Minnesota Hockey board meeting...

[old goalie85]

I agree who cares about the rest of the "hockey nation". We should do our own thing. I bet we will see ND,SD,Wisc follow. I'm sure we can still play the Manitoba teams.

[defense]

I hadn't thought about the fact that we may indeed lose numbers as a sport in America. It might not be the most likely thing, but I wouldn't rule it out. The problem is not checking, the problem is how it is done. Why is there not a campaign from USA hockey about spending more time on properly playing the body??? all that has been hashed out in this thread so I'll quit.
I would have to agree that ND, SD, and Wisconsin would likely follow Minnesota Hockey, I mean, where would they be without MN hockey??

[elliott70]

I hadn't thought about the fact that we may indeed lose numbers as a sport in America. It might not be the most likely thing, but I wouldn't rule it out. The problem is not checking, the problem is how it is done. Why is there not a campaign from USA hockey about spending more time on properly playing the body??? all that has been hashed out in this thread so I'll quit.
I would have to agree that ND, SD, and Wisconsin would likely follow Minnesota Hockey, I mean, where would they be without MN hockey??

This is part of the argument and is being argued by a lot of very credible people.

[MrBoDangles]

Also hearing from many former association faithful now not wanting their kids to play small ice games for five years.

Please don't make comparisons to other sports, because there is no comparison...

[muckandgrind]

They don't need to eliminate checking, they just need to a better job calling head shots, charging, boarding and checking from behind. Getting rid of checking is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water, there is simply no need.

I've seen very few " bone crushing and skull rattling" checks at the Pee Wee level....occasionally, you'll see a kid caught in open ice with his head down, but that's about it. Many of the other hard hits along the boards have some of the infractions I listed above. Call those, and everyone's fine.

[the_juiceman]

Sometimes you hear that leaders should lead. This seems to be an objective counter to representing constituents. Yes, there is a great deal of resistance to what USA Hockey is working on. Some of it is informed. Most of it isn't.

I'm fine either way, but I have yet to hear anyone refute Fisher's concussion reasoning, Norris's window of trainability, or McLaughlin's assertion that PW age players fall into two camps.

If the governing body needed majority support before changing anything, it sure would call into question the need for a governing body.

Basketball at one point didn't allow dribbling. Football was played without helmets. In soccer a goalkeeper could pick up a ball passed by his own defender.

Youth hockey could easily weather a small change and it will still be hockey. Very interested in seeing how this plays out.

And public schools still teach one man's theory from the early 1800's.
There is also a kid that started Hockey at fourteen and ended up being the school's second all time leading scorer at a pretty decent program.
Divide the PeeWees and some won't get the same opportunity....

What we have learned is that USA Hockey & Minn Hockey don't really care what the membership wants or believes (even though they keep telling us to make our voices heard). You are correct the vast majority disapprove of their opinions, because that is all they are just like yours or mine (I loved the idea of a test to judge results, but then again that might prove them wrong and they don't want that).

What we have proved is that regardless if people are united in Minnesota or not, their is enough "Unity" amongst the board that they don't care about the memberships "Unity" in their beliefs. You are correct they don't need to listen to us, much like our politicians and that is why we get to vote them in and out. Unfortunately these boards have postured themselves so they can do what they want when they want and the membership cannot have them removed.

All we have heard is we think and we believe. We are going to create even more ambiguity in the rules and for the officials.

So much for clarity, facts and bringing unity to the membership. You are not reinventing the wheel for the membership, but dumbing it down on someones intuition because they (a very small group) feel they are smarter than everyone else. And just maybe it will work.

Yes Minnesota is a single voice to USA Hockey, but I have to believe we are one of the single largest voices in the membership.

Will hockey survive, yes. Is this a small change? NO!

We are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and I believe we will lose higher end players and those that like physical play (In junior high you don't play touch football).

The majority of football players, fans and coaches wanted helmets and facemasks, but they didn't say lets play touch football.

Lets worry about unifying Minnesota Hockey. Not running from litigation or towards USA Hockey.

Kum By Ya (or however you spell it)

"Kumbia"

[JSR]

We are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and I believe we will lose higher end players and those that like physical play (In junior high you don't play touch football).

Very true, they play full on tackle football in junior high. However in most every junior high that I've ever visited that has football they also divide the kids into light weight and heavy weight "divisions" so that some early developing 6 foot 160lbs 7th grader can't unload and destroy some 5 foot 75 lbs 7th grader.

I am all for keeping checking but it's clear that keeping it the same as it has always been is also not a good option. Perhaps lightweight and heavyweight divisions then A&B divisions within those for PeeWees might solve the problem better along with doing a better job of teaching body contact at earlier ages and throughout the hockey development process.

[muckandgrind]

We are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and I believe we will lose higher end players and those that like physical play (In junior high you don't play touch football).

Very true, they play full on tackle football in junior high. However in most every junior high that I've ever visited that has football they also divide the kids into light weight and heavy weight "divisions" so that some early developing 6 foot 160lbs 7th grader can't unload and destroy some 5 foot 75 lbs 7th grader.

I am all for keeping checking but it's clear that keeping it the same as it has always been is also not a good option. Perhaps lightweight and heavyweight divisions then A&B divisions within those for PeeWees might solve the problem better along with doing a better job of teaching body contact at earlier ages and throughout the hockey development process.

Where are you from? I've never seen Junior High kids separated by weight.....I've heard of it at the younger ages, but not in Junior High. Most Junior High teams that I've seen are separated by grade, not by weight.

Like I said before, keep checking in the game....just call the headshots, charges, boarding and checking from behind. Teach the kids how to check properly and move on.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

What I find most telling about the whole "checking" v. "non-checking" debate is that those against checking at PeeWee's NEVER cite a scientific study that demonstrates that there is an epidemic of huge checks and concussions everywhere...

I said this before and I'll say it again, those of you who think that PeeWee hockey has the most mismatched size issues are 100% inaccurate.

Go to the following website

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/stages/viewgr ... m?id=BW318

The 25th percentile of 12.5 year olds (PeeWee's are 12 and 13 year olds you know) is 84 lbs.

The 75th percentile of 12.5 year olds is 110 lbs. 95th is 135 lbs.

Now look at the Bantam age (where anti-PeeWee checking advocates think we should introduce full on body contact)

The 25th percentile of 14.5 year olds is 105 lbs. The 75th percentile is 136 lbs and the 95th is 168 lbs.

Thus, what does this tell us:

At PeeWee's there is a difference of 26 lbs between the 25th and 75th percentile of kids, with a 51 lbs difference between the 95th and 25th. THE HEAVIEST kids are going to be in the 120 lbs range and the lightest kids are around 90 lbs...

At Bantam's, there is a difference of 31 lbs between the 25th and 75th percentile, with a 63 lbs difference between the 25th and 95th. The HEAVIEST kids are going to be in the 150-160 range and the lightest kids are going to be in the 100's...

IF safety was truly the issue here, why are we even thinking about introducing checking at a level where kids start to weigh enough to do serious harm and where the weight differences are most extreme????

Go look at the chart at the website listed above if you don't trust my numbers OR if you are a visual person... look where the lines are closest v. farthest away.

[observer]

For me the answer to all of this is recruiting. Time and effort much better spent expanding the game.

Most organizations currently do very little to set and achieve recruiting goals each year. Kids used to just sign up. But now with more options than ever for ways for families to spend their time it's not just a given that they'll sign junior, or missy, up for hockey.

Better numbers grow revenue, provide more and better volunteers and potentially even allow for both checking and non-checking teams and leagues.

The idea to pause checking until bantam is an extremely bad idea that 99% of membership, from what we've seen here, oppose. Frankly, it makes absolutely no sense at all. None.

Focus your energy on how to grow and improve the game. The revenue piece is extremely important and a number of organizations from community based associations to Minnesota Hockey to USA Hockey have done a poor job of it for the most part.

Checking, and slap shots for that matter, should be taught at the Squirt level, 2nd year if you like, so when a kid plays his first PeeWee game he's comfortable as can be instead of afraid. Those that play summer hockey will be checking before they even attend their first fall association PeeWee practice so all the more reason to prepare them, with good instruction, before they come into PeeWee tryouts and the 2nd year kids love to cream a few of the first years. For some reason a lot of players love to blow up their own friends and team mates more than the opposition.

So, get your recruiting committee together now and set a goal for how many new Mites you hope to attract, boys and girls, between now and October.

Please don't be lazy on this leadership. Give your member organizations the tools they need to grow the game. Your future being involved in hockey depends on it. More members give you everything you need.

[muckandgrind]

What I find most telling about the whole "checking" v. "non-checking" debate is that those against checking at PeeWee's NEVER cite a scientific study that demonstrates that there is an epidemic of huge checks and concussions everywhere...

Good post...

Similarly, it's a big pet-peeve of mine to read stories or columns that say "studies have shown"....then NEVER tell us what study!!! I see this constantly in Jack Blatherwick's columns in Let's Play Hockey. He is forever saying "studies show" but never references the specific study. Half the time I think people throw that in there just to squash any debate.

[MrBoDangles]

Very good post! That is why the Canadiens start with a hand or stick check in Mites.... The strength and size is not there and the kids are able to learn contact without the blow-up check. We will be going in the other direction. Our kids will get to Bantams and have the built up seek and destroy attitude.

[O-townClown]

The amount of misinformation in some of these posts is disturbing.

You want a study? How about the one measuring injuries in Canadian hockey using Quebec as a control group. (It even breaks out concussions.) Punch in "pee wee body checking injury study" and the search engine results number over 200,000. This study has been widely cited in the past 8 months.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/knes/news/bodychecking

Another poster says "anti PW checking" people feel it is best to introduce "full on body contact" at Bantam. USA Hockey wants to see more body contact at Mites and Squirts. Kevin McLaughlin's video stresses that, and I suspect Brian Burke's does too. (Haven't watched it yet.)

http://www.admkids.com/media.php

I guess these details don't matter to those that choose to be misinformed.

Here's a local example of the Calgary study being used in an article.

http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2010 ... ather_data

(Includes comments from Dr. Stuart of the Mayo Clinic, who does admit that Minnesota has not compiled enough data to reach a conclusion. Which is why the Calgary study is given so much weight. No other study refutes its findings.)

The data cited above does show that kids of Bantam age have even more of a size disparity than the Pee Wees do, but this tells only part of the story and needs to be overlayed with the science explained by Dr. Norris. A pre-teen brain does not naturally allow a player to 'play hockey' while thinking of the player's surrounds. Such awareness is much easier for the 13/14-year-old.

Contrary to the old school belief, getting drilled at age 11 isnt' the only way teach a player to keep their head up. Soccer coaches used to want to keep players well fed leading up to a game, then have them go on a short fast to 'play hungry'. In time we have learned there are better ways to prepare the body. Similarly, I don't think sport science's findings on developing brains should be ignored just because most people can't read more than one page on the subject.

I'm still waiting for arguments that Dr. Norris is wrong on the optimal window for teaching skills or that Dr. Stuart is wrong and brain bruises are really no big deal. Never really hear those arguments.

I've said it before: I'm fine either way on this. Change, don't change. I'm fine.

It's just bothersome that the people that really know nothing about it hide behind statements like "they don't know what they're talking about" when the folks that are saying these things actually do.

Go ahead. Now say that Univ. of Calgary isn't a good school or something.

Whatever.

[O-townClown]

We will be going in the other direction.

Okay, only the 498th time something you've posted doesn't make sense to me.

Canadians: body contact at Mite = good

Americans: body contact at Mite = not good

[elliott70]

Oclown
You keep saying USAH wants to do this and wants to do that.
BUT, in northern MN these things, cross-ice and small area games ahve been going on since I was little (and young) and that was a long time ago.
Body contact in squirt (even mite) hockey has been going on for a long time.
USAH is not introducing anything new here.

The good points in the argument to eliminate body checking in peewees is teh window of opportunity for development... that a peewee age kid can only absorb so much, that their reaction skills are less. But does that mean we do not train to learn these skills. And taining means being tested. Tested in games is the only way to assess properly.

Concussions... less checking means less concussions?
No study, no mater what credence you give it has shown that that si the natural result. The Canadian study is not conclusive as stated by the Dr. you quote. The biggest group of hockey players to report concussions per capita is girls and women hockey. Yes, there could be rational for it, but could be....
frankly after listening to and then speaking with Dr Stuart (who I think highly of) I was more in doubt about the 'safety factor'. And I was not convinced that training iwth checking and playing without it si a good answer to development.

The question comes...
(and not jsut from me) is this a safety issue, a develpmental issue, a money issue...

What game is being played by USAH? What is really going on?
USAH comes off as throwing a net over some problem and coming up with some solution that leaves most of us saying, 'What the hell?'

USAH is not a big player development organizatin for many kids herer in MN.
Our volunteer coaches, etal... do the development. And then people come in with an out of town resume and they are the experts.

But sorry, the experts may be right, but by their own admission may be wrong?

I have seen a lot of kids go through hockey and grow up without brain damage, without 'scars'. I have seen a lot of kids skate in nearby rinks that have done great at high school and college (on the rink and in the classroom and in life). All the studies in the world cannot change that. Adn all the studies have one big flaw - they have no control group within the group being studied.

Like a USAH youth council member stated, this wsa predestined, Someone(s) wanted this and they set out to prove it.

[muckandgrind]

I read the Calgary study.....and this stood out:

"Last winter Calgary Pee Wee hockey player Ash Kolstad was flattened bya blow to the head and sustained a severe concussion."

Checking was not the cause of this concussion....it was a blow to the head, which is already illegal; checking or not.

Again, teach the kids how to properly check and enforce the rule book and you won't see nearly as many injuries.

[C-dad]

Oclown
You keep saying USAH wants to do this and wants to do that.
BUT, in northern MN these things, cross-ice and small area games ahve been going on since I was little (and young) and that was a long time ago.
Body contact in squirt (even mite) hockey has been going on for a long time.
USAH is not introducing anything new here.

The good points in the argument to eliminate body checking in peewees is teh window of opportunity for development... that a peewee age kid can only absorb so much, that their reaction skills are less. But does that mean we do not train to learn these skills. And taining means being tested. Tested in games is the only way to assess properly.

Concussions... less checking means less concussions?
No study, no mater what credence you give it has shown that that si the natural result. The Canadian study is not conclusive as stated by the Dr. you quote. The biggest group of hockey players to report concussions per capita is girls and women hockey. Yes, there could be rational for it, but could be....
frankly after listening to and then speaking with Dr Stuart (who I think highly of) I was more in doubt about the 'safety factor'. And I was not convinced that training iwth checking and playing without it si a good answer to development.

The question comes...
(and not jsut from me) is this a safety issue, a develpmental issue, a money issue...

What game is being played by USAH? What is really going on?
USAH comes off as throwing a net over some problem and coming up with some solution that leaves most of us saying, 'What the hell?'

USAH is not a big player development organizatin for many kids herer in MN.
Our volunteer coaches, etal... do the development. And then people come in with an out of town resume and they are the experts.

But sorry, the experts may be right, but by their own admission may be wrong?

I have seen a lot of kids go through hockey and grow up without brain damage, without 'scars'. I have seen a lot of kids skate in nearby rinks that have done great at high school and college (on the rink and in the classroom and in life). All the studies in the world cannot change that. Adn all the studies have one big flaw - they have no control group within the group being studied.

Like a USAH youth council member stated, this wsa predestined, Someone(s) wanted this and they set out to prove it.

I think the points you made are good, but maybe you should wait till a little later before you start drinking Elliot. I mean I know it's Friday and all, but at 2:18?

[MrBoDangles]

We will be going in the other direction.

Okay, only the 498th time something you've posted doesn't make sense to me.

Canadians: body contact at Mite = good

Americans: body contact at Mite = not good

When did I say this?
I'm for checking of the hands and and more instruction in Mites.

I'm for a little more contact in Squirts. I would also like to see a 2-4 hour clinic provided for Squirts going into PeeWees. I know the well coached Squirt/Mite teams out their now by their players being able to check the hands and not get too much body contact.

PeeWees I would to see no heavy head contact like in football. Also tighten up on the boarding. My hope would be that from learning to check all the way through would educate them more... "Window of opportunity"

Sorry, hope this ain't the 499th

[The Huge Hook]

Go ahead. Now say that Univ. of Calgary isn't a good school or something.

It's just the Canadian equivalent of Dunwoody

[O-townClown]

Bo, your views are about 95% in line with what will be if the summer vote passes.

Mark, as you know, the USA Hockey view isn't with any one affiliate or district in mind. Yes, Minnesota does a very good job of developing players. As with other things, it would seem a compromise could result and I know you are working on that.

If something is a good idea for the other dozen districts and 35 affiliates, does it make sense that a few outlying districts within just one affiliate shape the discussion? No, and that's why you're frustrated.

Some good ideas that have come up:

• ask if MN can be a control group for further study
  use that Bantam classification as a workaround

You are right. Concussion reporting is sketchy. So what can we do about that?

One thing that's clear whenever I read a book about youth sports and development of elite players is that they all agree on the same themes.

* Keep more players playing longer
* Don't expect kids to play games as an adult would
* Don't give up on those that fail to show early dominance
* We take youth sports WAY too seriously

You wonder what game USA Hockey is playing? I see them wanting to broaden the base to keep more players involved. Yes, this has financial benefits. I see them wanting to make the journey a more rewarding experience for ALL players, which includes the estimated 90+% that don't advance to NCAA and professional hockey.

These concepts are also the cornerstone of NBA player Bob Bigelow's book "Just Let the Kids Play", yet another reminder that these ideas aren't unique to the crazies at USA Hockey.

Regarding the health of our children, yesterday Troy Aikman said he doesn't want his kid playing football. My son plays against the son of longtime NFL lineman Tom Nutten, a mainstay on the Rams line when they had three straight MVPs (Warner, Faulk, Warner). I have had a very interesting - albeit brief - discussion with him about checking at a young age and Florida's youth football culture. People can quit acting like these feelings are anti-sport, non-competitive, uninformed, and sissified.

[O-townClown]

Go ahead. Now say that Univ. of Calgary isn't a good school or something.

It's just the Canadian equivalent of Dunwoody

I knew it was coming!

BTW, watching the Burke video. "I don't know why we negotiate with the parents." Classic quote from a guy that went to the East Coast equivalent of Normandale.

And you know that was coming!

[The Huge Hook]

Go ahead. Now say that Univ. of Calgary isn't a good school or something.

It's just the Canadian equivalent of Dunwoody

I knew it was coming!

BTW, watching the Burke video. "I don't know why we negotiate with the parents." Classic quote from a guy that went to the East Coast equivalent of Normandale.

And you know that was coming!

Regarding Burkie...........Which do you consider to be the "East Coast equivalent of Normandale"......Harvard (law) or Providence (undergrad)????

[O-townClown]

I can take out the male side of the family if I don't answer.

[goldy313]

O-town, that Canadian study isn't scientific, at best it's anecdotal at worst biased. It is exactly along the same lines as proving 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to be involved in car accidents than 14 and 15 year olds. That study sheds light on nothing that isn't common sense. Even the Mayo Clinics symposium on concussions was scientifically shoddy, (as admitted by Dr. Stuart) there is an agenda with "studies" to back up the agenda. There are good concussion studies in the works but even most of those rely heavily on self reporting and self diagnosis which is incredibly unscientific.

FWIW when you put hours of icetime into the equation Alberta and Quebec were within the statistical margin of error. You don't mention that, nor does the article.

I understand your opinion but calling out others for misinformation

[InigoMontoya]

I think it's funny that a guy from Florida and a guy from Wisconsin are huge proponents of Minnesota adopting the ADM and Minnesota eliminating checking in peewees. Why? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading your posts, but why so passionate about what we're doing with our kids. O name drops a half dozen guys with NHL experience to prove that his opinion is the correct one, and since someone doesn't believe what he believes they must be ignorant or misinformed. I'll likely walk past more than a dozen guys with NHL experience in the lobby this weekend, and I'm not thinking they're going to be wearing buttons that have "peewee checking" circled with a red line through it. The only argument that makes any sense in my head would be that 12 year old boys aren't mature enough to make good decisions about contact. If that's the case, then we're going to need to wait until 16 or 18 or 21 before their mental capacity is capable of thinking in that manner.