Amateur Hockey Culture By State

LAKE PLACID NY - AUGUST 03: Derek Forbert #24 of Team USA returns to bench following his first period goal against Team Sweden at the USA Hockey National Evaluation Camp game on August 3 2010 in Lake Placid New York. (Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)


Over the next few weeks, I'll be talking a lot about the professional game in North America.  I thought it'd be interesting to first look at the numbers of registered hockey players in each state of the union, as I think its relevant to the conversation here.  I'd love to have more data...  such as how many hockey arenas are in use, by state and urban area, but I'm going to use the numbers that I do have right now to provide some context.  These numbers were posted by Chris Peters over at The United States of Hockey, which were part of the inspiration for this whole project (though I had collected a lot of the information over the past couple of years). 

Chris gave the numbers in a state-by-state rundown, simply posting the totals from 1990-91 and comparing them to the numbers in 2009-10, and giving a growth rate percentage.  To give an idea of the presence of 'hockey culture' in the state, I've compared these numbers to the state populations according to US Census data from 1990 and 2010.  Admittedly, the vast majority of the data I took from Wikipedia...  so if you notice any errors compared to what you see from the original government sources, let me know. 

Hockey Culture By State
Rk State Pop ('10) HP ('10) HP/Pop ('10) Pop ('90) HP ('90) HP/Pop ('90) HP/Pop +/-
Rk +/-
1 Alaska 710231 8477 1.19% 550043 3295 0.60% 0.595% +1
2 Minnesota 5303925 53450 1.01% 4375898 32650 0.75% 0.262% -1
3 Vermont 625741 4443 0.71% 562758 2375 0.42% 0.288% +1
4 North Dakota 672591 4547 0.68% 638800 2420 0.38% 0.297% +1
5 Massachusetts 6547629 43445 0.66% 6016425 25901 0.43% 0.233% -2
6 Michigan 9883640 51404 0.52% 9295297 24594 0.26% 0.256% -
7 Maine 1328361 6180 0.47% 1227928 2276 0.19% 0.280% +2
8 New Hampshire 1316470 6120 0.46% 1109525 2579 0.23% 0.232% -1
9 Rhode Island 1052567 4641 0.44% 1003464 2320 0.23% 0.210% -1
10 Montana 989415 3568 0.36% 799065 775 0.10% 0.264% +6
11 Connecticut 3574097 12088 0.34% 3287116 5363 0.16% 0.175% -1
12 Wyoming 563626 1810 0.32% 453588 483 0.11% 0.215% +2
13 Wisconsin 5686986 17697 0.31% 4891768 5065 0.10% 0.208% +2
14 Colorado 5029196 13437 0.27% 3294394 3854 0.12% 0.150% -1
15 South Dakota 814180 2151 0.26% 696064 828 0.12% 0.145% -3
16 New York 19378102 46389 0.24% 17980455 22001 0.12% 0.117% -5
17 Pennsylvania 12702379 27549 0.22% 11881643 10420 0.09% 0.129% -
18 Idaho 1567582 2958 0.19% 1006748 566 0.06% 0.132% +4
19 Illinois 12830632 24018 0.19% 11630602 9412 0.08% 0.106% -
20 New Jersey 8791894 16041 0.18% 7730188 6452 0.08% 0.099% -2
21 Utah 2763885 3981 0.14% 1722850 1092 0.06% 0.081% -
22 Maryland 5773552 7326 0.13% 4781468 1951 0.04% 0.086% +3
N/A District of Columbia 601723 742 0.12% 606900 250 0.04% 0.082% (+2)
23 Ohio 11536504 13579 0.12% 10847115 4308 0.04% 0.078% +3
24 Deleware 900877 1049 0.12% 666188 343 0.05% 0.065% -1
25 Washington 6724540 7615 0.11% 4886892 2389 0.05% 0.064% -1
26 Missouri 5988927 6295 0.11% 5117073 3382 0.07% 0.039% -6
27 Virginia 8001024 7251 0.09% 6187358 1459 0.02% 0.067% +4
28 Iowa 3046355 2549 0.08% 2776755 610 0.02% 0.062% +4
29 Nebraska 1826341 1459 0.08% 1578385 312 0.02% 0.060% +5
30 Indiana 6483802 4927 0.08% 5544159 1948 0.04% 0.041% -3
31 North Carolina 9535483 5598 0.06% 6628837 929 0.01% 0.045% +7
32 New Mexico 2059179 1207 0.06% 1515069 276 0.02% 0.040% +3
33 Florida 18801310 10856 0.06% 12937926 1200 0.01% 0.048% +6
34 West Virginia 1852994 1060 0.06% 1793477 596 0.03% 0.024% -6
35 Kansas 2853118 1574 0.06% 2477574 314 0.01% 0.042% +3
36 California 37253956 20404 0.05% 29780021 4483 0.02% 0.040% +1
37 Arizona 6392017 3339 0.05% 3685228 1196 0.03% 0.020% -8
38 Texas 25145561 10909 0.04% 16986510 868 0.01% 0.038% +7
39 Tennessee 6346105 2430 0.04% 4877185 441 0.01% 0.029% +1
40 Kentucky 4339367 1619 0.04% 3685296 314 0.01% 0.029% +1
41 Nevada 2700551 940 0.03% 1201833 258 0.02% 0.013% -8
42 South Carolina 4625364 1407 0.03% 3486703 208 0.01% 0.024% -
43 Oklahoma 3751351 1051 0.03% 3145585 109 0.00% 0.025% +3
44 Alabama 4779736 1114 0.02% 4040587 210 0.01% 0.018% -
45 Georgia 9687653 2142 0.02% 6478218 370 0.01% 0.016% -2
46 Oregon 3831074 804 0.02% 2842321 738 0.03% -0.005% -16
47 Louisiana 4533372 466 0.01% 4219973 50 0.00% 0.009% +1
48 Mississippi 2967297 259 0.01% 2573216 10 0.00% 0.008% +2
49 Arkansas 2915918 216 0.01% 2350725 25 0.00% 0.006% -
50 Hawaii 1360301 11 0.00% 1108228 36 0.00% -0.002% -3

The "State of Hockey" is a title that Minnesota has taken on, and while its still true that you will find more registered hockey players in Minnesota than anywhere else, if you have a room of 500 Alaskans and 500 Minnesotans, there is likely to be more hockey players from Alaska than Minnesota.  Indeed, hockey has really taken off in Alaska in the past 20 years, to the point that they can now claim to be the "state of hockey". 

For those wondering, the national figures are as follows:

Pop 2010 HP 2010 HP/Pop '10 Pop 1990 HP 1990 HP/Pop '90 HP/Pop +/-
United States of America 308748481 474592 0.15% 248961424 194304 0.08% 0.076%

 

Which means the top twenty states are driving the totals, the bottom thirty are bringing them down to varying degrees. 

Much has been written about the growth of hockey in California in this time period, but I think its been overstated compared to the nation as a whole.  In fact, California's growth is more reflective of the USA's hockey growth than a driving force behind it.  Texas, North Carolina, Florida, and somewhat unfittingly, Montana have told even better stories.  They've all outpaced their peer groups from 1990, with the NHL arriving to three of those four states in the 1990s (each state has 1 Stanley Cup as well) that helped build youth programs that have sustained growth.  Montana is an interesting case, a northern state that has grown quite rapidly despite not having any professional, NCAA, or major junior hockey programs to point to as inspirations. 

Nevada and Arizona don't look that great comparitively, but it is important to note this for the southwestern states:  these two states grew in population by 124.70% (Nevada) and 73.45% (Arizona) over this time period, far and away the top two growth rates in the country.  That this happened and their 'hockey culture' metric still grew is quite impressive.  I have no doubt that this is why both states dropped 8 spots from 1990...  its really an unfair statistic for them.

Meanwhile, its really tough to explain Oregon.  I shared this fact with the SBN writer's group and I wasn't entirely satisfied with the replies in defence of Oregon.  Portland, the major city and home to the only really visible hockey team in the state (the WHL's Portland Winterhawks), is a border city, with the major suburb of Vancouver, Washington across the Columbia River from it.  Its possible that Portland youth hockey is growing, and a disproportionate part of it is on the Washington side of the border, but that doesn't explain the whole state to me.  Any Oregonians/Portlanders want to illuminate me with numbers of youth memberships and rinks in the Portland metro area/state as a whole will be gladly looked at and published.  Its tough to explain why 48 states all grow in hockey culture, but Oregon recedes.  There was a significant population boom in this span, but my best explanation is that there aren't any more rinks in the state than there were in 1990. 

It is also hard to believe, but twenty years ago there were three states with less of a hockey culture than Hawaii.  We can forgive Hawaii for such a low number (but at least play inline/roller hockey after surfing, please!), but its nice to see at least something of a community is being built in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, all who were at 0.00% back in 1990!  And for more on Oklahoma's community emerging out of nowhere, read this article by Neal Livingston at The Copper and Blue

What is perhaps most interesting in general from all of this is that in the USA, hockey is becoming more accessible, not less.  Yes, there are significant costs to putting a kid into minor hockey, but there seems to have been a real push to build a lot more facilities and make hockey a greater part of the American lifestyle in the past twenty years.  These numbers also reflect the growing impact of women's hockey in the country.  We've had a lot of events that can explain the growth:  the Gretzky trade was in 1988, right at the beginning of this period; the southern expansion of the NHL; the introduction of NHL players to the Olympics in 1998; the introduction of women's hockey to the Olympics in 1998; the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake in 2002; the post-lockout growth of the NHL, and more. 

Hockey is being introduced to kids where it wasn't possible twenty years ago.  Hockey is even more popular in the areas it was already strong in 1990.  For whatever reason, being an American hockey player is less weird in 2010 than it was in 1990.  Hockey is going mainstream, folks.  And watch out, the rest of the world.

Trending Discussions

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Puck Worlds

You must be a member of Puck Worlds to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Puck Worlds. You should read them.

Join Puck Worlds

You must be a member of Puck Worlds to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Puck Worlds. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.