delete
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
Educator29
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:46 am
Just enjoy the game. remember its for the kids and its FUN!
Last edited by Educator29 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Hockeydaddy
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:13 pm
Maybe you never knew a bubble kid. When the open-enrollers stroll in, they bump the bubble kids. The kids at 13, 14, 15 don't get to pack up and head to a neighboring association to play on their A team. You play squirts and pee wee and some open enroller phenom comes in and steals the kids spot. Now your kid doesn't get to play with his friends at all.
It works both ways. It's one thing to offer "choice" to the best kids, but the #16 kid on Eden Prairie might be better served if he could play better competition on a nearby association's A team. That kid doesn't get a choice.
It works both ways. It's one thing to offer "choice" to the best kids, but the #16 kid on Eden Prairie might be better served if he could play better competition on a nearby association's A team. That kid doesn't get a choice.
Choice is the answer Period
The rule proposed has so many holes in it that it seems to me it might be best if they scrap it and take a longer look.
If a family chooses to send their child to a school for a reason (religous, education, special need etc..) MN hockey should not wrap restrictions around the family. The "what if's" are going to cause so much pain for the families as proposed I don't see it working.
Examples: What if the student changes campuses within the school they attend ? What if the family for economic reasons better/worse chooses another school. What if the open enrollement the family enjoyed one year is not available the next year? What if the child develops or requires a change in the school based on a learning or physical disability. What if the family chooses another school based on preference (teaching , administration, course work). What if the family has children in two differnt schools.
The other challenge seems to exsist on the decsion authority provided to the district directors. I am not sure I want people in these positions to have the power to accept or deny the families based on their feelings about the legitimacy of the change requested. I can see several situations where a director can simply deny a request based on the child and their particualr association or districts needs. I can also see a great deal of privacy to the families being impacted as they deal with issues not relevant to hockey. I for one would not want to have to explain to a director that little Johnny needs to change because he is struggling with a personal challenge. Why put a family through this?
While I like the notion of providing the choice as it could provide the ability to play with your school friends or your neighbor friends, the choice to do this should be provided to everyone every year no matter how old your child is. In essecnce they are creating more headaches and barriers surrounding issues families face that have nothing to do with hockey. The bubble kid discussed earlier would want t choice as well don;t you think?
If a family chooses to send their child to a school for a reason (religous, education, special need etc..) MN hockey should not wrap restrictions around the family. The "what if's" are going to cause so much pain for the families as proposed I don't see it working.
Examples: What if the student changes campuses within the school they attend ? What if the family for economic reasons better/worse chooses another school. What if the open enrollement the family enjoyed one year is not available the next year? What if the child develops or requires a change in the school based on a learning or physical disability. What if the family chooses another school based on preference (teaching , administration, course work). What if the family has children in two differnt schools.
The other challenge seems to exsist on the decsion authority provided to the district directors. I am not sure I want people in these positions to have the power to accept or deny the families based on their feelings about the legitimacy of the change requested. I can see several situations where a director can simply deny a request based on the child and their particualr association or districts needs. I can also see a great deal of privacy to the families being impacted as they deal with issues not relevant to hockey. I for one would not want to have to explain to a director that little Johnny needs to change because he is struggling with a personal challenge. Why put a family through this?
While I like the notion of providing the choice as it could provide the ability to play with your school friends or your neighbor friends, the choice to do this should be provided to everyone every year no matter how old your child is. In essecnce they are creating more headaches and barriers surrounding issues families face that have nothing to do with hockey. The bubble kid discussed earlier would want t choice as well don;t you think?
This is a very complicated issue for the Metro area. There are numerous over lapping boundries that are to be considered.
1. Hockey Association boundries.
2. School boundries
3. City boundries
4. Park/Rec boundries
5. I'm sure I'm missing others.
This problem is unique to the Metro area. I'm in an out-state community and those boundries don't overlap. You develope community pride in your Hockey association, your school and your city because its one entity.
My concern with the rule change is that top players will chose to attend the same hockey association to basically have a AAA team.
Out-state associations struggles to compete with the shear numbers and ample ice opportunity that the metro provides.
1. Hockey Association boundries.
2. School boundries
3. City boundries
4. Park/Rec boundries
5. I'm sure I'm missing others.
This problem is unique to the Metro area. I'm in an out-state community and those boundries don't overlap. You develope community pride in your Hockey association, your school and your city because its one entity.
My concern with the rule change is that top players will chose to attend the same hockey association to basically have a AAA team.
Out-state associations struggles to compete with the shear numbers and ample ice opportunity that the metro provides.
Shifting the Anger:
This rule is just going to shift the displeasure from one group to the next. Most obvious will be the "A" level players open enrolling in Edina, Maple Grove, and Wayzata so their kids can compete for a state title. There are a lot of kids in these associations who go to private schools outside of their district, who are "A" players, who will not choose to play for Hopkins or St. Louis Park. Where Edina may have 30 "A" level players at the PeeWee level this year without open enrollment, they may have 35 or more if a top level peewees decides to transfer. You now have extended the bubble and you will have more kids playing at a lower level then their capabilities. Can you imagine the howling going on if an Edina "A" level player gets knocked to a B1 team, or even a strong B1 player gets knocked down to B2 because of the carpet baggers. It is not like these kids will get a chance to try out for EP or Jefferson or Hopkins after the fact.
Kids who have always played with their friends in the incumbent associations may now get bumped by some other kid who's parents do not pay taxes in the associations city and have no skin in the game of developing that association.
Wayzata, Edina, Maple Grove etc need to have the flexibility to form 2 A teams if they get an influx of "A" level players after tryouts. This is going to wreck a lot of smaller associaitons in the Metro if the parents get carried away.
If a lot of these parents are already spending thousands each summer traveling to Toronto, Edmonton, Chicago and Winnepeg, they will have no problem arranging transportation for Jr. so they can play in a top association, while keeping their current residence.
My solution is simple-if you go to Blake (Breck, BSM, etc), then Blake can form their own team at any level. Do not force the kids to play for Hopkins (etc). Put the onus on the parents and school to do the work of forming the team, not on the volunteers who run the associations. Open enrollment kids play where they live.
This rule is just going to shift the displeasure from one group to the next. Most obvious will be the "A" level players open enrolling in Edina, Maple Grove, and Wayzata so their kids can compete for a state title. There are a lot of kids in these associations who go to private schools outside of their district, who are "A" players, who will not choose to play for Hopkins or St. Louis Park. Where Edina may have 30 "A" level players at the PeeWee level this year without open enrollment, they may have 35 or more if a top level peewees decides to transfer. You now have extended the bubble and you will have more kids playing at a lower level then their capabilities. Can you imagine the howling going on if an Edina "A" level player gets knocked to a B1 team, or even a strong B1 player gets knocked down to B2 because of the carpet baggers. It is not like these kids will get a chance to try out for EP or Jefferson or Hopkins after the fact.
Kids who have always played with their friends in the incumbent associations may now get bumped by some other kid who's parents do not pay taxes in the associations city and have no skin in the game of developing that association.
Wayzata, Edina, Maple Grove etc need to have the flexibility to form 2 A teams if they get an influx of "A" level players after tryouts. This is going to wreck a lot of smaller associaitons in the Metro if the parents get carried away.
If a lot of these parents are already spending thousands each summer traveling to Toronto, Edmonton, Chicago and Winnepeg, they will have no problem arranging transportation for Jr. so they can play in a top association, while keeping their current residence.
My solution is simple-if you go to Blake (Breck, BSM, etc), then Blake can form their own team at any level. Do not force the kids to play for Hopkins (etc). Put the onus on the parents and school to do the work of forming the team, not on the volunteers who run the associations. Open enrollment kids play where they live.
Last edited by sorno82 on Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
Re: Choice is the answer Period
delete
Last edited by HockeyDad41 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
I would LOVE to see your additional amendments that will prevent the empire building. Please list them here:HockeyDad41 wrote:I agree that open enrollment is a big concern with the new rule. However, there could be additional amendments to the rule that would prevent empire building.sorno82 wrote:Shifting the Anger:
This rule is just going to shift the displeasure from one group to the next. Most obvious will be the "A" level players open enrolling in Edina, Maple Grove, and Wayzata so their kids can compete for a state title. There are a lot of kids in these associations who go to private schools outside of their district, who are "A" players, who will not choose to play for Hopkins or St. Louis Park. Where Edina may have 30 "A" level players at the PeeWee level this year without open enrollment, they may have 35 or more if a top level peewees decides to transfer. You now have extended the bubble and you will have more kids playing at a lower level then their capabilities. Can you imagine the howling going on if an Edina "A" level player gets knocked to a B1 team, or even a strong B1 player gets knocked down to B2 because of the carpet baggers. It is not like these kids will get a chance to try out for EP or Jefferson or Hopkins after the fact.
Kids who have always played with their friends in the incumbent associations may now get bumped by some other kid who's parents do not pay taxes in the associations city and have no skin in the game of developing that association.
Wayzata, Edina, Maple Grove etc need to have the flexibility to form 2 A teams if they get an influx of "A" level players after tryouts. This is going to wreck a lot of smaller associaitons in the Metro if the parents get carried away.
If a lot of these parents are already spending thousands each summer traveling to Toronto, Edmonton, Chicago and Winnepeg, they will have no problem arranging transportation for Jr. so they can play in a top association, while keeping their current residence.
My solution is simple-if you go to Blake (Breck, BSM, etc), then Blake can form their own team at any level. Do not force the kids to play for Hopkins (etc). Put the onus on the parents and school to do the work of forming the team, not on the volunteers who run the associations. Open enrollment kids play where they live.
A.
B.
C.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
you can never make it impossible for some form of empire building-there is already a defacto empire building going on in many successful associations.I would LOVE to see your additional amendments that will prevent the empire building. Please list them here.
Here is my rule:
Play for your association as designated by Minnesota Hockey. There are two recognized Minnhock associations:
1. Traditional School district boundries (essentially current system).
2. Private school. Must attend that school to play in that association.
If parents are going to pay private school tuition, then they can form an association if they want.
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
Not true - many, many, many kids open enroll at public schools. Those factor into this situation as much as private school kids. And are raising as many quesitons, if not more, than the private schools.Here is my rule:
Play for your association as designated by Minnesota Hockey. There are two recognized Minnhock associations:
1. Traditional School district boundries (essentially current system).
2. Private school. Must attend that school to play in that association.
If parents are going to pay private school tuition, then they can form an association if they want.
If someone open enrolls thier child at a public elementary school, or chooses to send them to a magnet school, that is not thier designated neighborhood school - what hockey association does that player go to? If that magnet school is in a different association, do they play there? even though they will eventually go to the high school they are assigned to?
Yes, I do think MH would be powerless to prevent the empire building under a total choice system (play where you live OR where you go to school).HockeyDad41 wrote:
My assumption is that those charged with creating policies of fairness could come to some kind of agreement to prevent this from happening.
I take it you feel that MH is powerless to prevent this from happening? If they are unable then I would agree that this is a rule that needs to be repealed. However, I have confidence that this could be overcome.
The private schools should be very happy with all of this. I can only imagine how many hockey parents across the state have experienced an epiphany in the past few weeks. As a result of this life changing event, little Johnny and Susie will now be going to private school this fall. Praise the Lord and pass the puck bag!!!
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
trippedovertheblueline
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:43 pm
under the current policy ( new one) MH wanted to get more kids involved so they allow them to play with your association of city residence, correct?
So they are telling said association, say Lakeville to accept all kids of city residents. Then after four years of mite development they lose them to school district association at squirts, such as Farmington hockey, Burnsville hockey, Rosemount hockey, Apple Valley hockey, and Eastview hockey. MH Hockey the LHA doesn't thank you.
So they are telling said association, say Lakeville to accept all kids of city residents. Then after four years of mite development they lose them to school district association at squirts, such as Farmington hockey, Burnsville hockey, Rosemount hockey, Apple Valley hockey, and Eastview hockey. MH Hockey the LHA doesn't thank you.
I think the consequences and irreparable harm will be
I understand your concern and did not me to take you off topic Hockeydad41, but I think the focus cannot be on the associations. The problem we have seen increasing over the past few years is MH and the associations belief that they some how should or can control the destiny of the individual. The many posts discussing the bubble kid or BM and MM are prime examples of people trying to control families. While I agree that it cannot be a free for all we also need to stop focusing on the association or the team and start focusing on the family and the kid.
The harm:
*The family chooses not to play due to the forced change in associations based on school situation.
* A family chooses not to play because their new association behaves in a punitive manner due to his late arrival and their need to protect the players already in the program.
*Johnny chooses not to play because he is forced to play "B" and MH wants to penalize him for doing something outside the association frame work.
*A family chooses not to play because they can't support the additional driving (no carpool) and the lack of connections in the new association. They really, really want to play in the hometown with the neighbors because their school choice had nothing to do with hockey.
* This already happens and is happening more with choices outside of MH, the Fire and the MM programs are just the beginning. The likelihood of this going away is slim in the long view as families are unhappy with the local product. If someone feels that there is better value and a better experience to be had somewhere else let them go find it.
The remedy:
* Allow choice at every age and every level for everyone
* Do not restrict families and force privacy issues with regard to their concerns and reasons for doing what they want or need to do
* Force association hockey to improve (just like schools) or they will not get the money, players and coaches to have solid programs.
* Face the reality of competition and family choice, work to offer the best experience for everyone involved
* Stop trying to control who does what and start embracing the notion of lets build something special.
I am not sure that anyone should be asked to pay for something that is not viable or competitive in the marketplace. MH is a big money organization along with USA hockey. The fees collected to support operations are huge. The quality of the leadership and the character of the individuals down to the association level are not in line with the scope of the responsibility.
Why not provide choice to everyone at every age for any reason but limit the family to a single tryout. This would take care of the super team and the overflow of players to a given association (ice time, available coaches etc..). Limit the associations to a number of teams based on the total number of players (tryout and placed) within a given association. The issue will resolve itself because a given association my not have the coaching available for two "A" teams, 10 "B" teams and 6 "C" teams. Provide a road map as an association to the families based on previous year and the ability of the association to find and retain solid coaching/ ice times. Most of the concern seems to be around the superstar kid that wants to play with other superstars but the reality is that the family needs to understand they get one shot and if Johnny does not make the single "A" team offered they will be playing "B". The bubble kid has the same information and based on previous years may choose to tryout or may choose to look some where else based on a coach or his ability to play at a given level (this is usually the parents and not the kid). The reality of the future may be that BM is a coach in Edina at the "A" level and the Edina association is buying ice from him to support the demand they have in a single association. The reality is for example that Burnsville and Eastview may need to combine and they enhance the overall hockey program through more ice and better coaching across all of their teams. The reality is this already happens out state and probably needs to happen in the metro in some of the associations through combining and being more flexible. When you hit high school it will all get sorted out based on attendance.
The changes are happening, we need to embrace them and move forward to address the best outcomes for the families and the players. If we hold on to tight to the way we have always done it, we will be sub optimizing based on an old method and belief system. I don't see any reason why a given coach cannot join a particular association and families can choose to play for this person given a single tryout opportunity in an association that can support the numbers and the ice requirements.
The harm:
*The family chooses not to play due to the forced change in associations based on school situation.
* A family chooses not to play because their new association behaves in a punitive manner due to his late arrival and their need to protect the players already in the program.
*Johnny chooses not to play because he is forced to play "B" and MH wants to penalize him for doing something outside the association frame work.
*A family chooses not to play because they can't support the additional driving (no carpool) and the lack of connections in the new association. They really, really want to play in the hometown with the neighbors because their school choice had nothing to do with hockey.
* This already happens and is happening more with choices outside of MH, the Fire and the MM programs are just the beginning. The likelihood of this going away is slim in the long view as families are unhappy with the local product. If someone feels that there is better value and a better experience to be had somewhere else let them go find it.
The remedy:
* Allow choice at every age and every level for everyone
* Do not restrict families and force privacy issues with regard to their concerns and reasons for doing what they want or need to do
* Force association hockey to improve (just like schools) or they will not get the money, players and coaches to have solid programs.
* Face the reality of competition and family choice, work to offer the best experience for everyone involved
* Stop trying to control who does what and start embracing the notion of lets build something special.
I am not sure that anyone should be asked to pay for something that is not viable or competitive in the marketplace. MH is a big money organization along with USA hockey. The fees collected to support operations are huge. The quality of the leadership and the character of the individuals down to the association level are not in line with the scope of the responsibility.
Why not provide choice to everyone at every age for any reason but limit the family to a single tryout. This would take care of the super team and the overflow of players to a given association (ice time, available coaches etc..). Limit the associations to a number of teams based on the total number of players (tryout and placed) within a given association. The issue will resolve itself because a given association my not have the coaching available for two "A" teams, 10 "B" teams and 6 "C" teams. Provide a road map as an association to the families based on previous year and the ability of the association to find and retain solid coaching/ ice times. Most of the concern seems to be around the superstar kid that wants to play with other superstars but the reality is that the family needs to understand they get one shot and if Johnny does not make the single "A" team offered they will be playing "B". The bubble kid has the same information and based on previous years may choose to tryout or may choose to look some where else based on a coach or his ability to play at a given level (this is usually the parents and not the kid). The reality of the future may be that BM is a coach in Edina at the "A" level and the Edina association is buying ice from him to support the demand they have in a single association. The reality is for example that Burnsville and Eastview may need to combine and they enhance the overall hockey program through more ice and better coaching across all of their teams. The reality is this already happens out state and probably needs to happen in the metro in some of the associations through combining and being more flexible. When you hit high school it will all get sorted out based on attendance.
The changes are happening, we need to embrace them and move forward to address the best outcomes for the families and the players. If we hold on to tight to the way we have always done it, we will be sub optimizing based on an old method and belief system. I don't see any reason why a given coach cannot join a particular association and families can choose to play for this person given a single tryout opportunity in an association that can support the numbers and the ice requirements.
I think MH is responsible for maximizing the best experience for the whole, while minimizing the negative experience for the individual. What you are advocating is the "AAA" system that most of the other states use vs. the association model that has contibuted to what MH is today. Kids of all abilities can play at the level they are best suited and can stay involved longer. By essentially creating a recruiting war, I feel the experience will be compromised for the whole. I really do not want to search the city to find the best place for my kid to play that year, and I do not think many others do either.problem we have seen increasing over the past few years is MH and the associations belief that they some how should or can control the destiny of the individual.
MH does a good job, they just need to tweek things along the way. Dramatic changes without much thought are what will get it in trouble and disable it. The vocal few usually have the biggest impact, at the expense of the silent majority.
Re: I think the consequences and irreparable harm will be
Bluemind,
Good discussion. I probably have to respectfully disagree. First, your "Harms" under the current system for MN Hockey. How many kids are we losing each year due to the current (pre 09-10) rule? I think that number is small, and very negligable.
With regard to a free agency system, bad idea. A system like that not only sucks out the talented kids from an association, but also talented parents.
Case in point - MN Made Choice program. Many of the parents from Edina who have opted to try the Choice program have been among the most talented volunteers needed to build a hockey program (former NHL, College - D1 and D3, high school players).
I would see the same thing happening under a free agency arrangement like you discuss. Evidence is pretty clear that former hockey players, due to their passion, knowledge, and commitment to the game, have kids who end up becoming pretty good hockey players. We could make a long list here of kids. These kids would wander off to play in their programs, leaving a 'hockey knowledge' black hole at their local associations.
People keep saying that associations need to improve their product. Product is improved through the commitment and knoweldge of their volunteers. As knowledgeablef 'hockey people' leave, the only alternative is to hire people to fill those roles.
I see the ultimate evolution of free agency as what they have out on the east coast. You show up at tryouts, pay $3,000 to get on the ice, and by the end of the year have spent $5,000 to play....not to mention hotels and Dolomite Warriors. You want to talk about losing players?
Minnesota's system works and it is showing in the talent being pumped into the colleges as well as NHL draft picks. Great improvements have been made with the Elite and Elite II teams to help give our kids opportunities to develop into quality hockey players. Our AAA season or showcase seasons - the seven months of the year when we aren't in winter season - provide all of the opportunities in the world for kids to enjoy the game with school friends, like talent friends, kids with a higher commitment to hockey, etc.
Why break an affordable model that is producing quality hockey players while providing product for players of all talent levels because someone thinks - without data - that we are losing kids because associations won't waive them to play with school buddies?
Good discussion. I probably have to respectfully disagree. First, your "Harms" under the current system for MN Hockey. How many kids are we losing each year due to the current (pre 09-10) rule? I think that number is small, and very negligable.
With regard to a free agency system, bad idea. A system like that not only sucks out the talented kids from an association, but also talented parents.
Case in point - MN Made Choice program. Many of the parents from Edina who have opted to try the Choice program have been among the most talented volunteers needed to build a hockey program (former NHL, College - D1 and D3, high school players).
I would see the same thing happening under a free agency arrangement like you discuss. Evidence is pretty clear that former hockey players, due to their passion, knowledge, and commitment to the game, have kids who end up becoming pretty good hockey players. We could make a long list here of kids. These kids would wander off to play in their programs, leaving a 'hockey knowledge' black hole at their local associations.
People keep saying that associations need to improve their product. Product is improved through the commitment and knoweldge of their volunteers. As knowledgeablef 'hockey people' leave, the only alternative is to hire people to fill those roles.
I see the ultimate evolution of free agency as what they have out on the east coast. You show up at tryouts, pay $3,000 to get on the ice, and by the end of the year have spent $5,000 to play....not to mention hotels and Dolomite Warriors. You want to talk about losing players?
Minnesota's system works and it is showing in the talent being pumped into the colleges as well as NHL draft picks. Great improvements have been made with the Elite and Elite II teams to help give our kids opportunities to develop into quality hockey players. Our AAA season or showcase seasons - the seven months of the year when we aren't in winter season - provide all of the opportunities in the world for kids to enjoy the game with school friends, like talent friends, kids with a higher commitment to hockey, etc.
Why break an affordable model that is producing quality hockey players while providing product for players of all talent levels because someone thinks - without data - that we are losing kids because associations won't waive them to play with school buddies?
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
SW PREZ:
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that those with knowledge of development don't believe in the current system.
This should tell you something. Those with the most knowledge of hockey believe that Associaiton Hockey is not the way to go. They are sending their kids elsewhere. And that is away from one of the strongest associaitons - Edina.Case in point - MN Made Choice program. Many of the parents from Edina who have opted to try the Choice program have been among the most talented volunteers needed to build a hockey program (former NHL, College - D1 and D3, high school players).
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that those with knowledge of development don't believe in the current system.
From what I have heard is most are returning, because the grass wasn't greener.hockeyboys wrote:SW PREZ:This should tell you something. Those with the most knowledge of hockey believe that Associaiton Hockey is not the way to go. They are sending their kids elsewhere. And that is away from one of the strongest associaitons - Edina.Case in point - MN Made Choice program. Many of the parents from Edina who have opted to try the Choice program have been among the most talented volunteers needed to build a hockey program (former NHL, College - D1 and D3, high school players).
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that those with knowledge of development don't believe in the current system.
-
Night Train
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm
You twisted that hockeyboys. Part of what you say may be true but I think there's other factors as well.
I think more and more people are lazy and don't want to contribute and volunteer as much as in the past. People are leaving parenting and the joys of being involved with their child's athletic and personal development to others. Some parents don't want the genuinely needed responsibility. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved (any good coach can run the same practices Bernie and his staff run) thought it would be easier to put the skates away, with their volunteer commitment time, and pay MM to handle it. Sad but true. A societal shift that may be affected for some by a current more difficult financial situation. Some also don't want to dicker with their association about whether a mite should have 40 hours of ice or 140 hours of ice. See ya, we're bailing and leaving my neighborhood responsibility, and my kids friends, behind.
Anyone know if Bernie's numbers are ahead, or behind, a year ago?
I think more and more people are lazy and don't want to contribute and volunteer as much as in the past. People are leaving parenting and the joys of being involved with their child's athletic and personal development to others. Some parents don't want the genuinely needed responsibility. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved (any good coach can run the same practices Bernie and his staff run) thought it would be easier to put the skates away, with their volunteer commitment time, and pay MM to handle it. Sad but true. A societal shift that may be affected for some by a current more difficult financial situation. Some also don't want to dicker with their association about whether a mite should have 40 hours of ice or 140 hours of ice. See ya, we're bailing and leaving my neighborhood responsibility, and my kids friends, behind.
Anyone know if Bernie's numbers are ahead, or behind, a year ago?
-
TellItHowItIs
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 12:02 pm