Just came across this thread and don't know why but I find it fascinating, probably because my kids play hockey here in the US and I'm of the belief that inside every kid there is a hockey player waiting to come out. I've never been to Quebec but I feel that what I am reading here is universal. Whether it is regaining the games status in a place like Quebec or growing the game in a place like Iowa, the tools are the same, build infrastructure, recruit, and make the game available to the masses.
Mentioned earlier in this thread was the decline of hockey in Minnesota. I don't see the sport declining in MN, it is shifting. Shifting from the inner city metro schools to the suburbs. The rural areas are still pretty strong too. Demographic and economic shifts in St. Paul and Minneapolis are the largest reasons for the decline in the number of schools fielding teams there. Interesting thing is that access to the sport for a family of similar income that lives in a rural area with a rink is greater than if you live in the metro.
Any city of decent size in Minnesota (at least 5,000) has a community rink (often times multiple sheets) and many, many lower population towns have a rink or two, some real low population, iconic hockey towns in the northern part of the state and the sport is growing in quantity and quality in the rural southern and western parts of the state too.
The cost of playing is kept affordable by community owned (municipal) rinks, equipment drives, etc. Just your normal average kids can play, kids whose parents work at a factory, or the grain elevator, farmer's kids, etc. Is it cheaper than soccer, no, but I think the key to keeping the costs down is strength in numbers. The more kids that play, the more towns that have the sport, the more teams there are to play against and it requires less travel. Sure, the quality of play may not be considered elite in some districts but there can be individual elite level players as you get the best young athletes in town playing the sport.
I hate to put it this way but the key for the long term success for a sport like hockey is to take an almost communistic approach. A free market approach where rinks have to support themselves, the competition to gather all the best players to one place in order to win, a cream rises to the top approach is a recipe for the death of the sport. It takes a broad based, community support, high numbers, keep costs down approach that allows access to all socioeconomic backgrounds and demographics in order for the sport to grow and to thrive.
No matter where you live in North America, Ontario, Minnesota, Quebec, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, or Iowa, the goal of the NHL and the national governing bodies for both the US and Canada needs to be grow the sport in the blue collar sectors and to bring the game to the people. That requires infrastructure. A goal should be to have a rink in every town with a population of 10,000 or greater in every state and province north of the Mason Dixon line and then get to work recruiting. That will grow the game. If you really look at it, there are already many towns of that size that already have the facilities across the Midwest and North Plains (not as familiar with the Northeast US), you just need to fill in the gaps and focus state by state, province by province.
Mentioned earlier in this thread was the decline of hockey in Minnesota. I don't see the sport declining in MN, it is shifting. Shifting from the inner city metro schools to the suburbs. The rural areas are still pretty strong too. Demographic and economic shifts in St. Paul and Minneapolis are the largest reasons for the decline in the number of schools fielding teams there. Interesting thing is that access to the sport for a family of similar income that lives in a rural area with a rink is greater than if you live in the metro.
Any city of decent size in Minnesota (at least 5,000) has a community rink (often times multiple sheets) and many, many lower population towns have a rink or two, some real low population, iconic hockey towns in the northern part of the state and the sport is growing in quantity and quality in the rural southern and western parts of the state too.
The cost of playing is kept affordable by community owned (municipal) rinks, equipment drives, etc. Just your normal average kids can play, kids whose parents work at a factory, or the grain elevator, farmer's kids, etc. Is it cheaper than soccer, no, but I think the key to keeping the costs down is strength in numbers. The more kids that play, the more towns that have the sport, the more teams there are to play against and it requires less travel. Sure, the quality of play may not be considered elite in some districts but there can be individual elite level players as you get the best young athletes in town playing the sport.
I hate to put it this way but the key for the long term success for a sport like hockey is to take an almost communistic approach. A free market approach where rinks have to support themselves, the competition to gather all the best players to one place in order to win, a cream rises to the top approach is a recipe for the death of the sport. It takes a broad based, community support, high numbers, keep costs down approach that allows access to all socioeconomic backgrounds and demographics in order for the sport to grow and to thrive.
No matter where you live in North America, Ontario, Minnesota, Quebec, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, or Iowa, the goal of the NHL and the national governing bodies for both the US and Canada needs to be grow the sport in the blue collar sectors and to bring the game to the people. That requires infrastructure. A goal should be to have a rink in every town with a population of 10,000 or greater in every state and province north of the Mason Dixon line and then get to work recruiting. That will grow the game. If you really look at it, there are already many towns of that size that already have the facilities across the Midwest and North Plains (not as familiar with the Northeast US), you just need to fill in the gaps and focus state by state, province by province.
