Quasar: I am still not connecting your dots. 300 HS players scored 30+ points? 4,000 kids play HS hockey? (assuming this means varsity?)
300 kids at MN Made? What does this represent?
What does that fact there were 7,100 13-14 year olds have to do with HS in 2 years?
Looking at the numbers provided. USA Hockey has been talking about the need for retention of players through the ages? The numbers seem very stable at 8,500 for the youngest age groups. Then a 17% decline for Bantam age? Then the 15-18 year old players are doing "year round hockey" at the high school level.
I fail to see that the sky is falling?
Tier hockey
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Quasar: Is what you are trying to point out is that "mega-sized" high schools that are fed by one program (Edina, Eden Prairie, Wayzata, etc) don't have enough varsity spots for 3-4 years worth of Bantam A players? That is a problem having 3,500 kids in a high school and should be taken up with your school district.
For the rest, Bantam A players and many B players find a nice home playing HS hockey.
If it ain't broke...
For the rest, Bantam A players and many B players find a nice home playing HS hockey.
If it ain't broke...
Come on !!! 7,000 kids entering a 4,000 bagBadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: Is what you are trying to point out is that "mega-sized" high schools that are fed by one program (Edina, Eden Prairie, Wayzata, etc) don't have enough varsity spots for 3-4 years worth of Bantam A players? That is a problem having 3,500 kids in a high school and should be taken up with your school district.
For the rest, Bantam A players and many B players find a nice home playing HS hockey.
If it ain't broke...
The 300 kids at the Made may be the 300 that score 30 points when they enter high school..
I could care less about associations or who they are
And by the way... you may not understand, but I assure you it's broken after Bantams..
IDK bob, I don't think anyone is saying the sky is falling or that MN Hockey is aweful or anything obsurd like that. However, using your line of logic we see a nice stable 8,500 in the yyouth groups. Then teenage years/puberty hit around that second year peewee/first year bantam ages of 13-14 and we see about a 17% decline. That seems to be in line with alot of sports etc.... however, then at the ages of 15-16 it drops almost 50%. Now some of that COULD be explained by the fact that kids are now entering high school sports and some are only playing in high school and thus are not registering with USA Hockey, and some maybe quiting hockey to do other things and other sports but I doubt that accounts for that large of a drop. I think a big factor of what it is, and I think this is qhat Quasar is driving at, is that so many kids are being cut from their high school teams they are quiting hockey altogether because if they can't play in high school it's just not worth it to keep playing. It deflates them and makes them give up the game. IF MN had 5 Tier 1 AAA teams, that is another 200 MM and mm spots which open sup 200 spots for quality players to continue playing in HS. It doesn't address the 50% (aka almost 3,500) in it's entirety but it's a start, right? The 200 is a drop in the bucket and won't effect the MN High School tournament or it's tradition what so ever, but it sure owuld mean the world to those additional 200 that now get to continue playing for their high school while the 200 Tier 1 kids get to pursue their training the way they wish to pursue it. Will they be btter or worse than Mr. Hockey in MN but I fail to see the sky falling if they were to add a controlled number of programs and it might just benefit some kids too. I love assocaiton hockey, I love high school hockey but I also like the choice Tier 1 provides for those interested in pursuing it.BadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: I am still not connecting your dots. 300 HS players scored 30+ points? 4,000 kids play HS hockey? (assuming this means varsity?)
300 kids at MN Made? What does this represent?
What does that fact there were 7,100 13-14 year olds have to do with HS in 2 years?
Looking at the numbers provided. USA Hockey has been talking about the need for retention of players through the ages? The numbers seem very stable at 8,500 for the youngest age groups. Then a 17% decline for Bantam age? Then the 15-18 year old players are doing "year round hockey" at the high school level.
I fail to see that the sky is falling?
Great post !!!JSR wrote:IDK bob, I don't think anyone is saying the sky is falling or that MN Hockey is aweful or anything obsurd like that. However, using your line of logic we see a nice stable 8,500 in the yyouth groups. Then teenage years/puberty hit around that second year peewee/first year bantam ages of 13-14 and we see about a 17% decline. That seems to be in line with alot of sports etc.... however, then at the ages of 15-16 it drops almost 50%. Now some of that COULD be explained by the fact that kids are now entering high school sports and some are only playing in high school and thus are not registering with USA Hockey, and some maybe quiting hockey to do other things and other sports but I doubt that accounts for that large of a drop. I think a big factor of what it is, and I think this is qhat Quasar is driving at, is that so many kids are being cut from their high school teams they are quiting hockey altogether because if they can't play in high school it's just not worth it to keep playing. It deflates them and makes them give up the game. IF MN had 5 Tier 1 AAA teams, that is another 200 MM and mm spots which open sup 200 spots for quality players to continue playing in HS. It doesn't address the 50% (aka almost 3,500) in it's entirety but it's a start, right? The 200 is a drop in the bucket and won't effect the MN High School tournament or it's tradition what so ever, but it sure owuld mean the world to those additional 200 that now get to continue playing for their high school while the 200 Tier 1 kids get to pursue their training the way they wish to pursue it. Will they be btter or worse than Mr. Hockey in MN but I fail to see the sky falling if they were to add a controlled number of programs and it might just benefit some kids too. I love assocaiton hockey, I love high school hockey but I also like the choice Tier 1 provides for those interested in pursuing it.BadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: I am still not connecting your dots. 300 HS players scored 30+ points? 4,000 kids play HS hockey? (assuming this means varsity?)
300 kids at MN Made? What does this represent?
What does that fact there were 7,100 13-14 year olds have to do with HS in 2 years?
Looking at the numbers provided. USA Hockey has been talking about the need for retention of players through the ages? The numbers seem very stable at 8,500 for the youngest age groups. Then a 17% decline for Bantam age? Then the 15-18 year old players are doing "year round hockey" at the high school level.
I fail to see that the sky is falling?
All I can add is "And they could stay in Minnesota during their teens"
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
Interesting idea, I kind of like it. What is Jr. Gold tiered at now? I'm guessing Tier II -- or is it completely separate from USA Hockey's tier designations? As I recall, it USED to be called Midgets when I was growing up (before the term became un PC).Minnesota hockey could declare JR Gold Tier 1 and solve the problem over night..Up thread is a superior post that explains it all. Read it, and look at the numbers ...
Aslo, if I remember correctly, MN Hockey generally has a policy that it must accomodate anyone who wants to play (no sending kids away to play Park/Rec if they get cut from a C team).
Anyway, in the metro area, there is lots of fine Jr. Gold hockey being played. Everyone always says that Edina's Jr Gold teams could beat 98% of all high school teams. (A result, perhaps, of a coaching preference for cutting good seniors in favor of outstanding underclassmen).
Why can't/shouldn't Jr. Gold be expanded to accomodate this supposed flood of cut high school players? Every association that I'm aware of has a "Jr. Gold report" included in the board member meetings template -- which of course most associations don't have. But they could, if the players are there. (In the metro, assoications without Jr. Gold levels will waiver their kids out to play at the nearest program in Edina, SLP, Wayzata etc.)
As the quality of play improves, there should be no reason why that can't be an alternate path to greatness for kids stuck in huge programs with limited roster spots.
Jr Gold is the Minnesota house league for kids that get cut from their high school team.Shinbone_News wrote:Interesting idea, I kind of like it. What is Jr. Gold tiered at now? I'm guessing Tier II -- or is it completely separate from USA Hockey's tier designations? As I recall, it USED to be called Midgets when I was growing up (before the term became un PC).Minnesota hockey could declare JR Gold Tier 1 and solve the problem over night..Up thread is a superior post that explains it all. Read it, and look at the numbers ...
Aslo, if I remember correctly, MN Hockey generally has a policy that it must accomodate anyone who wants to play (no sending kids away to play Park/Rec if they get cut from a C team).
Anyway, in the metro area, there is lots of fine Jr. Gold hockey being played. Everyone always says that Edina's Jr Gold teams could beat 98% of all high school teams. (A result, perhaps, of a coaching preference for cutting good seniors in favor of outstanding underclassmen).
Why can't/shouldn't Jr. Gold be expanded to accomodate this supposed flood of cut high school players? Every association that I'm aware of has a "Jr. Gold report" included in the board member meetings template -- which of course most associations don't have. But they could, if the players are there. (In the metro, assoications without Jr. Gold levels will waiver their kids out to play at the nearest program in Edina, SLP, Wayzata etc.)
As the quality of play improves, there should be no reason why that can't be an alternate path to greatness for kids stuck in huge programs with limited roster spots.
What I am suggesting is that the top 200 play Tier 1 Jr Gold, The next 4,000 play High School, and the rest play Jr Gold B
Seems like an easy solution that works for everyone
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
What a minute, we are talking about different things.
1. USA HOCKEY has been saying the number of kids declines each year at huge rates. Corrent me, but I thought nationwide USA says there is a 25%-50% decline as age groups move through each level? I forget the number and am not going to look it up. But my point is is MN Hockey has a very steady 8,500 players at 4 ages of mites, 2 ages of Squirts and 2 of PW, that is very good retention for MN and better than the numbers published by USA Hockey. And it would make sense that numbers would begin to decline at the Bantam level?
2. Quasar (And appears JSR) are you saying there are roughly 3,500 kids that leave Bantam each year and there are only 4,000 HS spots total. (My first question is whether the 4,000 number is Varsity or JV also?) Secondly, there are not 3,500 (Pick your term, Elite, AAA, really good, AA, A, Super-Duper) hockey players leaving association each year looking for a Varisty HS spot.
So if this need for Tier 1 hockey is pressing, it sure isn't for the top end players? Their needs are being met by MSHSL. Jr. Gold and U-16 meet the needs of those players wishing to continue playing hockey without playing in their HS.
I could see a U-16 level providing the potential for upper end 9th and 10th graders that have aged out of Bantam but can't make their HS team. But these would not be what I consider "Elite" players. Recreational players are more likely.
So be specific if you are refering to large metro associations feeding mega-sized high school or what?
Using Edina as an example, if they have 17 players on their top Bantam A team. A guess would be 13 are 2nd year Bantams? String 3 classes together, and you have about 40 former Edina Bantam A players for 20 Varsity spots and another 20 JV spots. So a B1, B2 or C Edina youth association player is not likely to play for EHS. You can't be suggesting a Tier 1 AAA program for B and C players?
And I don't think you would have top end Varsity players leaving for Tier 1 when they can leave for USHL. Tier 1 Midgets makes no sense at all.
Unless high school budget cuts eliminate hockey and other sports from the schools. Then Tier 1 Midget, U-16 will be immediately formed.
1. USA HOCKEY has been saying the number of kids declines each year at huge rates. Corrent me, but I thought nationwide USA says there is a 25%-50% decline as age groups move through each level? I forget the number and am not going to look it up. But my point is is MN Hockey has a very steady 8,500 players at 4 ages of mites, 2 ages of Squirts and 2 of PW, that is very good retention for MN and better than the numbers published by USA Hockey. And it would make sense that numbers would begin to decline at the Bantam level?
2. Quasar (And appears JSR) are you saying there are roughly 3,500 kids that leave Bantam each year and there are only 4,000 HS spots total. (My first question is whether the 4,000 number is Varsity or JV also?) Secondly, there are not 3,500 (Pick your term, Elite, AAA, really good, AA, A, Super-Duper) hockey players leaving association each year looking for a Varisty HS spot.
So if this need for Tier 1 hockey is pressing, it sure isn't for the top end players? Their needs are being met by MSHSL. Jr. Gold and U-16 meet the needs of those players wishing to continue playing hockey without playing in their HS.
I could see a U-16 level providing the potential for upper end 9th and 10th graders that have aged out of Bantam but can't make their HS team. But these would not be what I consider "Elite" players. Recreational players are more likely.
So be specific if you are refering to large metro associations feeding mega-sized high school or what?
Using Edina as an example, if they have 17 players on their top Bantam A team. A guess would be 13 are 2nd year Bantams? String 3 classes together, and you have about 40 former Edina Bantam A players for 20 Varsity spots and another 20 JV spots. So a B1, B2 or C Edina youth association player is not likely to play for EHS. You can't be suggesting a Tier 1 AAA program for B and C players?
And I don't think you would have top end Varsity players leaving for Tier 1 when they can leave for USHL. Tier 1 Midgets makes no sense at all.
Unless high school budget cuts eliminate hockey and other sports from the schools. Then Tier 1 Midget, U-16 will be immediately formed.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Quasar: I get your angle now. The top ELITE players would play Tier 1. That didn't seem to be your concern, only that 7,000 kids don't fit into 4,000 HS spots.
The top HS age players are not going to play Tier 1 when they came from the association model. It will only work if we go Tier 1 from Mite to Midgets. Then people would look at HS as step down.
With all of the options available before and after HS season, there is no demand for Tier 1. It would be filled with cast aways from HS programs. So, Tier II. Which Jr Gold is meeting the needs now.
So, I think you'd need to move to Detroit for this to be viable.
The top HS age players are not going to play Tier 1 when they came from the association model. It will only work if we go Tier 1 from Mite to Midgets. Then people would look at HS as step down.
With all of the options available before and after HS season, there is no demand for Tier 1. It would be filled with cast aways from HS programs. So, Tier II. Which Jr Gold is meeting the needs now.
So, I think you'd need to move to Detroit for this to be viable.
Minnesota High School players don't register with USA Hockey unless they're involved in the High Performance process, very small percent, so that would account for a very large drop after Bantam in Minnesota.at the ages of 15-16 it drops almost 50%. Now some of that COULD be explained by the fact that kids are now entering high school sports and some are only playing in high school and thus are not registering with USA Hockey, and some maybe quiting hockey to do other things and other sports but I doubt that accounts for that large of a drop.
I will only talk for myself. Bob ... you will never get it until you understand there are kids that would prefer to play something other than Minnesota High School hockey.BadgerBob82 wrote:What a minute, we are talking about different things.
1. USA HOCKEY has been saying the number of kids declines each year at huge rates. Corrent me, but I thought nationwide USA says there is a 25%-50% decline as age groups move through each level? I forget the number and am not going to look it up. But my point is is MN Hockey has a very steady 8,500 players at 4 ages of mites, 2 ages of Squirts and 2 of PW, that is very good retention for MN and better than the numbers published by USA Hockey. And it would make sense that numbers would begin to decline at the Bantam level?
2. Quasar (And appears JSR) are you saying there are roughly 3,500 kids that leave Bantam each year and there are only 4,000 HS spots total. (My first question is whether the 4,000 number is Varsity or JV also?) Secondly, there are not 3,500 (Pick your term, Elite, AAA, really good, AA, A, Super-Duper) hockey players leaving association each year looking for a Varisty HS spot.
So if this need for Tier 1 hockey is pressing, it sure isn't for the top end players? Their needs are being met by MSHSL. Jr. Gold and U-16 meet the needs of those players wishing to continue playing hockey without playing in their HS.
I could see a U-16 level providing the potential for upper end 9th and 10th graders that have aged out of Bantam but can't make their HS team. But these would not be what I consider "Elite" players. Recreational players are more likely.
So be specific if you are refering to large metro associations feeding mega-sized high school or what?
Using Edina as an example, if they have 17 players on their top Bantam A team. A guess would be 13 are 2nd year Bantams? String 3 classes together, and you have about 40 former Edina Bantam A players for 20 Varsity spots and another 20 JV spots. So a B1, B2 or C Edina youth association player is not likely to play for EHS. You can't be suggesting a Tier 1 AAA program for B and C players?
And I don't think you would have top end Varsity players leaving for Tier 1 when they can leave for USHL. Tier 1 Midgets makes no sense at all.
Unless high school budget cuts eliminate hockey and other sports from the schools. Then Tier 1 Midget, U-16 will be immediately formed.
This is not about Edina... Tho you always bring it back to that...
Let's say there is a super phenom playing for Hicksville. He can score a million points like the Cisar Brothers, or he can play Juniors at Aberdeen, SD Like the Cisar Brothers.
If they could play the same level with the Duluth Jr Gold , the younger one could actually finish High School in Minnesota with his class mates rather than to have to move to South Dakota before graduation.
The only choice for this kid was Aberdeen. I would be willing to guess he was happy to make it !!
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Would you like to comment on the Cisar Brothers?BadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: Maybe you and I are using the extremes (Edina compared to Hicksville) But I will still make the point that re-inventing the wheel to accomodate a handful of players from the "Hicksville's of MN" will never work.
Are you saying the number 1 and 3 High School scorers in the State of Minnesota
are expendable because they don't fit into your definition of Minnesota Hockey?
There is way more than a handful, and most of them live in the Minneapolis St. Paul Metro.
We can agree to disagree.. That's ok with me. I have no ax to grind..Merely an observation.
I just think this wave is coming and people that have 99's and 00's should be thinking about it now..
I know things are a little different in the Northern/Northwest part of the state but I think there are pockets of WI that disprove what you are saying since we have both high school hockey, aossciation hockey and Tier 1 hockey and yet association hockey and high school hockey are growing and becoming better and better and yet Tier 1 is not going away either. And it's not filled with cast aways, epscially over in Milwaukke where there are large numebrs and good programs. Yet prolific high school players, players who made TW occasionally also go back to play MM at places like th Jr. Admirals and they do so based on the advice of college scouts and others. Thes eguys aren't leaving poor high school programs eitehr. I am not suggesting our high school hockey is totally on par with the best that MN has to offer, on the flip side it does give a glimpse into the mindset and a provign ground that even SOME of the top players on even decent MN high school teams will in fact leave to play for Tier 1 programs. Not enough to destory the landscape but I don't believe for a secodn the teams will be filled with cast offs either. Let's also remember that teams like the Madison Capitols or Chicago AAA teams have kids from MN on their teams right now, at ALOT of different age levels from squirts all the way through high school. I mean you can sit there and say it's ridiculous to drive a kids 4.5 hours to practice, or have him go billet down in Madison to play Tier 1 AAA midget hockey during his high school years and that is a fine argument and all but they are doing it and these kids are great players. They are capable of playing varsity level hockey in MN but they aren't, they moving to WI, and MI and IL to play Tier 1. Not by the droves but enough of them to see that there is a small need and if you opened up I bet there would be more on board. Again, just limit it so it doesn't interefere with the overall traditions up there and the overall landscape but give them a local choice so they don't have to send their kids off or make the choice to drive 4.5 hours to practice etc.... but don't pretend that they won't leave high school to do it in some instance sepseically if it's close by because that is not true since it's already happening.BadgerBob82 wrote:Quasar: I get your angle now. The top ELITE players would play Tier 1. That didn't seem to be your concern, only that 7,000 kids don't fit into 4,000 HS spots.
The top HS age players are not going to play Tier 1 when they came from the association model. It will only work if we go Tier 1 from Mite to Midgets. Then people would look at HS as step down.
With all of the options available before and after HS season, there is no demand for Tier 1. It would be filled with cast aways from HS programs. So, Tier II. Which Jr Gold is meeting the needs now.
So, I think you'd need to move to Detroit for this to be viable.
I think some of you cantankerous old-school guys, like Badger Bob, are missing the point. This is not about what Mike Ramsey or Neal Broten or anyone else from the 60's, 70's or 80's did with their time. The game has totally changed. No kid, no matter how talented, could just play 5-6 months a year. Any sport, playing at the highest level, requires dedication to development these days. No more selling insurance in the off-season and smoking ciggies in the locker room. Anything with skill requires a lot of practice.
The cost of Tier 1 or any of those other factors should have no bearing on whether it should be a viable option for kids or not. If there is a demand, there should be a market for it. And Mn hockey stamps out that market for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend or understand. Other people might think it's stupid and their is a be cool to your school ethos prevalent in many of the Badger Bob's of the world. But loyalty is a two-way street, and most associations do not care about truly developing their best. They are a step above community only sports. Just because they travel, does not make them much different. If a kid or parent wants this option for their kid, why would anyone deny them that? No one against this argument can come up with any logical answer why.
The cost of Tier 1 or any of those other factors should have no bearing on whether it should be a viable option for kids or not. If there is a demand, there should be a market for it. And Mn hockey stamps out that market for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend or understand. Other people might think it's stupid and their is a be cool to your school ethos prevalent in many of the Badger Bob's of the world. But loyalty is a two-way street, and most associations do not care about truly developing their best. They are a step above community only sports. Just because they travel, does not make them much different. If a kid or parent wants this option for their kid, why would anyone deny them that? No one against this argument can come up with any logical answer why.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
Q:
In what sports does participation increase at the HS level? And if you want to get participation up, wouldn't you create more playing opportunities for those not good enough to make HS teams?
Napalm:
I get it. If everybody would just do what you think you'll be happy. The reason there is resistance is that there will be some unintended consequences.
To which you'll say you don't care.
I see both sides of the argument. What I don't see is scores of elite players that can't find a place to play.
What problem are you trying to solve?
In what sports does participation increase at the HS level? And if you want to get participation up, wouldn't you create more playing opportunities for those not good enough to make HS teams?
Napalm:
I get it. If everybody would just do what you think you'll be happy. The reason there is resistance is that there will be some unintended consequences.
To which you'll say you don't care.
I see both sides of the argument. What I don't see is scores of elite players that can't find a place to play.
What problem are you trying to solve?
Be kind. Rewind.
O-townClown wrote:Q:
Oh come on. Lets not be cute.. You know I'm talking about the kids that might be too good for High School Hockey. Not about expanding choices, they are already there for everyone not good enough to play Varsity hockey.in what sports does participation increase at the HS level? And if you want to get participation up, wouldn't you create more playing opportunities for those not good enough to make HS teams?
Always confusing the issue.. The establishment way !!
Edit: I'm sorry. I am talking about expanding choices at the top. Not the bottom!!
-
karl(east)
- Posts: 6480
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
- Contact:
Yes, but "District 11" isn't just Minnesota Hockey. I also searched for Shattuck on the MH website and they're nowhere to be found. I'm not sure either, but I've always been under the impression that they're not part of the state-level organization.O-townClown wrote:Karl:
I don't know for sure. This is from the Annual Guide. I am under the impression that Shattuck is the only team coded Tier I for District "11" below.
How else would Shattuck get in? No other District is giving them their spot.
But, regardless of whether MH endorses Shattuck's Tier 1 status or not, my original explanation as to why MH tolerates Shattuck still holds. A Tier 1 team formed around a high school is not a model for Tier 1 expansion into the rest of the state.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4422
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
Karl, I admit I don't know who signs their roster. If it isn't the Registrar for Minnesota Hockey, who?
Q:
How am I confusing the issue when I simply am asking what problem you are trying to solve? Now you said you are trying to expand options for high-level players that are "too good" for Minnesota HS hockey. Okay.
So we'll go from a bunch of options to a bunch plus one.
NTDP Ann Arbor
15 or so USHL teams
24 or so NAHL teams
Shattuck or Culver
approx 60 New England Prep schools
countless Tier I Midget teams
a dozen or so BCHL teams and possibly other provincial Junior leagues
NCAA hockey for kids that accelerate their HS graduation date
I know we don't agree on this, but it is obvious why. I just don't see the plight of the elite player that can't find a place to play.
Kids move away for every one of the levels listed above.
Q:
How am I confusing the issue when I simply am asking what problem you are trying to solve? Now you said you are trying to expand options for high-level players that are "too good" for Minnesota HS hockey. Okay.
So we'll go from a bunch of options to a bunch plus one.
NTDP Ann Arbor
15 or so USHL teams
24 or so NAHL teams
Shattuck or Culver
approx 60 New England Prep schools
countless Tier I Midget teams
a dozen or so BCHL teams and possibly other provincial Junior leagues
NCAA hockey for kids that accelerate their HS graduation date
I know we don't agree on this, but it is obvious why. I just don't see the plight of the elite player that can't find a place to play.
Kids move away for every one of the levels listed above.
Be kind. Rewind.
Came across the following from an aaa club website around the city, what does it mean?
"Minnesota XXXX Hockey is an independent Tier-1 AAA youth hockey club committed to competing at the highest level. Our goal is to develop young hockey players in a way that is fun for them. We believe hockey is a great way to teach life’s lessons; as such, we strive to teach our players the importance of teamwork, character, commitment & competition."
"Minnesota XXXX Hockey is an independent Tier-1 AAA youth hockey club committed to competing at the highest level. Our goal is to develop young hockey players in a way that is fun for them. We believe hockey is a great way to teach life’s lessons; as such, we strive to teach our players the importance of teamwork, character, commitment & competition."
Yes you are correct.. I am talking about hockey in Minnesota. I believe having high level midget hockey would let the kids stay home to play until they left for juniors at 18 rather than 16.Q:
How am I confusing the issue when I simply am asking what problem you are trying to solve? Now you said you are trying to expand options for high-level players that are "too good" for Minnesota HS hockey. Okay.
So we'll go from a bunch of options to a bunch plus one.
NTDP Ann Arbor
15 or so USHL teams
24 or so NAHL teams
Shattuck or Culver
approx 60 New England Prep schools
countless Tier I Midget teams
a dozen or so BCHL teams and possibly other provincial Junior leagues
NCAA hockey for kids that accelerate their HS graduation date
I know we don't agree on this, but it is obvious why. I just don't see the plight of the elite player that can't find a place to play.
Kids move away for every one of the levels listed above.
Of all the options you listed none but Shattuck is in Minnesota.
A lot of the year around kids are going to need a place to play in Minnesota... If a few of them would rather play something other than High School, My question is Why not?
Karl is right about Stattuck. In 1996 they opted out of the Minnesota state High School league which allowed them to recruit kids from all over the county. I also agree that the Minnesota system is better than most.
Any thing that harms what we have should be avoided.
As I said in a previous post 200 in Midgets 3500 in High School all the rest in some rec program... where's the harm?