John Russo
Concern for hockey’s future – Part I
- Details
- Last Updated on Sunday, 27 May 2012 23:31
By John Russo
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist
I think I’ve written about Mites in each of the past several years. The reason is that I have great concern for our great sport’s future in many areas – and I have some concern for how young players are developing. I want to comment about both. While this is mostly about Minnesota, it applies most everywhere.
First of all, most hockey folks don’t know or want to know that we are “losing ground” (a polite way to say that hockey is waning) in both southern and northern Minnesota. I don’t want to have coaches get offended, but high school teams from most of both areas don’t really compete at high levels like they used to.
In northern Minnesota, there are several exception areas (Duluth, Grand Rapids, Hermantown, Bemidji is coming back, Moorhead to a lesser degree). Southern Minnesota hasn’t had a truly competitive team other than Rochester Lourdes for years.
Ten and 15 years ago, there were many teams, dozens of players. In northern Minnesota, if you take away the Duluth area, Grand Rapids and Bemidji, hockey is sputtering in many other areas. Even the days of five, six, seven top players on the Warroad and Roseau teams are gone. The school population in Duluth is way down and the number of (near) future players, I’m told, is going down dramatically.
I think the answer is at the Mite level. Of course, everybody pretty much understands that getting more Mites pays off at the high school level in eight to 10 years. In the north, the population is declining (although not so much anymore). In the south, that’s not really true. Mankato is stable, and Rochester is growing. Of course, many metro programs are declining as well, with Mite player numbers in a slow but constant fall. Places like Edina and Wayzata seem to be thriving (I think Edina as over 400 Mite and pre-Mite players!).
So let’s look at the possible reasons for my concerns:
• Cost – Our sport is certainly getting more and more expensive. Sticks alone can run $150-$200 each. Cost is a definite deterrent.
• Population decline – In some areas this is a problem, but not all areas. What do we do to solve the hockey decline in population decline areas?
• Lack of commitment by parents (associations), cities and high school coaches.
• Lack of leadership at the state and national levels – This should be priority No. 1, and it should include the professional teams as well as Division I teams.
• Not enough associations in some key areas (Rochester, St. Cloud).
Let’s take a look at these items one at a time, and discuss how they relate to keeping hockey healthy – having great “batches” of Mites, that will stay with the game.
Cost
As I mentioned, stick costs alone are enough to dissuade parents from involving their youngsters in hockey. I recently talked to a (former player) parent who said he just couldn’t afford to have all three of his youngsters in hockey. He was not putting his youngest in skating and hockey classes.
I have a pre-Mite grandson (just turned 6) playing in Edina, and a 12U granddaughter playing in Wayzata, so I can see what current costs are. What can be done about this? I think many things:
• Cut association, Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey fees to virtually nothing.
• Associations should collect equipment and “rent” it out to players for a nominal fee ($50-$75) through age 10 or so. The large equipment companies should be more involved in providing (yearly) donations of basic equipment to associations; this won’t provide all equipment but it will help. This is marketing for future players.
• Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey ought to take a look at equipment requirements, up through age 10, and especially up through age 8 (Mite). It is ridiculous to have kids “armored up” at age 6, 7, 8. We are teaching our youngsters to play with no fear – and with increasing costs. No fear collisions create injuries at higher ages.
• Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey need to consider banning the $200 sticks – at least until 13-14 years old. Baseball did it with wood bats. We can do it with expensive hockey sticks. If everybody has the same (limited) sticks in a PeeWee game, what’s the big deal – except savings of $150 per stick, 2-3-4 sticks per season.
• Serious lack of ice usage. There should be no time when Mite or Squirt teams practice on full ice – and only a percentage of time for PeeWees and Bantams. This needs to be the policy across all associations. It is not appropriate to have youth teams on full ice with 15-16 players. The Division I and pro teams practice with 23-26 players, each twice the size (or more) of youth players.
Overall, when associations, equipment suppliers and governing bodies don’t really pay attention to costs, they are eliminating the very groups that made our sport strong a couple of generations ago. The Italian, Swedish, Norwegian and German immigrants (miners, lumberjacks, factory workers) were the ones that played and dreamed. Think about it: Broten, Nanne, Bjugstad, Sarner, Woog. Even the middle class people families have a hard time with costs, not just the Mexicans, Nigerians and Hondurans. There are few immigrants playing; there are fewer middle class folks playing.
We could and can make hockey affordable, but those of us in charge have to do something – for the future. Does that mean that teams should go back outside for practices? Yes, sometimes. Does it mean we should be building some “new generation” rink (small, neighborhood, “lightly” covered – or triple “studio” rinks)? Yes, it does.
We need some new thoughts that will bring hockey back to EVERYBODY.
Population Decline/Leveling
I’ve had many people tell me that the hockey population has gone down because of population decline in their area (Hibbing, Eveleth, etc.). I understand that relationship, but it doesn’t have to be. Associations need to be more aggressive and get more kids (higher percentage of the population) into hockey.
Solving the first item (costs) is certainly a first step, but there are other reasons and ways to increase involvement percentage. That’s the key. Most areas don’t know how to recruit and where. This leads directly to the next two reasons that I listed.
Next week in Part II, we’ll talk about leadership and commitment – and what it does and will take to rebuild some of our declining “jewel” associations.
John Russo, Ph.D., is founder and director of the Upper Midwest High School Elite League. He was a captain at the University of Wisconsin, and his Coaches’ Corner columns have appeared in LPH since 1986.