Option A: Play where you live. Period. We get your arguments.
Option B: Let kids play where they go to school. Thoughts as follows:
Let kids play with their classmates. More fun for the kids. Remember, the kids?
Don't argue that kids will somehow be freeloaders for the community they would play for. The school attended gets tax dollars per pupil, so there is a financial benefit to that community. Also, rink operating expenses are huge, and having more players sharing in those costs is also a financial benefit. I'm guessing the kids won't play for free. Parents still required to volunteer hours? Do fundraisers? I think so.
Open-enrollment exists now for all kids, including elementary school-aged kids. Not just bantams. (Sounds like a lot of Bantam parents on here...)
If this is all about Bantams -- then strengthen your association so that they won't want to leave. If you're a strong community-based supporter, you have nothing to fear? Or, is it your fear that's driving your reaction?
Consider adding a one year open-enrollment pre-requisite to playing in another association. I understand fears of open-enrolling for one year. Address the issue with a higher hassle factor to deter parents from making hockey only decisions. Let them play in their second year. Would that convince some of you that families open-enroll for reasons other than hockey?
From pebbles:
Look at policies of other sports - baseball and lacrosse, for example. The definition of eligible players is often based on players who reside within the particular school district or are enrolled in a PUBLIC school within the district's boundaries. Private schools shouldn't even enter into this discussion. Families choose to open-enroll in public schools of neighboring districts for a variety of reasons and they often become active participants of the schools' programs.
Well said.
I'm sure to add more based on the likely responses...
