I appreciate Dave Hendrickson's thoughtful posting explaining his views of
Minnesota and Massachusetts hockey.  The parody just rubbed me the wrong
way, but other people obviously thought it was funny.  If it hadn't been
based on the report of the Gopher awards banquet, I probably would have seen
some humor in it, too.  Such is life.   ;-)
 
>As for Minnesota High School and youth hockey, I don't know of any
>knowledgeable observers who don't consider Minnesota to be among the best
>in the country.  Personally, I consider Massachusetts, Minnesota, and
>Michigan to be head and shoulders above everyone else.  In fact,
>Massachusetts programs of 15-to-20 years ago were noticeably inferior
>those in Minnesota, as was proven by us getting our butts whipped everytime
>we played them.  As a result, adjustments were made and the Mass programs
>were upgraded until we started winning the contests.  IMO although each side
>may argue it is somewhat stronger now than the other, it should be agreeable
>to simply state that there is essentially parity between the two states.
>And that Mass wouldn't be where it is now if Minnesota wasn't in the
>forefront years ago, kicking our butts, and letting us see that we couldn't
>sit back and be happy with what we were developing.  So clearly I have
>respect for the Minnesota state development program.
 
Dave's right on the money, here.  In fact, people in Minnesota have been
concerned that we've fallen behind the Massachusetts youth hockey program,
given the way that the Minnesota youth teams got THEIR butts kicked by Mass
teams a few years ago.  Perhaps we're catching up now.  The competition has
obviously been good for hockey in both states.
 
>Suffice it to say, Minnesota residents have *major* reasons to be proud of
>their Minnesota-born players and Gopher team.  Because of the in-state
>tradition those two categories are essentially synonymous.
>
>On the other hand, Massachusetts folks (as well as those from other states)
>can also be proud of the players their programs are developing.
 
Yes, indeed.  In fact, one thing I'm happy to see in the WCHA is that
Wisconsin and, finally, North Dakota are able to recruit more players from
their home states than they could in the past.
 
>I'm in the middle of a stetch where I'll be in one rink or another for
>thirteen consecutive days.   Not to mention all the time during that
>stretch that I've been (and will be) on the phone talking to parents of
>Little Jocelyn Lemieux's who are all convinced that they are parents of
>Little Mario Lemieux's.  I got off the phone last night at five minutes
>before midnight.  (It's not always this busy but right now it's
>recruiting/tryout time for the Metro Boston Hockey League and I'm helping
>out with teams other than my son's.)  So suffice it to say that I invest
>a *lot* of energy in local hockey development and I am *very* proud of the
>players that are developed in the Greater Boston area.
 
That's a lot of hard work (I know - my brother and his wife are hockey
parents and I've seen what they've gone through), but it must be gratifying
to see the results of all that effort.
 
>I'm also proud of the accomplishments this past year of the UMass-Lowell
>team as well as the other college teams that I follow.  That Lowell did not
>have an overwhelming number of Massachusetts-born players is irrelevant to
>me.  I can root for Mass players and I can root for Lowell.  In my case
>there is a disjoint element to my pride; there is little commonality between
>the Mass-Lowell players that I root for and the Mass-developed players that
>I root for.  For Minnesota fans there is no disjoint element; they are one
>in the same.  Which is fine either way.  Neither situation is better; they
>both work.
>
>Different strokes for different folks.
 
Yes, I can see that.  I hadn't really looked at it that way before.
 
>IMO what works for Minnesota *cannot* work for almost every other program
>in the country.  Minnesota should stick with what works for them,
>but when excessive journalists from that state become condescending or
>downright insulting when making comparisons to other programs that have
>to work differently, they can only expect to be taken down a peg.  It was
>only the negative attitudes towards other programs that was the subject of
>my parody.
 
Well, they may be jerks, but their OUR jerks.  ;-)  I'll try to distance
myself from them in the future, though.
 
>I have no quibble with the state where "The women are strong, the men are
>good looking, and the children are all above average."
>
>Or as Rodney King would say, "Can't we just get along?"  which, of course,
>preceeded his more recent, "Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury!"
 
Indeed, we can.
 
-- Erik
 
SKI-U-MAH! (BTW, I posted a full explanation of SKI-U-MAH to the list
sometime last year, easily retrievable from the HOCKEY-L archives)