Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[phil mccracken]

A friend of mine has a son whom is going to be in 9th grade next year, he is a summer birthday. The son, and mom are worried he won't be playing hockey next year. He will not be eligible for bantams, and they don't think he will be chosen for JV next fall.

The association does not have jr gold. They could commute to a another association for jr gold. The attraction of the somewhat long commute, and playing jr gold in 9th grade is very small. She wishes her son could play bantams in 9th grade with his classmates next season.

If MN hockey is truly looking at a way for summer birthdays to play with their classmates they should be applauded. Clap - Clap

**Is this kid a spring birthday (doesn't July 1st covers ~90% of summer birthdays)? Do ALL the kids in this association end up playing JV/V after bantams? That is a dream come true in most communities. Even kids in large associations sometimes have to go to other communities in order to play on a Jr Gold team (if numbers are too high or too low).

**Regarding the Jan 1st proposal. That is wonderful for early birthdays but terrible for late birthdays.

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.

July 1st covers 66 % of summer birthdays. June is the other 33 %.
She didn't say anything about going to birth year. She was excited about MH looking at June birthday kids. I am not sure, but I think another stated MH is not looking at birth year, which makes sense. With a birth year even more kids would not be eligible for bantams.

The commute in their case is significant, over 50 miles and not all interstate. The kid is not a rockstar, but enjoys playing the game. Like I said MH should be applauded, and parents should be there when they can assist their own child.

[youngblood08]

A friend of mine has a son whom is going to be in 9th grade next year, he is a summer birthday. The son, and mom are worried he won't be playing hockey next year. He will not be eligible for bantams, and they don't think he will be chosen for JV next fall.

The association does not have jr gold. They could commute to a another association for jr gold. The attraction of the somewhat long commute, and playing jr gold in 9th grade is very small. She wishes her son could play bantams in 9th grade with his classmates next season.

If MN hockey is truly looking at a way for summer birthdays to play with their classmates they should be applauded. Clap - Clap

**Is this kid a spring birthday (doesn't July 1st covers ~90% of summer birthdays)? Do ALL the kids in this association end up playing JV/V after bantams? That is a dream come true in most communities. Even kids in large associations sometimes have to go to other communities in order to play on a Jr Gold team (if numbers are too high or too low).

**Regarding the Jan 1st proposal. That is wonderful for early birthdays but terrible for late birthdays.

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.[/quote]


Quote of the YEAR!!!!

[Wasilla]

A friend of mine has a son whom is going to be in 9th grade next year, he is a summer birthday. The son, and mom are worried he won't be playing hockey next year. He will not be eligible for bantams, and they don't think he will be chosen for JV next fall.

The association does not have jr gold. They could commute to a another association for jr gold. The attraction of the somewhat long commute, and playing jr gold in 9th grade is very small. She wishes her son could play bantams in 9th grade with his classmates next season.

If MN hockey is truly looking at a way for summer birthdays to play with their classmates they should be applauded. Clap - Clap

**Is this kid a spring birthday (doesn't July 1st covers ~90% of summer birthdays)? Do ALL the kids in this association end up playing JV/V after bantams? That is a dream come true in most communities. Even kids in large associations sometimes have to go to other communities in order to play on a Jr Gold team (if numbers are too high or too low).

**Regarding the Jan 1st proposal. That is wonderful for early birthdays but terrible for late birthdays.

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.

July 1st covers 66 % of summer birthdays. June is the other 33 %.
She didn't say anything about going to birth year. She was excited about MH looking at June birthday kids. I am not sure, but I think another stated MH is not looking at birth year, which makes sense. With a birth year even more kids would not be eligible for bantams.

I was defining summer as beginning on June 21st. Is MN hockey considering a spring cut off date, June 1st?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Keeping the players in competitive blocks grouped by birth year all the way through Bantam Major does ensures a higher retention rate, higher rate of fun, lessens the risk of serious injury and maximizes development opportunities. That's what we want.

Not arguing with you, but just want to know, Why and based on what stats is this true?

A Canadian study compared peewee-level players (ages 12 and 13 years) from a league that allowed body checking with another league that did not. Players in the league that allowed body checking had a fracture rate 12 times higher than the rate of the other league. Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players. Players in the same age group could vary significantly in the amount of force they could impart on another player and/or withstand from another player.

The Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine reported that although the incidence of serious injuries at the mite and squirt level was quite low, serious injuries were noted at the peewee level and above. Therefore, they recommended banning body checking at the peewee level and below.

Currently, Quebec is the only province taking the Academy up on it's recommendation. They have not only seen an intense reduction in injuries at the pee wee level, but have experienced the unforseen benefits of player retention as well, due to a reduction of kids quitting hockey due to injury / fear of contact issues.

Saskatchewan briefly experimented with body checking at the atom (squirt) level but recently abandoned the experiment.

A follow up study compared peewee-level players from a contact league with a 12 month gap to a contact league with a 24 month gap and concluded that players in the league with the larger variance in age/size (24 month) had a fracture rate 3 times higher than the rate of the other league.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.[/quote]

Quote of the YEAR!!!!

Might be the quote of the year ... certainly a common rallying cry for those wishing to preserve the staus quo ... however, irelevant to this thread.

It can also be stated and upheld that kids are enjoying and perseving BECAUSE parents cared enough to intervene, get involved, set up the system the kids are enjoying and persevering in, and also looking to continually IMPROVE the system for the continued enjoyment of future generations of hockey players.

The system doesn't have to be perfect (nor ever will be), but neither should change be feared. Nothing should be off the table - ever.

Discussion is healthy and change is sometimes the best course. In youth hockey, parents are the ones who these responsibilities ultimately fall on, as volunteers, coaches, administrators etc. There are a few, but not too many volunteers who aren't parents involved in the system. The efforts of these parents and non-parents should be applauded and embraced, not shunned and/or ridiculed.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Keeping the players in competitive blocks grouped by birth year all the way through Bantam Major does ensures a higher retention rate, higher rate of fun, lessens the risk of serious injury and maximizes development opportunities. That's what we want.

Not arguing with you, but just want to know, Why and based on what stats is this true?

A Canadian study compared peewee-level players (ages 12 and 13 years) from a league that allowed body checking with another league that did not. Players in the league that allowed body checking had a fracture rate 12 times higher than the rate of the other league. Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players. Players in the same age group could vary significantly in the amount of force they could impart on another player and/or withstand from another player.

The Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine reported that although the incidence of serious injuries at the mite and squirt level was quite low, serious injuries were noted at the peewee level and above. Therefore, they recommended banning body checking at the peewee level and below.

Currently, Quebec is the only province taking the Academy up on it's recommendation. They have not only seen an intense reduction in injuries at the pee wee level, but have experienced the unforseen benefits of player retention as well, due to a reduction of kids quitting hockey due to injury / fear of contact issues.

Saskatchewan briefly experimented with body checking at the atom (squirt) level but recently abandoned the experiment.

A follow up study compared peewee-level players from a contact league with a 12 month gap to a contact league with a 24 month gap and concluded that players in the league with the larger variance in age/size (24 month) had a fracture rate 3 times higher than the rate of the other league.

Elliot,

This from the American Academy of Pediatrics - (undoubtedly the Canadian study will be dismissed in this forum as anti-Minnesotan).

Studies have shown that disparities in size and strength can further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions in youth hockey. Variations in size and strength are present in all age groups but are most pronounced among the pee-wee and bantam-level players. Therefore, minimizing disparities in size and strength combined with minimizing checking and other high-impact collisions in these age group could further reduce injuries.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

In the 1960s, an alarming number of facial injuries in youth hockey players led to the mandatory use of helmets with a face mask. This wasn't a change embraced by everybody. It has it's detractors but common sense prevailed in the end.

Shortly after the introduction of the helmet-face mask, an increase in the number of neck and spinal injuries was noted. A US study reported injuries in youth hockey players 9 to 15 years old. Head and neck injuries accounted for 23% of the total number of injuries. Of particular interest is that size differences among players in this series increased with age, with bantam-level players (ages 14 and 15 years) showing the most variation, with reported differences between the smallest and largest players of 53 kg in body weight and 55 cm in height. The bantam-level players sustained the most injuries (54%).

Now that we know that substantial differences in size and strength among players contributes to the high injury rate, with some players being nearly twice as heavy and twice as strong as other players we can react and do the responsible thing, decrease the variation by grouping peewee through bantam age players in 12 month groupings rather than 24.

Right now that move represents greater change than some are willing to accept. That's not uncommon. That's par for the course with any change, but those detractors will eventually give way to common sense administrators who will make the right decisions based on the new information.

This change will happen. It is only a matter of time. It is just a matter of getting a board that embraces progress. That might not be any time soon, but it will happen.

[Wasilla]

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.[/quote]

Quote of the YEAR!!!!

Might be the quote of the year ... certainly a common rallying cry for those wishing to preserve the staus quo ... however, irelevant to this thread.

It can also be stated and upheld that kids are enjoying and perseving BECAUSE parents cared enough to intervene, get involved, set up the system the kids are enjoying and persevering in, and also looking to continually IMPROVE the system for the continued enjoyment of future generations of hockey players.

The system doesn't have to be perfect (nor ever will be), but neither should change be feared. Nothing should be off the table - ever.

Discussion is healthy and change is sometimes the best course. In youth hockey, parents are the ones who these responsibilities ultimately fall on, as volunteers, coaches, administrators etc. There are a few, but not too many volunteers who aren't parents involved in the system. The efforts of these parents and non-parents should be applauded and embraced, not shunned and/or ridiculed.

Sorry you dont agree with me. I am speaking from personal experience as a parent. None of my kids have a had an easy ride (cases similar to one that you mentioned)- I am always amazed at how they are making the best of whatever situation they are in for the love of the game.

I do believe that all MN kids that want to play hockey, should be able to (and the longer they play, the better). In fact I would lilke to see more kids play so they can benefit as my kids did in areas of responsibility, teamwork, life lessons, etc. Thanks to everyone that makes that happen for so many of our youth.

Good luck to your friends son next year.

[phil mccracken]

**Is this kid a spring birthday (doesn't July 1st covers ~90% of summer birthdays)? Do ALL the kids in this association end up playing JV/V after bantams? That is a dream come true in most communities. Even kids in large associations sometimes have to go to other communities in order to play on a Jr Gold team (if numbers are too high or too low).

**Regarding the Jan 1st proposal. That is wonderful for early birthdays but terrible for late birthdays.

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.

July 1st covers 66 % of summer birthdays. June is the other 33 %.
She didn't say anything about going to birth year. She was excited about MH looking at June birthday kids. I am not sure, but I think another stated MH is not looking at birth year, which makes sense. With a birth year even more kids would not be eligible for bantams.

I was defining summer as beginning on June 21st. Is MN hockey considering a spring cut off date, June 1st?

I have no idea, someone noted a mn hockey committee was to look into possible better age classifications for summer birthdays. Which could allow more kids to play with their grade. I would think that is June 1st. My first thought is probably more and more kids summer birthdays are entering school at age 6. It is my understanding MH wants to have the kids the opportunity to play with their grade. Due to so many kids with July/August birthdays entering school at 6, they made the current date July 1st. Now years later they may realize June 1st would allow even more kids the opportunity. I would think a straight grade level would be sufficient with mites being up to the individual association to decide when they can start.

Bantams / U14 8-9th grade
Peewee / U12 6-7th grade
Squirts / U10 4-5th grade
mites preK - 3rd grade

[elliott70]

Whos puck
thank you.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Sorry you dont agree with me.

I do believe that all MN kids that want to play hockey, should be able to (and the longer they play, the better). In fact I would lilke to see more kids play so they can benefit as my kids did in areas of responsibility, teamwork, life lessons, etc. Thanks to everyone that makes that happen for so many of our youth.

Hmmm ... turns out we do agree afterall. ;0)

[elliott70]

This is an excellent discussion (and very civil).

I am starting a new thread regarding MH hosting a forum on some weekend with local member driven topics to discuss and share ideas of what works/what doesn't in a local assn and district AND
discussion exchange of ideas on topics of change.

MH could sponsor it and pay for it.
At the same time HEP, coaches, training could be offered as well as inviting in vendors (for a fee - to help support the forum).

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Whos puck
thank you.

No problem. THANK YOU Elliot, for all you do for hockey in this State and for being a reliable source of information and reasonable voice on this forum. Administrators like you keep hockey strong in Minnesota. We need more guys like you around.

[elliott70]

It should be mandated that all MH board members spend one Saturday a month in a youth hockey arena some place. From Nov to Feb and not as part of official business.

[youngblood08]

I am in the middle of creating a "Hockey Birthday Predictor" That way future generations of hockey players in Minnesota will never have to deal with this topic. We will only have a 3 month spread, that way the first line will be January birthdays only, 2nd line would be February and so on for 3rd line.

Your child will play defense if they are born on an odd number day and forward will be even numbered. Goalies will be the ones that get dropped on thier heads or are born at the Supermarket.

Any other suggestions??

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I am in the middle of creating a "Hockey Birthday Predictor" That way future generations of hockey players in Minnesota will never have to deal with this topic. We will only have a 3 month spread, that way the first line will be January birthdays only, 2nd line would be February and so on for 3rd line.

Your child will play defense if they are born on an odd number day and forward will be even numbered. Goalies will be the ones that get dropped on thier heads or are born at the Supermarket.

Any other suggestions??

Well, based on that logic why have age groupings at all. Just play em 6-18 in one category. Make it real simple. Surely your 6 year old will only benefit from playing against the bigger, faster 18 year olds. By the time those 6 year olds turn 18 they'll all be Sydney Crosby's but much, much tougher.

[elliott70]

I am in the middle of creating a "Hockey Birthday Predictor" That way future generations of hockey players in Minnesota will never have to deal with this topic. We will only have a 3 month spread, that way the first line will be January birthdays only, 2nd line would be February and so on for 3rd line.

Your child will play defense if they are born on an odd number day and forward will be even numbered. Goalies will be the ones that get dropped on thier heads or are born at the Supermarket.

Any other suggestions??

With some modification it should work well for a mite rule.

[elliott70]

I am in the middle of creating a "Hockey Birthday Predictor" That way future generations of hockey players in Minnesota will never have to deal with this topic. We will only have a 3 month spread, that way the first line will be January birthdays only, 2nd line would be February and so on for 3rd line.

Your child will play defense if they are born on an odd number day and forward will be even numbered. Goalies will be the ones that get dropped on thier heads or are born at the Supermarket.

Any other suggestions??

Well, based on that logic why have age groupings at all. Just play em 6-18 in one category. Make it real simple. Surely your 6 year old will only benefit from playing against the bigger, faster 18 year olds. By the time those 6 year olds turn 18 they'll all be Sydney Crosby's but much, much tougher.

That was the rule on outdoor rinks up north in the 60's.
Put the skates on and go play.
When you got to about 10 on a team, you created 2 more teams and kept playing - two games on the same rink at the same time, older kids in one game, younger kids in the other game - keep your head up. Older kid knocked down a younger kid - sit in the snow bank until you were forgiven.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I am in the middle of creating a "Hockey Birthday Predictor" That way future generations of hockey players in Minnesota will never have to deal with this topic. We will only have a 3 month spread, that way the first line will be January birthdays only, 2nd line would be February and so on for 3rd line.

Your child will play defense if they are born on an odd number day and forward will be even numbered. Goalies will be the ones that get dropped on thier heads or are born at the Supermarket.

Any other suggestions??

Well, based on that logic why have age groupings at all. Just play em 6-18 in one category. Make it real simple. Surely your 6 year old will only benefit from playing against the bigger, faster 18 year olds. By the time those 6 year olds turn 18 they'll all be Sydney Crosby's but much, much tougher.

That was the rule on outdoor rinks up north in the 60's.
Put the skates on and go play.
When you got to about 10 on a team, you created 2 more teams and kept playing - two games on the same rink at the same time, older kids in one game, younger kids in the other game - keep your head up. Older kid knocked down a younger kid - sit in the snow bank until you were forgiven.

LOL I remember those days. Things were much simpler ... we didn't have any experts telling us what was best for us ... makes you wonder if we are we moving forward or backwards

[council member retired]

Some of those ineligible bantam 9th graders cannot play JV hockey, simply because they are in school when the high school jv practices.
Not all high schools are grades 9-12, some are 10-12. Burnsville for example practices jv at 2:50, one of the middle schools goes till 3:00 pm.

[Pioneerprideguy]

If ya have to place a bet, which is more likely to happen:
1). No change to the current system
2). Jan 1st becomes the new date
3). June 1st becomes the new date
4). School grade is used
5). Something else

[old goalie85]

no change

[elliott70]

If ya have to place a bet, which is more likely to happen:
1). No change to the current system2
2). Jan 1st becomes the new date NO
3). June 1st becomes the new date 1
4). School grade is used3
5). Something else ???

[Chuck Norris Fan]

what happens then?

If the date is moved from July1 to June 1. WHat happens to the kids with June Birthdays? do they just loose out on a year at that level?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

what happens then?

If the date is moved from July1 to June 1. WHat happens to the kids with June Birthdays? do they just loose out on a year at that level?

They wouldn't lose anything ... they actually would gain an extra year of eligibility in association hockey. If they are good enough to make the jump to JV or Varsity at bantam 2 then it's a wash. If they aren't good enough to make that jump then they get to play with their classmates for one more year at second year bantam ...

It just closer aligns MH to the actual school year. If you are a fan of kids playing with classmates, this is a small improvement. A better idea for this model is just to go by grade, like they do in football, and limit playing categories to single grade