Minnesota Hockey - how can we help?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

elliott70
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Minnesota Hockey - how can we help?

Post by elliott70 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:35 am

What can MH do to help at the local level?
How can we do things different to make hockey better?

Please give me your ideas, comments, concerns and criticism.

If not here, then PM me or email me or call me.

Thank you.

State meeting is on Jan 27-29, so prior to Jan 26 would be good.

nahc
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:10 pm

Post by nahc » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:24 pm

Elliott you may also want to post this on the boys and girls High School Forum. Am thinking you will probably get more responses......

elliott70
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:31 pm

nahc wrote:Elliott you may also want to post this on the boys and girls High School Forum. Am thinking you will probably get more responses......
Thanks

blueline_6
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:50 am

How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.

jg2112
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:54 am

Here's a few ideas, specifically with the goal of player development:

(1) Instead of a season-long limit at any level, institute a limit on the number of "game days" a team can have per month such that it has a 2:1 practice to game ratio at the end of each month (or even 2 month period).

(2) Require youth associations to adhere to the Minnesota Development Model "Best Practices" document on the MN Hockey website - particularly with regard to practice to game ratios and off-ice training. Require youth association administrators to submit forms showing adherence. Audit and sanction those associations that do not adhere to those Best Practices. Provide associations without sufficient ice time the means to acquire that ice time, or force them to co-op so they can provide an adequate development environment for their players.

My player's team is currently at a 1:1 practice to game ratio three months into the season. The players being affected the most are not the top end players, but rather, those who need the focus on developing their skills.

blueline_6
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:28 am

Unfortunately not all associations have enough available ice to maintain a 2:1 practice/game ratio throughout the season. We have to front-load seasons with practices because once the local high school programs start up we have less ice available. We are purchasing ice from a neighboring community but they don't have enough available to get us where we would like to be. We're large enough (and so are our neighbors) that we don't need to co-op. Sanctioning us would basically be punishing us for not building another sheet of ice.

money, money, money.....
Last edited by blueline_6 on Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:28 am

blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:30 am

jg2112 wrote:Here's a few ideas, specifically with the goal of player development:

(1) Instead of a season-long limit at any level, institute a limit on the number of "game days" a team can have per month such that it has a 2:1 practice to game ratio at the end of each month (or even 2 month period).

(2) Require youth associations to adhere to the Minnesota Development Model "Best Practices" document on the MN Hockey website - particularly with regard to practice to game ratios and off-ice training. Require youth association administrators to submit forms showing adherence. Audit and sanction those associations that do not adhere to those Best Practices. Provide associations without sufficient ice time the means to acquire that ice time, or force them to co-op so they can provide an adequate development environment for their players.

My player's team is currently at a 1:1 practice to game ratio three months into the season. The players being affected the most are not the top end players, but rather, those who need the focus on developing their skills.
Associations are perfectly capable of deciding this for themselves. MN Hockey does not need to get involved with this. There are more kids that play hockey for fun than those who are looking at making a career out of it.

Provide Associations the means to acquire ice time? What are they going to do, build arenas for them?

blueline_6
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:39 am

Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Prior to 93-94 MN Hockey had Sept 1 cutoff. Then in 93-94 USA Hockey changed from Jan 1 to July 1 and MN Hockey followed. 95-96 USA Hockey went back to Jan 1 and MN Hockey stayed at July 1.

elliott70
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:44 am

Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Cut-off was - once upon a time, September 1 (same as school).
USAH changed to July 1/ June 30, so after much discussion MH changed to June 30th.
At least twice in the last decade or so change has been brought up including Sept 1.
Based on what I am hearing here, it will be brought up again.

jg2112
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:00 am

Jeffy95 wrote:
jg2112 wrote:Here's a few ideas, specifically with the goal of player development:

(1) Instead of a season-long limit at any level, institute a limit on the number of "game days" a team can have per month such that it has a 2:1 practice to game ratio at the end of each month (or even 2 month period).

(2) Require youth associations to adhere to the Minnesota Development Model "Best Practices" document on the MN Hockey website - particularly with regard to practice to game ratios and off-ice training. Require youth association administrators to submit forms showing adherence. Audit and sanction those associations that do not adhere to those Best Practices. Provide associations without sufficient ice time the means to acquire that ice time, or force them to co-op so they can provide an adequate development environment for their players.

My player's team is currently at a 1:1 practice to game ratio three months into the season. The players being affected the most are not the top end players, but rather, those who need the focus on developing their skills.
Associations are perfectly capable of deciding this for themselves. MN Hockey does not need to get involved with this. There are more kids that play hockey for fun than those who are looking at making a career out of it.

Provide Associations the means to acquire ice time? What are they going to do, build arenas for them?
You'll end up with far more players staying in the game if the focus is on practice rather than an endless buffet of games.

Building arenas isn't what I had in mind. More along the lines of equalizing available hours association-to-association so that kids in one club aren't penalized and lose development time because of where they live.

Also, providing ideas to stretch the hours clubs have. Things like the 90-90 approach for teams to split up 2 hours of ice.
Last edited by jg2112 on Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:04 am

elliott70 wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Cut-off was - once upon a time, September 1 (same as school).
USAH changed to July 1/ June 30, so after much discussion MH changed to June 30th.
At least twice in the last decade or so change has been brought up including Sept 1.
Based on what I am hearing here, it will be brought up again.
Please do bring it up. It should be Sept. 1st. It's the only date that makes any sense. Any other date is arbitrary and forces kids with summer birthdays to go through all kinds of politics and crap to play with their classmates. Little League Baseball finally admitted this and changed their age cutoff from April 30th to Sept. 1st a couple years ago.

mrchips
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:03 pm

Post by mrchips » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:21 pm

Jeffy95 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Cut-off was - once upon a time, September 1 (same as school).
USAH changed to July 1/ June 30, so after much discussion MH changed to June 30th.
At least twice in the last decade or so change has been brought up including Sept 1.
Based on what I am hearing here, it will be brought up again.
Please do bring it up. It should be Sept. 1st. It's the only date that makes any sense. Any other date is arbitrary and forces kids with summer birthdays to go through all kinds of politics and crap to play with their classmates. Little League Baseball finally admitted this and changed their age cutoff from April 30th to Sept. 1st a couple years ago.
I like the July 1 cutoff. If it's Sept 1st, then the July/Aug birthdate kids who were "held back" in school are forced to play up a grade. I like the idea that the kid/parent would have the option.

I fault the associations who stubbornly force the kids to play down with their hockey age even if they are the only 8th grade peewee in the association and want to play bantams.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:28 pm

mrchips wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Cut-off was - once upon a time, September 1 (same as school).
USAH changed to July 1/ June 30, so after much discussion MH changed to June 30th.
At least twice in the last decade or so change has been brought up including Sept 1.
Based on what I am hearing here, it will be brought up again.
Please do bring it up. It should be Sept. 1st. It's the only date that makes any sense. Any other date is arbitrary and forces kids with summer birthdays to go through all kinds of politics and crap to play with their classmates. Little League Baseball finally admitted this and changed their age cutoff from April 30th to Sept. 1st a couple years ago.
I like the July 1 cutoff. If it's Sept 1st, then the July/Aug birthdate kids who were "held back" in school are forced to play up a grade. I like the idea that the kid/parent would have the option.

I fault the associations who stubbornly force the kids to play down with their hockey age even if they are the only 8th grade peewee in the association and want to play bantams.
I understand what you're saying but couldn't you also argue that July/Aug birth dates who aren't "held back" can be forced to play down a grade? At least Sept. 1st is a real date that means something, it's the date that school's use. I get both sides but it would seem to make sense to use a real date rather than an artificial one.

FWIW, MN Hockey agrees with your point of view. The Chairman of the Rules and Handbook committees says it's for the kids who are held back, which is becoming more and more common. If that's the case, then I would argue to make it May 1st since kids with May and June birth dates are also held back. That would pretty much eliminate kids aging out of Bantams after 8th grade. Maybe that's a better solution.

zooomx
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Post by zooomx » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:26 pm

Please ask MN Hockey to continue to pour time, energy, resources into growing the girls game in outstate MN. So very hard to find games for all girls levels at this point. I know there are some efforts being made, but I am worried we let it slide too far.

Mn Hockey needs to get out in the field and identify growth opportunities in certain communities and help associations grow the girls game. Still think it's ridiculous for associations that have 4-6 boys teams at each level and have to co-op on the girls side.

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:14 am

This is broader than MN Hockey so probably not what you are looking for........but I'm going to bring it up anyways.

USA Hockey frequently points out the benefits of the MN Model and if I'm not mistaken, Regularly says it's the best model in the U.S.. If that's the case why are we sitting here in MN feeling like we are under attack by the Tier 1 model? If the MN Model is the best developmental model.......what is USA Hockey doing to try to spread the concept to other regions of the country?

I know that's a complicated topic and there's a lot to it. I also realize there are places it wouldn't work due to lack of numbers. But there are places it would work. Not overnight.......but over time. And if the sport grows as it has been there will be even more and more places it would work down the road.

My perception is that USA Hockey is doing very little, if anything, to try to spread the concept, even though it says itself it's the best model. Is there a role that MN Hockey can take on in lobbying USA Hockey to make at least some level of proactive effort to spread the MN Model elsewhere?

I realize that's wishful thinking. But if MN Hockey doesn't push them on it, who will? And if no one does......where does our own model end up 25 years down the road?

blueline_6
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:26 am

mrchips wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:How about changing the birthdate cutoff to match the school grade cutoff. Just put that whole thing to bed so associations don't have to come up with their own policies on what to do with the kids born in July/August.
This is a great idea and always has been. So if they haven't changed it by now there's virtually no chance they ever will. They made it July 1st for the Summer birthdays that don't start school until they're 6. But there seems to be far more summer birthdays that start at age 5 from what I've seen. Then those kids have to fight to play up with their classmates.
Cut-off was - once upon a time, September 1 (same as school).
USAH changed to July 1/ June 30, so after much discussion MH changed to June 30th.
At least twice in the last decade or so change has been brought up including Sept 1.
Based on what I am hearing here, it will be brought up again.
Please do bring it up. It should be Sept. 1st. It's the only date that makes any sense. Any other date is arbitrary and forces kids with summer birthdays to go through all kinds of politics and crap to play with their classmates. Little League Baseball finally admitted this and changed their age cutoff from April 30th to Sept. 1st a couple years ago.
I like the July 1 cutoff. If it's Sept 1st, then the July/Aug birthdate kids who were "held back" in school are forced to play up a grade. I like the idea that the kid/parent would have the option.

I fault the associations who stubbornly force the kids to play down with their hockey age even if they are the only 8th grade peewee in the association and want to play bantams.
If parents choose to hold their kid back a year before starting Kindergarten that is an education based parental decision that has absolutely nothing to do with Hockey or any other sport. A youth sports organization should not be basing age guidelines on whether or not they "think" parents are going to hold their kids back or not.

wannabe1975
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:02 pm

Create more touches, skill development and fun

Post by wannabe1975 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:33 pm

One huge improvement MN Hoc could adopt would be modified tag-up off-sides at the PW and lower levels. From the extensive work USA Hoc and the NHL have conducted on cross ice and 1/2 ice play, taking out the blue line or reducing the amount of stoppages during a game adds to player touches, playing time, fun and development. Plus its a whole lot more fun to watch than face-offs and much better teaching moment to allow tag-up even when most of these little players aren't even taught or know what off-sides is...

rememberitshockey
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:08 pm

Agree with 75

Post by rememberitshockey » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:16 pm

Bantams now has tag up off sides- should be in PW too-
Why not teach Tag Up from the beginning?

RE: CCM HP
I think more B1 and B2 players will be selected now that any level is allowed to try out. Good news-
:D

Docs_88
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:16 pm

Post by Docs_88 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:45 am

Get rid the AA - A levels. I just saw a very good A team outshoot another A team 48-4. Difference was that one was the assoc. top team the other was an assoc. 2nd team. Too many imbalanced games. Let top play top and leave it be.

Goose21
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:31 am

Post by Goose21 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:53 pm

I prefer the July 1 date for a few reasons:

I think it probably provides the most reasonable date to balance the January 1 cutoff for AAA, Tier 1, HP, and other offseason programs.

The July date also provides a lot more flexibility for the July-August kids. These kids seem pretty evenly split between the higher and lower grade level. The kids who end up starting school a year later still get to play with their classmates. I have also never seen an issue with a player getting to play up with classmates (a simple parent and approval from the board has been all that is needed). Hopefully a best interest/common sense would prevail here in all districts.

The September 1 date is also applied differently at schools than the July 1 date is applied in hockey. Students are required to have a birthday by September to be allowed to start. However, those students are not forced to that grade level. Conversely, a player born before the July 1 date must play at the required level. In other words, a student can opt down, but can't opt up. The player can opt up, but not down.

jg2112
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:21 pm

Docs_88 wrote:Get rid the AA - A levels. I just saw a very good A team outshoot another A team 48-4. Difference was that one was the assoc. top team the other was an assoc. 2nd team. Too many imbalanced games. Let top play top and leave it be.
I agree with this and would take it a step further by removing the B1 / B2 distinction as well. There is no reason to have 5 levels of play in PeeWee or (especially) Bantam.

If the number of levels cannot be reduced, I would suggest that associations that feed AA programs should be mandated to field their highest team at AA, rather than A.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Re: Agree with 75

Post by SCBlueLiner » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:55 pm

rememberitshockey wrote:Bantams now has tag up off sides- should be in PW too-
Why not teach Tag Up from the beginning?

RE: CCM HP
I think more B1 and B2 players will be selected now that any level is allowed to try out. Good news-
:D
Because they want to teach neutral zone regrouping rather than dumping. How about we meet in the middle and use delayed offsides? Keeps the game going and teaches neutral zone/breakout concepts.

elliott70
Posts: 13720
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:49 am

Thanks everyone...

Anything I receive through 5 PM Wednesday I will bring to the MH meeting.

CommunityBased
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:13 am

Post by CommunityBased » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:03 am

US Lacrosse is moving to 1 year age groups for saftey. Most contact sports use this philosophy. I think MN Hockey should look at going to single year groupings for safety. I know it would be a huge change, and a challenge to small associations, but anyone who has seen a July birth date 15 year old go head to head with a 13 year old June birth date knows what I am talking about. At the youth level, especially the puberty years, each year is a dog year.

Post Reply