MSHSL Game Limit

[warriors41]

Quick question: we always hear about the older kids who leave early for juniors. But how many players would you guess stop playing the game at a young age due to burnout or don't even start when they are young because of immense time commitment required for kids under the age of 10? I would say we lose more talent from the latter.

[SCBlueLiner]

JSR wrote:

northwoods oldtimer wrote:

JSR wrote:

northwoods oldtimer wrote:
Money talks and BS walks and hockey is the MSHSL cash cow, they should listen to who generates revenue. If not, collectivley vote with your feet. Generate a far better solution. Not talking triple A there is better way to do hockey in Minnesota at midget / HS level.
Give up on the myth of the 3 sport athlete, those days are gone. 2 sport is realistic in today's sport culture.
Let's not pretend public school is an academic challenge, that is laughable Very Happy Laughing


Clearly someone not in tune with todays academic standards at good public schools. It is nothing like when I was a kid and it is VERY VERY challenging at the good ones.


Your failed system cranks out college bound kids that cannot even read at a 7th grade level.


What are you talking about? Seriously, show me your research, your data, where you are pulling these insane accusations from. Are some public schools not so great? Sure. Are there some problems especially in the inner city? Yes.... but to say there are "college bound students" who cannot read at a 7th grade level is ridiculous and just plain false. Not at any accredited colleges I am aware of. College admissions are tougher than ever for real colleges and as I mentioned before GOOD public schools are ridiculously hard


Unfortunately, while not the norm, is true and does happen.

Ok I'm going to be a little well, lets say not PC, but the vast majority of hockey players are NOT coming from inner city or financially burdened areas where most of these education problems are most troublesome. Not sure about all hockey programs but the ones I've been associated with, push good grades and being a successful student. We've had students/players who did not qualify academically and were suspended. Not sure how we got off on this tangent but hockey is not burdened by the poor student problem. Ya maybe the Hanson brothers were a little slow but the vast majority of players on my sons teams were not only great hockey players but great students. The best players are playing year round and it won't matter if its playing for their school or elite team they are playing most of the time. Making more games available via the MSHSL won't matter one bit as far as their education goes

I'd argue that expanding the season and adding more games and keeping more kids in HS hockey will put less burden on the student side of the student athlete. Like has been said, the top players are playing year round anyway, might as well do that under the umbrella of HS hockey where there are academic requirements to meet. Also, anybody looked into the life of a high schooler playing juniors? Not exactly the premier academic environment to be in. Focus is more on hockey, games, and travel, than on school. Lots of missed classroom time.

[JSR]

Your failed system cranks out college bound kids that cannot even read at a 7th grade level.

What are you talking about? Seriously, show me your research, your data, where you are pulling these insane accusations from. Are some public schools not so great? Sure. Are there some problems especially in the inner city? Yes.... but to say there are "college bound students" who cannot read at a 7th grade level is ridiculous and just plain false. Not at any accredited colleges I am aware of. College admissions are tougher than ever for real colleges and as I mentioned before GOOD public schools are ridiculously hard

Unfortunately, while not the norm, is true and does happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-a ... ng-scores/

No one ever said it doesn't ever happen. But cherry picking certain athletes, many if not most of whom come from those poor and inner city problem areas I already addressed does not make the statement an over arching correct one as far as the entire institution of public schools.

[sticksave]

Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 477


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote


Quick question: we always hear about the older kids who leave early for juniors. But how many players would you guess stop playing the game at a young age due to burnout or don't even start when they are young because of immense time commitment required for kids under the age of 10? I would say we lose more talent from the latter.

Good question but tough one to answer. Is it time commitment or the fact they aren't quite good enough to compete? In the town I live in we have 6-7 football teams of 10 year olds and even more baseball teams of the same age group but by high school it's dwindled down to where there is about enough to make up a good varsity team of each. Was it the time commitment or the inability to compete at a good enough level that reduces the numbers. Who knows.

[sticksave]

I'd argue that expanding the season and adding more games and keeping more kids in HS hockey will put less burden on the student side of the student athlete. Like has been said, the top players are playing year round anyway, might as well do that under the umbrella of HS hockey where there are academic requirements to meet. Also, anybody looked into the life of a high schooler playing juniors? Not exactly the premier academic environment to be in. Focus is more on hockey, games, and travel, than on school. Lots of missed classroom time.

AGREED

[oldschoolpuckster]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

Let them play (up to) 35 games. If some of the smaller programs can't afford that, then stick with 25. The kids can handle it. They just proved they can handle it for the previous 6-7 years....(Squirts, PW and Bantam) where they played 40-60 games and went to school, played multiple sports, hung out with friends. This should not be a problem.....

[elliott70]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

Let them play (up to) 35 games. If some of the smaller programs can't afford that, then stick with 25. The kids can handle it. They just proved they can handle it for the previous 6-7 years....(Squirts, PW and Bantam) where they played 40-60 games and went to school, played multiple sports, hung out with friends. This should not be a problem.....

I don't think the MSHSL has much to say about junior gold.

[Froggy Richards]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

Let them play (up to) 35 games. If some of the smaller programs can't afford that, then stick with 25. The kids can handle it. They just proved they can handle it for the previous 6-7 years....(Squirts, PW and Bantam) where they played 40-60 games and went to school, played multiple sports, hung out with friends. This should not be a problem.....

The season is also a month and a half longer, and a lot of those games happen on Sundays and Wednesdays. Can't forget that.

[green4]

I do not know of any parents who live in the upper Midwest that want year round school. All of them that I know understand that summer is a limited and special thing up here. Also, the "seasonal" businesses up here would be decimated by year round school, it's actually that "lobby" that has the bigger impact on preventing year round school than teachers unions or even parents. You think the multi-billion dollar summer tourism business lobby in MN or WI or states like ours want school happening in the summer, you are crazy.

"year round school" wouldn't have kids in school M-F year round; they'd probably add 20 school days or so and decrease the time in the classroom. You'd probably end up with a bunch of 3 day weekends and something like a 6-9 week "summer break" in most scenarios I've seen seriously discussed.

A better educated workforce is worth it.

Year round school isn't the answer here either. Societal values and getting rid of the "nanny state' our federal government keeps trying to impose on us would go a lot further in that regard than year round school... that said even if I/we buy into what you propose I do not see how a 9 week summer break would significantly impact learning over a 12 week summer break. 3 weeks, really???

The purpose of year long school has everything to do with how kids retain information. Over summer break, kids lose a large amount of what they have learned during the school year. At the start of every year, especially in math, teachers hold a "review" section. It takes about 2-4 weeks where a teacher will teach what the kids already learned the year before, just so they can get caught back up.
Year round school would provide much more flow as you would not have to backtrack. It still gives you about 5 weeks of summer vacation, and on top of that all of your other breaks are extended too. Winter break would be about a month, thanksgiving and spring break 2 weeks or so.
Personally, I think the more "start and stop" idea will help with stress and mental health of teenagers.
But, overall the main purpose is about retention.

[green4]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

.

Junior gold is the same amount of time, at least it was during my time in Edina. They start tryouts one week after Varsity and they have the state tournament one week after High schools.
They also play the same amount of LEAGUE GAMES. They are given 25 games that count towards playoffs and standings. BUT, how they get more is the use of tournaments during the weekends. Most teams will sign up for 3-4 tournaments that are not for standing purposes so you gain an extra 12-20 games

[oldschoolpuckster]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

Let them play (up to) 35 games. If some of the smaller programs can't afford that, then stick with 25. The kids can handle it. They just proved they can handle it for the previous 6-7 years....(Squirts, PW and Bantam) where they played 40-60 games and went to school, played multiple sports, hung out with friends. This should not be a problem.....

I don't think the MSHSL has much to say about junior gold.

That is where I see the problem. Where is the concern for those kids? This must be a financial issue. No other good reason for the 25 game rule. I would like to see what would happen (how many more kids would stay) if they expanded to a 35 game season.

[ted2you]

I would love to see them move games to 20 minute periods, but they don't need more games.... Mostly because that is how the game is supposed to be played and I really would like to see the best team win. It's a sport not a job... The elite (college bound) kids already are playing hockey all year around. I fail to see the purpose of scheduling ten more games. The top Minnesota kids are going to stand out and get recruited in 25 games. Fans want more.... I get it, there will never be enough for coaches and hockey associations. We wouldn't let our kids work 40 hours a week and attend high school. Why would we let them spend 40 hours a week playing hockey?

[green4]

If we (the MSHSL) are so concerned with the "student/athlete" playing too many games then tell me why they allow kids of that same age (Jr. Gold) play 40-50 games?!?! Their season is even shorter!! They don't start until after the HS team is selected and they end before the HS state tournament...WHAT?

Let them play (up to) 35 games. If some of the smaller programs can't afford that, then stick with 25. The kids can handle it. They just proved they can handle it for the previous 6-7 years....(Squirts, PW and Bantam) where they played 40-60 games and went to school, played multiple sports, hung out with friends. This should not be a problem.....

I don't think the MSHSL has much to say about junior gold.

That is where I see the problem. Where is the concern for those kids? This must be a financial issue. No other good reason for the 25 game rule. I would like to see what would happen (how many more kids would stay) if they expanded to a 35 game season.

There is a big difference between Junior Gold and High School. I asked this question last year and someone pointed out this to me. Junior gold is basically a metro league in fact, it is run by the Metro hockey league. The farthest game someone might have is Prior lake to White Bear.
Many high school Varsity teams could endure this schedule.
The issue is trying to schedule 35 games for the Roseau's, Grand Rapids and Cloquet's of the world. If you extend the season length it is not really an issue, but adding more games in the same period of time for these teams that have to travel so far would be extremely challenging when balancing academics and social life with hockey.

[The Exiled One]

Now that it's been mentioned, can somebody answer a question for me about junior gold? Can a kid be "called up" from junior gold to varsity in the middle of a season? With one being school administered and the other being association administered, I'm just wondering what the Minnesota Hockey or USA Hockey rules are regarding that roster transfer.

Another questions related to that: Can a HS run a varsity team without running a JV team? My instinct is to say yes, it's technically possible, but logistically how difficult would it be for the varsity team to schedule opponents with no JV opponent to offer?

[elliott70]

Now that it's been mentioned, can somebody answer a question for me about junior gold? Can a kid be "called up" from junior gold to varsity in the middle of a season? With one being school administered and the other being association administered, I'm just wondering what the Minnesota Hockey or USA Hockey rules are regarding that roster transfer.

Another questions related to that: Can a HS run a varsity team without running a JV team? My instinct is to say yes, it's technically possible, but logistically how difficult would it be for the varsity team to schedule opponents with no JV opponent to offer?

MNHockey - USAH has no rule regarding a player leaving any team. There rule is simple - you must be on a USHA roster on Dec 31.

MSHSL has a different rule that may not allow a player to be on both rosters at the same time. As far as adding a player that has been dropped from a roster (jr gold) I am not sure. (I do not know the rule about adding a kid during the year. Assumption is you can add players before setting your play-off roster which I think is in February sometime.)

[elliott70]

I don't think the MSHSL has much to say about junior gold.

That is where I see the problem. Where is the concern for those kids? This must be a financial issue. No other good reason for the 25 game rule. I would like to see what would happen (how many more kids would stay) if they expanded to a 35 game season.

There is a big difference between Junior Gold and High School. I asked this question last year and someone pointed out this to me. Junior gold is basically a metro league in fact, it is run by the Metro hockey league. The farthest game someone might have is Prior lake to White Bear.
Many high school Varsity teams could endure this schedule.
The issue is trying to schedule 35 games for the Roseau's, Grand Rapids and Cloquet's of the world. If you extend the season length it is not really an issue, but adding more games in the same period of time for these teams that have to travel so far would be extremely challenging when balancing academics and social life with hockey.

Junior Gold is under Minnesota Hockey. The metro League is a committee under MH. They do not administer to all Junior Gold teams but run most (perhaps all at his time) of the 'metro' teams. the teams are still under the direct control of their local associations.

Roseau and Cloquet do not have junior gold teams. The northern JG teams are Grand Rapids, Duluth and Moorhead. At times Brainerd, Bemidji and Cloquet have had teams. I believe Hibbing-Chisholm had a team at one point also. JG is similar to bantams. Several years ago the 'metro' league was devised to help administer scheduling, ice time, refs and to bring a halt to some teams extra-curriculars on the ice. The league now is very well run with some good hockey and very little fighting and other distractions.

[elliott70]

Now that it's been mentioned, can somebody answer a question for me about junior gold? Can a kid be "called up" from junior gold to varsity in the middle of a season? With one being school administered and the other being association administered, I'm just wondering what the Minnesota Hockey or USA Hockey rules are regarding that roster transfer.

Another questions related to that: Can a HS run a varsity team without running a JV team? My instinct is to say yes, it's technically possible, but logistically how difficult would it be for the varsity team to schedule opponents with no JV opponent to offer?

High schools do run teams without a JV team. A frequent occurrence on the girls side.

[The Exiled One]

MSHSL has a different rule that may not allow a player to be on both rosters at the same time. As far as adding a player that has been dropped from a roster (jr gold) I am not sure. (I do not know the rule about adding a kid during the year. Assumption is you can add players before setting your play-off roster which I think is in February sometime.)

Thanks. The reason I ask is because my local HS team (Irondale) is going to be EXTREMELY short on players next year. I doubt they'll have enough for a JV team. The varsity team is going to be pretty bad regardless. However, without a JV team for call-ups, I don't know how the varsity team would be able to handle a rash of injuries or illnesses. That's why I was wondering if they could borrow a couple of kids from junior gold (which does not currently exist in our co-op association). If that's possible, this would be a good excuse for the co-op association to add a junior gold team. We have four bantam teams, which should be enough to supply players to two varsity teams (Mounds View and Irondale), one JV team (Mounds View), and one junior gold team (MVI association). Do you think this plan would work?

[jg2112]

MSHSL has a different rule that may not allow a player to be on both rosters at the same time. As far as adding a player that has been dropped from a roster (jr gold) I am not sure. (I do not know the rule about adding a kid during the year. Assumption is you can add players before setting your play-off roster which I think is in February sometime.)

Thanks. The reason I ask is because my local HS team (Irondale) is going to be EXTREMELY short on players next year. I doubt they'll have enough for a JV team. The varsity team is going to be pretty bad regardless. However, without a JV team for call-ups, I don't know how the varsity team would be able to handle a rash of injuries or illnesses. That's why I was wondering if they could borrow a couple of kids from junior gold (which does not currently exist in our co-op association). If that's possible, this would be a good excuse for the co-op association to add a junior gold team. We have four bantam teams, which should be enough to supply players to two varsity teams (Mounds View and Irondale), one JV team (Mounds View), and one junior gold team (MVI association). Do you think this plan would work?

I wonder what's going on in Irondale.

Have a look at the girls' side for Irondale in the near future. I believe they have a total of 6-7 U11-12 players this year, and no goalies.

[elliott70]

MSHSL has a different rule that may not allow a player to be on both rosters at the same time. As far as adding a player that has been dropped from a roster (jr gold) I am not sure. (I do not know the rule about adding a kid during the year. Assumption is you can add players before setting your play-off roster which I think is in February sometime.)

Thanks. The reason I ask is because my local HS team (Irondale) is going to be EXTREMELY short on players next year. I doubt they'll have enough for a JV team. The varsity team is going to be pretty bad regardless. However, without a JV team for call-ups, I don't know how the varsity team would be able to handle a rash of injuries or illnesses. That's why I was wondering if they could borrow a couple of kids from junior gold (which does not currently exist in our co-op association). If that's possible, this would be a good excuse for the co-op association to add a junior gold team. We have four bantam teams, which should be enough to supply players to two varsity teams (Mounds View and Irondale), one JV team (Mounds View), and one junior gold team (MVI association). Do you think this plan would work?

I would check with your MH district director and with the AD at the school.
It may be a little tricky in execution but from MH side I think it could work.

[The Exiled One]

Have a look at the girls' side for Irondale in the near future. I believe they have a total of 6-7 U11-12 players this year, and no goalies.

The association has two teams at U12, but the majority are MV kids. It's a shame we don't have better girls participation. Tom Rodefeld is a hell of a coach and has done some great things with the girls he can get to varsity (Meghan Lorence, Gina McDonald, Sam Donovan, Sena Hanson, etc). The girls may have more problems than the boys hanging on to their own varsity program, which is a shame considering their relative success.

[The Exiled One]

I would check with your MH district director and with the AD at the school.
It may be a little tricky in execution but from MH side I think it could work.

Thanks, will do.

In the meantime...

Bantams: If you're going to be a marginal JV/varsity player next season and you want the best possible opportunity to play with the big boys, consider open enrolling to Irondale. They're a top MN high school and they play a bunch of high profile teams like Elk River, White Bear Lake, Blaine, Centennial, Totino-Grace, and Maple Grove. You won't win a lot, but at least you won't get cut!

[JSR]

"year round school" wouldn't have kids in school M-F year round; they'd probably add 20 school days or so and decrease the time in the classroom. You'd probably end up with a bunch of 3 day weekends and something like a 6-9 week "summer break" in most scenarios I've seen seriously discussed.

A better educated workforce is worth it.

Year round school isn't the answer here either. Societal values and getting rid of the "nanny state' our federal government keeps trying to impose on us would go a lot further in that regard than year round school... that said even if I/we buy into what you propose I do not see how a 9 week summer break would significantly impact learning over a 12 week summer break. 3 weeks, really???

The purpose of year long school has everything to do with how kids retain information. Over summer break, kids lose a large amount of what they have learned during the school year. At the start of every year, especially in math, teachers hold a "review" section. It takes about 2-4 weeks where a teacher will teach what the kids already learned the year before, just so they can get caught back up.
Year round school would provide much more flow as you would not have to backtrack. It still gives you about 5 weeks of summer vacation, and on top of that all of your other breaks are extended too. Winter break would be about a month, thanksgiving and spring break 2 weeks or so.
Personally, I think the more "start and stop" idea will help with stress and mental health of teenagers.
But, overall the main purpose is about retention.

I understand that but I knowing what I know about psychology and learning I addressed the specific example of a 9 week summer versus a 12 week summer and the three week difference would not show a statistically significant difference in retention.

And again in the upper Midwest it's unlikely to become prevalent as summer tourism businesses will fight it tooth and nail and money talks in all walks of life...

[green4]

Year round school isn't the answer here either. Societal values and getting rid of the "nanny state' our federal government keeps trying to impose on us would go a lot further in that regard than year round school... that said even if I/we buy into what you propose I do not see how a 9 week summer break would significantly impact learning over a 12 week summer break. 3 weeks, really???

The purpose of year long school has everything to do with how kids retain information. Over summer break, kids lose a large amount of what they have learned during the school year. At the start of every year, especially in math, teachers hold a "review" section. It takes about 2-4 weeks where a teacher will teach what the kids already learned the year before, just so they can get caught back up.
Year round school would provide much more flow as you would not have to backtrack. It still gives you about 5 weeks of summer vacation, and on top of that all of your other breaks are extended too. Winter break would be about a month, thanksgiving and spring break 2 weeks or so.
Personally, I think the more "start and stop" idea will help with stress and mental health of teenagers.
But, overall the main purpose is about retention.

I understand that but I knowing what I know about psychology and learning I addressed the specific example of a 9 week summer versus a 12 week summer and the three week difference would not show a statistically significant difference in retention.

And again in the upper Midwest it's unlikely to become prevalent as summer tourism businesses will fight it tooth and nail and money talks in all walks of life...

It would not be a 9 week summer, it would be about 5 weeks.

This is a typical year round schedule
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews ... .image.jpg

[JSR]

The purpose of year long school has everything to do with how kids retain information. Over summer break, kids lose a large amount of what they have learned during the school year. At the start of every year, especially in math, teachers hold a "review" section. It takes about 2-4 weeks where a teacher will teach what the kids already learned the year before, just so they can get caught back up.
Year round school would provide much more flow as you would not have to backtrack. It still gives you about 5 weeks of summer vacation, and on top of that all of your other breaks are extended too. Winter break would be about a month, thanksgiving and spring break 2 weeks or so.
Personally, I think the more "start and stop" idea will help with stress and mental health of teenagers.
But, overall the main purpose is about retention.

I understand that but I knowing what I know about psychology and learning I addressed the specific example of a 9 week summer versus a 12 week summer and the three week difference would not show a statistically significant difference in retention.

And again in the upper Midwest it's unlikely to become prevalent as summer tourism businesses will fight it tooth and nail and money talks in all walks of life...

It would not be a 9 week summer, it would be about 5 weeks.

This is a typical year round schedule
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews ... .image.jpg

The "traditional" pie chart actually looks nothing like our school district... but that's beside the point, the other "balanced" one looks horrific, I wouldn't want any part of that personally or for my kids. 30 days for summer break, no thanks, wouldn't be able to do anything that my family likes to do. Hopefully my kids will be graduated before any of this nonsense comes to fruition and I wont have to worry about it