Tier 1

[Jimbo99]

That's a nice post, thoughtful & intelligent. Especially:

"If you feel the state doesn't adequately 'develop' (whatever that means) enough hockey players, methinks the gap is at the high school age where kids are limited to more like 30 games."

I agree.

And I'm still wondering if anyone can tell us why these guys are leaving the associations. Is it for "development"?

[wiscobad]

[DuckDuckQuackQuack]

Wiscobad- Nicely put. I think people are in denial that AAA hockey is inching our way. I agree that we do need to get the younger youth playing Tier I hockey only if they wish to play. No pushing from the parents.
Keep in mind that these traditionalist ALL agree that the kids should play hockey for the association and play endless hours of hockey in the back yard or at the park. But when the kids receive more ice time in a organized structure this is bad. Even though the kids can have fun in both structures. Doesn't make sense. I think it all comes down to coaches having positive influence on kids and making it fun.
My son received 100 hours of ice last year at Minnesota made and still begged me to take him to the outdoor park. He wanted to watch all Gopher, Wild, NHL classic channel on ESPN and high school games on TV. Not to mention puck handling out in the garage for an hour evey day.
For some reason this is all good and accepted by the hockey gods if and only if my son played for our local association. Some how throwing the coaches and structure into the picture taints eveything. Funny how it all works out.
I'm still trying to get over the fact that I have adults telling me where my son needs to skate. Why?

[Can't Never Tried]

Wiscobad- Nicely put. I think people are in denial that AAA hockey is inching our way. I agree that we do need to get the younger youth playing Tier I hockey only if they wish to play. No pushing from the parents.
Keep in mind that these traditionalist ALL agree that the kids should play hockey for the association and play endless hours of hockey in the back yard or at the park. But when the kids receive more ice time in a organized structure this is bad. Even though the kids can have fun in both structures. Doesn't make sense. I think it all comes down to coaches having positive influence on kids and making it fun.
My son received 100 hours of ice last year at Minnesota made and still begged me to take him to the outdoor park. He wanted to watch all Gopher, Wild, NHL classic channel on ESPN and high school games on TV. Not to mention puck handling out in the garage for an hour evey day.
For some reason this is all good and accepted by the hockey gods if and only if my son played for our local association. Some how throwing the coaches and structure into the picture taints eveything. Funny how it all works out.
I'm still trying to get over the fact that I have adults telling me where my son needs to skate. Why?

[DuckDuckQuackQuack]

Wiscobad- Nicely put. I think people are in denial that AAA hockey is inching our way. I agree that we do need to get the younger youth playing Tier I hockey only if they wish to play. No pushing from the parents.
Keep in mind that these traditionalist ALL agree that the kids should play hockey for the association and play endless hours of hockey in the back yard or at the park. But when the kids receive more ice time in a organized structure this is bad. Even though the kids can have fun in both structures. Doesn't make sense. I think it all comes down to coaches having positive influence on kids and making it fun.
My son received 100 hours of ice last year at Minnesota made and still begged me to take him to the outdoor park. He wanted to watch all Gopher, Wild, NHL classic channel on ESPN and high school games on TV. Not to mention puck handling out in the garage for an hour evey day.
For some reason this is all good and accepted by the hockey gods if and only if my son played for our local association. Some how throwing the coaches and structure into the picture taints eveything. Funny how it all works out.
I'm still trying to get over the fact that I have adults telling me where my son needs to skate. Why?

CNT- Agreed! No need to push kids. Let them have fun.

[tomASS]

Careful - don't crack a rib like I did

[O-townClown]

What the heck does this mean?:"Be careful what you wish for... You know how that saying goes. Tier I may solve some problems, but it surely creates just as many new ones."

"You don't have kids begging for AAA. And if you do I can tell you where they got the idea." Open up a Tier 1 opportunity, without retribution, and see what happens. Methinks, that the cream will rise to the top.

O-town, I love the tennis and golf analogy. It really makes things crystal clear and is incredibly inspiring. Additionally, I love how so many MN hockey experts throw around the D1 stat. Rear-view mirror bias.

As you said: "The field of the Minnesota state Pee Wee and Bantam tournaments is every bit as strong as the USA Hockey National Championships, and probably even stronger at the bottom."

Nice!! O-Town is proud that MN hockey is equivalent at the top and stronger at the bottom. If we just bury our head in the sand-- then everything will be fine.

Also, as you said: "there is nothing Minnesota can do to stop other parts of the country from getting better and better at hockey." You're worried and you know it. Yet, you don't want to support anything that can improve MN youth hockey. Opening up Tier 1 opportunities would be a good first step.

Hey, maybe MN Bantams can play more than 50 games a year. That should develop them automatically. Forget practice.

Here's a link to the 2008 USHL draft:

http://www.ushldraft.com/index-2008Entr ... esults.cfm

18 rounds of picks-- Minnesota players are strongly represented. However, notice the significant representation of Tier 1 and private vs. traditional MN H.S. players.

This is not intended to be a bash on traditional MN hockey. Rather, it is a clear example of why we need to have more Tier I opportunities for our youth players. Further, it drives me nuts that clowns like O-Town would rather sit on their thumb than be an advocate for improvement.

Peace.

1. The expression is "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it." It means that oftentimes people don't think through to figure out what happens after they get what they want. Imagine the numbers of kids that won't be able to pursue a Tier I opportunity if it involves heavy out-of-state travel. By 'solving' one problem, another arises.

2. Doesn't the cream always rise to the top? You're going to have to explain to me how the cream is settling at the bottom or somehow getting stuck in the middle.

3. There is no rear-view bias when citing the number of Minnesotans playing college hockey. Those numbers are current. And they aren't likely to change much in the near future as Minnesota - warts and all in your eyes - still produces ('develops') a lot of college hockey players. Probably due to its INCLUSIONARY participation model.

4. How on earth am I worried? If anything, I should be ecstatic that my son has near-equal opportunity since we are 1,500 miles from the Twin Cities. That wasn't the case. When I moved here there weren't rinks. Today the state has 17 facilities (some with multiple sheets). Not a lot when you consider 18 million people, but a lot more than where they were a decade ago. And what pray tell am I worried about? Dying to hear. You accuse me of a head in the sand? I cite facts and give opinions. You just make schnit up. What am I worried about?

5. It matters not what I support. Minnesota hockey has gotten on - for better or worse, you be the judge - without me and it will still be around in another 15 years. I can be for or against anything in Minnesota and it really doesn't matter. Governor Ventura, Al Franken, new stadiums, the Garnett trade, the bridge collapse, Nate Hagemo...residents have more at stake than I do with matters like this.

6. If the goal is to have kids play in the USHL then you probably do need to revisit the developmental model at the Bantam age. Not Pee Wee though. And you are on to something. I believe most parents are concerned with raising respectful kids that enjoy their youth. The environment they foster is supportive and encouraging without being too stressful. When some actually have a goal of turning out a champion - ever hear the comments from Nick Thompson's dad about his three kids?! - you have goal incongruity. Those placeing concern for their budding little superstar above the goals of others - and let's face it, most kids aren't superstars - are the one clamoring for these additional options at the Squirt and Pee Wee (pre-puberty I'll note) levels. Is it 'fair' to withhold an option from a minority in hopes of pleasing the majority? Probably not, which is why the let's-at-least-offer-Tier I-as-an-OPTION argument has some merit. If people are afraid of that scenario it is because they fear what the ripple effects will do to the way it is now for the majority.

7. If you are concerned about me becoming an advocate for improvement you can stop worrying. I'll support anything that will improve things. I can even go a step further and offer a suggestion. Continue to offer the Fall Elite League at the HS level and the Select camps for Bantam age players. At Pee Wees I'd even expand the concept by having a similar off-season development program with a catch. At least 25% of the players are attending on a full scholarship, subsidized by Minnesota hockey and a tuition surcharge for the other 75%. If you are really concerned with development of the state's best players you most certainly share the fear that many kids simply aren't able to have as many opportunities because of their family's geographic and financial circumstances. About 3 out of every 10 kids in the YMCA youth leagues where I coach are scholarshipped. For all the effort spent on trying to create opportunities for those that can afford it, I don't think 10% of that energy devoted to those that might not be able to is a bad thing.

Good luck with your crusade. Just don't cry a river when new problems arise. And they will. You've been warned.

[jancze5]

I think one oversight by everyone is that Tier 1 leagues throughout the country basically encompass a geographic region that is more or less smaller than the boundaries of Minnesota. The AYHL for example, is as north as Mid Fairfield in Connecticut and as south as Washington DC. Less than 3 1/2 hours. Prior to expansion to include the Chicago teams, the MWEHL (the top Tier 1 league in the US) was Detroit based with a few outlying teams to the north and south. Same with the EJ which basically takes the cities along I90 in upstate New York. Many AAA teams actually spend the season traveling not as far as you may think.

Of course, these teams do go to Chicago for the Nike Bauer, head to Toronto if they can at least once, and usually a third or 4th tournament in Detroit/Philly/etc....so yes, the travel adds up quickly but it's not as terrible as it's made out to be. Yes, a team from Colorado or LA that has no local AAA league will expedentiously travel to 5-7 tournaments in order to get games, same with the Florida based teams.

I still believe there is a market for a Tier 1 league here in Minnesota. It doesn't need to be 30 teams like we have in the summer at all levels.
3 in the Metro, toss in Shattuck, add in Green Bay, Madison, and one or two up north (Fargo/Moorhead, Duluth???) and suddenly you have a viable league to work with. At worst you travel once to Green Bay and once to Madison plus whatever outstate tournaments you go to. I can tell you that if this league existed and hosted tournaments, the Detroits/Chicagos/Jerseys/etc..would come here because undoubtedly with a limited # of teams, the state would produce serious serious top end teams. Of course, we'd have to avoid the D6 refs, but that's another forum. (sorry, couldn't resist)

[Jimbo99]

6. If the goal is to have kids play in the USHL then you probably do need to revisit the developmental model at the Bantam age. Not Pee Wee though. And you are on to something. I believe most parents are concerned with raising respectful kids that enjoy their youth. The environment they foster is supportive and encouraging without being too stressful. When some actually have a goal of turning out a champion - ever hear the comments from Nick Thompson's dad about his three kids?! - you have goal incongruity. Those placeing concern for their budding little superstar above the goals of others - and let's face it, most kids aren't superstars - are the one clamoring for these additional options at the Squirt and Pee Wee (pre-puberty I'll note) levels. Is it 'fair' to withhold an option from a minority in hopes of pleasing the majority? Probably not, which is why the let's-at-least-offer-Tier I-as-an-OPTION argument has some merit. If people are afraid of that scenario it is because they fear what the ripple effects will do to the way it is now for the majority.

That bears repeating:

6. If the goal is to have kids play in the USHL then you probably do need to revisit the developmental model at the Bantam age. Not Pee Wee though. And you are on to something. I believe most parents are concerned with raising respectful kids that enjoy their youth. The environment they foster is supportive and encouraging without being too stressful. When some actually have a goal of turning out a champion - ever hear the comments from Nick Thompson's dad about his three kids?! - you have goal incongruity. Those placeing concern for their budding little superstar above the goals of others - and let's face it, most kids aren't superstars - are the one clamoring for these additional options at the Squirt and Pee Wee (pre-puberty I'll note) levels. Is it 'fair' to withhold an option from a minority in hopes of pleasing the majority? Probably not, which is why the let's-at-least-offer-Tier I-as-an-OPTION argument has some merit. If people are afraid of that scenario it is because they fear what the ripple effects will do to the way it is now for the majority.

[O-townClown]

Jancze:

I think you've nailed it. If there is a Tier I to supplement the Minnesota Hockey model you probably are looking at 4 teams. Three Metro and one North. With those you mention you get a 7 team league or something. How these Northern kids get to practice is another story!

It makes sense for Bantams. Do you think for Pee Wee too? I don't. And with only 45 roster spots for Metro skaters you'll no doubt have the last 15 no better than the next 25 that don't make it. There will be resentment from associations toward players who try to leave and don't get picked.

What time of year will these tryouts be held? And will associations get commitments from players before the Tier I tryouts?

There is definitely a slippery slope. In running Minnesota hockey I think it is clear they've been hoping to avoid treading even part-way down it for fear of how far they'll fall. I can only imagine the number of disputes this could spawn.

Hockey in Minnesota isn't broken. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[insidethenhl.com]

[quote="spin-o-rama"]Apparently, Minnetonka discussed the same thing at their most recent board meeting. [url]http://www.tonkahockey.org/agenda.html[/url] Anyone know of their decision?

This is interesting because D6 came out last year and said that a kid couldn't be prohibited from playing MM choice and D6 mites. How can they be discussing a more prohibitive policy?[/quote]

It seems this topic is being discussed in many associations, and is aimed against the better skilled kids leaving to play elsewhere and then returning.

[insidethenhl.com]

[quote="Can't Never Tried"]Not nasty........ stupid..and I'll say right now this is a grown ups problem, or should I say not so grown up

Why would they feel that they should punish a kid for playing a game, because it wasn't on their team?
Boy you big tough board members are really teaching these kids a lesson.
Get over yourselves and let kids do what they want, if they were good enough to play on the fire, then I would think if it's truly about hockey and not egos he'd be a welcome addition.....good gawd!! shame on you people! [/quote]

They should be renaming the Fire the Lakeville Burnouts. Rumor has it that 98 Fire is mostly a Lakeville team, hand picked by the Lakeville Hockey Mafia.

[DuckDuckQuackQuack]

Apparently, Minnetonka discussed the same thing at their most recent board meeting. http://www.tonkahockey.org/agenda.html Anyone know of their decision?

This is interesting because D6 came out last year and said that a kid couldn't be prohibited from playing MM choice and D6 mites. How can they be discussing a more prohibitive policy?

It seems this topic is being discussed in many associations, and is aimed against the better skilled kids leaving to play elsewhere and then returning.

Lets say some one makes a rule that kids must stay within the association or face penalties. Wouldn't they have to give one year warning? Any new rule will start for the 2009-2010 season?

[wiscobad]

[wiscobad]

[Jimbo99]

Poor Clown, big O seems to be having a hard time acknowledging logic. Arguing that Tier 1 must be sadistically bad because of travel or that it may potentially have extra costs (especially since gas prices are going up-- next thing you know, the Clown will blame the environmentalists for Tier 1).

Clearly, Tier 1 must be sinister because the Clown is paranoid about it. Maybe, it's a giant conspiracy generated by Bernie/Minnesota Made to take over all of our community hockey programs.... yikes and the associated taxes. Dear god save us now. We'll never be able afford the new flat screen or 14 foot fishing boat. Tier 1 travel will take away from the ice fishing season-- ohhh the immense sacrifice ohhh the extreme madness.

By the way, how many of the quoted 20% D1 Minnesota players were actually SSM and/or Bernie's Dream Team? Can't count those guys-- their Tier 1.

Oh, I almost forgot-- the resentment toward players (actually the current squirt terminology is "benders") that aren't picked. Truly, a very serious unintended outcome. Then every local association will act like Lakeville. Blacklist the devils forever. That will learn'em. Power to the little kings.

Very slippery slope Clown-- shake out the sand on your head-- it will help with the traction.

You're the guys who are paranoid. No one said "sinister". No one said "sadistic". Tier I may very well be part of Minnesota hockey's future. Some of us may not be so all fire sure that's a good thing and, in any event, there's room for dissenting opinions and to discuss what form it might take.

It seems this thread is pretty unanimous in recognizing the LHA's dumb move. Kids are leaving though. It doesn't seem unreasonable to discuss the motivations behind those moves. Are they running to something or away from something? What's the draw? What's the fear? Perceived or real? Is it for the kids or the parents? It's an age old question and we should never stop asking it.

[observer]

"(quote, insidethenhl.com)
They should be renaming the Fire the Lakeville Burnouts. Rumor has it that 98 Fire is mostly a Lakeville team, hand picked by the Lakeville Hockey Mafia."
(end quote, insidethenhl.com)

I believe Tier 1 should be allowed in Minnesota but wasn't the 1993 Fire Hockey Club thrown out of the Wisconsin Tier 1 Championship partially because the team didn't include an appropriate percentage of Wisconsin players? What is the actual rule? Has it changed or who's bending on the requirement? Wisconsin Hockey? The MAHL? The Fire making their own rules?

Before we call the Fire arrogant, and stupid, again, what's the answer? Is the Fire Hockey Club now a Minnesota team? Still Wisconsin? What's the rule?

[insidethenhl.com]

[quote="observer"]They should be renaming the Fire the Lakeville Burnouts. Rumor has it that 98 Fire is mostly a Lakeville team, hand picked by the Lakeville Hockey Mafia.

I believe Tier 1 should be allowed in Minnesota but wasn't the 1993 Fire Hockey Club thrown out of the Wisconsin Tier 1 Championship partially because the team didn't include an appropriate percentage of Wisconsin players? What is the actual rule? Has it changed or who's bending on the requirement? Wisconsin Hockey? The MAHL? The Fire making their own rules?

Before we call the Fire arrogant, and stupid, again, what's the answer? Is the Fire Hockey Club now a Minnesota team? Still Wisconsin? What's the rule?[/quote]

It should be called the Minnesota Fire. My understanding is that only 5 players are needed from Wisconsin and the rest are from MN to follow the Wisconsin rules. While each Fire team is different per birth year, those teams are usually stacked with top MN players. Most of the coaches are from MN, and try to keep the same players together from their MN teams in order to have them play year round together. While I am not sure how many Lakeville players are from each year, my bet is that for the squirt level, a Lakeville parent is coaching and 4-5 of the top Lakeville squirts are on the team. The Fire in my opinion, is just club hockey for MN.

[O-townClown]

Poor Clown, big O seems to be having a hard time acknowledging logic. Arguing that Tier 1 must be sadistically bad because of travel or that it may potentially have extra costs (especially since gas prices are going up-- next thing you know, the Clown will blame the environmentalists for Tier 1).

I'm lost here. First I was worried, now I have trouble 'acknowledging logic' - whatever that means. Answer the question. What am I worried about? How have I not acknowledged a case for Tier I hockey when I've flat out stated that it makes sense after puberty if the concern is advancing the elite players? Funny thing about 'logic'. When someone is overmatched they attack the person and not the argument. I have no idea how environmentalists came into the discussion, but you brought them! Only one who has used Tier I and sadistically bad in a sentence is you. I won't be at all surprised if my son plays Tier I youth hockey some day. Sure wouldn't feel that way if I lived in the Twin Cities.

Clearly, Tier 1 must be sinister because the Clown is paranoid about it. Maybe, it's a giant conspiracy generated by Bernie/Minnesota Made to take over all of our community hockey programs.... yikes and the associated taxes. Dear god save us now. We'll never be able afford the new flat screen or 14 foot fishing boat. Tier 1 travel will take away from the ice fishing season-- ohhh the immense sacrifice ohhh the extreme madness.

First I was worried, but now I'm paranoid! Do you even know what those words mean? Explain. You are rambling, and I'm not sure about what. Ice fishing? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

By the way, how many of the quoted 20% D1 Minnesota players were actually SSM and/or Bernie's Dream Team? Can't count those guys-- their Tier 1.

Some. Adjust down if you need. Makes sense for the Shattuck kids that moved from other states. I don't know why you would net out the Minnesota kids that trained some with McBain unless they too left for Shattuck.

Oh, I almost forgot-- the resentment toward players (actually the current squirt terminology is "benders") that aren't picked. Truly, a very serious unintended outcome. Then every local association will act like Lakeville. Blacklist the devils forever. That will learn'em. Power to the little kings.

Very slippery slope Clown-- shake out the sand on your head-- it will help with the traction.





Here's a good one: "

And you finally mention that some of the downside involves 'unintended consequences.' But not unforeseen, which is why the powers that be have moved slowly.

A relevant question is this - who are the people interested in Tier I options concerned about? Their kid or all the kids? At the root of this seems to be the sentiment that if there ISN'T a Tier I option certain little Johnnies will be passed over by some kids in Los Angeles, Phoenix, or Detroit. Even worse, some proponents of Tier I seem to be first-rate 'competitive parents'. When Ward Cleaver had to deal with one guy at work (Rutherford?) it was an aberration. Nowadays you see many people getting a sense of their self-worth through their children's achievement.

Do me a favor and help me and everyone else out. First off describe the what the hockey world will look like if Minnesota never modifies rules to allow for a Tier I option. Then describe what it will look like if they do. Isn't this all like the NBA drafting high schoolers where we are talking about the ultimate difference being meaningful for just a handful of kids annually?

I'm the easiest to sway. I'm open-minded, impartial, and don't have a dog in the fight. The fact that you can't get me on board means you either suck at selling your ideas or they have little merit to stand on.

[tomASS]

Since wiscobad is rambling already..................

Imagine Otown is the cute baby and wiscobad is Billary

[council member retired]

hilary is looking good, relatively speaking

[tomASS]

hilary is looking good, relatively speaking

those are man hands !!!! Just look at them!

[observer]

So what and where is the rule and is the Fire Hockey Club now a Minnesota registered team. Did MN Hockey change their stance and allow them to register in Minnesota. If so, they could switch the balance between Minnesota and Wisconsin kids. I thought it was like 80% from the state where the team is registered. If the MAHL is bending their rules solely for the Fire that seems weird. A number of the Fire teams practice a lot in the western suburbs, has a lot of players and coaches from the western suburbs as well. How often are they going to practice in Somerset this winter? I looked on the Fire and MAHL sites and found nothing about the specific rule. The 1993 team was also in violation for their coaches not having proper USA Hockey coach accreditation.

It seems like there's a lot of secrets and behind the scenes maneuvering, recruiting players, etc.

I like the idea of Tier 1 in Minnesota but would like to see it done right. Maybe this is just the sloppy evolution between doing it right (in Wisconsin, with Wisconsin players) and the goal of becoming a Minnesota Club.

[Bruins]

The Wisconsin Fire is not a Minnesota Team. They are Wisconsin teams (98-95?)with Minnesota and Wisconsin players. Just like other AAA winter teams , many will have players from other states. I think it makes sense that this team has many Minnesota players since the home of the Fire is on the Minnesota border. They could take players from North Dakota and Iowa if they wanted to, there are no restictions on residence. They do need to have a pecentage of Wisconsin players though. I think winter AAA confuses many people in Minnesota because they are used to the association type model (many restrictions about residence , different birth year cutoffs and game count cap in MN). There are no secrets about getting players, they held open tryouts last month at all levels( on Fire website). I think its a great opportunity for a handful of players in Minnesota. They usually put out a good product and many Minnesota teams like to invite them to scimmage or play in MN tournaments. I think its great having a AAA team so close by.

[observer]

Bruins,

Which is it? You say both, "there are no restrictions on residence." But you also say, "they do need to have a percentage of Wisconsin players though."

Is there a rule regarding percentage of players from the state where the team is registered? Fire rule? WI Hockey rule? MAHL rule? Was it changed after their 1993 team was forced to forfeit their games in the Wisconsin championship?

They changed their name to Fire Hockey Club last year and dropped Wisconsin from their name.

This organization has shown extremely poor management and administration. Maybe we can get Fire leadership to clearly state their goals and intentions and be more welcomed instead of their sneaky, rule violating, ways. They could be viewed more favorably if they put on a friendly public face.

Hello, Fire, care to state your intentions? How you'll comply with rules and regulations? Become a friend instead of a sneaky enemy.