SSM Tournaments

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:59 am

Good job with all that restructuring! It looks like the perfect storm of factors that caused all of this and it must have been a real challenge to make it all work. Good job to SSM people to made it all work for the girls. Good luck to all and hope they have a GREAT time.

Northland · Post by **Northland** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:36 pm

Anyone else like the 'old' rink at SSM better than the 'new' one?

.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:26 pm

SportsMa wrote:Good job with all that restructuring! It looks like the perfect storm of factors that caused all of this and it must have been a real challenge to make it all work. Good job to SSM people to made it all work for the girls. Good luck to all and hope they have a GREAT time.

I agree that it was a great job on the part of Shattuck to save the tournament however I have to say that I'm a little frustrated with MH. The amount of paperwork and fees related to playing in a 3 day tournament was immense. Also, it is my understanding that MH ultimately said no to the structure of the tournament even though it was the same structure as last year. Why is MH being so difficult? The idea was to have a great tournament with competitive teams regardless of the ages of the girls. It seems that MH comes up with more reasons and rules to prevent girls playing hockey. No wonder summer AAA has become so popular. I think MH needs to review its rules and procedures to see if it can't make the process more streamlined and helpful for facilitating more hockey games and tournaments rather than putting up so many road blocks that it is almost impossible to play fall hockey.

gopher25 · Post by **gopher25** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:59 pm

I think the reason MH is so difficult is that-

1. They can be, its not like soccer where there really arent rules as to age groups./tournaments, ect.

2. I think the powers at be do not want AAA hockey because of the high school season and the tradition. If they keep all of the rules it really limits AAA hockey even if it isn't what is in the best interest of the kids. I can't believe all of the rules about U16 hockey and the fact that you HAVE to play one year of high school hockey. It obviously makes kids play high school and keeps programs like the T-breds from registering a U16 team.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:14 pm

The tournament has brackets for the 19U level and 16U level. If a team has players that are to old for the 16U then they should have registered for the 19U instead of trying to get around the rules. This is a USA/Mn Hockey sanctioned tournament and as it is sanctioned the rules are to be followed. When the teams signed the affiliate agreement it was clearly spelled out as to what was expected including the age requirement to participate in sanctioned events.

Silent But Deadly · Post by **Silent But Deadly** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:20 pm

greybeard58 wrote:The tournament has brackets for the 19U level and 16U level. If a team has players that are to old for the 16U then they should have registered for the 19U instead of trying to get around the rules. This is a USA/Mn Hockey sanctioned tournament and as it is sanctioned the rules are to be followed. When the teams signed the affiliate agreement it was clearly spelled out as to what was expected including the age requirement to participate in sanctioned events.

Not that I want to be known for sticking up for USA/MN Hockey, but it does only seem right that if you register a U16 team that ALL of your players are U16 eligible.....am I too NAIVE?

gopher25 · Post by **gopher25** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:31 pm

YEs, I totally agree- silent but deadly, you shouldn't have 17 year olds playing U16..

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:14 pm

The rule about having played High school hockey pertains only to the players who are 14U eligible and is part of the Before and After agreement.

By the rules of the state high school league a player can not be on 2 different rosters during the hockey season, a girl could not play for both a USA Hockey registered team and a high school team.

The preseason league was set up for players that played high school hockey or are no longer 14U eligible. The girls wanted what the boys have and got a bit more, they can have a chance to advance for a national title.

Why is it when some try to either stretch the rules or get caught the other side should change rather than follow what was there first. If a rule needs changing then do the leg work and try to get the rule changed and if you do not have the time or effort to do that quit complaining.

Thunderbird77 · Post by **Thunderbird77** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:30 pm

It is less clear to me where the issue lies regarding the registration of teams. Minnesota Hockey would never register a team as a U16 team unless all players on the roster were U16 eligible. If the team is sanctioned by Minnesota Hockey as a U19 team, why would a tournament director place them at the U16 level? There was definately a mix-up, but it points more toward tournament scheduling than teams registering for a tournament at the wrong level.

Silent But Deadly · Post by **Silent But Deadly** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:46 pm

Thunderbird77 wrote:It is less clear to me where the issue lies regarding the registration of teams. Minnesota Hockey would never register a team as a U16 team unless all players on the roster were U16 eligible. If the team is sanctioned by Minnesota Hockey as a U19 team, why would a tournament director place them at the U16 level? There was definately a mix-up, but it points more toward tournament scheduling than teams registering for a tournament at the wrong level.

I think Thunderbird is right. At least one of the teams in question has been playing U19 all summer/fall....why were they registered as U16....I presume they were placed where someone felt they would be most competitive.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:51 pm

greybeard58 wrote:The tournament has brackets for the 19U level and 16U level. If a team has players that are to old for the 16U then they should have registered for the 19U instead of trying to get around the rules. This is a USA/Mn Hockey sanctioned tournament and as it is sanctioned the rules are to be followed. When the teams signed the affiliate agreement it was clearly spelled out as to what was expected including the age requirement to participate in sanctioned events.

No one was hiding the fact that these were U19 teams as they registered as such. The teams were placed in the "U16 bracket". I was told that this was ok because a waiver was being given by MH. To insinuate anything devious was being done is just wrong.

Silent But Deadly · Post by **Silent But Deadly** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:07 pm

OntheEdge wrote:
greybeard58 wrote:The tournament has brackets for the 19U level and 16U level. If a team has players that are to old for the 16U then they should have registered for the 19U instead of trying to get around the rules. This is a USA/Mn Hockey sanctioned tournament and as it is sanctioned the rules are to be followed. When the teams signed the affiliate agreement it was clearly spelled out as to what was expected including the age requirement to participate in sanctioned events.
No one was hiding the fact that these were U19 teams as they registered as such. The teams were placed in the "U16 bracket". I was told that this was ok because a waiver was being given by MH. To insinuate anything devious was being done is just wrong.

I reread my post...doesn't read like I intended. I know I certainly didn't mean to suggest something devious was going on. Still, I'm happy you provided some clarification.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:18 pm

As I stated above when these teams sign the affiliate agreement they are responsible to know and follow the rules not pick and choose.

When there is inter-level play more than one person is involved. The Mn Handbook mentions the with the correct permission 19u and Jr Gold teams may scrimmage varsity teams and 16u may with the proper permission scrimmage jr varsity, In another section inter level play in invitational is not allowed, there is only one exception and it does not include the Girls 19U and 16U.
Was Shattuck informed at the beginning these teams had older players and was a proper roster submitted before this week? A proper roster is one that has been filled out according to USA/MN Hockey procedures and signed off by the appropriate persons.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:13 pm

greybeard58 wrote:As I stated above when these teams sign the affiliate agreement they are responsible to know and follow the rules not pick and choose.

When there is inter-level play more than one person is involved. The Mn Handbook mentions the with the correct permission 19u and Jr Gold teams may scrimmage varsity teams and 16u may with the proper permission scrimmage jr varsity, In another section inter level play in invitational is not allowed, there is only one exception and it does not include the Girls 19U and 16U.
Was Shattuck informed at the beginning these teams had older players and was a proper roster submitted before this week? A proper roster is one that has been filled out according to USA/MN Hockey procedures and signed off by the appropriate persons.

I can't answer your question since I don't know all of the details and I'm not going to attempt to argue the rules. I believe someone at the very worst was wrong in what they believed could be done under the rules (not surprising if you ever tried to read all of the rules). Anyway to argue the rules or who is to blame distracts from the bottom line. The bottom line in my opinion is that MH/USA has too many rules that prevent kids from playing hockey. More than occasionally I think some common sense is in order. We want kids to play hockey don't we? I could give lots of examples of how the rules prevented hockey from being played. If you look at it from a business standpoint (and USA/MH is a business), how long can a business stay viable when it operates to prevent its consumers from doing the very thing the business purports to promote?

One last thing, I am in no way arguing to eliminate USA/MH Hockey. I think they are invaluable organizations that do a lot of good. I only wish that the rules weren't so burdensome and/or were a bit more flexible. I've said my peace so I will drop it now but I think MH/USA Hockey should really think about this.

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:20 pm

How is the tourney going now that games have started?

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:14 am

For those that wish to see rules changed then get to work on getting them changed. Start with the District Director where you live or send proposals to the appropriate committee. All of these rules have been put in place because some people in an earlier time went out of their way to cause some trouble and do not forget that now a lot of people enjoy suing to get their way so a large number of things have to be done by the book.

I will repeat what I have said many times get involved to help change the system and rules or stay on the sidelines and do nothing if you chose to do nothing please be quiet.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:45 am

greybeard58 wrote: I will repeat what I have said many times get involved to help change the system and rules or stay on the sidelines and do nothing if you chose to do nothing please be quiet.

Greybeard,

I agree that getting involved is the best course but absent getting involved I don't think being quiet is the right direction. Many businesses pay lots of money to gather information about their clients through surveys etc. to try to make their product better. I think this board presents invaluable information to MH/USA Hockey through its free expression and follow-up dialogue. Maybe it will foster change and may be not. I truly believe that "Our critics are our friends, they show us our faults" - Ben Franklin

Northland · Post by **Northland** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:21 am

OntheEdge wrote:
greybeard58 wrote: I will repeat what I have said many times get involved to help change the system and rules or stay on the sidelines and do nothing if you chose to do nothing please be quiet.
Greybeard,

I agree that getting involved is the best course but absent getting involved I don't think being quiet is the right direction. Many businesses pay lots of money to gather information about their clients through surveys etc. to try to make their product better. I think this board presents invaluable information to MH/USA Hockey through its free expression and follow-up dialogue. Maybe it will foster change and may be not. I truly believe that "Our critics are our friends, they show us our faults" - Ben Franklin

MN/USA Hockey have to read the postings here first

.

Media · Post by **Media** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:38 am

The Crunch played Warner in the first exhibition game of the day yesterday and lost 1-0. It was a great game with chances both ways.
Gina Dodge was exceptional for the Crunch coming to the door step several times. Kaia Sele, Bemidji rang up the shutout in the first half of play and only a potential player in the crease resulted in the lone goal on Lexy Schutt. The Crunch short on D as a result of potential state bound VollyBall Star Sam Scheving,(Who will join the team today) missing game one played extreamly tough defense the entire game. Due in part to Brianna Goulet Courtney Reutzel and Katie Erickson. Kudos to Shattuck for the tounament, effort and allowing it to occur.

hockeymaven · Post by **hockeymaven** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:29 pm

The SSM tourney is quite the money maker for Shattuck--$900 per team and then they charge admission . . . no heat, no cleaning the ice between periods, and not a great schedule.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:47 pm

hockeymaven wrote:The SSM tourney is quite the money maker for Shattuck--$900 per team and then they charge admission . . . no heat, no cleaning the ice between periods, and not a great schedule.

I thought the admission charge of $10 for the weekend (3 games) was very reasonable. Not sure what you mean by not a great schedule, but I think they did a very good job of placing the teams in the right divisions when they were forced to realign everything at the last minute. Most of the games that I saw were very competitive. The one suggestion I would have is for them to put the tournament, including schedule and scores, on their web site.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:16 pm

Whate were the results of the games that were played?

HockeyFan55 · Post by **HockeyFan55** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:10 pm

Let's get this out of the way. I AM NO FAN OF MINNESOT HOCKEY.

BUT, on this and numerous other posts, people bash the group. There are a couple things that never are addressed by those that are complaining.

1) Minnesota Hockey registers over 50,000 members. Aside from those players that are invited to tryout for the Advanced and NDP programs, there are less than 400 HS players. Small percentage to bend over backwards for.

2) Minnesota has defended its position of being community based for many years. AAA teams don't have to register with MN Hockey; they do because they want to play in sanctioned tournaments. They want both sides of the coin. AAA isn't even an afterthought until you go to them.

3) As someone on the outside, I find it absurd that the groups that don't get what they want immediately come with their lawyer fathers. (The 'elite' girls are the group most notorius for this) What irks me is that MN Hockey doesn't let them sue. Their bylaws (Article 6,I) specifically state that if you don't go through the grievance hierarchy prior to suing, or threatening same, you are persona non grata.

4) The complaints about paperwork and age restrictions are bizzarre. If you have daughters playing HS hockey, take a look at the paperwork. It's exactly the same as EVERY OTHER YOUTH PLAYER IN THE STATE fills out.
Everyone else also plays by the USA Hockey (Minnesota modified) age limits. Exceptions moving up are the jurisdiction of the local association. Exceptions moving down are the jurisdiction of the USA Hockey Registrar, and are given ONLY to those with a specific medical need. Did you daughters become elite without ever playing on a youth team?

5) If you've managed to get your daughter, or son, on one of the SPECIAL ELITE teams, and they've chosen to register with MN Hockey, read the rules. They're posted on the website for everyone to look at.

6) If you apply for an Affiliate Agreement in August or September, but then choose not to register your team till October, don't be suprised if you're told you don't meet all of the requirements. Why didn't you, as a parent, ask questions in August?

7) For those of you that have complaints, realize that every special demand that you have is something additional to a volunteer to handle. Have you ever given that some thought as you had them on the phone rattling off reasons that your child is different?

Get involved. If you want an elite league, similar to the boys, find someone that is organized and knows the rules to administer it. Don't just expect it to appear.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:39 pm

joehockey wrote:Whate were the results of the games that were played?

Hope someone responds to your question, as I am curious too. I saw a handful of the games, but didn't take many notes.

Even though I saw just a few, I doubt that any of the games were as fast and furious as the exhibition between SSM Prep and the Jr. Whitecaps - that was a real barn burner with SSM pulling it out by two, including an empty netter at the end. Both teams are loaded with talent and the play was at a very high level.

spr air 210 · Post by **spr air 210** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:59 am

I know Walser blue won 3-2 over Warner,lost 2-1 to White Caps, and 2-1 to the Ice Cats. Didn't catch the score for White Caps vs Ice Cats anybody know the result?