If Minnesota Made were an association...

[barry_mcconnell]

How would MM compare in size to other metro associations? In terms of number or teams and skaters.

With the Mite rules changes coming in 2013 (no full ice games) could the metro support another MM-sized private association?

[O-townClown]

With the Mite rules changes coming in 2013 (no full ice games)

I'm very curious to see what happens nationwide.

[BadgerBob82]

Nationwide? We can't control Squirt teams to less than 45 games, and you think an advisory against full-ice games is going to slow anyone down?

Of course, common sense would say MN associations would want to allow final year mites (Or super-duper elite AAA 06's and older) to play Squirt hockey early.

Side benefit is getting those 10%-20% of those parents out of the Mite program early!

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

How would MM compare in size to other metro associations? In terms of number or teams and skaters.

With the Mite rules changes coming in 2013 (no full ice games) could the metro support another MM-sized private association?

MM mites with approximately 6 teams at each level would be comparable in size to a large metro association such as Edina/EP/Tonka etc.

[elliott70]

...With the Mite rules changes coming in 2013 (no full ice games)...

I am pretty sure MH District 16 local associations will play full ice if they so choose.

[O-townClown]

Bob/Elliott:

So you see what I see. The "mandate" mentioned in USA Hockey Magazine doesn't seem to have any teeth. That's why I'm interested to see what happens nationwide.

[elliott70]

Bob/Elliott:

So you see what I see. The "mandate" mentioned in USA Hockey Magazine doesn't seem to have any teeth. That's why I'm interested to see what happens nationwide.

Exactly.
And who are they to mandate.
They do not pay for the ice, they do not pay for the equipment, they do not pay the coaches.

USAH does not make hockey players. They take them. They may improve them,but they are not the creators.

And they charge too much.
(To put my 2 cents in regarding another thread).

[SCBlueLiner]

I believe USA Hockey is going to put pressure on the affiliates to make sure their associations are not playing full-ice. I bet they could go as far as barring an association from USA Hockey for non-compliance.

I can see how they could use this mandate to stop advertised tournamants as USA Hockey would simply not sanction it and not provide insurance coverage.

I don't see how USA Hockey can stop an association from having full ice games in an in-house/rec program.

[SnowedIn]

Bob/Elliott:

So you see what I see. The "mandate" mentioned in USA Hockey Magazine doesn't seem to have any teeth. That's why I'm interested to see what happens nationwide.

Exactly.
And who are they to mandate.
They do not pay for the ice, they do not pay for the equipment, they do not pay the coaches.

USAH does not make hockey players. They take them. They may improve them,but they are not the creators.

And they charge too much.
(To put my 2 cents in regarding another thread).

I'm very slanted on this one. I don't like mandates and people laying down the law. BUTTT I also am disgusted by the kind of coaching that goes on at the Mite/Squirt levels. The coaches that waste 50-90% of their time on team play, breakouts, pks, and skills drills which have long lines followed by a few reps of a poor drill. The kids have no chance to become hockey players if they don't improve their fundamental skills.

Who are these association coaches to mandate that these kids get second/third rate training? Once your kid gets on a team you don't have a choice as to how the practice is run. The coach mandates it.

So......the USA hockey guidelines on skills training and mandate on cross ice games, to me is a much better world than the far too many poorly coached teams. Its a cultural shift that I think needs to happen and will not happen on its own. IMO the mandate and full court press on a shift in thinking to skills training is a necessary thing. Run a full ice game with the neighborhood kids on the outdoor rink. Plenty of time and ice for that.

[elliott70]

Bob/Elliott:

So you see what I see. The "mandate" mentioned in USA Hockey Magazine doesn't seem to have any teeth. That's why I'm interested to see what happens nationwide.

Exactly.
And who are they to mandate.
They do not pay for the ice, they do not pay for the equipment, they do not pay the coaches.

USAH does not make hockey players. They take them. They may improve them,but they are not the creators.

And they charge too much.
(To put my 2 cents in regarding another thread).

I'm very slanted on this one. I don't like mandates and people laying down the law. BUTTT I also am disgusted by the kind of coaching that goes on at the Mite/Squirt levels. The coaches that waste 50-90% of their time on team play, breakouts, pks, and skills drills which have long lines followed by a few reps of a poor drill. The kids have no chance to become hockey players if they don't improve their fundamental skills.

Who are these association coaches to mandate that these kids get second/third rate training? Once your kid gets on a team you don't have a choice as to how the practice is run. The coach mandates it.

So......the USA hockey guidelines on skills training and mandate on cross ice games, to me is a much better world than the far too many poorly coached teams. Its a cultural shift that I think needs to happen and will not happen on its own. IMO the mandate and full court press on a shift in thinking to skills training is a necessary thing. Run a full ice game with the neighborhood kids on the outdoor rink. Plenty of time and ice for that.

I GUESS YOU DON'T LIVE AROUND HERE.

[observer]

I GUESS YOU DON'T LIVE AROUND HERE.

Because you have more money to rent ice?

More outdoor ice to supplement indooor ice expense?

Or, because you have more stubborn dads?

[elliott70]

I GUESS YOU DON'T LIVE AROUND HERE.

Because you have more money to rent ice?

More outdoor ice to supplement indooor ice expense?

Or, because you have more stubborn dads?

Higher ice to kid ratio than other places.

But, yes, cross-ice is used for younger kids just because it is better utilizaton and better for kids. However; sometimes (especially the 8 year-olds) they enjoy going the full length.

But the simple fact is; what gives someone the power to mandate when they do not provide the resources.
They do not have that power without us (the local level) giving it to them. On top of that, they charge us - perhaps it is a FMV deal; but with a strangle hold around our necks, how do we know?

[elliott70]

I GUESS YOU DON'T LIVE AROUND HERE.

Because you have more money to rent ice?

More outdoor ice to supplement indooor ice expense?

Or, because you have more stubborn dads?

But I was referenceing the poor coaching.
And the fact that it is accepted. People need to stand up for themselves, or find someone to do it for them.