Minnesota Hockey proposed new residency rule

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

elliott70
Posts: 13432
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Minnesota Hockey proposed new residency rule

Post by elliott70 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:59 am

Any feed back on the proposed new rule?

See minnesotahockey.org web page for wording.

Chuck Norris Fan
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: North Metro
Contact:

Post by Chuck Norris Fan » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:36 am

"c. A player wishes to participate in the MH affiliate where the school in which the player is enrolled and attending is located. This type of waiver is conditional in that attendance must continue through the season."

does this section mean that if a player is going to a school in alternate district they can then waiver to that districts youth team.....without moving?

.....Did you hear that, I think it was pandoras box opening!

it is only a matter of time until I get my wish, district all star teams that play all season long at the major and minor bantam level and we get to compete for that national title again.

nhl'er
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:37 pm

Post by nhl'er » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:49 am

This is long overdue for MH. This will finally allow youth athletes to play with their school buddies vs forced to play where they live. I know of several athletes that chose MM because they weren't allowed to play with their school friends. Youth hockey should be about fun and devlopment, this rule change allows for kids to choose which friends they want to play with, neighborhood vs school. Will there be a few disturbed parents that choose to move their son/daughter to take advantage of this? Absolutely, but no rules are perfect, bu this will certainly benefit the majority of families for the right reasons.

Night Train
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm

Post by Night Train » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:31 am

Hey NHL'er,

You're off your rocker. This is an absolutely terrible idea. Youth Hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school. High School offers open enrollment youth hockey should not.

What proves you're not in touch with the majority is your comment regarding benefits the majority. This has absolutely been hatched by a few selfish parents from a very small minority and would, if it's passed, benefit only a very small number.

Plus, as some posts have discussed, associations may not offer A level spots to open enrolled youth players. Seems a little harsh but why should they?

It would open a huge can of worms that will make things very difficult for metro associations, district directors, families, friends, neighbors, players, coaches and anyone else you can think of.

We have a community based model. It's envied by people from across the country. It's our history. It works for the vast majority. If anything put more teeth in the current rule. Play where you live.

I believe this comes right out of District 6 and Bloomington specifically. There's kids that live in the Kennedy Youth area that want to play youth hockey with the Jefferson Association and try and use the open enroll language by saying their child plans to open enroll at Jefferson High School so they would like to play youth hockey in the Jefferson Youth Association. The answer should be no. But leadership there has made all kinds of exceptions and created a problem. Frankly, they've allowed it while no other District has.

Another idea might be for Bloomington to look at a single youth association as they are experiencing dwindling numbers.

nhl'er
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:37 pm

Post by nhl'er » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:39 am

Night Train,
I'm not going to get into a debate here, but this was one of the number one issues that was identified by the MH survey as needing to be fixed!
If you believe that the majority of parents are really going to change elementary schools/junior high to choose hockey over education then either you are out of touch or we have a society problem. The few parents that make this move are the ones that believe their son/daughter are also the next NHL player and are way out of touch with reality.

play4fun
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:01 pm

Post by play4fun » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:49 am

Night Train wrote:Hey NHL'er,

You're off your rocker. This is an absolutely terrible idea. Youth Hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school. High School offers open enrollment youth hockey should not.

What proves you're not in touch with the majority is your comment regarding benefits the majority. This has absolutely been hatched by a few selfish parents from a very small minority and would, if it's passed, benefit only a very small number.

Plus, as some posts have discussed, associations may not offer A level spots to open enrolled youth players. Seems a little harsh but why should they?
It would open a huge can of worms that will make things very difficult for metro associations, district directors, families, friends, neighbors, players, coaches and anyone else you can think of.

We have a community based model. It's envied by people from across the country. It's our history. It works for the vast majority. If anything put more teeth in the current rule. Play where you live.

I believe this comes right out of District 6 and Bloomington specifically. There's kids that live in the Kennedy Youth area that want to play youth hockey with the Jefferson Association and try and use the open enroll language by saying their child plans to open enroll at Jefferson High School so they would like to play youth hockey in the Jefferson Youth Association. The answer should be no. But leadership there has made all kinds of exceptions and created a problem. Frankly, they've allowed it while no other District has.

Another idea might be for Bloomington to look at a single youth association as they are experiencing dwindling numbers.
Two the two points bolded above...

1) Why not? Completely contradictory and not in step with our much more mobile society. Open enrollment has changed the dynamics, and is now finally being addressed by MH. If your point is valid, why not go one step further and change open enrollment so that it's limited only to high-school aged kids. :roll:

2) If some associations allow open-enrolled kids to play on traveling teams, and others don't, this will be the true pandoras box. If the proposed changes are meant to ensure consistency, allowing local associations to draft up their own limitations for participation will result in continued inconsistent decisions. If anything, MH should establish the guidelines. That would prevent local politics from shaping decisions that should be applied to all of MN youth hockey.

DKS1962
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:38 pm

Post by DKS1962 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:09 am

I agree with Night Train. Community based hockey is the only way to keep AAA all star teams from forming in associations. It's a Metro problem that needs to be addressed.
Outstate hockey is struggling to compete now. Outstate is still community based and open enrollment is not an option because of the distances between associations.
To me it sounds like a few metro parents are not happy with the talent level in their respective associations and want to make AAA all star teams.

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:09 am

It's about time this gets addressed. Kids that attend school outside of their association boundaries should be able to have the opportunity to play with their buddies they go to school with.

auld_skool
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:39 pm

Post by auld_skool » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:13 am

To clarify, in Bloomington it's NOT open enrollment. Both high schools are in the same school district so a student has to apply to go to the other high school, and must be approved. It's not automatic.

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:17 am

Muck- I agree kids should play with their buddies- but look at both sides- lets use SLP as an example. Benilde kids will now be allowed to play at SLP. Is it fair that the SLP kids now might not be able to play with their buddies because kids in a private school will be taking their buddies spot?

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:21 am

puckboy wrote:Muck- I agree kids should play with their buddies- but look at both sides- lets use SLP as an example. Benilde kids will now be allowed to play at SLP. Is it fair that the SLP kids now might not be able to play with their buddies because kids in a private school will be taking their buddies spot?
"Taking their buddies spot?" If they want to guarantee that they are on the same team, the answer is simple....don't try out.

nhl'er
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:37 pm

Post by nhl'er » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:21 am

Elliott,
Can you please clarify how this will apply to private school enrollment when the private school doesn't have a MH affiliation agrrement?

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:25 am

muck- you used playing with their buddies as a reason for this- now you are saying it is a valid reason?

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:31 am

puckboy wrote:muck- you used playing with their buddies as a reason for this- now you are saying it is a valid reason?
I'm saying that this give kids an "opportunity" to play with their buddies. If they want to guarantee that they'll be on the same team, don't try out and play "C" hockey. Otherwise they can try out and and hope that they are on the same team. It's the same thing that friends who happen to live within the same association boundaries have to face. No difference.

greybeard58
Posts: 2025
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm

Post by greybeard58 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:33 am

Everybody the key word is proposal. The wording will change and parts might be added and parts might be removed. Also waivers will still be needed and the association president of both the releasing and receiving association need to sign first.

Night Train
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm

Post by Night Train » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:34 am

M&G,

Give us a specific example please?

Frankly, I think there may be something even more clandestine going on beyond the simple examples.

As for the survey. It was totally flawed and didn't get anywhere near the total number of responses needed to be used in any fashion. Ever heard the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Is that a good thing? Just because a few mentioned they were having difficulty being supportive of the community hockey association where they live now it's an issue that needs to be addressed? Believe me, for 98% of all families it's fine the way it is. That would be a majority.

Here's another angle. In community based hockey the children in the community get to play hockey on a community based team at a community funded arena. Now you want kids to play in a community where they didn't support community development with their families tax dollars because they live in a different community. But, allow them to take a spot of a community resident, that pays tax dollars into the community fund and arena. That's why I say you can't even imagine the anger, and confusion, this will cause.

Totally misguided and against everything in our state's hockey history. Sure to be defeated.

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:44 am

Night Train wrote:M&G,

Give us a specific example please?

Frankly, I think there may be something even more clandestine going on beyond the simple examples.

As for the survey. It was totally flawed and didn't get anywhere near the total number of responses needed to be used in any fashion. Ever heard the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Is that a good thing? Just because a few mentioned they were having difficulty being supportive of the community hockey association where they live now it's an issue that needs to be addressed? Believe me, for 98% of all families it's fine the way it is. That would be a majority.

Here's another angle. In community based hockey the children in the community get to play hockey on a community based team at a community funded arena. Now you want kids to play in a community where they didn't support community development with their families tax dollars because they live in a different community. But, allow them to take a spot of a community resident, that pays tax dollars into the community fund and arena. That's why I say you can't even imagine the anger, and confusion, this will cause.

Totally misguided and against everything in our state's hockey history. Sure to be defeated.
Can you back that these statements with facts?

conditioningsucks
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:24 am

Post by conditioningsucks » Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:10 pm

What a can of worms we are going to open.........

Picture this:

District 3 sends two teams to the state tournament --- and they aren't Wayzata and Maple Grove. Instead, players from Eden Prairie, Armstrong/Cooper, Wayzata, Minnetonka, all waiver into Saint Louis Park to dominate their Bantam A team.

Meanwhile, Hopkins sends the other Bantam A team when kids from Orono, Wayzata, Edina, Minnetonka, all 'open enroll' into the Hopkins program because they attend Breck.

Third place in the District would go to North Metro as they produce a loaded Bantam A team with kids from Irondale, Fridley, Brooklyn Park, Anoka, etc. through Totino Grace.

Out of District 1 you suddenly have Southwest Minneapolis become a Bantam A force as Wayzata, Orono, and other suburban kids attending Blake School open enroll.

Over on the East side of the River suddenly Highland Central becomes a powerhouse as Cretin Derham Hall begins sending all of their freshman to try out on an open enrolled bantam a team.

Lakeville hockey is decimated as the Sibley hockey association becomes a Bantam A power ---- how? St. Thomas starts their 'open enrolled' Bantam A program.

The list goes on....Providence, Holy Family, Meadow Creek, Hill Murray.

Then, Bernie starts his private school. Now Edina has two Bantam A teams in the state tourney as Bernie's kids waive in to play on a MM Bantam team hosted under Edina's banner.

They even could have two A teams at an association. One for the true local kids attending the local school and one setup by the private schools as a 'freshman' program. If their numbers are deep enough they could even have private A and B1 teams.

Think about this - you run the Highland Central Association or the Hopkins Association and you aren't in favor of these freshman team loopholes. Suddenly, you get a call from Mr. X from a private school where you buy a lot of your program's ice from. Mr. X. states that you will no longer be able to buy ice from the private school's facility unless you let an "A" team be formed of 'open enrolled' kids. What are you going to say?

Or, you get a call from Mr. X that says that they are going to send 10 Bantam A caliber players into your program next year and you expect them to play - or, the association will allow you to form your own Bantam A team under their banner for their freshman all stars. What are you going to say?

While affiliates may be able to 'establish policies regarding participation' (can't play on "A" teams, for instance), you don't think an association or Minnesota Hockey would cave upon being served with papers by a private school attorney? Let's see, spend $30,000 on attorneys or let them have their way so that you can spend $30,000 on programming for your real players. I'll take door number 2, thank you.

This WILL happen within 1 to 2 years of passing these new residency requirements. Is Minnesota Hockey ready for 'Freshman All Star Teams' made up of private school kids. You can bank on it. A few schools with their own rinks will be the first - Blake, Breck, Saint Thomas, SPA. As other private schools see that this has become a great recruiting tool for 8th and 9th graders they will have no option but to figure out how to 'get into the game'.

So ---- will youth hockey become a private school vs public school program at the Bantam ages? Me thinks so.

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:16 pm

very well said. It will happen if allowed. Bank on it.

is Hill Murray- Tartan, NSP or Stillwater?

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:00 pm

Elliot: Do you know if Minnesota Hockey has really looked into the potential impact of the rule as it is written today. It would be interesting to look at real data and see what the impact would be. You could use 3 or 4 K-12 private schools in the metro as your data. Also has anyone talk to the local associations in the metro where the private schools reside- are they for or against it?

elliott70
Posts: 13432
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:23 pm

Chuck Norris Fan wrote:"c. A player wishes to participate in the MH affiliate where the school in which the player is enrolled and attending is located. This type of waiver is conditional in that attendance must continue through the season."

does this section mean that if a player is going to a school in alternate district they can then waiver to that districts youth team.....without moving?

.....Did you hear that, I think it was pandoras box opening!

it is only a matter of time until I get my wish, district all star teams that play all season long at the major and minor bantam level and we get to compete for that national title again.
Yes, the player will be deemed to live in the district where he (she) attends school.
example - a 10 year-old lives in Hopkins but goes to school in Edina cna choose to play in the Edina youth program.
OR lives in Hopkins but attends Holy Angels then he could play in Richfield (I amay be wrong where AHA is located).

elliott70
Posts: 13432
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:28 pm

This is not open enrollment as the player will still be in a community based program. It is redefining residency - where your house is or where your school is.

Is it good or bad, well, that's what I am trying to find out here, so post your opinion and your rebuttals.

Thank you.


And the 'waiver' is for one year, and the player must continue in the school district.

pebbles
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:12 pm

Post by pebbles » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:46 pm

Look at policies of other sports - baseball and lacrosse, for example. The definition of eligible players is often based on players who reside within the particular school district or are enrolled in a PUBLIC school within the district's boundaries. Private schools shouldn't even enter into this discussion. Families choose to open-enroll in public schools of neighboring districts for a variety of reasons and they often become active participants of the schools' programs. This rule would allow them to play sports for the same school district they attend.

This should NOT be about private schools in any way, shape or form. The public school scenario makes a lot of sense, though.

Vapor
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:22 pm

Post by Vapor » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:52 pm

This is a terrible idea. Conditioningsucks hit it on the head. This does nothing but create all-star Bantam teams. For the 2% of people out there that have wanted this...move if you don't like your association!! If the name on the front of the jersey says "Edina" (just an example), then the families and players that are on that team SHOULD be living in that community.

DKS1962
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:38 pm

Post by DKS1962 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:58 pm

Thats High School where the athlete has to declare at the 9th grade. Any switching schools at that point includes participation pealties. I don't think
that would work at the youth hockey level.

Open enrollment at the youth hockey level will just promote AAA all-star teams in a few select associations.

Post Reply