HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Current two tier system is fine.

Luverne does not need to be playing Eden Prairie.

Sections are working too. Good mix of teams this year.

ne tourney would be great , if they have to go to 16 teams 8 "A", 8 "AA" or just 16 teams. One other idea would be if the League is stuck on 2 levels have a AA and an A tourney but no opting up, in that case the A tourney would be at least as exciting as the AA

The Mshsl should do what they did with basketball years ago.
Qualify eight AA and eight A teams.
Play within your class for your first game.
Winners of both classes move on and play each other in a blind draw.

We could have second round match ups like
East vs. Hermantown
Edina vs. East Grand Forks
Roseau vs. Hill
Etc.......

Small schools would still have a chance to go to State but they'd also have a
chance to pull off a "Hooisers-like upset".

TV would still have the same amount of games.

Or play one extra game on Monday night, AA champ against A champ.

As I've said elsewhere, the reason why these ideas do not work is because it places a favoritism on small schools. It actually punishes the bigger, more successful programs because now they are all eliminated on one half of the draw while teams that wouldn't normally be there are given a clear gate. You are rewarded for record and toughness of schedule during the seeding process for a reason. If small programs cannot compete with the best, get bigger and better, or tough poop!

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

ne tourney would be great , if they have to go to 16 teams 8 "A", 8 "AA" or just 16 teams. One other idea would be if the League is stuck on 2 levels have a AA and an A tourney but no opting up, in that case the A tourney would be at least as exciting as the AA

The Mshsl should do what they did with basketball years ago.
Qualify eight AA and eight A teams.
Play within your class for your first game.
Winners of both classes move on and play each other in a blind draw.

We could have second round match ups like
East vs. Hermantown
Edina vs. East Grand Forks
Roseau vs. Hill
Etc.......

Small schools would still have a chance to go to State but they'd also have a
chance to pull off a "Hooisers-like upset".

TV would still have the same amount of games.

Or play one extra game on Monday night, AA champ against A champ.

As I've said elsewhere, the reason why these ideas do not work is because it places a favoritism on small schools. It actually punishes the bigger, more successful programs because now they are all eliminated on one half of the draw while teams that wouldn't normally be there are given a clear gate. You are rewarded for record and toughness of schedule during the seeding process for a reason. If small programs cannot compete with the best, get bigger and better, or tough poop!

Please explain - exactly - how you would recommend this to happen ?

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

ne tourney would be great , if they have to go to 16 teams 8 "A", 8 "AA" or just 16 teams. One other idea would be if the League is stuck on 2 levels have a AA and an A tourney but no opting up, in that case the A tourney would be at least as exciting as the AA

The Mshsl should do what they did with basketball years ago.
Qualify eight AA and eight A teams.
Play within your class for your first game.
Winners of both classes move on and play each other in a blind draw.

We could have second round match ups like
East vs. Hermantown
Edina vs. East Grand Forks
Roseau vs. Hill
Etc.......

Small schools would still have a chance to go to State but they'd also have a
chance to pull off a "Hooisers-like upset".

TV would still have the same amount of games.

Or play one extra game on Monday night, AA champ against A champ.

As I've said elsewhere, the reason why these ideas do not work is because it places a favoritism on small schools. It actually punishes the bigger, more successful programs because now they are all eliminated on one half of the draw while teams that wouldn't normally be there are given a clear gate. You are rewarded for record and toughness of schedule during the seeding process for a reason. If small programs cannot compete with the best, get bigger and better, or tough poop!

Please explain - exactly - how you would recommend this to happen ?

It isn't a matter of explaining anything. With living in the small town life comes the fact that you don't have the numbers. You either improve what you have, or move to a bigger area where there is potential. It isn't the League's "job" to make things "fair" at the expense of successful programs.

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote: As I've said elsewhere, the reason why these ideas do not work is because it places a favoritism on small schools. It actually punishes the bigger, more successful programs because now they are all eliminated on one half of the draw while teams that wouldn't normally be there are given a clear gate. You are rewarded for record and toughness of schedule during the seeding process for a reason. If small programs cannot compete with the best, get bigger and better, or tough poop!

Please explain - exactly - how you would recommend this to happen ?

It isn't a matter of explaining anything. With living in the small town life comes the fact that you don't have the numbers. You either improve what you have, or move to a bigger area where there is potential. It isn't the League's "job" to make things "fair" at the expense of successful programs.

Sure it is. Disregarding the fact that your two statements appear to have switched from a program basis, to an individuals basis, if as you say, they (pick with "they" basis you want) need to get "bigger and better", I'll pose the question again.

Explain - exactly - how you would recommend small programs for this to happen ?

Or you can keep dodging the question.

Your choice.

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote: Please explain - exactly - how you would recommend this to happen ?

It isn't a matter of explaining anything. With living in the small town life comes the fact that you don't have the numbers. You either improve what you have, or move to a bigger area where there is potential. It isn't the League's "job" to make things "fair" at the expense of successful programs.

Sure it is. Disregarding the fact that your two statements appear to have switched from a program basis, to an individuals basis, if as you say, they (pick with "they" basis you want) need to get "bigger and better", I'll pose the question again.

Explain - exactly - how you would recommend small programs for this to happen ?

Or you can keep dodging the question.

Your choice.

I am going to say there is not a solution in his arrogant mind.

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote: Please explain - exactly - how you would recommend this to happen ?

It isn't a matter of explaining anything. With living in the small town life comes the fact that you don't have the numbers. You either improve what you have, or move to a bigger area where there is potential. It isn't the League's "job" to make things "fair" at the expense of successful programs.

Sure it is. Disregarding the fact that your two statements appear to have switched from a program basis, to an individuals basis, if as you say, they (pick with "they" basis you want) need to get "bigger and better", I'll pose the question again.

Explain - exactly - how you would recommend small programs for this to happen ?

Or you can keep dodging the question.

Your choice.

Well how am I suppose to know. Ask Roseau and Warroad. They manage just fine.

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote: It isn't a matter of explaining anything. With living in the small town life comes the fact that you don't have the numbers. You either improve what you have, or move to a bigger area where there is potential. It isn't the League's "job" to make things "fair" at the expense of successful programs.

Sure it is. Disregarding the fact that your two statements appear to have switched from a program basis, to an individuals basis, if as you say, they (pick with "they" basis you want) need to get "bigger and better", I'll pose the question again.

Explain - exactly - how you would recommend small programs for this to happen ?

Or you can keep dodging the question.

Your choice.

Well how am I suppose to know. Ask Roseau and Warroad. They manage just fine.

Well, I just figured since you made the statement/gave the advice, you surely must have had some ideas.

My mistake.

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote:
Sure it is. Disregarding the fact that your two statements appear to have switched from a program basis, to an individuals basis, if as you say, they (pick with "they" basis you want) need to get "bigger and better", I'll pose the question again.

Explain - exactly - how you would recommend small programs for this to happen ?

Or you can keep dodging the question.

Your choice.

Well how am I suppose to know. Ask Roseau and Warroad. They manage just fine.

Well, I just figured since you made the statement/gave the advice, you surely must have had some ideas.

My mistake.

Work harder! Grow bigger as a town! Or move! Punishing programs who would normally beat a small town on the basis that they are "bigger" doesn't work since the smaller school gets a cake walk into the finals with the A vs. AA model. It creates just as much a disservice to the opposing side. The criteria is who's best, and only that.

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote: Well how am I suppose to know. Ask Roseau and Warroad. They manage just fine.

Well, I just figured since you made the statement/gave the advice, you surely must have had some ideas.

My mistake.

Work harder! Grow bigger as a town! Or move! Punishing programs who would normally beat a small town on the basis that they are "bigger" doesn't work since the smaller school gets a cake walk into the finals with the A vs. AA model. It creates just as much a disservice to the opposing side. The criteria is who's best, and only that.

I have no interest in a single tournament, or any perceived "advantage" it, or anything else, might give to small programs.

I am amused by the comments made by you, and others, that small programs, golly gee, just need to get better.

All the while, without being able to offer exact, factual, realistic methods, not theories, of doing such.

Work harder ! Grow bigger ! are not examples of such, and show a complete lack of knowledge of small programs/towns.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to expect multiple Class A teams to be at the level or above that of current Class AA teams. Teams like Warroad or Hermantown compete, but in the case of some teams, like Warroad, there are some transfers (not trying to start another debate on this). Whether done in the high school level or at the youth level, a player that chooses to defect depletes another team. In some instances, that can deplete a whole team. Hermantown benefits from being just outside Duluth as well.

No surprise, often the Class A team that do well are 1. an established perennial contender, with such a tradition that it attracts from outside areas, or 2. it is in the region just outside a population hub. In class A this year:

1. New Prague - Growing southern MN community, prior it was Rochester which is a population hub in Minnesota
2. Orono - Northwest Metropolitan. Affluent area where, if most choose to play hockey, they can afford to do so. Prior to this year, dominated by Breck who had in influx of players from all around the metro/city.
3. Luverne - Southwest Minnesota. Growing program outside the Sioux Falls, SD area (stimulates interest in hockey with the Juniors program a half hour drive away).

I am not going to dissect every team representing Class A in state, but there is a pattern among teams that are in the tournament or competitive. Trends show they are 1. near high/growing population areas, or 2. in an area of know interest, such as an established tradition (i.e. Warroad), or external influence like a Junior program near by or, 3. (though relatable to #2) subsequent trips to state.

Often what gets kids into hockey is watching their hometown, either on tv or at the X, representing their community on the ice. In my MN hometown, nearly all of the teammates I participated with had their interests come from watching our small town at the Class A state tournament and win the Class A tournament, or watching their siblings at the state tournament. In a way, to go to back to a one-class system would rob some communities of this opportunity to watch their team on the grandest stage.

Luverne for example - do you think the youth community is saying "Meh, we're undefeated, but against weak competition; We'll see how we compare at state," (not necessarily youth, but even adults) or do you believe they are genuinely excited and hyped-up to see their city being a representative in St. Paul? In a city like Luverne with a population of maybe 5,000? (I am not familiar with the city, outside of driving through on my way to SD), if even five kids pick up a hockey stick, or become fans of the game, (or best of all become future contributors to this wonderful forum ) out of the general excitement of their team being at the X, I think it's wonderful for the sport.

I, personally, don't want to watch the same teams at state year in and year out. The established programs in this state will likely stay established for some time (hence, why they are established). The Class A tournament brings in interest to the game for those smaller communities to grow into an established program and compete. To have a one-class system, I think we'd see a lot more players moving across the board to established communities/teams, greater division between teams (player development and skill), and less interest from smaller communities that cannot compete in the "one-tier" level.

The state doesn't need three classes, but it shouldn't revert back to one.

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote: Well, I just figured since you made the statement/gave the advice, you surely must have had some ideas.

My mistake.

Work harder! Grow bigger as a town! Or move! Punishing programs who would normally beat a small town on the basis that they are "bigger" doesn't work since the smaller school gets a cake walk into the finals with the A vs. AA model. It creates just as much a disservice to the opposing side. The criteria is who's best, and only that.

I have no interest in a single tournament, or any perceived "advantage" it, or anything else, might give to small programs.

I am amused by the comments made by you, and others, that small programs, golly gee, just need to get better.

All the while, without being able to offer exact, factual, realistic methods, not theories, of doing such.

Work harder ! Grow bigger ! are not examples of such, and show a complete lack of knowledge of small programs/towns.

How is it a "perceived" advantage when an A school would automatically make it to the final in an A vs. AA final? "If" the single tourney returned, is it not manipulation to do that format as opposed to just seeding them and letting em have at it in sections? Whoever makes it to the tourney makes it.

puckbreath wrote: I have no interest in a single tournament, or any perceived "advantage" it, or anything else, might give to small programs.

I am amused by the comments made by you, and others, that small programs, golly gee, just need to get better.

All the while, without being able to offer exact, factual, realistic methods, not theories, of doing such.

Work harder ! Grow bigger ! are not examples of such, and show a complete lack of knowledge of small programs/towns.

I can't speak to small town hockey, but have seen different small towns excel in plenty of other sports all around the country because it is what the town puts value in. From baseball to basketball and soccer to football, small towns compete with bigger schools all over. All around the country teams have to qualify for the playoffs and their are teams that work their butts off with "making the playoffs" as their goal.

The "issue" with MN hockey in this discussion is the size of the schools with teams in Class A. If it were just 4A, 5A and 6A football schools with hockey teams, this wouldn't be an issue. AA is 5A and 6A schools while A is 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A (any 1A or 9-man?) schools. It is such a wide range.

To me it doesn't come down to "Luverne shouldn't be playing with Eden Prairie" or whatever, it comes down to a system where teams have to make the playoffs. Maybe uncomparable teams X and Y are in the same "region," but so what? We have that now in conferences and sections.

I've been hearing "hockey's different" and "school size means nothing in hockey" for years. It doesn't mean nothing, but it's not the same as it is in other sports.

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote: Work harder! Grow bigger as a town! Or move! Punishing programs who would normally beat a small town on the basis that they are "bigger" doesn't work since the smaller school gets a cake walk into the finals with the A vs. AA model. It creates just as much a disservice to the opposing side. The criteria is who's best, and only that.

I have no interest in a single tournament, or any perceived "advantage" it, or anything else, might give to small programs.

I am amused by the comments made by you, and others, that small programs, golly gee, just need to get better.

All the while, without being able to offer exact, factual, realistic methods, not theories, of doing such.

Work harder ! Grow bigger ! are not examples of such, and show a complete lack of knowledge of small programs/towns.

How is it a "perceived" advantage when an A school would automatically make it to the final in an A vs. AA final? "If" the single tourney returned, is it not manipulation to do that format as opposed to just seeding them and letting em have at it in sections? Whoever makes it to the tourney makes it.

LOL, ok, it's not perceived. Not the point.

Spell it out for you, again, I'm not interested in any advantage, from any source, being given.

puckbreath wrote:

Nostalgic Nerd wrote:

puckbreath wrote: Well, I just figured since you made the statement/gave the advice, you surely must have had some ideas.

My mistake.

Work harder! Grow bigger as a town! Or move! Punishing programs who would normally beat a small town on the basis that they are "bigger" doesn't work since the smaller school gets a cake walk into the finals with the A vs. AA model. It creates just as much a disservice to the opposing side. The criteria is who's best, and only that.

I have no interest in a single tournament, or any perceived "advantage" it, or anything else, might give to small programs.

I am amused by the comments made by you, and others, that small programs, golly gee, just need to get better.

All the while, without being able to offer exact, factual, realistic methods, not theories, of doing such.

Work harder ! Grow bigger ! are not examples of such, and show a complete lack of knowledge of small programs/towns.

I am located in a small program. We are and have made attempts to "Grow bigger". The current economics of hockey are out of budget for a very large percentage of our community based model. To grow in rural areas it will take some out of the box thinking to raise the numbers.

I am located in a small program. We are and have made attempts to "Grow bigger". The current economics of hockey are out of budget for a very large percentage of our community based model. To grow in rural areas it will take some out of the box thinking to raise the numbers.

Curious to know how many Assocations out there offer free registration to first year players? Our Association is in a town of 3,000 people. We co-op with a community of about 400. We both have our own Mite Programs and then they join us at Squirts. We offer free registration for your first year of hockey. Between the two associations we had 65 kids at the U6 level this year. Granted, we live in a hockey crazy area, but those are fantastic numbers for communities that size. Equipment for your first year of hockey is relatively inexpensive. I bought brand new shin pads, elbow pads, breezers, gloves, shoulder pads and a bag for $80 my sons first year. Even the best Bauer skates that size are around $70 and you can get a helmet for $50. Travel is minimal and usually only one overnight tourney, but that's up to the Association.

The key is to do anything you can to get them in the first year. Once it gets in their blood, then families can budget for it and make it happen if they choose. I would say every Association should offer free registration for the first year as a minimum. You could even start an equipment hand down program. Many would be willing to donate used equipment to new players and you can also by used equipment for dirt cheap at stores like Play it Again Sports. We just need to open the door for every kid and then watch them run with it.

Froggy Richards wrote:

I am located in a small program. We are and have made attempts to "Grow bigger". The current economics of hockey are out of budget for a very large percentage of our community based model. To grow in rural areas it will take some out of the box thinking to raise the numbers.

Curious to know how many Assocations out there offer free registration to first year players? Our Association is in a town of 3,000 people. We co-op with a community of about 400. We both have our own Mite Programs and then they join us at Squirts. We offer free registration for your first year of hockey. Between the two associations we had 65 kids at the U6 level this year. Granted, we live in a hockey crazy area, but those are fantastic numbers for communities that size. Equipment for your first year of hockey is relatively inexpensive. I bought brand new shin pads, elbow pads, breezers, gloves, shoulder pads and a bag for $80 my sons first year. Even the best Bauer skates that size are around $70 and you can get a helmet for $50. Travel is minimal and usually only one overnight tourney, but that's up to the Association.

The key is to do anything you can to get them in the first year. Once it gets in their blood, then families can budget for it and make it happen if they choose. I would say every Association should offer free registration for the first year as a minimum. You could even start an equipment hand down program. Many would be willing to donate used equipment to new players and you can also by used equipment for dirt cheap at stores like Play it Again Sports. We just need to open the door for every kid and then watch them run with it.

Great ideas Froggy Richards! Why not even offer the old style "inhouse" program to kids that are mite and squirt level. two time per week and Sunday nights indoors. This is strategic move to gain interest of the all around athletes who might wish to try basketball or wrestling or just wants to fish with dad on the weekend. Nurture a love for the game and who knows what you will have at pee wee age!!! Why burn out potential candidates at squirt level with excessive travels that model is okay for Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Eagan but the model does not work for Roseau, Hibbing, Grand Rapids. There are clearly better alternatives which do not hinder building a program!!

northwoods oldtimer wrote:

Froggy Richards wrote:

I am located in a small program. We are and have made attempts to "Grow bigger". The current economics of hockey are out of budget for a very large percentage of our community based model. To grow in rural areas it will take some out of the box thinking to raise the numbers.

Curious to know how many Assocations out there offer free registration to first year players? Our Association is in a town of 3,000 people. We co-op with a community of about 400. We both have our own Mite Programs and then they join us at Squirts. We offer free registration for your first year of hockey. Between the two associations we had 65 kids at the U6 level this year. Granted, we live in a hockey crazy area, but those are fantastic numbers for communities that size. Equipment for your first year of hockey is relatively inexpensive. I bought brand new shin pads, elbow pads, breezers, gloves, shoulder pads and a bag for $80 my sons first year. Even the best Bauer skates that size are around $70 and you can get a helmet for $50. Travel is minimal and usually only one overnight tourney, but that's up to the Association.

The key is to do anything you can to get them in the first year. Once it gets in their blood, then families can budget for it and make it happen if they choose. I would say every Association should offer free registration for the first year as a minimum. You could even start an equipment hand down program. Many would be willing to donate used equipment to new players and you can also by used equipment for dirt cheap at stores like Play it Again Sports. We just need to open the door for every kid and then watch them run with it.

Great ideas Froggy Richards! Why not even offer the old style "inhouse" program to kids that are mite and squirt level. two time per week and Sunday nights indoors. This is strategic move to gain interest of the all around athletes who might wish to try basketball or wrestling or just wants to fish with dad on the weekend. Nurture a love for the game and who knows what you will have at pee wee age!!! Why burn out potential candidates at squirt level with excessive travels that model is okay for Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Eagan but the model does not work for Roseau, Hibbing, Grand Rapids. There are clearly better alternatives which do not hinder building a program!!

These are the kind of things I've been preaching for years. In communities sports are a great outlet for kids. The upkeep of building/maintaining an arena is much different than a gym or rec center, but if that is what your community wants, they will do it.

There are small towns with phenomenal programs for many different sports and that is precisely why; the community supports it and makes it easy for everyone to participate.

northwoods oldtimer wrote: Great ideas Froggy Richards! Why not even offer the old style "inhouse" program to kids that are mite and squirt level. two time per week and Sunday nights indoors. This is strategic move to gain interest of the all around athletes who might wish to try basketball or wrestling or just wants to fish with dad on the weekend. Nurture a love for the game and who knows what you will have at pee wee age!!! Why burn out potential candidates at squirt level with excessive travels that model is okay for Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Eagan but the model does not work for Roseau, Hibbing, Grand Rapids. There are clearly better alternatives which do not hinder building a program!!

Oldtimer, bringing back inexpensive in-house programs at the squirt level is a great idea that's been bandied about, even in the bigger Metro Area youth hockey associations that you mentioned. Unfortunately, the idea often gets shot down (or, more accurately, voted down) by parents who believe that their seven-year old son won't make it to the NHL unless he is playing on an "A" team that's practicing 4x week and traveling to out-of-town tournaments. Playing with only the best teammates against only the best competition can't come soon enough for these guys.

It's probably a minority opinion (especially at the mite/squirt level), but sometimes (or many times) it's minority rules in youth hockey associations. The parents who are spending the most and pushing the most (and, yes, often volunteering the most) are the ones most likely to run for positions on the board, where these policy decisions are typically made.

My opinion is that Minnesota's hockey future hinges on keeping the costs down for as long as possible, and keeping the "A" "B1" "C" labels away for as long as possible. It's no longer a seller's market.

almostashappy wrote:Oldtimer, bringing back inexpensive in-house programs at the squirt level is a great idea that's been bandied about, even in the bigger Metro Area youth hockey associations that you mentioned. Unfortunately, the idea often gets shot down (or, more accurately, voted down) by parents who believe that their seven-year old son won't make it to the NHL unless he is playing on an "A" team that's practicing 4x week and traveling to out-of-town tournaments. Playing with only the best teammates against only the best competition can't come soon enough for these guys.

One could make a quite solid argument that subsidizing these costs in some way for those that cannot afford it would only help those who truly are good.

almostashappy wrote:

northwoods oldtimer wrote: Great ideas Froggy Richards! Why not even offer the old style "inhouse" program to kids that are mite and squirt level. two time per week and Sunday nights indoors. This is strategic move to gain interest of the all around athletes who might wish to try basketball or wrestling or just wants to fish with dad on the weekend. Nurture a love for the game and who knows what you will have at pee wee age!!! Why burn out potential candidates at squirt level with excessive travels that model is okay for Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Eagan but the model does not work for Roseau, Hibbing, Grand Rapids. There are clearly better alternatives which do not hinder building a program!!

Oldtimer, bringing back inexpensive in-house programs at the squirt level is a great idea that's been bandied about, even in the bigger Metro Area youth hockey associations that you mentioned. Unfortunately, the idea often gets shot down (or, more accurately, voted down) by parents who believe that their seven-year old son won't make it to the NHL unless he is playing on an "A" team that's practicing 4x week and traveling to out-of-town tournaments. Playing with only the best teammates against only the best competition can't come soon enough for these guys.

It's probably a minority opinion (especially at the mite/squirt level), but sometimes (or many times) it's minority rules in youth hockey associations. The parents who are spending the most and pushing the most (and, yes, often volunteering the most) are the ones most likely to run for positions on the board, where these policy decisions are typically made.

My opinion is that Minnesota's hockey future hinges on keeping the costs down for as long as possible, and keeping the "A" "B1" "C" labels away for as long as possible. It's no longer a seller's market.

Valid points all around regarding youth hockey. Unfortunately the " keep up with the Jones" mentality has youth hockey quite a ways down the rabbit whole. I hear you on your comments and they are very accurate observations indeed. Your commentary is absolutely correct and very unfortunate for metro area kids residing in the larger hockey burbs. I know that those kids and families have no option but to jump on the treadmill of hockey early and not get off as volume (player numbers) dictate the survival of the fittest. That is a hockey paradigm I am fortunate enough to not have been part of. In the race to the top of quality hockey associations we have collectively lost a fair amount of the innocence that the game used to provide at the youth level. Perhaps the "in house" alternative is best left as its own enterprise that runs independently and with no limitation on boundaries. I would like to think one day our teams will be good enough where Saint Paul can hold a single 16 team tournament. This is a good goal for us to collectively achieve. Luverne Cardinals intrigue me a bit. They sound like they have something going on down there that is refreshing approach. Might be assumption on my part but based on TV commentary it sounds like they have some soccer players playing hockey and some baseball players playing hockey!!! They looked pretty even to me at times against some year round kids today.