Eligibility Question

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Eligibility Question

Post by The Exiled One » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:42 pm

Hypothetical here, but related to something I'm involved in...

Let's say a kid decided to play Tier 1 this year then quickly figured out he hated it and wanted to go back to the association. Several parts to this question:

1. What steps does the kid need to take to officially leave his Tier 1 team?

2. Is he eligible to play for the top team in his association? Does it make a difference if he was kicked off his team?

3. Assuming yes to the question above, if the association doesn't let him on to the top team (or let him back into the association at all), would he be eligible for the top team of a different association?

4. Assuming that the kid is highly talented, realistically speaking, what other options might he have?

Elliott, I'd love to get your input here. Thanks to all in advance.

saveforcollege
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:21 pm

Post by saveforcollege » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:09 pm

You can only be on one roster so first order of business would be to get released from Tier 1 roster. USA Hockey rosters need to be frozen by late December so there is technically time for the local association to make room for him or waive him elsewhere. Each association should have their own written policies that would address the situation. If this were somebody in my association I would hope the board would tell the family welcome to the C team as everybody else had to go through the tryout process. I would not expect that this player/family would be accepted by all with open arms.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Post by The Exiled One » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:19 pm

saveforcollege wrote:If this were somebody in my association I would hope the board would tell the family welcome to the C team as everybody else had to go through the tryout process.
Hypothetically, let's say this offer was conveyed and rejected. Should the association waive the kid if he requests it? Also, I still need to know if he'd be eligible for his new association's top team. Does it make a difference that the waiver is discretionary versus being a mandatory school attendance waiver?

saveforcollege
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:21 pm

Post by saveforcollege » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:37 pm

I think you will find registration to be closed at most levels in most associations. Any answers you are looking for are only going to be found by contacting each association directly.

Jeffy95
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:45 pm

Post by Jeffy95 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:13 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
saveforcollege wrote:If this were somebody in my association I would hope the board would tell the family welcome to the C team as everybody else had to go through the tryout process.
Hypothetically, let's say this offer was conveyed and rejected. Should the association waive the kid if he requests it? Also, I still need to know if he'd be eligible for his new association's top team. Does it make a difference that the waiver is discretionary versus being a mandatory school attendance waiver?
Whether they should waive him or not is irrelevant. It's their choice unless the District Director steps in. You have to contact your District Director. He is the only one that can give you these answers. Even if he gets waived, I can't imagine a new Association allowing a kid on the top team in this circumstances but I suppose anything is possible.

elliott70
Posts: 12165
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:16 pm

Jeffy95 wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
saveforcollege wrote:If this were somebody in my association I would hope the board would tell the family welcome to the C team as everybody else had to go through the tryout process.
Hypothetically, let's say this offer was conveyed and rejected. Should the association waive the kid if he requests it? Also, I still need to know if he'd be eligible for his new association's top team. Does it make a difference that the waiver is discretionary versus being a mandatory school attendance waiver?
Whether they should waive him or not is irrelevant. It's their choice unless the District Director steps in. You have to contact your District Director. He is the only one that can give you these answers. Even if he gets waived, I can't imagine a new Association allowing a kid on the top team in this circumstances but I suppose anything is possible.
All of the above are correct.
Most of this depends to a degree on how he waived out of his local association to start. Then it would go back to the local association where they have written policy regarding something like this. If the DD (MH) is brought in a place for him to play will be found. Putting him on the C team should not be done as it skews that team against their competition and thus is not fair to others that have nothing to do with it. Putting him on the top team would not be fair IF they bump someone.

At this time you would need to be more specific to get a definitive answer.

Fortunately in D16 we do not have any tier I quality players.
:D :lol: :lol: :D

The Great Satan
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:44 pm

Re: Eligibility Question

Post by The Great Satan » Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:46 pm

The Exiled One wrote:Hypothetical here, but related to something I'm involved in...

Let's say a kid decided to play Tier 1 this year then quickly figured out he hated it and wanted to go back to the association. Several parts to this question:

1. What steps does the kid need to take to officially leave his Tier 1 team?

2. Is he eligible to play for the top team in his association? Does it make a difference if he was kicked off his team?

3. Assuming yes to the question above, if the association doesn't let him on to the top team (or let him back into the association at all), would he be eligible for the top team of a different association?

4. Assuming that the kid is highly talented, realistically speaking, what other options might he have?

Elliott, I'd love to get your input here. Thanks to all in advance.
Hypothetically? Hmmm...

1. He will need to be waived out off of his existing Tier 1 team. Given his particular hypothetical Tier 1 team's owner, this will be no small endeavor.

2. Frankly, his home association has no obligation to put him on a top team. Hypothetically, he left his home association and hypothetically, missed tryouts.

3. While I'm sure there are many associations that welcome such a player with open arms and bylaws be damned, his hypothetical home association would have to let him back in, if he retained a waiver from his Tier 1 team. Again, good luck with that.

Any association that would give him a hypothetical open invite to their top team, after countless vested kids have tried out and teams have been formed, is fraudulent at best, and likely morally corrupt.

4. Other hypothetical options? The Made is always an option and will cash nearly anyone's check at any time. Otherwise, his local high school may be a hypothetical option as well.

It's too bad this hypothetical player and his parents weren't content to stay with their home association. Sounds like a few too many hypothetical cooks in the kitchen.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:18 pm

I'm pretty sure you don't need to obtain a waiver from your home association to leave for a Tier 1 team so why would you need to obtain a waiver from the Tier 1 team to go back to your Tier 2 association? The only reason I can think of for being blocked from re-enrolling back in your home association is if you owed the old Tier 1 team money.

JSR
Posts: 1670
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:26 pm

Post by JSR » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:40 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:I'm pretty sure you don't need to obtain a waiver from your home association to leave for a Tier 1 team so why would you need to obtain a waiver from the Tier 1 team to go back to your Tier 2 association? The only reason I can think of for being blocked from re-enrolling back in your home association is if you owed the old Tier 1 team money.
Because the Tier 1 team lists them on their official USA Hockey roster. And according to USA Hockey you can only be officially rostered on ONE USA Hockey winter team. You'd need the waiver from the Tier 1 team to verify the skater has been released and is free to join any USA Hockey team they want that they are eligible for.

To the OP. The reality is there are the MH Rules, the USA Hockey rules, and the association bylaws to deal with but also there is the real world stuff too. And the in regards to the real world stuff age matters in these things. The options available to a bantam or midget/high school aged player are a lot different than those available to a pee wee or squirt. Etc...

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Eligibility Question

Post by The Exiled One » Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:34 pm

The Great Satan wrote:4. Other hypothetical options? The Made is always an option and will cash nearly anyone's check at any time. Otherwise, his local high school may be a hypothetical option as well.
Made rosters are full. Per MSHSL rules, 8th graders can't play high school unless there are no cuts. There were cuts.

I agree that poor decisions were made. Exploring the options that remain was what I was most curious about.

EDIT: Thanks for the answers everybody! The situation is settled.

old goalie85
Posts: 3695
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:37 am

Post by old goalie85 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:57 pm

wrong on 8th grader rule. [see joey anderson 8th grade stats] i never heard of such a rule.

old goalie85
Posts: 3695
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:37 am

Post by old goalie85 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 5:10 pm

certainly not MSHL rule.

Daulton21
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:00 pm

Post by Daulton21 » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:07 pm

Help me understand the logic, If I'm reading this correctly? Were talking about a "Stud" Player (very good) so we prove a point, (punish him/her) by forcing him/her to play on a team of lessor skilled players. So now player possibly dominates play, scores more, handles the puck every time he/she is on the ice. Other teams get upset because that team is "Sandbagging" I am missing out on how this hurts the "better Player" I've seen small associations have to play down a level or two because they do not have the depth / numbers to play at the highest levels, However they have that one or two kids that clearly belong on higher teams. Those players score multiple points each game. I've seen teams such as this make it to B-State tournaments because other teams clearly cannot match that TOP end talent. Anyway, I guess just had to respond.

flpucknut
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:24 pm

Post by flpucknut » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:11 pm

Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Post by The Exiled One » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:47 pm

flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.

InThePipes
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:26 am

Post by InThePipes » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:47 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Which important details are missing that would allow this to seem more acceptable? Maybe this family now lives on the south side of the metro within the association boundaries for the team he just joined or that the player now attends a school within those association boundaries?

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Post by The Exiled One » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:47 pm

InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Which important details are missing that would allow this to seem more acceptable? Maybe this family now lives on the south side of the metro within the association boundaries for the team he just joined or that the player now attends a school within those association boundaries?
Why do you care? I just agreed with the principle.

InThePipes
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:26 am

Post by InThePipes » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:14 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Which important details are missing that would allow this to seem more acceptable? Maybe this family now lives on the south side of the metro within the association boundaries for the team he just joined or that the player now attends a school within those association boundaries?
Why do you care? I just agreed with the principle.
Sorry, I inferred from your previous response that you were privy to the details that would make this situation appear more acceptable than it currently appears.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Post by The Exiled One » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:30 am

InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Which important details are missing that would allow this to seem more acceptable? Maybe this family now lives on the south side of the metro within the association boundaries for the team he just joined or that the player now attends a school within those association boundaries?
Why do you care? I just agreed with the principle.
Sorry, I inferred from your previous response that you were privy to the details that would make this situation appear more acceptable than it currently appears.
If I did have details, I would feel no compulsion to share them with you.

InThePipes
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:26 am

Post by InThePipes » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:31 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
InThePipes wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Which important details are missing that would allow this to seem more acceptable? Maybe this family now lives on the south side of the metro within the association boundaries for the team he just joined or that the player now attends a school within those association boundaries?
Why do you care? I just agreed with the principle.
Sorry, I inferred from your previous response that you were privy to the details that would make this situation appear more acceptable than it currently appears.
If I did have details, I would feel no compulsion to share them with you.
Happy holidays

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:33 pm

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:27 pm

So let's recap

A parent told his kid he shouldn't play association hockey yet play Tier 1. A month or so later this doesn't work out and the parent goes back to their association hoping to be placed on a team (maybe the top team).

Association says thanks but no thanks so the parent calls all his contacts until he finds a top team that for some odd reason, still has a spot open on their roster. Kid is now playing on a team 45 minutes from his house.

Survey...who is more mad?

1. The kid for listening to his dad?
2. The dad for now having to listen to his wife tell him over and over "I told you so!"
3. The Tier 1 team for losing the dollar revenue
4. Their old association for losing a number (and maybe a top kid)
5. The new association for taking a kid that for sure won't be back next year and now has to answer to the 15 "B team" parents

thespellchecker
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 4:42 am

Post by thespellchecker » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:00 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:So let's recap

A parent told his kid he shouldn't play association hockey yet play Tier 1. A month or so later this doesn't work out and the parent goes back to their association hoping to be placed on a team (maybe the top team).

Association says thanks but no thanks so the parent calls all his contacts until he finds a top team that for some odd reason, still has a spot open on their roster. Kid is now playing on a team 45 minutes from his house.

Survey...who is more mad?

1. The kid for listening to his dad?
2. The dad for now having to listen to his wife tell him over and over "I told you so!"
3. The Tier 1 team for losing the dollar revenue
4. Their old association for losing a number (and maybe a top kid)
5. The new association for taking a kid that for sure won't be back next year and now has to answer to the 15 "B team" parents

1,5,3,2,4.
8-TIME weekly & 2-Time Season Pick Em Champ

flpucknut
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:24 pm

Post by flpucknut » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:48 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
flpucknut wrote:Hasn't this set a very dangerous precedent? So a player decided to not play association hockey, fine. Decides to play on a new tier 1 team, fine. Now after tryouts are over decided to quit said tier 1 team, gets waitered out of own association and now basically become a free agent. Its not like the kid went to the next association over, when I saw him on the roster he is currently on I couldn't believe it. So now what has been set as a precedent?
That if you are good, you can "try" tier 1, if you don't like it, get waivered out on the promise of your return in a year, go join the best team that will take you and try to win state. All involved should be ashamed including the coach that took him 45 minutes away from his home association.
If that was the sum total of all the details pertaining to the situation, then yes, it may create a less than ideal precedent. Obviously, you are not privy to all the details.
Take this kid and this specific situation out of it. The scenario I described can happen exactly like that next year. My point was that this has set a very dangerous precedent.

Kids/Parents/Coaches have now learned that there is a way around the rules. Watch the flood gates open.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:33 pm

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:25 pm

I don't disagree with you. Minnesota hockey is at a crossroads with Tier 1..Do they "embrace" Tier 1 and try to work with it or figure how to limit competition to our current community based model. For fall and spring, MN Hockey is now in the tier 1 business so it's a little trickier how they approach the winter based tier 1 momentum.

Until then, parents are going to shop their kids every time things don't go their way and the associations are somewhat handcuffed on what they can do to limit it.

If you look around at most of the bigger (and stronger) associations, on almost every team is 1,2, 3 kids who either just moved into the area for hockey or is playing the open enroll game. These larger associations are really becoming to look more and more like a tier 1 all star team then a team of neighborhood kids.

Jeffy95
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:45 pm

Post by Jeffy95 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:04 pm

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I don't disagree with you. Minnesota hockey is at a crossroads with Tier 1..Do they "embrace" Tier 1 and try to work with it or figure how to limit competition to our current community based model. For fall and spring, MN Hockey is now in the tier 1 business so it's a little trickier how they approach the winter based tier 1 momentum.

Until then, parents are going to shop their kids every time things don't go their way and the associations are somewhat handcuffed on what they can do to limit it.

If you look around at most of the bigger (and stronger) associations, on almost every team is 1,2, 3 kids who either just moved into the area for hockey or is playing the open enroll game. These larger associations are really becoming to look more and more like a tier 1 all star team then a team of neighborhood kids.
MN Hockey controls Winter Tier 1 also, not just Fall and Spring. There is no Tier 1 at all without their charter.

It's not a surprise that this kid would not like Tier 1 and want to go back to Association. Very few, (if any) kids would ever choose that option if their parents didn't push them to. Kids just want to have fun and play with their buddies. They don't want it to become their job.

Post Reply