USA hockey's new American Development model

[Law Goalie 147]

Agreed: small-area games are an ideal combination of efficient ice surface use and focused skill development.

Hockey's an incredibly complex game, geometrically and psychologically, and breaking it down into smaller chunks allows developing players to parse those limited situations far better. We've kind of lost that in getting away from the 'backyard rink' culture - those things were always tiny, and you got really, really got at working with limited space. Then you could go and play on a canal or a pond or a lake for exactly the opposite effect: effectively limitless space.

And I hate to say it, but I suspect USA Hockey is about as likely to be overhauled as the CHL system: too many people enjoying tin-pot dictatorships to ever allow university hockey any kind of a profile in Canada. The U. teams in the Maritimes and Alberta do alright in terms of attendance, and the quality of play is actually quite high, but it's been a long time since anybody made the NHL out of a Canadian university.

[UMWhockey 0]

I think the big problem isn't that USA Hockey wants to promote cross ice hockey at the younger ages... they have been doing that for years and a lot of programs already do that. Really I see the problem is that USA Hockey got a big grant from the NHL and instead of using it to get more kids involved in the game and make it more available, they are creating a system to help feed their Development teams and elite level talent in the country. Where do you think a lot of the money is going? It's going to help fund this Elite AAA program they want

I think they had a chance to do something great with all the money they got, but think they missed the boat. You want better hockey players, get more people involved in the game

[Chadd 916]

I think they had a chance to do something great with all the money they got, but think they missed the boat. You want better hockey players, get more people involved in the game

Spot on.

[SinBinSaint 0]

Maybe USA hockey needs an overhaul. If they want to get hurt HS hockey, I can see the State of Minnesota doing a big "FU" and continuing to work their own successful model and adding more fall elite league teams. Let the other states deal with it, but do not destroy the great tradition of HS hockey here in Minnesota. AAA midget hockey and prep hockey is big out east, but we dont need it here. If we wanted to, we could put together some juggernaut AAA teams, but why mess with a great tradition?

Actually it was already identified by USA Hockey that Minnesota and it's community based hockey system doesn't fit within the ADM model and they are working to not only keep community based hockey and High School models in MN but strengthen it.

[Chadd 916]

Maybe USA hockey needs an overhaul. If they want to get hurt HS hockey, I can see the State of Minnesota doing a big "FU" and continuing to work their own successful model and adding more fall elite league teams. Let the other states deal with it, but do not destroy the great tradition of HS hockey here in Minnesota. AAA midget hockey and prep hockey is big out east, but we dont need it here. If we wanted to, we could put together some juggernaut AAA teams, but why mess with a great tradition?

Actually it was already identified by USA Hockey that Minnesota and it's community based hockey system doesn't fit within the ADM model and they are working to not only keep community based hockey and High School models in MN but strengthen it.

Translation: They realized the teams and players would stop paying registration fees if they pushed the new system in that area and they are trying to figure out how to keep collecting those fees and take credit for any development that happens there.

[jcp2 2]

The U. teams in the Maritimes and Alberta do alright in terms of attendance, and the quality of play is actually quite high, but it's been a long time since anybody made the NHL out of a Canadian university.

I thought the university teams in Canada was where junior players ended up after realizing that they couldn't make it in the NHL, hence the older average age of student hockey player.

[ahbroody 1]

so what teams are in this super league? or is it not set yet. I am guessing all the tier 1 teams.

Maybe I am looking in the wrong places.

[Law Goalie 147]

I think the big problem isn't that USA Hockey wants to promote cross ice hockey at the younger ages... they have been doing that for years and a lot of programs already do that. Really I see the problem is that USA Hockey got a big grant from the NHL and instead of using it to get more kids involved in the game and make it more available, they are creating a system to help feed their Development teams and elite level talent in the country. Where do you think a lot of the money is going? It's going to help fund this Elite AAA program they want

I think they had a chance to do something great with all the money they got, but think they missed the boat. You want better hockey players, get more people involved in the game

Well said.

The U. teams in the Maritimes and Alberta do alright in terms of attendance, and the quality of play is actually quite high, but it's been a long time since anybody made the NHL out of a Canadian university.

I thought the university teams in Canada was where junior players ended up after realizing that they couldn't make it in the NHL, hence the older average age of student hockey player.

Not as a rule. In Canada, since we have no purely athletic scholarships, and very, very strict limitations on scholarships and admission standards that even take athletic achievement into account any more than any other extracurricular (putting a junior hockey player roughly on par with a modestly accomplished bassoon player), what we have are student-athletes in the strict sense: students first, athletes second.

So the biggest schools with the most money also have the highest academic standards, since that's their funding model, and consequently, some of the worst student athletics. The University of Toronto's football team holds the lead standard: 49 games and 7 years without a win, and the hockey team's not much more successful. Darren Lowe's a great coach, and having been on the ice with these guys, they're certainly decent hockey players by most standards, but they get annihilated against much smaller, much less selective universities to the East and West. UofT's admission cut-off is basically 84%; some of the better hockey schools are... a long way below that. This does unfortunately imply that dedicated athletes are stupid (which is complete horseshit), but when you've got a few thousand people applying with 67% averages, high-level athletics can be used as a tie-breaker - which is as close as anyone can get North of the border to an education on the basis of their sport.

There are a few exceptions. Queen's, for example, has historically had a really good football team because they've received huge endowments from rich alumni: they build first-class facilities, hire great people, and attract players that way.

[OhioBlue 0]

Speaking of how kick ass minnesota high school hockey is USndtp has like 8 kids thru u17-20 from minnesota highschool hockey schools

[Law Goalie 147]

And that's an indicator of systematic health... how?

[OhioBlue 0]

You have to be really good to play on the us team....

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I feel like we may see more 'David Perrons ' in the future.... kids that go unnoticed for years, blow up, get noticed by one team and perrown everyone for years to come...

Seems dumb. you want to grow the sport take that 8 mil and build rinks and make the shit cheaper to play. The talent will come eventually. Give the kids a place to play and learn for starters.

[Law Goalie 147]

You have to be really good to play on the us team....

Specious reasoning.

[epstud74 24]

Maybe USA hockey needs an overhaul. If they want to get hurt HS hockey, I can see the State of Minnesota doing a big "FU" and continuing to work their own successful model and adding more fall elite league teams. Let the other states deal with it, but do not destroy the great tradition of HS hockey here in Minnesota. AAA midget hockey and prep hockey is big out east, but we dont need it here. If we wanted to, we could put together some juggernaut AAA teams, but why mess with a great tradition?

Actually it was already identified by USA Hockey that Minnesota and it's community based hockey system doesn't fit within the ADM model and they are working to not only keep community based hockey and High School models in MN but strengthen it.

Translation: They realized the teams and players would stop paying registration fees if they pushed the new system in that area and they are trying to figure out how to keep collecting those fees and take credit for any development that happens there.

How would USA hockey do without Minnesota?

[ddbowdoin 0]

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?

if you're talented, teams will find you... colleges will find you, especially if you play at a better HS. I graduated from Catholic Memorial in 2003 and kids I knew from school are still playing decently competitive puck... at least getting invited to NHL training camps.

[Law Goalie 147]

'Quality will out' is the biggest lie told in any lazy development system. "If you were good enough, you'd be playing for a college team or better; if you're not playing, you must not be good enough." Once again, specious reasoning.

Talent identification really isn't something that should be left to a handful of competitive coaches who are more interested in winning at one level with one team in one year than in developing a player who may not pay major dividends until he's in his early 20s. It should start way, way earlier and continue much, much longer with continual oversight.

The only reason the CHL continues to produce the volume and quality of prospects it does is because there is a sort of gentleman's agreement that winning at the CHL-level is not the be-all and end-all of Canadian junior hockey. Now that Brian Kilrea's gone, I'm not sure how long that culture will stay around.

[biff44 0]

I feel like we may see more 'David Perrons ' in the future.... kids that go unnoticed for years, blow up, get noticed by one team and perrown everyone for years to come...

Seems dumb. you want to grow the sport take that 8 mil and build rinks and make the shit cheaper to play. The talent will come eventually. Give the kids a place to play and learn for starters.

Everyone keeps mentioning Peron, but I think you miss the point of David's story. He was down and out! Nobody would give him the time of day. His coach thought he was a screw up and was not bashful about telling everyone. Just on the slimest bit of luck, a SINGLE scout saw him and liked him, and luckily that scout was teamed up with a cheap Q team that drafted poorly and was desperate to take a chance on anyone.

If that is your "model" for the future, pure sh** house luck to find your late bloomers, then 99.5% of them will be skating in the beer leagues!

[kurtandshan 0]

This obviously an old thread, but very timely in that this is registration season for a lot of organizations. Clearly, 8million dollars could have been better spent. It appears to me that USA hockey is attempting to grow the sport from the top down. Developing those elite players already in the system to hopefully attract new players down the line???? If those athletes never even give hockey a shot because "its too expensive" "its too time consuming" "its too demanding" etc where are the future elite players going to come from. It was said before, in the USA hockey has to be grown from the roots. Thats already been done in Canada, the roots are already there. Here in the US if hockey doesn't remove the "its too..." from the system and remove the "rich kids sport" from its detractors hockey will never grow and, like a tree with poor roots, fall over and die. Associations around me are down 60-100 kids or more. Those are HUGE losses. These losses come even with grants for free registration. The sport has to become more accesible to EVRYONE before it will grow.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

While I agree in spirit, it would be great if every kid that wanted to give hockey a shot got a chance, there really isn't much that could be done to make that happen. Hockey gear costs what it costs, even going with bottom of the line gear there are a lot of families for whom that's just not in the budget. Schools really can't absord the costs either. Football gear comes down to a helmet and shoulder pads that will last for years, and some cheap foam pads on the legs. Ice time costs what it costs, and there's really nothing that could be done to significantly cut those costs. With soccer, football, rugby, or whatever field sport you only need a proper pitch to play a game. Practice wise you've got fields at every local park that'll do just fine. Inline hockey might provide something of a great opportunity, but it's not likely to produce guys that play inline only and then somehow jump to ice and make it to the NHL.

[kurtandshan 0]

Obviously, based on the nature of the sport you are right, but 8million could go a long way to creating accesibility. Give my rink as an example, the rink is privately run(non-profit) owned by the city(which provides no funding) except to lease it to the rink association for like a dollar. The facility has invested 400,000 in new floor and compressor system, replaced a cooling tower to the tune of 40,000. They are as efficient as possible, yet ice costs 105 an hour. Local hockey asssociation, charges close to 600 for peewees. Small grants have allowed the association to offer virtually free registration..maybe 50 bucks. for first year/time skaters, one shot deal. If a large grant came through from say, the NHL or USA hockey, the rink could buy a dehumidifying system which would allow summer operation or upgrade its structural facilities, or maybe add a second sheet and/or maybe reduce ice costs. This would reduce registration costs. The 600 registration could be reduced across the board making it more attractive to more people, reducing the "rich kids sport" idea. More kids mean, the ability(in our area) to have an actual "house league" which would reduce travel as we HAVE to travel to play "league" games. This in turn would attract more people to the sport at the lower levels, growing the game and allowing a stronger base to support the upper age groups.

Hockey is a long season, and if you spread the cost over say, a six month season, and the amount of ice time/game time, it really isn't anymore expensive than most other sports that last for 3wks to a cpl months.

Dumping 8million into "elite" leagues so that we win international championships continues the "rich kids sport" ideas and does nothing to grow the base of the game.

A second example is a small rink outside of Stevens Point Wi. The rink was funded by a large grant from NHLPA. Without this grant, no rink. No rink, no hockey association. No hockey association less skaters signing up for USA hockey. No future hockey players. If that large grant went to one of the 'Elite' teams. That one team might have better training facility but dollar for dollar the money spent on the rural rink brought more players to the game....end goal right?

[epstud74 24]

Maybe we should start brainstorming ways to keep hockey more affordable for a larger group of Americans. Right now, the best athletes really are not playing hockey (especially true in areas where prep and Midget AAA are big) so the talent pool is not as large or diverse.

[Kevin 5]

Young players can always wear second hand equipment, but ice time is expensive. Unless you live in one of the very few areas of the country with reliable natural ice during the winter, there needs to be more rinks that are not run for profit. Community owned rinks are the key to spreading hockey. However, it is the rare community that has the will or resources to build new rinks today. I would like to see more seasonal outdoor rinks built with compressors, but without a roof. An example is Frog Pound in Boston Common, which is enormously popular, but is only for skating. I would love to see a rink built in Boston Common for outdoor public hockey from November through February. Most New England towns have a common, many of which have room for a seasonal rink.

[Chadd 916]

Until you can address the cost of ice, you can't lower the cost of ice hockey enough to make a difference. Adding more sheets isn't an answer as a lot of rinks struggle to keep their head above water and more competition will just drive some existing rinks out of business. House leagues should be grown, especially at the younger ages. The easiest way to grow the game of hockey, and one that USA Hockey will not embrace in my lifetime, is to grow inline hockey.

The four on four nature of inline allows for more skill development, it's much cheaper to maintain an inline surface making it cheaper to play, you can play anywhere in the summer on an outdoor rink (without adults even) and you can bring the game to areas where you just can't play in the summer.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I do agree that house leagues are probably the best solution to actually increase the number of kids playing. Some areas of ice time costs can be tweaked: a couple of teams could share ice for a practice, you could have two on ice/one off ice practice in a week, and the like. Reducing the travel is a key aspect of keeping kids in hockey. A lot of people aren't thrilled at having to drive all over hell when they could put their kids in peewee football and it'd be at the same park every week. That said, I think of the biggest reasons it isn't happening is hockey parents themselves. It seems that a very large number of hockey associations are just over the moon for creating elite teams to please parents that think little Johnny is on his way to a full ride hockey scholarship and/or the NHL. Hell, I've seen Peewee level coaches label kids checkers and then wonder why they quit when they're getting 10 minutes of ice time a game. So really, you can't reduce travel until you can sell the house league concept to hockey parents. The problem with that is these people have been spoon fed that a religious like zeal is what makes them a "hockey family." But you need the zeal to get people to get up at 4:30 AM on a Saturday and drive to the otherside of the state for a game. This is where I feel USAH could actually do the most good in stepping in, being the bad guys, and shutting down this structure and restructing youth hockey like other youth sports.

[Chadd 916]

But you need the zeal to get people to get up at 4:30 AM on a Saturday and drive to the otherside of the state for a game. This is where I feel USAH could actually do the most good in stepping in, being the bad guys, and shutting down this structure and restructing youth hockey like other youth sports.

Everyone around here wants their kids to practice between 6 and 8PM. I can't imagine how few parents would be hauling their kids to 5AM practices, let alone games on weekends.