HockeyDad41 wrote:
Isn't that D6 Rule horse dead and buried? Why keep kicking it?
I just don't like the personal attacks on Brad Hewitt, District 6, and Minnesota Hockey. They are unfounded, unjustified, and in very poor taste.
Unfortunately, when he endorsed it, it became his plan.
Does D6 have some kind of problem with Walser?
Not that I know of. And it doesn't matter who endorsed it. People are taking the angst WAAAAAY too far.
You're right. In a perect world, we wouldn't need this rule. However, in a perfect world the district would also not need to get court injunctions against parents who are making death threats to coaches and officials. The district wouldn't need to get in between parents who show up at league games intoxicated and the police. And on and on....
These people do a thankless job. People need to have some class and handle this whole thing like the adults they are supposed to be. Personal insults and some of the other uninformed accusations I have read are completely uncalled for.
keepurheadup wrote: Have people actually heard Bernie encourage skipping your community/association practices and games? I know a couple of families that do both choice and association and I've never heard from them that it's encouraged. MM has a rule for most of their teams that you can't miss more than 4 practices or games without risking suspension. Seems like it would've been much easier for MNH to make a similar rule...
I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:I know Brad Hewitt personally. Have for a very long time.
You are an insider with both Bernie and Brad? I'm very impressed. Hopefully you can get them to make up. A modern day Macys and Gimbles reconciliation.
I've yet to hear any complaints about kids missing association games for the Choice league. In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about their kid getting more playing time when a teammate was absent for any reason. That complaint rumor seems to come from the same mill as the Choice league attendance policy rumor.
The issue is completely different from your commitment angle. The lawsuit says the infamous rule was intended directly to hurt MM. D6 having exceptions for winter Blades program events, etc is hurting your argument.
Last edited by spin-o-rama on Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JDUBBS1280 wrote: If there wasn't a problem with kids keeping their commitments to community teams, there wouldn't be a rule.
Continue to try and make this about anything else, but in the end you will be wrong. It is about one thing and one thing only. Keeping commitments.
Touche.
Last edited by interestedbystander on Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is a HUGE difference between those events and other sporting events
Yeah, sporting events aren't as important. So why is missing a hockey practice at the age of 8 a big deal? Trust me, the kid will be fine.
It's the people you would influence, that I worry about. Stop hearing things and start listening.
I feel the punishment you would hand out over infractions, would be far above what a 5-11 year old could possibly handle. "Spare the rod, spoil the child", I can already hear it.
We need to remember that coaches of Mites probably need to be educators first. Save the Mike Keenan rules of discipline for Bantams at least.
So, you're justification for why it doesn't matter that kids don't follow through on their commitments is that it is alright from a hockey development standpoint to miss games and practices at some ages?
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team.
Not to mention, my argument has nothing to do with hockey development and everything to do with setting a good example for kids and showing them that it is important to keep their commitments.
JDUBBS1280 wrote: If there wasn't a problem with kids keeping their commitments to community teams, there wouldn't be a rule.
Continue to try and make this about anything else, but in the end you will be wrong. It is about one thing and one thing only. Keeping commitments.
Touche. And if all of association hockey was so great...MN hockey wouldn't need to have rules restricting choice. It's not about keeping committments. It's about choice. Choice to play at the home association, MM, an association 5 min down the road that will give a kid a fair shake, wherever you want to spend your money. I don't know anything about the players involved in the lawsuit (that wasn't)...fact is, I could care less. Nor do I care if your kid shows up to practice every night, for whatever reason he/she chooses to miss....his/her loss...not my problem. He can ride the pine until he decides to show up. I would cash the check and move on.
Exactly. If a large majority of kids choose to play for MM and not their community, Minnesota Hockey will obviously be forced to re-evaluate their rule now, wouldn't they?
Thing is, this really isn't about community associations being bad. The people who REALLY have a problem with this rule have kids in good associations who are trying to push their kids, IMO, too hard and are asking their children to commit to more than they can handle.
And if my kid was on your kid's team, and was the only goalie, you'd probably care. It's happened.
keepurheadup wrote: Have people actually heard Bernie encourage skipping your community/association practices and games? I know a couple of families that do both choice and association and I've never heard from them that it's encouraged. MM has a rule for most of their teams that you can't miss more than 4 practices or games without risking suspension. Seems like it would've been much easier for MNH to make a similar rule...
I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:I know Brad Hewitt personally. Have for a very long time.
You are an insider with both Bernie and Brad? I'm very impressed. Hopefully you can get them to make up. A modern day Macys and Gimbles reconciliation.
I've yet to hear any complaints about kids missing association games for the Choice league. In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about their kid getting more playing time when a teammate was absent for any reason. That complaint rumor seems to come from the same mill as the Choice league attendance policy rumor.
The issue is completely different from your commitment angle. The lawsuit says the infamous rule was intended directly to hurt MM. D6 having exceptions for winter Blades program events, etc is hurting your argument.
This will all blow over. I am not hear to insult either Bernie or Brad. They are both trying to do what they genuinely believe is right.
I am by no means saying there aren't faults in the rule that District 6 created, but I do know that they didn't intend to target Minnesota Made. It just so happens that Minnesota Made is the most effected.
IMO, the rule will get overturned, and hopefully they are able to work with Minnesota Made to come up with a new rule that both parties can agree with. The genesis of the rule really had everything to do with commitment.
I have my opinions, but I also know that other people may see things differently. We can all disagree, but we need to be respectful. Especially to people who are volunteering their time without compensation.
Last edited by JDUBBS1280 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is a HUGE difference between those events and other sporting events
Yeah, sporting events aren't as important. So why is missing a hockey practice at the age of 8 a big deal? Trust me, the kid will be fine.
It's the people you would influence, that I worry about. Stop hearing things and start listening.
I feel the punishment you would hand out over infractions, would be far above what a 5-11 year old could possibly handle. "Spare the rod, spoil the child", I can already hear it.
We need to remember that coaches of Mites probably need to be educators first. Save the Mike Keenan rules of discipline for Bantams at least.
So, you're justification for why it doesn't matter that kids don't follow through on their commitments is that it is alright from a hockey development standpoint to miss games and practices at some ages?
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team.
Not to mention, my argument has nothing to do with hockey development and everything to do with setting a good example for kids and showing them that it is important to keep their commitments.
If little JDUBBS has had a rough day at school and doesn't want to go to practice, how do you handle that little affront to commitment?
keepurheadup wrote: Have people actually heard Bernie encourage skipping your community/association practices and games? I know a couple of families that do both choice and association and I've never heard from them that it's encouraged. MM has a rule for most of their teams that you can't miss more than 4 practices or games without risking suspension. Seems like it would've been much easier for MNH to make a similar rule...
I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:I know Brad Hewitt personally. Have for a very long time.
You are an insider with both Bernie and Brad? I'm very impressed. Hopefully you can get them to make up. A modern day Macys and Gimbles reconciliation.
I've yet to hear any complaints about kids missing association games for the Choice league. In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about their kid getting more playing time when a teammate was absent for any reason. That complaint rumor seems to come from the same mill as the Choice league attendance policy rumor.
The issue is completely different from the your commitment angle. The lawsuit says the infamous rule was intended directly to hurt MM. D6 having exceptions for winter Blades program events, etc is hurting your argument.
Like I said, essentially targeting one business. Like it or not Dubs. Court agrees.
Also, you wrote that chronic attendance became and issue and that it was not targeting one business. So why the rule just against other hockey programs? Exceptions recognized in above post, MM is virtually the only one. So essentially, one hockey program targeted for the CHRONIC ABSENCES as you call them.
Lastly, why wouldn't chronic absences be directed to a review committee? Miss 3 practices/games, meet with coach. Miss 5 meet with Association Director. and so on. That ends it. If not, kid does not make team next year.
Put something in place with consequences and people will have to abide. For those that don't... presto, you have found the committment problems.
So, you're justification for why it doesn't matter that kids don't follow through on their commitments is that it is alright from a hockey development standpoint to miss games and practices at some ages?
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team.
Not to mention, my argument has nothing to do with hockey development and everything to do with setting a good example for kids and showing them that it is important to keep their commitments.
If little JDUBBS has had a rough day at school and doesn't want to go to practice, how do you handle that little affront to commitment?
Come on. If a kid is stressed or sick, do you really think that is the same as missing a commitment because he over-extended himself and commited to another league?
There is obviously some grey area here, not denying that. However, let's be honest here.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't heard it first-hand.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:I know Brad Hewitt personally. Have for a very long time.
You are an insider with both Bernie and Brad? I'm very impressed. Hopefully you can get them to make up. A modern day Macys and Gimbles reconciliation.
I've yet to hear any complaints about kids missing association games for the Choice league. In fact, I have never heard anyone complain about their kid getting more playing time when a teammate was absent for any reason. That complaint rumor seems to come from the same mill as the Choice league attendance policy rumor.
The issue is completely different from the your commitment angle. The lawsuit says the infamous rule was intended directly to hurt MM. D6 having exceptions for winter Blades program events, etc is hurting your argument.
Like I said, essentially targeting one business. Like it or not Dubs. Court agrees.
Also, you wrote that chronic attendance became and issue and that it was not targeting one business. So why the rule just against other hockey programs? Exceptions recognized in above post, MM is virtually the only one. So essentially, one hockey program targeted for the CHRONIC ABSENCES as you call them.
Lastly, why wouldn't chronic absences be directed to a review committee? Miss 3 practices/games, meet with coach. Miss 5 meet with Association Director. and so on. That ends it. If not, kid does not make team next year.
Put something in place with consequences and people will have to abide. For those that don't... presto, you have found the committment problems.
Any no legal fees!
I have never said there weren't issues with the rule or that I think, as is, it should be passed.
I am just trying to convey to anyone who genuinely cares that the genesis of the rule was commitment issues and that the rule was implemented with good intentions.
Like I said, I hope that Minnesota Hockey and Minnesota Made can come to some sort of agreement that works for both parties. All I ask is that people be respectful to the people on both sides. I have read some really nasty things about both Brad and Bernie. Uncalled for IMO.
Last edited by JDUBBS1280 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team
My argument is over choice in youth activities.
I never said that games and practices don't matter. They do. But if they choose to do both, as their coach, I wouldn't punish a kid for not attending. It is their choice.
I also wasn't arguing the importance of playing more games.
People like you deduce too much information from a simple point. that is why we have strayed so far off topic.
I didn't bash Hewitt. I called that D6 policy the Hewitt rule because I think everyone will know what we are talking about. I also know Hewitt well as a couple of years ago he helped me through the "participation rule". While his goals are beneficial, the execution of them sometimes backfires.
What that has to do with the Walser AAA team is beyond me. You should let go[/quote]
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team
My argument is over choice in youth activities.
I never said that games and practices don't matter. They do. But if they choose to do both, as their coach, I wouldn't punish a kid for not attending. It is their choice.
I also wasn't arguing the importance of playing more games.
People like you deduce too much information from a simple point. that is why we have strayed so far off topic.
I didn't bash Hewitt. I called that D6 policy the Hewitt rule because I think everyone will know what we are talking about. I also know Hewitt well as a couple of years ago he helped me through the "participation rule". While his goals are beneficial, the execution of them sometimes backfires.
What that has to do with the Walser AAA team is beyond me. You should let go
[/quote]
I think you and I are closer on this than we realize. I think I understand your position now. Thank you for the explanation. As for not bashing Brad Hewitt, I disagree. You said not long ago that D6 "needs a new commissioner". Sounds a lot like bashing to me.
Last edited by JDUBBS1280 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
So, you're justification for why it doesn't matter that kids don't follow through on their commitments is that it is alright from a hockey development standpoint to miss games and practices at some ages?
First of all, that makes no sense in the context of the argument you are trying to make. On one hand you're saying that games and practices don't matter to development at a young age, and on the other hand you are trying to argue the importance of playing more games by being able to play for MM as well as your community team.
Not to mention, my argument has nothing to do with hockey development and everything to do with setting a good example for kids and showing them that it is important to keep their commitments.
If little JDUBBS has had a rough day at school and doesn't want to go to practice, how do you handle that little affront to commitment?
Come on. If a kid is stressed or sick, do you really think that is the same as missing a commitment because he over-extended himself and commited to another league?
There is obviously some grey area here, not denying that. However, let's be honest here.
Just wondering if my excuse that little HD41 is sick will work when he misses all of those association practices/games this year.
HockeyDad41 wrote:
If little JDUBBS has had a rough day at school and doesn't want to go to practice, how do you handle that little affront to commitment?
Come on. If a kid is stressed or sick, do you really think that is the same as missing a commitment because he over-extended himself and commited to another league?
There is obviously some grey area here, not denying that. However, let's be honest here.
Just wondering if my excuse that little HD41 is sick will work when he misses all of those association practices this year.
How is any of this related to Walser?
I don't think it is related. I was just responding to a post in this thread that was related to this conversation and the topic got steered off course.
Look, I'm not trying to say I have all the answers or that there isn't any grey area here. All I know is that the people at District 6 and Minnesota Hockey are good people and had good intentions when implementing this rule. Would a different approach be better? Sounds like it. But hey, you live and you learn. Sounds like this rule will get shot down and hopefully that will open the door for Minnesota Hockey and Minnesota Made to work out a lasting compromise that will make Minnesota Youth Hockey better. I think that is what we all want.
interestedbystander wrote:
Touche. And if all of association hockey was so great...MN hockey wouldn't need to have rules restricting choice. It's not about keeping committments. It's about choice. Choice to play at the home association, MM, an association 5 min down the road that will give a kid a fair shake, wherever you want to spend your money. I don't know anything about the players involved in the lawsuit (that wasn't)...fact is, I could care less. Nor do I care if your kid shows up to practice every night, for whatever reason he/she chooses to miss....his/her loss...not my problem. He can ride the pine until he decides to show up. I would cash the check and move on.
Exactly. If a large majority of kids choose to play for MM and not their community, Minnesota Hockey will obviously be forced to re-evaluate their rule now, wouldn't they?
Thing is, this really isn't about community associations being bad. The people who REALLY have a problem with this rule have kids in good associations who are trying to push their kids, IMO, too hard and are asking their children to commit to more than they can handle.
And if my kid was on your kid's team, and was the only goalie, you'd probably care. It's happened.
And if MN Hockey was not so locked into association hockey if your team's goalie was not reliable you would be able to find one who was so the reliable goalie would catch a break and get onto a good team that wanted him/her and your team would catch a break because they would be getting a goalie who wanted to be there. With association hockey now both your team and the the goalie are screwed up by the rule that says you can't and he can't. The biggest problem with association hockey is the forced lack of choice and that is currently under pressure by people like MM. It sounds like you are connected, tell them to get with the program and fix this stuff before our winter hockey is as messed up as the summer hockey is with no adults running it. Start by getting rid of the no transfer rules for PeeWee and above, it is a great first step.
Change is difficult, but sometimes necessary. It may take a little longer than you want, but be patient. It will get there. You have to realize that there is pressure from both sides and it may take a little while to get there. I do believe we will get there though.
I see that they have chosen a coach for the 99 team. From what I understand he will coach the 2000's coming through the season after that and the 2001's after that.
Does anyone else do this? Seems like it might be a good idea.
HockeyDad41 wrote:I see that they have chosen a coach for the 99 team. From what I understand he will coach the 2000's coming through the season after that and the 2001's after that.
Does anyone else do this? Seems like it might be a good idea.
It's a concept not practiced by summer teams, but fairly common in associations. Maybe grounds for a copyright infringement lawsuit? D6 strikes back!
Ahh, Back to Walser and the AAA teams. the 99 coach is a pretty credible hire too, so you have to wonder who the 00, 01, and 02 coaches are going to be.
As for the D6 "strikes back" comment, don't go there
And to JDUBBS, my comment about a new director being needed, is really about moving past the MM and MN Hockey skirmish. Sometimes a new voice and guiding hand is needed. Not Hewitt bashing really. It's just that sometimes after being on that front line for a while, you need to get recharge. Having MM in your backyard will do that to you I'm sure.
As far as that Walser MM model, can it work in the summer?
@hockeytweet wrote:Ahh, Back to Walser and the AAA teams. the 99 coach is a pretty credible hire too, so you have to wonder who the 00, 01, and 02 coaches are going to be.
As for the D6 "strikes back" comment, don't go there
And to JDUBBS, my comment about a new director being needed, is really about moving past the MM and MN Hockey skirmish. Sometimes a new voice and guiding hand is needed. Not Hewitt bashing really. It's just that sometimes after being on that front line for a while, you need to get recharge. Having MM in your backyard will do that to you I'm sure.
As far as that Walser MM model, can it work in the summer?
Fair enough. However, I don't think you'll see a change in commisioner, and that's a very good thing in my opinion. Brad Hewitt has done a lot of good things for Minnesota Hockey.
I've been looking for a while but can't seem to find the link. Does anybody have a link to the meeting minutes where the public discussion was held about the rule in D6 before Hewitt implemented it? I wanted to read what others were saying publicy before the rule was handed down. Thanks in advance.
We've meandered more than a little off topic here, and I'm too lazy to separate the 3 pages of off-topic posts from the original, so I just gave it a new name. Carry on, though try to stay on Walser--we have other threads for the D6 rule.
No Political Connections wrote:I think that it can be summed up to say that most if not all of us think that the people who are running MN Hockey have done good things for it and have worked hard for it. I can understand how somebody who has put lots into a project feels a proprietary interest in it and in keeping it going. I do think that that because things change that the people who are running it have to change too. Look at what happens when a person disagrees with association hockey model. You get a long list of kids who turned pro and numbers about how this many kids played D1 and things like that. They go back to the 70s and 80s to show how good it has been. I am willing to bet that a large number of the people who are running MN Hockey do not have kids playing hockey now, they used to play but are not now in MN. Their kids were the way upper end kids who do not have a problem anyhow and/or they were on the boards and were protecting their kids and promoting them so even if they were shaky they made the A teams and got the breaks for them. The biggest thing that Walser and MM represent are how things have and are changing. No longer can you tell a parent to either do it my way or hit the highway like you used to be able to. Look at how things have changed now that the internet is here and now that transportation is easier and cheaper. Back in the 70s and 80s which is what is being quoted as proof that associations hockey is not a bad thing I am willing to be that most people had not heard of groups like Belle Tire, Little Ceasars, and etc and did not know how successful they were. It was possible to tell a parent who was not happy that we have the best system and are way better than those hacks on it New England who are messed up. Now you can't get away with that, you can get on the internet and not only see the teams and how they are ranked and etc but you can also see videos of them and have a direct contact number for the coaches.
JDUBBS says that change is a slow process and might eventually happen. Others like the O-Town-Clown and etc say that it won't happen and that association hockey is the best thing ever. What I am saying and others like me is that both of those points of view are way wrong. The change is happening right now as we speak. It is happening in girls hockey with a school trying to push a SSM type program into being, it is happening now that MM has won that case, it is happening now that AAU is in MI and will be in MN soon to provide another hockey choice, it is happening when The Fire fills up with high quality kids who want to play something other than association hockey. Summer hockey is accelerating the process and if you look at it I am not so sure that I want a summer hockey model to be followed. In the summer we have 32-0 blowouts with coaches trying to get all of their kids a hat trick in the game. We have super high end teams like the Blades showing up and playing brand new startup AAA teams. What has to happen is that MN Hockey has to wake up and see Walser and etc for what they are and that is the nose of the camel. Change is here, association hockey is done and although it used to work is going to finish failing and collapse. If MN Hockey wants to remain relevant they have to evolve and adapt or they will go away. All that MN Hockey is to USA Hockey is a feeder system for players and money and that is it. When MN Hockey falls apart and some other entity takes over USA Hockey will run to it and hug and kiss and make up and sanction them to keep the pipeline flowing and that is it. MN Hockey has the choice to either remain as the adults who are running the program or the group that could not handle the fact that their monopoly was broken up so they fell apart. That is it, two choices and MN Hockey can not continue to live back in the day dreaming of the glory that used to be and hope that by not acknowledging it that it is not happening. Wake up MN Hockey, smell the coffee and get going or get out of the way so that we can get the anarchy out of the way and then get some adults into place to run it.
Standing "O"