Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[GoldThorpe]

I agree with Who's Puck...June 1st should be the appropriate date.

[welders]

But our highly scientific survey showed that Minnesota Hockey is vastly different in terms of demographics from the results found in the montains of data that already exist.

That is apparently the forthcoming "real data" referred to by MH in the Age Update.

The only "real data" that DOES matter in this discussion is the results of the surveys sent out to the 4000 June birthdate Minnesota Hockey families. Any other "data" referred to by valleyball, hockeymom, and others is meaningless and will be shown to be so. If these same people attempt to discredit the results of these surveys when finished, it will just show that some people have an agenda other that what is the best for MN youth hockey, and need to be called out.

What if the data from this survey shows that 50% of June birthdates started school at age 6? The change to June 1 would allow this 50% to play with the kids in their grade. The other 50% that is a grade ahead could stay where they are at or move down, a win-win situation. But how many kids of the second 50% would want to leave their friends and classmates and move down and play with kids in the grade below. My guess is, not many.

The bottom line is that hockey players should be playing with kids in their grade. Using the hypothetical 50% again, if MN Hockey decides not to change to June 1, does the fact that roughly 2000 June birthdate hockey players will not be playing with their classmates and won't be able to play Bantam hockey as 9th graders sound like what's best for MN youth hockey?

Anyone that thinks a Sept. 1 date keeps kids in the same grade playing together must not fully understand the issue. Now you have well over half of all June, July, and August birthdate kids forced to play a grade ahead, maybe as many as 8000 (66% of 12000) statewide in any given year. A Sept. 1 date totally ignores the fact that a large percentage of boys with summer birthdates are starting school a year later.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

well said

[observer]

Welder,

A few things. 95% of kids do skate with their grade they're trying to get it to 97%. If a kid isn't skating with his grade he's probably older which can be an advantage. The last poll MN Hockey did they got responses from like 20% of the families so is that an effective measurement regarding preference.

In my 8 years of association hockey I've known of two kids that fell into this area. Both were July birthdays and both were in school with the April, May and Junes which is becoming less common. I believe we've heard that more than 50% of July birthdays don't start school with the spring birthdays and June. The association allowed one to play up with his classmates. The other chose not to play up with his classmates. It allowed him to play at the A level for a year, which he would not have had he moved up with his class, and then instead of a single year of bantam he went straight to JV as a 10th grader. Two in 8 years.

I suspect that people that are resisting this logical change have a child with a good friend, that may be a strong player, that has a July birthday, and they don't want to lose that player from their son's team. Looking out for their own personal situation (selfish) and not what's best for the majority of July birthdays. If fewer than 50% of July birthdays start school with the June ones then that's a majority.

[dakotakid]

why not go with birth year like the rest of north america?

[spin-o-rama]

A lot of supposed results from the survey are being posted. Where is a copy of the survey and the actual results - including the % of respondants- to be found?

Why just a survey of June born kids? Maybe mh should survey March born kids and ask if they want to be the oldest. Then they could move the date to 3/1. Of course people will favor an advantage - be it age or otherwise. It's like making the goals smaller and allowing larger goalie equipment based on a survey of the goalies.

MH surveyed the wrong crowd. They should have surveyed the State and their affiliates. The State has data on the age of kids when they start school. mh could also poll their affiliates to provide the grade of kids by birth month. Then they might have some info to go to town with.

The mh website says that late start June kids currently have to play every other year against kids 2 grades in front. So what? They are still playing inside a 2 year age bracket. Should youth sports be grouped by age or grade? The best scenario is age due to the physical differences, with the cutoff date matching the grade cutoff date. 9/1.

Serious hockey players will play regardless of the cutoff date. More recreational players (the numbers MH should be trying to grow the most) will be lost by moving the date earlier than will be gained.

[InigoMontoya]

More recreational players (the numbers MH should be trying to grow the most) will be lost by moving the date earlier than will be gained.

This statement simply contradicts logic. I just don't see a rec player choosing to quit because a kid in his grade (that he plays baseball with) will now be playing hockey with him, as well. It does seem to me that a kid who has to play with zero classmates every other year might quit.

To be honest, this topic is kind of boring.

[spin-o-rama]

More recreational players (the numbers MH should be trying to grow the most) will be lost by moving the date earlier than will be gained.

This statement simply contradicts logic. I just don't see a rec player choosing to quit because a kid in his grade (that he plays baseball with) will now be playing hockey with him, as well. It does seem to me that a kid who has to play with zero classmates every other year might quit.

To be honest, this topic is kind of boring.

No it doesn't. You actually stated part of what makes it logical. More June born kids started K at age 5 than delayed. A move to June 1 will mean they are younger by over 2 years or they play with zero classmates every other year. This will lead to quitting or never trying hockey. The losses from this majority of the June b-day segment will outweigh any gains from the minority (delayed start) segment.

If mh really wants to align the age groups by grade, they will match the cutoff date to the school cutoff date of 9/1. Using 7/1 or 6/1 is just as illogical as if they claimed the goal is to match the USA date and then moved the cutoff date to 10/1.

This may be boring, but it's more interesting to me than the IP sleuthing on the other threads.

[sinbin]

valley, some good stats, but unfortunately the sources are all 10 - 20 years old. Do you (or anyone else) have anything (i.e., documented, large enough numbers to be credible, MN-specific to take out any geographic, cultural, or socioeconomic biases, etc.) more recent? It sounds like a small percentage of parents are trying to create their own Matthew Effect. It started with the Augusts, then the Julys, and now some of the Junes want in, too. Let's just keep going earlier and earlier until we come full circle to September of the previous year so these kids start kindergarten at age 7. Will that make everybody happy?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

What will make everybody happy is finding the right cutoff date ... no single date will please everyone, but that doesn't mean there isn't a right date.

It may indeed be September 1 to coincide with school cutoff ... it might be June 1 to account for those summer birthdays who get held back ... it might be January 1 to syncronize with the rest of the world ...

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the correct date IS NOT July 1 ... this date makes no sense whatsoever ...

The first 3 all have merit, depending on what you are trying to accomplish ...[/i]

[InigoMontoya]

A move to June 1 will mean they are younger by over 2 years or they play with zero classmates every other year.

That's already true at July 1.

If mh really wants to align the age groups by grade, they will match the cutoff date to the school cutoff date of 9/1.

That only makes sense if the state enforce 9/1 as a "you can't be older than" date.

This may be boring, but it's more interesting to me than the IP sleuthing on the other threads.

Can't agree with you more.

[F14]

ONLY 4% of Kids with Summer Birthdays Start school at Age 6, meaning 96% of kids are 5 when they start school. It seems like in hockey, it's way HIGHER than 4%.

[spin-o-rama]

ONLY 4% of Kids with Summer Birthdays Start school at Age 6, meaning 96% of kids are 5 when they start school.

Where did you conjure up that little nugget? Dept of Education says that 10% of all kids start at age 6. See the link a few pages back.

It seems like in hockey, it's way HIGHER than 4%.

Why make a guess? Why not make up a a stat for this like your 96% stat?

[welders]

why not go with birth year like the rest of north america?

Because a Jan. 1 cutoff would almost perfectly split kids in any given grade into different age groups every other year. That is precisely what MN Hockey is trying to avoid.

[welders]

It started with the Augusts, then the Julys, and now some of the Junes want in, too. Let's just keep going earlier and earlier until we come full circle to September of the previous year so these kids start kindergarten at age 7. Will that make everybody happy?

At this time fewer than 5% of May birthdates start Kindergarten at age 6, so why would MN Hockey even consider a May 1 cutoff. But, who knows, in ten years it could be 60%. At that point, MN Hockey would be obligated to take a look at a change to May 1. But right now, the numbers will show the best date is June 1.

[welders]

Here we go again……“the large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten..”

Really?? large numbers?

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry- 10%

- trend; percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry - declining

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a summer birthday (June, July, August) - 4%

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a June birthday - 1%

- percentage of Kindergartners that are 6 years old upon entry with a May birthday - 1%

I can't believe some of the numbers people come up with. My wife's good friend does Early Childhood Screening here in our local school district. The trend for summer birthdates to start later is increasing statewide over the last 5-10 years. There is some thought that our recent poor economy has slowed this somewhat because it is less expensive to put a child in school earlier. The "4% of summer birthdays" is more like 50% to upwards of 75%, higher the later the birthdate and higher for boys than girls. June birthdays run roughly 50%, again higher with boys than girls. If anybody has a hard time believing the numbers, all they have to do is call their local school district and ask to talk to the Early Childhood Screening program.

[timcorbin21]

in our district 25% of the high school students are old enough to be in the next higher grade.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Right ... and most of them would be June, July & August kids

[Ugottobekiddingme]

The answer to age requirements as it relates to birth date can be answered with one date. I suggest April 15th as the determining date so people can decide whether it's worth putting money back down on an athletic program after another long year of hockey with the association. Do I need to explain the reason of insanity again?

[longrebound]

If it is truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade, then why use birth date at all? Why not just declare that anyone in 4th/5th grade is a Squirt, 6th/7th is a Pee Wee, etc.?

Not advocating, just asking.

[timcorbin21]

" truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade"

thats not the issue.
with a cutoff of either june or july the summer born kids that delayed kindergarten are moved up to play with the kids in the next higher grade which is where they would have been if they went to school when they were 5

[muckandgrind]

If it is truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade, then why use birth date at all? Why not just declare that anyone in 4th/5th grade is a Squirt, 6th/7th is a Pee Wee, etc.?

Not advocating, just asking.

What do you do with the "slow learning" child who repeats the 7th grade three times....does he get to be a 15 year old PeeWee?

[HockeyDad41]

If it is truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade, then why use birth date at all? Why not just declare that anyone in 4th/5th grade is a Squirt, 6th/7th is a Pee Wee, etc.?

Not advocating, just asking.

What do you do with the "slow learning" child who repeats the 7th grade three times....does he get to be a 15 year old PeeWee?

You would apply "Common Sense" in this case.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

If it is truly important for kids to play with others in their own grade, then why use birth date at all? Why not just declare that anyone in 4th/5th grade is a Squirt, 6th/7th is a Pee Wee, etc.?

Not advocating, just asking.

I'm not sure what would be so terrible about that ... we do that for football and the sport seems to survive and thrive quite well ...

[Haute hockeymom]

The results of the MH Survey will not be helpful because respondents are self-selected.

Bias occurs when individuals have motivation to respond to a survey. (ie., those who favour a Date Change). These individuals are far more likely to respond to the survey and, therefore, are overrepresented in the results.

If MH receives 1000 responses (unlikely) and 80% claim they have delayed entry it cannot be taken to mean 80% of the total (4000 June birthdates) delay entry.


By the way, has anyone seen the Survey?