USA Hockey

[frederick61]

Just posted a article that contrasts USA Hockey and Minnesota Hockey approach to youth development based one needed result for every youth player, a high school diploma.

It can be read at:
http://www.youthhockeyhub.com/usa-hockey/

[O-townClown]

This corner of YHH maintains that most of this confusion at the youth level is caused by USA Hockey’s one year rule. And as it has been said here before, the one year rule is a loser and frankly USA Hockey is a losing organization at youth hockey because of the rule

What is USA Hockey's one year rule? I'm not familiar.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

This corner of YHH maintains that most of this confusion at the youth level is caused by USA Hockey’s one year rule. And as it has been said here before, the one year rule is a loser and frankly USA Hockey is a losing organization at youth hockey because of the rule

What is USA Hockey's one year rule? I'm not familiar.

Please enlighten our homeboy from Florida on the one year USA Hock rule that he has missed.

[SCBlueLiner]

There is no one year rule. Next season USA Hockey age bands look like this:

Mites: 2005 & younger
Squirts: 2003 & 2004
Pee Wees: 2001 & 2002
Bantams: 1999 & 2000
Midgets Minor: 1997 & 1998
Midget Major: 1995 & 1996

The ONLY difference between USAH and MN Hockey is the start date, USAH uses Jan 1 to Dec 31 (calendar year) while MN Hockey uses July 1 to June 30, basically moving the calendar 6 months back so there are older kids at each level of play.

Some teams throughout the country put together Major and Minor teams which seperates 1st year and second year players if that is what he is referring to. How is that any different than most 2nd year kids making the A team and most 1st year kids making the B team?

[greybeard58]

USA Hockey registers by age groups Tier I and Tier II are the most common. This is done with a 2 year window. The only difference between USA and Mn Hockey is the birth date and the year. The major and minor classifications do not come from USA Hockey. Below are the age groups posted in the USA Hockey annual guide and the Mn Hockey handbook, please note USA Hockey uses the same wording for their classifications.

2012-13 Season (9/1/12 - 8/31/13)
Player’s Year Age Youth/Junior Teams Girls’ Teams
of Birth Category Age Division Age Division
1992 20 Years Junior — —
1993 19 Years Junior 19 & Under
1994 18 Years 18 & Under Midget 19 & Under
1995 17 Years 18 & Under Midget 19 & Under
1996 16 Years 16 & Under Midget 16 & Under
1997 15 Years 16 & Under Midget 16 & Under
1998 14 Years 14 & Under Bantam 14 & Under
1999 13 Years 14 & Under Bantam 14 & Under
2000 12 Years 12 & Under Pee Wee 12 & Under
2001 11 Years 12 & Under Pee Wee 12 & Under
2002 10 Years 10 & Under Squirt 10 & Under
2003 9 Years 10 & Under Squirt 10 & Under
2004 & Younger 8 Years & Under 8 & Under Mite 8 & Under

MH AGE DIVISIONS FOR THE 2012-13 SEASON
Youth/Adult Girls/Women
Adult 6/30/93 and older Women 12/31/92 and older
Junior Gold 7/1/93 to 6/30/95 19 & Under 1/1/93 to 6/30/95
Junior Gold 16 7/1/95 to 6/30/97 MN 16U (15/16) 7/1/95 to 6/30/97
MN Bantam 7/1/97 to 6/30/99 MN 14U (13/14) 7/1/97 to 6/30/99
MN Peewee 7/1/99 to 6/30/01 MN 12U (11/12) 7/1/99 to 6/30/01
MN Squirt 7/1/01 to 6/30/03 MN 10U (9/10) 7/1/01 to 6/30/03
MN Mite 7/1/03 to 6/30/05 MN 8U 7/1/03 and younger
MN Mini-Mite 7/1/05 and younger

[SCBlueLiner]

I do have to agree with the rest of the piece. MH hockey definitely has it right and USA Hockey is wrong. USA Hockey would be best served to move towards a high school model. The line about the AAA organizations using USA Hockey is about right. Those organizations are individually in it for themselves. They don't need to worry about development, it's about tryouts and recruiting. A players doesn't meet expectations, cut him next year and find somebody else. Great for the team but what about the kid? Probably ends up quiting the sport. In Minnesota (and some of the surrounding area) you play with what you got, it's up to the coaches in the association to develop them.

[Shinbone_News]

It's a nice piece Freddy, but you fail to point out one important fact: Minnesota's community-based model is not reproducible nationally for the simply reason that there are far more hockey players per capita in Minnesota than there are in any other state. We are the single largest affiliate of USA Hockey, and have more youth hockey players than almost every other COUNTRY besides Canada.

The fact is that Tier II hockey, which looks like MN Hockey, isn't anywhere near as good, and serious players have no choice but to look to private clubs in their regions. You're right that the Little Caesars and Belle Tires of the world have no real interest in developing hockey generally.

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

There are plenty of folks on this bored who would love to see Tier 1 AAA come to Minnesota because -- well, frankly they have no reason other than some silly conceit that not enough Minnesota kids make it to the NHL, and the high school season is too short.

BTW: Freddy doesn't explicitly mention that Minnesota Hockey and Minnesota HIgh School League are completely independent of each other, though they are complementary. USA and MN Hockey's only involvement with hockey here past age 15 is with the residual Junior Gold program, which is effectively a house league -- but a good one. That and the HP programs during the summer. Oh, and we're a big feeder to the NTDP, which some have come to see as an annual parasite on our high school hockey, not unlike the arrival of wood ticks each year. (Of course, the USHL is also under the umbrella of USA Hockey, but that's a bit like their involvement in my adult hockey league: I get to pay the annual registration fee, and they get to refuse to honor any nominal insurance they supposedly provide when I get hurt.)

In the end, the question is: What is the point and purpose of the governing organization? If it is to help all hockey players reach their full potential and to grow the game as a lifetime sport for the greatest number of people, then Minnesota Hockey is the gold standard. If it's to develop the highest percentage of NHL players, then there are others who do it better (but at a significant cost to the individual AND the community) such as Shattuck or Little Caesars or the LA Junior Kings, or (gasp!) even the CHL.

[frederick61]

There are rules and there is the implementation of the rules. The USA Hockey rules are on paper has resulted in implementing one year teams from squirt to bantam. The one year teams discourage participation in part because the kids borne early in the year have developed more physically then kids borne later in the year. At tryout time, the younger kids have to constantly compete with the same older kids to make their birth year team.

So I am not arguing with Greybeard on what is on paper, but pointing out the effects. And it is easy to describe the one year rule effect by looking at any national ranking.

Boy’s hockey teams are named by calendar year and ranked by that year. In the 2012-2013 season, USA boys teams were listed as squirt 2003 and squirt 2002 for both Tier I and Tier II. The peewee and bantams were split by Tier I (organizational) and Tier II (association) and named by calendar year (peewee 2001 and 2000; bantam 1999 and 1998). The midgets are split by two years, U16 and U18.

There was no combined ranking of peewees (2000 and 2001) teams last season. There was ranking of 2000 teams and rankings of 2001 teams. Those years are used to separate teams when it comes to playing games. If a 2001 traveling team is playing in a tourney, all the birthdays will be checked for 2001 or younger (2002) and they are playing in a 2001 tourney just as Minnesota summer teams are separated in at the International tourney or the Caribou Cup.

From squirts to bantams, all teams are one year. In theory a younger player (like a 2000 playing on a 2001 team) can move up therefore some people say it is “really two years”; but as I said in the post a second year player (a 2001) that does not make a 2001 team has to either move up to the next level or switch organizations to play traveling hockey.

In Minnesota, he can stay with the association’s traveling teams and does not have to move up or out.

The Minnesota approach encourages kids to stay with the program because they are assured an extra year at that level of play without the fear of being forced out in the second year. If a second year player does not make the top team, he not only has a chance to improve competing at a level of play he should play at; but he adds an experience and leadership to the younger kids on the team and he grows in that way.

Again, the rankings describe the one year rule effect, though USA hockey can claim it was not written as a one year rule, it has become a one year rule in its implementation.

[SCBlueLiner]

In the end, the question is: What is the point and purpose of the governing organization? If it is to help all hockey players reach their full potential and to grow the game as a lifetime sport for the greatest number of people, then Minnesota Hockey is the gold standard. If it's to develop the highest percentage of NHL players, then there are others who do it better (but at a significant cost to the individual AND the community) such as Shattuck or Little Caesars or the LA Junior Kings, or (gasp!) even the CHL.

I really have to agree with this. I think MN Hockey is the right way to do things. I think if more resources were spent on developing the MN model in each state across the country it would yield better results than we are getting right now. There are so many kids who never take up hockey because it's "too expensive" or don't develop to their potential due to the cost and burden it puts on the family. More kids playing equals a larger talent pool to draw from which equals more players making it to the highest level, the NHL.

To develop into a top level hockey player outside of MN is hard. There are some very difficult choices and sacrifices to be made. Parents have to have the resources to spend thousands and thousands of dollars each year on hockey expenses and travel. At a certain age families need to decide if a child is going to leave home to continue to play at a high level.

This doesn't happen in other sports and I think it is a big reason the growth of youth hockey is limited. Sure, I think the push is there to get more young kids (mites) playing hockey. It gets to a point, though, as kids grow up in the sport where it is too burdensome to continue to play. USAH talks about checking in PeeWees being one reason so many kids quit at that age. I would say the way the system is designed (outside of Minnesota) is the reason so many kids quit. The parents look at the time, resources, and effort it will take for their kid to develop. They see reality and the decision is easy to drop hockey for some sport more readily available, cheaper, and one that doesn't split the family apart.

Also, you have to look at the end goal. Where is this all going? What am I spending all my money on? Is it for the child to have fun, be with their friends, play a structured sport that teaches them valuable life lesssons? Each high school in this country has a football, basketball, baseball, cross country, or track program. All practically free that can achieve all those goals. So the question concernign the end goal is, is there enough opportunities in hockey at the higher levels (college)? I'd answer a deep and resounding no. USAH may want to focus on working with our colleges and universities to developing more collegiate hockey programs which will provide more opportunities for the young boys and girls playing this game.

If USAH wants to grow the sport, use the existing American model of youth/varsity/collegiate to grow the sport. I talk with my non-hockey playing friends about how this currently works and they look at me puzzled and think it's the craziest system ever designed.

[O-townClown]

There are rules and there is the implementation of the rules. The USA Hockey rules are on paper has resulted in implementing one year teams from squirt to bantam. The one year teams discourage participation in part because the kids borne early in the year have developed more physically then kids borne later in the year. At tryout time, the younger kids have to constantly compete with the same older kids to make their birth year team.

So I am not arguing with Greybeard on what is on paper, but pointing out the effects. And it is easy to describe the one year rule effect by looking at any national ranking.

Wait, I'm not following.

You said USA Hockey had a one year rule.

Now you've said that tournament and program convention by breaking things up by birth year is a result of something USA Hockey has done.

Birth year teams have nothing to do with USA Hockey. There are 2-year windows for each age group.

Find someone else to blame. USA Hockey has nothing to do with it.

[CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

[Shinbone_News]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

The short answer to your question is that the same freedom to choose a school applies to hockey in Minnesota: the residency rule allows your player to play where s/he goes to school OR where he lives, whichever is deemed by you to give access to better development.

The long answer is that Minnesota Hockey is a non-profit governing organization, as are all its affiliates. That means they are beholden to their memberships, which are required by law to have volunteer boards of directors. You can and should exercise your rights to self-determination by talking to your board or becoming a member yourself.

In the world of club hockey, you can try out for the Fury next year and thumb your nose at the Mission. Just be willing to write that $10K check to a new group of free market entrepreneurs. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to actually try out and make the team in order to play at all.

Most associations in Minnesota are required to provide access to anyone who wants to play hockey. If not, they must issue waivers.

[MrBoDangles]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

The short answer to your question is that the same freedom to choose a school applies to hockey in Minnesota: the residency rule allows your player to play where s/he goes to school OR where he lives, whichever is deemed by you to give access to better development.

The long answer is that Minnesota Hockey is a non-profit governing organization, as are all its affiliates. That means they are beholden to their memberships, which are required by law to have volunteer boards of directors. You can and should exercise your rights to self-determination by talking to your board or becoming a member yourself.

In the world of club hockey, you can try out for the Fury next year and thumb your nose at the Mission. Just be willing to write that $10K check to a new group of free market entrepreneurs. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to actually try out and make the team in order to play at all.

Most associations in Minnesota are required to provide access to anyone who wants to play hockey. If not, they must issue waivers.

Your contradictions are making you look pretty stupid. Actually feel a little bad for ya.

[CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

The short answer to your question is that the same freedom to choose a school applies to hockey in Minnesota: the residency rule allows your player to play where s/he goes to school OR where he lives, whichever is deemed by you to give access to better development.

The long answer is that Minnesota Hockey is a non-profit governing organization, as are all its affiliates. That means they are beholden to their memberships, which are required by law to have volunteer boards of directors. You can and should exercise your rights to self-determination by talking to your board or becoming a member yourself.

In the world of club hockey, you can try out for the Fury next year and thumb your nose at the Mission. Just be willing to write that $10K check to a new group of free market entrepreneurs.

Completed my 2 yr board term last year even though my kid chose not to play there. Still no progress as too many in the old boys club worried about taking care of only their own. Change process in such an org takes too long to benefit before the kid is out of the system. Getting a student to school during the work day is far different than getting to evening hockey events. And we are happy with our school why should they be related? Non-profit status is merely a designation of how profits are handled, has no bearing on the situation. For profit orgs have boards as well. Competition is far more effective at exacting change for survival. Why would choice in association dramatic affect cost or the non-profit status of an association? In fact as a non-profit wouldn't the higher numbers in a well run association lead to decreased cost as admin costs are spread over more members? Wouldn't associations then focus on providing the best possible product to retain and attract members?
Never mentioned club hockey only concerned with choice of association due to residency/school rules. Has this happened to our schools? Governing regulation coupled with the threat of declining enrollment keep schools in tune with providing a competitive product for survival. Couldn't the same be said for hockey associations?

[Shinbone_News]

It sounds like you have a problem without a solution. In the interest of being helpful, I'll throw out two ideas:

1) If you're willing to drive to another community for their better development, go to Mn Made's Choice League. Love 'em or hate 'em, they have a pretty well proven development model and no need for a stinking waiver. Long drive, but freedom isn't free!

2) If you're not willing to drive, you need to abandon socialism and embrace communism whereby MN Hockey controls every aspect of every association's business, including who coaches and how much ice time they get, to ensure that every association is equal.

[CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD]

There is a solution do away with residency/school rule and give consumers freedom of a choice. For Tier II associations in IL they have a Two Choice rule. You can reg with any association to start, if unsatisfied you can make one move to a second choice association. After that you can only return to the original or petition to regain a choice. I have no experience with it other than a few conversations with parents that are happy to be at a program they chose based on their own research and are not told where to play and to whom to give their money.

1. Already play at Choice. Went last season and had a good experience. Far out weighed the alternative. But would sure like to see something that motivates our local association to improve its product in a hurry so we too can reap the lauded benefits of community based hockey. Maybe by the time I have grand kids it will happen

2. You apparently missed the point. Having a choice is not congruent with Socialism or Communism

[Shinbone_News]

Well, you and Bo should get together. He can build the fence to prevent small associations from losing all their best players to neighboring AA associations, and you can dig the tunnel underneath the fence. Sounds like a perfect government program!

[MrBoDangles]

Well, you and Bo should get together. He can build the fence to prevent small associations from losing all their best players to neighboring AA associations, and you can dig the tunnel underneath the fence. Sounds like a perfect government program!

Dust yourself off...

[MrBoDangles]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

I had heard about them losing probably their best bantam to White Bear and a top end peewee to Centennial last year, but they've lost their best the years before that?

[CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD]

Minnesota's best asset is our hockey culture and the thousands of kids that enter community-based associations every year as mites. It's a system worth defending with good rules (including the residency rule) and managament, as well as quality coach training.

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

I had heard about them losing probably their best bantam to White Bear and a top end peewee to Centennial last year, but they've lost their best the years before that?

Lost best bantam to WBL two years ago, also.

[irish skater]

So in this system, how does MNH ensure that each association is managed in a manner that is consistent with the best developmental practices? What recourse does MNH have to admonish associations failing to provide its constituents a proper product? Examples of where this has occurred?

With little exception, members of poorly lead associations have no good alternatives to choose. Thus nothing motivates these associations to improve, they have a captive consumer base unless of course you move your residence or up root from school. Example: Mainly based on disatisfaction with developmental management, Forest Lake has lost A level players to WBL and Centennial every year. This upcoming year alone there are approximately 5 known players leaving. One might question how this doesn't serve the purpose of triggering improvement. The only explanation is in an association of 500+ players it has not been significant enough to trigger improvement as this has happened yearly for several years. There would be many more if the rules were not prohibitive favoring only those with convenient situations facilitating an association move. The rest are mired in a substandard developmental situation. How is this good for overall health of MNH?

Isn't this type of system a form of Socialism? If this is the best model for development then why are we not a Socialist society. You can provide all the coach training you want but if you have the wrong association management and coaches it goes to waste. In MN we have the freedom to choose a school we just can't choose a hockey program. Think about the reason we allow open enrollment. Isn't it to offer an option if we are disatisfied with the development provided by the local school? Why not hockey?

I had heard about them losing probably their best bantam to White Bear and a top end peewee to Centennial last year, but they've lost their best the years before that?

Lost best bantam to WBL two years ago, also.

You hit the nail on the head. If you speak your mind, you're considered a troublemaker. So you sit back and watch this tragedy unfold year after year. Also knowing that while your"son" is playing, he will never really get a chance to play for a winner.

It's almost a monopoly. There's no incentive to improve. They've got you. Your options are extremely limited. I could go on and on. It might help if they merged with Chisago and North Branch. But now there would be an influx of 30 or so players at every level and the good old boys' club's kids might get pushed down further away from making the cherished, and feared, A team. Good night, everybody.

[InigoMontoya]

As long as those GOB's kids are on the A-team, it makes no difference to them how bad that team is.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

And the GOB's (governing obstruction bureaucracy) will continue to develop Shinny's AA/A team because it's not deserved, but allowed under MN Hock/USA Hock for growth of hockey for everyone...throw out the BS association guideline brochures and magazines, Shinny wants you to explore other opportunities that allow youth sport growth. Great idea, what district has the pleasure of your involvement?

[Cdale]

As long as those GOB's kids are on the A-team, it makes no difference to them how bad that team is.