Catching up on the District 6 vs. Bernie discussion
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Catching up on the District 6 vs. Bernie discussion
I recently moved back to MN after a 4 year leave of absence to the east coast. I am trying to catch up with the local hockey politics after 4 years of the real politics in DC like Obama nevering going to a Caps game (probably too many Russians). Any comments on this issue so I can try to make an educated decision about where my sons play hockey this winter.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
My kids are on the younger teams. It is hard for everybody especially transplants to keep up with declarations like District 6 recently did about if you play here you can't play for Bernie. I wish at the end of the day the decision makers would say are these decisions best for the kids.
I went through all kinds of politics in VA hockey including having one son thrown out of an association becuase his older brother voluntarily left for another program. I had a hockey director tell me that if I didn't believe in his 'system' I had to take my mite out of his program.
I went through all kinds of politics in VA hockey including having one son thrown out of an association becuase his older brother voluntarily left for another program. I had a hockey director tell me that if I didn't believe in his 'system' I had to take my mite out of his program.
-
trippedovertheblueline
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:43 pm
Doesnt' sound like your kids are too young. I recommend Plymouth/Wayzata.warmskin wrote:My kids are on the younger teams. It is hard for everybody especially transplants to keep up with declarations like District 6 recently did about if you play here you can't play for Bernie. I wish at the end of the day the decision makers would say are these decisions best for the kids.
I went through all kinds of politics in VA hockey including having one son thrown out of an association becuase his older brother voluntarily left for another program. I had a hockey director tell me that if I didn't believe in his 'system' I had to take my mite out of his program.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
You can. Kids just can't play on a team in District 6 and in the Made Choice program at the same time.warmskin wrote: It is hard for everybody especially transplants to keep up with declarations like District 6 recently did about if you play here you can't play for Bernie. I wish at the end of the day the decision makers would say are these decisions best for the kids.
You may not agree with them, but the decisions are made in the best interests of the kids. ALL of the kids.
Be kind. Rewind.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
If the choice programs were born to fill the void for parents wanting more than the association programs offer, would seem quite simple to choose the choice program, and have the choice program expanded to combine the best of association hockey and the choice. Then, you can follow the rule by only doing one program. I'm sure the entreprenuerial light will turn on for the CEO of the choice program to provide 8 day/week icetime for these little shavers. It is what the kids want.
warmbody
My advice:
Have your kids play with their schoolmates where ever you decide to live.
Most teams in D6 are always good along with Wayzata and Maple Grove in D3.
If your in the Northern Metro (D10), Blaine is the clear leader with Centennial close behind. Both have access to many rinks.
East side (D2) is a tough call, White Bear and Woodbury are good programs, but both will experience talent drains come HS with the multiple schools they feed into; including private schools (Hill Murray)
Have your kids play with their schoolmates where ever you decide to live.
Most teams in D6 are always good along with Wayzata and Maple Grove in D3.
If your in the Northern Metro (D10), Blaine is the clear leader with Centennial close behind. Both have access to many rinks.
East side (D2) is a tough call, White Bear and Woodbury are good programs, but both will experience talent drains come HS with the multiple schools they feed into; including private schools (Hill Murray)
Play Like a Champion Today
advice
My advice:
take your young kids to whoever is going to teach them to skate. I don't care if its summer hockey, clinics or your winter season destination of choice. Skating is the inherent difference maker until kids hit puberty when size and game sense become major facets of the game.
I've watched kids who were third liners spend a summer at Bernie's factory and return a much better skater than his former teamates and thus developed into a better, more agile, more aggressive player.
take your young kids to whoever is going to teach them to skate. I don't care if its summer hockey, clinics or your winter season destination of choice. Skating is the inherent difference maker until kids hit puberty when size and game sense become major facets of the game.
I've watched kids who were third liners spend a summer at Bernie's factory and return a much better skater than his former teamates and thus developed into a better, more agile, more aggressive player.
New England Prep School Hockey Recruiter
Re: warmbody
Except Woodbury is in D8...but, it is on the internet...so it's trueblueblood wrote:My advice:
Have your kids play with their schoolmates where ever you decide to live.
Most teams in D6 are always good along with Wayzata and Maple Grove in D3.
If your in the Northern Metro (D10), Blaine is the clear leader with Centennial close behind. Both have access to many rinks.
East side (D2) is a tough call, White Bear and Woodbury are good programs, but both will experience talent drains come HS with the multiple schools they feed into; including private schools (Hill Murray)
Maybe they should be D2?
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
OGEE OGELTHORPE
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:44 pm
- Location: State of shock/without the awe
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
-
OGEE OGELTHORPE
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:44 pm
- Location: State of shock/without the awe
-
goaliewithfoggedglasses
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:51 pm
D6 backs down
In an email tonight from the EHA:
From District 6:
Associations-
District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.
Pete Skophammer
D6 President
From District 6:
Associations-
District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.
Pete Skophammer
D6 President
This just came out yesterday. Glad to see the MM is taking this position and aggressively charging at MH. D6 and Hewitt says there is no merit to the claim. Let's see what an objective judge, whose sole focus is on the perspective of law and with no ties to hockey, has to say about that.
Youth hockey groups face off over antitrust charges
By Brad Allen | Published Tue, Sep 14 2010 9:35 am
From ponds and backyard rinks to ice arenas across the state, Minnesotans love to fight for the puck. And that combativeness starts at a young age.
The competition recently skated into federal court as a private for-profit hockey clinic filed an antitrust lawsuit against a group of metro area youth hockey associations, charging that they are banning players who participate in their competing winter league.
Minnesota Made Hockey Inc. (MMHI) is suing Minnesota Hockey Inc. of St. Paul — a dozen metro area team clubs that make up District Six of the statewide organization — and the district’s director, Brad Hewitt of Edina.
At the heart of the suit is a rule change instituted in July that threatens to suspend players on District Six teams who “register or play hockey with any other organization, association or team during the winter hockey season.” The new rule is on the Minnesota Hockey District Six website here.
The suit seeks a preliminary injunction barring District Six from enforcing the rule. MMHI’s suit alleges enforcement of the rule interferes with its business relationships and constitutes restraint of trade and a use of monopoly power in violation of state law. It also alleges the rule violates federal antitrust law and seeks monetary damages and court costs, to be determined at trial, as well as trebled damages under the federal antitrust statute. No hearing date has been set yet.
Jason Engkjer, an attorney with Kalina, Wills, Griswold & Clark, which represents MMHI said: “We want to maintain the status quo. Things have been the way they’ve been without this rule the last 15 or 16 years ... We’re asking the judge to stop enforcement of the rule while we sort out merits of the case. We have our viewpoint; they have their viewpoint. We’ll see who wins later.”
He originally had filed suit in Scott County District Court, but the defendants moved the suit to federal court because of the federal antitrust claim.
Robert DeMay, attorney with Leonard Street and Deinard who represents both the statewide organization and Hewitt, indicated the gloves already are on the ice: “We don’t think [the injunction] should be granted ... Minnesota Hockey and Brad Hewitt will be defending vigorously and [believe] there is no merit” to the suit.
Both Hewitt and Mike Snee from Minnesota Hockey headquarters in St. Paul declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
Bernie McBain, who founded Minnesota Made Hockey 17 years ago as a hockey clinic, was more forthcoming. He said the conflict is the result of his success in competing for players.
In 2006, McBain opened a year-round ice rink on Bush Lake Road in Edina, in the heart of District Six. With his own ice that he controlled, he launched a winter league. “We started out with 90 kids four years ago.” Now, with a 24-team roster and 488 players, he says he has hurt Minnesota Hockey league participation.
McBain questions the motivation for the rule change. “They say it’s an attendance issue. Then make it an attendance rule... It really doesn’t matter. We’re the target. With [District Director] Brad Hewitt, it’s personal.”
“No other district has put this rule in, although I’ve heard they’re using this as a test case before they adopt this district-wide. That’s our feeling anyways,” he said.
“Minnesota Hockey is basically trying to shut us down,” he said. “Word is District Six was getting lot of pressure from [the statewide Minnesota Hockey] Association. ... Kids were not backing out of our program but out of their program. ... You have 10 or 15 kids back out of a smaller program -- that hurts them. We are growing quite rapidly. ... The quality level is just higher here. We tend to attract kids from all over ... upper level players. ... We make [Minnesota Hockey] work harder. We raised the bar.”
McBain, whose son Jaimie plays pro hockey for the Carolina Hurricanes, touched on a deeper issue running beneath youth sports teams — volunteer parents who run the clubs. “They all have kids in the program. ... They all have agendas.” Parents “don’t want to make somebody mad,” he said. Anxious parents worry, “What does that mean for my kid?” if they anger club officials, he said.
He contrasts his league numbers, small but growing, with what he estimates to be a much larger number of players participating across the dozen District Six teams and an even larger potential youth hockey population across the greater metro area. McBain estimated there are “about 50,000 kids at play” in the competition for youth hockey participants.
McBain also pointed out that, unlike the nonprofit club teams, he is running a for-profit business. “In property taxes alone, we spent $80,000 to run this rink. It’s not cheap.” (Hennepin County tax records show a 2010 tax bill of $81,691.62, with the first-half payment already made.)
My league will survive regardless, because there are enough people that want what we offer. But somebody’s got to stand up to these guys because they say, ‘If you don’t do what we want, we’ll blackball you.’ ”
While he’s against the boards with Minnesota Hockey, he described himself as “a huge supporter of [the national parent organization] USA Hockey. I really like what they do, but Minnesota Hockey is just run amok ... way past their boundaries.”
While the offending rule at the heart of the lawsuit is clearly targeted at winter league play, McBain sees the conflict in larger terms. “In the end, it’s kind of about freedom. ... How can you dictate what people do that’s lawful outside of your program?
“What’s the difference if you go to the park with a bunch of buddies [to play a pickup game of hockey]? What if a kid goes down to the park board and wants to play basketball? My argument is what’s next? Are you going to tell me I can’t go to church? ... During the off-season, are you going to start approving who’s OK [to play in the league]? It’s not that big a leap.”
Youth hockey groups face off over antitrust charges
By Brad Allen | Published Tue, Sep 14 2010 9:35 am
From ponds and backyard rinks to ice arenas across the state, Minnesotans love to fight for the puck. And that combativeness starts at a young age.
The competition recently skated into federal court as a private for-profit hockey clinic filed an antitrust lawsuit against a group of metro area youth hockey associations, charging that they are banning players who participate in their competing winter league.
Minnesota Made Hockey Inc. (MMHI) is suing Minnesota Hockey Inc. of St. Paul — a dozen metro area team clubs that make up District Six of the statewide organization — and the district’s director, Brad Hewitt of Edina.
At the heart of the suit is a rule change instituted in July that threatens to suspend players on District Six teams who “register or play hockey with any other organization, association or team during the winter hockey season.” The new rule is on the Minnesota Hockey District Six website here.
The suit seeks a preliminary injunction barring District Six from enforcing the rule. MMHI’s suit alleges enforcement of the rule interferes with its business relationships and constitutes restraint of trade and a use of monopoly power in violation of state law. It also alleges the rule violates federal antitrust law and seeks monetary damages and court costs, to be determined at trial, as well as trebled damages under the federal antitrust statute. No hearing date has been set yet.
Jason Engkjer, an attorney with Kalina, Wills, Griswold & Clark, which represents MMHI said: “We want to maintain the status quo. Things have been the way they’ve been without this rule the last 15 or 16 years ... We’re asking the judge to stop enforcement of the rule while we sort out merits of the case. We have our viewpoint; they have their viewpoint. We’ll see who wins later.”
He originally had filed suit in Scott County District Court, but the defendants moved the suit to federal court because of the federal antitrust claim.
Robert DeMay, attorney with Leonard Street and Deinard who represents both the statewide organization and Hewitt, indicated the gloves already are on the ice: “We don’t think [the injunction] should be granted ... Minnesota Hockey and Brad Hewitt will be defending vigorously and [believe] there is no merit” to the suit.
Both Hewitt and Mike Snee from Minnesota Hockey headquarters in St. Paul declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
Bernie McBain, who founded Minnesota Made Hockey 17 years ago as a hockey clinic, was more forthcoming. He said the conflict is the result of his success in competing for players.
In 2006, McBain opened a year-round ice rink on Bush Lake Road in Edina, in the heart of District Six. With his own ice that he controlled, he launched a winter league. “We started out with 90 kids four years ago.” Now, with a 24-team roster and 488 players, he says he has hurt Minnesota Hockey league participation.
McBain questions the motivation for the rule change. “They say it’s an attendance issue. Then make it an attendance rule... It really doesn’t matter. We’re the target. With [District Director] Brad Hewitt, it’s personal.”
“No other district has put this rule in, although I’ve heard they’re using this as a test case before they adopt this district-wide. That’s our feeling anyways,” he said.
“Minnesota Hockey is basically trying to shut us down,” he said. “Word is District Six was getting lot of pressure from [the statewide Minnesota Hockey] Association. ... Kids were not backing out of our program but out of their program. ... You have 10 or 15 kids back out of a smaller program -- that hurts them. We are growing quite rapidly. ... The quality level is just higher here. We tend to attract kids from all over ... upper level players. ... We make [Minnesota Hockey] work harder. We raised the bar.”
McBain, whose son Jaimie plays pro hockey for the Carolina Hurricanes, touched on a deeper issue running beneath youth sports teams — volunteer parents who run the clubs. “They all have kids in the program. ... They all have agendas.” Parents “don’t want to make somebody mad,” he said. Anxious parents worry, “What does that mean for my kid?” if they anger club officials, he said.
He contrasts his league numbers, small but growing, with what he estimates to be a much larger number of players participating across the dozen District Six teams and an even larger potential youth hockey population across the greater metro area. McBain estimated there are “about 50,000 kids at play” in the competition for youth hockey participants.
McBain also pointed out that, unlike the nonprofit club teams, he is running a for-profit business. “In property taxes alone, we spent $80,000 to run this rink. It’s not cheap.” (Hennepin County tax records show a 2010 tax bill of $81,691.62, with the first-half payment already made.)
My league will survive regardless, because there are enough people that want what we offer. But somebody’s got to stand up to these guys because they say, ‘If you don’t do what we want, we’ll blackball you.’ ”
While he’s against the boards with Minnesota Hockey, he described himself as “a huge supporter of [the national parent organization] USA Hockey. I really like what they do, but Minnesota Hockey is just run amok ... way past their boundaries.”
While the offending rule at the heart of the lawsuit is clearly targeted at winter league play, McBain sees the conflict in larger terms. “In the end, it’s kind of about freedom. ... How can you dictate what people do that’s lawful outside of your program?
“What’s the difference if you go to the park with a bunch of buddies [to play a pickup game of hockey]? What if a kid goes down to the park board and wants to play basketball? My argument is what’s next? Are you going to tell me I can’t go to church? ... During the off-season, are you going to start approving who’s OK [to play in the league]? It’s not that big a leap.”
MM had it good and then decided that wasn't enough. The current Minnesota model of winter season play with associations and summer AAA works very well for the vast majority. Most think it's a perfect combo. MM offers solid AAA teams and development and then could have offered clinics in the winter season for all D6 and D3 teams as well as others. Befriend them instead of compete with them. Players from those communities are the ones MM depends on for the success of their business. A number of associations have ice shortages and he easily could have filled hours in the winter by offering ice and then clinics taught by his instructors to complement association team training. Teams could benefit by training one night a week at MM. Seems like a workable model to me. That relationship will likely be difficult to repair with the District. Not very well thought out by MM in my estimation. Try and fit into the existing system and more players and families benefit. The MM brainstorming sessions regarding how to develop a successful business model must be interesting ones. Play with your association and train with the Made.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
spin-o-rama
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm
Not sure that MM business model is unsound. Offers superior skill training. Business based on internal programs that are not dependent on external organizations. Ice is booked solid most of the year. Choice for all intensive purposes is a skills program with organized scrimmages piggy backing training - fun forum for trying out skills. If MH wants to fight back in a productive way, try implementing measures for improving skill development at the schools. Problem is, many, including coaches, will complain and not want so much focus on skills. So, going full circle, that leaves MH right where it is with some of its families wanting extra development. And that's where MM fills the void. Nothing wrong with MH or MM. They both offer value and it's up to each family, not MH, to decide which services they want. That is the only legal issue here...who get's to make these decisions. MH or each family?