Walser/Effects of the D6 Rule on MM

[jpiehl]

I had a kid in the Choice League last season, and the subject never came up. Not from the coaches, even though there were times that there were a significant number of kids missing from the Choice team, or from Bernie at the parents meeting.

[JDUBBS1280]

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".

So you have "been there" for EVERY conversation that EVERY parent and kid has had with MM staff? Come on.

I have PERSONALLY heard it from MANY parents. Are you saying they are lying? How do we know those who are saying here that they haven't been pressured aren't lying?

It has happened. Numerous time. I am positive on that. I, unlike some, admit when I am not in the position to talk on a subject, like what happened at the hearings as I wasn't there. This, I am sure of.

[JDUBBS1280]

I had a kid in the Choice League last season, and the subject never came up. Not from the coaches, even though there were times that there were a significant number of kids missing from the Choice team, or from Bernie at the parents meeting.

That's great. If it is like that all the time and it stays that way, there shouldn't be any more issues moving forward.

[JDUBBS1280]

Post by a parent in another forum I frequent:

I know some stuff about this issue as I live in Edina and have kid playing in the Association. He has also been to Bernie's clinics.

My feeling is that Bernie's approach is setting kids up for burnout. One of my kid's teammates was on a Bernie AAA team a couple summers ago and that definitely happened to him. He needed to take a break and a different, less serious, approach to hockey and now he's enjoying it again. I also disagree with some of Bernie's "negative reinforcement" (his words) techniques. I know they turn my kid off, but they probably work with some other kids.

One summer my kid did "Speed Academy" at Minnesota Made. It was 5 days a week, 2.5 hours a day for 5 weeks. My kid came out in better shape than ever, but no faster. He did a much less intense and much more fun camp with Sjhon Podien last summer and improved a lot more. In my mind putting the lie to Bernie's drill, drill, drill approach.

I also know some kids who played both association hockey and MM hockey, not last season but the one before. They definitely missed association events because Bernie is more insistent that they not miss his leagues.

I agree that District 6 messed up with trying to stop kids from playing both leagues. I think they should have just quietly encouraged coaches to expect kids to make practices and games, or have a reasonable excuse (school, church, family event).

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

That's an interesting thread, here's a link for others who are interested. It definitely explains your interest in the matter JDUBS:

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/vie ... 25&t=10682

I've said this before but I still don't understand quite what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of kids that skate in Association and Choice are MITES, and the rule never applied to them. After that would be Squirts and I really don't see how it is even possible to do both at that level (though I know some have tried). In my Association A/B Squirts are on the ice 4-5 times a week or more, it just isn't realistic. I am actually a little shocked that Bernie was able to round up enough affidavits from families that wanted to do both so he could show damages. To me you would just be throwing your money away by trying to do both at that level.

[jpiehl]

I had a kid in the Choice League last season, and the subject never came up. Not from the coaches, even though there were times that there were a significant number of kids missing from the Choice team, or from Bernie at the parents meeting.

That's great. If it is like that all the time and it stays that way, there shouldn't be any more issues moving forward.

I don't know that it's like that all the time, just relaying my own personal experience. I would guess that, like association hockey, it depends on the coach.

[JDUBBS1280]

That's an interesting thread, here's a link for others who are interested. It definitely explains your interest in the matter JDUBS:

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/vie ... 25&t=10682

I've said this before but I still don't understand quite what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of kids that skate in Association and Choice are MITES, and the rule never applied to them. After that would be Squirts and I really don't see how it is even possible to do both at that level (though I know some have tried). In my Association A/B Squirts are on the ice 4-5 times a week or more, it just isn't realistic. I am actually a little shocked that Bernie was able to round up enough affidavits from families that wanted to do both so he could show damages. To me you would just be throwing your money away by trying to do both at that level.

[JDUBBS1280]

That's an interesting thread, here's a link for others who are interested. It definitely explains your interest in the matter JDUBS:

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/vie ... 25&t=10682

I've said this before but I still don't understand quite what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of kids that skate in Association and Choice are MITES, and the rule never applied to them. After that would be Squirts and I really don't see how it is even possible to do both at that level (though I know some have tried). In my Association A/B Squirts are on the ice 4-5 times a week or more, it just isn't realistic. I am actually a little shocked that Bernie was able to round up enough affidavits from families that wanted to do both so he could show damages. To me you would just be throwing your money away by trying to do both at that level.

And now that you know who I am (though you could have taken the high road and protected my anonymity as you are all anonymous), I will tell you that, although I disagree with the D6 rule, I know FIRST-HAND that Brad Hewitt was FAR from the only person pushing for this rule and that "power" and "control" were NEVER any of the motivations. Nor was destroying Bernie McBain or Minnesota Made. He, nor anyone else at D6 that I am aware of, has ANYTHING against either.

It was all about commitment to community teams. Like I said, good intentions, poor execution. And D6 is learning from this experience. Better communication with MM from the start would have been a better approach.

And I have PERSONALLY heard, fist-hand, NUMEROUS parents and kids say that they have been pressured by MM to make their events over their community events. It happens. A lot. So MM could have done some things different to avoid this mess as well.

[JDUBBS1280]

I had a kid in the Choice League last season, and the subject never came up. Not from the coaches, even though there were times that there were a significant number of kids missing from the Choice team, or from Bernie at the parents meeting.

That's great. If it is like that all the time and it stays that way, there shouldn't be any more issues moving forward.

I don't know that it's like that all the time, just relaying my own personal experience. I would guess that, like association hockey, it depends on the coach.

My response wasn't an attack on you. I am glad to hear that your experience was a good one. If it was always like that, I think Minnesota Hockey would be stronger. I hate politics. I hate this bickering.

[HockeyDad41]

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".

So you have "been there" for EVERY conversation that EVERY parent and kid has had with MM staff? Come on.

I have PERSONALLY heard it from MANY parents. Are you saying they are lying? How do we know those who are saying here that they haven't been pressured aren't lying?

It has happened. Numerous time. I am positive on that. I, unlike some, admit when I am not in the position to talk on a subject, like what happened at the hearings as I wasn't there. This, I am sure of.

I'm pretty sure that you have no idea about this subject. I do admire your tenacity though.

[JDUBBS1280]

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".

So you have "been there" for EVERY conversation that EVERY parent and kid has had with MM staff? Come on.

I have PERSONALLY heard it from MANY parents. Are you saying they are lying? How do we know those who are saying here that they haven't been pressured aren't lying?

It has happened. Numerous time. I am positive on that. I, unlike some, admit when I am not in the position to talk on a subject, like what happened at the hearings as I wasn't there. This, I am sure of.

I'm pretty sure that you have no idea about this subject. I do admire your tenacity though.

I assure you, I know more about it than I even care to.

[helightsthelamp]

Point #1, to be clear I am about as anti orange as they get, thus by no means should my post be construed as backing Bernie

Point #2, jdubb, give it a rest!

No matter what the reason behind why D6 made the rule, the courts found it in violation of anti trust laws. Period...against the law. Even if players were told to miss association hockey in a dark back room on bush lake road, they still had a choice of which to attend due to a scheduling conflict.

Players miss games and practices as a result of many different reasons. It should be up to the coach or association if needed to address each scenario based upon it's own merit. As long as each scenario is treated with consistency, I don't really see the issue....or why this is so difficult. If a player wants to play on many teams, that is their choice...if they choose to many and frequently miss, well my guess is they don't make the higher level team the following year. If they don't want the potential conflicts of playing for multiple teams and potentially being left off a team the following year, only play for one...trying to eliminate the conflict by making a rule that says "you can't play elsewhere" was clearly a bad decision and ultimately against the law.

Jdubb, I don't understand how you continue to try and justify the D6 actions based upon third hand information you have heard from many. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what was said, it does not justify D6's rule.

[JDUBBS1280]

Point #1, to be clear I am about as anti orange as they get, thus by no means should my post be construed as backing Bernie

Point #2, jdubb, give it a rest!

No matter what the reason behind why D6 made the rule, the courts found it in violation of anti trust laws. Period...against the law. Even if players were told to miss association hockey in a dark back room on bush lake road, they still had a choice of which to attend due to a scheduling conflict.

Players miss games and practices as a result of many different reasons. It should be up to the coach or association if needed to address each scenario based upon it's own merit. As long as each scenario is treated with consistency, I don't really see the issue....or why this is so difficult. If a player wants to play on many teams, that is their choice...if they choose to many and frequently miss, well my guess is they don't make the higher level team the following year. If they don't want the potential conflicts of playing for multiple teams and potentially being left off a team the following year, only play for one...trying to eliminate the conflict by making a rule that says "you can't play elsewhere" was clearly a bad decision and ultimately against the law.

Jdubb, I don't understand how you continue to try and justify the D6 actions based upon third hand information you have heard from many. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what was said, it does not justify D6's rule.

First off, I have never once supported the D6 rule in any of the discussions here. I don't like the rule or agree with it and I am not sure how much clearer I can make that. So, not sure how the courts ruling is relevant here. I am not arguing that the rule is right.

What I was objecting to were the accusations that this rule was the brain child of Brad Hewit alone and that the rule was in ANY WAY intended to gain "power" or "control". This, I do know. Not from a third party but from Brad Hewitt and the guys at D6 first-hand. From even before the rule was implemented.

As for Minnesota Made pressuring kids to miss community games and practices, I have heard A LOT of parents and kids talk about that. They say MM did pressure them, you say MM didn't pressure you. I know them, I don't know you. Who would you believe?

And I suppose you think Minnesota Made was just an innocent bystander in all of this, and the big bad guys at D6 just wanted to screw Bernie over. Seriously, what is more believable. That, or the possibility that kids WERE getting pressured to miss games and practices, coaches and other parents were complaining to their associations A LOT, and the associations asked D6 for some help?

Seriously, have you read anything I have said?

[HockeyDad41]

Point #1, to be clear I am about as anti orange as they get, thus by no means should my post be construed as backing Bernie

Point #2, jdubb, give it a rest!

No matter what the reason behind why D6 made the rule, the courts found it in violation of anti trust laws. Period...against the law. Even if players were told to miss association hockey in a dark back room on bush lake road, they still had a choice of which to attend due to a scheduling conflict.

Players miss games and practices as a result of many different reasons. It should be up to the coach or association if needed to address each scenario based upon it's own merit. As long as each scenario is treated with consistency, I don't really see the issue....or why this is so difficult. If a player wants to play on many teams, that is their choice...if they choose to many and frequently miss, well my guess is they don't make the higher level team the following year. If they don't want the potential conflicts of playing for multiple teams and potentially being left off a team the following year, only play for one...trying to eliminate the conflict by making a rule that says "you can't play elsewhere" was clearly a bad decision and ultimately against the law.

Jdubb, I don't understand how you continue to try and justify the D6 actions based upon third hand information you have heard from many. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what was said, it does not justify D6's rule.

First off, I have never once supported the D6 rule in any of the discussions here. I don't like the rule or agree with it and I am not sure how much clearer I can make that. So, not sure how the courts ruling is relevant here. I am not arguing that the rule is right.

What I was objecting to were the accusations that this rule was the brain child of Brad Hewit alone and that the rule was in ANY WAY intended to gain "power" or "control". This, I do know. Not from a third party but from Brad Hewitt and the guys at D6 first-hand. From even before the rule was implemented.

As for Minnesota Made pressuring kids to miss community games and practices, I have heard A LOT of parents and kids talk about that. They say MM did pressure them, you say MM didn't pressure you. I know them, I don't know you. Who would you believe?

And I suppose you think Minnesota Made was just an innocent bystander in all of this, and the big bad guys at D6 just wanted to screw Bernie over. Seriously, what is more believable. That, or the possibility that kids WERE getting pressured to miss games and practices, coaches and other parents were complaining to their associations A LOT, and the associations asked D6 for some help?

Seriously, have you read anything I have said?

No one was getting pressured to miss association hockey.

[JDUBBS1280]

Point #1, to be clear I am about as anti orange as they get, thus by no means should my post be construed as backing Bernie

Point #2, jdubb, give it a rest!

No matter what the reason behind why D6 made the rule, the courts found it in violation of anti trust laws. Period...against the law. Even if players were told to miss association hockey in a dark back room on bush lake road, they still had a choice of which to attend due to a scheduling conflict.

Players miss games and practices as a result of many different reasons. It should be up to the coach or association if needed to address each scenario based upon it's own merit. As long as each scenario is treated with consistency, I don't really see the issue....or why this is so difficult. If a player wants to play on many teams, that is their choice...if they choose to many and frequently miss, well my guess is they don't make the higher level team the following year. If they don't want the potential conflicts of playing for multiple teams and potentially being left off a team the following year, only play for one...trying to eliminate the conflict by making a rule that says "you can't play elsewhere" was clearly a bad decision and ultimately against the law.

Jdubb, I don't understand how you continue to try and justify the D6 actions based upon third hand information you have heard from many. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what was said, it does not justify D6's rule.

First off, I have never once supported the D6 rule in any of the discussions here. I don't like the rule or agree with it and I am not sure how much clearer I can make that. So, not sure how the courts ruling is relevant here. I am not arguing that the rule is right.

What I was objecting to were the accusations that this rule was the brain child of Brad Hewit alone and that the rule was in ANY WAY intended to gain "power" or "control". This, I do know. Not from a third party but from Brad Hewitt and the guys at D6 first-hand. From even before the rule was implemented.

As for Minnesota Made pressuring kids to miss community games and practices, I have heard A LOT of parents and kids talk about that. They say MM did pressure them, you say MM didn't pressure you. I know them, I don't know you. Who would you believe?

And I suppose you think Minnesota Made was just an innocent bystander in all of this, and the big bad guys at D6 just wanted to screw Bernie over. Seriously, what is more believable. That, or the possibility that kids WERE getting pressured to miss games and practices, coaches and other parents were complaining to their associations A LOT, and the associations asked D6 for some help?

Seriously, have you read anything I have said?

No one was getting pressured to miss association hockey.

Says you. There are a lot of people out there who disagree with you.

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

HD41, you're the resident MM guy. Do you have a feel for how many at the Squirt level try to do both Choice and Association? I'm curious if it's just a handful or a significant amount. I think you've said you did both for Mites, are you planning to try both for Squirts?

[blueliner2day]

JDubbs, please give it a rest - this incessant screeching about beating a dead horse is like fingernails on a chalkboard. The courts ruled against D6. Over and done. I get it commitment, a friend of your wife's neighbors cousin's uncle, nieces son was rubber hosed by Bernie demanding his appearance. WHATEVER! This court thing and your screeching could have been alleviated by doing what every other association does - NOT PUT IT IN WRITING. Put out the word there will be no A team for those who do not show up 100% of the time. There will be no A team for those kids who go to private schools and won't be skating for the local high school team. Bobby's dad is a psycho ergo Bobby doesn't play A or B1.....whatever. You will probably deny that that too happens but it is called plausible deniability and you all know it happens - everywhere. That's why you won't find court cases and it written in handbooks.

[HockeyDad41]

HD41, you're the resident MM guy. Do you have a feel for how many at the Squirt level try to do both Choice and Association? I'm curious if it's just a handful or a significant amount. I think you've said you did both for Mites, are you planning to try both for Squirts?

I don't think many try to do both at the squirt level, although some do. 150 hours are a lot.

[scrapiron]

According to former D6 Board member, Art Cobb in court docs has stated that Brad Hewitt had stated that he was going to "shut down Berine"

[JDUBBS1280]

JDubbs, please give it a rest - this incessant screeching about beating a dead horse is like fingernails on a chalkboard. The courts ruled against D6. Over and done. I get it commitment, a friend of your wife's neighbors cousin's uncle, nieces son was rubber hosed by Bernie demanding his appearance. WHATEVER! This court thing and your screeching could have been alleviated by doing what every other association does - NOT PUT IT IN WRITING. Put out the word there will be no A team for those who do not show up 100% of the time. There will be no A team for those kids who go to private schools and won't be skating for the local high school team. Bobby's dad is a psycho ergo Bobby doesn't play A or B1.....whatever. You will probably deny that that too happens but it is called plausible deniability and you all know it happens - everywhere. That's why you won't find court cases and it written in handbooks.

Wow, I can see that reading comprehension really isn't a strong suit around here. Go back and actually read what I said. Otherwise, I suggest that you give it a rest. If you want to continue to argue points I never made, you won't get another response from me.

[JDUBBS1280]

According to former D6 Board member, Art Cobb in court docs has stated that Brad Hewitt had stated that he was going to "shut down Berine"

Not sure where Art got that from, but that is flat out not true. Brad has no interest in shutting Bernie down. That is just ridiculous. My God.

[hockey_is_a_choice]

JDUBBS, I have been following your posts, which are mostly negative and insulting. I admire your campaign to defend your friend--or yourself--but, in my humble opinion, you need to work on your people skills. In an earlier post you threatened a poster or two with a slander claim. I think you need to take your own advice. You just called Art Cobb a liar on a public forum. That's defamation! Art submitted a sworn affidavit in a federal court case. You obviously don't know Art--he is a man of integrity. In any event it doesn't matter what you think about Art or his statements. Judge Tunheim, the judge assigned to the lawsuit, determined that Art's affidavit was credible.

Since you claim to be in the know, can you explain why Minnesota Hockey and District 6 did not settle with Minnesota Made during the six-hour settlement conference on July 26th, especially given the fact that Judge Tunheim recently affirmed his earlier ruling and denied another motion by the defendants to dismiss the Minnesota Made lawsuit?

[JDUBBS1280]

JDUBBS, I have been following your posts, which are mostly negative and insulting. I admire your campaign to defend your friend--or yourself--but, in my humble opinion, you need to work on your people skills. In an earlier post you threatened a poster or two with a slander claim. I think you need to take your own advice. You just called Art Cobb a liar on a public forum. That's defamation! Art submitted a sworn affidavit in a federal court case. You obviously don't know Art--he is a man of integrity. In any event it doesn't matter what you think about Art or his statements. Judge Tunheim, the judge assigned to the lawsuit, determined that Art's affidavit was credible.

Since you claim to be in the know, can you explain why Minnesota Hockey and District 6 did not settle with Minnesota Made during the six-hour settlement conference on July 26th, especially given the fact that Judge Tunheim recently affirmed his earlier ruling and denied another motion by the defendants to dismiss the Minnesota Made lawsuit?

"Negative and insulting"? Please. The ONLY thing I have said in ANY of these threads that comes even close to being "negative" or "insulting" is the blanket statement that people here have a problem with reading comprehension.

And I'm sorry, but that's true. How many times do I have to say that I don't agree with the rule and that I am not here to support it before people quit telling me to give up my fruitless defense of the rule?

Seriously, people should either read what I have to say or don't bother responding. I have a right to be frustrated when people keep arguing points I didn't even make. I even said that I hate politics and I hate this bickering. In fact, I am the one who has been continuously saying that I think there needs to be more communication and less bickering and fighting.

And as for the slander comments, I NEVER threatened ANYONE with a slander suit. Please, show me where I threatened to sue anyone. I merely pointed out that some of the comments I read could be considered slander, and they could. That is a fact.

Definition of slander: Oral or written communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

I find it funny that you feel justified in pointing out how wrong some of my comments are, but tell me that I cannot point out the fault in the comments of others. How is that right?

And I never called Art a liar. I said, I don't know where he got that from, but his statement to my knowledge is absolutely wrong. Maybe he misunderstood, but I know Brad Hewitt FAR better than he does, and I know he doesn't have it out for Bernie McBain or want to see Minnesota Made destroyed. I believe I said that idea, not Art, was ridiculous. And it is. If you knew Brad Hewitt, you'd know he doesn't have that meanness or tenacity in him. It's not him.

I just wish people would stop throwing blame around blindly. All of the "power grab" and "they are out to destroy Bernie" talk is just flat out wrong. That's not "negative" or "insulting", that is my understanding of the truth.

So please, don't try to play me as the bad guy here. It has been many against one in this discussion, me being the one, and I think I have held my composure quite well if you ask me. More so than those telling me to "give it up" and "give it a rest". Last time I checked, I am entitled to an opinion as much as anyone else.

In regards to your question, as I have said numerous times on this board, from my understanding this rule isn't just the brain child of District 6. So, I don't think it is just their decision to make. As for exactly why they didn't take the settelment offer, I don't know. That is a good question and one that I probably will ask.

[JDUBBS1280]

I'll tell you what, I am tired of all the finger pointing and the bickering. If anyone wants to have a constructive discussion about the direction of Minnesota Hockey moving forward, I would love that. Does the landscape of Minnesota Hockey change moving forward? How much? In what ways? What are the good and bad aspects of it changing or not changing? These are the things that I am interested in talking about.

[forreal]

I'll tell you what, I am tired of all the finger pointing and the bickering. If anyone wants to have a constructive discussion about the direction of Minnesota Hockey moving forward, I would love that. Does the landscape of Minnesota Hockey change moving forward? How much? In what ways? What are the good and bad aspects of it changing or not changing? These are the things that I am interested in talking about.

Why do you keep responding then. It is evident not many are agreeing with you. If you truly want to discuss the other topics you mentioned, why not start a new thread and just let this one go. I have a feeling you would feel a lot better if you just quit focusing on this and others opinions of this matter. Just a thought.