USA hockey's new American Development model

[mxihockey 0]

I think this is absolutely nuts. They're running this like we are a bunch of robots at the hockey factory. And now next year, because I'm at a prep school, I'm not considered an "elite" player because I'm not on some stupid special program? There's a great article that I read on another board, here it is..

AAA vs everyone

The hierarchical structure of youth hockey in the United States could be permanently altered.

USA Hockey and the NTDP will be setting out for the new 36-team national “super league.”

Why is this happening?

It’s simple. USA Hockey, for the first time, has been granted player development money by the NHL. It’s money USA Hockey has wanted for a long time, and they are getting it. This year's figure is $8 million. The NHL, as investors of sorts, expects the money to be spent on 'elite player development. Approximately $2 million will go directly to Ann Arbor, and a hefty chunk of the remaining $6 million will go to an extension of the NTDP called the High Performance and Long Term Athlete Development Initiative. The program, being presented by Jim Johannson, Ken Martel, and Kevin McLaughlin, is designed to offer many of the training benefits of the NTDP to the 36 youth organizations that agree to hew to the player development philosophy.

What we’re about to see is a massive consolidation of power in which 36 youth organizations will, in essence, be dubbed AAA+ (or AAAA, if you will). Any organization not “anointed” by USA Hockey and the NTDP will remain as they are presently set up – as AAA organizations. One could, quite accurately, say the “unchosen” will be instantly devalued, for elite players will naturally gravitate to one of the 36 super teams. For purposes of this new program, USA Hockey, which is comprised of twelve districts, will be redistricted into six regions. Within each of these new regions will reside six super teams, at five different age levels. They will only play each other. The best players will move on to the NTDP and the USHL (which will also be getting some of the NHL money, and will be expanding from 12 to 16 teams).

How the districts will be carved up depends on which organizations adhere to USA Hockey’s standards. It’s possible the organizations will get selected first and then squeezed into gerrymandered geographical areas. USA Hockey is playing this very close to the vest. We do know that a couple of the Chicago organizations have already been approached in a preliminary manner, much to the consternation of other AAA organizations in the area.

What organizations would be chosen? For a rough idea, do this: start with the 20-team lineup of the Tier I Elite League which stretches from the Pacific Southwest to Pittsburgh but has its biggest foothold in the Midwest with five teams in Michigan alone (Compuware, Honeybaked, Little Caesar’s, Belle Tire and Victory Honda). Then, once you are through with that, look at other teams outside that loop that have shown consistent success at Nationals, and have also run solid year-round programs. Those are the ones that are also likely to be “anointed.”

The irony here is the fact that the organizations most likely to be able to meet the criteria set forth for them by USA Hockey already have deep pockets. In addition, by being anointed, an increasing number of players will want to migrate to those programs, meaning the anointed organizations will be able to hold numerous tryouts (i.e. fundraisers) at numerous age levels, in the process strengthening their relationship with rink owners due to the large number of teams they will be icing.

Each of the 36 clubs chosen will be expected to operate 18-and-Under, 16-and-Under, 15-and-Under, 14-and-Under, and 13-and-Under teams – each in their own superleague. In addition, each of the anointed teams will be expected to run 6U, 8U, 10U, 12U programs that will follow the LTAD model.

For USA Hockey to say, basically, "our way or the highway" just won't fly. It might work in Soviet Russia, or East Germany, or smaller nations like Finland. In other words, countries where hockey (and athletics in general) are on the same page, and dominated by strong national governing bodies.

Those who aren’t chosen to be part of the super league will limp along as best they can, carrying players who are suddenly second-class hockey playing citizens. Youth organizations will fold. Prep hockey will take a major hit. Junior hockey will take a major hit.

The $8 million is simply being shoveled in the wrong direction, and here’s why. We’re in a recession, people have less money to spend, and the average middle class worker is earning less than ever in real wages. But the cost of playing hockey is higher today than ever. Today, hockey is a pure suburban sport. All over Michigan the blue-collar players are fast becoming extinct. Due to the economy, we are hearing stories of many families pulling back from the game.

Here is an idea for the 8 million and it's not particularly radical. Re-invest in municiple rinks. From those public rinks came the likes of Mike Eruzione, Jack O’Callahan, Mark Pavelich, Neal Broten, Dave Christian, Mike Modano, Tony Amonte, Jeremy Roenick, Brian Leetch, Brian Rolston and many, many others.

Your voice matters

[biff44 0]

I am sure that with USA Hockey involved, there will be no politics involved in the player selection!

In any event, it does sound like a better idea than what they do now--spend all of their money pampering NTDP players and screwing EVERYONE elese. At least now they have to spread it amongst more teams.

[Law Goalie 147]

Sounds like a pretty forthright attempt to drive the prep schools off the hockey map.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a new U21 major-junior CHL-style league crop up in the next few years to try to separate players from the collegiate system.

Completely agree that the economics of this are absurd. I'm still deeply unsure of how having AAA-style competition (let alone this 'Super League') under the age of 16 is an any way an expression of anyone's LTADM, rather than a system of pseudo-professional childhood agrandisement for insecure parents.

Completely disagree, however, that it won't happen. It assuredly will. It will happen because in tough economics times there is always an emphasis on pushing the highest higher, on the assumption that they will hold up everything else. What they'll get, as mxi implied, is a gutted community-level hockey program. This'll look great for about five years, until all of the groundwater talent is exhausted.

[greech 4]

Well, my question is what happens to the late bloomers in all of this? If you don't find your game until HS, do you just get shoveled under the rug?

[Law Goalie 147]

Ideally, yes - that's their plan. Any professional development program exists by claiming that it and it alone can develop elite athletes. If you do develop outside that program, unless you're an absolute prodigy (ie. the exception that proves their rule, in both senses), they're much better off if you just go away. Too many like you would jeopardise their funding - and a lot of very untalented people are making their ham-and-egg money off it.

About the *only* places where this doesn't hold would be in true amateur Olympic-track programs. They're generally far less political about talent identification.

Same thing with academics and anything else. I've known quite junior high school English teachers who were better lecturers and had insights into literature far, far greater than big-league PhD's in tenure-track positions. Why don't we hire the best and brightest? Because if they don't have PhD's (and a certain kind of PhD in particular), they aren't 'part of the program.' We don't want to mention, for example, that Northrop Frye only had an MA, or that Emile Fackenheim essentially talked his way into a lectureship after arriving from the concentration camps with nothing but the clothes on his back.

[DarkStar50 679]

mxi,

What is the original source for this article you quote? What area of USA did it come from? I am not doubting your article and its story. I just wanted to get some clarification before I ask around my territory if anyone has heard of this plan. Thanks.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

To be honest this seems very much like the method the Chinese use in their athletic programs, namely develop the top talent (which often has a lot of shades of politics involved) and f**k everyone else. Instead of using the 8 million to create an ultra exclusive program within a sport that already has quite a few smacks of elitism, we should be using the cash to make hockey more accessible.

[mxihockey 0]

mxi,

What is the original source for this article you quote? What area of USA did it come from? I am not doubting your article and its story. I just wanted to get some clarification before I ask around my territory if anyone has heard of this plan. Thanks.

Someone posted it on the "dboard" that the Jr. Bruins own. I believe it came from USHR. Yes it's biased, but the plan is in full force and you can get all the info. directly on the USA hockey website.

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/USA...)%201.26.09.pdf

-That link will give you all the info. you need.

[DarkStar50 679]

Thanks, now I just have to ask some questions about where this may be going in my district.

[theWB 2]

Unbelievable but not really surprising. I thought it was bad when Connecticut got rid of its release rule on youth hockey players four or five years ago. Seems like parents have their kids switching programs every year. Every level becomes more and more diluted. And like Greech said, what about the late bloomers, the kids who didn't score a hundred goals as a mite or the kid who doesn't grow until he's fifteen or sixteen. At least the shop makes tons on these people who need a new helmet and gloves to match their new team.

[greech 4]

It really sucks. I never got any looks until late in HS. What happens there? Is it worth going through all of the junior circuits or prep school to not play for a "AAAA" team?

[Law Goalie 147]

Forget the myth of there being only a handful of 'late bloomers' - hockey is a late-specialisation sport. If you have your peak performance at twelve, odds are you'll be out of the sport by seventeen: wear & tear, injuries, good old late-teen malaise, you name it. Hockey is not figure skating or gymnastics: there are ZERO long-term competitive advantages to elite performance before physical maturity, let alone before puberty. The kids who play ten sports with moderate intensity at semi-competitive levels are going to be better athletes in the long run - they just won't be hockey players, because crap liek this will squeeze them out of the system.

This isn't going to cause USA Hockey to miss a few late bloomers: it's going to poison the roots of their entire development system by over-working the few early blooms. It may not actually kill the roots, but they will be weakened by fighting it off - and they're not in great shape at the moment, from what I've heard.

[MURedhawk 0]

Forget the myth of there being only a handful of 'late bloomers' - hockey is a late-specialisation sport. If you have your peak performance at twelve, odds are you'll be out of the sport by seventeen: wear & tear, injuries, good old late-teen malaise, you name it. Hockey is not figure skating or gymnastics: there are ZERO long-term competitive advantages to elite performance before physical maturity, let alone before puberty. The kids who play ten sports with moderate intensity at semi-competitive levels are going to be better athletes in the long run - they just won't be hockey players, because crap liek this will squeeze them out of the system.

This isn't going to cause USA Hockey to miss a few late bloomers: it's going to poison the roots of their entire development system by over-working the few early blooms. It may not actually kill the roots, but they will be weakened by fighting it off - and they're not in great shape at the moment, from what I've heard.

Agree with most you say but disagree with the late bloomers thought. There were 4 players on the Canadian World Jr team this year that went undrafted during the Canadian Jr. Bantam draft when they were 14. That tells me that 20% of the Canadian World Jr team were not considered good enough prospects at 14 to even be drafted for Jr's but within 4 to 6 years had developed into world elite Jr players. Late bloomers happen all the time

[Law Goalie 147]

Er, that's exactly what I was saying - elite senior hockey players are by definition all 'late bloomers'.

[the_game 452]

Darkstar,(and everyone else)

check out this link for more info too:

http://www.westerncollegehockeyblog.com/20...s-coming-to-usa

This new initiative looks like it is going to basically destroy high school hockey and to another extent prep school hockey as well. Not to mention how long before we see 13 year old kids leaving home to play for one of these 'AAAA' teams. This is going to get interesting...

[dcdot377 0]

sounds like they will be treating these kids like the men in gatorade comercials on the bikes with tubes in their mouthes and stuff.

[eddyo57 0]

this is awful. I attended Northwood School for two years and played on their top team for one of them. We killed every aaa we ever came into contact with. Why can't USA hockey help out the prep schools, if you are to look at how much a prep school helps out hockey players not only with hockey but school work and life on your own. Prep schools could use the money more wisely and instead of puttin kids on teams where they miss 45 days of school a years they can be in a college environment with unbelievable hockey. this angers me.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

This reminds me of Jimmy from Blades of Glory at the beginning of the movie. However, I kinda think that if you ARE good enough, you WILL get noticed by someone at some point, even if you are not in the elite league from age 12 and on. I'm assuming that kids that can't keep up will get booted from the program as they get older and new kids will be able to 'walk on'.

Lest forget that if you really are good enough, I'm sure you can get a spot as a walk on at a hockey college if you have the skills.

I'd love to see the money spent on some of the dumpy rinks we all play or played in, but that will never happen.

[ktang 34]

I think they're trying set up a concentrated system to win international competitions in order to make hockey more popular in the US, instead of continuing to grow hockey at the grass-roots levels to make hockey more popular in the US.

[greech 4]

This reminds me of Jimmy from Blades of Glory at the beginning of the movie. However, I kinda think that if you ARE good enough, you WILL get noticed by someone at some point, even if you are not in the elite league from age 12 and on. I'm assuming that kids that can't keep up will get booted from the program as they get older and new kids will be able to 'walk on'.

Lest forget that if you really are good enough, I'm sure you can get a spot as a walk on at a hockey college if you have the skills.

"Walking on" isn't what it used to be. It is not just showing up and making the team anymore, even walk-ons are contacted by coaches to "try-out."

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I guess my point is if you are good enough eventually you will get noticed.. ie David Perron :)

[Rabid Ranger 0]

Just to balance the conversation a bit, here's some FAQ's and such:

http://usahadm.com/wordpress/

http://www.usahockey.com/ADM/default.aspx?...1&ID=251876

http://www.usahockey.com/ADM/default.aspx?...4&ID=252288

http://www.usahockey.com/adm/

[mxihockey 0]

I guess my point is if you are good enough eventually you will get noticed.. ie David Perron :)

Perron played in the Q... It's not like he came out of no where.

[jon93 0]

he worked his way up from what? a or bb?

this is going to be a complicated mess through out tryouts.

they should have planned this well ahead of time.

us kids are going to have to have a back up team, and elite team tryout.

and i really hope they dont have tryouts for these teams at the same time tier one is having their tryouts.

[SolarWind 23]

interesting stuff

so much different from Hockey Canada's mentality of emphasizing fan (even over results) at the early stages of development... Initially I though it was all crap, but I'm really warming up to the concept lately - after all it does deliver results at the end (just look at Worl Jrs) so why limit kid's development by locking them into one sport & spoiling their childhood...