Mr. Elliott

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

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

Post by elliott70 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:08 pm

Jeffy95 wrote:
lostmyonlypuckindasnow wrote:Along the same lines as this, as well as the Eligibility post, what are thoughts on this "player departure rule" and what it says about the desire to develop hockey players (this is a fairly large association with 5-7 teams at each age level above mites, so the difference between top team players and the C teams should be very large):

"If, upon completion of the tryout process and assignment to a team, the participant elects to withdraw from [Association] and not participate with their assigned team during the upcoming season, they will be found in violation of the tryout process. Those found to be in violation of the tryout process will be deemed ineligible for the following season’s tryout process. Players who are ineligible for tryouts, or do not tryout, will be placed on a C team.... The Departure Policy is not intended to be punitive for withdrawing from, and returning to, [the Association]. Rather, it is intended to give families pause and dissuade the player from opting to leave the Association, due to unsatisfactory placement from the tryout process."

Who does this rule possibly benefit and what does it do for youth hockey? If this is a C player that just quits hockey or bubble B/C player then it's maybe not a big deal, but if its a peewee or bantam that's in the top half in a world that has a range from AA to C....
That's a ridiculous rule, and I highly doubt that it would fly with MN Hockey. I would send that to your District Director.
What association has this rule?

lostmyonlypuckindasnow
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:43 am

Post by lostmyonlypuckindasnow » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:32 am

I'd rather not say what association it is. It's a small world. I'm just curious if I'm the only one that thinks this rule is just gross, or if this "non-punitive" measure to "give pause" is something that is okay. Ridiculous, stupid, and some variation of "you have to be kidding me" are the only responses I have heard when I bring this us, but someone must think it's a good idea.

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

Post by elliott70 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:10 pm

lostmyonlypuckindasnow wrote:I'd rather not say what association it is. It's a small world. I'm just curious if I'm the only one that thinks this rule is just gross, or if this "non-punitive" measure to "give pause" is something that is okay. Ridiculous, stupid, and some variation of "you have to be kidding me" are the only responses I have heard when I bring this us, but someone must think it's a good idea.
My problem is you take a AA or A player and put him on a C team. The C team then proceeds to beat up on every other C team. Not fair to kid, team or district.

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

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:40 pm

My thought is that whenever I read policies like this, or any other policies, is that they are a reaction to an issue. Hockey boards don't go around dreaming up stupid rules for no good reason. In fact, it's a crappy job to have to address issues. Policies like the one you posted cone about as a reaction to something that has gone wrong in the past. It sounds like they had players go through tryouts and get placed on teams, then they found some other opportunity somewhere and ditched the association leaving a mess of having to re-roster these teams. In reaction a policy like this was enacted to give people a moment of pause.

Now, you can debate whether it is a good policy, bad policy, or even an allowable policy. I'm just saying that hockey boards don't sit around and think up ways to out the screws to its membership.

lostmyonlypuckindasnow
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:43 am

Post by lostmyonlypuckindasnow » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:53 pm

[quote="SCBlueLiner"]My thought is that whenever I read policies like this, or any other policies, is that they are a reaction to an issue. Hockey boards don't go around dreaming up stupid rules for no good reason. In fact, it's a crappy job to have to address issues. Policies like the one you posted cone about as a reaction to something that has gone wrong in the past. It sounds like they had players go through tryouts and get placed on teams, then they found some other opportunity somewhere and ditched the association leaving a mess of having to re-roster these teams. In reaction a policy like this was enacted to give people a moment of pause.

Now, you can debate whether it is a good policy, bad policy, or even an allowable policy. I'm just saying that hockey boards don't sit around and think up ways to out the screws to its membership.[/quote]

I'm sure this rule was put in place in reaction to something and, hopefully, not just out of spite, pettiness or "to put the screws to" somebody in particular. But the end does not justify the means. This board probably did mean to try and stop people from leaving and dealing with roster juggling, for whatever reason (good, bad, crazy or even allowable). It seems to me that two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe I am off base--maybe boards can do whatever they want and can react like this in a way that puts kids on the wrong teams for punishment to parents (even if they say it is not punishment), that is why I put this out there. I am curious what is considered acceptable. If it's allowable or other associations have rules like this, maybe I'm the one off base and I won't bring it to anyone. At a private club level this is acceptable: if you don't like something, then just leave and someone else will write a check instead or the club will fail. I think this rule is absolutely shameful in the context of youth association sports--I never said that it was concocted just to put the screws to particular people, but I think it is a horrible solution. Unless a kid is really a C or bubble B player, the impact is not to give pause but to simply drive kids away: "get out and stay out!" seems to be the clear message. Because if we are talking about a C or bubble low B, that kid is hardly impacted because she/he ends up close to or at a fairly normal level for him/her.

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

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:52 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:My thought is that whenever I read policies like this, or any other policies, is that they are a reaction to an issue. Hockey boards don't go around dreaming up stupid rules for no good reason. In fact, it's a crappy job to have to address issues. Policies like the one you posted cone about as a reaction to something that has gone wrong in the past. It sounds like they had players go through tryouts and get placed on teams, then they found some other opportunity somewhere and ditched the association leaving a mess of having to re-roster these teams. In reaction a policy like this was enacted to give people a moment of pause.

Now, you can debate whether it is a good policy, bad policy, or even an allowable policy. I'm just saying that hockey boards don't sit around and think up ways to out the screws to its membership.
It doesn't matter why they came up with it. It's designed to punish a kid for daring to pursue another opportunity outside of this board's precious Association. It's wrong and I can almost guarantee MN Hockey would not allow it.

Associations are supposed to be there for the kids. The kids are not there for the Association. Too many immature adults with egos on boards who think it's about them and would rather punish a kid then concentrate on making a great experience for the kids they do have.

It's great that other options have sprung up to give these board members, "A moment of pause" before they make the decisions that they do. In the past, when the President of the Association picked the A team after his hand picked evaluator ran the tryout and his kid and all of his buddies kid's were on it when they clearly didn't earn it on the ice, the kids who got screwed had no options. That has changed for the better.

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

Post by elliott70 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:18 am

Jeffy95 wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:My thought is that whenever I read policies like this, or any other policies, is that they are a reaction to an issue. Hockey boards don't go around dreaming up stupid rules for no good reason. In fact, it's a crappy job to have to address issues. Policies like the one you posted cone about as a reaction to something that has gone wrong in the past. It sounds like they had players go through tryouts and get placed on teams, then they found some other opportunity somewhere and ditched the association leaving a mess of having to re-roster these teams. In reaction a policy like this was enacted to give people a moment of pause.

Now, you can debate whether it is a good policy, bad policy, or even an allowable policy. I'm just saying that hockey boards don't sit around and think up ways to out the screws to its membership.

It doesn't matter why they came up with it. It's designed to punish a kid for daring to pursue another opportunity outside of this board's precious Association. It's wrong and I can almost guarantee MN Hockey would not allow it.

Associations are supposed to be there for the kids. The kids are not there for the Association. Too many immature adults with egos on boards who think it's about them and would rather punish a kid then concentrate on making a great experience for the kids they do have.

It's great that other options have sprung up to give these board members, "A moment of pause" before they make the decisions that they do. In the past, when the President of the Association picked the A team after his hand picked evaluator ran the tryout and his kid and all of his buddies kid's were on it when they clearly didn't earn it on the ice, the kids who got screwed had no options. That has changed for the better.
It would not be acceptable in D16. I cannot speak for everyone else.
Unfortunately, unless some one files a grievance it would go unnoticed.

Some times a player is at a level below where he should be for other reasons and we have to weigh the good/bad of the situation. This is not one of those situations.

lostmyonlypuckindasnow
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:43 am

Post by lostmyonlypuckindasnow » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:34 pm

This departure rule just keeps bugging me. I've approached a few people on the association board who I am supposed to bring issues like this to and they won't discuss changing it unless someone makes them. They blow me off and say that they are in the right and how dare anyone question them and not appreciate all the hard work they put in. If you don't like and appreciate what they do, then you are dismissed as a crazy selfish hockey parent who will just never get it, and "leave and stay out" is their answer.

I've looked through all the grievance policies for our association and our district but everything seems geared towards grievances with coaches not written policy manuals like this. Even though there are a couple sympathetic ears on the board, they aren't the ones who run tryouts or registrations and they can't make a motion that would pass to change it. They could hardly find much beyond a second because of the internal politics and they don't want to rock the boat. I've also asked around to association other parents and they agree it is a stupid rule but nobody wants to speak out because they don't want to screw things up for their own kids.

The association does not publish agendas for meetings or have any set public forum for comment that I have ever seen except at the annual general elections where people running for things get up and give a vote for me speech.

So I my question is: now that I've brought my issue to those that I was supposed to bring it to and got blown off, do I go straight to my district director or MN Hockey with a written grievance because I can't find anything that really fits as far as a policy?

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

Post by Jeffy95 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:09 pm

lostmyonlypuckindasnow wrote:This departure rule just keeps bugging me. I've approached a few people on the association board who I am supposed to bring issues like this to and they won't discuss changing it unless someone makes them. They blow me off and say that they are in the right and how dare anyone question them and not appreciate all the hard work they put in. If you don't like and appreciate what they do, then you are dismissed as a crazy selfish hockey parent who will just never get it, and "leave and stay out" is their answer.

I've looked through all the grievance policies for our association and our district but everything seems geared towards grievances with coaches not written policy manuals like this. Even though there are a couple sympathetic ears on the board, they aren't the ones who run tryouts or registrations and they can't make a motion that would pass to change it. They could hardly find much beyond a second because of the internal politics and they don't want to rock the boat. I've also asked around to association other parents and they agree it is a stupid rule but nobody wants to speak out because they don't want to screw things up for their own kids.

The association does not publish agendas for meetings or have any set public forum for comment that I have ever seen except at the annual general elections where people running for things get up and give a vote for me speech.

So I my question is: now that I've brought my issue to those that I was supposed to bring it to and got blown off, do I go straight to my district director or MN Hockey with a written grievance because I can't find anything that really fits as far as a policy?
Just send your DD an e-mail. He/She will address it. Or tell us which Association, like Elliott asked and I bet he will even help you out. No reason to keep it secret anymore if you've already approached all the board members. I would like to know who has this rule also.

The Great Satan
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:44 am
Location: The Great White North

Post by The Great Satan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:59 pm

lostmyonlypuckindasnow wrote:Along the same lines as this, as well as the Eligibility post, what are thoughts on this "player departure rule" and what it says about the desire to develop hockey players (this is a fairly large association with 5-7 teams at each age level above mites, so the difference between top team players and the C teams should be very large):

"If, upon completion of the tryout process and assignment to a team, the participant elects to withdraw from [Association] and not participate with their assigned team during the upcoming season, they will be found in violation of the tryout process. Those found to be in violation of the tryout process will be deemed ineligible for the following season’s tryout process. Players who are ineligible for tryouts, or do not tryout, will be placed on a C team.... The Departure Policy is not intended to be punitive for withdrawing from, and returning to, [the Association]. Rather, it is intended to give families pause and dissuade the player from opting to leave the Association, due to unsatisfactory placement from the tryout process."
Interesting rule.

I agree with SCB that this was likely drawn up in response to an ongoing issue within that Association and has little, if anything, to do with the Association's desire (or lack thereof) to develop skaters and/or goaltenders.

That said, I'm not sure that this rule directly applies to Jeffry95's original question. The rule to which you are referring seems to apply to players who left an association, after tryouts are complete and rosters are posted.

IMHO, this rule would not seem to apply to a player who leaves an association prior to tryouts and opts to return the following year (ie: hypothetically registers for MM in Summer of 2016, plays MM for the 2016-2017 season, and returns to the association for 2017 tryouts and the 2017-2018 season).

TheMayor
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:35 am

Post by TheMayor » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:00 pm

elliott70 wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote: What association has this rule?
Mounds View

Post Reply