The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://ushsho.com/forums/
spot-on. an easy improvement that doesn't require a big change that would shock the current system.council member retired wrote:It would hurt no one allowing June b-days the opportunity for all of them to play hockey with their peers - it would help many.
Been meaning to ask this for awhile now...please explain how the June birthdays AREN'T playing with their peers?WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:spot-on. an easy improvement that doesn't require a big change that would shock the current system.council member retired wrote:It would hurt no one allowing June b-days the opportunity for all of them to play hockey with their peers - it would help many.
So now we should categorize players by size because a few small kids may not be able to handle the physicality? I suppose the big kids will have to play down too? Maybe not let them carry the puck like Football ?bluemind wrote:I always have to go look this up.. I cannot remember at what age kids get to play at what level. I guess I have to believe someone will fix this and keep the HS tournament and participation levels in tact.
PARTICIPATION LEVELS FOR 2009-10 SEASON
Mini-Mite (July 1, 2002)
Youth 7 and under.
Mite (July 1, 2000)
Youth 9 and under.
Squirt (July 1, 1998)
Youth ages 9 and 10.
Peewee (July 1, 1996)
Youth ages 11 and 12.
Bantam (July 1, 1994)
Youth ages 13 and 14.
16 & Under (born on or after July 1, 1991)
Youth ages 15 and 16. .
Midget
No longer classified in Minnesota Hockey.
Junior Gold (July 1, 1990)
Young men ages 17 and 18.
Junior Hockey
Young men ages 18, 19 and 20 with little or no high school eligibility
After sharing the excitement with my son of making his Pee Wee A team this fall we both began to realize that this might not have been a good idea. My little guy is a Feb 98 (5 feet, 85lbs) and he is playing with kids and against kids that are up to 10 inches taller than he is and weigh as much as 75lbs more. I have come to realize that with kids being held back a year in school and with the difference in growth cycles for kids this is kind of scary.
I will probably get crucified for saying this but my kid does play summer hockey and he does not face this type of challenge game in and game out. We see the occasional big guy or team but it is not like MN Pee Wee A hockey. While I believe he is competitive and can hold his own the sheer size and weight differences are not safe.
How about weight restrictions for Pee Wee level kids, January birth date cut-offs to keep it down to 12 months difference or adding a year to Bantam age participation level.
I am a big guy and have no doubt that my son will be a big guy when he matures. Currently the difference in the growth of the kids in these participation levels (Pee Wee/Bantam) and the danger of serious injury has got to be addressed. My kid is average sized for his age... He is about average for his grade in height and weight. Why does he have to play at great risk of injury with kids that clearly are two physical years ahead of him. This is not a skill thing, it is a safety thing. Maybe something as simple as weight restrictions for Pee Wee is the answer.
VERY legitimate concerns and altogether too often an occurrance. Minnesota Hockey DOES NOT have it right, although they are arrogant enough to think that they do. We absolutely DO NOT have this problem in summer hockey or in Tier 1 USA Hockey (by birth year). Minnesota Hockey lives in the dark ages in this regard and kids are getting hurt and quitting hockey because of it.bluemind wrote:After sharing the excitement with my son of making his Pee Wee A team this fall we both began to realize that this might not have been a good idea. My little guy is a Feb 98 (5 feet, 85lbs) and he is playing with kids and against kids that are up to 10 inches taller than he is and weigh as much as 75lbs more. I have come to realize that with kids being held back a year in school and with the difference in growth cycles for kids this is kind of scary.
I will probably get crucified for saying this but my kid does play summer hockey and he does not face this type of challenge game in and game out. We see the occasional big guy or team but it is not like MN Pee Wee A hockey. While I believe he is competitive and can hold his own the sheer size and weight differences are not safe.
How about weight restrictions for Pee Wee level kids, January birth date cut-offs to keep it down to 12 months difference or adding a year to Bantam age participation level.
I am a big guy and have no doubt that my son will be a big guy when he matures. Currently the difference in the growth of the kids in these participation levels (Pee Wee/Bantam) and the danger of serious injury has got to be addressed. My kid is average sized for his age... He is about average for his grade in height and weight. Why does he have to play at great risk of injury with kids that clearly are two physical years ahead of him. This is not a skill thing, it is a safety thing. Maybe something as simple as weight restrictions for Pee Wee is the answer.
yeahyeahyeah wrote:
So now we should categorize players by size because a few small kids may not be able to handle the physicality? I suppose the big kids will have to play down too? Maybe not let them carry the puck like Football ?
No. Just by age. A 12 month spread is perfect and simple to accomplish.
Our association gives parents the right to deny placement on the A team if they feel it is not right for their child. No parent has ever chosen to protect their child and that is their mistake.
The system can be fool-proof (parent-proof if you like) by limiting the playing age to a 12 month spread. No parental input required. All kids protected by the RULES.
I do not have a small kid but as I watch the smaller players in pw and bantam I actually believe I would be scared for my son and I would consider registering him in a lower level (b or c) to protect him.
Lower level doesn't protect him. There will still be kids 2 years his senior and finished puberty at the B and C levels. It's not a question of level, it's a question of SIZE and STRENGTH. A 12 month spread in age will MINIMIZE the disparity at ALL LEVELS.
The system already allows YOU to make the right decision no matter how proud you are of your sons accomplishments in tryouts. You still have time in fact, December 31 is the cut off.
Again. This is not something a parent can fix. The system does not allow players to PLAY-DOWN, only UP. If players were allowed to play down based on size, that might be a solution, but also opens up a host of other problems. Experts have proven that the 12 month spread, be it birth-year or shool year is the simplest and most effective solution
If safety is a concern then maybe it is time for you to parent.
That's an ignorant comment and ill aimed at a parent with a legitimate concern who is reaching out to Minnesota Hockey legislators.
WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:yeahyeahyeah wrote:
So now we should categorize players by size because a few small kids may not be able to handle the physicality? I suppose the big kids will have to play down too? Maybe not let them carry the puck like Football ?
No. Just by age. A 12 month spread is perfect and simple to accomplish.
Our association gives parents the right to deny placement on the A team if they feel it is not right for their child. No parent has ever chosen to protect their child and that is their mistake.
The system can be fool-proof (parent-proof if you like) by limiting the playing age to a 12 month spread. No parental input required. All kids protected by the RULES.
I do not have a small kid but as I watch the smaller players in pw and bantam I actually believe I would be scared for my son and I would consider registering him in a lower level (b or c) to protect him.
Lower level doesn't protect him. There will still be kids 2 years his senior and finished puberty at the B and C levels. It's not a question of level, it's a question of SIZE and STRENGTH. A 12 month spread in age will MINIMIZE the disparity at ALL LEVELS.
The system already allows YOU to make the right decision no matter how proud you are of your sons accomplishments in tryouts. You still have time in fact, December 31 is the cut off.
Again. This is not something a parent can fix. The system does not allow players to PLAY-DOWN, only UP. If players were allowed to play down based on size, that might be a solution, but also opens up a host of other problems. Experts have proven that the 12 month spread, be it birth-year or shool year is the simplest and most effective solution
If safety is a concern then maybe it is time for you to parent.
That's an ignorant comment and ill aimed at a parent with a legitimate concern who is reaching out to Minnesota Hockey legislators.
Why would a kid who is held back be punished? Why not let them play an extra year of Bantams? Because, believe me, you won't want to be discriminating against kids who are held back.iwearmysunglassesatnight wrote:I agree, June 1st makes the most sense. Do it.
MH president has said be proactive: Do it.
It seems clear MH believes the current should change based on todays habits. Since we keep hearing they won't do anything, or maybe next year. Here is a way to actually move forward instead of tableing everything: " all 9th graders following normal progression in school ( not failing ) will be eligible for bantams in the 9th grade " - problem solved, and no work done by mh board. glasses out.
Exactly, so why wouldn't a parent whose"oldest kid played in Canada" know that about travel hockey? Possibly because he only has a mite and has no idea about travel hockey because the fact is that if your child is fast enough at A, than the slower game at B and B2 will enable them to stay safe, but instead we want to change all of the rules instead of admitting that some kids, even if they are skilled enough, are not ready for A hockey. But this is an entirely different topic, brought up to muddy the waters by our one hit commentator.yeahyeahyeah wrote:Lower level doesn't protect him. There will still be kids 2 years his senior and finished puberty at the B and C levels. It's not a question of level, it's a question of SIZE and STRENGTH. A 12 month spread in age will MINIMIZE the disparity at ALL LEVELS.
The system already allows YOU to make the right decision no matter how proud you are of your sons accomplishments in tryouts. You still have time in fact, December 31 is the cut off.
Again. This is not something a parent can fix. The system does not allow players to PLAY-DOWN, only UP. If players were allowed to play down based on size, that might be a solution, but also opens up a host of other problems. Experts have proven that the 12 month spread, be it birth-year or shool year is the simplest and most effective solution
I did not say play down to a lower age, lower level (B or C) the fact is if he is fast enough and skilled enough to play A he shoudl be able to better elude contact in a slower level of play. Drop down and play B or B2, he will be safe there.
If safety is a concern then maybe it is time for you to parent.
That's an ignorant comment and ill aimed at a parent with a legitimate concern who is reaching out to Minnesota Hockey legislators.
It is not ignorant it is common sense
DMom wrote: The fact is that if your child is fast enough at A, than the slower game at B and B2 will enable them to stay safe,
That's about as far from fact as you can get. In FACT, that statement speaks only to your lack of knowledge of the game and has no relevance in player safety.
This is an entirely different topic, brought up to muddy the waters by our one hit commentator.
This speaks to AGE RANGE, inclusive of size and strength disparities, which, according to actual experts is one of the leading causes of serious injury to pee-wee and bantam aged players.
Best advice from an older hockey parent that I have heard and shared before, "go make more babies, than you won't have time to care so much about things".
Perhaps you should have taken that advice instead of sending your time trolling boards like these, mis-leading folks, making up 'facts' which aren't facts at all.
yeahyeahyeah wrote: In case you missed what was stated earlier, the reason two years are used for MN hockey is that many (majority of ALL MN associations) DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KIDS AT ANY GIVEN LEVEL TO FORM TEAMS BY THE CALENDAR YEAR.
Well, let's recap. It was said that many (not majority, majority is your word) associations need the numbers to field a team or make 'competitive' A & B teams.
It was also recognized that many other arts of the continent with far fewer numbers than Minnesota meet this challenge by combining associations OR allowing play-ups to meet these needs - AS THE EXCEPTION - not the rule. Given the numbers in Minnesota Hockey, that's an easy exception to make. The 12 month RULE would benefit all kids.
Example our association has 50 total squirts (Blaine only has roughly 60 this year by the way so expect smaller to be the norm moving forward) for simplicity cut that number in half 25 kids in 2 calendar years. Not the case, I have 33 older and 17 younger. Now the kicker all the goalies are in one calendar year This is very common.
Again, there are many states with far fewer numbers than Minnesota that meet these challenges. This is a particulary easy scenario on a 12 month split. In this scenario you make 2 older teams and 1 younger team with the better goalies playing on the older team. It's not rocket science.
I love it when selfish people use the legitimate causes of other people to try and get what they want.
Player safety is a legitimate cause for everybody. Ignoring player safety because the current system "fits' your family is the selfish part. We need to have the collective courage to make changes when presented compelling reasons to do so. There are always those to preserve the status-quo for selfish reasons. Change comes through visionary leadership. We may not have that right now, but it will come.
My little johnny had to play B this year because he is a young first year but he is a GREAT AAA player wah frickin wah.
I am sure your son Johnny will do fine at whatever level he is at. Just support him and he will be fine.
I agree that the June cutoff may make more sense but not the calendar year.
It does. You are correct there. June makes more sense than July. That's an easy one.
BTW: I'm not neccesarily advocating a calendar year - just an age appropriate 12 month spread ... June-May, Jan-Dec, Sep-Aug makes no difference to me. The bigger issue of player safety requires an effort to MINIMIZE size/strength disparity and this is done through making AGE-APPROPRIATE playing categories with a 12 month spread (as opposed to 24). Are there challenges? yes. Can we overcome them? Also yes.
yeahyeahyeah wrote:The system already allows YOU to make the right decision no matter how proud you are of your sons accomplishments in tryouts. You still have time in fact, December 31 is the cut off.
Again. The system DOES NOT allow parents to move children to size appropriate age groups. A, B or C is regardless, there will still be kids potentially 2 years the senior of a player. Exerts have weighed identified the problem age groups at peewee and bantam. There is no distinction between playing category (A, B or C), it's a relative ae/size/strength issue. It has nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with policy.
I did not say play down to a lower age, lower level (B or C) the fact is if he is fast enough and skilled enough to play A he shoudl be able to better elude contact in a slower level of play. Drop down and play B or B2, he will be safe there.
This is far from a solution for many reaons.
For starters, a lot of injuries occur when bigger slower players get frustrated and start using sticks (instead of feet) and other inappropriate contact to slow down, catch or impeed faster players. Even at the higher levels of hockey it's normally the slower, bigger but less skilled players that are called on for physical play against the opponents skilled players.
Secondly, the difference in an A & B player is not neccessarily speed, either for the smaller player or the bigger player. Could be skill, positional play, athletes character, dressing room issues, political decision or simply a numbers game. The fact is, it's SIZE & STRENGTH disparity that leads to the injuries, not level of play.
Even if what you say is true, the youth hockey experience shouldn't be one where a player spends his ice time focused on solely on avoiding hits and elluding players twice his/her size, but spent having fun and enjoying the game safely with kids his/her own age.
Finally, there is no correlation in the research compiled by the experts to support what you say. There is no difference in injury at each level and no correlation in skill levels
We could MINIMIZE size and strength disparity by making age-appropriate hockey the RULE and allowing exceptions where necessary to field teams.
It is not ignorant it is common sense
It's common sense consider the opinion of experts when making policy. On this issue Minnesota Hockey is putting is covering it's ears and repeating ... as someone said .... WE CAN'T HEAR YOU! WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!
One day they will hear loud and clear. Not today. Maybe not next year or the year after. But when the right guys and gals get to the right positions it will be addressed
iwearmysunglassesatnight wrote:I agree, June 1st makes the most sense. Do it.
MH president has said be proactive: Do it.
It seems clear MH believes the current should change based on todays habits.
[/quote]WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:
Perhaps you should have taken that advice instead of sending your time trolling boards like these, mis-leading folks, making up 'facts' which aren't facts at all.
WPIIA isn't that hard to follow. First point -- move cutoff to June. Second point -- have 12 month age groups, regardless of when the start/stop months are.yeahyeahyeah wrote:wpiia you are hard to follow, one post you say 12 month age groups s the only answer then you say move the date to June, Flip Flop?
Jump on a train and stay on it.
Just so we can all stop wasting our time are you for calendar year hockey or simply moving the age cutoff back one month to June?
I have more than enough kids playing hockey and more than enough knowledge of the game of hockey, could have swore that's what you started out saying on this threadDMom wrote:WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:
Perhaps you should have taken that advice instead of sending your time trolling boards like these, mis-leading folks, making up 'facts' which aren't facts at all.
DMom wrote:I disagree that the most penalized players are the slowest on the team,
Not something I said. Maybe you have threads confused ... I haven't said anything about penalties ...
Getting the last word in doesn't mean you are right, it just means no one else has the time or energy to correct you any longer.
That's good advice ... you should take it.
old goalie85 wrote:One of my kids plays A squirt. Only 2 first year kids on this team.[ f.l.] Same was the case last year. The B teams are made up of about 75% 1st year kids. [same last year] My point does the current system not seperate by age already. Back to fixing things that are not broken. My oldest played Bantam A last year only 2 first year players on that team.Now from where I stand it [the system that is in place] seems to work. Have two more in mite program so maybe I will change my mind down the road,but,doubt it. [ Go Forest Lake ]
I take back my comment that you weren't taking shots. The downward spiral continues... You were better off sticking to your arguments. No use reading this thread any more other than for pure entertainment value.WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:DMom wrote:I disagree that the most penalized players are the slowest on the team,
Not something I said. Maybe you have threads confused ... I haven't said anything about penalties ...
Getting the last word in doesn't mean you are right, it just means no one else has the time or energy to correct you any longer.
That's good advice ... you should take it.
play4fun wrote: WPIIA, your credibility isn't very high if you're trying to make points about age windows and safety if you're letting your 1st year skate A despite your obvious concerns.