Tier II Nationals for Girls

[gotice]

I hear that USA hockey has just approved a Tier II level or girls teams.

It will be interesting to see if this decision will affect what teams appear at the tier I nationals. Will some of the "weaker" teams drop down to the tier II level?

IMHO, overall this is a good move and may afford more girls an opportunity to play for a national title.

[notfromaroundhere]

I hear that USA hockey has just approved a Tier II level or girls teams.

It will be interesting to see if this decision will affect what teams appear at the tier I nationals. Will some of the "weaker" teams drop down to the tier II level?

IMHO, overall this is a good move and may afford more girls an opportunity to play for a national title.

So when does this all startup? I can safely assume not this season given that they don't have a Tier II Nationals host selected, but how about 09-10?

I'm curious about a couple of things...


Will they regulate the the rosters at Tier II to require "local" (within district or within X miles of home rink) as several districts have discussed for Tier I?

Will the traditionally less competitive districts (Mid-Am, SE), be inclined to play their top teams at Tier II Nationals where they would be more competitive with the 2nd level teams from the Northeast, etc?

Will this help encourage more local organizations with limited talent to keep their top players at home or does the Tier II designation still lead to the exodus of top players for more distant clubs?

All in all it sounds like progress for Girls hockey. I am happy!

[gotice]

So when does this all startup? I can safely assume not this season given that they don't have a Tier II Nationals host selected, but how about 09-10?

I'm curious about a couple of things...


Will they regulate the the rosters at Tier II to require "local" (within district or within X miles of home rink) as several districts have discussed for Tier I?

Will the traditionally less competitive districts (Mid-Am, SE), be inclined to play their top teams at Tier II Nationals where they would be more competitive with the 2nd level teams from the Northeast, etc?

Will this help encourage more local organizations with limited talent to keep their top players at home or does the Tier II designation still lead to the exodus of top players for more distant clubs?

All in all it sounds like progress for Girls hockey. I am happy!

From reading the Colorado Selects website, this will be in effect this year. They will be fielding teams at both the Tier I and Tier II level

[Hux]

I'm not a fan of it. With the ever escalating costs involved in the sport because of rising energy prices, having another tier traveling to Nationals is an expense that is unnecessary. Tier II should remain state bound.

[notfromaroundhere]

I'm not a fan of it. With the ever escalating costs involved in the sport because of rising energy prices, having another tier traveling to Nationals is an expense that is unnecessary. Tier II should remain state bound.

I'm not sure that I'm with you on this one, Hux.

I think the concept of a "local" team (as opposed to the recruited team from all over) that plays locally during the year and goes to state should have that once in a blue moon chance at going to the big dance.

It is also more like Womens clubs (for the most part) that are more local teams who play locally and get that once a year opportunity to play on the big stage (at least for them).

And if a team that wins doesn't want to go to nationals, the states/districts should be allowed to send a runner-up who does.

And heck, all those girls in MA who don't play for Assabet need something to strive for, based upon the track record there. :p

[Hux]

The "local," town based teams in my neck of the woods are Tier III, with Tier II being those that are the "B" or "White" or whatever designation the club teams give them. I know that while there will be a thrill to go to Nationals, I also know that many parents have said "I'm glad we were state bound because after this season's travel, I know I couldn't afford to go to San Jose, or where ever."

[BKDad]

The issue here, at least in my feeble mind, is that despite real growth in girls hockey across the country, there really is barely enough competitive teams at Tier 1 for a nationwide tournament. If you examine the results for the Girl's Nationals, an awful lot of teams aren't competitive with the top teams. This is especially true below the U19 level.

If there was some kind of medium term hockey training gain by doing this, it would make sense. But how much can you really learn from three or four games all packed into a few days?

This sounds a lot like a marketing scheme aimed towards parents. Don't underestimate how many parents look at these distant events as being at least as much about them as about the kids who are playing.

If developing a kid's hockey ability is the main goal, the amount of money that might be spent on Nationals might be better spent on a couple hockey camps or one-on-one lessons. But, I do know that this isn't always the main goal. That's okay too, but why not just say what it is?

[notfromaroundhere]

The "local," town based teams in my neck of the woods are Tier III, with Tier II being those that are the "B" or "White" or whatever designation the club teams give them. I know that while there will be a thrill to go to Nationals, I also know that many parents have said "I'm glad we were state bound because after this season's travel, I know I couldn't afford to go to San Jose, or where ever."

I guess Mass is different from other districts. IIRC in a state we previously lived in, the rules were changed to make it so that in order to play for the Tier II state Championship, your team had to be constituted of girls within your assigned area to your organization (based upon the location of your home rinks). Kinda put a damper in the big girls organization my D skated for as the kids playing on the 2nd teams in an age bracket had to be local products only after the grandfathered it players (from before the rule) aged out.

I know my D played in (and lost 0-1 in 4OT) and lost in a Tier II state championship game at that level (in a state where we used to live). I personally would have been happy to reward her with a trip to nationals had they won.

So many people look at this as parent ego drive, which may be true in many cases. But you know, telling a kid that because you play for the local team and that local teams don't really count because you can't go to nationals, you've discounted their experience. You've given a kid in a small town who is immensly talented no choice but to run off to the big city program if they want an equivalent prize. While I realize in the northeast, that isn't very far down the road, but for the rest of us in small cities, the talent drain hurts our programs. Been there and done that on the boys side where we are now and ended up with no travel program in our town because they wouldn't limit the Tier II boys teams to "local" players only.

As much as we don't like the ego driven parents, a Tier II nationals with geographically limited teams will give these parents something to keep them around town and keep local programs healthy.

[gotice]

The "local," town based teams in my neck of the woods are Tier III, with Tier II being those that are the "B" or "White" or whatever designation the club teams give them. I know that while there will be a thrill to go to Nationals, I also know that many parents have said "I'm glad we were state bound because after this season's travel, I know I couldn't afford to go to San Jose, or where ever."

This new move may not be that exciting or welcomed to areas in the country that are competitive and have enough talent depth to field a variety of teams in a very small travel area, but for the RMD, SE, Mid-Am, the Pacific, and new Mountain Districts, where the girls already have to travel up to 10 or more hours just to compete against other girls, this allows them to offer a Tier I or Tier II program to accomodate the girls, while giving them an opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other programs across the nation at a National tournament. While playing at Nationals is not the end all be all, it is another opportunity for these teams to get exposure and experience the environment that Nationals provides.

[joecct]

The "local," town based teams in my neck of the woods are Tier III, with Tier II being those that are the "B" or "White" or whatever designation the club teams give them. I know that while there will be a thrill to go to Nationals, I also know that many parents have said "I'm glad we were state bound because after this season's travel, I know I couldn't afford to go to San Jose, or where ever."Hux

On the boys side I've always wondered how South Boston, loaded with Prep all-stars, could compete at the Mass Tier II level and get away with it.

The Tier II boys is defined as all nationally bound teams that are not Tier I. How you define Tier I is entirely up to the local affiliate.

What will happen with the girls will be that some organization will field a all-star team, declare Tier II, and win a national championship. In the meantime, the parents are fed a line of bull and end up paying through the nose all for the quest for a non scouted "championship".

I guess equality is expected.

[gotice]

Hux

On the boys side I've always wondered how South Boston, loaded with Prep all-stars, could compete at the Mass Tier II level and get away with it.

The Tier II boys is defined as all nationally bound teams that are not Tier I. How you define Tier I is entirely up to the local affiliate.

What will happen with the girls will be that some organization will field a all-star team, declare Tier II, and win a national championship. In the meantime, the parents are fed a line of bull and end up paying through the nose all for the quest for a non scouted "championship".

I guess equality is expected.

At the boys level at Midget, USA hockey has started grouping the Tier I and Tier II at the same location at the same time, so it is very likely that the Tier II teams are scouted. I would imagine that the same would happen for the girls.

[SAMMEE]

While I am a strong supporter of more girls' hockey and very active with existing non-National Bound Tier One programs at this time I think we are just adding another expensive "National" championship name to the sport. Other than MN or Mass most existing districts probably do not have 20 separate girls' clubs in a wide geographic area. Where I am there are 28 boys' programs within an hour drive. There are two girls programs and neither of them has teams in every age bracket. I have relocated several times with my jobs and my children have played in 5 different USA hockey districts - each of which had their own rules for determining Tier One; Tier Two etc.
I already forsee posts similar to the National Camp tryout ones on having USA Hockey set standards; rules. It is not going to happen and we will have clubs figuring we cannot win Tier One so let us play T2 and go the the Nationals.
I think we should drop Nationals for the 12U and concentrate on increasing the base number of players. I think Hockey is the greatest sport in the world but with econony; gas prices; year round clubs we are becoming a sport only for the well to do. I am honest enough to say that if I was 14 years old now my parents could not have afforded for me to play hockey and myself; my wife and my children would have missed out on a lot.

Increase the base and forget expanding the peak of the pyramid. Luck to everyone.

[notfromaroundhere]

While I am a strong supporter of more girls' hockey and very active with existing non-National Bound Tier One programs at this time I think we are just adding another expensive "National" championship name to the sport. Other than MN or Mass most existing districts probably do not have 20 separate girls' clubs in a wide geographic area. Where I am there are 28 boys' programs within an hour drive. There are two girls programs and neither of them has teams in every age bracket. I have relocated several times with my jobs and my children have played in 5 different USA hockey districts - each of which had their own rules for determining Tier One; Tier Two etc.
I already forsee posts similar to the National Camp tryout ones on having USA Hockey set standards; rules. It is not going to happen and we will have clubs figuring we cannot win Tier One so let us play T2 and go the the Nationals.
I think we should drop Nationals for the 12U and concentrate on increasing the base number of players. I think Hockey is the greatest sport in the world but with econony; gas prices; year round clubs we are becoming a sport only for the well to do. I am honest enough to say that if I was 14 years old now my parents could not have afforded for me to play hockey and myself; my wife and my children would have missed out on a lot.

Increase the base and forget expanding the peak of the pyramid. Luck to everyone.

Similar experience, same desire, different opinion. My D has played on USA hockey teams in 5 districts (have also had to relocate multiple times). She has played at USA Hockey events in 22 states as well. Not made of money either. We've spent the majority of that time in the 15% marginal tax bracket and occasionally have been in the 25% marginal bracket.

I agree that districts (and even some state affilitates) have a difficult time agreeing on T1 vs T2 rules. To this I say if USA hockey will take a position that if you don't qualify your teams in such and such a way (require geographic limts, etc), they will not be eligible for nationals, it does put some uniformity in the whole system. Now while this may bring up some debate as to the Minnesota system, I do like the model they use supporting local hockey.

And I believe that there are other areas with a decent number of T2 type girls programs (Michigan and Western NY come to mind here) while having some competitive T1 programs.

As to the expense of having Nationals, yes it is expensive to go (been there a couple of times). It doesn't cost USA Hockey much if anything to run it as the local host organization pretty much runs it (and usually makes money doing so). Yes, the travel to go is costly. Nobody is making anyone attend. You won't be shunned for staying home.

I just think one extra reward for those small town clubs can actually help build them (and the base of hockey), giving their better players a reason to stay as opposed to seek the "prestige" (and expense) of a Tier 1 team.

Same objective, just a different view. ;)

[hockeyfan1]

First rule of youth sports is the parents are always wrong. They will do more things to destroy the childs chances of getting to the next level then to help. That being said I can see the advantage of having a tier II national program for girls in both small and large districts. For the small district I have seen that the pattern is one year they can compete because they have some girls that are close to the right age but the other year they are very young with the older players being first year 12,14 ect. For the large districts we know that most clubs are parent run. I am willing to bet that the best players do not make up the entire roster so some very talented players do not get to have the chance to get this exposure. As far as wheather or not the games will be scouted if they are playing in the same venue they will be seen plenty. Coaches are alot smarter then us and a lot more objective then a parent. They also know that many tier II teams will have players on them better then most of the girls filling out tier I rosters. The chance to compete at a national event is an expience that is great for the players. Winning is great but it does not mean that each year we have one champion and 11 losers. That is the kind of thinking that makes parents move thier child from program to program year after year. To all those parents that say that team is not good enough for my child,the values of quiting when you don't win will serve your child well over the years. Ever tell your child to help make the other players better i know it is more work then quiting but it has great rewards. Sorry to beat up on parents so much but listening to some of the posts remind me of team meetings for parents. I just needed to vent I wish just once someone would think of the kids first and thier own ego last.