MN Hockey winter meeting

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:23 am

elliott70 wrote:I am not so naïve that I do not think there are kids making teams based on some 'political' move. And I am not so dumb that I know that the top players are making the A (AA) team. So the best of the B and the worst of the A can be exchanged. This ahs been true for all times and for all associations.

Is it crooked association board members or just some people's perception of it?

Having a AAA for profit organization will not change that AND could make it worse when a check can be written without some oversight from outside.

I know I am a little naive coming from a small town and small district, but I do know that I do not put up with anything and do look into ALL claims of shenanigans.

If any one here thinks there is corruption they should report it and report it again until it does get looked at (not until you get what you want).
I can appreciate both sides of the issue in all honesty. But I do know that the arguments that I am making are pretty universal. Some of it you could probably argue are coincidence since a guy who is on the board might have a kid who tries harder or is more committed to hockey than a non board member's kid. That bubble group is the issue and will be the first group to take off if/when they get a chance to do so. As far as writing a check with no oversite I am not so sure. If I am going to write a check for a kid to play hockey with Tier 1 Team X I am going to watch them. As will all of the check writers. I also know that if I see stuff going on with the team that makes no sense and if my kid is not getting a fair shot at it I will leave. For that reason alone I think that the people who manage Team X will have to be more open and even than an association who knows that 99% of the kids can't go anyplace so you don't really have to care about what they think.

As for the last part of it. Who do you report it to? The board? In most cases they are the issue if you listen to the parents involved. The district? They are the board members friends and are known to the association people so the parents assume that when Parent 1 calls the district and says that Association Z is pulling this crap and can you help us fix it the first call is to the board, who turns around and says that the parents involved are just a huge pain in the a$$. It gets dropped and written off as malcontent parents and then (it is assumed) that the kids of those who complained are done for. Lesson here is do what you can do and leave when you get the chance. An open Tier 1 and Tier 2 system would fix that since if Association Z is acting like that and using their association as their own little kingdom to promote their kids and their buddy's kids people would just leave Association Z. Then when you bump into me in the rink and ask me why my kid does not play for Z anymore and the answer that I give you runs consistent from parent to parent you avoid Z and Z either goes away or gets fixed.

I think that MN HOckey needs to change how it looks at hockey in the state. It needs to go from We need to have as many kids as possible playing to We need to help those kids who want to play hockey and who want to be the best that they can get to their goals. Playing hockey is not a right. It costs money, takes time and requires sacrifices from all involved. Right now we have a group of kids who want to try to find a way to have a chance to have a chance and are denying them that chance by saying you have to play for Association Z where they can't get a fair shot.

I had kids come up through the system and and do not have a kid who will be impacted by any of this. I suppose I should just sit back and shut up about it but that does not seem right either as I might have grand kids who play and I would hope that they do not run into some of the crap that we did with our kids.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:47 am

Wet Paint. I have an answer for you. If the B player who is being kept down by the system is really that good and is only being held down by the elitists in the association there is a place for that player to showcase his abilities. It is called summer hockey. AAA summer hockey has open tryouts and is run as close to Tier 1 hockey as you are going to find. Take your kid to an open tryout for a reputable summer hockey organization, make the team, and then tear it up on the summer circuit. By the time winter tryouts roll around everyone will have heard of your kid and how he is tearing up the summer scene. Summer hockey teams, camps, and clinics are also a good way for you to get the coaching and development that you say is lacking on the B teams in your organization.

I am not saying you are one of the people I described in my earlier post, but your writings really remind of things I have heard from parents who truly believe it is the systems fault and that if only their kid had made X team, or had Y person as a coach, or had only gotten his shot then he would be great. From my perspective every association is interested in one thing, putting the best team they can on the ice in order to represent the association. Competitive associations want to win. It's about a town or city's identity and bragging rights.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:49 am

I should also add that my own kid doesn't always make the A team. He's gone, starting at Squirts B then A, Pee Wee B then A, to Bantam A. So I know what it is like to be the parent of a kid on a B team. I also know that kids can and do go from B teams to A teams.

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:10 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:I should also add that my own kid doesn't always make the A team. He's gone, starting at Squirts B then A, Pee Wee B then A, to Bantam A. So I know what it is like to be the parent of a kid on a B team. I also know that kids can and do go from B teams to A teams.
For starters my kids have mixed A and B teams. They have always made the right team. Honestly it has never really mattered since from the start they were told they are not going to turn pro playing hockey so they needed to have good grades in school and not getting into trouble, stuff like that. We have always been OK with where they landed. But, I look at the stuff that went on and the discontent on the teams from that stuff and I have to agree that the parents have a point. They were right.

My kids were not held down by elitists with n the association, they were held down by genetics (mine) which is really no big deal. If I was wanting them to move on though and I had to pay for my kid to play summer hockey so that he would have a chance I would not be really happy abuot that either. OK, we as an association are going to play our kids and their buddies and if you want your kid to move on then you have to pay to play summer hockey so that hopefully they will get recognized.

Like I started my first post on this topic, I should drop it and not get into it. I should probably have stuck to that. For what it is worth, none of my kids turned pro playing hockey. A couple of them played high school and a couple of them are playing around with it after high school. All is well for me and my family but generally speaking for the state of MN Hockey there are some things that need to be fixed, in my opinion.

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

Post by zooomx » Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:39 am

Girls Hockey needs to be looked at. U15A decision had marginal affects this season due to how late in the game the decision was made. But now that parents have had a chance to talk about it, we may start seeing JV teams disappear.

Girls recruitment. Numbers are up a bit at the U8 levels. But high school and association co-ops will negatively impact retention and future growth. Tell me that Anoka / Rogers needs to have a co-op... really? If two associations have enough skaters for 3-4 teams at each boys level, then they definitely have the ability to build a girls program on their own. Girls numbers grew so dramatically for a few years, that it was easy to ignore where the weaknesses are.

As you know Elliot, scheduling games for outstate U15, U12, U10 teams is nearly impossible. I would love to see MN Hockey put money, time and effort into a stand-alone initiative to grow the girls game. In northern Minnesota, we have a situation where almost every U12A and U15A team makes the regional tourney by default. This is an absolute embarassment.

I no longer have a horse in the race, as my daughter moves on to HS next year. However, it is evident to me that we are at a crossroads with girls hockey and all the hard work many of you did to build the game should not be wasted. Many associations are focused on boys hockey, and when MN hockey offers grants/initiatives those dollars don't always work their way over to the girls side. There is a lot of growth capacity still there.

These thoughts have already been passed on to MN hockey leadership and I hope some of the challenges and new ideas make their way into the meeting. I will be disappointed if they don't.

In regards to those proposing open membership/Tier 1 or getting rid of our current association based model, please stop. Anytime we have A and B teams in any sport, there will be those who cry foul. The same people who piss and moan about how unfair tryouts are, or how corrupt the "system" is, are the same people who never lift a finger to change the system. If you and other parents are concerned that your board is corrupt, then bring a group to your annual meeting and get someone on the board. But no... it's far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain.

A tier 1 or club system as described above would be a mess. That is all available in the summer and most of it is a joke. We dabbled with it for a while with our son, and all I heard was complaints of corruption and unfairness. Since there is no governing body of a AAA club team, well... there is no oversight, no rules, its the wild wild west.

I firmly believe that most association boards are doing their very best to be fair and transparent. Like Elliot says, if there are shenanigans, report them to your district director.





[/u]

greybeard58
Posts: 2511
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm

Post by greybeard58 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:55 am

The committee meeting times are posted. If those commenting here feel real strong on a subject show up and ask your questions or voice your opinion, but I would remind if you attend be respectful of others. If your are interested in the HP program, Hockey Operations is up first Saturday morning followed by Tier I and then the District Directors, that should cover most issues here and maybe Elliott can get you coffee or pop.

The meetings are open to the public.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:56 am

Segqwegg
Last edited by JSR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:00 am

swag
Last edited by JSR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

BluehawkHockey
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am

Post by BluehawkHockey » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:06 am

zooomx wrote:Girls Hockey needs to be looked at. U15A decision had marginal affects this season due to how late in the game the decision was made. But now that parents have had a chance to talk about it, we may start seeing JV teams disappear.

Girls recruitment. Numbers are up a bit at the U8 levels. But high school and association co-ops will negatively impact retention and future growth. Tell me that Anoka / Rogers needs to have a co-op... really? If two associations have enough skaters for 3-4 teams at each boys level, then they definitely have the ability to build a girls program on their own. Girls numbers grew so dramatically for a few years, that it was easy to ignore where the weaknesses are.

As you know Elliot, scheduling games for outstate U15, U12, U10 teams is nearly impossible. I would love to see MN Hockey put money, time and effort into a stand-alone initiative to grow the girls game. In northern Minnesota, we have a situation where almost every U12A and U15A team makes the regional tourney by default. This is an absolute embarassment.

I no longer have a horse in the race, as my daughter moves on to HS next year. However, it is evident to me that we are at a crossroads with girls hockey and all the hard work many of you did to build the game should not be wasted. Many associations are focused on boys hockey, and when MN hockey offers grants/initiatives those dollars don't always work their way over to the girls side. There is a lot of growth capacity still there.

These thoughts have already been passed on to MN hockey leadership and I hope some of the challenges and new ideas make their way into the meeting. I will be disappointed if they don't.

In regards to those proposing open membership/Tier 1 or getting rid of our current association based model, please stop. Anytime we have A and B teams in any sport, there will be those who cry foul. The same people who piss and moan about how unfair tryouts are, or how corrupt the "system" is, are the same people who never lift a finger to change the system. If you and other parents are concerned that your board is corrupt, then bring a group to your annual meeting and get someone on the board. But no... it's far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain.

A tier 1 or club system as described above would be a mess. That is all available in the summer and most of it is a joke. We dabbled with it for a while with our son, and all I heard was complaints of corruption and unfairness. Since there is no governing body of a AAA club team, well... there is no oversight, no rules, its the wild wild west.

I firmly believe that most association boards are doing their very best to be fair and transparent. Like Elliot says, if there are shenanigans, report them to your district director.
=D>

Right on zoomx. Especially about the girls game in Minnesota. I believe the number of girls playing hockey in Minnesota will continue to drop. More and more associations and high schools will co-op their girls programs. I think there is very little attention paid to girls hockey by most associations and until they see value in it, the numbers will continue to drop.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:53 am

zooomx wrote:Girls Hockey needs to be looked at. U15A decision had marginal affects this season due to how late in the game the decision was made. But now that parents have had a chance to talk about it, we may start seeing JV teams disappear.

Girls recruitment. Numbers are up a bit at the U8 levels. But high school and association co-ops will negatively impact retention and future growth. Tell me that Anoka / Rogers needs to have a co-op... really? If two associations have enough skaters for 3-4 teams at each boys level, then they definitely have the ability to build a girls program on their own. Girls numbers grew so dramatically for a few years, that it was easy to ignore where the weaknesses are.

As you know Elliot, scheduling games for outstate U15, U12, U10 teams is nearly impossible. I would love to see MN Hockey put money, time and effort into a stand-alone initiative to grow the girls game. In northern Minnesota, we have a situation where almost every U12A and U15A team makes the regional tourney by default. This is an absolute embarassment.

I no longer have a horse in the race, as my daughter moves on to HS next year. However, it is evident to me that we are at a crossroads with girls hockey and all the hard work many of you did to build the game should not be wasted. Many associations are focused on boys hockey, and when MN hockey offers grants/initiatives those dollars don't always work their way over to the girls side. There is a lot of growth capacity still there.

These thoughts have already been passed on to MN hockey leadership and I hope some of the challenges and new ideas make their way into the meeting. I will be disappointed if they don't.

In regards to those proposing open membership/Tier 1 or getting rid of our current association based model, please stop. Anytime we have A and B teams in any sport, there will be those who cry foul. The same people who piss and moan about how unfair tryouts are, or how corrupt the "system" is, are the same people who never lift a finger to change the system. If you and other parents are concerned that your board is corrupt, then bring a group to your annual meeting and get someone on the board. But no... it's far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain.

A tier 1 or club system as described above would be a mess. That is all available in the summer and most of it is a joke. We dabbled with it for a while with our son, and all I heard was complaints of corruption and unfairness. Since there is no governing body of a AAA club team, well... there is no oversight, no rules, its the wild wild west.

I firmly believe that most association boards are doing their very best to be fair and transparent. Like Elliot says, if there are shenanigans, report them to your district director.





[/u]
The 15U and recruiting of girls is on the DD meeting agenda. Thank you.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:54 am

greybeard58 wrote:The committee meeting times are posted. If those commenting here feel real strong on a subject show up and ask your questions or voice your opinion, but I would remind if you attend be respectful of others. If your are interested in the HP program, Hockey Operations is up first Saturday morning followed by Tier I and then the District Directors, that should cover most issues here and maybe Elliott can get you coffee or pop.

The meetings are open to the public.
Pop, coffee an omelet.

Hi, John. How are you doing?

HILARY2016
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:03 am

Post by HILARY2016 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:42 pm

greybeard58 wrote:The committee meeting times are posted. If those commenting here feel real strong on a subject show up and ask your questions or voice your opinion, but I would remind if you attend be respectful of others. If your are interested in the HP program, Hockey Operations is up first Saturday morning followed by Tier I and then the District Directors, that should cover most issues here and maybe Elliott can get you coffee or pop.

The meetings are open to the public.
Be respectful? thanks
Last edited by HILARY2016 on Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:28 am

HILARY2016 wrote:
greybeard58 wrote:The committee meeting times are posted. If those commenting here feel real strong on a subject show up and ask your questions or voice your opinion, but I would remind if you attend be respectful of others. If your are interested in the HP program, Hockey Operations is up first Saturday morning followed by Tier I and then the District Directors, that should cover most issues here and maybe Elliott can get you coffee or pop.

The meetings are open to the public.
Be respectful? thanks Perry your time is up. Time to be dumped by MN hockey
fraud
Sorry, but wrong, greybeard is not John Perry. He is not a MN H board member, but a guy that has quietly done a lot for youth hockey in MN.

stromboli
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:11 pm

Post by stromboli » Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:53 am

zambonidriver wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:Why would Minnesota change it's association based model to a Tier 1 and club model? From everything I see the association model works much better. Higher participation. Highly developed players. Is your goal to bring Minnesota hockey down to the level of the rest of the country? Escalate costs like the rest of the country?

Frankly, the rest of the U.S. where there are highly concentrated areas of youth hockey, Michigan, Chicago area, Pennsylvania, New England, etc, should have the association model forced on them by USA Hockey. It would go a long way to solve a lot of the problems they have in those other areas.
Hear me out.
1. Association hockey is highly political and subject to corruption. I hear it all the time my kid got jobbed I have even acted on it myself. Add tier 1 and triple A option with tryouts in the spring say April by private clubs under the direction of Minnesota hockey then you don't have to worry about the waiver rule and you truly have the best playing the best. Best part the politics for the most part goes away as the clubs are going pick the best players so they can win.
2. Because of #1 Associatons can then concentrate on what they do best which is develop kids and the cost actually will probably go down because the arms race will go away and the need to keep up with the town next door won't be as important.
3. Associations will be able to set their policies and enforce them because with the tier 1 system the boards can tell them you have an option and don't have to play here.
4. You can still choose to play for your local association but by their rules. The more options the better the product. Association hockey be comes more recreational therefore less need for indoor ice therefore less demand for indoor ice. therefore ice time becomes less expensive and association hockey becomes less about winning and losing and more about kids playing.
Roast me now
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Associations aren't able to enforce their policies now? Town rivalries ("arms race") will go away?

As to the bolded portion above, your screen name might make me think you'd know more about how rinks operate. Most of the costs for running indoor ice are fixed. Less demand doesn't lower those costs. Fewer users would equal higher costs per user, or potentially shut a few more rinks down. :oops:

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:54 am

Rules Committee Report
2016 Winter Meeting
rev. 1 12/11/2015

The Mn Hockey Rules Committee met on Thursday, Dec. 3, 2015.
Our Inter-Affiliate Transfer Protocol currently allows us to waiver players to another state affiliate if they desire to play on a Tier 1 National Tournament Eligible team. We considered changing this since we are now offering off-season Tier I programs that will send teams to the Tier 1 National Tournaments. The Committee decided to not change the language because the current protocol indicates the waiver will be granted if Minnesota Hockey does not offer such a program, and that language meant that transfers would still be allowed if a player was seeking to go to a program that was different than something Minnesota Hockey provided. We can look at this again if this turns out to be a problem later.
We have had some cases where players who are residents of other states live with MN families and attend school in MN. If they are here for the purpose of playing hockey it could be considered a billet arrangement. We previously strengthened verbiage around "legal guardian" to respond to MN residents who are living with someone else. The Committee concluded that these players are governed by the participation rule the same as other players. Players are defined to be living in the community in which the parent, legal guardian or custodian of the player resides who has primary custody of the player the majority of time when tryouts begin.
Another situation arose where a player registered with her association of residence, went through try outs and didn't make the "A" team. She had been attending school in another area for two years so wanted to exercise her right to a "mandatory waiver" to participate there. Participation Rule Para. 6 says that once you participate in any association, you are basically declaring your "Home Association" for the season. We also are clear that "trying out" in an association is considered participation. Any waiver after that point (for that season) must be discretionary. The Committee feels we already have this covered.

There was a question as to whether we had defined "quorum" for our meetings. Bylaw Article 7 – Board of Directors covers this (last paragraph).
Modifications to the Bylaws and Youth Rules are proposed as shown below.
Bylaws Changes
B1. Changes are proposed to establish a minimum requirement for attending meetings of the Board of Directors, and the consequence for failure to meet the minimum:
ARTICLE 9 – MEETINGS
Board of Directors Meetings: It is the normal obligation of all voting members to attend official meetings of the Board of Directors. Attendance/ representation is expected for all days of MH state
[B1] meetings. Failure for voting members to attend at least two Regularly Scheduled Board of Directors Meetings in a fiscal year will result in automatic consideration for removal (refer to paragraph entitled "Removal of Officers and Directors").
2
B2. Add "Advisory Board Members" to the "Removal of Officers and Directors" section and define "proper notice":
ARTICLE 7 – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
[B2] Removal of Officers and Directors: Any officer, or director or Advisory Board Member may be removed from office by a 2/3 vote of the entire Board of Directors at any regularly scheduled meeting or special meeting called for that purpose, with proper 30 days written notice to the persons involved.

Youth Rules Changes
R1. The current "ineligible player" definition presently covers all on-ice activity (including practices). The penalty for this is that the team is suspended from District/Region/State tournaments. The Rules Committee is proposing that the suspension only apply to games.
V. – ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS
[R1] A. Any team found to have an ineligible player that participates in any MH sanctioned on-ice activity game will be suspended from MH District, Region and State Tournament play for the current season. The head coach of a team that knowingly plays an ineligible player shall, as a minimum, be suspended from coaching for the remainder of the season. These suspensions may be reviewed by the cognizant District Director to determine if the severity of the suspension is appropriate and a less severe penalty may be imposed if the facts so dictate.

R2. The Tier 1 Committee has asked that the Tier 1 teams be exempt from the Stop Patch requirement. Also need to update the verbiage on Advanced Teams to High Performance Teams.

VIII. – PLAYING RULES
M. A blaze orange “Stop Patch” must be displayed in the upper center on the back of all players'
[R2] jerseys in all Youth and Girl’s classifications, except Tier 1 Youth 16U/18U, Tier 1 Girls 16U/19U, Mites and Mini Mites. This includes the MH Advanced High Performance 15, 16, 17 and Great 8 teams. This patch/logo may be sewn or silk-screened on the jerseys.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:22 am

Things discussed at MH meeting.

First one was hosting more checking clinics. This will be done.

Second one was 3 man ref system. Four man ref system is another option.
This is being considered for use in MH playoffs. Cost was a consideration but the ref's reps said it may be done without an increase. It is being studied.

3. Funding for girls programs/recruitment.
There are grants available.
How/where to request this grant money will be posted on the web page along with specific things being done successfully at various places around the state.
Waiver of MN fees for first year girls regardless of age, for all girls, kickbacks to local associations to help with a waiver of fees as well as other funding techniques are know being studied.

4. AA, A, B (1 & 2), C classification and how to create more parity within groups is being looked at.

Need to look at my notes to see what else was done. Will update sometime this week.

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

Post by zooomx » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:01 am

elliott70 wrote:Things discussed at MH meeting.

First one was hosting more checking clinics. This will be done.

Second one was 3 man ref system. Four man ref system is another option.
This is being considered for use in MH playoffs. Cost was a consideration but the ref's reps said it may be done without an increase. It is being studied.

3. Funding for girls programs/recruitment.
There are grants available.
How/where to request this grant money will be posted on the web page along with specific things being done successfully at various places around the state.
Waiver of MN fees for first year girls regardless of age, for all girls, kickbacks to local associations to help with a waiver of fees as well as other funding techniques are know being studied.

4. AA, A, B (1 & 2), C classification and how to create more parity within groups is being looked at.

Need to look at my notes to see what else was done. Will update sometime this week.
Thanks for the update elliott. Sounds like good progress or traction on the girls hockey issue. Next step: Mn hockey providing manpower to identify associations underperforming in this area and offering access to grants and education in how to grow the girls game. Sometimes the horse does need to be brought to water.

BTW... looked for you up in Brrrmidji on Saturday, but then remembered your mn hockey meetings. Nice HS squad you have there.

elliott70
Posts: 15425
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:39 am

zooomx wrote:
elliott70 wrote:Things discussed at MH meeting.

First one was hosting more checking clinics. This will be done.

Second one was 3 man ref system. Four man ref system is another option.
This is being considered for use in MH playoffs. Cost was a consideration but the ref's reps said it may be done without an increase. It is being studied.

3. Funding for girls programs/recruitment.
There are grants available.
How/where to request this grant money will be posted on the web page along with specific things being done successfully at various places around the state.
Waiver of MN fees for first year girls regardless of age, for all girls, kickbacks to local associations to help with a waiver of fees as well as other funding techniques are know being studied.

4. AA, A, B (1 & 2), C classification and how to create more parity within groups is being looked at.

Need to look at my notes to see what else was done. Will update sometime this week.
Thanks for the update elliott. Sounds like good progress or traction on the girls hockey issue. Next step: Mn hockey providing manpower to identify associations underperforming in this area and offering access to grants and education in how to grow the girls game. Sometimes the horse does need to be brought to water.

ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS WORK.

BTW... looked for you up in Brrrmidji on Saturday, but then remembered your mn hockey meetings. Nice HS squad you have there.

YES MISSSED THE HS GAME AND MY GDAUGHTERS GAME AND OTHER THINGS, BUT I MADE A COMMITTMENT.

Post Reply