Commercialization ruining minor hockey

[x Tame Impala]

In the US, high school football is huge. Think Friday Night Lights. So yes, you have local communities and local school boards spending huge sums of money on high school kids sports. You have stadiums that cost millions to build, coaches that (googles) can make $150k per year or more. All of that comes from the taxpayer.

Then of course they move on to university football. Depending on the program of course some are massive moneymakers, but others also get huge public subsidies. And now we're talking stadiums in the tens of hundreds of millions of dollars, and coaches making multi-million dollar salaries.

So yes - it is a system where poor kids have a much better shot at being able to go on to become pros. It does avoid the problem we see in hockey where most players are white and come from privileged backgrounds. But it comes at enormous cost to the taxpayer - and is that really a good use of taxpayer funds? I don't think so.

Towns will spend that money because they know the townspeople want to come out, watch the games, and support their local team. It's the same with college. The NCAA is substantially more profit hungry I'll give you that but that taxpayer-provided infrastructure you're mentioning benefits more people than just the players/coaches/league organizers.

Privatizing these leagues wedges out all kids whose parents aren't making a lot of money. It's creating an environment where only rich youths can succeed. I think it's bad for the growth of the game

 

[Yukon Joe]

I have kids playing high school football right now. While it can be expensive if you go hardcore, it’s not remotely as expensive as hockey. Like not close at all.

More importantly, it’s damn near free for the kids who aren’t going the college route. I had to buy cleats and a couple of minor clothing items, and contribute to a fundraiser. They had the option to do some summer camps for about $100 apiece, which many kids simply did not attend because it’s not mandatory. All in, including the cost of medical checkups etc, I’d say we’ve spent less than $200 per kid per season. That’s comparable to signing up for Cub Scouts or something, and therefore massively more inclusive and accessible.

But I feel like this is what I've been saying about hockey for a long time now.

If you just want your kid to go out and play hockey and have fun the cost is incredibly reasonable. It's going to be more than $200 per season, but I think it works out to $100-$150 per month. That's the same as what we're paying for one other kid's martial arts (the one who doesn't play hockey). And if you're poor there are well-funded charities that help pay for those costs for you.

Where it gets expensive is if you DO want to go hardcore.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Towns will spend that money because they know the townspeople want to come out, watch the games, and support their local team. It's the same with college. The NCAA is substantially more profit hungry I'll give you that but that taxpayer-provided infrastructure you're mentioning benefits more people than just the players/coaches/league organizers.

Privatizing these leagues wedges out all kids whose parents aren't making a lot of money. It's creating an environment where only rich youths can succeed. I think it's bad for the growth of the game

But that's true of a lot of sports. Skiing is really expensive. Equestrian is like stupid expensive. Yes maybe it's bad for the growth of the game, but what's the answer then? Either you try to ban kids doing any private training (which I think would be unconstitutional), or you try to get the government involved in funding young athlete development.

 

[Malaka]

Towns will spend that money because they know the townspeople want to come out, watch the games, and support their local team. It's the same with college. The NCAA is substantially more profit hungry I'll give you that but that taxpayer-provided infrastructure you're mentioning benefits more people than just the players/coaches/league organizers.

Privatizing these leagues wedges out all kids whose parents aren't making a lot of money. It's creating an environment where only rich youths can succeed. I think it's bad for the growth of the game

Some quick thoughts.

First, fun fact, did you know in the 60’s and 70’s efforts were made in even minnesota from what I’ve been told to cut out highschool hockey in order to feed football programs better? I think there are misaligned incentives all throughout youth sports.

I absolutely despise parents as much as the next that treat their children like racehorses causing their love for the game to die from burnout or what have you, and posters suggested here how they didn’t like their children spending so much time on travel hockey instead, my question is though what are they or would they be doing instead which is more beneficial toward their happiness if they are motivated in the sport(offering community, identity, relatedness/autonomy/competence etc), or simply a exploratory vector for their own self expression or personal development as individuals? Sports are really an *epistemic inquiry if you want to be romantic about it. But anyways, the kids aren’t going to play organized pond hockey instead over AAA, they’ll be spending more downtime on their iPad or Xbox and find other ways to pass the time. My dad didn’t want to wake his ass up at 5 in the morning to get me on the ice, it all just sounds like an excuse at some level.

Next, cost of equipment is of course a problem as is access to training, but it misses the real issue, or maybe is a side effect of the real issue I see that needs to be solved. For starters, I once joined an organization of private skills coaches and they told me I needed to up my prices per hour to 135 from 50 an hour which I thought was ridiculous. I assumed my current clients or new students would lose business and I wouldn’t be able to help them anymore. The pain point that needs to be solved to respond to that is accessibility to technical skill development. If there are families though on the lower end of a cost function who can afford $50 a week, but not above that, then what needs to happen is systemically from governing bodies like hockey Canada or USA Hockey a standardization of training with more up to date certifications and methods to diagnose/prescribe and advance kids at lower levels during their sessions, which is honestly happening for some time now(and of course there will be substitutes or training products like hockey sense arena).

That supply increase from availability of options and supplements for training kids should bring down I believe the coaches who are charging higher for similar quality training.

With that my view in hockey the parents paying $135 aren’t the issue, it’s the cost of ice naturally, or further the firms like blackrock which come into communities where hockey is growing like Chicago in the 2010’s, buy up the ice rinks and jack up prices to 800+ an hour. Yeah, they really f***ing did that.

Imagine if every high school in America was able to afford a rink, and it was made accessible to students/community members like how high school football subsidized their field and training costs to taxpayers. Would we be seeing the same level of barriers and commercialization? And if you can bring down the cost so a whole new market of kids can skate, you should see manufacturers responding to the demand with more cost aware products. Equipment and training are both afterthoughts comparatively because you aren’t using zoom nevermind VR to get coaching to learn how to skate or practice/play on a team.

So really, it’s been a crisis to be solved and along the lines of nuclear fusion maybe it will always be 5 years away. But literally someone needs to bring in some sort of space age nanotechnology to manage ice or cut down rink costs so they become profitable.

Thanks for hearing my emaciated ramble, I’m sorry if it’s not well put together, I’m starving and need food

 

[x Tame Impala]

Some quick thoughts.

First, fun fact, did you know in the 60’s and 70’s efforts were made in even minnesota from what I’ve been told to cut out highschool hockey in order to feed football programs better? I think there are misaligned incentives all throughout youth sports.

I absolutely despise parents as much as the next that treat their children like racehorses causing their love for the game to die from burnout or what have you, and posters suggested here how they didn’t like their children spending so much time on travel hockey instead, my question is though what are they or would they be doing instead which is more beneficial toward their happiness if they are motivated in the sport(offering community, identity, relatedness/autonomy/competence etc), or simply a exploratory vector for their own self expression or personal development as individuals? Sports are really an existential inquiry if you want to be romantic about it. But anyways, the kids aren’t going to play organized pond hockey instead over AAA, they’ll be spending more downtime on their iPad or Xbox and find other ways to pass the time. My dad didn’t want to wake his ass up at 5 in the morning to get me on the ice, it all just sounds like an excuse at some level.

Next, cost of equipment is of course a problem as is access to training, but it misses the real issue, or maybe is a side effect of the real issue I see that needs to be solved. For starters, I once joined an organization of private skills coaches and they told me I needed to up my prices per hour to 135 from 50 an hour which I thought was ridiculous. I assumed my current clients or new students would lose business and I wouldn’t be able to help them anymore. The pain point that needs to be solved to respond to that is accessibility to technical skill development. If there are families though on the lower end of a cost function who can afford $50 a week, but not above that, then what needs to happen is systemically from governing bodies like hockey Canada or USA Hockey a standardization of training with more up to date certifications and methods to diagnose/prescribe and advance kids at lower levels during their sessions, which is honestly happening for some time now(and of course there will be substitutes or training products like hockey sense arena).

That supply increase from availability of options and supplements for training kids should bring down I believe the coaches who are charging higher for similar quality training.

With that my view in hockey the parents paying $135 aren’t the issue, it’s the cost of ice naturally, or further the firms like blackrock which come into communities where hockey is growing like Chicago in the 2010’s, buy up the ice rinks and jack up prices to 800+ an hour. Yeah, they really f***ing did that.

Imagine if every high school in America was able to afford a rink, and it was made accessible to students/community members like how high school football subsidized their field and training costs to taxpayers. Would we be seeing the same level of barriers and commercialization? And if you can bring down the cost so a whole new market of kids can skate, you should see manufacturers responding to the demand with more cost aware products. Equipment and training are both afterthoughts comparatively because you aren’t using zoom nevermind VR to get coaching to learn how to skate or practice/play on a team.

So really, it’s been a crisis to be solved and along the lines of nuclear fusion maybe it will always be 5 years away. But literally someone needs to bring in some sort of space age nanotechnology to manage ice or cut down rink costs so they become profitable.

Thanks for hearing my emaciated ramble, I’m sorry if it’s not well put together, I’m starving and need food

Great post dude thank you

 

[tarheelhockey]

But I feel like this is what I've been saying about hockey for a long time now.

If you just want your kid to go out and play hockey and have fun the cost is incredibly reasonable. It's going to be more than $200 per season, but I think it works out to $100-$150 per month. That's the same as what we're paying for one other kid's martial arts (the one who doesn't play hockey). And if you're poor there are well-funded charities that help pay for those costs for you.

Where it gets expensive is if you DO want to go hardcore.

Locally to me, 10U house league is $1150 for 18 games. That’s the cheap option for people who can afford the competitive track.

Then add the equipment, you’re talking easily $1500 just to get started at the lowest level.

Whereas there is no fee for 9 games of football, and with even fundraisers and cleats and physicals and everything it’s like $200 all-in. And that’s going to get you 4 practices a week, into the NCAA clearinghouse, scouts in the stands, on TV, etc.

It’s really not close. And it’s very clear by the makeup of rosters at the highest level which of these sports erects economic barriers to competition.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Locally to me, 10U house league is $1150 for 18 games. That’s the cheap option for people who can afford the competitive track.

Then add the equipment, you’re talking easily $1500 just to get started at the lowest level.

Whereas there is no fee for 9 games of football, and with even fundraisers and cleats and physicals and everything it’s like $200 all-in. And that’s going to get you 4 practices a week, into the NCAA clearinghouse, scouts in the stands, on TV, etc.

It’s really not close. And it’s very clear by the makeup of rosters at the highest level which of these sports erects economic barriers to competition.

OK, so for my local club, at U11, they offer three "streams". The basic stream, "Community", is $830 for the year (and that's Canadian $). You have the option to go into the "Development" stream for an extra $300, or "Competitive" for an extra $930 - basically you're just paying for an extra tournament and extra ice time throughout the year. But even the Competitive stream is $300 per month for the season.

And I really have to dispute the $1500 for gear. Used gear is absolutely a thing. When I geared myself up as an adult totally from scratch I don't think I payed more than about half of that price.

I totally get that football is cheaper. But it's not cheaper by magic. The school is paying to upkeep that nice football field (which probably could be sold for millions to develop condos, by the way). The school is paying for the coaches. The school is paying for the equipment.

So absolutely - if we paid to put an ice rink next to most high schools, if those schools had paid hockey coaches on staff, and made sure to equip all their players themselves, hockey would be way cheaper to play.

But would that really be an efficient use of taxpayer $$$?

And even then - a good friend of mine from University is now a high school head football coach in Canada. He's told me if my boys want to play football when they hit high school (oldest is just in junior high) I should be putting them in camps in order to get them ready. This is Canada, but I understand in the US there's younger levels of football (Pop Warner) that again parents have to pay for.

 

[tarheelhockey]

OK, so for my local club, at U11, they offer three "streams". The basic stream, "Community", is $830 for the year (and that's Canadian $). You have the option to go into the "Development" stream for an extra $300, or "Competitive" for an extra $930 - basically you're just paying for an extra tournament and extra ice time throughout the year. But even the Competitive stream is $300 per month for the season.

$830 for a full calendar year? That’s a much more reasonable price than I’ve seen anywhere I’ve lived, and more in line (pun intended) with the cost of roller hockey rather than ice hockey. Of course, Canada vs Sunbelt may be the predominant factor there.

And I really have to dispute the $1500 for gear. Used gear is absolutely a thing. When I geared myself up as an adult totally from scratch I don't think I payed more than about half of that price.

Call it $1300 if you go with nothing but the cheapest possible options… the point remains the same, it’s still over 6 times as expensive in baseline costs to play non-competitive hockey as to play highly-competitive football.

I totally get that football is cheaper. But it's not cheaper by magic. The school is paying to upkeep that nice football field (which probably could be sold for millions to develop condos, by the way). The school is paying for the coaches. The school is paying for the equipment.

So absolutely - if we paid to put an ice rink next to most high schools, if those schools had paid hockey coaches on staff, and made sure to equip all their players themselves, hockey would be way cheaper to play.

But would that really be an efficient use of taxpayer $$$?

Basically, yes. That’s what I’m saying. That used to be the model for hockey in Canada. For generations there were public rinks in every neighborhood. District leagues, school leagues and church leagues fed the development system. That’s what Boomers grew up with.

As late as the late 1970s, a single church-based minor team produced J.J. Daigneault, Marc Bergevin, and… Mario Lemieux.

One town, one team, three NHLers

What are the odds of three boys from the same minor hockey team making it to the National Hockey League? And what are the odds they’d all end up in NHL…

montrealgazette.com

Bunch of flunkie kids in a working class neighborhood, having their BS straightened out for them by a cop. Nobody was making money off that system, it was designed to do some good for the local kids, full stop. And it worked. It would still work today.

That was what Canada used to be, not very long ago. We’ve simply demanded too little of the governing bodies, nobody has been accountable for protecting the interests of the players and families. The whole thing has been sold, right from under us.

Is it an efficient use of community money? Hell yes it is. What’s a better use of community resources than getting kids off the TV, off the streets, and into a system where they learn to play hard and fair and be teammates and leaders?

This is one of the very few things the USA actually gets right about raising kids. Families should be able to put their kids through athletics even if they don’t have a dime to their name. No different than why you shouldn’t have to pay to send them to school, or church, or the library.

And even then - a good friend of mine from University is now a high school head football coach in Canada. He's told me if my boys want to play football when they hit high school (oldest is just in junior high) I should be putting them in camps in order to get them ready. This is Canada, but I understand in the US there's younger levels of football (Pop Warner) that again parents have to pay for.

I mean, I just put my middle kid into US high school football with no experience. My youngest just went into 8th grade football with no experience. Many of the kids they play against have no experience. The coaches’ job is to teach them the game, right? So that’s what they do.

Alternate experience: my oldest was intrigued by football so he went to a camp as a younger kid. It was a week of drills in the blazing summer sun. He absolutely hated it and never asked to play football again.

Again, this camp culture is just nonsensical. Yes it creates the shortest possible path to skill improvement (which is what a coach will recommend 10/10 times) but it alters the entire social dynamic. Now you’ve got teams where some kids go to camps and take all the starting roles, while others who can’t afford camps do all the same hard work in practice, just to sit and watch because of a skill deficit. What was accomplished here? Who did that serve? 90% of the kids in the camp still have no future in the game, and 90% of the ones who move to higher levels will be on a dead end track. The parents got taken for a questionable investment. A bunch of worthy talents can no longer compete.

The only ones who come out ahead are the programs themselves, which gradually become more and more commercialized as they position themselves as talent mills. The whole thing is a monetized parasite on the community’s investment.

 

[Squiffy]

It’s true, I think, and I’m too young to have seen it, that Canadian hockey used to follow the route of big 3 American sports right? You play on the local pond, or rink, make school teams, and then it never ever really flowed through to uni/college level sports here, but by then some NHL team had an eye on you.

Scott Young’s “Scrubs on Skates” series basically told that story, and it is legend Canadiana literature because it rang true, if you were good, and tried hard, then you too could make it like the stars on tv.

That scenario is gone for hockey. I don’t pretend to know an answer.

I’m dropping like 10k, just in club fees, this year on two kids playing relatively low level competitive hockey in Toronto. I can manage, but that is not possible for many, not even close. I am surrounded by families doing a hell of a lot better then me lol.. there is no one struggling to buy their next Starbucks around me.

 

[Yukon Joe]

$830 for a full calendar year? That’s a much more reasonable price than I’ve seen anywhere I’ve lived, and more in line (pun intended) with the cost of roller hockey rather than ice hockey. Of course, Canada vs Sunbelt may be the predominant factor there.

For all that I'm saying we shouldn't be spending government $$$ on sports - in Canada we kind of do. Almost all the rinks are owned by the municipality, and I'm pretty sure ice time is much cheaper as a result - in particular for kids sports.

Call it $1300 if you go with nothing but the cheapest possible options… the point remains the same, it’s still over 6 times as expensive in baseline costs to play non-competitive hockey as to play highly-competitive football.

I mean I just disagree. You can get used gear for a lot less than that. Heck for young kids (like age 5-6) you can buy a new set of full gear (sans helmet and skates) for $100-$120 down at the local Canadian Tire. Even with helmet and skates you're probably at $300 at that age. Now that's certainly in part because little kids aren't going fast and ultimately don't need the same kind of heavy duty protection teens or adults do. $1500 is if you're buying everything brand-spanking new - but why would you do that if you're just starting?

Basically, yes. That’s what I’m saying. That used to be the model for hockey in Canada. For generations there were public rinks in every neighborhood. District leagues, school leagues and church leagues fed the development system. That’s what Boomers grew up with.

As late as the late 1970s, a single church-based minor team produced J.J. Daigneault, Marc Bergevin, and… Mario Lemieux.

One town, one team, three NHLers

What are the odds of three boys from the same minor hockey team making it to the National Hockey League? And what are the odds they’d all end up in NHL…

montrealgazette.com

Bunch of flunkie kids in a working class neighborhood, having their BS straightened out for them by a cop. Nobody was making money off that system, it was designed to do some good for the local kids, full stop. And it worked. It would still work today.

That was what Canada used to be, not very long ago. We’ve simply demanded too little of the governing bodies, nobody has been accountable for protecting the interests of the players and families. The whole thing has been sold, right from under us.

Lots of thoughts here...

So I'm old (late 40s) but not this old. But I have talked with my dad, and an older cousin, about their experience playing hockey growing up. If you're talking about minor hockey in the 60s-70s, you're playing outside. Which is great - I still love going down to my local ODR to shoot the puck around, maybe play some shinny with whomever is out there. And of course ODRs are super cheap - all you need is water and some shovels.

But let's be real - the outdoor season is about 3-4 months long (December to March) - and that's in Edmonton. With climate change ODR's aren't even viable in places like southern Ontario anymore.

And starting in the 70s is when municipalities started building a bunch of community indoor rinks. Which cost more money. But now hockey can theoretically be a 12 months sport.

A kid who plays hockey for 6, 8 or 12 months per year is going to develop far faster than one who only plays 3 months on an ODR.

Like a lot of people, I kind of miss high-scoring 80s hockey. But that era is never going to come back again, for so many reasons. Let's pick just one - goalies. Back in the 80s goalies were playing a very stand-up style. It's just how the position was taught and understood. But going into the butterfly which maybe started in the 70s but really took off by the 90s, turned out to be much more effective. Which was great for the goalies, but maybe not as entertaining for fans. But there's no going back - once something is learned, you can't unlearn it. You can't force goalies to play stand-up just because you want to see more goals.

So yes you can pine for the "good ole days" when kids from the local parish team in Quebec could make it to the NHL, but you can't unlearn what we've learned. Kids who spend more time on the ice, more time training, will skate circles around a kid who plays 3 months a year on outdoor ice.

Is it an efficient use of community money? Hell yes it is. What’s a better use of community resources than getting kids off the TV, off the streets, and into a system where they learn to play hard and fair and be teammates and leaders?

This is one of the very few things the USA actually gets right about raising kids. Families should be able to put their kids through athletics even if they don’t have a dime to their name. No different than why you shouldn’t have to pay to send them to school, or church, or the library.

So here's the counter-argument. The kids playing sports aren't the ones who are "on the streets". They're solidly at least lower middle class and up. You still need parents willing to get their kid out of bed and drive them to the sporting activity on a consistent basis. Even without worrying about spending a single dollar, parents of kids in sports have to have their shit together at least somewhat. And those kids are probably going to turn out okay even without sports.

Sorry, I work in the criminal justice system. The kids we worry about are the ones whose parents can't manage that. We worry more about the kids whose parents are wasted every night on whatever substance, who can't hold down a job. Or the kids living in foster care or group homes.

So again - I don't think a massive investment in sports is really the best use of taxpayer $$$.

I mean, I just put my middle kid into US high school football with no experience. My youngest just went into 8th grade football with no experience. Many of the kids they play against have no experience. The coaches’ job is to teach them the game, right? So that’s what they do.

Alternate experience: my oldest was intrigued by football so he went to a camp as a younger kid. It was a week of drills in the blazing summer sun. He absolutely hated it and never asked to play football again.

Again, this camp culture is just nonsensical. Yes it creates the shortest possible path to skill improvement (which is what a coach will recommend 10/10 times) but it alters the entire social dynamic. Now you’ve got teams where some kids go to camps and take all the starting roles, while others who can’t afford camps do all the same hard work in practice, just to sit and watch because of a skill deficit. What was accomplished here? Who did that serve? 90% of the kids in the camp still have no future in the game, and 90% of the ones who move to higher levels will be on a dead end track. The parents got taken for a questionable investment. A bunch of worthy talents can no longer compete.

The only ones who come out ahead are the programs themselves, which gradually become more and more commercialized as they position themselves as talent mills. The whole thing is a monetized parasite on the community’s investment.

So yeah. I think I mentioned this story before. My kid was all excited to try basketball. He likes to shoot hoops in the driveway, but had never played an organized game. He tried out for his junior high team and made it! But then he mostly sat on the bench all year because some of the kids had played a lot of basketball and were obviously more skilled. This year he's shown no interest in playing basketball.

But what's the alternative? You can't ban people from sending their kids to camps. You can't unlearn the fact that you'll learn faster by going to camps and practicing skill development.

My kid, instead of playing basketball, has doubled down on hockey, now going to a school with a dedicated hockey program. Because he likes it. And I'm sure part of the reason he likes it is because he's very good at it. And part of the reason he's very good at it is because he's done a lot of extra training.



As for these 'parasitic commercialized programs'... So maybe 5-6 years ago we rented a sheet of ice before tryouts and had 4-5 families out to warm up. We've now done it every year. This year we had 20 families come out. If I wanted to I could start advertising, take it a little more seriously, try and make some money from it. I have no interest in doing that, but I feel like a lot of hockey programs started out in a similar way - they start something up for their own kid, expand it to include others, find out there's a demand, and keep expanding.

The people I know who run camps aren't only doing it out of a cold, calculating desire to make money. They're doing it to give back to hockey, and maybe also make some money. Now look I think some provide much better value than others (there's only local power skating outfit that's huge, but has never gotten a dime of my money based on the feedback I've heard from others).


So in conclusion - there's lots of things I prefer about the past. Just to pick a hyper-niche example - I'm a lawyer. When I went to law school if you wanted to look up old cases as part of legal research, you had to go down to the law library and physically go through lawbooks and actually read cases. But now you can just type some search terms into a law directory and have dozens of cases spat out at you. It makes law much more accessible, but in reality it means nobody is actually reading the entire cases anymore! It's making lawyers much more sloppy. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

You can't wave a wand and make hockey camps, and year-round training, and all the other things that go along with modern day hockey go away.

 

[Pablo Messier]

It's a lot easier for the haves to say where's the harm in paying to have more. But for the have nots, it may come down to not participating. $1000 is a lot of some people.

Every sport is the same way with the commercialization, some just started earlier than others.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I'm in my early 30's, was talking to a guy at work today who is 25ish and played college baseball in Ohio. I was telling him about this thread to hear his opinion on it and before I even finished he said "Baseball was exactly like that".

All the best kids did in fact play in those travel leagues. $1500+ to enter + travel cost$ + equipment. He said all those kids go to private lessons all the time too. So I stand corrected, more time than I thought had passed since i was last playing. My guy definitely made it seem like if you weren't paying for private leagues and private lessons you weren't getting considered or at the least it didn't boost your chances

 

[Pez68]

Thinking $1500-2000 for a season of hockey is "affordable" just goes to show how privileged a sport it really is... The season is six months long. So you're talking about someone's car payment over that timeframe to play a sport. Once kids get out of junior sized equipment, it gets significantly more expensive.

The sport is not accessible to most of society.

 

[4thline]

I think it's stealing the soul and individuality from the game. I remember in junior camps as late as 2010 there would be a wide range of strides/skating styles, postures, handling styles. Players would get by and make it as far as they could as they player they started out as, and the truly excellent would make it- even if they had lead feet, or were a rocketship that turned like a battleship, or were bent "too low" when handling the puck. Now all traces of individuality are stamped out by age 12, players are molded into perfect little replicas with optimized strides and techniques, and you're not getting past the drill sessions into tryout scrimmages if you don't fit the mold.

 

[jetsmooseice]

Call it $1300 if you go with nothing but the cheapest possible options… the point remains the same, it’s still over 6 times as expensive in baseline costs to play non-competitive hockey as to play highly-competitive football.

Not to get too in the weeds but this comment got me wondering about the costs to outfit my kid, who is 10 and plays A1 hockey, which is the top standard minor hockey level around here. I've never actually tallied it up before.

-CCM shoulder/elbow/shin pads, part of a set from a box at Walmart on clearance, $39
-helmet/cage - $99
-gloves - $66
-stick - $99
-skates - can't remember exactly but as best as I can tell they were on sale for $149
-jock - $20
-neck guard - $10
-base layers - a few from Walmart at $10 a pop
-water bottle - $10
-rollie hockey bag - can't remember exactly, most likely $99

Add sales taxes and it clocks in at about $600 Canadian. And this is new stuff, not used. I'm confident I could drive that cost down significantly by spending some time in the used sporting goods stores, on Facebook marketplace, etc.

Obviously kids grow at different rates but all of the gear gets used for more than one season, it's not like I have to run out and start from scratch every year. And I realize that pretty soon I'll be faced with the jump from youth equipment (which is cheap) to junior (which is not). The FT2 skates jump from $149 to like $500. But for now the costs are fairly modest considering each piece of gear typically has a lifespan of 2-4 seasons.

What are people buying to run the bill up to $1500?

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think it's stealing the soul and individuality from the game. I remember in junior camps as late as 2010 there would be a wide range of strides/skating styles, postures, handling styles. Players would get by and make it as far as they could as they player they started out as, and the truly excellent would make it- even if they had lead feet, or were a rocketship that turned like a battleship, or were bent "too low" when handling the puck. Now all traces of individuality are stamped out by age 12, players are molded into perfect little replicas with optimized strides and techniques, and you're not getting past the drill sessions into tryout scrimmages if you don't fit the mold.

OK so I'm not a huge UFC guy, but as I understand it when UFC first started the idea was to pit fighters of different martial arts styles against each other. So you'd see a boxer go up against a judo practitioner, or a karate up against jiu jitsu.

I imagine that must have been highly entertaining to watch just for how mis-matched it was. But very early on UFC fighters started taking moves and ideas from each other until quite quickly a whole new discipline was born - MMA, mixed martial arts. Now if you watch UFC they're all using the same basic moves.

The reason they do that is because it's what wins.

If you have kids with a whole bunch of skating styles, some of those styles are just much better than others. So why wouldn't you try and improve your kids skating style so they can skate better (assuming the kid wants to, that is).

 

[4thline]

If you have kids with a whole bunch of skating styles, some of those styles are just much better than others. So why wouldn't you try and improve your kids skating style so they can skate better (assuming the kid wants to, that is).

Of course.

But at anything resembling competitive levels that needle has moved from "why wouldn't you try to improve" to "having near perfect technique is table stakes."

The game is becoming very homogenous and bland, and its reaching younger and younger.

 

[Malaka]

Of course.

But at anything resembling competitive levels that needle has moved from "why wouldn't you try to improve" to "having near perfect technique is table stakes."

This is such hyperbole. Kids are drafted in the first round every year where a majority of them are average or below average skaters. The best skaters generally always seem to be pond hockey kids also. Optimization of stride =/= homogenous expression in skating either respectfully that’s ludicrous we see different skating patterns all around the NHL. I think it’s more complicated issue and at the same time simpler than this. But ultimately it’s an ice accessibility issue. Always has been always will be.

I know the thread is about commercialization in hockey and it brings out all sorts of feelings and personal resentment(myself included) for not having access to training & skating coaches like the rich kids had, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent giving that to their child and supporting them to be successful in hockey. Imagine if PGA players or their junior equivalent were looked down on because they had a golf pro give them lessons at 12.

P.s. and not to mention we’re talking about teaching children to use their biomechanics correctly during puberty. You know what? My ass hurts from my labrum being absolutely shredded.

 

[Yukon Joe]

This is such hyperbole. Kids are drafted in the first round every year where a majority of them are average or below average skaters.

The two of you are talking about very different levels of hockey. @ChiefGonzo the "below average skaters" getting drafted in the NHL are below average for the NHL level. They are still in comparison to any normal person phenomenal skaters.

I think what @4thline is talking about more is when you have 200 kids trying out for U13AA and you need to whittle it down to a top 50 or so it can be pretty easy to cut a kid with bad skating technique right off the top without looking at any other aspects of their play.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Not to get too in the weeds but this comment got me wondering about the costs to outfit my kid, who is 10 and plays A1 hockey, which is the top standard minor hockey level around here. I've never actually tallied it up before.

-CCM shoulder/elbow/shin pads, part of a set from a box at Walmart on clearance, $39
-helmet/cage - $99
-gloves - $66
-stick - $99
-skates - can't remember exactly but as best as I can tell they were on sale for $149
-jock - $20
-neck guard - $10
-base layers - a few from Walmart at $10 a pop
-water bottle - $10
-rollie hockey bag - can't remember exactly, most likely $99

Add sales taxes and it clocks in at about $600 Canadian. And this is new stuff, not used. I'm confident I could drive that cost down significantly by spending some time in the used sporting goods stores, on Facebook marketplace, etc.

Obviously kids grow at different rates but all of the gear gets used for more than one season, it's not like I have to run out and start from scratch every year. And I realize that pretty soon I'll be faced with the jump from youth equipment (which is cheap) to junior (which is not). The FT2 skates jump from $149 to like $500. But for now the costs are fairly modest considering each piece of gear typically has a lifespan of 2-4 seasons.

What are people buying to run the bill up to $1500?

I remember some years back my goalie kid wanted to play some pickup hockey with friends as a skater, and we were able to get a WHOLE KIT, top to bottom, skates included, for about $300 at PlayItAgain. That's all inclusive, senior sizes. We would joke that it was about the same cost as the bottom 6 inches of one of his goalie pads.

People are definitely paying waaaaaay more than they have to for gear. Buying $500+ skates and $300 sticks for U9-11 players, all kinds of crazy stuff. I don't know how you really stop it, though. The business has reached the point where there are enough people rich enough to be oblivious to those costs, even for low levels and young ages where they have absolutely no NEED to pay those prices.

The other nefarious extra cost is the "team fees" and swag and out-of-town tournaments. Again, even for young house league teams. So even if you could do registration and gear "on the cheap" for a combined $1000, you're probably still going to end up on the hook for another $1000 for gas, a few hotel nights, and whatever else the social committee decides will make for a more fun season (practice jerseys, waterbottles, track suits, parties, bringing in a power skating coach, etc)... and again, that all happens for teams even at the rec/house level.

 

[Yukon Joe]

The other nefarious extra cost is the "team fees" and swag and out-of-town tournaments. Again, even for young house league teams. So even if you could do registration and gear "on the cheap" for a combined $1000, you're probably still going to end up on the hook for another $1000 for gas, a few hotel nights, and whatever else the social committee decides will make for a more fun season (practice jerseys, waterbottles, track suits, parties, bringing in a power skating coach, etc)... and again, that all happens for teams even at the rec/house level.

This can definitely be a point of contention on some teams. So for us the official registration fees would be, say, $800 for the year. But they once the team forms up we'd get a message that "oh we're going to have a $500 per kid cash call". The money is to go for extra ice time, team swag, tournament fees, year end party, you name it.

I know our own club has taken steps to clamp down on this, through a combination or including certain things into the existing fees (everyone gets a practice jersey for example), but otherwise limiting cash calls to $100 per player - but even then I think some teams turn a blind eye to that limit.

I have to say though that an out-of-town tournament is almost always the highlight of a hockey season, even if you're just a Tier 4 (or whatever) house team. There's absolutely no hockey reason you need to travel to find opponents, but the kids have a ton of fun. The thing to remember there is you don't need to go anywhere expensive or fancy for that experience (you're just going to be at the rink all the time anyways). So the last two years I've been to St. Paul and Lac La Biche for tournaments, towns on nobody's bucket lists to visit, but they were close and cheap and the kids loved it.

 

[4thline]

I know the thread is about commercialization in hockey and it brings out all sorts of feelings and personal resentment(myself included) for not having access to training & skating coaches like the rich kids had, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent giving that to their child and supporting them to be successful in hockey. Imagine if PGA players or their junior equivalent were looked down on because they had a golf pro give them lessons at 12.

P.s. and not to mention we’re talking about teaching children to use their biomechanics correctly during puberty. You know what? My ass hurts from my labrum being absolutely shredded.

But we're/ I'm not talking about resenting parents, taking issue with lessons at 12, or keeping pubescent teens safe.

I'm lamenting the overall state of the sport where if parents don't make the decision at 7-8-9 to start into that level of skill development to try and make sure that their kid is more technically proficient at 12 than the average OHLer was in the early 00's- that said kid is likely frozen out of competitive hockey by 12, and will be in tough to play jrB regardless of how gifted they are.

The race to infancy for training has been great for raising the quality of the player, but it's killing the game.

 

[Slats432]

But we're/ I'm not talking about resenting parents, taking issue with lessons at 12, or keeping pubescent teens safe.

I'm lamenting the overall state of the sport where if parents don't make the decision at 7-8-9 to start into that level of skill development to try and make sure that their kid is more technically proficient at 12 than the average OHLer was in the early 00's- that said kid is likely frozen out of competitive hockey by 12, and will be in tough to play jrB regardless of how gifted they are.

The race to infancy for training has been great for raising the quality of the player, but it's killing the game.

This is fairly accurate. If parents don't plan for elite stream early, their child will have a disadvantage.

 

[Malaka]

But we're/ I'm not talking about resenting parents, taking issue with lessons at 12, or keeping pubescent teens safe.

I'm lamenting the overall state of the sport where if parents don't make the decision at 7-8-9 to start into that level of skill development to try and make sure that their kid is more technically proficient at 12 than the average OHLer was in the early 00's- that said kid is likely frozen out of competitive hockey by 12, and will be in tough to play jrB regardless of how gifted they are.

The race to infancy for training has been great for raising the quality of the player, but it's killing the game.

I disagree. It's raising the quality of the players and the way the game is expressed with higher skill. I know I suck at communicating but my added point there is that it isn't solely a training commitment that the parents have to make but the kids themselves needing to have access to ice, the best skaters and most creative players in general are always pond hockey players. It adds a different dimension also of motivation and love for the sport you just don't have in a studio arena at 6AM with a $150 an hour coach.

You see this dynamic play out in cultures like russia which lack means of similar one on one training here, but yet standardization there is leaned to individual skill development as a remnant of the red army and communist development ideals. Many of those high end NHLers be it kaprizov, kucherov, panarin, grew up on outdoor ice sheets with 20+ kids to a zone and hammy down skates that are 3 sizes off. Then again the culture itself demanded these russians be individuals as a part of the system rather than a cog in the machine like we teach blue collar hockey here in the states & canada. What you're speaking on though in kids becoming robots is us attempting a standardization process for skill development that we haven't sorted out or perfected yet; I am firm that this is a good thing if we want to advance hockey(and make the other less wealthy kids have access to it one day).

If you lament it really, then go be the change you want to see in the system and teach underprivileged kids how to skate, or work with hockey canada as I mentioned to standardize it systemically... However there are other factors in why teaching kids how to skate is ideal before they hit puberty rather than trying to elevate them to a junior quality player. For your kids, there is a timeline biologically for you to have them make a jump -- not sport specialization exactly, but whatever.

 

[jetsmooseice]

This can definitely be a point of contention on some teams. So for us the official registration fees would be, say, $800 for the year. But they once the team forms up we'd get a message that "oh we're going to have a $500 per kid cash call". The money is to go for extra ice time, team swag, tournament fees, year end party, you name it.

I know our own club has taken steps to clamp down on this, through a combination or including certain things into the existing fees (everyone gets a practice jersey for example), but otherwise limiting cash calls to $100 per player - but even then I think some teams turn a blind eye to that limit.

I have to say though that an out-of-town tournament is almost always the highlight of a hockey season, even if you're just a Tier 4 (or whatever) house team. There's absolutely no hockey reason you need to travel to find opponents, but the kids have a ton of fun. The thing to remember there is you don't need to go anywhere expensive or fancy for that experience (you're just going to be at the rink all the time anyways). So the last two years I've been to St. Paul and Lac La Biche for tournaments, towns on nobody's bucket lists to visit, but they were close and cheap and the kids loved it.

The only place I've encountered the fees for team swag and practice jerseys is in for-profit spring hockey programs. It's always optional in minor hockey.

TBH I would not be thrilled if someone told me I had to buy a practice jersey. What hockey playing kid doesn't have a pile of practice jerseys and old game jerseys they can use for practice by the time they're 10?

I do agree with your point about tournaments. They are definitely highlights regardless of where they are. Regular minor hockey programs try to keep the costs cheap but for-profit programs like the dreaded pay to play where they're hauling you off to Chicago or Denver or wherever and charging you inflated hotel prices. That stinks in my view.

This is fairly accurate. If parents don't plan for elite stream early, their child will have a disadvantage.

I don't know how you deal with this. There will always be kids entering sports at young ages because fundamentally, sports like hockey are kids' games. This is compounded by the fact that hockey involves a lot of skills that take time to learn and frankly, are easier to learn at young ages... much easier to learn to skate at 5 than at 16 when you're over 5 feet, 150 lbs and falling on your can really hurts.

How many kids are entering hockey in their teenage years? Very, very few would have to be my guess.