Minnesota Hockey - how can we help?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:26 am

Two things

1. A clear statement of Mn Hockey's stance on Tier 1 hockey. What will their position be as it creeps its way into the winter season and competes more and more against our association model?

2. Is there any talk about the next time they re-district HS hockey to just put the private schools in their own conference? I say let them recruit all they want but fight it out among each other for one state berth. I'm guessing if this was voted on by all Minnesota hockey fans, this idea would win in a landslide

ShakestheClown
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:11 pm

Post by ShakestheClown » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:38 am

1. Set up birth cutoff dates as 12/31.

2. Delayed offsides. It's silly to start and stop the game as much as it currently happens. Keep the game moving! The kids will eventually have to learn and play with delayed offsides anyways.

3. Give Sundays back to the families. Tournaments can be run on Friday and Saturdays.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:41 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:Two things

1. A clear statement of Mn Hockey's stance on Tier 1 hockey. What will their position be as it creeps its way into the winter season and competes more and more against our association model?

MN Hockey has control over Tier 1 in the state. It isn't going to creep into anything unless they let it.

2. Is there any talk about the next time they re-district HS hockey to just put the private schools in their own conference? I say let them recruit all they want but fight it out among each other for one state berth. I'm guessing if this was voted on by all Minnesota hockey fans, this idea would win in a landslide

I think you're right that people would vote for it but open enrollment has evened this up quite a bit.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:45 am

ShakestheClown wrote:1. Set up birth cutoff dates as 12/31.

It wouldn't work in MN. High School hockey is the goal here, and they're trying to keep classmates together. Plus, too many kids would age out of Bantams after 8th grade. Not enough roster spots in High School to accommodate this.

2. Delayed offsides. It's silly to start and stop the game as much as it currently happens. Keep the game moving! The kids will eventually have to learn and play with delayed offsides anyways.

If you mean tag-up offsides, I agree. It makes no sense to me not to have it.

3. Give Sundays back to the families. Tournaments can be run on Friday and Saturdays.

I'm not sure kids missing school on Fridays for tournaments any more than they already do is a great idea.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:51 am

CommunityBased wrote:US Lacrosse is moving to 1 year age groups for saftey. Most contact sports use this philosophy. I think MN Hockey should look at going to single year groupings for safety. I know it would be a huge change, and a challenge to small associations, but anyone who has seen a July birth date 15 year old go head to head with a 13 year old June birth date knows what I am talking about. At the youth level, especially the puberty years, each year is a dog year.
This would never work. Too many small Associations that don't have enough kids at a single birth year for even one team, much less try to play AA and/or A/B. Plus, it's not reality. You're always going to have to compete against people who are bigger, stronger, faster, older, smarter, etc. It teaches them how to adapt. There are a lot of techniques that can be taught to smaller kids for how to compete out there. That's life.

blueline_6
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:59 am

The arguments for keeping the July 1 birthdate cutoff seem to always include some reference to "most associations allow the move up anyway". That's great logic if every youth board had the same policy on move-ups, but they don't. There are some associations that have board members who want to hold the power of the final decision of whether or not these players will be allowed to play up.

So...how about a MN Hockey policy that requires associations to allow these kids to move up if they request it. So you still leave the decision with the parents, but remove the ability of some power hungry board to deny the request.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:54 pm

CommunityBased wrote:US Lacrosse is moving to 1 year age groups for saftey. Most contact sports use this philosophy. I think MN Hockey should look at going to single year groupings for safety. I know it would be a huge change, and a challenge to small associations, but anyone who has seen a July birth date 15 year old go head to head with a 13 year old June birth date knows what I am talking about. At the youth level, especially the puberty years, each year is a dog year.
I will bring it up, but clearly would not work in D16 and several places in D15 & D12...
and in the south also I am sure.

We have communities that put one team with 12 - 15 players on them.

And associations where the biggest player is the youngest of the two age group.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:57 pm

yesiplayedhockey wrote:Two things

1. A clear statement of Mn Hockey's stance on Tier 1 hockey. What will their position be as it creeps its way into the winter season and competes more and more against our association model?

2. Is there any talk about the next time they re-district HS hockey to just put the private schools in their own conference? I say let them recruit all they want but fight it out among each other for one state berth. I'm guessing if this was voted on by all Minnesota hockey fans, this idea would win in a landslide


MH has no input, voice or vote on this issue.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:30 pm

Thanks Elliott..That's good information...

Eagles93
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:04 pm

Post by Eagles93 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:15 pm

Tally another for a request to change offsides in PeeWee and 12U to tagup/delayed offsides. I like it the way it is in Squirts and 10U as a lot of those kids are still learning offsides but in the older group it just delays the game too much. 90% of offsides are accidental and not where a skater beats the puck into the zone.

Another thing I would like to see is that all faceoffs be held at the 9 faceoff dots on the ice.

Rule changes like these are pressing issues now since USA Hockey will be coming out with a new rule book this year, which I assume will cover 2018-2021?

I also agree with blueline_6 above if the age thing is an issue in other associations. I've never thought about it much because our association automatically allows kids to play "up" to their school grade year if they choose - which the large majority, if not all, do.

Eagles93
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:04 pm

Post by Eagles93 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:24 pm

One more... change the rule back to faceoff at center ice for an errant whistle by the official. A team should not be penalized due to official's error. e.g. the official blows play dead for icing forgetting that that team is short-handed. Under current rules, the team on the power play is penalized with a faceoff in it's own defensive zone.

Eagles93
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:04 pm

Post by Eagles93 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:32 pm

OK, one more... :D Faceoff after penalty in the defensive zone of the offending team, a la NHL and NCAA. Penalizes penalties just a bit more.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:21 am

There is a distinct difference between tag up offsides and delayed offsides. Delayed offsides is where the offensive team must remain out of the zone and allow the defensive team to break out. Used to be the way the game was played before tag up came into effect. Nice little adjustment that will keep the game going, penalize a team for playing dump it in hockey rather than regrouping and controlling the puck, and allows players to work on their breakout and neutral zone skills.

Neutral zone play is where I see a lot of weakness in the youth ranks. Kids just don't know how to read, flow, and move into open spaces. This adjustment would help in creating some hockey sense.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:49 am

Just a marker for me.

Again, thanks for all the input.

lostmyonlypuckindasnow
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:43 am

Post by lostmyonlypuckindasnow » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:49 pm

[quote="Jeffy95"][quote="jg2112"]Here's a few ideas, specifically with the goal of player development:

(1) Instead of a season-long limit at any level, institute a limit on the number of "game days" a team can have per month such that it has a 2:1 practice to game ratio at the end of each month (or even 2 month period).

(2) Require youth associations to adhere to the Minnesota Development Model "Best Practices" document on the MN Hockey website - particularly with regard to practice to game ratios and off-ice training. Require youth association administrators to submit forms showing adherence. Audit and sanction those associations that do not adhere to those Best Practices. Provide associations without sufficient ice time the means to acquire that ice time, or force them to co-op so they can provide an adequate development environment for their players.

My player's team is currently at a 1:1 practice to game ratio three months into the season. The players being affected the most are not the top end players, but rather, those who need the focus on developing their skills.[/quote]

Associations are perfectly capable of deciding this for themselves. MN Hockey does not need to get involved with this. There are more kids that play hockey for fun than those who are looking at making a career out of it.

Provide Associations the means to acquire ice time? What are they going to do, build arenas for them?[/quote]


I agree with the Jeffy95's take on JG's post on this but add that in general I think the game limits per and increasing games per season as kids age are pretty decent. Mandating the 2:1 practice/game ratio seems micro-managing, and also seems impossible to really regulate because outside factors like buying ice time and finding opponents have too much to do with it. What would you do, have practice-ratio police scouring team sites? Kids and parents think games are fun. If done right, all practices at 8u are fun and contain some sort of game even though parents might not think so or might think that their 3rd grader needs to play 4x4 full-ice to skate around other kids and maximize his development by scoring unassisted goals so mom and dad can clap. Good or bad, kids' hockey is influenced by the "entertainment value" or "quantitative return on the hockey dollar" (i.e. my kid scores goals) for some parents.

On that note--although there is a lot of good material out there on why small area is good for ALL, maybe emphasize it even more? Maybe produce a couple more social media campaigns directed at non-coach parents with kids and parents loving it and having fun and showing how it improves players games even at the highest levels?

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Elliot-

What about the rumblings I am hearing about USA Hockey changing the checking rules again and outlawing checking at Bantams now. Will this be discussed at the meeting? What is Minnesota Hockey's stance on it?

IMO this proposal is absurd. Taking checking out of PeeWees was bad enough. I understood the reasoning. Didn't agree, but understood. This proposal is pure crap though. If USA Hockey thought the had an AAU problem before they probably will if this passes.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:56 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:Elliot-

What about the rumblings I am hearing about USA Hockey changing the checking rules again and outlawing checking at Bantams now. Will this be discussed at the meeting? What is Minnesota Hockey's stance on it?

IMO this proposal is absurd. Taking checking out of PeeWees was bad enough. I understood the reasoning. Didn't agree, but understood. This proposal is pure crap though. If USA Hockey thought the had an AAU problem before they probably will if this passes.
It is not on the agenda per se...
but might be part of potential rule changes.
I would hope it is not buried somewhere because this would be a huge thing.

I cannot speak as to MH position but I would think they would be opposed, but they have a strong tendency to accept USAH data or just anecdotal data.

I would be opposed.

I will ask and report back next week.
Last edited by elliott70 on Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:14 pm

Thanks Elliot.

Here it is:

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 011517.pdf

Proposition 80, it is on page 91.

a) Body checking is prohibited in the 14 & under
youth age classification and below and all
Girls’/Women’s age classifications. These levels
would be considered the Body Contact Category of
play. Body checking is also prohibited in all noncheck
Adult classifications.

This may be too late as the Winter Meeting took place on Jan 12-15. Here was the Committee Recommendation going into the meeting.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REFER TO YOUTH COUNCIL
Committee Rationale: Place focus on development of skills and body contact at this age level as natural
progression to creating more skilled hockey players, creating a safer environment and emphasizing body
contact for the separation of the opponent from the puck.

This is a huge deal. There are many, many people who still have not gotten over the change in body checking at PeeWees. The smoke has barely cleared out of the room on that one, and barely enough time has been given to study the effects, and now they want to go after it at the Bantam level?

I would hope that Minnesota Hockey, being the leading affiliate in USA Hockey, would come out opposed to this.

ETA: I was just thinking, maybe there are rules proposals like this every year that really have no traction and no chance of passing, maybe I am overreacting. Then again, there always seems to be people who bang at the door every year and keep bringing something up in hopes that they can get it passed eventually. The wolves are always howling at the gates, so to speak. If you hold the counter position and are in opposition to changes like this you need to remain ever vigilant and galvanized to stop these movements from gaining traction.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:23 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:Thanks Elliot.

Here it is:

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 011517.pdf

Proposition 80, it is on page 91.

a) Body checking is prohibited in the 14 & under
youth age classification and below and all
Girls’/Women’s age classifications. These levels
would be considered the Body Contact Category of
play. Body checking is also prohibited in all noncheck
Adult classifications.

This may be too late as the Winter Meeting took place on Jan 12-15. Here was the Committee Recommendation going into the meeting.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REFER TO YOUTH COUNCIL
Committee Rationale: Place focus on development of skills and body contact at this age level as natural
progression to creating more skilled hockey players, creating a safer environment and emphasizing body
contact for the separation of the opponent from the puck.

This is a huge deal. There are many, many people who still have not gotten over the change in body checking at PeeWees. The smoke has barely cleared out of the room on that one, and barely enough time has been given to study the effects, and now they want to go after it at the Bantam level?

I would hope that Minnesota Hockey, being the leading affiliate in USA Hockey, would come out opposed to this.

ETA: I was just thinking, maybe there are rules proposals like this every year that really have no traction and no chance of passing, maybe I am overreacting. Then again, there always seems to be people who bang at the door every year and keep bringing something up in hopes that they can get it passed eventually. The wolves are always howling at the gates, so to speak. If you hold the counter position and are in opposition to changes like this you need to remain ever vigilant and galvanized to stop these movements from gaining traction.
Sent to Rules committee so that means it most likely is out two years before action, but sometimes the youth committee does strange stuff.

I will make some noise and see that it gets discussed and hopefully a negative vote on it.

Thanks.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:29 pm

Thanks Elliot.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:36 pm

"ETA: I was just thinking, maybe there are rules proposals like this every year that really have no traction and no chance of passing, maybe I am overreacting. Then again, there always seems to be people who bang at the door every year and keep bringing something up in hopes that they can get it passed eventually. The wolves are always howling at the gates, so to speak. If you hold the counter position and are in opposition to changes like this you need to remain ever vigilant and galvanized to stop these movements from gaining traction."

If it was nothing the recommendation would be defeat.
Referring it to committee means give it some time to gather the "data".

The actual data on peewees was not convincing - the stories they told (some about football) ere given the weight of scientific evidence.

If possible I will post something on Saturday late afternoon and the word can be spread if it looks like it is going the wrong way.

goldy313
Posts: 3498
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:35 pm

First let me say I don't know what the limit is on games per day and time between each game, that said......

I work with a woman who gave up on hockey due to traveling concerns, either trying to get off work early to make a game or getting home at 11pm or later on a schoo/work night. I remember having the same issues when my kids played. Why not allow 2 or 3 games in one afternoon? Basketball does this, baseball does this.....I don't see why hockey shouldn't.
In District 9, for example, you could have the 9 bantam B teams meet up in Owatonna on Sunday and all 9 teams could knock out 2 or 3 district games in one day, then a few weeks later do the same in Mankato, then Rochester. In 3 days every team couod have 8 or 9 district games out of the way. It saves on travel, on time, makes scheduling easier, etc. You could save weekdays for practice making the work/school/hockey/life balence better. This especially makes sense for towns 100 miles or more apart.

Lots of places have multiple rinks now, somehow we should find a way to make things easier on everyone and lower the costs in money and time when possible.

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:45 am

goldy313 wrote:First let me say I don't know what the limit is on games per day and time between each game, that said......

I work with a woman who gave up on hockey due to traveling concerns, either trying to get off work early to make a game or getting home at 11pm or later on a schoo/work night. I remember having the same issues when my kids played. Why not allow 2 or 3 games in one afternoon? Basketball does this, baseball does this.....I don't see why hockey shouldn't.
In District 9, for example, you could have the 9 bantam B teams meet up in Owatonna on Sunday and all 9 teams could knock out 2 or 3 district games in one day, then a few weeks later do the same in Mankato, then Rochester. In 3 days every team couod have 8 or 9 district games out of the way. It saves on travel, on time, makes scheduling easier, etc. You could save weekdays for practice making the work/school/hockey/life balence better. This especially makes sense for towns 100 miles or more apart.

Lots of places have multiple rinks now, somehow we should find a way to make things easier on everyone and lower the costs in money and time when possible.
Its a good idea. We tried it in D16 a few years ago, but for some reason the schedulers/coaches did not buy into it.
Right now 2 games per day and 3 hour wait is the constraining factor.

I will add this to the list.
Thank you.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:06 am

So I got back to reading this today:

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 011517.pdf

I came across Proposition 148, found on page 147, where there is a proposal to get rid of tag-up off-sides at all youth levels. Earlier in this thread there were several posts asking Elliott to have tag-up off-sides allowed at Pee Wees in order to promote more flow to the game, less whistles and face-offs. Instead it looks like USA Hockey is going to go in the opposite direction and give us immediate off-sides at all youth levels.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REFER TO YOUTH COUNCIL, COACHES
SECTION AND ATHLETES SECTION AS AMENDED BY BOD
Committee Rationale: Eliminate tag-up at 14U levels of play. Promote skill development and encourage
players to play with the puck versus dump and chase. Promote neutral zone regroup plays that will better
develop defensive puck handling skills.


I swear, USA Hockey is reading our posts about off-sides, checking, and everything that we want in the game and doing the exact opposite.

Forgot to add, there is also a proposed rule change about not allowing icing while on the Penalty Kill. You know what that means, more face-offs as any coach will be willing to take a face-off, even in the defensive zone, versus enduring an ongoing shooting gallery on their net. Even better if the game is running clock, nothing like killing a penalty via a few whistles.

Sometimes I wonder what some of these USA Hockey experts are thinking. They do the exact opposite of what their PAYING membership wants.

Elliot, would Minnesota Hockey ever just say, you know, enough, we're going to do things our way, and just decide to break away from USA Hockey?

elliott70
Posts: 13610
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:40 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:So I got back to reading this today:

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 011517.pdf

I came across Proposition 148, found on page 147, where there is a proposal to get rid of tag-up off-sides at all youth levels. Earlier in this thread there were several posts asking Elliott to have tag-up off-sides allowed at Pee Wees in order to promote more flow to the game, less whistles and face-offs. Instead it looks like USA Hockey is going to go in the opposite direction and give us immediate off-sides at all youth levels.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REFER TO YOUTH COUNCIL, COACHES
SECTION AND ATHLETES SECTION AS AMENDED BY BOD
Committee Rationale: Eliminate tag-up at 14U levels of play. Promote skill development and encourage
players to play with the puck versus dump and chase. Promote neutral zone regroup plays that will better
develop defensive puck handling skills.


I swear, USA Hockey is reading our posts about off-sides, checking, and everything that we want in the game and doing the exact opposite.

Forgot to add, there is also a proposed rule change about not allowing icing while on the Penalty Kill. You know what that means, more face-offs as any coach will be willing to take a face-off, even in the defensive zone, versus enduring an ongoing shooting gallery on their net. Even better if the game is running clock, nothing like killing a penalty via a few whistles.

Sometimes I wonder what some of these USA Hockey experts are thinking. They do the exact opposite of what their PAYING membership wants.

Elliot, would Minnesota Hockey ever just say, you know, enough, we're going to do things our way, and just decide to break away from USA Hockey?
First, thanks for reading through these - that was tonight's agenda - wade through the 220 pages or so.
If you see anything else let me know.

Second, as far as leaving, no, it will not be done by the current leadership/make-up of the MH board. Some have talked about it while looking over their shoulder. Some (one any way) speaks openly of it or of leaving MH and joining Manitoba or other such thing.

Third, what MH does do is request pilot programs to test the water of doing something a little different.

I have made note of these addl things and will make sure it is addressed.

Thank you.

Post Reply