Hockey of the past vs today

[DannyGallivan]

They keep citing ice time increasing in price - which means they are either tearing down facilities faster than they are building them (unlikely) or the demand for ice time is increasing (which likely means the number of players is increasing).

I know that in Winnipeg, we have a ton of rinks but most of them were built 40-50 years ago. In small towns, it's worse.

I think that costs can be "reasonable" for recreational hockey players. However, as soon as your kid goes the elite route, that's where costs that didn't necessarily exist a couple of generations ago start to kick in. Off season training, extra tournaments (with travel), elite teams (where you're also forced into paying for "perks" like unlimited hockey sticks, etc).

My kid is six. Last year, his first year of hockey, it cost about $1,000.00 for equipment and registration for him. At five. $450 for the initial registration. About $250 for tournaments halway through the season, and about 200-300 bucks for equipment.

On an unrelated note, we're also the victims of the times. In the '50's, the kids had two options in the winter time - play hockey or read. Now, they have 200 channels to surf, facebook, instagram, etc., computer games, etc.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The fact that more players are spending the money to travel does not take away from the players that may be unable to.

You also seem to be making an argument that the population has gotten poorer, less capable, and less privileged over the past 50-60 years. That is the exact opposite of what has happened.

Absolutely it does. The wealthy few that are able to afford top-of-the-line hockey schools, prep academies, private skills development coaches, year round ice time, etc. have an enormous advantage over those who cannot.

The population has not gotten poorer, but the costs associated with elite level minor hockey have skyrocketed.

@Canadiens1958 posted a thread yesterday with a video from 1947 discussing hockey in Montreal. One of the points mentioned is the church-sponsored hockey teams/leagues that all the children in town had access to. Everyone who could afford a pair of skates could play in a structured league against all the other boys in their age group, and get noticed. If you had the talent to be Maurice Richard or Doug Harvey, you had a viable path to demonstrate your ability.

A similarly talented player today better hope his parents are blessed with deep pockets. Being on the ice every single day in a structured environment will naturally allow for less talented players to rise up through the ranks and overtake more talented players who can only afford to play in leagues with two or three hours per week of ice time, or not at all.

To draw back to my own experience growing up, I went through elementary school with roughly the same group of 15-20 boys my age. As best as I can recall, only five or six played organized hockey. I was able to play starting at age 11 when my parents could afford it, I recall another kid started the same time as I did. So at the very most, half of us played, most years fewer. And I grew up in the suburbs where most people were very well off financially. Participation numbers were surely lower than this in Edmonton itself where there would have been a much higher percentage of families with insufficient income to enroll their kids in organized hockey.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Why would that be any different in 2010 or 1960?

Just one man's story, others can chime in, but my dad (early 70s) and grandfather (40s, early 50s) both played growing up. Games and practices were generally held in local arenas (sometimes outdoors in the case of my dad, almost invariable outdoors in the case of my grandpa). 6am practices, year-round hockey leagues, private full-time hockey schools, and regularly scheduled games hours out of town did not yet exist, at least not commonly.

As I mentioned, participation was high enough in number that every neighbourhood had their own team. And their own rink, since playing games outdoors was still common practice up into the 1970s. Want to play organized hockey on a structured team? Grab your stick and skates and walk up to the rink. This environment no longer exists, and has not for decades.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Absolutely it does. The wealthy few that are able to afford top-of-the-line hockey schools, prep academies, private skills development coaches, year round ice time, etc. have an enormous advantage over those who cannot.

Then these same wealthy players also have a huge advantage over the players of the past - thus making today's talent pool more difficult to compete against, especially for the kids coming from other countries like Russia, Czechoslovakia etc. Shockingly enough, despite all these elite advantages, the foreign kids are outnumbering the Canadian kids.

In other words, if the common kids today can't compete, what makes anyone so sure the common kids from 1960 could?

The population has not gotten poorer, but the costs associated with elite level minor hockey have skyrocketed.

@Canadiens1958 posted a thread yesterday with a video from 1947 discussing hockey in Montreal. One of the points mentioned is the church-sponsored hockey teams/leagues that all the children in town had access to. Everyone who could afford a pair of skates could play in a structured league against all the other boys in their age group, and get noticed. If you had the talent to be Maurice Richard or Doug Harvey, you had a viable path to demonstrate your ability.

A similarly talented player today better hope his parents are blessed with deep pockets.

Those sorts of programs and scholarships exist today as well.

Danny Gallivan just posted one about PK Subban's Dad sponsoring 1900 kids.

In order to make your point you must demonstrate that in terms of raw numbers, there are far fewer subsidies today than there were before. I say "far" because, as you have acknowledged, the population of the middle and upper classes have grown dramatically in terms of raw numbers and the decrease in subsidies would have to completely offset it in order for this meme to be accurate.

The bar is simply too high. This notion that Canada is screwing over its residents so much that it more than wipes out a 130% population increase plus all the other hockey playing populations is ludicrous.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Then these same wealthy players also have a huge advantage over the players of the past - thus making today's talent pool more difficult to compete against, especially for the kids coming from other countries like Russia, Czechoslovakia etc. Shockingly enough, despite all these elite advantages, the foreign kids are outnumbering the Canadian kids.

In other words, if the common kids today can't compete, what makes anyone so sure the common kids from 1960 could?



Those sorts of programs and scholarships exist today as well.

Danny Gallivan just posted one about PK Subban's Dad sponsoring 1900 kids.

In order to make your point you must demonstrate that in terms of raw numbers, there are far fewer subsidies today than there were before. I say "far" because, as you have acknowledged, the population of the middle and upper classes have grown dramatically in terms of raw numbers and the decrease in subsidies would have to completely offset it in order for this meme to be accurate.

The bar is simply too high. This notion that Canada is screwing over its residents so much that it more than wipes out a 130% population increase plus all the other hockey playing populations is ludicrous.

The contention from the "ever expanding talent pool" contingent has always been Higher population = Larger talent pool, and Larger talent pool = Higher quality players.

Of course, when it can be plainly demonstrated that a significant portion of that population does not have the financial resources to develop a child into a professional hockey player, the argument falls apart very quickly.

Bolded: Most everyone was a "common kid" in 1960. Unless you were unfortunately too poor to even afford skates and a stick, you had a chance. This is no longer the case.

Gordie Howe was a common kid. Bobby Orr was a common kid. Wayne Gretzky was a common kid. Socio-economic circumstances of their eras allowed them to reach the pinnacle of the sport. Who knows if they would make it today though. Would Walter Gretzky find the means to shell out tens of thousands of dollars per year to develop Wayne like Connor McDavid's dad did? Rather doubtful. Who knows how many Gretzky/Orr/Howe level players have been left behind over the last 30 years due to economic constraints that didn't exist previously. The playing field is no longer level. Wealth is now a requirement to playing elite level minor hockey in Canada. This has cut out a huge chunk of the population. And since the argument has always been higher population = bigger talent pool, the crew that has been beating this drum now needs to explain how the talent pool has still somehow gotten bigger despite the sport becoming unaffordable for much of the population.

 

[VanIslander]

A lot of top athletic boys these days simply cannot afford the equipment, and catalogue-taped shin pads and horse pie pucks aren't acceptable these days, and with urbanization, pond hockey isn't a fee-free option for the vast majority of kids. Instead, their parents hook them up technologically with a one-time xmas gift and gifted youngsters can become gamers for years and years and never play THE GAME.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The contention from the "ever expanding talent pool" contingent has always been Higher population = Larger talent pool, and Larger talent pool = Higher quality players.

Let me just disagree then.

The ever expanding talent pool is not synonymous with population.

For example, the jousting talent pool has gone way down over the past 500 years - I am rather certain of this.

The hockey playing population is what matters, not the general population.

I also disagree that the larger talent pool necessarily results in higher quality players. I think it is more likely to than not, but not certain. The more likely outcome is that there is a larger quantity of high quality players, and this larger quantity inevitably makes it more difficult to stand out.

Of course, when it can be plainly demonstrated that a significant portion of that population does not have the financial resources to develop a child into a professional hockey player, the argument falls apart very quickly.

Not only would you have to demonstrate this, you would also have to demonstrate that this was NOT the case in the past (which is false), and THEN you have to demonstrate that the difference more than overcomes the effects of population growth PLUS the hockey playing populations of Russia, Sweden, Austria, etc.

^^^This is a mathematical impossibility.

For example, if 25% of today's 36M Canada cannot afford hockey whereas only 10% of 16M Canada could not afford hockey in 1960, you would still have 27,000,000 Canadians who could afford hockey now vs 14,400,000 who could afford hockey back then.

Even if we assume only 5% of Canadians could not afford hockey in 1960 (which is generous), and 50% of Canadians could not afford hockey today (which is absolute nonsense), the population of Canadians who could afford hockey would still be 18,000,000 today vs 15,200,000 back then.

And that doesn't even factor in all the other countries that are now contributing to the NHL.

Simply stated, you guys are spewing a load of utter nonsense. I don't see how a rational person could possibly buy into the theory that the NHL talent pool was just as large in 1960 as it is today.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Then these same wealthy players also have a huge advantage over the players of the past - thus making today's talent pool more difficult to compete against, especially for the kids coming from other countries like Russia, Czechoslovakia etc. Shockingly enough, despite all these elite advantages, the foreign kids are outnumbering the Canadian kids.

In other words, if the common kids today can't compete, what makes anyone so sure the common kids from 1960 could?



Those sorts of programs and scholarships exist today as well.

Danny Gallivan just posted one about PK Subban's Dad sponsoring 1900 kids.

In order to make your point you must demonstrate that in terms of raw numbers, there are far fewer subsidies today than there were before. I say "far" because, as you have acknowledged, the population of the middle and upper classes have grown dramatically in terms of raw numbers and the decrease in subsidies would have to completely offset it in order for this meme to be accurate.

The bar is simply too high. This notion that Canada is screwing over its residents so much that it more than wipes out a 130% population increase plus all the other hockey playing populations is ludicrous.

This post and others by MJ are so wrong. Horrifically inaccurate showing a complete lack of knowledge about the history of minor hockey in Canada past and present.

1946-47 numbers are provided in the video shot by an American production company.No horse in the race.

2011-2018 Hockey Canada numbers linked:

Registration

Registered ice hockey players in Canada 2010-2018 | Statistic

Rinks

Countries ranked by number of ice hockey rinks 2017/18 | Statistic

Re the bolded, working class kids in the 1960s competed very well.

Decade that produced Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Ray Bourque, Patrick Roy and other outstanding Canadian hockey players. Without subsidies of any kind. None happens to be less than far fewer.

1946-47 the City of Montreal had 25,000 youngsters playing youth hockey. Boys only. Today the number is app 7,000 including girls.

Variety of reasons.

Hockey for youngsters initially was a daylight activity. Adults would take over the rinks after supper. Teacher or community worker supervised. Today, none of the schools have outdoor rinks, usually two per school years ago. So youngsters go home instead of participating in after school activities.

Proper equipment is required. Until the 1970s improvised equipment was tolerated, for younger players, shin pads were optional.

1952-53 television happened. Cheap and efficient child care.

This just covers the basic intro levels.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This post and others by MJ are so wrong. Horrifically inaccurate showing a complete lack of knowledge about the history of minor hockey in Canada past and present.

1946-47 numbers are provided in the video shot by an American production company.No horse in the race.

2011-2018 Hockey Canada numbers linked:

Registration

Registered ice hockey players in Canada 2010-2018 | Statistic

Rinks

Countries ranked by number of ice hockey rinks 2017/18 | Statistic

Re the bolded, working class kids in the 1960s competed very well.

Decade that produced Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Ray Bourque, Patrick Roy and other outstanding Canadian hockey players. Without subsidies of any kind. None happens to be less than far fewer.

1946-47 the City of Montreal had 25,000 youngsters playing youth hockey. Boys only. Today the number is app 7,000 including girls.

Variety of reasons.

Hockey for youngsters initially was a daylight activity. Adults would take over the rinks after supper. Teacher or community worker supervised. Today, none of the schools have outdoor rinks, usually two per school years ago. So youngsters go home instead of participating in after school activities.

Proper equipment is required. Until the 1970s improvised equipment was tolerated, for younger players, shin pads were optional.

1952-53 television happened. Cheap and efficient child care.

This just covers the basic intro levels.

None of that comes remotely close to proving your point.

The closest you came was with Montreal data, but you conveniently didn't link anything, and there is no way to vet that data. For all I know you could be comparing unregistered pick up game players to officially sanctioned leagues. Clearly that is not an apples to apples comparison.

But nobody could tell, because you provided nothing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

None of that comes remotely close to proving your point.

The closest you came was with Montreal data, but you conveniently didn't link anything, and there is no way to vet that data. For all I know you could be comparing unregistered pick up game players to officially sanctioned leagues. Clearly that is not an apples to apples comparison.

But nobody could tell, because you provided nothing.

Sufficient links were provided.

Hockey Quebec only goes back to 1976.

You are the one using hypotheticals and unsupported claims.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Sufficient links were provided.

I don't think so.

You would have to provide links for data on rinks and youth registrations (apples to apples), also have survey data on casual hockey games - going back 70 years for all three. Or some equivalent comprehensive data.

You provided data going back 8 years on registered players (increasing from 2010 to 2018 BTW). I had already seen that, and it informed my previous posts.

You provided the data for rinks for selected countries for 1 year. I've seen that before, and it informed my previous posts.

Everything your opinion depends on is unsourced in your post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Let me just disagree then.

The ever expanding talent pool is not synonymous with population.

For example, the jousting talent pool has gone way down over the past 500 years - I am rather certain of this.

The hockey playing population is what matters, not the general population.

I also disagree that the larger talent pool necessarily results in higher quality players. I think it is more likely to than not, but not certain. The more likely outcome is that there is a larger quantity of high quality players, and this larger quantity inevitably makes it more difficult to stand out.



Not only would you have to demonstrate this, you would also have to demonstrate that this was NOT the case in the past (which is false), and THEN you have to demonstrate that the difference more than overcomes the effects of population growth PLUS the hockey playing populations of Russia, Sweden, Austria, etc.

^^^This is a mathematical impossibility.

For example, if 25% of today's 36M Canada cannot afford hockey whereas only 10% of 16M Canada could not afford hockey in 1960, you would still have 27,000,000 Canadians who could afford hockey now vs 14,400,000 who could afford hockey back then.

Even if we assume only 5% of Canadians could not afford hockey in 1960 (which is generous), and 50% of Canadians could not afford hockey today (which is absolute nonsense), the population of Canadians who could afford hockey would still be 18,000,000 today vs 15,200,000 back then.

And that doesn't even factor in all the other countries that are now contributing to the NHL.

Simply stated, you guys are spewing a load of utter nonsense. I don't see how a rational person could possibly buy into the theory that the NHL talent pool was just as large in 1960 as it is today.

You are definitely the one spewing nonsense. Canadian population.

2017 by age group.

Canada - population, by age 2017 | Statistic

1951 by age group

https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/1951/

5-19 year old male demographic which is the core NHL feeder group. Today app 3 million, 1951, app. 1.85 million.

Far cry from your assertion here.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

 

[Midnight Judges]

You are definitely the one spewing nonsense. Canadian population.

2017 by age group.

Canada - population, by age 2017 | Statistic

1951 by age group

https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/1951/

5-19 year old male demographic which is the core NHL feeder group. Today app 3 million, 1951, app. 1.85 million.

Far cry from your assertion here.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

Your post does nothing to disprove what you bolded in my post about the affordability of hockey.

Your point about population growth primarily being reflected in older people of non-hockey age - that's fair. 3 million in 2017 vs 1.85 million when Jean Beliveau was coming up.

It's still a huge difference before even accounting for non-Canadian players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your post does nothing to disprove what you bolded in my post about the affordability of hockey.

Your point about population growth primarily being reflected in older people of non-hockey age - that's fair. 3 million in 2017 vs 1.85 million when Jean Beliveau was coming up.

It's still a huge difference before even accounting for non-Canadian players.

Mid 1950s ad

from a sporting goods / hardware store in a working class neighbourhood illustrating the cost of skates.

So you concede the population point 2017 vs 1951.

Now the key question, the ethnic composition of the 2017 Canadian population:

Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada

About 20% are future not present hockey participants.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Mid 1950s adView attachment 166887 from a sporting goods / hardware store in a working class neighbourhood illustrating the cost of skates.

$6 in 1956 = $53 today:

CA$6 in 1956 → 2017 | Canada Inflation Calculator

Here's a pair of junior skates for $50:

https://www.purehockey.com/product/...9Tor0pTRCwtDtAqfdOUHCXBae6Da5xxxoCs5AQAvD_BwE

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you concede the population point 2017 vs 1951.

To the extent that the hockey eligible young men and boys is 62% larger in 2017 Canada, and that increase is not counting the hockey playing youth of any other country.

Now the key question, the ethnic composition of the 2017 Canadian population:

Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada

About 20% are future not present hockey participants.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Children of immigrants are typically quite good at assimilating.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Let me just disagree then.

The ever expanding talent pool is not synonymous with population.

For example, the jousting talent pool has gone way down over the past 500 years - I am rather certain of this.

The hockey playing population is what matters, not the general population.

I also disagree that the larger talent pool necessarily results in higher quality players. I think it is more likely to than not, but not certain. The more likely outcome is that there is a larger quantity of high quality players, and this larger quantity inevitably makes it more difficult to stand out.

I largely agree with this...

Not only would you have to demonstrate this, you would also have to demonstrate that this was NOT the case in the past (which is false), and THEN you have to demonstrate that the difference more than overcomes the effects of population growth PLUS the hockey playing populations of Russia, Sweden, Austria, etc.

^^^This is a mathematical impossibility.

For example, if 25% of today's 36M Canada cannot afford hockey whereas only 10% of 16M Canada could not afford hockey in 1960, you would still have 27,000,000 Canadians who could afford hockey now vs 14,400,000 who could afford hockey back then.

Even if we assume only 5% of Canadians could not afford hockey in 1960 (which is generous), and 50% of Canadians could not afford hockey today (which is absolute nonsense), the population of Canadians who could afford hockey would still be 18,000,000 today vs 15,200,000 back then.

And that doesn't even factor in all the other countries that are now contributing to the NHL.

Simply stated, you guys are spewing a load of utter nonsense. I don't see how a rational person could possibly buy into the theory that the NHL talent pool was just as large in 1960 as it is today.

...but not any of this.

I think you are seriously underestimating the cost associated with elite-level minor hockey. As in, the level of hockey that will one day produce Canadian NHL players.

Ice time fees (on the ice every day at the elite level), costs of entering and travelling across provincial and international borders for tournaments, private skills development coaches, summer hockey schools, private schools that integrate sports and the classroom, skates and sticks that must be regularly replaced due to being used for 20+ hours a week, personal trainers...this stuff costs TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars annually. We're talking costs that less than 1% of the population is capable of paying.

Look at the two preeminent Canadian hockey stars of the last decade. Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews both attended Shattuck-St Mary's prep school. Annual cost in $40,000-50,000 range. An unfathomable cost for 99.9% of Canadian families.

The 25% figure that you have thrown out is potentially accurate in terms of the percentage of families that cannot afford to enroll their children in organized hockey at even the lowest levels. That percentage starts to climb rapidly when applied to increasingly higher levels of play.

 

[VanIslander]

Children of immigrants are typically quite good at assimilating.

• Joe Sakic didn't speak English, only Croat, until kindergarten.
• Jarome Iginla's father came from Nigeria as a young man.
• Paul Kariya's father Tetsuhiko was born in a WWII Japanese internment camp.

 

[seventieslord]

Just an observation, but based on what I see in adult safe hockey and what I see in the youth hockey that my nephew plays, I would say that the percentage of hockey players who are immigrants in Canada, is much less than the percentage of citizens who are immigrants. Some definitely play, but not at the same rate as natural Born Canadians.

As far as the cost of skates is concerned, I don't think it's necessarily any more expensive to equip a child or an adult for that matter, today (at inflation). Mainly because the second hand market is so robust and really helped by online sites. With little standards, I was able to equip myself for under $100 to play adult safe for the last decade. However, I think equipment is really only a very minor part of the total cost involved in playing hockey at any level. Ice time is probably the biggest thing.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just an observation, but based on what I see in adult safe hockey and what I see in the youth hockey that my nephew plays, I would say that the percentage of hockey players who are immigrants in Canada, is much less than the percentage of citizens who are immigrants. Some definitely play, but not at the same rate as natural Born Canadians.

Agreed - I've made this comment before.

The other factor to consider - aging. As the average age continues to increase, part of the increase in Canada's population is (to be blunt) a result of senior citizens living longer before dying. That increases Canada's population compared to previous decades, but clearly that doesn't increase the pool of NHL talent - just because more 75 year olds are living to 80, 85, 90, etc., that has no impact whatsoever on who's capable of playing professional hockey.

 

[Canadiens1958]

$6 in 1956 = $53 today:

CA$6 in 1956 → 2017 | Canada Inflation Calculator

Here's a pair of junior skates for $50:

https://www.purehockey.com/product/...9Tor0pTRCwtDtAqfdOUHCXBae6Da5xxxoCs5AQAvD_BwE

As usual details trip up your points.

Pure Hockey is a US company. You forgot the exchange rate, $17.00, shipping, duties and taxes that would bring the final price to the $100 Candian range.

In Quebec:

Patins - Le Trio Hockey

plus 15% taxes. Effectively as calculated above.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To the extent that the hockey eligible young men and boys is 62% larger in 2017 Canada, and that increase is not counting the hockey playing youth of any other country.



I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Children of immigrants are typically quite good at assimilating.

Yes, but not at playing hockey. That happens with the children of the children.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I largely agree with this...



...but not any of this.

I think you are seriously underestimating the cost associated with elite-level minor hockey. As in, the level of hockey that will one day produce Canadian NHL players.

Ice time fees (on the ice every day at the elite level), costs of entering and travelling across provincial and international borders for tournaments, private skills development coaches, summer hockey schools, private schools that integrate sports and the classroom, skates and sticks that must be regularly replaced due to being used for 20+ hours a week, personal trainers...this stuff costs TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars annually. We're talking costs that less than 1% of the population is capable of paying.

Look at the two preeminent Canadian hockey stars of the last decade. Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews both attended Shattuck-St Mary's prep school. Annual cost in $40,000-50,000 range. An unfathomable cost for 99.9% of Canadian families.

The 25% figure that you have thrown out is potentially accurate in terms of the percentage of families that cannot afford to enroll their children in organized hockey at even the lowest levels. That percentage starts to climb rapidly when applied to increasingly higher levels of play.

Scholarships come into play.

Stanstead College(Mark Jankowski) minutes down the road caters to the dreamers outside Canada.

Varsity Boys Hockey | Stanstead College

Local kids are paying a lot less

 

[Canadiens1958]

Just an observation, but based on what I see in adult safe hockey and what I see in the youth hockey that my nephew plays, I would say that the percentage of hockey players who are immigrants in Canada, is much less than the percentage of citizens who are immigrants. Some definitely play, but not at the same rate as natural Born Canadians.

As far as the cost of skates is concerned, I don't think it's necessarily any more expensive to equip a child or an adult for that matter, today (at inflation). Mainly because the second hand market is so robust and really helped by online sites. With little standards, I was able to equip myself forfor un $100 to play adult safe for the last decade. However, I think equipment is really only a very minor part of the total cost involved in playing hockey at any level. Ice time is probably the biggest thing.

Travel and insurance. Ice time fees in municipal or provincial arenas is a shell game. Adult hockey does not represent a large voting group like youth hockey.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think you are seriously underestimating the cost associated with elite-level minor hockey. As in, the level of hockey that will one day produce Canadian NHL players.

Ice time fees (on the ice every day at the elite level), costs of entering and travelling across provincial and international borders for tournaments, private skills development coaches, summer hockey schools, private schools that integrate sports and the classroom, skates and sticks that must be regularly replaced due to being used for 20+ hours a week, personal trainers...this stuff costs TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars annually. We're talking costs that less than 1% of the population is capable of paying.

Look at the two preeminent Canadian hockey stars of the last decade. Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews both attended Shattuck-St Mary's prep school. Annual cost in $40,000-50,000 range. An unfathomable cost for 99.9% of Canadian families.

The 25% figure that you have thrown out is potentially accurate in terms of the percentage of families that cannot afford to enroll their children in organized hockey at even the lowest levels. That percentage starts to climb rapidly when applied to increasingly higher levels of play.

No, I'm pointing out that if Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau didn't need elite level minor hockey, then neither do today's players....unless you are acknowledging that today's players face higher level competition.