Minnesota Hockey cut-off dates

[O-townClown]

I lived away 25 years, so I'm not totally in the loop here.

My understanding is that BOYS born in July & August were encouraged to wait to start kindergarten. Girls being more mature weren't waiting. Since there are so many summer babies, the July 1st date was used to track school (actual start dates) and not Sept. 1 (the cutoff on paper).

I don't see any problem with leaving it.

[edgeless2]

I lived away 25 years, so I'm not totally in the loop here.

My understanding is that BOYS born in July & August were encouraged to wait to start kindergarten. Girls being more mature weren't waiting. Since there are so many summer babies, the July 1st date was used to track school (actual start dates) and not Sept. 1 (the cutoff on paper).

I don't see any problem with leaving it.

The only non arguable, that will take any gripes out of any policy would be Jan 1. If it is arguable to anyone I’d love to see a debate on this. Of course everyone has their bias but how can birth year be debatable? The argument is non existent in Tier 1.

[O-townClown]

The only non arguable, that will take any gripes out of any policy would be Jan 1. If it is arguable to anyone I’d love to see a debate on this. Of course everyone has their bias but how can birth year be debatable? The argument is non existent in Tier 1.

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

[Goose21]

The only non arguable, that will take any gripes out of any policy would be Jan 1. If it is arguable to anyone I’d love to see a debate on this. Of course everyone has their bias but how can birth year be debatable? The argument is non existent in Tier 1.

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

So a January 1 date would basically push up about half of second year Bantams to High School, correct?

[edgeless2]

The only non arguable, that will take any gripes out of any policy would be Jan 1. If it is arguable to anyone I’d love to see a debate on this. Of course everyone has their bias but how can birth year be debatable? The argument is non existent in Tier 1.

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

I have been on both sides of the equation for July 1 and I have no personal issue with it, although it does leave the door open to arguments from a disgruntled constituency which seems to be the issue MH is dealing with. Jan 1 would eliminate any argument about birth month as well as having the added bonus of folks not holding their kids back from starting Kindergarten to gain an advantage for hockey purposes.

[edgeless2]

The only non arguable, that will take any gripes out of any policy would be Jan 1. If it is arguable to anyone I’d love to see a debate on this. Of course everyone has their bias but how can birth year be debatable? The argument is non existent in Tier 1.

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

So a January 1 date would basically push up about half of second year Bantams to High School, correct?

I would think the number would be much lower than that based on kids being held back a year starting school for hockey purposes. Also, with this eliminated that number would drop over time hypothetically as the shenanigans of holding kids back stops. An added bonus would also be that less populated areas could field more JV teams. It’s a bit confusing to me. Does this logic make sense?

[Jeffy95]

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

So a January 1 date would basically push up about half of second year Bantams to High School, correct?

I would think the number would be much lower than that based on kids being held back a year starting school for hockey purposes. Also, with this eliminated that number would drop over time hypothetically as the shenanigans of holding kids back stops. It’s a bit confusing to me. Does this logic make sense?

Not sure I'm following you. You would lose approximately half of the second year Bantams.

This year, for example, any kid born between 7/1/03 - 12/31/03 is a Bantam. If it was birth year, they would all be pushed up to High School. You may have a few parents in the future who don't hold back their July and August birthdays, but I have to believe that decision is based more on school readiness than Hockey. I realize some do it for Hockey, but have to assume they are the minority.

Because of this, I don't think Birth Year would ever fly here. September 1st is the only legitimate date where you can point to a tangible, logical reason. MN Hockey feeds High School Hockey and the school cut-off is September 1st. June is an absolute joke if they change it to that. July is pretty sketchy. August is probably a reasonable compromise.

[Mite-dad]

I say go to calendar year. A lot of kids already do this for summer hockey and it hasn't caused any kids to have debilitating psychological problems.

[Goose21]

I'm not sure what is arguable and non arguable, but January 1st doesn't work well in Minnesota because so many kids age out of Bantams after 8th grade. I think July 1st seems to be working fine.

So a January 1 date would basically push up about half of second year Bantams to High School, correct?

I would think the number would be much lower than that based on kids being held back a year starting school for hockey purposes. Also, with this eliminated that number would drop over time hypothetically as the shenanigans of holding kids back stops. An added bonus would also be that less populated areas could field more JV teams. It’s a bit confusing to me. Does this logic make sense?

As mentioned, the group that would have been affected for this season would have been the July 1-Dec 31 03s. Most of these kids are likely either younger 10 graders or older 9th graders. In my experience most of the 10 graders have moved up at sometime to play with classmates. So most of the move-ups would be older 9th graders. So maybe 20-25 % of bantams would be moved up.

I could see some negatives for all but the smaller programs as these numbers would be added to the numbers already at the JV/V level.

I favor a June-Aug 1 cut off to balance all the birth-year off season programs (AAA, HP, Tier 1, etc.). I also believe these dates best approximate the model of allowing classmates to play with classmates.

[edgeless2]

So a January 1 date would basically push up about half of second year Bantams to High School, correct?

I would think the number would be much lower than that based on kids being held back a year starting school for hockey purposes. Also, with this eliminated that number would drop over time hypothetically as the shenanigans of holding kids back stops. An added bonus would also be that less populated areas could field more JV teams. It’s a bit confusing to me. Does this logic make sense?

As mentioned, the group that would have been affected for this season would have been the July 1-Dec 31 03s. Most of these kids are likely either younger 10 graders or older 9th graders. In my experience most of the 10 graders have moved up at sometime to play with classmates. So most of the move-ups would be older 9th graders. So maybe 20-25 % of bantams would be moved up.

I could see some negatives for all but the smaller programs as these numbers would be added to the numbers already at the JV/V level.

I favor a June-Aug 1 cut off to balance all the birth-year off season programs (AAA, HP, Tier 1, etc.). I also believe these dates best approximate the model of allowing classmates to play with classmates.

Very appropriate take. Playing devils advocate I would almost want to put this in an AA vs A HS argument. The ace card is MH registration fees, why would they ever change it to birth year as they would lose revenue with every older 9th grader being forced into HS hockey= less $ and therefore less leverage for MH vs USA hockey. I’m not even sure that’s how it would play out but back of the napkin math says, with the hold backs still paying these fees, not a lot of incentive for MH to do birth year.

[Section 8 guy]

Wouldn’t kids start hockey at an earlier age which would completely offset the money aspect of this? Even so, for Minnesota to go to burthbyear wouldn’t make much sense. We’re a school year state. Just the way it is.

[goldy313]

While not entirely relevant to hockey......we have 20 year old high school wrestlers, some who turn 21 before they graduate. Do not go that way. An age limit has to be in place and hockey probably does the best of the 4 major sports in Minnesota and we have Minnesota Hockey to thank for that....no sarcasm.

[formersection3Afan]

MNHockey allows the associations to decide on MOVE UPS, only one association I have learned does not allow move ups by grade.
( That one could be brought to allow if ever the request arise ) Allowing June 1 birth the opportunity to play with peers is just that,
more kids with June bdays start school when 6, then 5 over then previous years. Even more so do that are in MN Hockey, so this age change would allow more kids to play with their peers. re: May, currently this is such a small number, maybe 10-20 years it will be significant. Right now it is not. Go section 3, st c c

[elliott70]

It did not pass, cut-off remains July 1.

[elliott70]

There were some comments that led me to believe that this may come up again, perhaps at the June meting.

[blueline_6]

There were some comments that led me to believe that this may come up again, perhaps at the June meting.

Out of curiosity, are there MN Hockey Board members that have June born kids? Board priorities and topics, at any level (local, state, etc.), are often influenced by board members that have a dog in any particular fight.

[elliott70]

There were some comments that led me to believe that this may come up again, perhaps at the June meting.

Out of curiosity, are there MN Hockey Board members that have June born kids? Board priorities and topics, at any level (local, state, etc.), are often influenced by board members that have a dog in any particular fight.

None that I am aware of as we, for the most part, are very old men.


Some might, some might have grandchildren.
I have a grandson with a June birthday (but I voted no).

I would hope that if a conflict existed they would state as much prior to discussion and voting.

[SCBlueLiner]

Jumping in at the end of this. I have some perspective because my kids are pretty spread out. I have a 16 year old, May 2002 birthday, who is a Junior this year. He started kindergarten at 5 and he was fine. My youngest is 2, August 2016 birth year. There is no way we will start him in school at 5, he will wait until he is 6. He will not be ready to start preschool at 3, pre-K at 4, and K at 5. Just won't be mature enough. I really don't understand a Sept 1 cutoff, that's pretty young for July & August kids.

Don't know what bearing that has on the discussion but IMO the cutoff for school should be July 1. Personally, I was a June birthday and went early, that was 40 some years ago. If my youngest was born in July I would still hold him back, June, I'd consider it, May, he's going.

[Survey]

There were some comments that led me to believe that this may come up again, perhaps at the June meting.

Is this topic coming up again at the June meeting?

[elliott70]

I have not received the agenda yet.
But it may be on the committee's agenda which I will not know until I get there.
It is NOT on the district directors' agenda.

[elliott70]

There were some comments that led me to believe that this may come up again, perhaps at the June meting.

Is this topic coming up again at the June meeting?

Yes, it is on the agenda and may come up for a vote again.

[goldy313]

My same argument.....

Wrestling has 20 year old seniors, plenty of them. Do not go down that path, keep our youth aligned with the traditional school grades. By and large the pinnacle of most kids hockey lives is high school hockey. Keep that the dream, changing will just encourage the pay for play junior leagues.

[j4241]

Many factors to consider - here’s one that I don’t think has been discussed. I’m interested in age bias, a la Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell - kids older in their cohort have a huge advantage, and it’s worth thinking how to balance that advantage, as talent is obviously distributed across the calendar months. Minnesota hockey offers an interesting contrast to almost everywhere else - we have one system in which a July-December birth month is relatively older (association), and one in which it is relatively younger (AAA). That is a feature, not a bug. Kids have a chance to be an older kid, regardless of their birth month, in one of the two seasons. No one is enshrined at a young age as being permanently advantaged just because they were born in January. I think that’s a feature worth keeping.

[arcticpurple]

OK...am I missing something here? I hear people say birth year cutoffs would never work in MN but if I recall correctly, it worked for many years prior to the switch. I was a 69 and the 68's in my grade were always one year ahead of me. We survived...in fact it was great getting to know kids outside your grade. Yes...I was in 9th grade playing Bantam A and many of my friends in 9th grade were playing JV. It worked fine for the kids and only seemed to bother a few parents, likely the ones lobbying to get rid of the single class state tournaments.

[GoldenBear]

It worked fine for the kids and only seemed to bother a few parents, likely the ones lobbying to get rid of the single class state tournaments.

AP, like your post and agree. Pretty trivial. tomatoes tomaatttos. GB