21/22 Peewee players

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:16 am

Not to mention the revenue 6 players, and additional volunteer power, bring to a small association.

Often times the "number" at any level isn't quite what you'd like but associations need to be a little more creative with their solutions. A couple more players on each team can solve the problem. It's tough to fix at the peewe and bantam level but working with the closest neighboring association is generally the right approach. Even the revenue piece can be worked out as the player does need to register, which also means pay, with their home association.

I'll use this opportunity to remind everyone the most important function in your association is to recruit new mites. MN Hockey offers money to do it. The numbers you have today are hard to change but you can definitely grow in the future.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:00 pm

Hockey players don't just appear (or disappear). That association had to know last March what their projected number of players were. They had minimum of 6 months to formulate a plan. To make a decision mid-October shows the association is inept.

I assume the "model" is to blame for an association with 21 players? That association should have their affliate status revoked. Merge those players with an association that can place all players on a team. Very simple.

Not all associations are capable of being an association.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:39 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Hockey players don't just appear (or disappear). That association had to know last March what their projected number of players were. They had minimum of 6 months to formulate a plan. To make a decision mid-October shows the association is inept.

I assume the "model" is to blame for an association with 21 players? That association should have their affliate status revoked. Merge those players with an association that can place all players on a team. Very simple.

Not all associations are capable of being an association.

LOL.. yea that's the answer.... they made a poor decsion not keeping two teams but some associations go through growing pains. Or maybe they thought they had 24 players coming and 3 quit out of nowhere to play basketball. My neighbor boy was signed up for hockey at the suirt level, had played three straight years, they paid their dues he went to the firt night of tryouts and came home and begged to quit so he could play basketball. All kind sof things happen that cause these situations, badgebob thinks that in small associations like this that the writing is always ont he wall but it isn't. Somethings just are not foreseen and they have to be adjusted for on the fly, glad to see you always you think you know the answer to everything though...

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:15 pm

I think missed in all this was the inference that 6 kids were cut and sent packing because if there were two teams the coach's kid wouldn't have made the top team. Really, how do we know that's true? Hard for me to imagine a coach has that much power that his marginally talented kid is viewed upon by the whole association as more valuable than 6 kids and their dues paying parents.

Not saying it is at all right these kids were cut, but, c'mon, that's really the reason?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:33 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:I think missed in all this was the inference that 6 kids were cut and sent packing because if there were two teams the coach's kid wouldn't have made the top team. Really, how do we know that's true? Hard for me to imagine a coach has that much power that his marginally talented kid is viewed upon by the whole association as more valuable than 6 kids and their dues paying parents.

Not saying it is at all right these kids were cut, but, c'mon, that's really the reason?

Would you expect coaches(they also run the board) to be for two teams when their kids would probably fall in the 12-16 slots out of the 1-22?

Yes, the main motive.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:42 am

I'll add that this is natural human nature in nine out of ten people..

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:37 am

There was no need to cut anyone if it was decided to go with one team. There is a provision in the Mn Handbook where up to 23 players can be rostered for the regular season, but can only dress 20(18 skaters/2goalies) per game and the players not dressing for the game can not be on the bench. They would then have to cut to a total of 20 by the District tournament.This solution would have 1 or 2 different players sitting out each game. Yes ice time during games would be difficult but this would be a better solution than cutting 6 players.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:21 pm

greybeard58 wrote:There was no need to cut anyone if it was decided to go with one team. There is a provision in the Mn Handbook where up to 23 players can be rostered for the regular season, but can only dress 20(18 skaters/2goalies) per game and the players not dressing for the game can not be on the bench. They would then have to cut to a total of 20 by the District tournament.This solution would have 1 or 2 different players sitting out each game. Yes ice time during games would be difficult but this would be a better solution than cutting 6 players.

This is the solution when you are a monopoly.... No competition...No choices

Another lame answer to an important question...

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:45 am

JSR: You missed my point entirely. When you are a small association, you had better know your numbers. The difference 3-4 kids can make is huge. So better to count your players early and often. I understand some parents will change their minds and waiver out at the last minute changing plans. So a small association needs to have back-up arrangements made with their co-op associations. (i.e. If we have all 24 players, we will have 2 teams. If we have 21, we are asking to co-op, etc.)

My point is, and Bo might be making my case, the association is poorly run by self-serving parents that didn't plan well and made poor decisions when faced with a problem. MN Hockey should step in, guide them through this season, and take away their affliate agreement. Force a co-op to do the right thing for their members since it appears well documented they can't handle the responsibility of running an association.

To Quasar: Tier 1 would not have solved this problem.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:45 am

they can't handle the responsibility of running an association.

I'd like to see thier recruiting plan too. What are they doing to guarantee future growth?

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:55 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:JSR: You missed my point entirely. When you are a small association, you had better know your numbers. The difference 3-4 kids can make is huge. So better to count your players early and often. I understand some parents will change their minds and waiver out at the last minute changing plans. So a small association needs to have back-up arrangements made with their co-op associations. (i.e. If we have all 24 players, we will have 2 teams. If we have 21, we are asking to co-op, etc.)

My point is, and Bo might be making my case, the association is poorly run by self-serving parents that didn't plan well and made poor decisions when faced with a problem. MN Hockey should step in, guide them through this season, and take away their affliate agreement. Force a co-op to do the right thing for their members since it appears well documented they can't handle the responsibility of running an association

To Quasar: Tier 1 would not have solved this problem.

Never said it would. If you follow my posts you will see I think tier 1 or something like it would help the Bantam to high school transition. I am not interested in Tier 1 for peewees or lower. I think the current summer/winter situation is taking care of many problems. Having been a board member, coach and Minnesota hockey dad, I kinda like the current situation with the exception of opportunities for a few kids that need another avenue to follow their dreams.

The current members of Minnesota youth hockey need to look at the changing situation and make a few decisions.. I don't think that Minnesota hockey needs an overhaul, however an intelligent tune-up could solve some problems. I'm out of it now.. So these are just observations I have...

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:57 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:JSR: You missed my point entirely. When you are a small association, you had better know your numbers. The difference 3-4 kids can make is huge. So better to count your players early and often. I understand some parents will change their minds and waiver out at the last minute changing plans. So a small association needs to have back-up arrangements made with their co-op associations. (i.e. If we have all 24 players, we will have 2 teams. If we have 21, we are asking to co-op, etc.)

My point is, and Bo might be making my case, the association is poorly run by self-serving parents that didn't plan well and made poor decisions when faced with a problem. MN Hockey should step in, guide them through this season, and take away their affliate agreement. Force a co-op to do the right thing for their members since it appears well documented they can't handle the responsibility of running an association.

To Quasar: Tier 1 would not have solved this problem.

Again even with 21 players I see no good reason not to just have two teams. My assocaiton had exactly 21 pee wees last year and we went with two teams. A team had 11 and B team had 10. With no checking it was not an issue. We made the decision that if we had 8 skaters and a goalie we'd play (if kids were hurt or sick or whatever) and if we had 7 and a goalie wee'd forfeit the games. We never had to forfeit a single game. The B team had two instances where they were goiing to fall short, WAHA and our association allows for double rostering, so Squirts who play ont he Squirt A team can also play up for the Pee Wee A or B teams if needed. The Pee Wee B team enlisted the aid of a couple squirt A players on a 3 occasions and they never had to cancel any games either. Worked out well and eveyrone had tons of ice time. I just don;t see why the need for these huge teams at nonchecking levels, makes no sense to me

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:17 pm

Ive seen summer games where a team or two had to skate w8 kids due to Ball/vacations whatever and it didn't hurt anything.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:52 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:JSR: You missed my point entirely. When you are a small association, you had better know your numbers. The difference 3-4 kids can make is huge. So better to count your players early and often. I understand some parents will change their minds and waiver out at the last minute changing plans. So a small association needs to have back-up arrangements made with their co-op associations. (i.e. If we have all 24 players, we will have 2 teams. If we have 21, we are asking to co-op, etc.)

My point is, and Bo might be making my case, the association is poorly run by self-serving parents that didn't plan well and made poor decisions when faced with a problem. MN Hockey should step in, guide them through this season, and take away their affliate agreement. Force a co-op to do the right thing for their members since it appears well documented they can't handle the responsibility of running an association.

To Quasar: Tier 1 would not have solved this problem.

Are families able to opt out of "poorly run, self serving" controlled associations? Take the three hour trip to the Made for a practice? Some have!

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:55 pm

old goalie85 wrote:Ive seen summer games where a team or two had to skate w8 kids due to Ball/vacations whatever and it didn't hurt anything.

I was told Pine City is going with an eight player Bantam team.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:41 am

old goalie85 wrote:Ive seen summer games where a team or two had to skate w8 kids due to Ball/vacations whatever and it didn't hurt anything.

I agree that two 11 (11/10) player teams would have been the way to go. They could be building the program instead of scaring kids away thinking they'll be pawned off.

Some programs stay stuck in neutral.