Hockey Canada Registrations & The High Costs of Hockey

[SCBlueLiner]

Yeah great way to illustrate it. Should have thought about it that way as I know my Croatian grandparents loved Frank Mahovlich who came from their town of Schumacher and had a typical first generation, low-income upbringing.

So yeah, it really makes me wonder how truly shallow the talent pool is we are pulling from? I guess wonder what are the paths of someone coming from a household of say $45,000-60,000....what is that kid's path towards professional/college/CHL hockey? How much oh a handicap does that kid start out with?

Depends on where that kid lives. If he is fortunate enough to live in Northern Minnesota, or even to the far south in a place like Rochester or even Luverne, MN a talented player can reasonably come up through the youth association to High School system on a moderate income of $45,000-$60,000. Moderate income classification for 4 person household in rural Midwest America is about $55,000. Little more expensive in the Twin Cities Metro area, but the incomes are also a little bit more there. NCAA D1 hockey is attainable, last year over 900 native Minnesotans played college hockey, D1 or D3. The typical path for a Minnesota born player is association hockey-public HS hockey-2 years junior hockey-NCAA hockey. There was a recent Let's Play Hockey article that delved into the statistics of the pathways to college hockey. Pretty informative.

USA Hockey and Hockey Canada need to find ways to bring this sport back to the people, broaden the base, and increase the number of kids playing not only recreationally but competitively. It needs to be cheaper. I just happen to think Minnesota (Wisconsin & North Dakota) have good models of association to HS hockey that bring it to the masses and produce quality players. It's a model that needs to be replicated across the Northern USA, get away from the Club Tier 1 model.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Other forumers like C58 and Killion are probably better positioned to talk about the day-to-day of hockey life during that era. But I think you can get a pretty good idea by just looking at the top talent that did make it, and what their parents did for a living.

Bobby Orr's dad worked in a dynamite factory.

Bobby Hull's dad worked in a cement plant.

Guy Lafleur's dad was a welder.

Stan Mikita's dad was a Czechoslovakian textile factory worker, his mom a farmer. At age 8 he moved to Canada after being adopted by his aunt and uncle, who were of course first-generation immigrants.


These stars were from truly middle class, blue collar families. Compare to the top stars of today.

Sidney Crosby's dad is a law clerk.

Patrick Kane's father owns a car dealership.

Carey Price's father is the administrator of an adult learning center. His mother is a First Nations chieftain.


Bear in mind these are 90s kids, who came up the system when it was still in transition to the current environment. Give it another 15 years and this is going to be a list of lawyers, doctors, retired pro athletes.

You can decry the situation all you like.

But guys like Orr, Hull, Lafleur, came up in an era where there was no summer hockey, speed and strength conditioning, you name it. Their parents didn't have to pay for power skating lessons in the off-season because nobody did power skating in the off-season.

But now we do. We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

These days to become an elite top-level athlete requires a hell of a lot of specialized training and conditioning. And that is really, really expensive. Either we want the government to dedicate hundred of millions of dollars to have summer hockey academies set up for every kid who wants to go, or we live with the fact that elite athletics are going to be a domain of the very rich.

Hey I get it. I'm no spring chicken myself. I'm in my 40s, grew up watching 80s hockey. I get the pull of nostalgia too. But that's what it is - nostalgia for days gone by that aren't coming back.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Forget about just the cost, I don't understand how families are willing to commit (force?) their 12-year old to hockey year round without burning both the kid and parent(s) out. It's insane the schedules these kids have that I've heard. Even worse if multiple kids are involved.

The thing is most of those kids do burn out. A lot of the research shows that kids who dedicate themselves to one sport at an early age to not go on to become professionals - they do burn out (or injure themselves) long before they hit that stage.

Or at least that's what I tell myself. I purposely did not have my oldest play spring hockey, and had him in community league soccer instead.

 

[Yukon Joe]

My little guy is 4..I'm really looking forward to him playing hocking but cringing at the future costs..

I'm sorry to tell you this but if you want your kid to be in hockey they absolutely have hockey for four year olds.

We started my oldest at the age of 6 (after taking skating lessons the year before) and most of the other kids had already been playing for a year or two. We're starting my midle guy this year at the age of 5, and could start my almost-four year old but I just don't want to pay for two new sets of gear all at once.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Cyclical

Other forumers like C58 and Killion are probably better positioned to talk about the day-to-day of hockey life during that era. But I think you can get a pretty good idea by just looking at the top talent that did make it, and what their parents did for a living.

Bobby Orr's dad worked in a dynamite factory.

Bobby Hull's dad worked in a cement plant.

Guy Lafleur's dad was a welder.

Stan Mikita's dad was a Czechoslovakian textile factory worker, his mom a farmer. At age 8 he moved to Canada after being adopted by his aunt and uncle, who were of course first-generation immigrants.


These stars were from truly middle class, blue collar families. Compare to the top stars of today.

Sidney Crosby's dad is a law clerk.

Patrick Kane's father owns a car dealership.

Carey Price's father is the administrator of an adult learning center. His mother is a First Nations chieftain.


Bear in mind these are 90s kids, who came up the system when it was still in transition to the current environment. Give it another 15 years and this is going to be a list of lawyers, doctors, retired pro athletes.

Hockey is rather cyclical by nature. Go back to the origins of organized hockey in the late 19th century and you will see McGill University students and the upper class who had the means to indulge in the sport of their choice.

Even today compared to your list there are players from single parent homes, immigrant families, working class backgrounds. Will not name them since there is a trend to list making lately that serves no purpose.

Tyson Jost is a prime example:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...crifice-and-what-it-takes-to-get-to-the-draft

The overlooked issue is travel. Tarheels raised this earlier. Varies by region and hockey playing population but travel is a major factor in term of cost and time. Not only for players but coaches as well.

I played community center hockey. Across the street on my way home from school, center had an outdoor rink.Arenas in the same radius One of a dozen within a 15 minute walk from my home. Coaches would walk to the center. We would walk to away games within our league and district. Out of district we would get a ride or take a public transit bus.

Today, the school and community center are still there, no more outdoor rinks, two rink arena open from mid August to mid April. Neighbourhood is much older very few kids. The zone which in 1970 had 33 youth hockey organizations, not counting schools, today has one. Play out of two arenas with three rinks. Rare that a youngster walks to practice or play hockey. Common bus or carpool.

The key part of the Tyson Jost story was that he left home at a young age. He grew-up in suburban Edmonton, a hockey hot spot. Unthinkable years ago. Situation would have been solved locally.

Rationalizing travel would go a long way to solving the cost and interest issues associated with youth hockey. Problem is that with monolithic hockey associations there is no incentive to do so. In fact a fair number of the associations promote the fact that their teams travel a great deal to tournaments and the like. This generates revenues at various levels.

 

[Killion]

I'm sorry to tell you this but if you want your kid to be in hockey they absolutely have hockey for four year olds.

We started my oldest at the age of 6 (after taking skating lessons the year before) and most of the other kids had already been playing for a year or two. We're starting my midle guy this year at the age of 5, and could start my almost-four year old but I just don't want to pay for two new sets of gear all at once.

Yeah, what do they call that age category now, 4/5 yr olds... Squirt? Tyke? I seem to recall Tyke as being the earliest entry level way back in the day & I think that was 6/7 year olds, thereafter Minor Atom, Atom & then Pee Wee & so on up....

Totally agree with your position in getting the kids involved in other sports & do so seasonally. All of those skills picked up on the diamonds & fields, gymnasium's, courts etc, watersports incld all make for a well rounded athlete & individual be it a team or individual sport. Too much hockey at a young age, and I mean right through to 15/16 is IMO counter-productive. Inhibiting.....

I dont know your situation, whether you can do it or not but between a backyard rink in the winter (or maybe a local natural ice surface, free, shinny), driveway/road hockey off-season and if the kids are really keen a week at a local or sleepover hockey camp is entirely sufficient. Beyond that & I honestly believe people are going way overboard. Not really doing their kids nor themselves any favors, costs beyond all reason no matter how much $$$ youve got.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You can decry the situation all you like.

But guys like Orr, Hull, Lafleur, came up in an era where there was no summer hockey, speed and strength conditioning, you name it. Their parents didn't have to pay for power skating lessons in the off-season because nobody did power skating in the off-season.

But now we do. We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

These days to become an elite top-level athlete requires a hell of a lot of specialized training and conditioning. And that is really, really expensive. Either we want the government to dedicate hundred of millions of dollars to have summer hockey academies set up for every kid who wants to go, or we live with the fact that elite athletics are going to be a domain of the very rich.

Hey I get it. I'm no spring chicken myself. I'm in my 40s, grew up watching 80s hockey. I get the pull of nostalgia too. But that's what it is - nostalgia for days gone by that aren't coming back.

Then why is extremely expensive, specialized training NOT stopping blue collar kids from being successful in every other team sport? When I watch an NFL game, I don't see a bunch of lawyers' kids who climbed the ladder with the help of personal coaches from age 4 onward. If being an elite athlete requires such training, we would see every other league beginning to look like the NHL.

 

[Oleg Petrov]

Just signed my 4 year old up for Junior Timbits in Oakville.

Cost was $299. Your basic fee for their House & Rep Teams is $625.

Granted Oakville is a "well to do" suburb of Toronto, but gives some indication of initial costs for these programs.

 

[Killion]

Hockey is rather cyclical by nature. Go back to the origins of organized hockey in the late 19th century and you will see McGill University students and the upper class who had the means to indulge in the sport of their choice.

Yes, it really has gone full circle in that respect. From the games beginnings at the organized level in Montreal, McGill etc. It was a sport of the upper-middle classes, the sons of wealthy industrialists, professionals & academics initially. Key being "organized". It was also played in a "less organized" fashion at the school & Parish levels. The Black Hockey League out of Nova Scotia in the early part of the 20th Century but initially, yes indeed, considered "a Gentleman's Game". The rise of professionalism beginning with the old Mining Leagues, increased violence in the game changed all of that though in "Toronto the Good" the old school WASP's who controlled the game fought back in attempting to outlaw professionalism, "gifting" or "sponsorships" of anykind in which any given player might personally benefit. That to play or compete in any sport for money or gifts of anykind was anathema to the lofty ideals to which they ascribed & believed in. That it cut the legs out from underneath the integrity of the game, with money involved, left it open to being corrupted.

So full circle yes, a game that requires at the amateur level a huge investment in time & money at the elite amateur levels.... Major Junior clubs cut loose in the 60's with the introduction of the Draft and no longer the recipients of NHL largess having to adopt a new business model. Sell tickets & sponsorships in order to survive, mini-nhl-model, sacrificing actual player development with the "must win now" philosophy because if they werent winning they werent going to survive. Theoretically, these sponsorships which are supposed to be complimentary and in many cases are (Quebec AAA Midget League for eg) do however, certainly have come with a cost for many organizations & Leagues whereby they sacrifice their core mandate in developing talent in order to win. Win at all costs.

With everything micro-managed, if your an elite amateur headed for Junior & possibly a pro career you really do have to have the financial backing of your family (though yes, there is still the odd case of an underfunded kid receiving assistance from wherever but thats unfortunately very rare) in order to compete & get ahead of the curve. I played elite & Junior, went to hockey camps but only for a week or two every summer, played other sports by season, simply cannot imagine being concerned in the least with nutrition, sleep, bio-metrics, extensive hockey specific dryland training, spring & or summer leagues, just on & on. Beyond the costs, financially & just in time alone, the burnout factor unless beyond obsessed with the game (and sorry, that is not healthy) and I knew no one like that, guys who went on to play pro & NHL players who ever went to anywhere close to the nth degree's kids do today, have been doing for the past 25+ years. Its become totally specialized & yes extremely expensive if your going to be able to compete at the elite levels expected which frankly go well beyond all reason IMHO.... Out of control.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Then why is extremely expensive, specialized training NOT stopping blue collar kids from being successful in every other team sport? When I watch an NFL game, I don't see a bunch of lawyers' kids who climbed the ladder with the help of personal coaches from age 4 onward. If being an elite athlete requires such training, we would see every other league beginning to look like the NHL.

NFL, and American Football in general, is it's own crazy world. Player development is massively subsidized by the high schools and colleges. You hear the stories of podunk Texas high schools with multi-million dollar football fields, weight camps, etc.

The reason very few Canadian kids play in the NFL isn't because Canadian kids are any less athletic, we just don't do nearly as much player development.

As for other team sports, I know a couple of baseball parents, and while they don't have the same expenses for gear, they also can spend small fortunes on travel and various camps. Same goes for soccer (I don't know much about basketball development to comment).

 

[Yukon Joe]

By the way does anyone know of a website or discussion board specifically around hockey parent issues? It gets discussed a little bit in "The Rink" forum at HF boards, but not much.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Parents need to be realistic and if they are they could save themselves a tonne of money and the kid would be just as (maybe more) happy. Unless junior is absolutely killing it by age 10 or so, as in being promoted up age groups in top leagues and still being a scoring leader then he's not pro material. The sport is still great even if you aren't elite, play a house league, school league. or a local lower letter league, learn the game, make good friends, and it carries over to adulthood when you can really have fun because beer league hockey on a cool team in a well run league where guys mostly behave themselves is basically the best sport-hobby in the world (hey girls too now, I think they wouldn't be such *****es to each other if they had a proper hockey dressing room outlet to bond and cut loose which is what I hope for my daughter to experience).

 

[Killion]

By the way does anyone know of a website or discussion board specifically around hockey parent issues? It gets discussed a little bit in "The Rink" forum at HF boards, but not much.

Not really. However some minor organizations do have chatboards linked to their sites or part of it. From what Ive seen of them however, mostly kids, the players themselves posting.

 

[Inkling]

The same place the money comes from for the football, basketball, wrestling, etc. teams. It comes from the school's athletic budget. It is also supported by booster clubs who raise funds. One thing you have to take into account is the cheap cost of ice in most Minnesota towns. In the major cities like Chicago in the U.S. ice costs can be $300-$350 an hour. In Minnesota I've seen it as low as $75, even free, literally like open gym where the kids have open time slots to come play stick & puck for free. Most of the ice facilities were built as a partnership with the local municipality and are operated under the Parks & Rec department of the city. It's a community facility, not a private enterprise, and that keeps costs down.

How are schools built? Isn't there usually a gymnasium built attached to the school? Property tax revenues and bonding. Hockey gets the same treatment as the other sports. In short, public funds support the hockey programs.

The marginal cost of building a gymnasium into a school and ongoing upkeep is going to be pretty small compared to an ice rink. Rinks are community facilities up here too but everyone has to pay for ice time, whether you're a school or a non-profit minor hockey association. I don't see the school boards wanting to lay out the costs (and certainly not taxpayers), especially if we're talking about programs that are supposed to compete with, or replace existing AAA programs (i.e. require a lot of ice time). That would require a lot of outside fundraising by the team and school. The cost of ice up here is probably too high to make this practical.

I'm not super familiar with them, but Quebec has Sport Etudes programs where sports like hockey are integrated into the school day, but I believe they are run separately and you have to apply for the school and you have to apply to the minor hockey program. You pay for the hockey, so the school isn't expected to cover the costs of the hockey programs. That's probably more realistic in terms of what's going to be possible in Canada as I just don't see schools picking up the costs of elite athletic programs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

NFL, and American Football in general, is it's own crazy world. Player development is massively subsidized by the high schools and colleges. You hear the stories of podunk Texas high schools with multi-million dollar football fields, weight camps, etc.

The reason very few Canadian kids play in the NFL isn't because Canadian kids are any less athletic, we just don't do nearly as much player development.

As for other team sports, I know a couple of baseball parents, and while they don't have the same expenses for gear, they also can spend small fortunes on travel and various camps. Same goes for soccer (I don't know much about basketball development to comment).

Ok, so that is the model for those sports... the reason they are dramatically outpacing hockey in player development.

What's hockey's answer?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Arenas

The marginal cost of building a gymnasium into a school and ongoing upkeep is going to be pretty small compared to an ice rink. Rinks are community facilities up here too but everyone has to pay for ice time, whether you're a school or a non-profit minor hockey association. I don't see the school boards wanting to lay out the costs (and certainly not taxpayers), especially if we're talking about programs that are supposed to compete with, or replace existing AAA programs (i.e. require a lot of ice time). That would require a lot of outside fundraising by the team and school. The cost of ice up here is probably too high to make this practical.

I'm not super familiar with them, but Quebec has Sport Etudes programs where sports like hockey are integrated into the school day, but I believe they are run separately and you have to apply for the school and you have to apply to the minor hockey program. You pay for the hockey, so the school isn't expected to cover the costs of the hockey programs. That's probably more realistic in terms of what's going to be possible in Canada as I just don't see schools picking up the costs of elite athletic programs.

A number of the schools - private that offer Sport Études or D1 own their own arenas. Charging the comadmunity for ice time, runnig hockey schools, etc. Some of the wealthy schools built new arenas - alumni funding. Stanstead College:

http://www.stansteadcollege.com/athletic-programs/hockey/

 

[Jumptheshark]

For me growing up it was always expensive. For me to be able to play I had to work in the summer time to pay for things

 

[Yukon Joe]

Ok, so that is the model for those sports... the reason they are dramatically outpacing hockey in player development.

What's hockey's answer?

Are baseball, football and soccer "dramatically outpacing hockey in player development"? How would you even measure that?

 

[Slats432]

But that's a choice Slats is making.

The registration fee and cash calls are the only 100% required expenses. Your kids don't need to go to hockey academies or expensive off-season training. You don't need to buy $300 sticks. I've never even heard of $1200 skates.

Plus tax. Then $150 for balancing.

Every elite player in AAA at the midget level does some offseason training. Ours goes to the gym in the summer and is trained by hockey specific trainers. It makes a difference. And nothing we do is a have to. We decide as a family that this is what we are going to do. And we are fortunate enough to be able to afford it.

$800 for equipment sounds about right if new, but there's always used equipment for less.

Slats' kid is trying to make to the WHL, and probably has NHL dreams. That's why all the extra costs - do give his kid whatever edge he can. But they're not required in order to play the game.

This is true. He will most likely play in either the WHL or AJHL. We don't talk about the NHL. We talk about following the process of doing his best and wherever he ends up, that is fine. We decided as parents that we would provide all reasonable access to the best available equipment and training and allow for the process to run it's course. We also say that he can announce his retirement whenever he wants.

Believe it or not, the equipment at the highest level provides an edge that all the elite players feel they need to compete. The $300 sticks can provide up to a 10-15 MPH difference in wrist shot speed. BUT ONLY IF THE PLAYER IS STRONG ENOUGH TO FLEX THE STICK.

Now my perspective is different because I have one son who is just going into Novice hockey, and a second who is just starting Timbits hockey. Maybe when they get older I'll get sucked in to buying all the fancy equipment and power skating lessons. But right now while I'm happy to pay the registration fees, everything else is being done on the cheap.

I'm not saying hockey is cheap. It is too expensive for too many families. But don't look at the top end, NHL-dreaming kids as being typical of all kids.

Hold off until your kid is elite. I told my son I wasn't buying the expensive stuff until his level of play required it. His first senior top line stick was in Bantam AA. Same with his skates. So I recommend people lay off the expensive stuff unless the player is in a rep program.

 

[Melrose Munch]

We keep talking about teams here and there all over the map, but they will never be able to "grow the game" if it's not accessible.

 

[Slats432]

We keep talking about teams here and there all over the map, but they will never be able to "grow the game" if it's not accessible.

I think it all depends on what people are looking for. The recreational stream is still viable for most families.

Novice is about $500.
Sticks under $50.
Can get full equipment for under $200.
Skates $100.

Not that bad for a year.

It isn't until Bantam AA that it becomes expensive.

 

[Yukon Joe]

We keep talking about teams here and there all over the map, but they will never be able to "grow the game" if it's not accessible.

But here's the thing. In order to "grow the game" you don't need to develop elite hockey players. You don't need parents to spend tens of thousands of dollars on elite hockey training.

You just need kids (and adults) to play the game. And it's really not that expensive. I mean it's not cheap - it's never going to compete with soccer on cost - but it's not prohibitively expensive.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think it all depends on what people are looking for. The recreational stream is still viable for most families.

Novice is about $500.
Sticks under $50.
Can get full equipment for under $200.
Skates $100.

Not that bad for a year.

It isn't until Bantam AA that it becomes expensive.

Talk to me about sticks.

When I went out to get my little Novice player a stick they showed me some sticks that were costing $50--$70 bucks. I asked 'at this age, is there any difference between these and a good ole' wooden stick'? The staff said no, so we walked out of there with a $15 Sher-wood.

But then I looked and all the other kids had more expensive sticks.

You pointed out that the $300 stick is only useful when the player is strong enough to flex the stick. Is that true of a $50 stick?



This is why I'd love to find a hockey parent discussion board, but google has failed me so far...

 

[Killion]

Plus tax. Then $150 for balancing.

Believe it or not, the equipment at the highest level provides an edge that all the elite players feel they need to compete. The $300 sticks can provide up to a 10-15 MPH difference in wrist shot speed. BUT ONLY IF THE PLAYER IS STRONG ENOUGH TO FLEX THE STICK.

Hold off until your kid is elite. I told my son I wasn't buying the expensive stuff until his level of play required it. His first senior top line stick was in Bantam AA. Same with his skates. So I recommend people lay off the expensive stuff unless the player is in a rep program.

Good advice..... and ya Ive seen skates in-store & on-line for more than $999.... try $1295... $1395. Particularly high in a lot of US markets. Arizona, Metro Phoenix & Texas, Southern California. And not just skates, everything, limited stocks. You could buy a Show Pony for your kid, stable & board it, top end tack, a trailer & lessons for less. Join a private ski club, outfit the entire family with top of the line ski's, boots & bindings etc etc etc. Insane.

And of course, for sure if your playing elite amateur, and never mind "keeping up with the Joneses" type dealeo in order to perform at optimum you need to have the best equipment available. I dont know if they still do it but in my day (late 50's & 60's, early 70's) the elite amateur clubs & Junior teams would in most cases actually supply the skaters with then top of the line CCM Tacks or Bauer Supremes along with at minimum gloves & helmets. Junior, shin, elbow & shoulder pads as well though many players had their own that they liked & felt comfortable using so didnt bother with it. Goalies; skates, pads, gloves & everything else if you wanted it or needed it, sticks for both skaters & goalies either totally free or at a discount. Such goodies often used as incentives to get kids to sign. I remember one year the team I was with hilariously supplying me with "Les Binkley" Sher-Wood Goalie sticks, all seconds.... Yeah.... I aspire to be Les Binkley using defective Lester Binkley goalie sticks so wound up having to buy others.

Funny story about Gordie Howe.... from a poor background, recipient of the equipment incentives & other perks.... after his first year with Detroit Jolly Jack Adams at the beginning of his next season shoves a contract in front of him but Howe wont sign it.... Adams asks him "why, whats the problem"?.... Howe tells him "you promised me a Red Wings Team Jacket last year before I signed and I never got it"..... catch my drift here?.... Gordie was still thinkin like a really good amateur.... "do they supply equipment, skates & so on"?..... Adams of course rushed out of his office, had his secretary IMMEDIATELY go out & find a Red Wings Team Jacket. Gave it it to Gordie, happily signing.... for peanuts and a Team Jacket that mightve been worth retail back then about 20 bucks if that.

 

[Slats432]

Talk to me about sticks.

When I went out to get my little Novice player a stick they showed me some sticks that were costing $50--$70 bucks. I asked 'at this age, is there any difference between these and a good ole' wooden stick'? The staff said no, so we walked out of there with a $15 Sher-wood.

But then I looked and all the other kids had more expensive sticks.

You pointed out that the $300 stick is only useful when the player is strong enough to flex the stick. Is that true of a $50 stick?



This is why I'd love to find a hockey parent discussion board, but google has failed me so far...

I will talk to you all day about hockey because I love the game.

Flex on a hockey stick and quality of materials determine cost. If your kid is under 100 lbs spending $300 on a stick is ridiculous. I would go composite because they are lighter and easier for the kids to use. The rule is flex is half body weight.

Expensive hockey sticks flex and spring back faster and flex at different parts of the stick. So height and weight are all that matters. Make sure the length (To nose off skates and just under chin on skates.) is correct.

Most of the stick stigma is peer driven. I would go composite though. They won't break one for a couple years.