JDUBBS1280 wrote:
Save the B.S. Way more often than not, there are some conflicts throughout the season and kids have to choose to miss games or practices at one or the other. Please, deny that.
Perhaps way more often than not, but I personally know 4 kids that played Choice and association and did not miss a single event except a pizza party. So in the sample size I've seen, definately NOT the norm. So, I guess I'll count that as a denial. I have no idea about any one elses kids. Not my business.
My daughter had to miss a AAA practice to play in the state championship game. Therefore I must assume that kids are skipping AAA practices all the time to play in the state tournament. Maybe AAA needs a rule banning kids from playing association hockey?
That would be anecdotal evidence. What is the statistical significance of 4 kids for 1 season. Close to zero? Are you using the same logic to oppose the D6 rule as as was used to support the rule in the first place?
Disgruntled D6 Coach complains to D6 Officer about Player A missing a game because he's playing in a MM tournament. D6 Officer thinks "that's unfortunate", and puts it in the back of his mind. D6 officer hears this again and again and begins to think "this may be a problem". How do we jump from there to "We need a rule to prevent kids from playing MM?" Was there any study to see how widespread the problem is? Are 50% of teams affected or 5% of teams? Was MM approached to see if some sort of schedule consolidation could be done? I don't know, but that is the sort of thing that reasonable people do. Was D6 reasonable?
I stumbled across the D6 rule while searching for info on out-of-state tournaments. I remember thinking how much it sounded like soccer coaches who say you can't play hockey and soccer, or fast pitch coaches who say you can't go on vacation during fast pitch season. Like those admonishments I assumed there was no way the rule could be enforced. Kids play soccer and hockey. Families do go on vacation during fast pitch. People do their best to accommodate the team, but don't let it rule their lives. Somehow the team doesn't crumble.
Again, I'm not here to advocate for the D6 rule. Just to explain that it wasn't a decision made overnight and it wasn't to consolidate "power" and "control" like some people are suggesting.
As I have said numerous times. Personally, I don't like the rule. Not because I think kids shouldn't value commitment, but because I think the rule is impractical.
Bottom line is that this rule and this situation is one small piece of a large movement that is playing out in Minnesota Hockey. Change is inevitable, and in some ways needed. However, some resistence is healthy. It prevents us from making rash decisions and implementing change without the proper deliberation.
Hopefully this all plays out soon and Minnesota Hockey is left stronger than ever with a better relationship with MM and other leagues out there. After all, I think we can all agree that the end goal for everyone is what is best for the kids.
I've asked before on this thread but haven't had much luck yet. Can anybody direct me to the link that has the meeting minutes recorded prior to the public vote that must have been taken before the D6 participation rule was enacted? I was curious as to what some people were saying at the time publicly. Thank you in advance.
Deep Breath wrote:I've asked before on this thread but haven't had much luck yet. Can anybody direct me to the link that has the meeting minutes recorded prior to the public vote that must have been taken before the D6 participation rule was enacted? I was curious as to what some people were saying at the time publicly. Thank you in advance.
I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic and make a point or not but I don't think you'll find any such thing. I've never heard of a "public vote" for any district rule change. At best you may find some reference to the rule in the D6 Board minutes but I doubt it.
So, there is no vote on something like this? Does a District president have the authority to simply hand down a rule? And I'm not talking about a "disucssion" that takes place between a couple of people on the D6 Board while they are on the back-9 at Breamar. Is there no public D6 meeting held to discuss the potential of a rule like this being put into place? Just trying to find out what was done publicly prior to this rule being dropped on the D6 families.
Deep Breath wrote:So, there is no vote on something like this? Does a District president have the authority to simply hand down a rule? And I'm not talking about a "disucssion" that takes place between a couple of people on the D6 Board while they are on the back-9 at Breamar. Is there no public D6 meeting held to discuss the potential of a rule like this being put into place? Just trying to find out what was done publicly prior to this rule being dropped on the D6 families.
Here you go, click on June 2010 and scroll down to the notes for Brad Hewitt's presentation.
That's good information, but it is "after the fact" information. I am looking for the discussion that was held prior to this coming down the pike. The June meeting simply indicates that the new law has been implemented. I am looking for the vote that was held by the District and it's members, who voted "yes" and who voted "no". Surely there had to have been a public vote on a rule like this one and I am curious as to how it unfolded.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:Hopefully this all plays out soon and Minnesota Hockey is left stronger than ever with a better relationship with MM and other leagues out there. After all, I think we can all agree that the end goal for everyone is what is best for the kids.
It has already played out and the US Courts confirmed what the rest of us already knew - what's best for the kids is for Minnesota Hockey to focus on the narrow focus of Minnesota Hockey/USA Hockey and keep it's nose out of whatever players and their families choose to do in their free time.
Deep Breathe wrote: I am looking for the vote that was held by the District and it's members, who voted "yes" and who voted "no". Surely there had to have been a public vote on a rule like this one and I am curious as to how it unfolded.
In my day district directors didn't need a vote. If they saw something that needed fixing they fixed it. In short order, when they wanted our opinion they told us what it was. Mr. Hewit is just old school. Good for him. Here's a CHOICE for you - Brads way or the highway.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:Hopefully this all plays out soon and Minnesota Hockey is left stronger than ever with a better relationship with MM and other leagues out there. After all, I think we can all agree that the end goal for everyone is what is best for the kids.
It has already played out and the US Courts confirmed what the rest of us already knew - what's best for the kids is for Minnesota Hockey to focus on the narrow focus of Minnesota Hockey/USA Hockey and keep it's nose out of whatever players and their families choose to do in their free time.
Nope, that wasn't the message at all. Way to completely miss the boat on that one.
Deep Breathe wrote: I am looking for the vote that was held by the District and it's members, who voted "yes" and who voted "no". Surely there had to have been a public vote on a rule like this one and I am curious as to how it unfolded.
In my day district directors didn't need a vote. If they saw something that needed fixing they fixed it. In short order, when they wanted our opinion they told us what it was. Mr. Hewit is just old school. Good for him. Here's a CHOICE for you - Brads way or the highway.
Not true what-so-ever. The rule wasn't Brad's brain child, and that comment was, without a doubt, slanderous. In all seriousness, I wouldn't do that again. If you aren't sure it's factual, I wouldn't say it.
Orlando Circus Performer wrote:
In my day district directors didn't need a vote. If they saw something that needed fixing they fixed it. In short order, when they wanted our opinion they told us what it was. Mr. Hewit is just old school. Good for him. Here's a CHOICE for you - Brads way or the highway.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:Not true what-so-ever. The rule wasn't Brad's brain child, and that comment was, without a doubt, slanderous. In all seriousness, I wouldn't do that again. If you aren't sure it's factual, I wouldn't say it.
um, yah ok ... I was actually in the court room when they presented the email from Hewitt to another district director (former district director).
In that email Brad outlines his plan to target and attack Bernie McBain's business. This "rule" was his part of his master plan to take Bernie down. Nothing more and nothing less.
Great plan Brad. All you did is cause Minnesota Hockey to spend 200,000.00 in legal fees PLUS pending damages.
You can spew all you want to the contrary, but those of us in the coutroom, including the judge I might add, know the truth.
I sincerely hope Mr. Hewitt's COMMITMENT to repaying Minnesota Hockey (meaning those of us who pay to support it) is as intense as his COMMITMENT to "taking down" a local business man.
Time for District 6 to excersice a better CHOICE in the director position ... in the meantime Brad, (er, JDUBBS1280) enjoy the life lessons in COMMITMENT!
'
Mr I need a "spam profile" to make my comment, the above statement is so ridiculous and childish that it doesn't even warrant a proper response. When you're ready to act like an adult, then maybe we can talk.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:
um, yah ok ... I was actually in the court room when they presented the email from Hewitt to another district director (former district director).
In that email Brad outlines his plan to target and attack Bernie McBain's business. This "rule" was his part of his master plan to take Bernie down. Nothing more and nothing less.
Great plan Brad. All you did is cause Minnesota Hockey to spend 200,000.00 in legal fees PLUS pending damages.
You can spew all you want to the contrary, but those of us in the coutroom, including the judge I might add, know the truth.
I sincerely hope Mr. Hewitt's COMMITMENT to repaying Minnesota Hockey (meaning those of us who pay to support it) is as intense as his COMMITMENT to "taking down" a local business man.
Time for District 6 to excersice a better CHOICE in the director position ... in the meantime Brad, (er, JDUBBS1280) enjoy the life lessons in COMMITMENT!
'
Mr I need a "spam profile" to make my comment, the above statement is so ridiculous and childish that it doesn't even warrant a proper response. When you're ready to act like an adult, then maybe we can talk.
Really? Ridiculous?
Here's the EXACT QUOTE (as on record with the courts) from Mr. Hewitts board meeting (Docket #23)
"Minnesota Hockey has to stop Minnesota Made from taking our kids"
and Mr. Hewitts email to Dan Brandt (Docket 22)
"the rule is precisely designed to eliminate competition (from McBain) during the winter season"
You can see as well where hewit tried to sell the "commitment" argument to the courts. They, like the rest of us, saw right through it and dismissed it ... (page 21)
"Defendants offer the justification that they acted to reduce scheduling conflicts and maintain player well being. However, in viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the defendant, the court notes that since the defendants exempted other programs from the rule, and did not require players to refrain from any other type of athletic competitions that might offer scheduling conflicts or diminish their physical well being, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a facially plausable claim."
... don't take my word for it ... read it yourself ...
I'm not sure of the context of that message, but I am very familiar with the guys at D6 and their intentions behind establishing this rule. I am not going to sit here an rehash every little detail of the court proceedings because I wasn't there.
However, if you think the D6 rule was implemented to try and destroy Bernie McBain and Minnesota Made, you're wrong. Flat out wrong. I know for a fact that Brad Hewitt and the guys at D6 have no problems with Bernie as a person or Minnesota Made as an entity. They were just trying to do what they thought was right for the kids in their District.
Now, as I have said numerous times, I do not support the rule because I think it is impractical and was poorly executed. That doesn't mean I don't understand their intentions.
Where the rule went astray, in my opinion, is that they focused the rule too much on Minnesota Made. They didn't do this because they have it out for Bernie or Minnesota Made. It is my understanding that they did that because they have had so MANY problems with kids who played for Minnesota Made not keeping their commitments to their community league and haven't had as many problems elsewhere. So MANY parents who have said that they were pressured into missing the community games and practices instead of the MM ones.
Maybe if Minnesota Made had been more accomodating to kids this never would have become an issue? Who knows. What I do KNOW is that this rule was made with ONE intention and ONE intention alone. Stop kids from not following through on their commitments to their community league because it was effecting other kids. And when parents and coaches start complaining, it becomes an association issue. And when associations start asking for District help, it becomes a District issue.
Ask ANYONE involved. This wasn't just about Brad Hewitt and this wasn't about anything other than commitment. Good intentions, poor execution.
I would like to see Minnesota Hockey and Minnesota Made work together for the betterment of our kids. And as I have said before, I think this will be a learning experience for many and a catalyst for some needed change. However, it does no one any good to be angry and bitter. No one was out to screw anyone over. It was simply a conflict in viewpoints that got waaaaay out of control. Hopefully lessons were learned and Minnesota Hockey comes out stronger as a result.
Last edited by JDUBBS1280 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:And I won't repsond to you any longer as long as you continue to post using a "spam" profile.
Right. And I won't give anytrhing you say credibility as long as you are using a jdub"BS"1280 profile.
We can agree to disagree, while I continue to strongly agree with the courts and their findings that this rule was nothing other than a malicious attack on BM and MM.
Deep Breath wrote:Correct. After having the read the comments from the parties themselves, it is pretty obvious that this was aimed sqaurely at BM and MM.
It was directed at Minnesota Made, but not for any malicious reasons. The purpose of the D6 rule wasn't to harm BM or put MM out of business. However, as has been pointed out, the execution was pretty sloppy. D6 could have found a better solution IMO.
However, the intent was ONLY to prevent kids from not following through on their commitments. It just so happens that 90%+ of the problem was related to MM. D6's problem was being far too narrow in their focus.
If it were up to me, I would have had a sit down with MM and discussed the issue. MM isn't without blame here either. I have heard NUMEROUS accounts first-hand of kids being pressured to miss community league games and practices to make their MM games and practices.
Their needs to be communication and some sort of understanding between Minnesota Hockey and Minnesota Made or there will continue to be problems with this.
Deep Breath wrote:Correct. After having the read the comments from the parties themselves, it is pretty obvious that this was aimed sqaurely at BM and MM.
Yes, it's pretty clear from the court documents in very own words of the parties involved that bernie and the made were targets of this misguided "rule".
I personally know 7 kids playing in choice leagues, some of them for 3 years now, and not once has it ever been suggested that they miss an association game or practice. According to the parents, the subject has never come up.
Deep Breath wrote:Correct. After having the read the comments from the parties themselves, it is pretty obvious that this was aimed sqaurely at BM and MM.
I personally know 7 kids playing in choice leagues, some of them for 3 years now, and not once has it ever been suggested that they miss an association game or practice. According to the parents, the subject has never come up.
It has happened. A lot. That I am 100% sure about because I have heard about it directly from parents in my district.
3 seasons and neither myself nor any other parent I ever talked to who had a kid in both association and Choice ever had a coach encourage them to miss association.
I wouldn't doubt that an individual coach might take it upon themselves to say something like that, but I never heard of it happening and I know that there is no official policy or I would have heard about it.
Sorry JDUBBS, I tend to believe the "been there's" over the "heard that's".