mdamson 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I was wondering what everyone thinks of the current state of U.S. Youth hockey. Personally I have witnessed it develop into a case of who has the most money, and what top notch team can I get my Johnny/Jane to play on. I have watched super teams such as the California Wave, California Selects, Honeybaked etc. develop into a essentially all star rep teams that are very much like professional teams. Not to mention the tons of exclusive private schools that now seem to dominate the youth hockey levels. This seems to just kill the whole concept of youth hockey from a small association point of view, where no one can seem to compete, except the super teams. Check the rosters of the top teams and you no longer see locally developed talent. Heck, U.S.A. hockey even encourages this type of system. Just take a look at the latest DVD about the California Wave. U.S.A. Hockey is even promoting the DVD on their website and in their magazine. I have watched kids from our area, that could be playing for good local teams, move away just for hockey, go to private schools, or fly thousands of miles per year to play with this or that team that promises to get them to the next level. Canada seems to have much more control of this aspect of hockey in that they card the teams to their local areas. Not that cheating the system doesn't go on, but at least they are trying to control things a bit. Parents seem to think that their kid will not be noticed by the scouts unless they play on the very best teams in the nation. I just have to wonder on the overall affect on the play, and the state of U.S hockey. What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
All Torhs Team 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I dont see a problem. If you have a local team and one good player in that local area, of course he's not going to stick around. Thats how they develope AAA teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 The only AAA teams in Texas, are not fully rostered w/ AAA players. They have a few AAA players and the rest of the team is filled with kids whose parents are willing to pay, pay, pay. So they are really AA teams spending a lot of money on bragging about being AAA.IMO hockey is a blue collar sport, and this methodology is an elitist approach and is a disservice to the sport.Most hockey organizations, ie. USA Hockey, TORHS, and AAU claim to promote and encourage tournament teams developed from house leagues, but none of them do anything to create an environment where all star house teams can be competitive.I have spent over $20,00.00 on hockey in the last year, because their is such a division between house hockey and any type of a competitive play. 20K for a years worth of hockey is not a blue collar sport. This will kill the back bone of Hockey in the long run. Just like the $80.00 cheap seats to attend an NHL game is killing it's fan base... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UMWhockey 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 $80 cheep seats? try $25 here in Carolina... and they have plans that are even cheaper.I don't see how this is going to kill the backbone of hockey in the US. It has been this way for many years and the national teams are producing more first round draft picks and the junior team is competing for gold every year. If you want kids to play at the highest level, they are going to have to travel and group into elite teams in order for strong teams to develop and play against each other. That still doesn't mean that kids playing in local leagues are competing against kids who can't stand on two skates. For 99% of the kids out there, the highest level they may play is college club, or some junior B team, so they should stay close to home. For those elite kids who have the natural gifts, they need to go somewhere where they can be challenged to compete. The US is not Canada and how we run our programs should not be compared to how they run theirs if we want to produce elite talent. They are two totally different situations and require different solutions. Looking at the big pictures of what USA Hockey is trying to do, and what they have built so far, I like the direction and think that they will continue to promote the sport and compete at the international level. I just don't see why their is so much hate towards USA Hockey. Hockey is not a popular sport in the US, so we don't get a lot of the top Athletes to play our sport, where in Canada they get a lot of their top athletes to play hockey. This is not something USA Hockey can change by themselves, but something that needs to be more grassroots, like all local rinks and travel clubs. If you want to change the way hockey is in the US, then get out and do something about it, don't complain to USA Hockey about what they should be doing. The way hockey is going to grow is grassroots, not a national campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdamson 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 $80 cheep seats? try $25 here in Carolina... and they have plans that are even cheaper.I don't see how this is going to kill the backbone of hockey in the US. It has been this way for many years and the national teams are producing more first round draft picks and the junior team is competing for gold every year. If you want kids to play at the highest level, they are going to have to travel and group into elite teams in order for strong teams to develop and play against each other. That still doesn't mean that kids playing in local leagues are competing against kids who can't stand on two skates. For 99% of the kids out there, the highest level they may play is college club, or some junior B team, so they should stay close to home. For those elite kids who have the natural gifts, they need to go somewhere where they can be challenged to compete. The US is not Canada and how we run our programs should not be compared to how they run theirs if we want to produce elite talent. They are two totally different situations and require different solutions. Looking at the big pictures of what USA Hockey is trying to do, and what they have built so far, I like the direction and think that they will continue to promote the sport and compete at the international level. I just don't see why their is so much hate towards USA Hockey. Hockey is not a popular sport in the US, so we don't get a lot of the top Athletes to play our sport, where in Canada they get a lot of their top athletes to play hockey. This is not something USA Hockey can change by themselves, but something that needs to be more grassroots, like all local rinks and travel clubs. If you want to change the way hockey is in the US, then get out and do something about it, don't complain to USA Hockey about what they should be doing. The way hockey is going to grow is grassroots, not a national campaign.dYes, and the way to make it "grassroots" is to make it affordable. I keep hearing about the high cost of hockey, but I don't see much being done to change it. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but I don't see much promotion of the sport outside of those who already love it. This does not help the support for the sport. We are talking about thousands of dollars to play per year, and I don't see that as being a "blue collar" sport. Part of the problem lies within this "elite" program structure. Tell me what kid with real talent is going to be able to advance, when he/she comes from a "blue collar" family.Mike D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UMWhockey 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 if you are a good enough player, teams will find a way to get you to play. The reason hockey is so much is because of the cost of ice time. Untill the majority of rinks in the US start making money, i dont' see what you can do to really change the cost of the sport. They only way would be to get outside financial support for your programs. USA Hockey can't help every program with finances, it is something that the local clubs need to take into their own hands Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
All Torhs Team 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Cost of ice time yes, and for those AAA teams its the plane tickets and hotels and food.Hockeydoc was right when he said there are alot of kids out there who can just buy their way onto a AAA team. I'll be honest with you, I bet alot of CSDHL Midget Major players in the Midwest could beat alot of the AAA teams in the midwest. Families with money can put thier kids on the AAA team just for the label, where other families struggle for thier kid to be the star in AA.And I also agree with UMW Hockey when he said teams will find away for a player to be on a team if they cant afford it. But I think that only applies at certain levels. Probally on Juniors/college and up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drisco487 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 i play AAA hockey in massachusetts and yeah somewhat is true about the scouts and the best teams those because there are some tournaments where only the best teams go to and more scouts see them other than seeing kids that are just as good but not on incredible teams. I've played against the top teams in the country such as south shore dynamos, and north jersey avalanche and these kids are insane, the whole dynamos roster is prep school kids that are year 92 freshmen. Also, there are other kids that move all the way across the country just to play on a better team, i mean their parents must be crazy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kovalchuk71 212 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 $80 cheep seats? try $25 here in Carolina... and they have plans that are even cheaper.I don't see how this is going to kill the backbone of hockey in the US. It has been this way for many years and the national teams are producing more first round draft picks and the junior team is competing for gold every year. If you want kids to play at the highest level, they are going to have to travel and group into elite teams in order for strong teams to develop and play against each other. That still doesn't mean that kids playing in local leagues are competing against kids who can't stand on two skates. For 99% of the kids out there, the highest level they may play is college club, or some junior B team, so they should stay close to home. For those elite kids who have the natural gifts, they need to go somewhere where they can be challenged to compete. The US is not Canada and how we run our programs should not be compared to how they run theirs if we want to produce elite talent. They are two totally different situations and require different solutions. Looking at the big pictures of what USA Hockey is trying to do, and what they have built so far, I like the direction and think that they will continue to promote the sport and compete at the international level. I just don't see why their is so much hate towards USA Hockey. Hockey is not a popular sport in the US, so we don't get a lot of the top Athletes to play our sport, where in Canada they get a lot of their top athletes to play hockey. This is not something USA Hockey can change by themselves, but something that needs to be more grassroots, like all local rinks and travel clubs. If you want to change the way hockey is in the US, then get out and do something about it, don't complain to USA Hockey about what they should be doing. The way hockey is going to grow is grassroots, not a national campaign.LOL, did you forget about the 10.29 tickets? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Hockey is not a popular sport in the US, . The way hockey is going to grow is grassroots, not a national campaign.This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hockey will not become more popular in the US unless it becomes more accessible to their grass roots fan base. Which, like it or not, is blue collar. Travel teams B thru AAA are not within the budget of Blue collar America. Neither is the price of going to NHL games. Until both become affordable to most middle class Americans rather than just the top 10%, than football, baseball, and even soccer will attract our best athletes. Which BTW the majority of fans in any sport come from those that have played or that currently play that sport. IE. football reigning the money market in America. Not just a coincidence since High School Football is the most supported and funded of all sports here in America. All sports create their future fan base from their current fans youths. The sport of Hockey has and continues to screw themselves out of future growth of their fan base, yes mostly because of the cost of ice time in the lower 50. Ice in northern regions is much, much cheaper, as any frozen pond will suffice. Having the only venue for competitive hockey being travel teams is not grass roots.BTW no body said anything negative about USA Hockey!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mxihockey 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Drisco who do you play for? I have played AAA hockey my whole life and it has definately helped me become better. Playing in tournaments aganinst the Midwest teams, ( TI , Honeybaked, Victory Honda, is awesome because there is a ton of good talent and I am able to see how I compare to other players across the country. I do think though, that AAA hockey is becoming VERY waterd down. The fact being that anyone with enouoph money can make their kid an "AAA player". A lot of teams are started here down in Mass now because father's kids get cut from a team and they figure if littel Johnny cant make a team I'll start my own. There are just two many teams that consider themselves AAA in Mass. Heck there are 4 "AAA" leagues in MA. (EHF, Metro, Selects, NEHL. I think that there should be one top league with lets say 12 teams in it that is considered tier 1. This way only the best players can call themselves AAA. Playing AAA hockey has helped me not only as an athlete but in school as well, next year I will be going to a prep school for a fairly cheap price because of hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UMWhockey 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Hockey is not a popular sport in the US, . The way hockey is going to grow is grassroots, not a national campaign.This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hockey will not become more popular in the US unless it becomes more accessible to their grass roots fan base. Which, like it or not, is blue collar. Travel teams B thru AAA are not within the budget of Blue collar America. Neither is the price of going to NHL games. Until both become affordable to most middle class Americans rather than just the top 10%, than football, baseball, and even soccer will attract our best athletes. Which BTW the majority of fans in any sport come from those that have played or that currently play that sport. IE. football reigning the money market in America. Not just a coincidence since High School Football is the most supported and funded of all sports here in America. All sports create their future fan base from their current fans youths. The sport of Hockey has and continues to screw themselves out of future growth of their fan base, yes mostly because of the cost of ice time in the lower 50. Ice in northern regions is much, much cheaper, as any frozen pond will suffice. Having the only venue for competitive hockey being travel teams is not grass roots.BTW no body said anything negative about USA Hockey!!!give me an example of how competitive hockey can be more grassroots then travel hockey. If an area of about 30 square miles has a house and travel program and they compete against other programs around the state, how can you get competitive hockey more grassroots than that. If you want to make hockey more affordable, then you need to find more donations for the teams. There is really very little you can do about the cost of ice, so sponsorship is really the only way to make it affordable. Since no one has figured out a way to get all the programs in the states consistent sponsorship, hockey will remain a sport with a financial barrier. That does not make it a sport which is not blue collar. I hear stories all the time of families who sacrifice a vacation to send their son to hockey camp. Talent will get you on whatever team you want. If you don't have the skill, then money will get you on the team you want. As much as you may not like it, those players who are not good enough to make the team, end up funding the players who have the talent, but can't afford to play on the team. This doesn't apply to just hockey, but life in general. If you don't like it, then get out there an do something about it. We can complain about it all we want, but until we do something about it, hockey is what it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indaslot 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 I can only speak from a Quebec perspective but those of us with talented kids go to great legnths to offer them something beyond the inferior AA teams available to us here.If you happen to live in a district where the player pool is weak,your kid deals with a lot of frustration.In most of these teams,you may have only 1 or 2 players who are truly AA caliber.Those families have invested time, money and effort to help develop their kids.I know plenty of "blue collars" who make sacrifices for their kids, including moving if they can manage it.The happy ones tend to be the parents of kids who are on these teams because there are not enough quality players to fill those spots and Hockey Quebec of course,who benefits from having as many players as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarick 5 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 No clue about all those structures, but here in Minnesota we've got a thriving high school hockey league. And any time I go to any rink it's overflowing with people. Not to mention the US had the most kids drafted in the first round of the NHL draft than ever before.At the local level, house leagues, high school, college, and even adult leagues are wildly popular. So I'd say the grassroots is there, at least in Minny which I know is wildly different than most of the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NuggyBuggy 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Which BTW the majority of fans in any sport come from those that have played or that currently play that sport. IE. football reigning the money market in America.Most football fans have never played organized football. Most basketball fans have never played organized basketball. Most baseball fans have never played organized baseball. Participating in a sport is not even close to being a pre-requisite for loving it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
badsk8ter 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 As has been mentioned in this thread, the cost of playing does keep many talented kids from being able to play or continue to play. There was a question posed on another message board about why Minnesotan's were so good at hockey. The cost to play in Minnesota is generally less than $500.00 a year. Bantams and Pee-Wees's get, in excess of 50 games a year. Some of the towns even charge less. Here in Omaha, it costs about $3,000 or more for a season. If you've got 2 or 3 kids playing, the cost is ridiculous. I know a family that had 2 very talented kids and had to make a choice, either they invest everything on 1 or no one. The brothers chose not to play because they didn't think it would be fair to either. Not sure how Minnesota is able to defray the cost but if other states figured it out, too, then it would allow more kids to play and stay in hockey for a longer time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drisco487 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 MXIhockey i used to play for the valley jr warriors but now im on new england moose, and yeah half the teams in there AAA leauges suck, they shouldnt even be in them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 give me an example of how competitive hockey can be more grassroots then travel hockey. If an area of about 30 square miles has a house and travel program and they compete against other programs around the state, how can you get competitive hockey more grassroots than that. If you want to make hockey more affordable, then you need to find more donations for the teams. There is really very little you can do about the cost of ice, so sponsorship is really the only way to make it affordable. Since no one has figured out a way to get all the programs in the states consistent sponsorship, hockey will remain a sport with a financial barrier. That does not make it a sport which is not blue collar. I hear stories all the time of families who sacrifice a vacation to send their son to hockey camp. Talent will get you on whatever team you want. If you don't have the skill, then money will get you on the team you want. As much as you may not like it, those players who are not good enough to make the team, end up funding the players who have the talent, but can't afford to play on the team. This doesn't apply to just hockey, but life in general. If you don't like it, then get out there an do something about it. We can complain about it all we want, but until we do something about it, hockey is what it is.That's twice now that you've made defensive and argumentative statements about things that were not said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Which BTW the majority of fans in any sport come from those that have played or that currently play that sport. IE. football reigning the money market in America.Most football fans have never played organized football. Most basketball fans have never played organized basketball. Most baseball fans have never played organized baseball. Participating in a sport is not even close to being a pre-requisite for loving it.Who said anything about organized sports. Yes, most fans did play. That's were they learned to love the game. I only played organized baseball growing up, but it was the hours upon hours at the local park, or open field playing basketball, or football (pickup style) that taught my friends and I to enjoy those sports. BTW I can't stand watching baseball, the only organized sport I played. My family and circle of friends never had any interest in hockey until we played. That's by definition what grass roots is. (The park playing kids.) Hockey in the us does and will struggle with this issue until all the lakes in Texas freeze over for 4 months a year. :lol: Cheap opportunities for unskilled, untalented kids to participate (Having fun) is the best way to grow a fan base. The NHL fan base will not survive based on the # of AAA talent players and teams available to play on. Hockey is huge in countries where Ice time is cheap. Because everyone that want to play can. I'm sorry but the few blue collar families that are willing to sacrifice all so that their incredibly talented little Johnny can play is the exception not the rule. Hockey is a blue collar sport because of the nature of it's play. Not because of it's following.Hockey fans all wonder why in the world figure skating is so big, and tennis, and golf. White collar sports. Or at least the fans of these activities call them sports. Only white collar incomes can afford to participate in hockey, but only blue collar minded folks can be fans, or want their children to play.BTW way, I haven't made these statements as complaints, merely common sense observations. Which is what the post initially asked for. Also I am doing everything I can to help. Including working with local rinks to make hockey available to all that want to play. Ie. donating gear, league fees, personal time etc... ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mxihockey 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Drisco 92? I think I played u 2 weeks ago. Im on the 92 Islanders. We stink this year. I used to play for the warriors too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NuggyBuggy 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2007 Who said anything about organized sports. Yes, most fans did play. That's were they learned to love the game. I only played organized baseball growing up, but it was the hours upon hours at the local park, or open field playing basketball, or football (pickup style) that taught my friends and I to enjoy those sports...That's by definition what grass roots is. (The park playing kids.) If you're not talking about organized sports, what are you talking about ? If kids want to play hockey, they will play at outdoor rinks, on backyard ponds, or with nothing more than a stick and a ball in the schoolyard, or in the street. When I was in the second grade, we would kick a tennis ball around the playground at recess, the 'goalie' would use his jacket like a bullfighter, we'd mark off a 'net' with other kids' jackets bunched up against a wall, and we would call *that* hockey. As a child most of the boys in my class were and still are hockey fans, yet only a small portion have as adults ever played hockey on ice. If you think that kids need to play hockey in equipment on rinks to become fans of the game, I think you're wrong. Go to an adult hockey program and you'll meet a ton of adults who had never skated before they were old enough to drink beer, yet love the game - probably all their life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2007 Who said anything about organized sports. Yes, most fans did play. That's were they learned to love the game. I only played organized baseball growing up, but it was the hours upon hours at the local park, or open field playing basketball, or football (pickup style) that taught my friends and I to enjoy those sports...That's by definition what grass roots is. (The park playing kids.) If you're not talking about organized sports, what are you talking about ? If kids want to play hockey, they will play at outdoor rinks, on backyard ponds, or with nothing more than a stick and a ball in the schoolyard, or in the street. When I was in the second grade, we would kick a tennis ball around the playground at recess, the 'goalie' would use his jacket like a bullfighter, we'd mark off a 'net' with other kids' jackets bunched up against a wall, and we would call *that* hockey. As a child most of the boys in my class were and still are hockey fans, yet only a small portion have as adults ever played hockey on ice. If you think that kids need to play hockey in equipment on rinks to become fans of the game, I think you're wrong. Go to an adult hockey program and you'll meet a ton of adults who had never skated before they were old enough to drink beer, yet love the game - probably all their life.That's funny. yes you must be right, I must be wrong as you stated. We here in Texas are just not making good use of our back yard ponds.You supported my "wrong" points well. Each of your examples involve people that play!!! (My point exactly) Kids wanting to play so bad they are willing to do what ever they can to get the next closest thing, and adults in leagues!!! Kids that are not big fans of hockey will not jack around with $100.00 worth of poor boy hockey gear and a ball in the nearest parking lot, when for $5.00 they can play basketball, football, or soccer, and for $15.00 they can play baseball on any open field. Besides I must really be "wrong" as you stated, because the NHL is actually giving the NFL, and NBA a real fight for their fans, and profit base.It's interesting to see that some people on MSH seem to only post to argue some of the stupidest things. This is the state of hockey in Texas, something you obviously know nothing about so why debate it.Hockey in the US is growing, but will never be on par with the other big sports because of the reasons I've stated. Texas is not the only state that has these issues. As the original post stated the high end tournies and Travel team are not doing hockey in the US long term justice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NuggyBuggy 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2007 That's funny. yes you must be right, I must be wrong as you stated. We here in Texas are just not making good use of our back yard ponds....This is the state of hockey in Texas, something you obviously know nothing about so why debate it....Whatever. You live in Texas - heretofore unmentioned as far as I can tell. How relevant is this fact to the overall state of U.S. hockey, or to any of the points I made ? Oh wait, we must be talking about the United States of Texas.Given the rise in quality of players coming out of the U.S. over say the last 20 years, one could argue that U.S. hockey has never been stronger. This rise in strength is correlated with the rise of the same tournaments and travel programs that you condemn. What does the ever-rising number of U.S. born players playing at high levels in the league, or being drafted in the first round of the NHL, say about the state of American hockey ? You supported my "wrong" points well. Each of your examples involve people that play!!! (My point exactly) Kids wanting to play so bad they are willing to do what ever they can to get the next closest thing, and adults in leagues!!! Kids that are not big fans of hockey will not jack around with $100.00 worth of poor boy hockey gear and a ball in the nearest parking lot, when for $5.00 they can play basketball, football, or soccer, and for $15.00 they can play baseball on any open field. You miss my point entirely. Each of my examples involved people that never even had the option of playing the game of ice hockey as children, yet loved the sport anyways. People can love the game of hockey without ever being able to play ice hockey, especially as children. I believe most hockey fans have never played much if any ice hockey in their life. For these fans the cost of playing ice hockey at *any level* will never be an issue because most of them will never play ice hockey in their lives. They may have hacked around at a ball in a playground or on the street or in a gym, but I assume this is not what you are complaining about, because ANY kid can afford to do that. The importance or cost of tournaments or travel programs is irrelevant to people who will never skate with stick in hand in the first place. I don't understand your arguing that a kid can play baseball on an open field for $15. Any kid could also be playing ball hockey for the price of a tennis ball and a wooden stick. Those are the kids who are hockey's fan base. They are the ones who will grow or not grow the fan base, not the kids whose parents just spent $20K on clinics, team fees, banquets, coaching, extra ice time and tournaments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drisco487 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2007 yeah mxi haha dude we did play you, yeah no offense but u guys are pretty bad this year...are u sullivan? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockeydoc 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2007 That's funny. yes you must be right, I must be wrong as you stated. We here in Texas are just not making good use of our back yard ponds....This is the state of hockey in Texas, something you obviously know nothing about so why debate it....Whatever. You live in Texas - heretofore unmentioned as far as I can tell. How relevant is this fact to the overall state of U.S. hockey, or to any of the points I made ? Oh wait, we must be talking about the United States of Texas.Given the rise in quality of players coming out of the U.S. over say the last 20 years, one could argue that U.S. hockey has never been stronger. This rise in strength is correlated with the rise of the same tournaments and travel programs that you condemn. What does the ever-rising number of U.S. born players playing at high levels in the league, or being drafted in the first round of the NHL, say about the state of American hockey ? You supported my "wrong" points well. Each of your examples involve people that play!!! (My point exactly) Kids wanting to play so bad they are willing to do what ever they can to get the next closest thing, and adults in leagues!!! Kids that are not big fans of hockey will not jack around with $100.00 worth of poor boy hockey gear and a ball in the nearest parking lot, when for $5.00 they can play basketball, football, or soccer, and for $15.00 they can play baseball on any open field. You miss my point entirely. Each of my examples involved people that never even had the option of playing the game of ice hockey as children, yet loved the sport anyways. People can love the game of hockey without ever being able to play ice hockey, especially as children. I believe most hockey fans have never played much if any ice hockey in their life. For these fans the cost of playing ice hockey at *any level* will never be an issue because most of them will never play ice hockey in their lives. They may have hacked around at a ball in a playground or on the street or in a gym, but I assume this is not what you are complaining about, because ANY kid can afford to do that. The importance or cost of tournaments or travel programs is irrelevant to people who will never skate with stick in hand in the first place. I don't understand your arguing that a kid can play baseball on an open field for $15. Any kid could also be playing ball hockey for the price of a tennis ball and a wooden stick. Those are the kids who are hockey's fan base. They are the ones who will grow or not grow the fan base, not the kids whose parents just spent $20K on clinics, team fees, banquets, coaching, extra ice time and tournaments.I haven't made any complaints!!! The owners of NHL teams are complaining. I can afford, and do so for my whole family to play. So I have no complaints. I cannot afford to build the fan base that the NHL owners are complaining isn't large enough to make their teams profitable.The kids that will and can play anywhere is exactly what I've said is every sports fan base (players, if not currently at some time players). No Texas is not the only state in the US where you have to pay a lot if you want to play hockey.What exactly are you arguing about? Like I said you obviously don't know or care about what, but are only interested in arguing something...BTW The 20K I've spent for my child to play hockey over the past year has not included any banquets, or such.Whatever. You live in Texas - heretofore unmentioned as far as I can tell. How relevant is this fact to the overall state of U.S. hockey, or to any of the points I made ? Oh wait, we must be talking about the United States of Texas.I only mentioned Texas a few times in my previous posts, and right below my avatar it says I'm in DFW, Texas. You would probably make more sensible arguments if you payed attention to what has actually been said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites