HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

The dates are June 26 to June 28 at the Kelly Inn in St Cloud.
How many who post will attend? This is an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your opinions with the members of the Mn Hockey board.

greybeard58 wrote:The dates are June 26 to June 28 at the Kelly Inn in St Cloud.
How many who post will attend? This is an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your opinions with the members of the Mn Hockey board.

I'm curious if anyone has heard anything about a new rule regarding kids that go to Private schools being eligible to play in the association that the school is in?

mngopherfan wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:The dates are June 26 to June 28 at the Kelly Inn in St Cloud.
How many who post will attend? This is an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your opinions with the members of the Mn Hockey board.

I'm curious if anyone has heard anything about a new rule regarding kids that go to Private schools being eligible to play in the association that the school is in?

Yes, the board will be voting on a proposal that will come out of the rules committee on Saturday (June 27). I believe here are 4 different proposals that will be considered.

[quote="greybeard58"]The dates are June 26 to June 28 at the Kelly Inn in St Cloud.
How many who post will attend? This is an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your opinions with the members of the Mn Hockey board.[/quote]

Grey you on the MN Hockey board?

elliott70 wrote:

mngopherfan wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:The dates are June 26 to June 28 at the Kelly Inn in St Cloud.
How many who post will attend? This is an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your opinions with the members of the Mn Hockey board.

I'm curious if anyone has heard anything about a new rule regarding kids that go to Private schools being eligible to play in the association that the school is in?

Yes, the board will be voting on a proposal that will come out of the rules committee on Saturday (June 27). I believe here are 4 different proposals that will be considered.

Elliot, do you have any insight to what the 4 proposals are?

Thanks.

mngopherfan wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

mngopherfan wrote: I'm curious if anyone has heard anything about a new rule regarding kids that go to Private schools being eligible to play in the association that the school is in?

Yes, the board will be voting on a proposal that will come out of the rules committee on Saturday (June 27). I believe here are 4 different proposals that will be considered.

Elliot, do you have any insight to what the 4 proposals are?

Thanks.

Yes, I will try and copy and paste.

elliott70 wrote:

mngopherfan wrote:

elliott70 wrote: Yes, the board will be voting on a proposal that will come out of the rules committee on Saturday (June 27). I believe here are 4 different proposals that will be considered.

Elliot, do you have any insight to what the 4 proposals are?

Thanks.

Yes, I will try and copy and paste.

DISCERNMENT COMMITTEE REPORT rev. 6/5/09
The Discernment Committee met in St. Cloud on Saturday May 30, 2009 to discuss the Residency Rule and determine if agreement could be reached on redefining Affiliate Membership. Three proposals were reviewed:
4a) Retain current residency rule, but allow waivers for open enrollment
5) Redefine residency based on where players attend school, not residence
6) Retain current residency rule, but allow waivers for open-enrolled Mites and Squirts
After much discussion, the Directors zeroed-in on version 6. A "newbie rule" was added, indicating that open-enrollment would only be recognized for newly registered players. Dialogue then turned to the number of waivers that would be required to support this (all open enrolled players would need a waiver). It did not seem to be simplifying the lives of the Directors long-term.
Attention then turned to version 5. This was somewhat simpler in that movement was handled by defining Affiliate Membership rather than using the waiver process. In the end, version 5 was supported with the following enhancements:
1) Mites can register based on residence. Can continue to participate as "members" beyond Mites.
2) Must be enrolled at school in area for one year before eligible
3) For 2009-2010, one-time choice to stay with association of residence if attending school elsewhere.
4) For future seasons, one-time choice to stay with association of residence if start attending school elsewhere.
This approach was accepted by the Directors in attendance.
After the meeting adjourned, Mark Jacobs wanted to add a newbie clause to #5 (open-enrollment would only be recognized for newly registered players). This was not discussed by the other Directors. Mark sent an e mail the next day suggesting we include a phrase such as "players cannot move from their current association based on residence to another association based on school attendance if it prevents their current association from having a team". (Let's say 11 players). Maybe valid for 2-3 years and then phase out this rule. He also suggested simplified language, "The current residency rule will apply if an association is prevented from fielding a team." He is hoping to prevent Montgomery/Lonsdale from folding. Either of these proposals could be added by amendment.
In writing up the proposed rule, the MSHSL rule on eligibility was referenced. The MSHSL rule only imposes a waiting period on "varsity" team participation. Accordingly the proposed rule is structured so that our one-year ineligibility clause is limited to "A" team participation. This could be expanded to cover all teams by amendment.
This report was revised 6/5/09 to include language updates suggested after the initial report was circulated. The changes are indicated in blue. Also the ineligibility rule for a change in schools without a change in address was changed from "one calendar year" to "one year" to make sure we mean "365 days" and not "ending Dec. 31st."

IV. RESIDENCY (current rule)
A. RESIDENCY POLICY
MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.
B. RESIDENCY RULE
1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the cognizant district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver. The Minnesota Department of Education Open Enrollment program does not in any way affect interpretation of this rule.
2. A player may appeal in writing to the cognizant District Director who, after investigation, will issue a ruling. The decision of the District Director is final. Also see Section entitled Eligibility Provisions.
3. Players having dual citizenship, one being the United States, must also conform to the residency rule.

IV. MEMBERSHIP (proposed rule) Version 5 (Revision c)
A. MEMBERSHIP POLICY
MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on where they attend school and the established MH affiliate boundaries as defined in the Affiliate Agreements. Some exceptions are made for Mites and players previously participating based on residence.

B. MEMBERSHIP RULE
1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the responsible district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver.
2. Starting with the 2009-2010 season, Affiliate Membership is redefined as players attending school in the Affiliate's geographic area, rather than those who are residing in the Affiliate's geographic area.
a. Mite-aged players may choose to register in either their Affiliate of School Attendance or their Affiliate of Residence.
i) If they choose their Affiliate based on Residence, they may continue to participate indefinitely in that Affiliate unless the player moves outside the geographical boundary of the Affiliate at which time school attendance will determine Affiliate Membership.
ii) If they choose their Affiliate based on School Attendance, they may continue to participate indefinitely in that Affiliate unless the player ceases to attend school in the geographical boundary of the Affiliate at which time school attendance will determine Affiliate Membership.
b. Changing Schools; A player who newly enrolls in a school outside of the geographic boundaries of their current Affiliate without a corresponding change of residence shall elect one of the following:
i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance; or
ii) be eligible at the "B" classification or lower in their new Affiliate of School Attendance for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school.
c. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008 2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate membership determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate membership.
d. After the 2009-2010 Season, players both attending school and residing in their Affiliate's geographical boundary for the previous or current season and will be attending school outside their Affiliate's geographical boundary for the upcoming season will be given a one time choice to continue to participate indefinitely in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate membership determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their present Affiliate's geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to define Affiliate membership.
e. Affiliates have the responsibility to determine how teams will be formed among their affiliate members. "A" teams must be open to all association members, with the exception of players changing schools as addressed above.
3. A player who is denied a waiver by his/her affiliate may appeal in writing to the responsible District Director who, after investigation, will issue a ruling. The decision of the District Director is final. Also see Section entitled Eligibility Provisions.
4. Players having dual citizenship, one being the United States, must also conform to the Membership rule.


I hope it is readable.

No I do not have the honor of serving on the Mn Hockey Board. I just try to keep reminding people to attend and voice their opinion there.

del

I like the proposal better than previous versions. A family pretty much needs to make a commitment to their residential or school community and go with it.

The one thing I don't like is what happens when a family moves out of their community? Why can't they elect to play for the new residential community? Example: Family lives in Bloomington and open enrolls kids in Edina. They elect to play for Bloomington. They move to Richfield. According to the proposal they will have to play for Edina. Why can't they play for Richfield and give that program a needed boost?

How about a family deciding by the end of mites or squirts to be school community or resident community designated. Then a switch to another association that requires a switch in their designation would cause the 1 year A team blacklist.

Minnesota Hockey calls itself "Community based" but it appears that defining community is a grey area. They are more defined as where your home resides as by what public high school you would attend by boundary.

If your home is in Eagan,MN but your school disctrict ( not open enrolling ) is in the city of Burnsville you can't play for Eagan without a waiver. You play for Burnsville Hockey because that is your school district.

Based on how the definition of where you play is on school district I can see why private schools should be allowed a association, and look to go to a grade in school level of play system.

What happens if the association doesn't field an "A" team, can the player waiver out to another association that does field an "A" team? Or is that already covered in the rules?

Just bringing back to the top.

I posted on a different topic regarding some private schools being allowed to form teams while others don't but the post really belongs on this topic.

This discussion regarding Minnesota Hockey redefining the word community to mean where you go to school as opposed to where you live is coming up.

Currently, community based youth hockey, based on where you live, takes the players through their Bantam years and then comes school hockey. It's a really swell system that works for the vast majority. The new idea being floated at the state meeting about making school your community is a total joke written by someone with about 3% backing. They're trying the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" fussing philosophy. That's a lot of work, confusion, and frankly a mess for such a few selfish people. Sure to be defeated.

Here's the way it should be written to prevent confusion. Use the fewest words possible for the greatest understanding as opposed to the most words for the greatest confusion.

Kids play where they live until they attend high school.

observer wrote: Currently, community based youth hockey, based on where you live, takes the players through their Bantam years and then comes school hockey. It's a really swell system that works for the vast majority. The new idea being floated at the state meeting about making school your community is a total joke written by someone with about 3% backing. They're trying the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" fussing philosophy. That's a lot of work, confusion, and frankly a mess for such a few selfish people. Sure to be defeated.

Realizing this crosses over to the Girls thread, Community Based Hockey doesn't work that well for Girls. When it appears it's working it's often an association that has numbers to support it. There are far to many young gals who aren't able to reach their full potential and often hindered under the current structure.

So selfish we not.

I don't know the solution. Someday when my daughters are done with hockey someone will have the wisdom to address this. My guess it'll be along the lines of private hockey or a more orangized aggressive structure for rainbowing teams within the community based system. In youth hockey the numbers and current community based system take care of the "vast majority". With girls "vast minority".

Selfish we not.

Look, the numbers are never exactly right. Otherwise, at every level you'd have 15, or 30, or 45, kids registered. Doesn't happen like that.

With boys it usually falls to the C team where they have some odd number. They call around to the neighboring associations and cobble 15 kids together and form a C team with kids from 2-3-4 associations.

With girls that can happen at any level. Girls teams co-op effectively all the time. The problem is the selfish people out there that protect their own kids spots instead of doing what's right for the stronger, or weaker, players in their own association. It's what's happening in IGH on the boys side right now. What these few families are arguing might be best for their kid but it's not what best for the majority of kids, at that level, in IGH and SSP. That's selfish.

Girls never have enough except in summer AAA. The high school championship teams even carry weak players because no one has 20 strong girl players of the same skill and ability. No one.

But back to youth. Girls should co-op more often and will need to before the boys teams. I know it means more driving, etc. but it's the only way to get an A and B team both filled with actual A level and B level players.

I agree. The girls discussion is an interesting and important one. I'll suggest they can be the leaders in forming relationships with neighboring associations, co-op their kids, have fun and success, and help the boys teams to understand that it's a better solution than screwing players and families around them just so Johnny can skate on a team he doesn't belong on.

[quote="observer"]I posted on a different topic regarding some private schools being allowed to form teams while others don't but the post really belongs on this topic.

This discussion regarding Minnesota Hockey redefining the word community to mean where you go to school as opposed to where you live is coming up.

Currently, community based youth hockey, based on where you live, takes the players through their Bantam years and then comes school hockey. It's a really swell system that works for the vast majority. The new idea being floated at the state meeting about making school your community is a total joke written by someone with about 3% backing. They're trying the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" fussing philosophy. That's a lot of work, confusion, and frankly a mess for such a few selfish people. Sure to be defeated.

Here's the way it should be written to prevent confusion. Use the fewest words possible for the greatest understanding as opposed to the most words for the greatest confusion.

Kids play where they live until they [b]attend[/b] high school.[/quote]


I am confused, so your saying you play where you live, as in your city of residence? So if my home is in Burnsville but my PUBLIC school district is part of Lakeville South, I should play for Burnsville? Will they let me ? Because when my kids played they had to play for the lakeville assocation because that is where they went to school, publicly.
I don't think any of us can play where we live, w/out a waiver, unless our school district and city are the same. Anyone know if no waiver is needed?

I will give a real life scenario where kids need to play for the school they attend. I know of a kid who played four years of mites and went to school with all of his teammates. His family moved. The new residence is Across the street of the former school district and hockey association. The kid and family want to remain apart of the former school district and hockey community and thus enrolled there, based on loyalty and friendship only...as if they played for the new school and hockey association has a much better reputation and winning record. It is very clear this kid is and will open enroll at the school district located across the street from his home address. So please tell me why a neighboring youth association would want to develop a kid who they know will be leaving their ranks when they get to high school.

There are some exceptions and I'm sure in those situations waivers can be/have been granted. I've heard of neighborhoods like the one you described. But, believe me, those are not the types of exceptions we'll see if the they change the residency requirement. Those are easy and sensible. Blowing up the whole definition of playing where you live, which has worked well for the vast majority, is not sensible.

ilike2score wrote:I will give a real life scenario where kids need to play for the school they attend. I know of a kid who played four years of mites and went to school with all of his teammates. His family moved. The new residence is Across the street of the former school district and hockey association. The kid and family want to remain apart of the former school district and hockey community and thus enrolled there, based on loyalty and friendship only...as if they played for the new school and hockey association has a much better reputation and winning record. It is very clear this kid is and will open enroll at the school district located across the street from his home address. So please tell me why a neighboring youth association would want to develop a kid who they know will be leaving their ranks when they get to high school.

I think there are very few Assoc. Presidents and DDs who would not give the family a waiver based on the information you give here. It isn't that waivers aren't issued, it's that they haven't been issued for a parent's desire to have their child play "hockey" for another association, not necessarily for families who chose to attend different schools.

I think there are very few Assoc. Presidents and DDs who would not give the family a waiver based on the information you give here.

sorry - but you are quite incorrect. Yes - there are a number of associations that would give the wiaver. But there are many more associations that firmly never give waivers - association policy. Don't forget - money plays a part here. This kid waives out - and his money goes with him... That is money the association needs to keep costs down for everyone else, to field competitive teams, etc.

not saying this is good or bad, just that the waiver issue is all over the board. Individual associations have the ability to grant or not grant waivers based on thier individual beliefs and rules. Currently MN hockey grants that priveledge to the associations. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future.

There is a good chance it might pass in some form if those that are for keeping it by residence do not voice their opinion to those who vote. That means contact the entire Mn Hockey board or get off of your backsides and attend the meeting that will start a week from today. It will be discussed Friday night and probably voted on Sunday. I plan on attending to voice my opinion will any of you??
The agenda has been posted on the Mn Hockey site upper right corner front page.

I looked at the agenda; I guess I'm not bright enough to decipher what topics they'll actually be addressing.

Interesting article posted on the website that caught my attention by Bylsma. Certainly includes topics relevant to coaches, however ironic that he writes with the premise that, rather than the program choosing his grandchild, he is evaluating the coach and deciding whether he will choose to be a part of the program - an option which is not available under the MNH model.

The rules committee and the District Directors are meeting Friday night. They will be discussing the residency as all changes normally changes go through the rules committee for language and they will either vote to recommend or not for the Sunday meeting either way unless the residency is tabled it should be up for a vote Sunday. Committee meetings all day saturday, I.M you should take the time and attend.

let me throw a hypothetical situation out with the residency rule:

Lets say that my wife is a teacher and we want to take our son(s) and home school them but rather than "home" schooling I want to do it in say Wayzata/EP/Burnsville etc, can I then play in that association under this situation?

Now I'm not sure what the state rules/regulations are for "home " schooling or having other kids attend our school but..........is this a way around it?

I know this seems far fetched but hey nothing these days would surprise me.