How Affluence Affects Hockey Success

[MNHockeyFan]

You couldn't have meant Naples. There are four sheets of ice serving that market (three at Germain and one at Skatium in Fort Myers), their Pee Wee team just lost in the Tier I championship game, and they have extremely good coaches top to bottom.

Also, the population is definitely not growing in Collier & Lee county. Ground Zero for the housing crisis. The growing days are behind us.

I was summarizing his comments. It doesn't say that if you have money and people you will be world-class at everything. Take the U.S. and dart throwing or Saudi Arabia and bobsled. To be world-class, you need to have two of the three.

Another way to look at this is that to overcome the lack of money, you need tons of people and a rabid culture for whatever sport.

Had no idea Naples, FL was a hockey town! I picked it as an example because I am somewhat familiar with it, as my parents retired there back in the 80's (they've since both passed away). Anyway sorry to hear the housing crisis has been so severe there. The last time I visited (10 years ago?) they were building expensive new golf course communities all over the place. They were home to upper-middle to very wealthy retirees - you didn't see a lot of kids there unless they were on vacation with their parents. Anyway it's good to hear that hockey has spread so far south; thanks for the info.

[The X]

You can't find the town of Hill-Murray or Holy Angels, or Cretin anywhere on a map and many metro area schools include more than 1 town. We also don't get the 8 best teams and determine a champion, we get 8 teams from different regions and determine a champion. I don't get equating Wayzata's lack of success because they're in region with Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Benilde to affluence.

In 2007 one of my kids did a paper for his statistics class at Winona State where his original idea was to compare the "affluence" of a team to it's success. Not being able to for certain determine income because that's not public data he moved on to home values which wasn't perfect but at least a start. He used Rochester as his base and tracked kids in football, hockey, and baseball. You could pretty much figure which kids as squirts (by going back to when they were squirts) would be on the high school hockey teams while that wasn't true at all in baseball and football based soley on home value. Success in hockey when compared to the other 2 schools in hockey was also related to home value where again that wasn't the case in football or baseball. Lastly there was a more defined range with no low outliers in hockey while the range in football and baseball was much broader due to how low the home values could go in those sports. There were also gaping holes in pin plots on a map for hockey while not in football and baseball. In Rochester at least you can pretty clearly make a connection with the downturn in hockey to a lessening of the talent pool due to economic circumstances.

Some people try to equate with the addition of another school and Lourdes rise but this discounts Lourdes was pretty good prior to Century opening and John Marshall falling off after to the point where Rochester still fielded 3 strong teams up until 2004 or so then it fell to 2 and now down to 1, and that 1 is in class A. You can make a pretty good argument that an intentional rise in costs has led to unintentional decline in talent by pricing too many out of the game and letting others buy their way through. I would bet that given no economic or social factors Johnson, Southwest, or Sibley could produce a state champion quality team again.

Agreed. Not to difficult to realize the kids from affluent familys have many more options in hockey. The summer AAA teams cost big money that lots of familys just cannot afford. Its all about the amount of ice, coaching, and competition played against in most cases that seperates the pack. IMO.

disagree, if you don't have the athletic ability and physical tools you can have as much money, ice time and coaching, and you still won't make it.

Have to disagree with you on that one. I have coached and played with many players who were the fastest skater, strongest player, and had the best shot on the team. But... these players were not the better players because they would skate around everybody and then get to the net and shoot over it or wide and could not finish. Natural ability and tools does not a great player make. What makes a good player is hockey sense and just being smart as a player in general, pass to the right place etc... With money, ice time, and coaching, even the average player playing against better competition at the AAA year after year will gain the edge. IMO.

[mulefarm]

Agreed. Not to difficult to realize the kids from affluent familys have many more options in hockey. The summer AAA teams cost big money that lots of familys just cannot afford. Its all about the amount of ice, coaching, and competition played against in most cases that seperates the pack. IMO.

disagree, if you don't have the athletic ability and physical tools you can have as much money, ice time and coaching, and you still won't make it.

Have to disagree with you on that one. I have coached and played with many players who were the fastest skater, strongest player, and had the best shot on the team. But... these players were not the better players because they would skate around everybody and then get to the net and shoot over it or wide and could not finish. Natural ability and tools does not a great player make. What makes a good player is hockey sense and just being smart as a player in general, pass to the right place etc... With money, ice time, and coaching, even the average player playing against better competition at the AAA year after year will gain the edge. IMO.

I don't believe I said anything about being the fastest skater, strongest player or having the best shot.

[The X]

disagree, if you don't have the athletic ability and physical tools you can have as much money, ice time and coaching, and you still won't make it.

Have to disagree with you on that one. I have coached and played with many players who were the fastest skater, strongest player, and had the best shot on the team. But... these players were not the better players because they would skate around everybody and then get to the net and shoot over it or wide and could not finish. Natural ability and tools does not a great player make. What makes a good player is hockey sense and just being smart as a player in general, pass to the right place etc... With money, ice time, and coaching, even the average player playing against better competition at the AAA year after year will gain the edge. IMO.

I don't believe I said anything about being the fastest skater, strongest player or having the best shot.

Athletic ability, physical tools? Speed, strength, = the latter

[mulefarm]

Have to disagree with you on that one. I have coached and played with many players who were the fastest skater, strongest player, and had the best shot on the team. But... these players were not the better players because they would skate around everybody and then get to the net and shoot over it or wide and could not finish. Natural ability and tools does not a great player make. What makes a good player is hockey sense and just being smart as a player in general, pass to the right place etc... With money, ice time, and coaching, even the average player playing against better competition at the AAA year after year will gain the edge. IMO.

I don't believe I said anything about being the fastest skater, strongest player or having the best shot.

Athletic ability, physical tools? Speed, strength, = the latter

So you are saying a small ,not very strong,average speed, but great hockey sense is the player you want on your team?

[The X]

I don't believe I said anything about being the fastest skater, strongest player or having the best shot.

Athletic ability, physical tools? Speed, strength, = the latter

So you are saying a small ,not very strong,average speed, but great hockey sense is the player you want on your team?

Size does not matter, especially in youth and high school. I'll take smart players that can finish with a good work ethic anytime. Good example of this would be this years Hibbing team, not big or flashy, one player that was really good but it was not a result of his size as much as his hockey sense.

[deacon64]

This is a no-brainer. One just has to drive through the Super Rink parking lot on any given weekend --- lots of new or nearly new Burbs and Escalades and not too many junkers..................

exactly, that is an outstanding example IMO.

Don't forget my 95 Grand Am...

[The X]

This is a no-brainer. One just has to drive through the Super Rink parking lot on any given weekend --- lots of new or nearly new Burbs and Escalades and not too many junkers..................

exactly, that is an outstanding example IMO.

Don't forget my 95 Grand Am...

ok, lol

[brandy38]

I would bet that given no economic or social factors Johnson, Southwest, or Sibley could produce a state champion quality team again.

Sibley has Mendota Heights, which is quite nice, not to mention Sunfish Lake, but I'm not sure if those two areas are large enough to make a difference. Plus, that area is probably a private school drain to STA and AHA.

Southwest draws from some of the most affluent neighborhoods in the metro. Pretty much all of the chain of lakes area is zoned to Southwest. The hockey players from that area go to Breck, Blake, Benilde, etc. Only one member of the MPLS-Park Bantam A team from two years ago went public, as far as I heard. Would it be fair to say that Southwest would have a decent team if all the private school exiles stuck around? I think so.