HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

elliott70 wrote:

Pioneerprideguy wrote: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 ???

playwithyourgrade wrote:Dave Bakke with MN Hockey is the chair of the Discernment Committee
His contact information is at the Minnesota Hockey website.

You can also email playwithyourgrade@yahoo.com if you would like to get involved.

There is members of MN Hockey board that are willing to listen to their members with a open mind for the benefit of the youth program.

playwithyourgrade wrote:Dave Bakke with MN Hockey is the chair of the Planning Committee
His contact information is at the Minnesota Hockey website.

You can also email playwithyourgrade@yahoo.com if you would like to get involved.

There is members of MN Hockey board that are willing to listen to their members with a open mind for the benefit of the youth program.

elliott70 wrote:Its good to get other opinions.

And again, no matter your opinion, let MH board members know it.
None of th eboard members can think of all the possible sides to an issue and it is good to have them presented to us.

Even if we think we know everything.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

elliott70 wrote:Its good to get other opinions.

And again, no matter your opinion, let MH board members know it.
None of th eboard members can think of all the possible sides to an issue and it is good to have them presented to us.

Even if we think we know everything.

It depends on what the objective is. If the objective is to get kids playing with classmates, then go by grade. Bantam = 8,9. Peewee = 6,7. Squirt = 4,5. Mite= 1,2,3. Objective reached.

If the objectives are to better develop kids, retain players and reduce injuries, then go by single grade. Bantam Major = 9. Bantam Minor = 8. PeeWee Major = 7. PeeWee Minor = 6. Squirt = 4,5. Mite= 1,2,3. Objectives reached.

If the objectives are to better develop kids, retain players, reduce injuries and get up to speed with the rest of the world, then go by single birth year. Objectives Reached.

If the objectives are to better develop kids, retain players, reduce injuries, get up to speed with the rest of the world and feed the Minnesota High Scool System, then use a hybrid, single birth year with the option to play with your grade. Objectives Reached.

elliott70 wrote:As long as what you do is not detrimental to the local assn, district or MH in general, no one will object.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

elliott70 wrote:As long as what you do is not detrimental to the local assn, district or MH in general, no one will object.

Here's where it can get muddy. In who's opinion is it detrimental.

elliott70 wrote:"it should get moved through sooner rather than later"...

someone, somehow, manages to bog things down.

observer wrote: Describe a specific tear jerking example and maybe I'll listen. As several have said, in terms of development, we have the best of both worlds. School year during the association season (99% of all kids in my experience) and birthyear during the AAA season. Perfect as is.

elliott70 wrote:But statistics show that there are a good number of kids (playing hockey and not) that have June birthdates and were not starteed in school at age 5. A change in this rule would allow those kids to play with the kids in their grade. Again the argument is that the cut has to be made somewhere but based on the numbers June is more meaningful than July. What about May? The numbers drop dramatically.
June seems to be the perfect fit.

For me and might vote, I am leaning to June 1

greybeard58 wrote:Here is the statement from the planning committee in 2002-03:
At the Minnesota Hockey Fall meeting the Planning Committee recommended that the age cut-off date for Minnesota Hockey remain at June 30.

The Planning Committee was charged with making a recommendation that is best for hockey in Minnesota. As a result, they developed some basic considerations to look at regarding hockey in the state. A big part of that was the transition from Bantams to high school programs.

By moving to a January 1 the Planning Committee determined that a large number of players would no longer be eligible for Bantams as 15 year olds. These players would be thrust into the high school programs because of that. The problem of how to accommodate and integrate the influx of players no longer eligible for Bantams into the high school programs was a major concern.

Some schools will likely be able to handle that influx; many others will not. In larger schools it appears that coaches would prefer not to have 9th graders on varsity teams, making their only option to play hockey JV. While high school coaches don't believe JV programs will go away, recent budgetary problems in schools may alter that belief. In fact, many smaller greater Minnesota schools don't have JV programs now. In addition, there was fear that 9th graders would have no place to continue their skill development or that coaches would keep 9th graders and drop 12th graders.

It was suggested that an U16/Midget classification would solve that problem. Again, the metro area has already developed a viable U16/midget program (the Metro league) because the numbers are high enough to support the program. Greater Minnesota, on the other hand, will not have the critical mass of kids to form those teams. It was suggested that communities could pair together to create that critical mass. Reality however, is that it would be difficult at best for 15 & 16 year old kids to drive 50 to 60 miles one way 3 or 4 nights a week and on weekends in January and February in Minnesota to play U16/Midget hockey. As a result we lose players from our local programs.

Another option studied was to go to Sept 1 so everyone plays with his grade. However, evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds. So now you are back at square one with age classifications split by grade.

There was a concern expressed by associations playing in the vicinity of Minnesota’s borders that because our players will be six months older that teams may not want to come to Minnesota to play and that tournaments outside of Minnesota may not want our teams. After looking at the issue it was determined that about 95% of all sanctioned games and tournaments played in Minnesota are played between Minnesota teams. While that doesn’t help those specific teams and players possibly hurt by this issue, the original charge was to do what was best for hockey in Minnesota. It also appears that many of those teams who come to MN would still do so and those that go outside MN would still do so.
I have the presentation as a pdf file but I do not know if I can attach it to show here.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

8691 wrote:MN has great high school hockey and great youth hockey in the winter and I don't think you can have it any other way than to break it out by school year, thus July 1st. I hope it does not change as the Jan 1 for summer hockey and July 1 for winter has been great for the development of my son. He plays catch up for the first part of the summer due to a late birthday and then really benefits in the winter. My guess is that some are stars in the summer and play catch up in the winter. Seems to even out in the end.

I agree Minnesota has great high school hockey. The absolute best!

The youth hockey could use a little work, however.


The school year model works well by single grade, like in football, keeping the athletes closer in age proximity while they are developing, particulary through the middle school years. As it is, the age disparity in Bantam and Pee Wee hockey is too great, creating situations where young men are playing against little boys.

The USA hockey birth year model keeps kids within 12 months of each other, not only increasing player retention, player development, game competitiveness and fun for the players but would also keep Minnesota hockey on an even playing field with the rest of the world and open up other opportunities to Minnesota kids, like Nationals, without sacrificing anything they already have.

Seems like a win/win for Minnesota youth hockey. I can't see the downside.

I am sure the powers that be have some reason for the manatory 2 year gap July-June through Bantam youth hockey ... I am just curious to know what the constructive reasoning is that is great enough to offset the obvious downsides to this structure ...

negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds.