delete

play4fun · Post by **play4fun** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:33 pm

[quote="Night Train"]You twisted that hockeyboys. Part of what you say may be true but I think there's other factors as well.

I think more and more people are lazy and don't want to contribute and volunteer as much as in the past. People are leaving parenting and the joys of being involved with their child's athletic and personal development to others. Some parents don't want the genuinely needed responsibility. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved (any good coach can run the same practices Bernie and his staff run) thought it would be easier to put the skates away, with their volunteer commitment time, and pay MM to handle it. Sad but true. A societal shift that may be affected for some by a current more difficult financial situation. Some also don't want to dicker with their association about whether a mite should have 40 hours of ice or 140 hours of ice. See ya, we're bailing and leaving my neighborhood responsibility, and my kids friends, behind.

Anyone know if Bernie's numbers are ahead, or behind, a year ago?[/quote]

Can't say for sure about final numbers, but I do know that for later tryout sessions, some of last year's kids were asked NOT to show up for tryouts because the number of kids trying out this year was so large. (Thought being that they already had a handle on the kids who skated at MM last year...)

And SWPrez -- quite a few of those returning to their associations (Edina, Maple Grove, etc.) are doing so to play Squirt A, whereas they would have been on B squads last year and were at Choice last year to get better development than they felt they would receive at their associations in order to make their A squads upon returning this year. For others not returning to Choice, the reasons I've heard are varied (commute became to much, not enough games for some, too much practice for some, cost, etc.). On the whole, however, the overwhelming majority of families I got to know over the course of last year were very happy with the program, and a large percentage are returning.

I appreciate your comments on other posts though. Your experience and dedication show.

Regardless of whether the kids stay at MM or are back with their association, I'm happy they're playing the sport. If we could come up with better ways to grow the sport, would there ever be enough kids for associations not to feel threatened?

a1puck · Post by **a1puck** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:36 pm

I am from Austin... when my kids were mites the Packers played to a packed house. We had a great high school team that made a run at state many times. We were very competitive with the bigger towns, often beat teams from Roch. That was 10 years ago, today we can't win a game....we are seeing some players leave. We are also seeing some nice athletic kids at the lower levels.

Message is... if you are thinking of moving your mite into that other town with the better teams.... be careful what you wish for. Tomorrow doesn't always equal yesterday.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:07 pm

play4fun wrote:
Night Train wrote:You twisted that hockeyboys. Part of what you say may be true but I think there's other factors as well.

I think more and more people are lazy and don't want to contribute and volunteer as much as in the past. People are leaving parenting and the joys of being involved with their child's athletic and personal development to others. Some parents don't want the genuinely needed responsibility. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved (any good coach can run the same practices Bernie and his staff run) thought it would be easier to put the skates away, with their volunteer commitment time, and pay MM to handle it. Sad but true. A societal shift that may be affected for some by a current more difficult financial situation. Some also don't want to dicker with their association about whether a mite should have 40 hours of ice or 140 hours of ice. See ya, we're bailing and leaving my neighborhood responsibility, and my kids friends, behind.

Anyone know if Bernie's numbers are ahead, or behind, a year ago?[/quote]

Can't say for sure about final numbers, but I do know that for later tryout sessions, some of last year's kids were asked NOT to show up for tryouts because the number of kids trying out this year was so large. (Thought being that they already had a handle on the kids who skated at MM last year...)

And SWPrez -- quite a few of those returning to their associations (Edina, Maple Grove, etc.) are doing so to play Squirt A, whereas they would have been on B squads last year and were at Choice last year to get better development than they felt they would receive at their associations in order to make their A squads upon returning this year. For others not returning to Choice, the reasons I've heard are varied (commute became to much, not enough games for some, too much practice for some, cost, etc.). On the whole, however, the overwhelming majority of families I got to know over the course of last year were very happy with the program, and a large percentage are returning.

I appreciate your comments on other posts though. Your experience and dedication show.

Regardless of whether the kids stay at MM or are back with their association, I'm happy they're playing the sport. If we could come up with better ways to grow the sport, would there ever be enough kids for associations not to feel threatened?
Don't get me wrong. MM has a great and competitive product offering with their Choice program and they have opened eyes to surrounding associations that they need to look closely at their product offerings. My kid has participated in MNMade sponsored programs (not Choice) and I thought they were run professionally and at a high standard. For the reasons that you listed above, the grass wasn't always greener and some folks stay with Choice, some move back to their community. To be clear, I am not anti-Minnesota Made.

My main point was that the poster I was responding to (Play4Fun) was advocating a completely free flowing system and I personally think that that will be the end of youth hockey as we know it as parent volunteers disappear as coaches and "brains" behind their community programs and the cost of playing climbs to the $4,000-5,000 range.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:58 pm

It's getting a little thick with all the talk of kid's friends. I've watched my kid play with another kid at the park for an hour; on the way back to the car I ask, "Who was that", the answer "I don't know."

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:01 pm

For those kids returning from choice, there was not one kid that leapfrogged another kid who did not go to choice during our squirt tryouts. There really was no shifting in relative ability between the kids. Our NHL and college dads kept their kids in the association. Good program, but you can't put 7 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:42 pm

delete

bluemind · Post by **bluemind** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:58 am

bluemind · Post by **bluemind** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:08 pm

Hockeydad41,

Thanks for the civil discourse, I am interested however in your view on the downside for players and families having unrestricted choice? I understand your point on my "Harms" but this is the new reality with the proposed rule change even if it is tweaked from this season going forward.

Help me understand why it is so bad to allow anyone to play anywhere they like? It is not so radical to think that given the opportunity to move freely (free market) that families and players would choose to stay home. Where the the families or players have issues with the local association or have desire to play with school chums they could do so. Is it so bad for MH to allow a group of boys who play AAA to have the same team within an association in the winter? I am not sure why this is bad?

I firmly believe invoking some change to stop the protectionist and down right selfish behaviours of associations would ultimatly yield better hockey. I think it would also drive more responsible leadership at the local level. I must say again that the many fmilies and players need more options than playing where you live. We have kids that leave to Ann Arbor, we have kids that play Fire, we have kids that play Choice at MM. At the end of the day the change has been made but MH has not been willing to acknowledge and support it.

I still feel pretty strongly that in a more free market costs and opportunites for every family will be in line with what they want. I am not sure that someone who chooses to play for the Fire should be forced due to MH limitations to pay so much because they are not allowed to play in MN against kids there own age in the winter. I also believe that options such as playing locally or where you go to school should not be so restrictive. Is there anything wrong with choosing to play at MM for a winter to get better and then rejoining your association or playing with your school friends?

At every turn MH wants to keep things the way they have always been and seemingly will pass rules to inhibit changes occuring in the hockey world. In Michingan the associations are for recreational play and the year round AAA is for players that want lots of development and competition a cut above recreational sports. Many children play in-house association sports and do not attend public schools. Only hockey has a big barrier, baseball and other traveling sports allow for AAA level teams to be formed and compete. Some of them include kids for all over the metro area some are from mostly one community and some are all from the same community. Why can't hockey get that right.

I think whatever the system implemented is for hockey the development and the opportunities need to line up with the families and the players expectations and aspirations. Why lock these families and players into a system in MH that protects one thing the state high school hockey tournament. I suspect that so few kids will ever get to play in this event that in the end we are doing nothing more than supporting increased costs for the high flyers and making access for the recreational athlete a disapointment. Choice today is fundamentally cost prohibitive for too many families because they have so many restrictions. Without a choice to try and get something more they take what they get locally. In many associations it is very heavy lifting to actually get coaches and often times they are not much more than a guy who played in high school. I think the down turn in volunteers is due to the underlying lack of support for this system. The parents that get to make choices sign up emotionally and finacially in doing so and are typically very engaged.

Too many associations are simply not interested in getting better and need to get a firm kick in the butt (Lakeville). I think given the chance to form a AAA winter team within an association supporting this would ultimatly provide lower costs and drive heatlhier associations from top to bottom. Coaching and life lessons are best taught by someone that has a passion for the child and the subject. Too many places it is whomever we can get and often the coach is begged to do it again.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:40 pm

delete

davinci · Post by **davinci** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:14 pm

HockeyDad41 wrote:
bluemind wrote:Hockeydad41,

Thanks for the civil discourse, I am interested however in your view on the downside for players and families having unrestricted choice? I understand your point on my "Harms" but this is the new reality with the proposed rule change even if it is tweaked from this season going forward.

Help me understand why it is so bad to allow anyone to play anywhere they like? It is not so radical to think that given the opportunity to move freely (free market) that families and players would choose to stay home. Where the the families or players have issues with the local association or have desire to play with school chums they could do so. Is it so bad for MH to allow a group of boys who play AAA to have the same team within an association in the winter? I am not sure why this is bad?

I firmly believe invoking some change to stop the protectionist and down right selfish behaviours of associations would ultimatly yield better hockey. I think it would also drive more responsible leadership at the local level. I must say again that the many fmilies and players need more options than playing where you live. We have kids that leave to Ann Arbor, we have kids that play Fire, we have kids that play Choice at MM. At the end of the day the change has been made but MH has not been willing to acknowledge and support it.

I still feel pretty strongly that in a more free market costs and opportunites for every family will be in line with what they want. I am not sure that someone who chooses to play for the Fire should be forced due to MH limitations to pay so much because they are not allowed to play in MN against kids there own age in the winter. I also believe that options such as playing locally or where you go to school should not be so restrictive. Is there anything wrong with choosing to play at MM for a winter to get better and then rejoining your association or playing with your school friends?

At every turn MH wants to keep things the way they have always been and seemingly will pass rules to inhibit changes occuring in the hockey world. In Michingan the associations are for recreational play and the year round AAA is for players that want lots of development and competition a cut above recreational sports. Many children play in-house association sports and do not attend public schools. Only hockey has a big barrier, baseball and other traveling sports allow for AAA level teams to be formed and compete. Some of them include kids for all over the metro area some are from mostly one community and some are all from the same community. Why can't hockey get that right.

I think whatever the system implemented is for hockey the development and the opportunities need to line up with the families and the players expectations and aspirations. Why lock these families and players into a system in MH that protects one thing the state high school hockey tournament. I suspect that so few kids will ever get to play in this event that in the end we are doing nothing more than supporting increased costs for the high flyers and making access for the recreational athlete a disapointment. Choice today is fundamentally cost prohibitive for too many families because they have so many restrictions. Without a choice to try and get something more they take what they get locally. In many associations it is very heavy lifting to actually get coaches and often times they are not much more than a guy who played in high school. I think the down turn in volunteers is due to the underlying lack of support for this system. The parents that get to make choices sign up emotionally and finacially in doing so and are typically very engaged.

Too many associations are simply not interested in getting better and need to get a firm kick in the butt (Lakeville). I think given the chance to form a AAA winter team within an association supporting this would ultimatly provide lower costs and drive heatlhier associations from top to bottom. Coaching and life lessons are best taught by someone that has a passion for the child and the subject. Too many places it is whomever we can get and often the coach is begged to do it again.
From a personal perspective I would like to have a choice. If I am being honest I think my kids would probably have a better opportunity to play with a larger number of talented kids at just about any of the other associations near us. Ironically, the longer I am a part of my association the less inclined I am to bail just because we are not competitive at the moment.

However, if I did know someone who felt strongly about leaving, I would support them having a choice. We should make our association a place that people want to be part of, and if they want to leave they should have that choice. Just my .02

delete

Shoot Higher · Post by **Shoot Higher** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:50 pm

davinci wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:
bluemind wrote:Hockeydad41,

Thanks for the civil discourse, I am interested however in your view on the downside for players and families having unrestricted choice? I understand your point on my "Harms" but this is the new reality with the proposed rule change even if it is tweaked from this season going forward.

Help me understand why it is so bad to allow anyone to play anywhere they like? It is not so radical to think that given the opportunity to move freely (free market) that families and players would choose to stay home. Where the the families or players have issues with the local association or have desire to play with school chums they could do so. Is it so bad for MH to allow a group of boys who play AAA to have the same team within an association in the winter? I am not sure why this is bad?

I firmly believe invoking some change to stop the protectionist and down right selfish behaviours of associations would ultimatly yield better hockey. I think it would also drive more responsible leadership at the local level. I must say again that the many fmilies and players need more options than playing where you live. We have kids that leave to Ann Arbor, we have kids that play Fire, we have kids that play Choice at MM. At the end of the day the change has been made but MH has not been willing to acknowledge and support it.

I still feel pretty strongly that in a more free market costs and opportunites for every family will be in line with what they want. I am not sure that someone who chooses to play for the Fire should be forced due to MH limitations to pay so much because they are not allowed to play in MN against kids there own age in the winter. I also believe that options such as playing locally or where you go to school should not be so restrictive. Is there anything wrong with choosing to play at MM for a winter to get better and then rejoining your association or playing with your school friends?

At every turn MH wants to keep things the way they have always been and seemingly will pass rules to inhibit changes occuring in the hockey world. In Michingan the associations are for recreational play and the year round AAA is for players that want lots of development and competition a cut above recreational sports. Many children play in-house association sports and do not attend public schools. Only hockey has a big barrier, baseball and other traveling sports allow for AAA level teams to be formed and compete. Some of them include kids for all over the metro area some are from mostly one community and some are all from the same community. Why can't hockey get that right.

I think whatever the system implemented is for hockey the development and the opportunities need to line up with the families and the players expectations and aspirations. Why lock these families and players into a system in MH that protects one thing the state high school hockey tournament. I suspect that so few kids will ever get to play in this event that in the end we are doing nothing more than supporting increased costs for the high flyers and making access for the recreational athlete a disapointment. Choice today is fundamentally cost prohibitive for too many families because they have so many restrictions. Without a choice to try and get something more they take what they get locally. In many associations it is very heavy lifting to actually get coaches and often times they are not much more than a guy who played in high school. I think the down turn in volunteers is due to the underlying lack of support for this system. The parents that get to make choices sign up emotionally and finacially in doing so and are typically very engaged.

Too many associations are simply not interested in getting better and need to get a firm kick in the butt (Lakeville). I think given the chance to form a AAA winter team within an association supporting this would ultimatly provide lower costs and drive heatlhier associations from top to bottom. Coaching and life lessons are best taught by someone that has a passion for the child and the subject. Too many places it is whomever we can get and often the coach is begged to do it again.
From a personal perspective I would like to have a choice. If I am being honest I think my kids would probably have a better opportunity to play with a larger number of talented kids at just about any of the other associations near us. Ironically, the longer I am a part of my association the less inclined I am to bail just because we are not competitive at the moment.

However, if I did know someone who felt strongly about leaving, I would support them having a choice. We should make our association a place that people want to be part of, and if they want to leave they should have that choice. Just my .02

Flip Flop?

HockeyDad41- so.... how old are your skaters and how many years have your volunteered in your local association?

Enlightenment of how things actually work dont become clear until your kids get older- give some weight to opinions of those who have been there and done that (and also realize that rules are needed because there are crazed parents that will stop at nothing to get their kid on a top team)

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:28 am

delete

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:00 am

delete

a1puck · Post by **a1puck** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:00 am

I am not against rules. What I am for a waiver process that addresses the needs of the family before the needs of the association. I think some associations do that fairly well and others have a standing procedure of rejecting waivers unless it benefits the association.

Dad, I think you unwittingly stumbled upon the difference between your philosophy and Minnesota Hockey’s philosophy.

I really do not think you would make good board material. A board member needs to do what is best for the majority of the kids in his association, not what is best for his own kid and these are often two different things.

The idea that you should be able to play wherever you want is certainly appealing to me. I know that my kid could certainly have a better experience elsewhere…in some respects. He could certainly play for a better team. On the other hand, he can learn a whole lot about respect, hard work and commitment right where he is.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:57 am

delete

a1puck · Post by **a1puck** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:29 pm

Dad,

I have been on our hockey board for 10 years. We don't have too many waivers, but we have seen a few. I can tell you that no one has ever requested to be waived to a weaker team. Each and every time it has been to play with a stronger team or having a beef with a coach.

These players then went on to move from one team to another searching for a place to best "develop".

I think you underestimate the insanity. People rent apartments in other towns, sign custody agreements, it gets pretty wild.

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:12 pm

Minnesota Hockey's obligation is not to the superstar kids in search of a super Team because parents just can't bear the thought of their Ovechkin skating with lesser players. Minnesota Hockey should be all about THE REST of the kids. If you live in Richfield and just happen to think junior would get better coaching and competition in Edina, good for you, but what about the displaced kids? Isn't that worse for them? And do you think Edina will go to the trouble of naming their A team on September 15th so their 15-30 kids can try out in Bloomington, or Hopkins? Right. It's those hundreds of kids registration that helps keep that juggernaut afloat. No, rules should be put in place so that Edina takes care of it's own. Ditto EP and where we live. Triple A is strong enough March-September. The ONLY way an association can improve is to keep it's good players. If there aren't enough at a level, rainbow with your neighbors.

Your little Ovechkin DOESN'T NEED Minnesota Hockey's protection. For most kids, it's not about the NHL. It's about playing for the High School where he lives. Those kids need Minnesota Hockey's help, and rules that allow people to chase better coaching and better teams are counterproductive to that end.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:39 pm

Hockeydaddy wrote:Minnesota Hockey's obligation is not to the superstar kids in search of a super Team because parents just can't bear the thought of their Ovechkin skating with lesser players. Minnesota Hockey should be all about THE REST of the kids. If you live in Richfield and just happen to think junior would get better coaching and competition in Edina, good for you, but what about the displaced kids? Isn't that worse for them? And do you think Edina will go to the trouble of naming their A team on September 15th so their 15-30 kids can try out in Bloomington, or Hopkins? Right. It's those hundreds of kids registration that helps keep that juggernaut afloat. No, rules should be put in place so that Edina takes care of it's own. Ditto EP and where we live. Triple A is strong enough March-September. The ONLY way an association can improve is to keep it's good players. If there aren't enough at a level, rainbow with your neighbors.

Your little Ovechkin DOESN'T NEED Minnesota Hockey's protection. For most kids, it's not about the NHL. It's about playing for the High School where he lives. Those kids need Minnesota Hockey's help, and rules that allow people to chase better coaching and better teams are counterproductive to that end.

Amen. MN Hockey and their affiliates serve kids incredibly well - prior to this new rule being passed.

A year and a half ago my son was fortunate enough to play in Toronto at the Prospects Tourney on a 'rainbow' team (not the Blades). The team had kids from Florida, Connecticut, Texas, Georgia, etc. I got to know some of the parents over the course of the weekend and they were very inquisitive about MN Hockey and how it functions. They ALL wished they could be in a system like ours.

When I told them that hockey was $1,200-1,600 from September to March, their jaws dropped. Ice rental alone in many of these areas is north of $300/hour.

It has worked and has needed tweeks to stay competitive nationally. I have previously cited Elite I and II leagues for high school kids run as USA Hockey sponsored programs that have improved MN Hockey.

I go back to this policy that was written was not written with a thought of how it would affect all associations and am concerned that it begins the slippery slope towards hockey and how it works outside of MN (free agency all star teams with people constantly bopping from one team to another). Though we complain about expense here in MN....going down that slippery slope will reduce hockey players and move MN Hockey into the $4,000+ per season that is witnessed in most other areas of the country.

MN Hockey does need to relook at this at the Sept. meeting and deeply look at the short term and long term effects of the slippery slope and whether they believe that that future fits the vision of MN Hockey and the associations.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:03 am

delete

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:26 am

I can tell you that no one has ever requested to be waived to a weaker team.

I've done this for over 10 years now as well. I have seen lots of kids ask to be waived to "weaker" associations. Almost all of the time it is because they want to play with their friends, and their school friends live within the boundaries of a different association. Some of these kids attend private schools, and others open enroll in public schools.

For associations to deny waivers for these kids weakens MN and USA hockey. It keeps kids away when they can't play with their friends. Everyone needs to understand that this is not just about "A" level players - this is about "C" players - which is the vast majority of players in MN. They play because recreationally. They play because it is social time and they get out of the house. These players quit hockey because getting assigned to an association away from thier friends is just not the experience they are looking for.

The reason for the rule change is to try to keep more kids in the game. Everyone keeps talking about the "A" players and the top teams - but this really is more about the 90% of the kids that are not the top players.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:49 am

Hockeyboys,

That's totally incorrect. Maybe you've heard of a few C level waivers but can't imagine any were denied. C kids are waived all the time because it's rare that any association has the exact number of kids for their last team.

I don't think your viewpoint has anything to do with why this rule came under review and was changed. The reasons were selfish ones for a few families. I agree totally with what hockeydaddy says. MN Hockey should do what they can for 95% of the hockey families in the state and not concern themselves with a selfish few.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:20 am

hockeyboys wrote:
I can tell you that no one has ever requested to be waived to a weaker team.
I've done this for over 10 years now as well. I have seen lots of kids ask to be waived to "weaker" associations. Almost all of the time it is because they want to play with their friends, and their school friends live within the boundaries of a different association. Some of these kids attend private schools, and others open enroll in public schools.

For associations to deny waivers for these kids weakens MN and USA hockey. It keeps kids away when they can't play with their friends. Everyone needs to understand that this is not just about "A" level players - this is about "C" players - which is the vast majority of players in MN. They play because recreationally. They play because it is social time and they get out of the house. These players quit hockey because getting assigned to an association away from thier friends is just not the experience they are looking for.

The reason for the rule change is to try to keep more kids in the game. Everyone keeps talking about the "A" players and the top teams - but this really is more about the 90% of the kids that are not the top players.

Hockeyboys,

Are there any statistics that you can cite that show MN Hockey is losing players due to not waiving them for C teams?

People make emotional arguments for the rule, but when one peels back and digs under the surface, there are not kids quitting in droves (or even in small numbers) because they can't play with their school friends.

I have to agree with community based - emotional arguments were used to get this rule in play so that a different agenda could be pursued. I don't know what that agenda was - Could have been a private school that wants to set up a full bantam program in the future to feed their hockey machine, could have been a large association wanting to get rid of kids that aren't going to stick around and play at the public school anyways, could have been several other reasons.

There is no statistical information available showing that MN Hockey is losing kids because they can't play with their school buddies. Rules should be made based on information, not on emotion.

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:38 am

SW Prez:

People make emotional arguments for the rule, but when one peels back and digs under the surface, there are not kids quitting in droves (or even in small numbers) because they can't play with their school friends.

Do you have the statistics to back up your claim that kids are not quitting due to thier inability to play with their friends?

They certainly are - and everyone can argue the reasons. Just look at the number of kids lost from mites to squirts to peewees to bantams.

MN hockey is trying to address ONE of the reasons kids quit - and that is they want to play with their friends.

Did they do a good job addressing the issue? I would agree with just about everyone else that the wording in what they passed is ambiguous at best. But they tried to take the decision making away from the associaiton presidents and boards. They were certainly moving in the right direction, but didn't quite hit the mark.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:59 am

The two most cited reasons for the drop off in player numbers through the years are,

Mites to Squirts the primary reason is the cost generally goes from $100 for Mites to $400-$600 for Squirts. Some associations set the Mite price particularly low to attract new kids which can backfire when they jump it up. The association where my kids skated raised Mite prices to get more in line with actual ice costs and also get the parents used to paying an appropriate amount as opposed to the "loss leader."

Squirts to PeeWee the primary reasons quoted are commitment level of "real hockey" (A & B) and hitting. There are several players, and maybe parents, that want nothing to do with checking.

Price can be an issue for a big number of families. Association hockey is now around $1000 to $1500, for most levels, and some families will have trouble with that.

Those are real reasons for declining numbers through the years.

The friends comments are a joke. Help your kid make new friends in the community where they live. I'm pretty sure that strengthens the community.

Loved InigoMontoya's comment, I've watched my kid play with another kid at the park for an hour; on the way back to the car I ask, "Who was that", the answer "I don't know." Classic. It's parents that want to "over steer" their child's development that screw stuff up.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:25 am

hockeyboys wrote:SW Prez:
People make emotional arguments for the rule, but when one peels back and digs under the surface, there are not kids quitting in droves (or even in small numbers) because they can't play with their school friends.
Do you have the statistics to back up your claim that kids are not quitting due to thier inability to play with their friends?

They certainly are - and everyone can argue the reasons. Just look at the number of kids lost from mites to squirts to peewees to bantams.

MN hockey is trying to address ONE of the reasons kids quit - and that is they want to play with their friends.

Did they do a good job addressing the issue? I would agree with just about everyone else that the wording in what they passed is ambiguous at best. But they tried to take the decision making away from the associaiton presidents and boards. They were certainly moving in the right direction, but didn't quite hit the mark.

We do follow up when kids don't register. The reasons are as Community Based states:

1) cost - our reply is we provide financial assistance
2) Moved
3) Just didn't like it anymore (hitting or other reasons)
4) Commitment - family loves to ski, kid has other interests during the season, etc.

I have never had anyone say, "you won't let my kid play with his XYZ school friends, so we are leaving the game".

Hockey is an addiction. When a kid skates for several years you could not get a dozen wild horses to pull them away from the rink ; regardless of who they are on the ice with (school friends, community friends, kids they don't know). A few kids just don't like the sport ; too much work, like wrestling better than hockey, etc.- these are things MN Hockey can't change.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

delete

xxx

Something more

Re: Something more

Re: Something more

Re: Something more

delete

delete