Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[bluemind]

The issues of association size and cut off dates don't really matter to me as I believe everyone will play anyway regardless of the rules, banding etc.. What I find absurd is the notion that we should maintain the status quo and put kids at risk because we have passion for the game. Changing participation rules and protecting kids seems to be what MN Hockey should care about.

My son is as I mentioned not small for his age and is right with 80% of the kids playing Pee Wee A hockey. It is the outliers the 20% of the boys that grew a ton or are on the outer edge of the participation guidelines by age or maturity that cause the concern. I have great concern for kids that are suffering concussions, breaking bones and are exposed to risks that can have life long implications (head and neck injuries).

We can argue that average to small sized kids should be playing down but after watching B and C Pee Wee games it really would only hurt the kid moving down because the competition would not help him improve. It would also not eliminate the risk as there are the same disproportional size issues with kids at those levels too.

I love to watch my son play, I enjoy being a part of MN Hockey and am not interested in affecting change that somehow impacts the quality of the game or the competitiveness of the sport. Why is this the way it has to be when we have facts and statistics that support making the change. It is irrational to protect the status quo when it means embracing risks that impact children.

I know, I could always choose to pull him out and play chess or some other non-contact sport.. Is this really what I am left with? Embrace the risks or go do something else? I am not sure about some of the responses. A few seem to want to maintain the crazy tough and irrationally brave aspect of sports. Professionals who make millions can adopt this as they are paid well but kids??? Really? I love the protectionist s of the status quo that have contributed nothing, risk nothing and have nothing to add except "If you don't like it take a hike" .

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The issues of association size and cut off dates don't really matter to me as I believe everyone will play anyway regardless of the rules, banding etc.. What I find absurd is the notion that we should maintain the status quo and put kids at risk because we have passion for the game. Changing participation rules and protecting kids seems to be what MN Hockey should care about.

My son is as I mentioned not small for his age and is right with 80% of the kids playing Pee Wee A hockey. It is the outliers the 20% of the boys that grew a ton or are on the outer edge of the participation guidelines by age or maturity that cause the concern. I have great concern for kids that are suffering concussions, breaking bones and are exposed to risks that can have life long implications (head and neck injuries).

We can argue that average to small sized kids should be playing down but after watching B and C Pee Wee games it really would only hurt the kid moving down because the competition would not help him improve. It would also not eliminate the risk as there are the same disproportional size issues with kids at those levels too.

I love to watch my son play, I enjoy being a part of MN Hockey and am not interested in affecting change that somehow impacts the quality of the game or the competitiveness of the sport. Why is this the way it has to be when we have facts and statistics that support making the change. It is irrational to protect the status quo when it means embracing risks that impact children.

I know, I could always choose to pull him out and play chess or some other non-contact sport.. Is this really what I am left with? Embrace the risks or go do something else? I am not sure about some of the responses. A few seem to want to maintain the crazy tough and irrationally brave aspect of sports. Professionals who make millions can adopt this as they are paid well but kids??? Really? I love the protectionist s of the status quo that have contributed nothing, risk nothing and have nothing to add except "If you don't like it take a hike" .

well said.

[InigoMontoya]

What in the Wide World of Sports is goin' on here? Are we really talking about weight restrictions? Hockey is a contact sport like football. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for smaller, skilled players, but like football, they need to learn to take advantage of their strengths and not let their weaknesses dictate play. Ref issues are different, but size differential is something a kid has, is, and will like always have to learn to deal with, whether on the ice, on the field, or on the playground (I'm sure there are plenty of dodge ball concussions that go unreported each year).

I watched a game last night that included a team that had 6 or 7 kids that were 3 to 6 inches shorter than the little kids being mentioned on this thread. They played a physical game against a top 20 peewee A team that included a kid that was a couple inches taller than I am, and didn't look like he weighed much less, when he passed me in the lobby. The little kids bumped and nudged the bigger kids off the puck and occasionally hit them more directly, sometimes sending themselves to the ice rather than the bigger kid, but they all hopped up and continued to play. None of them got crushed; they skated with their heads up and moved the puck.

I agree with those saying that some need to step up and parent, if you're kid is really in danger, then he needs to work on keeping his head up, or distributing the puck, improving his puck handling skills, increasing the speed of his decision making process, or increasing his confidence, etc.; most or all can be improved at the B level; simply being fast doesn't make a kid an A level player, but it can trick an evaluator. Otherwise, if you're kid doesn't like chess, he can play basketball or wrestle (he'll only wrestle kids a couple pounds heavier or lighter than himself, but sorry to tell you, he'll still be exposed to broken bones, torn ligaments, and concussions). A 4' 8" seventh grader is probably not looking at much of a chance as a basketball player; should he lobby for height restrictions? A buddy of mine is 6'5" 325 who will never realize his lifelong dream of being a jockey; sometimes it just isn't in the cards.

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

seems like many have got off the topic of the original poster

if june is the new july, and that is what mn hockey based it on 12 some years ago, and June allows more kids to play hockey with their peers and bantams in the 9th grade, then I say June starting next season. glasses out.

[hockeyday]

No one is saying Minnesota isn't producing great hockey players. If they change their age system to line up with everyone else they still will. The fact is many key hockey regions are. Just look at Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario. Just recently, Pronger, 2 Johnson brother, 4 Staal brothers, Ryan Parent, Keith Richards, Taylor Pyatt, etc,etc. All this from a total population base of about 130,000 people. The point is if you are a true sportsman in a hockey region, you believe in equal and true competition on a level playing field. This means squirts play squirts, peewees play peewee and bantam play bantams. Right now, this isn't the case for Minnesota teams because contrary to the rest of the world. Minnesota has an age system which allows kids that to play in lower categories as compared to almost everyone else in the world. Unless you think its fair for a young bantam to play against peewees as long as your kid has the advantage, you would agree that standardizing the age with everyone else is the right thing to do and in line with true sportsmanship. For those focused soleley on getting an edge on everyone else, I guess the status quo is where you want to stay no matter whats right or wrong.

[yeahyeahyeah]

No one is saying Minnesota isn't producing great hockey players. If they change their age system to line up with everyone else they still will. The fact is many key hockey regions are. Just look at Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario. Just recently, Pronger, 2 Johnson brother, 4 Staal brothers, Ryan Parent, Keith Richards, Taylor Pyatt, etc,etc. All this from a total population base of about 130,000 people. .

Sorry no offense but I tuned out the rest of your post after reading our first couple sentences. I realize where you were going but in Canada, EVERY kid plays hockey, at least any kid with athletic ability. Typically the best athletes will play hockey first. I do not know about you but I have seen a couple of kids in my area that play basketball I would like to see on skates.
The Canadian lifestyle and dedication to the hockey is not even comparable to ours. Check out all the time and attention given to the Wild and one hockey player, an underachieving player at that, was given upon visiting Montreal this week. Incredible passion for the sport few in the US can claim to have. That being said when every elite athletes dream is to become a pro you will see more kids achieving higher levels no matter the youth structure.

[Pioneerprideguy]

Anyone know when MN Hockey will meet to discuss this issue?

[elliott70]

Anyone know when MN Hockey will meet to discuss this issue?

Jan 22 - 24 2010
MH Board Mtg
So St Paul Convention Ctr

[Alpha]

Anyone know when MN Hockey will meet to discuss this issue?

Jan 22 - 24 2010
MH Board Mtg
So St Paul Convention Ctr

Thanks Elliot70
Open meeting? or closed door ?

[elliott70]

Anyone know when MN Hockey will meet to discuss this issue?

Jan 22 - 24 2010
MH Board Mtg
So St Paul Convention Ctr

Thanks Elliot70
Open meeting? or closed door ?

Committee meetings ar Friday night and all day Saturday.
They should be open meetings.
Sunday morning is the actual meeting and is open.

[Pioneerprideguy]

Elliott, your prediction on what comes out of this meeting regarding this issue?

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

Recently saw some Bantam B games. A couple teams had 10th graders on their team, July or Aug b-day. All well and good playing by MH age classification.

However one of those associations had three 9th graders not eligible for bantams this year, June b-day. Common sense I would think would prevail and correct the classification so all 9th graders are eligible for bantams.

[observer]

It's hard to know what you're saying. It sounds like most people are in favor of moving the cutoff to June 1 from July 1 as more kids are starting school later. But, you'll never rid yourself of the problem entirely as many parents with children with June birthdays will send their kids to school when 5 years old. July too.

The other part of your story will not change. Because several parents will start their June and July birthdays in school as five year olds you'll still have kids, maybe even more than currently, that will age out of youth hockey while still in 9th grade. It's not going to work for everyone but high school now generally starts in 9th grade in most school districts, a change from years ago, so the 9th graders with June, July and August birthdays will move to their school sponsored team. Fortunately they will be attending high school and playing on their high school team.

Older players will not be allowed to "play down." I do think that associations that allow players to try out to play up with their classmates when they have July and August birthdays is a good solution. The player might as well play with his/her classmates as ultimately that's who they'll compete with for a spot.

[FourStars]

Just curious. Would you be in favor of an immediate rule change to Jun 1 which would have the effect of giving some players the benefit of a 3rd year in Bantams? There are 9th grade Bantams in our district with June birthdays who have successfully petitioned to play up.

I have concerns about the impact of a June rule change with regard to these players.

Players who did not request to play up, who would be in line for Bantam A spots may be forced down to Bantam B1 if the Bantam A spots are given to returning 3rd year Bantams affected by this pending rule change. The net effect will be increasing opportunities for those 9th graders who have already had the benefit of playing up for the entire youth hockey career and negatively impacting opportunities for those who have chosen to play with their grade.

Please consider the implications to all players who would be impacted by such a change. Those players who have voluntarily chosen to play up should now continue to play up, with JV or Junior Gold U16.

[mnhcp]

This is just stupid.

Keep it as is 7.1 with what is already in place as most associations, allow the kid to play up (not down) with their grade but never down. Any associations that don't allow a player to play up are ruthless.

If a survey were done, I'm guessing most June kids are the youngest kids in their class. Works perfect under the current system.

As far a July and August, it's a toss up? It'd be interesting to know how many July hockey players are the youngest in their class vs the oldest and the same for Aug.

Growing up, June kids were the youngest in their class, August kids were the oldest. I honestly don't remember any July kids.

It's just dumb to be wasting time on this.

[elliott70]

Just curious. Would you be in favor of an immediate rule change to Jun 1 which would have the effect of giving some players the benefit of a 3rd year in Bantams? There are 9th grade Bantams in our district with June birthdays who have successfully petitioned to play up.

I have concerns about the impact of a June rule change with regard to these players.

Players who did not request to play up, who would be in line for Bantam A spots may be forced down to Bantam B1 if the Bantam A spots are given to returning 3rd year Bantams affected by this pending rule change. The net effect will be increasing opportunities for those 9th graders who have already had the benefit of playing up for the entire youth hockey career and negatively impacting opportunities for those who have chosen to play with their grade.

Please consider the implications to all players who would be impacted by such a change. Those players who have voluntarily chosen to play up should now continue to play up, with JV or Junior Gold U16.

There are four dates under consideration:
Sept 1, July 1, June 1, and Jan 1.

I believe it will be narrowed done at the Januaury meeting, a vote held at the April meeting and if passed implementation next season.
As stated before I am listening to all arguments pro and con for all possibilities before I decide how to vote.
I believe most board members feel that July 1 works fine but June 1 is acceptable.
I will know more after the January meeting.
Please attend the meeting if you have an opinion and want it heard.

[observer]

I think we need to see solid statistics from the schools, and Minnesota Hockey, regarding percentage of June birthdays that start kindergarten at 5 and the percentage of July birthdays that start school at 5. I can't imagine keeping my June or July back but there does seem to be a trend to do so. It's never going to work for everyone but we want to reduce the number impacted as opposed to growing the number that will be impacted.

In Minnesota where the winter season community based hockey is king, and we're unique nationally for it, I would suggest sticking with July 1, or changing to June 1. With a January 1 cutoff we will split all the school classes in half. September is just stupid as we're discussing the number of July families keeping their students back not August families.

I vote stick with July 1.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

There are four dates under consideration:
Sept 1, July 1, June 1, and Jan 1.

Of these 4 dates, July 1 is the only date that makes no sense. There is merit in the other 3 dates, but none whatsoever in July 1.


- If you want to standardize nationally, then January 1 is the date

- If you want to stick with the shcool calendar then September 1 is the date

- If you want to give summer birthdays the option, consistent with the school calendar then June 1 is the date

- July 1 makes no sense under any sensible formula beyond status quo types. Just splits summer birthdays, empowering some, alienating others and serving no sound logic.

I look forward to this meeting. It will be interesting to hear the logic behind the various dates ...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

June 1 is acceptable.

Yes. Hurts no one and helps many. Probably the most sensible date of the 4

[trippedovertheblueline]

Our youngest daughter started hockey this year she is a June b-day, the 25th. She is a U12 player on our associatons lowest level. She isn't very good, but smiles to, during, and from the rink. She too started school when she was 6. We didn't do it for hockey. She is good in school, and excels in some other activities competitively.

As parents we casually tried to get her in hockey with her brothers and oldest sister, but didn't force it. Once she entered middle school she found many girls in her grade that play hockey. Her new friends got my daughter and another one or two to go out for hockey this year. Well my daughter doesn't know that under the current date she won't be able to play with her friends next year, as she will be U14 age. Besides not playing with her peers, our association does not have U14, and she won't be playing JV at her young grade either.

I would be very supportive of going to June 1st as it would give my daughter the same options as the other summer birth month players.

[mnhcp]

I think we need to see solid statistics from the schools, and Minnesota Hockey, regarding percentage of June birthdays that start kindergarten at 5 and the percentage of July birthdays that start school at 5. I can't imagine keeping my June or July back but there does seem to be a trend to do so. It's never going to work for everyone but we want to reduce the number impacted as opposed to growing the number that will be impacted.

In Minnesota where the winter season community based hockey is king, and we're unique nationally for it, I would suggest sticking with July 1, or changing to June 1. With a January 1 cutoff we will split all the school classes in half. September is just stupid as we're discussing the number of July families keeping their students back not August families.

I vote stick with July 1.

Bingo! "I THINK WE NEED TO SEE SOLID STATISTICS". Elliott, if these people show up making their case without "ACTUAL REAL LIFE GRADE ENROLLMENT/BIRTHDATE STATS" tell them to get the he** out. Even I could be persuaded "IF" the stats told me something I believe to be true. Keep it as July 1. One more thing, possible ammendment: allow kids to play up with their grade if the "shame on you" association doesn't already allow. Should be a MN Hockey rule not association to association. Changing to June to me (without CONVINCING DATA) only encourages kids to play down. "NEED SOLID STATISTICS OR DONT WASTE TIME".

[mnhcp]

There are four dates under consideration:
Sept 1, July 1, June 1, and Jan 1.

Of these 4 dates, July 1 is the only date that makes no sense. There is merit in the other 3 dates, but none whatsoever in July 1.


- If you want to standardize nationally, then January 1 is the date

- If you want to stick with the shcool calendar then September 1 is the date

- If you want to give summer birthdays the option, consistent with the school calendar then June 1 is the date

- July 1 makes no sense under any sensible formula beyond status quo types. Just splits summer birthdays, empowering some, alienating others and serving no sound logic.

I look forward to this meeting. It will be interesting to hear the logic behind the various dates ...

"DO YOU HAVE SOLID STATISTICS TO SUPPORT THIS"?

1. I agree on Jan 1, standardize but realistically it defies MN Hockey's goals.

2. Sept 1. I won't disagree but I won't agree. "Do you have solid stats to support this"? Some schools start in Aug (or don't they anymore it doesn't matter". And, back to solid stats, how do you make a solid case w/o them. June kids: what grade do most enroll in school. July kids: what grade do most enroll in school. Aug kid: what grade do most enroll in school. Generically thinking: middle of summer like July 1 seems pretty logical BUT what do the stats say. Going by your dumas logic, no kids are born in the summer. It alienates no one unless an association doesn't allow a player to play up.

3. Generically speaking, July 1 makes the most sense as it appears to split the difference. But, "WHAT DO SOLID STATS SAY".

[mnhcp]

June 1 is acceptable.

Yes. Hurts no one and helps many. Probably the most sensible date of the 4

Why aren't I seeing the light here? It still appears stupid for anyone to have an opinion without stats!

"I THINK" most kids born June 15th are the youngest in their class and play hockey with the older Sept kids?

It's the July and Aug kids most affected. I think????

Everyone including myself have these "STRONGGGGGG" opinions without any fricken data.

My bias is simple: when growing up, June kids were young. August kids were old. If this still holds true isn't July logical? Get the "REAL" data. I don't know if this is true anymore?

Bottom line: let kids play UP with their grade in "ALL" cases. Get the real data to determine when most parents nowadays enroll their kids in school gradewise. Then the only affected kids are the ones who held their kids back. It's starting to remind me of schools banning peanut butter for 1 kid. Just because one kid can't swim doesn't mean we can't. So the only affected kids whatever the final decision is are those held back. Hurts no one is way to broad. Should only hurt the held back kids.

Earlier I mentioned always allow the kid to play up with their grade and never down. "BUT" once they make the "ONE TIME" playup decision that should be universally accepted that they have to stick with it so they don't use it/abuse it to their advantage unless "CLINICALLY" challenged by a real size issue then birthdate kicks back in. For example, young kid plays up with grade though born in August. Youngest in class. Last year of PW they injure themselves regularily, they are clearly small and it starts to get dangerous. As humans, we should have compassion and allow a change. Some kids are out a whole season due to broken limbs. So there must be exceptions. Remember, this decision could be made at a very young age. Low percentile, injury or clinical are all okay by me.

I'M DONE WITH THIS ISSUE SO PARDON THE DIATRIBE.

[yeahyeahyeah]

Minnesota system flawed? Change something? Why? Team USA World Junior Team is/was comprised of 22 players, 5 of which are Minnesotans. Once again more players from Mn than any other state. 16 USA players have birth dates prior to June 1, 6 later.

Minnesotans Birth dates
Danny Kristo June 90
Jordan Schroeder September 90
Mike Lee July 90
Derek Stepan June 90
Jake Gardiner October 90

Minnesota puts more players on the team, the super stars of the team mind you. These birth dates PROVE that the Minnesota system works perfectly. The majority of the USA team has birth dates in the first 3 months of the year and yet Minnesota puts players on from the mid to late year months. Minnesota youth players have the opportunity to be challenged every other year and be dominant every other year in association. In addition they can get top level training with kids born in the same year in the summer months.

I am guessing Jordan Schroeder, a very small player growing up, never complained about contact from Big guys.

Congratulations to Team USA Juniors U20 as well as the U17's that won gold on Monday. Interestingly only a few boys on the U17 team, that is because the others chose to stay home and play in the GREATEST High School hockey system in the world. We hold out for the Under 20 team.

Congratulations to Minnesota Hockey for developing the greatest hockey players in the USA. I would not want my boys playing in any other state under any other system.

[council member retired]

[quote="mnhcp"][quote="WhosPuckIsItAnyways?"][quote="elliott70"]June 1 is acceptable.
[/quote]

Yes. Hurts no one and helps many. Probably the most sensible date of the 4[/quote]

Why aren't I seeing the light here? It still appears stupid for anyone to have an opinion without stats!


I will try to put light in the tunnel.

The new data, well continual data over the last decade has shown that June 1st is what MH once reasoned their July 1st date at. It appears MH has looked at this change as one "how to allow more kids to be bantam eligible in 9th grade", " how to retain hockey players" and is June 1st a better date.

I have asked and seen the data. The trend to start school if a August b-day at 6 is substantial, 50%. The trend to start school at 6, if July and June is rather identical to each other, say 25%. The number is enhanced when you see the % of MN hockey registered player that starts at age 6, August born MH is showing over 80% at age 6, ( That is why it is currently July 1)
July and June is about or over 50%. May is like walking outward into a lake, you go slow to 8' then 30'... May is not measurable, under a percent. With the current date so many kids are not eligible for association hockey in the 9th grade. And during their earlier years so many of them are not playing with their peers for 1 year at each age level, i.e. peewees. Having a July 1 date now has benefited so many kids, that is what it is about. Both those that attended school at age 5, and those that didn't have options. Currently many June kids do not. And some don't have anywhere to play association hockey in the 9th grade. I don't think anyone "pro youth hockey" would want a kid not to be able to play the game? It maybe time to improve on that.

Data shows both National and MN schools trend over the last 15 to 20 years increases the % of summer b-days to enter school at age 6. In the data I saw, some states recently implemented a age increase for when a child can start school. There is your school data. However MN hockey should not take into account the demographics of their state, but of their membership.

Having the right age classification is something MH has looked at from time to time. It has been switched before, each time with reason to better community hockey and allow more kids to participate. Not once has it been for size, competition, or to win a national title. With recent data MH may realize that changing to June 1, betters the program as a whole. If they do I applaud them.