Phair: Girls’ hockey is Michigan’s greatest growth opportunity

By Lyle Phair –

According to the United States Census Bureau, the estimated population of the state of Michigan in 2014 was 9,909,877. Of that number 22.4 percent (2,219,812) were under the age of 18 and 50.9 percent of the total population were females. Which means there were approximately 1,129,884 girls under the age of 18 in the state. That’s a lot of girls.

According to USA Hockey registration statistics for the 2014-15 season there were 4,794 female players in the state of Michigan. That is not a lot of girls playing hockey.

To put that into context, Minnesota had 12,808 female players, Massachusetts 10,310, Central 7,076, New England 6,611 and New York had 5,339. Michigan ranked eighth in the USA in female player numbers. Conversely, in total players (male and female), Michigan ranked third with 50,602 players behind Central at 62,665 and Minnesota with 55,450.

In digging a little further, looking at numbers of players in each age group, the future of girls’ hockey in Michigan doesn’t look any brighter. Of the 4,794 female players in Michigan, 39 percent of them were adults, meaning there are only 2,934 girl players. In the other USA Hockey districts, the adult percentage ranges from 15 to 23 percent. In total, only 10 percent of Michigan players are female. In Minnesota it is 23 percent, Massachusetts 21 percent and New England 19 percent.

So why does a state that considers itself to be one of the big three nationally (along with Minnesota and Massachusetts) have such comparatively low female player registration?

Most people will point to the fact that in Minnesota and Massachusetts there are oodles and oodles of Division I and Division III collegiate opportunities for girls while Adrian and Finlandia are the only Michigan opportunities at the D3 level. I can buy that to a degree, but only from the female hockey visibility perspective, where female players see the game being played at a high level. However, in saying that, I am not sure that is really the case.

Do young girls really get into a sport because they see it being played at the college level? Maybe some. But I don’t think that is why Minnesota and Massachusetts have the numbers they have. I think the engagement point is lower than that, at the high school level. That is a level that young players can see as real, attainable, something to strive for, the opportunity to play for their high school and their community. That is why girls get into the game at the younger levels in those states and why the girls numbers at the younger age groups dwarf Michigan.

In 2014-15, Minnesota had 1,896 6-and-under players, 1,995 8U, 2,103 10U, 2,138 12U, 1,610 14U and the number drops to 766 at 16U as players move into high school. Massachusetts is not far behind. Michigan is. Way behind, at 474 6U, 397 8U, 476 10U, 447 12U, 465 14U and 400 16U.

The bad news is that the Michigan female player numbers are poor. The good news is that there is plenty of opportunity to grow it. If we really care.

And that is the question. Do we? There are plenty of females in the age demographic in the state. How do we create some structure that will make hockey a sport that they want to play? More importantly, how do we create the structure that provides girls with the opportunity to play? The same opportunity that boys have?

Why doesn’t the MHSAA officially sanction girls’ high school hockey as a varsity sport? My guess is they would say there aren’t enough teams. If my theory is correct on high school hockey being a realistic, attainable goal for females, then it is a little bit of the chicken and the egg. Which comes first? More opportunity for girls translates to more girl players and to more girl high school players. Time for the MHSAA to step up if they really do care about girls’ hockey as a sport.

But that is not the only issue. Look around us. At every rink and every association in the state. Do girls really get a fair shake? Some people will say “sure they do, they can play on the same team with the boys.” Really? Let’s turn that around. If the only option for boys was to play on a team that is predominantly made of girls, do you really think they would? Additionally there are some associations that don’t even want girls teams because they believe it would take valuable ice time from boys’ teams. Is that fair?

Michigan girls’ hockey has been built (and I use that term loosely as it really just barely sustains itself) using a boys’ travel hockey model with a fraction of the players. There are actually coaches and associations that think they are “growing the game” by starting a new team at the 14U or 16U level. What they don’t consider is that oftentimes the majority of those players came from somewhere else. And when those players leave that somewhere else, that team falls apart, as there are not the girls to replace that team like there were (not so much anymore) on the boys’ side.

Ironically, some of the structure in girls’ hockey that was initially put into place to allow it the opportunity to grow (two-year age group, no district restrictions for players) is actually a detriment because of the travel team recruitment model we use. Our focus needs to be on the entry level of the game, providing girls with the opportunity to play local, convenient, affordable hockey, build it from the bottom up. Until we do that, we will continue to spin our wheels, fall further behind and do an incredible disservice to the girls in our state. The opportunity is there. If we care.