MN Made Choice League 2013

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

MN Made Choice League 2013

Post by thefatcat » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:30 pm

So I received an email from MN Made about registration opening up for 2013.

Noticed some differences:
-No Pee Wee league?

-Birth year ranges changed
Mite Gold - 2005 birth year
Mite Silver - 2006
Mite Bronze - 2007
Rookie - 2007/2008

-Squirts 7/1/02 to 12/31/04 age range

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Post by thefatcat » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:37 pm

Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?

O-townClown
Posts: 4026
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:29 am

thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?
Probably. The Choice program should certainly be able to field a team that is expected to compete for the AAU National Mite (2005 & younger) championship.
Be kind. Rewind.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:51 am

thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?
Actually not weird at all IF they ar ein fact teaming up with AAU to put this on. As they likely are following the birth year registration that the rest of the country follows for this program. (ie 2004's everywhere else in the whole country play squirts next year)

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Post by thefatcat » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:38 am

JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?
Actually not weird at all IF they ar ein fact teaming up with AAU to put this on. As they likely are following the birth year registration that the rest of the country follows for this program. (ie 2004's everywhere else in the whole country play squirts next year)


Was the half year cutoff a MN Hockey thing?

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:43 am

thefatcat wrote:
JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?
Actually not weird at all IF they ar ein fact teaming up with AAU to put this on. As they likely are following the birth year registration that the rest of the country follows for this program. (ie 2004's everywhere else in the whole country play squirts next year)


Was the half year cutoff a MN Hockey thing?
Way back when it was more prevalent, but it's been just a MN Hockey thing for a long time now. The rest of teh country be it association level, Tier 1 AAA, spring/summer hockey whatever they all go birth year. MN Hockey winter season is the only one I know of with the half year cutoff

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:47 am

It looks like they are trying to retain those kids that would be PeeWee's everywhere else in the country (those born between 01/01/02 and 07/01/02) and place them in with the Squirts while every other age group is in line with the birth years. Most likely since they don't have the numbers to put together a PeeWee team since they only have 6 months worth of kids to pull from. I bet they offer PeeWees in the future as their classes move up.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:48 am

JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:
JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?
Actually not weird at all IF they ar ein fact teaming up with AAU to put this on. As they likely are following the birth year registration that the rest of the country follows for this program. (ie 2004's everywhere else in the whole country play squirts next year)


Was the half year cutoff a MN Hockey thing?
Way back when it was more prevalent, but it's been just a MN Hockey thing for a long time now. The rest of teh country be it association level, Tier 1 AAA, spring/summer hockey whatever they all go birth year. MN Hockey winter season is the only one I know of with the half year cutoff
The Dakotas follow Minnesota's half year cutoff.

CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 1:20 pm

Post by CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:01 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:..... (those born between 01/01/02 and 07/01/02).......
I think you meant between 7/1/2002 and 12/31/2002.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:47 pm

CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:..... (those born between 01/01/02 and 07/01/02).......
I think you meant between 7/1/2002 and 12/31/2002.
You are correct, that is what I meant.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:37 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:
JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:
JSR wrote:
thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?

Seems weird that they included late '04's with Squirts. You'll have some 3rd graders who would normally be Mite 3 or Mite Gold equivalent playing with Squirts?
Actually not weird at all IF they ar ein fact teaming up with AAU to put this on. As they likely are following the birth year registration that the rest of the country follows for this program. (ie 2004's everywhere else in the whole country play squirts next year)


Was the half year cutoff a MN Hockey thing?
Way back when it was more prevalent, but it's been just a MN Hockey thing for a long time now. The rest of teh country be it association level, Tier 1 AAA, spring/summer hockey whatever they all go birth year. MN Hockey winter season is the only one I know of with the half year cutoff
The Dakotas follow Minnesota's half year cutoff.
Aren't the Dakotas just MN suburbs.... LOL :D

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Post by thefatcat » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:46 pm

My lil' Johnny Superstar was born late December '04 and would have played Mite Gold under the old setup....now he'll be considered a Squirt.

That will cost me an extra $1K :( which sucks but it would have been the same cost the following season whether it was MM or Assoc.

My lil' Johnny is gonna have to step it up if he wants to play with the big boys this coming season.

I wonder if they'll do Super Squirts (checking) again with the higher '05's and low '06's?
Last edited by thefatcat on Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Texmex
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:15 pm

Post by Texmex » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:24 pm

They are having a Pee Wee Checking league that will be like the SSQ checking with same hours and games, with most of the SSQ checking league kids going to Pee Wees. The late 02s and 03s will be in SSQ checking and 03s and 04 in the Squirt Choice (no checking).

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Post by thefatcat » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:43 pm

Texmex wrote:They are having a Pee Wee Checking league that will be like the SSQ checking with same hours and games, with most of the SSQ checking league kids going to Pee Wees. The late 02s and 03s will be in SSQ checking and 03s and 04 in the Squirt Choice (no checking).
Ah, ok. I went the wrong way with my birth years....public school math

thefatcat
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:16 pm

Post by thefatcat » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:32 pm

O-townClown wrote:
thefatcat wrote:Did they drop the 1/2 year age ranges because they've teamed up with AAU?
Probably. The Choice program should certainly be able to field a team that is expected to compete for the AAU National Mite (2005 & younger) championship.


They dropped the Pee Wee supplemental league and the Pee Wee Choice league is by invite only, they don't advertise it.

They did say that the late '04 kids are in a bit of a tough spot this season since they're caught between Squirts and Mite Gold. They said that they would adjust accordingly. If a late '04 has tough sledding in Squirts, they'll move them back to Mite Gold but they would not be allowed to play in the AAU Nat'l Championships.

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Post by Redarmy19 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:51 am

MN Made looks to come away big with the USA Hockey cross-ice mandate for Mites. Does anyone know where MN Hockey stands with this? Did they get an exemption for this rule?

jg2112
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:16 pm

Redarmy19 wrote:MN Made looks to come away big with the USA Hockey cross-ice mandate for Mites. Does anyone know where MN Hockey stands with this? Did they get an exemption for this rule?
I have no idea, but people standing on their head in anger over a cross-ice mandate is just moronic to me.

8 year old soccer players don't play on high school fields.

6 year old baseball players don't throw curveballs.

8 year old football players don't play on 100-yard fields.

Full ice hockey for 8 year olds only helps development of 2 or 3 good players in any association team. Furthermore, it frustrates lesser-skilled kids, and it does not teach the close control and passing skill required to be successful as a kid gets older.

While I don't care for a mandate and don't think it should be imposed, what should be imposed by associations is common sense. A team is only as good as its "worst" players, and those lesser-skilled players stand no chance to succeed unless they learn how to operate in close quarters.

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Post by Redarmy19 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:10 pm

I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.

jg2112
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:13 pm

Redarmy19 wrote:I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last point. Those parents can buy in at whatever level they wish. I paid $50 for my daughter to play 2nd year Mites / U8 in the 2011-12 season and $165 for her to play up at C Squirts last year (guess the association?), while these jokermanz will pay $2,200 for their kids to perfect their post-goal celebrations.

jpiehl
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:09 am

Post by jpiehl » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:33 pm

jg2112 wrote:
Redarmy19 wrote:I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last point. Those parents can buy in at whatever level they wish. I paid $50 for my daughter to play 2nd year Mites / U8 in the 2011-12 season and $165 for her to play up at C Squirts last year (guess the association?), while these jokermanz will pay $2,200 for their kids to perfect their post-goal celebrations.
If you are such a firm believer in cross ice for mites, why did you have your daughter play up to C Squirts where the games are all full ice?

Redarmy19
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 am

Post by Redarmy19 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:41 pm

I must say though, I don't agree with the arguments that say soccer, baseball, football all play on smaller fields in youth sports so why shouldn't hockey. That's because those fields are significantly larger than a full sized hockey rink. A Mite can skate the length of the ice in 10 seconds. It would take significantly longer to run the length of a football field, round the bases, or run the length of a soccer field.

So to clarify my previous post....I don't think Advanced/4th year Mites should play cross-ice at all (other than in practice), but if they are going to mandate it the second half of the year should at least be full ice.

jg2112
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:23 pm

jpiehl wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
Redarmy19 wrote:I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last point. Those parents can buy in at whatever level they wish. I paid $50 for my daughter to play 2nd year Mites / U8 in the 2011-12 season and $165 for her to play up at C Squirts last year (guess the association?), while these jokermanz will pay $2,200 for their kids to perfect their post-goal celebrations.
If you are such a firm believer in cross ice for mites, why did you have your daughter play up to C Squirts where the games are all full ice?
A couple of reasons. She was in her fourth year of skating and third year of hockey, and she was a 5'0" 9 year old at the beginning of the 2012-13 season who played full ice all last summer. She was a foot taller than most kids she was playing against at U8 so moving up was reasonable.

For my 6 year old boy, however, cross-ice is best for him for the next couple of years.

jpiehl
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:09 am

Post by jpiehl » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:47 pm

jg2112 wrote:
jpiehl wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
Redarmy19 wrote:I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last point. Those parents can buy in at whatever level they wish. I paid $50 for my daughter to play 2nd year Mites / U8 in the 2011-12 season and $165 for her to play up at C Squirts last year (guess the association?), while these jokermanz will pay $2,200 for their kids to perfect their post-goal celebrations.
If you are such a firm believer in cross ice for mites, why did you have your daughter play up to C Squirts where the games are all full ice?
A couple of reasons. She was in her fourth year of skating and third year of hockey, and she was a 5'0" 9 year old at the beginning of the 2012-13 season who played full ice all last summer. She was a foot taller than most kids she was playing against at U8 so moving up was reasonable.

For my 6 year old boy, however, cross-ice is best for him for the next couple of years.
None of those are valid arguments with USA Hockey. I get that you did what you thought was best for your own child, but why would you want to take that option away from others, and mock some that would make the same choice by the only way they can, by sending their child to Minnesota Made?

jg2112
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:53 pm

jpiehl wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
jpiehl wrote:
jg2112 wrote:
Redarmy19 wrote:I totally agree with you. But good luck convincing the 4-10 parents and players from each team that they should be playing cross-ice after they've already had a taste of full-ice.

I really think it should have been slowly implemented, with mandating 1st and 2nd year Mites with cross-ice this year (most association are already doing it anyway). Then next year mandate for Intermediate/3rd year Mites. The following year implement a rule for Advanced/4th year Mites that is cross-ice for the first half of the year and full ice for the last half to help prepare them for Squirts.

You're going to have parents who don't buy in no matter what, and because of that MN Made is sitting pretty.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last point. Those parents can buy in at whatever level they wish. I paid $50 for my daughter to play 2nd year Mites / U8 in the 2011-12 season and $165 for her to play up at C Squirts last year (guess the association?), while these jokermanz will pay $2,200 for their kids to perfect their post-goal celebrations.
If you are such a firm believer in cross ice for mites, why did you have your daughter play up to C Squirts where the games are all full ice?
A couple of reasons. She was in her fourth year of skating and third year of hockey, and she was a 5'0" 9 year old at the beginning of the 2012-13 season who played full ice all last summer. She was a foot taller than most kids she was playing against at U8 so moving up was reasonable.

For my 6 year old boy, however, cross-ice is best for him for the next couple of years.
None of those are valid arguments with USA Hockey. I get that you did what you thought was best for your own child, but why would you want to take that option away from others, and mock some that would make the same choice by the only way they can, by sending their child to Minnesota Made?
First off - the option of playing up at C Squirts I believe exists with most Associations. If the kid is big enough and (importantly) old enough like my daughter was, there's no issue with doing it in my mind.

The problem is that neither USA Hockey / MN Hockey is flexible in this regard. Full-ice is alright for some older kids but cross-ice retains its benefits for kids of any age.

And the idea folks have to spend $2,200 to get the training they feel they need is just too bad in my mind. But I'm not mocking anyone. Certainly not, just joking around.

old goalie85
Posts: 3697
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:01 pm

No one is allowed to "joke" around about " The Made". [-X

Post Reply