", they are still leaving "the best hockey" and Shattuck is still "stealing all the best kids" (by the way... I don't believe any of that is true).

Kids who leave to play for Shattuck (and their parents) don't get the same grief as kids who leave to play Tier One youth. Just makes a person



One is for profit. The other is not. Simple as that.

I'm a bit surprised no one else has offered the answer I thought of, so I'll lay it out here.

SSM is a truly unique option. It is the only school of its kind in the region. While it has clearly been a success, we don't see much clamoring for other private high schools to follow their model. That would take a huge commitment, and the incentive structures just aren't there, even at a big hockey high school like Hill-Murray. Shattuck has been around for a long time, and has not spawned any copycat organizations, nor has it tried to expand itself (for the obvious reason that it is a school, not a sports factory, and probably lacks the resources). It has never been and probably never will be an existential threat to the current MN hockey development model. Its impact is far too small.

Now, I'm sure most people would agree that the same is true for the Fire and MM. In their current form, they're no threat to the model either. People don't hate them because of what they are; people hate them because of what they could become. A bunch of Shattucks is not a realistic possibility in the future, but a bunch of Tier 1 youth programs probably is. The success of MM has allowed the organization to slowly expand, and as a private company, it will probably continue to expand so long as the consumers continue to value the product. Other enterpreneurs have and will continue to take note of this success, and offer competing products (as already happens in youth summer hockey). While it is not guaranteed to happen, I think it is certainly worth our time to contemplate a future in which Tier 1 youth programs make a significant dent in the current MN Hockey model. That's not to say they'll destroy it completely, but they could significantly change the landscape. Whatever we may think of this future (personally I am still on the fence), we need to be aware of it, and anticipate its consequences. The impact needs to be studied in a comprehensive manner that avoids falling back on the same tired cliches used by both sides in this debate. Should we have Tier 1 in MN? Should (or could) it be stopped? What are its true pluses and minuses? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question. Everything else is a sideshow to this debate.

karl(east) wrote: Should (or could) it be stopped? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question.

I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

High Flyer wrote:

karl(east) wrote: Should (or could) it be stopped? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question.

I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that it's MN Hockey that needs to be sued to allow Tier I hockey in this State, it's USA Hockey, correct? I think the current policy is that USA Hockey won't recognize any Tier I program set up in Minnesota due to their "agreement" with MN Hockey.

Am I right?

High Flyer wrote:

karl(east) wrote: Should (or could) it be stopped? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question.

I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

Who are they going to play? You can't be Tier 1 without USA Hockey's approval, think you're gonna get that? You won't get a tournament in US or Canada, have fun.

muckandgrind wrote:

High Flyer wrote:

karl(east) wrote: Should (or could) it be stopped? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question.

I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that it's MN Hockey that needs to be sued to allow Tier I hockey in this State, it's USA Hockey, correct? I think the current policy is that USA Hockey won't recognize any Tier I program set up in Minnesota due to their "agreement" with MN Hockey.

Am I right?

100% correct, though procedure wise MN Hockey is the "local" USA Hockey Affiliate and has the local responsibility (MN borders). An organization must first work through MN hockey, but assuming they can not come to an agreement, they can appeal to USA Hockey. Pending the out come of an appeal, there may be grounds for an anti trust suit with USA Hockey

DMom wrote:

High Flyer wrote:

karl(east) wrote: Should (or could) it be stopped? Can Tier 1 exist in harmony with the current model?

That, I believe, is the complete and final answer to this question.

I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

Who are they going to play? You can't be Tier 1 without USA Hockey's approval, think you're gonna get that? You won't get a tournament in US or Canada, have fun.

Dmom-USA Hockey does not an issue with Tier 1 hockey, in fact, everywhere through out the US, Tier 1 hockey exists, that includes, teams, organizations, leagues, tournaments, play offs, etc...

Canada does not have an issue with US Tier 1 hockey organizations/teams and they often compete with each other.

High Flyer wrote:

DMom wrote:

High Flyer wrote: I would add that Tier 1 Hockey in Minnesota can not be stopped, because it is clear cut violation of US anti-trust laws. USA hockey knows this (been discussed) and so does MN hockey (been discussed), so it is just a matter of time before an organization files suit to force MN Hockey’s hand.

I would rather see MN Hockey take a proactive approach and lead the way to integrate Tier 1 hockey. I personally believe that Tier 1 hockey can co-exist in harmony with the community based model and it actually can address some of the deficiencies of youth hockey and high school hockey.

But per a former MN hockey President comment that he made to me regarding Tier 1 hockey "MAHA is like a dinosaur". I think he was inferring to me that they are slow to change, but you are the judge of what he meant...

Who are they going to play? You can't be Tier 1 without USA Hockey's approval, think you're gonna get that? You won't get a tournament in US or Canada, have fun.

Dmom-USA Hockey does not an issue with Tier 1 hockey, in fact, everywhere through out the US, Tier 1 hockey exists, that includes, teams, organizations, leagues, tournaments, play offs, etc...

Canada does not have an issue with US Tier 1 hockey organizations/teams and they often compete with each other.

I'm well aware of that, but if you think USA Hockey is going to go over the heads of MH and roster more Tier 1 teams within the state I think you are dreaming. It will not happen without the full cooperation of MH. Good-luck with that

DMom seems very knowledgable on this -

MN Hockey, USA Hockey, and the Highschool league are all in bed together. The Highschool League will do everything it can to protect the
"Crown Jewel" and biggest money maker... The State Tourney.

MM in Edina is putting some serious pressure on MN hockey and if they prevail it could be the turning point for the inevitable growth of club hockey in Minnesota.

The synical side of me would love to have the privates like Hill, BSM, AHA,
STA get a taste of their own medicine. ( I know it's a seperate debate)

Hockey parents are relentless and if little johnny can play and train with better talent on his AAA club team year round then thats what will happen.
Under the current model the private highschools will continue to multiply and pull more talent from the public high school teams and will dominate the top 10.

I am a bit of a traditionalist and love the rich tradition of the High School League and tournament. However, if under the current MN Hockey model, our kids are not getting developed or prepared to compete at the next level then change is what we need.

timberwolf wrote: MN Hockey, USA Hockey, and the Highschool league are all in bed together. The Highschool League will do everything it can to protect the
"Crown Jewel" and biggest money maker... The State Tourney.

Seriously????

USA Hockey gets no money from the MSHSL, they don't even get to register all the HS players which costs them $40 per kid at a minimum, they don't get to make the rules, run the tournaments, or pick the officials, and every attempt USA Hockey has tried to get the MSHSL into the fold has failed. They've tried expanding junior hockey, adding two more tiers and more than 10 teams to Minnesota yet high school is still the top draw.

The MSHSL league doesn't do much to protect its "crown jewel", they don't have to. If kids leave or stay it doesn't matter much to them, for every kid that leaves there is one to take his place. There are no special rules for hockey instituted by the MSHSL to protect anything.

timberwolf wrote:DMom seems very knowledgable on this -

MN Hockey, USA Hockey, and the Highschool league are all in bed together. The Highschool League will do everything it can to protect the
"Crown Jewel" and biggest money maker... The State Tourney.

MM in Edina is putting some serious pressure on MN hockey and if they prevail it could be the turning point for the inevitable growth of club hockey in Minnesota.

The synical side of me would love to have the privates like Hill, BSM, AHA,
STA get a taste of their own medicine. ( I know it's a seperate debate)

Hockey parents are relentless and if little johnny can play and train with better talent on his AAA club team year round then thats what will happen.
Under the current model the private highschools will continue to multiply and pull more talent from the public high school teams and will dominate the top 10.

I am a bit of a traditionalist and love the rich tradition of the High School League and tournament. However, if under the current MN Hockey model, our kids are not getting developed or prepared to compete at the next level then change is what we need.

MH and USAH are no different than the Boy Scouts. If you don't like your troop leaders and want to set up your own meetings and little wooden car races go for it, but why you would expect to than be able to compete at the Boy Scout National little wooden car races boggles my mind.

The boy scouts don't have a monopoly, go ahead start your Minnesota Made Scouts. Have as many meetings as you want, two a day if that makes you happy, you still aren't 'entitled' to race your little wooden car in the Boy Scout Nationals. You'd have to have your own Minnesota Made little wooden car Nationals, but what incentive would Honeybaked have to voluntarily decide to forego the Boy Scout nationally recognized little car races to attend your Minnesota Made little car races. That's why USAH has the power, because that's where the other Tier 1 teams want to be. Get over it, get used to it, use your energy for good, before you change anything your kid will be down to their last ten games as a bantam

The reality is that the Tier 1 teams around the country welcome the competition of the Fire. This why they are invited to the Bauer Invite, Compuware Classic, Silver Stick (which the 99's won by beating Little Caesars and three top 5 Canadian Teams).

You are right this is where the Tier 1 teams want to be - so let them go, let them compete for a National Title, why hold them back?

Tier 1 teams pull kids from a a broad geography, yet the Fire is ripped because they have SOME kids from MN, not all.

To Karl's point - most of these MN kids are from small associations with either no A team or one that would not be competitive regardless if they were there or not.

DMom - I'm not sure why you have an axe to grind with MM. Many of the Fire kids are also, Blades, Legacy, Bauer Vapor, etc kids - Not all are MM players. These kids are looking for a better option than what they have at their associations and nothing more.

DMom, I'm a little disappointed. Because USAH is big, we should all lie down and take it? Thankfully our fore fathers didn't think so when under the rule of King George, nor did those under Roman oppression. I'm starting to think you're against democracy... and Jesus.

karl(east) wrote:

itsmorefun wrote:

O-townClown wrote:If Shattuck-St. Mary's entered their teams at the MSHSL level you would not be feeling the positive aura.

In attracting players from throughout North American and even beyond, S-SM isn't exactly tearing down the fabric of Minnesota's community-based hockey model.

The Fire program draws the ire of many, even in Wisconsin, because for it to exist it has to impact local programs. Yes, some people are resistant to that.

With 53,000 kids in Minnesota playing hockey... I doubt the 30 kids Fire hockey draws is really impacting local programs....

I'm going to wade into this discussion for the first time. *cringes*

I agree with that, though. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but most of the Fire kids in MN came from small associations, often ones with no A teams, or a very uncompetitive A teams. This is a sign of market failure...these kids, for the most part, did not have good options. I believe MrBoDangles would be the man to ask about such situations.

Thankfully, there may be a solution to this problem in the immediate future: http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

There are some interesting (and at times torturous) discussions of the Fire and MM on the youth forum.

Karl late to the discussion these aren't kids from small associations with bad options. I can speak specifically to the 2000 group - 2 from STMA, 2 from Mounds View, 3 from lakeville/prior lake, 4 from wisconsin, 1 from south st.paul, 1 new prague, 2 from maple grove, and 2 from wayzata.

offside14 wrote:Karl late to the discussion these aren't kids from small associations with bad options. I can speak specifically to the 2000 group - 2 from STMA, 2 from Mounds View, 3 from lakeville/prior lake, 4 from wisconsin, 1 from south st.paul, 1 new prague, 2 from maple grove, and 2 from wayzata.

I think there are more on other levels (I can't find it now, but someone put up numbers for another age group on the youth forum). But, point taken--the creation of district-wide A teams for programs without A teams wouldn't kill the Fire by any means. Nor am I against the Fire's existence--as I mentioned, their current form does not really threaten anyone. But I do think MH would be smart to put in place a straightforward, logical system to better meet the needs of those top players in small programs who might otherwise leave.

InigoMontoya wrote:DMom, I'm a little disappointed. Because USAH is big, we should all lie down and take it? Thankfully our fore fathers didn't think so when under the rule of King George, nor did those under Roman oppression. I'm starting to think you're against democracy... and Jesus.

Sorry to disappoint IM but I do not understand the entitlement portion of the argument. USAH is not a democracy where everyone gets a say, you either want to belong or you start your own program, but if you start your own program why would you feel entitled to be part of USAH. My analogy: If you divorce your first wife, you don't get to bring your second wife to your ex-mother-in-law's for her fabulous cooking.

DMom wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:DMom, I'm a little disappointed. Because USAH is big, we should all lie down and take it? Thankfully our fore fathers didn't think so when under the rule of King George, nor did those under Roman oppression. I'm starting to think you're against democracy... and Jesus.

Sorry to disappoint IM but I do not understand the entitlement portion of the argument. USAH is not a democracy where everyone gets a say, you either want to belong or you start your own program, but if you start your own program why would you feel entitled to be part of USAH. My analogy: If you divorce your first wife, you don't get to bring your second wife to your ex-mother-in-law's for her fabulous cooking.

Entitlement is not a part of the argument here. Tier one doesn't look for something for nothing or special placement within teams because of social status. Best athletic ability is placed on appropriate teams and competes with "hopefully" similar ability in MN or abroad. If I find that trophy wife, trust me, I'm not going to the mother-in-law for any kind of home cooking.

In hockey, some fights happen off the ice

http://www.startribune.com/business/114 ... 3LGDiO7aiU

MNHockeyFan wrote:In hockey, some fights happen off the ice

http://www.startribune.com/business/114 ... 3LGDiO7aiU

Let's add to this discussion:

Association size based on registration fee (not including other income)...
Registration fee average $ 500.00

Large association = 1000 participants = $ 500,000

Mid size association = 250 - 500 skaters = $ 125K to $250K

Small association = 100 participants = $ 50k

Where is the player development money going towards this model and is it included in the MN Hock ADM model? I would look in the backyard before worrying about tier one hockey....

Is the new American Development Model an attempt to provide the tier 1 experience along with retaining the association model? I read about that a couple years back. In fact there was a lot of press and marketing pput into ADM at the time but to date the ADM has not been put into play here in Minnesota. Is there resistance at the association level? Has ADM model gone the way of the blue puck?

northwoods oldtimer wrote:Is the new American Development Model an attempt to provide the tier 1 experience along with retaining the association model? I read about that a couple years back. In fact there was a lot of press and marketing pput into ADM at the time but to date the ADM has not been put into play here in Minnesota. Is there resistance at the association level? Has ADM model gone the way of the blue puck?

There is a committee of USAH and MH people looking at the implementation of ADM to go hand in hand with how hockey is done in Minnesota. Take the best of what is with what may be the best of a new model and make it work.
Somethings have been implemented on a trial basis in certain areas of the state.