Mega, A, B, Small B, C and house

[MoreCowBell]

I would prefer this topic didn't die, as much as some of you wish it would. Elliott, why not have a town meeting with the MN Hockey coming out of the shadows and discussing the pros and cons with interested parties. I feel that many of the MN Board are clinging to the past and not even listening to what the membership has to say, regarding uneven competition and people looking for other options, ala multiple A teams and Tier I sanctioning.

[elliott70]

I would prefer this topic didn't die, as much as some of you wish it would. Elliott, why not have a town meeting with the MN Hockey coming out of the shadows and discussing the pros and cons with interested parties. I feel that many of the MN Board are clinging to the past and not even listening to what the membership has to say, regarding uneven competition and people looking for other options, ala multiple A teams and Tier I sanctioning.

I have proposed an annual 'convention' of interested people* to MN Hockey for about 13 years now.
*admins, coaches, others

It seems to be gaining interest.

We have had 'President's meetings' but they are relatively quick with limited variety of people and a controlled agenda.

[MoreCowBell]

I would prefer this topic didn't die, as much as some of you wish it would. Elliott, why not have a town meeting with the MN Hockey coming out of the shadows and discussing the pros and cons with interested parties. I feel that many of the MN Board are clinging to the past and not even listening to what the membership has to say, regarding uneven competition and people looking for other options, ala multiple A teams and Tier I sanctioning.

I have proposed an annual 'convention' of interested people* to MN Hockey for about 13 years now.
*admins, coaches, others

It seems to be gaining interest.

We have had 'President's meetings' but they are relatively quick with limited variety of people and a controlled agenda.

I"ll have to give you credit Elliott, you seem to be proactive and open to new idea's, i can see you entering these meetings with a bunch neanderthals and trying to present provocative idea's and getting shot down if you don't have all your ducks in a row. We need more people like you representing MN Hockey. Are there any other MN Hockey people lurking out there but afraid to engage like Elliott does.

[Bronc]

I would prefer this topic didn't die, as much as some of you wish it would. Elliott, why not have a town meeting with the MN Hockey coming out of the shadows and discussing the pros and cons with interested parties. I feel that many of the MN Board are clinging to the past and not even listening to what the membership has to say, regarding uneven competition and people looking for other options, ala multiple A teams and Tier I sanctioning.

I have proposed an annual 'convention' of interested people* to MN Hockey for about 13 years now.
*admins, coaches, others

It seems to be gaining interest.

We have had 'President's meetings' but they are relatively quick with limited variety of people and a controlled agenda.

I"ll have to give you credit Elliott, you seem to be proactive and open to new idea's, i can see you entering these meetings with a bunch neanderthals and trying to present provocative idea's and getting shot down if you don't have all your ducks in a row. We need more people like you representing MN Hockey. Are there any other MN Hockey people lurking out there but afraid to engage like Elliott does.

It definently warrants discussion at MN Hockey. We either need to do something like soccer (don't like writing that) that you earn your right to move up each year (or down, stay the same, etc).

Ie; An A team that finished below 500 will not be allowed to have one at the next age level up the following year. 500-750 stay the same and those that finish league and tournaments (do not include scrimmages) 751+ can move up to the top level.

[goldy313]

I like the "town meeting" idea but if something like that happens you need to be able to present all sides. For every Morecowbell you need somebody from Edison Youth Hockey because they both would bring ideas to the table that probably would be both polar opposites and valid points.

Years ago I served a spell on a local youth football board, we were losing kids by the bucket load to soccer, hockey, and fall baseball. We made some bad decisions and the focus became to much on winning. For example we altered boundries to make certain teams stronger in the hopes that this would benefit the high schools, we didn't care about the kids that quit along the way because after all their heart wasn't in it and worse they were quitters. The retention rate fell way off to the point we had to do something to keep the program viable. We did all kinds of exit surveys to find out why kids quit, we found the most honest answers came from the kids themselves and it generally went along to lines, I don't get to play and I don't like it.

Given those two responses we needed to come up with a solution and we made rule changes that provided for mandatory participation in games, at younger level kids had to play both offense and defense for at least 2 quarters. No kid was going to quit because he never got to play. Also we looked at coaches, if their retention rate was poor for a couple of seasons they weren't allowed back even if they won. Poor retention goes hand in hand with not having fun. Broad changes were made and I think today RYFA is the model youth sports association in our area, we even have surrounding communities sending their youth teams into our group to play.

The ironic thing was kids do want to do something and if football wasn't fun they'd find something else. Youth Football, Hockey, Baseball, etc. are all competing for customers with everything else that's out there. It's a tough sell to many kids and families as to get them to spend their time and money with you. It's also tough as a group to not turn your entire focus towards the squeeky wheel. Losing 10 kids to the Fire isn't going to hurt MN Hockey, losing 1000 kids because of other reasons will.

I think it would be wise for MN Hockey to go out and talk to the kids and their parents, the A bantams, the C bantams, the mites, the girls, everyone, even the kids that quit the last season . Not just the ones who want to talk (like on an internet survey) but kids and parents at random. I don't think that's how decisions should be made but the kids/parents input should be taken into account.

I've had 4 kids come through youth hockey, no one has ever taken interest in anything that went on at the lower levels. Traveling was forced on teams, practice to game ratios were implemented, coaching cards became mandated knocking out many very good coaches, fees went up. As each of these things happened I watched either my kids or teamates of my kids quit in droves. There has to be a level for the recreational player as well as the elite player. C hockey is not rec hockey, C hockey is traveling hockey. The kid who plays rec hockey is more likely to have a kid play hockey than the kid who never plays hockey.

One thought would be every association has 1 A team and 1 B team at each level governed by USA Hockey from birthdates on down, then you could have your AAA teams. Everyone else is governed by a mirror MN Hockey group but aren't in USA Hockey, like the old MAHA.

[elliott70]

I like the "town meeting" idea but if something like that happens you need to be able to present all sides. For every Morecowbell you need somebody from Edison Youth Hockey because they both would bring ideas to the table that probably would be both polar opposites and valid points.

Years ago I served a spell on a local youth football board, we were losing kids by the bucket load to soccer, hockey, and fall baseball. We made some bad decisions and the focus became to much on winning. For example we altered boundries to make certain teams stronger in the hopes that this would benefit the high schools, we didn't care about the kids that quit along the way because after all their heart wasn't in it and worse they were quitters. The retention rate fell way off to the point we had to do something to keep the program viable. We did all kinds of exit surveys to find out why kids quit, we found the most honest answers came from the kids themselves and it generally went along to lines, I don't get to play and I don't like it.

Given those two responses we needed to come up with a solution and we made rule changes that provided for mandatory participation in games, at younger level kids had to play both offense and defense for at least 2 quarters. No kid was going to quit because he never got to play. Also we looked at coaches, if their retention rate was poor for a couple of seasons they weren't allowed back even if they won. Poor retention goes hand in hand with not having fun. Broad changes were made and I think today RYFA is the model youth sports association in our area, we even have surrounding communities sending their youth teams into our group to play.

The ironic thing was kids do want to do something and if football wasn't fun they'd find something else. Youth Football, Hockey, Baseball, etc. are all competing for customers with everything else that's out there. It's a tough sell to many kids and families as to get them to spend their time and money with you. It's also tough as a group to not turn your entire focus towards the squeeky wheel. Losing 10 kids to the Fire isn't going to hurt MN Hockey, losing 1000 kids because of other reasons will.

I think it would be wise for MN Hockey to go out and talk to the kids and their parents, the A bantams, the C bantams, the mites, the girls, everyone, even the kids that quit the last season . Not just the ones who want to talk (like on an internet survey) but kids and parents at random. I don't think that's how decisions should be made but the kids/parents input should be taken into account.

I've had 4 kids come through youth hockey, no one has ever taken interest in anything that went on at the lower levels. Traveling was forced on teams, practice to game ratios were implemented, coaching cards became mandated knocking out many very good coaches, fees went up. As each of these things happened I watched either my kids or teamates of my kids quit in droves. There has to be a level for the recreational player as well as the elite player. C hockey is not rec hockey, C hockey is traveling hockey. The kid who plays rec hockey is more likely to have a kid play hockey than the kid who never plays hockey.

One thought would be every association has 1 A team and 1 B team at each level governed by USA Hockey from birthdates on down, then you could have your AAA teams. Everyone else is governed by a mirror MN Hockey group but aren't in USA Hockey, like the old MAHA.

Good post

[countryboy]

How is it that both MN Hockey and USA Hockey both state that the best model for development is from like skilled kids playing together, but then they allow local associations to vary on what levels of play to offer. A simple solution would be to mandate that every association field an A team at each level and evaluate each team on how they compete until Dec 15th. If they are not competative than they get adjusted to B. In addition you can put a size limit of 1 A and 2 B for every 100 kids at a level and they must be even teams so 2 even A for 200 kids. Eliminate C and make that House so if a player really takes a step they can be called up to B in Feb. The need to standardize is really a must as anytime you allow so much freedom you will have complaints that the association next door does this and so on. The range is the only place left that offers no squirt A because they know better than all the experts- that may have been true years ago but with the numbers involved elsewhere the range and really dropped off. Oh youll get a Niskanen or White but great athletes will always find a way. Standardize and give everyone a system to play within and have each association play within it. Here in Rapids we have a squirt A and multiple B teams, Greenway and Hibbing have just multiple B. We play a schedule with them to eliminate travel but why when games are 18-2. We dont have our high end guys and they just are content to send it 200' with one guy carrying the puck to score. DUMB!! Have everyone play with the same theory - Best development comes from like skilled kids playing together. It will be more fun for all as close games keep players intrest and intrest keeps players. If you want to add a few Tier I teams that are allowed to play that is great to as it just offers the opportunity for the etreme kid to play with like skilled players and helps all of us grow and thrive. SIMPLE

[5thgraders]

[quote="countryboy"]How is it that both MN Hockey and USA Hockey both state that the best model for development is from like skilled kids playing together, but then they allow local associations to vary on what levels of play to offer. A simple solution would be to mandate that every association field an A team at each level and evaluate each team on how they compete until Dec 15th. If they are not competative than they get adjusted to B. In addition you can put a size limit of 1 A and 2 B for every 100 kids at a level and they must be even teams so 2 even A for 200 kids. Eliminate C and make that House so if a player really takes a step they can be called up to B in Feb. The need to standardize is really a must as anytime you allow so much freedom you will have complaints that the association next door does this and so on. The range is the only place left that offers no squirt A because they know better than all the experts- that may have been true years ago but with the numbers involved elsewhere the range and really dropped off. Oh youll get a Niskanen or White but great athletes will always find a way. Standardize and give everyone a system to play within and have each association play within it. Here in Rapids we have a squirt A and multiple B teams, Greenway and Hibbing have just multiple B. We play a schedule with them to eliminate travel but why when games are 18-2. We dont have our high end guys and they just are content to send it 200' with one guy carrying the puck to score. DUMB!! Have everyone play with the same theory - Best development comes from like skilled kids playing together. It will be more fun for all as close games keep players intrest and intrest keeps players. If you want to add a few Tier I teams that are allowed to play that is great to as it just offers the opportunity for the etreme kid to play with like skilled players and helps all of us grow and thrive. SIMPLE[/quote] Amen

[countryboy]

Elliott isnt this a simple solution?

[Cowboy]

In theory that sounds like a decent proposal. But waiting until Dec. 15th to make your final declaration would create several problems.

1. It would make scheduling games very difficult.
2. Getting tournaments scheduled at such a late date would be next to impossible when you through in trying to schedule games around them.
3. If a B team isn't competative do they drop down to house level? Most associations outside the metro area would not be able to have a house league.
4. How do go about making sure you have a balanced scedule prior to Dec 15th? If you play all small associations and win your games you will have to stay A. At the same time another association may have all top teams scheduled right away and they may not be competative and they will drop down to B level even though they may be way better than the first team.
5. How do the games prior to Dec. 15th figure into the league standings? Or do you start all over Dec. 15th with a fresh season?
6. Keep in mind many if not most of the associations outside the metro area have about 25-35 kids per level and have 2 maybe 3 teams. I think your idea would work for the large associations but not for the majority.

I think most associations know how competative their teams are going to be before the start of the season. The problem is them policing themselves and putting the teams at the correct level, and maybe creating a second A team if they are able to do so.

I personally like the idea of of using the method used in soccer. Unfortunately no matter what changes may be made I'm sure it will be 3-4 years before it is actually implemented.

[elliott70]

Elliott isnt this a simple solution?

On the surface, yes...
But most associations have a wide discrepancy in talent without the numbers to keep Level 1, level 2, level 3 etc... kids together. So called rainbow teams are not feasible in a large portin of the state and in some parts do not work for a variety of other reasons.

I like the idea but I have to 'look under the hood as well as kick the tires'.

We do exactly that in D16 right now. But for example, this year Hallock went to A hockey. We knew they would struggle and they are...
But Hallock feels that they need to expose their top kids to A level because under the old system of playing down a level they are not ready for HS, their elite kids take longer to adjust when pariticpating in elite programs in the off-season. Their lower level kids get the wrong message when doing okay to well at the B level.

I believe you have a great idea in adjusting teams as the season progresses. I think we (Minnesota Hockey) need to be more flexible in allowing different levels to play each other.

I like the house idea and would allow ALL kids to play house in addition to travel.

Our problem (as well as our bounty) is we are so varied, one glove does not fit all.
We need Tier I, we need to protect against discrimination within associations, we need A level, B level, and house or rec level. We need to help recruit and retain kids. We need to edcuate our coaches and refs (not that the USA Hockey system is not good, but I think Minnesota people can put a better package together). We need to control CERTAIN parents.
We need to minimize travel. And the work load we push on local volunteers.
And we need to keep the curretn season progressing, work on doing better, and yet not lose the ggood we currently have by trying to add the things that need to be added.

Not such a tough list for a bunch of part-time volunteers.

[jancze5]

what's wrong with Birth year hockey...after Bantams the kids are in the high school and let the high school worry about it. If need be, let the high school field more than one JV team to cater to the sophmore/junior who doesn't make Varsity...and not worry about the freshman/sophmore who has Bantam eligibility currently or have Freshman hockey like alot of other states have freshman football.

Field birth year A teams...with mixed B teams. If an association is too small, they field only B teams. If a mnor player can make the major team, then allow that. Nobody plays up a level though. Allow the Majors to be Tier 1 eligible and have a state tournament that feeds into the national tournament.

this year we would have...

Bantam A 93 (major)
Bantam A 94 (minor)
Bantam B 1 mixed
Bantam B 2 mixed
C or house

PW A 95 (major)
PW A 96 (minor)
PW B 1 mixed
PW B 2 mixed
C or house

Squirt A/b/c no birth year, larger associations field 2 A teams equally balanced...

All Mites...in house locally...build your program with a few years of local based games, no need to travel, even 5 miles.

[zboni99]

A lot is wrong with birthyear alignment. It pushes the kids that are born late in the year up a level. At any age cutoff someone is going to be the youngest. At least under the current alignment, the youngest kids still play with the kids in their grade, i.e. primarily their friends. My son is born late in the year. Under birthyear he would be a major bantam and probably playing with mostly 9th graders, not his primary friends. I've seen enough interaction on the teams to see that the 1st years and the 2nd years generally align along those lines. If you want more kids in hockey, keeping them with their friends is a great start.
What other youth sports organizations align with the birthyear?
MYSA, no
Little League, no
Babe Ruth, no
Girls Fastpitch, no
AAU baskeball, ??
Metro baseball, ??.

If your association wants to form a birthyear team within the confines of the current alignment then do it. Have kids play up if necessary, then register for these national tournaments. Maybe MN hockey and districts should have less restriction on how many years a player can play at a level. Why can't a kid play 3 years as a bantam or peewee as long as he is not too old. Sanction Tier 1 for the birthyear people.
Like I said earlier, I'll bet most birthyear proponents have kids whose birthmonth is early in the year.

[cutanddrive]

Like I said earlier, I'll bet most birt ... r.[/quote]

probably - is it just me or is this whole argument now being discussed at the younger and younger levels? What next, the '06 Inferno's?

Bring back the old days - hockey outside, no facemasks. OK, maybe the facemasks are a good thing. My kid did get his teeth knocked out on the backyard rink.

[Wally Schafer]

Just as you do have some younger kids in birth year... sept/oct/nov/dec birth months... you do as well have in Mn Current age breakdown. Does anyone know what the reasoning of July 1st is?

The state of Minnesota uses Sept 1 as the date for school registration.
A child whom is age 6 must be enrolled in school on Sept 1.
The Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association (MAHA) regular season begins September 1 and extends thru the completion of all MAHA state trnys. School session Sept 1st, MAHA season Sept 1st. :idea:
Frequently we see other sports don't play by birth year : baseball/football/ and the dreaded basketball. However they are allowing the players to participate with their peers in school...by grade.

What birth month has the least amount of registered players in Mn Hockey? Is it proportionate to the population? Mn Hockey may find that birth month of May/June may have the least players...but July/August the most. Has it been researched on players that have played travelling at what age do they most commonly quit? And why?

There was a reference that [b]80%[/b] of the boys born in July / August did not attend kindergarten at age 5...What percentage that were born in June or even May waited till they were 6? The number of children going to school at age 6 has increased each year. The reality may soon not be five, and may trickle more and more up to Spring and Winter birth months.

Does Minnesota Hockey have more participants in the sport if they allow kids to play with their grade ? I think they would. I believe part of leaving Jan 1 was because it may have affected high schools. That tells me Mn Hockey views Minnesota High School Hockey as something special to its members. That is cool. If the young players hockey dream is to play with his / her high school team, then we should facilitate a path for them to reach that goal. Right now hockey is losing that June,May birth month athlete that went to school at age 6 to other sports. They don't get to play with their peers.

The MH board establishes the MAHA age chart for each season. I believe they would be open to strengthening hockey by increasing the numbers.
The goal very well be to keep kids together and into high school. Then lets make this right on for the 2008-2009 Sept 1 season.
I believe Minnesota Hockey is open to anyway to keep more and more players in hockey, and more registering to play.

Proposal 1
1) Squirts grades 4th and 5th
2) Peewees grades 6th and 7th
3) Bantams grades 8th and 9th
4) U16 / Junior Gold / JV / Varsity grades 10th / 11th / 12th
two years at each level

Proposal 2

1) Keep current age chart, however modify the current rule of allowing associations to decide if the " July / August" birth month whom went to school at age 5 can play with their current grade.. mh to add a addendum that " to allow the local association to decide if a player born before July 1st, can play with their current grade.

Proposal 3

1) change date to Sept 1 and stated as " players, to be eligible, must have been born ON or BEFORE the stated date. Continue verbage to allow local assoc to decide if a player plays up with their grade

NEW
9/1/1992 to 8/31/1994 bantam
9/1/1994 to 8/31/1996 peewee
9/1/1996 to 8/31/1998 squirt

CURRENT
" allows local association to decide if player moves up : and states
"players to be eligible, must have been BORN on or AFTER the stated date"
7/1/1992 06/31/1994 bantam
7/1/1994 06/31/1996 peewee
7/1/1996 06/31/1998 squirt

Why in a hurry to grow our children? They will reach it soon enough. Allow them to be with their peers and enjoy the experience.
A 7th grader is learning enough that fall. A 9th grader in high school probably will be sharing some experiences that the 7th grader should not know about.... :lol:

Lets be proactive Minnesota Hockey, each day it seems more and more alternatives arise : either a private hockey club, or other sports. They all are competing for the same limited resource : the student athlete.

[zboni99]

I'd be happy with any of Wally's proposals. I'd even be happy with Minor Bantams = (1994 or in the 8th grade) as an example.

[countryboy]

Elliott, i agree with you that its not perfect and we have to be flexible. What im looking for is some form of consistency at the state level. MN Hockey should mandate that all associations try to operate on the same level. There are going to be tough years for almost every program in the state but then again is it all about winning or is it about life experiences? I just laugh when people say that youth hockey is to develop a high school team. BULL &*#&. MN Hockey is here to provide an experience for the players both boys and girls. Some kids careers end at Pro some college and some it is mites. The point is we should be focused on giving evey youngster the best possible experience every year. If we do that the high school thing will take care of itself. Hockey is about the games, the team play, the travel and seeing and playing in other rinks, and the meeting of other kids LIFE LESSONS. To say no squirt A is taking an opportunity away from a kid. When the board says we want to limit travel, for who? If you got 15 parents willing to go and give there kids the experience who is some guy that stays home to say nope you cant go. If every association had to operate basically the same you wouldnt have the need for waivers and changing programs . Or if the local association gets the call then it should not be a waiver situation. If your association does not offer a A team than they shouldnt be able to stop kids from going elsewhere to get the experience. ITS NOT aBOUT HIGH SCHOOL. I have a member of my family that had the oportuntiy to play Travel Squirt A hockey, and some say so what its only squirts right. Well you tell his parents that had to bury there little angel at the age of 13 and loved the game of hockey that all the memories they have (and thats all they have left) were just squirts. BS By standardizing it some way and putting in a number cap system to equalize the mega associations to that of the average you can make it a GREEAT experience for all, and thats all I ask. Stop the power play of some individuals out there that are trying to tell everyone that they have the secret formula or they know whats best for your kid and do whats best for all. Standardize, Mandate, or take the power to block tranfers away so all kids can be allowed to have that experience. If every association offered the same experience no one would ask for a waiver.

[Sudden Death]

I took the time to read all 7 pages of this tread thinking someone would have a new idea that might work, well I wasted my time.

[goldy313]

Never go to determining class by grade. It's a horrible system open to petty parents fixing the system.

In the past we've had a local parent threaten to sue the MSHSL so his 20 year old son could play baseball, the MSHSL caved. Now we have a freshman wrestler who could drive as an 8th grader and will be eligible to vote for President next November as a sophomore and will be of drinking age prior to graduation. Age takes parents trying to set little johnny up as a star out of the mix.

[hockeyparent11]

There is no need to be experimental. Every other hockey state does the same thing: They have a small number of Tier 1 teams and everyone else plays in their local community association.

Tier 1 would have to be birth year, to match teams around the country. Association hockey could use any cutoff date decided by Minnesota Hockey.