Phase out of JV teams?

trilogy · Post by **trilogy** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:43 pm

This might be a good topic for discussion, it ties somewhat with the thread on the idea for a post-grad option for women's hockey.

Have heard that the coach's association and mshsl are discussing possibly phasing out JV hockey for girls within a few years, which would put the JV girls on Minnesota Hockey teams instead. U14A, U14B and U19B as it currently stands. Unless they change the ages and add U16.

This is interesting and seems to be driven by budget cuts plus the fair amount of small JV teams out there. Why support JV for teams if a combined V/JV program numbers kids only in the low 20s? You can cut the cost of the ice rentals which can be significant for a high school team, plus the cost of coaches, refs for games, busses etc.

But the girls still have a team to play on theoretically because they end up in MN hockey where they can be waivered around or co-op teams formed - much easier to do at association level because you don't have to attend a specific school, and you can even waiver between associations or districts.

Has anyone else heard the discussion on this or have more details?Thoughts anyone?

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:49 pm

Generally I'm against anything that's mandated when it doesn't need to be and this fits that mold. As far as I know, no HS program is required to offer a JV Girls' Hockey team. Many programs don't have one. Yes, they can be expensive, and dropping one would amount to having the cost transferred from the school to the parents of the players. If a school decides to do this, fine. But if a school wants to offer JV and can afford it, why should it be prohibited? A JV provides one more viable option--for many families the issue is money. Kids can play on our local JV team for the $90 activity fee. U14A costs about $1400. Aren't we supposed to be about increasing options instead of limiting them?

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:52 pm

Does this also mean that the boys JV program will be dropped?

Jethrotull · Post by **Jethrotull** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:00 pm

My guess would be that Title 9 would not allow this because lower numbers of girls would be participating in sports if JV hockey was dropped. Remember, hockey was added to raise their numbers. If it was dropped then boys tennis would have to go.

trilogy · Post by **trilogy** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:28 pm

You have to remember this is coming from the coaches, the head of the girls coaching association to be exact (Morris). These varsity coaches for the most part would be much happier if they did not have to deal with a jv team. There are exceptions, but the only thing most of them care about is their own varsity team.

JV going away would make their life much easier. They could just hold tryouts, cut to whatever number they want, and let the youth associations figure out how to keep the rest of the girls playing. I actually think it would increase opportunities for girls because they wouldn't be held to the boundary of their own particular school.

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:34 pm

You couldn't be more wrong about the coaches not wanting JV programs. The coaches I know all love their JV programs and prefer them immensly over the U14 teams as do 99% of the parents I know. The fact is JV going away would make coaches lives much more difficult, not easier. With the JV they can develop their players on their own. In fact most parents prefer the JV also. It is easier on the family with practice times and the expense is far less than the youth programs. Maybe the teams I know are isolated cases but I honestly can tell you that the programs I am familiar with would never want to lose their JV program and I would be shocked if the people you mention felt the same way you do. I also don't think it is fair that you mention a coaches name as it is most likely only your opinion and unless he has been quoted as saying the things you mention you shouldn't make unfounded statements like that. For all I know Mr. Morris is 100% behind his JV program.

trilogy · Post by **trilogy** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:06 am

I'm sure the opinions are quite varied about jv vs u14. I can see pros and cons both ways, and it has generated some interesting conversations at the rink recently.

Tim Morris is not the only coach I've heard say they would be for eliminating JV. A couple other coaches around here have pushed for it, but their athletic directors decided in the end to let the jv continue because of title 9 issues. Sorry, I did not make this up.

But the coaches feel it is not a matter of whether it will happen, but when, they are talking maybe 3-5 years. The two biggest reasons they cite are the constant struggle between u14 and jv numbers in most communities, and the huge cost of a hockey team. What other sport has such an expensive facility rental cost per hour? Not many I can think of.

As far as wanting a jv to develop players, think outside the box for a minute. If a coach wanted to, he could probably accomplish that goal by working closer with the local u14 team. Our youth association uses the high school coach as a mentor to the girls youth team coaches, he meets with them to review and suggest drills, and runs some practices each year. Our association loves that he is involved and knows who all the girls are coming up out of youth.

JV is only cheaper because it is subsidized by your local school district(yeah that means all of us). In this age of school budget cuts how long do you really think a sport whose costs are increasing 10% or more per year will escape the axe? The last time I looked the hourly rate for ice rentals was heading upward at an alarming rate and I for one don't see any end to that.

A girls hockey jv has a different purpose than a boys jv and that's just supply and demand. Most girls hockey players that are coming out of youth are trying to jump past jv and land right on the varsity either right out of u14 or even sometimes u12. And if they are strong players they probably will, leaving more and more upperclassmen on the jv as the younger girls scoot right past them. Parents weigh their options, count the number of openings and play the odds to time the jump.

Boys jv is more of a place to develop and pay your dues on the way to varsity. A young player isn't going to crack the varsity in many communities no matter how good he is until sophomore at least.

So what is the purpose of a girls jv anyway? In my community, it is mostly to develop the future third line player. And occasionally, to nurture a talented 7th-9th grader until there is room on V. But mostly it is the girls that came up through the youth B teams. So I can see the argument that the jv could go away without hurting the development of varsity teams, at least on the girls side of hockey.

In the end my opinion doesn't matter, because if the mshsl decides to do away with girls jv they will do what they do, won't they?

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am

I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you assesment of the value of the JV programs. Either way, whether you or I like or dislike it the JV programs will never go away as long as the boys teams have them. The MSHSL will never do this because of the potential for lawsuits they would get from the girls side parents. Just look at how quickly they caved in on the Excel arena issue.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:23 am

For some programs like EP, they could probably care less if JV gets cut.
They have enough girls in their program U14-U19 that it would be less of a headache for their coaches to deal with.
But there are some metro programs that struggle to get enough girls to play and do have to use JV as a feeder program.
But for what it is worth, IMHO if any coach thinks that it is a headache to have a girl’s hockey JV program, then just maybe he has the wrong job title and should be coaching on the boys side,

Hux · Post by **Hux** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:42 am

One has to wonder if this isn't being pushed by the ADs, or the local youth associations as well. In my area, many of the youth associations tend to be ambivalent about the girls high school programs as they take up valuable ice time during the season, cutting the youth practices down to one a week from the normal two.

Additionally, there is a sense that ADs would rather have freshman teams for the boys, than a girls varsity. (In these parts girls public high school hockey is something of an afterthought)

ice29 · Post by **ice29** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:04 am

hockeywild7 wrote:I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you assesment of the value of the JV programs. Either way, whether you or I like or dislike it the JV programs will never go away as long as the boys teams have them. The MSHSL will never do this because of the potential for lawsuits they would get from the girls side parents. Just look at how quickly they caved in on the Excel arena issue.

I have to completely agree with you ! Well Stated!!

* Who would you rather pay your Hockey Fee's to Minneosta Hockey - USA Hockey or your Local High School?
* Not all High School Varsity-JV Teams are Metro located. Having 14u,16u or 18u Teams are not an option. The numbers won't support additional teams, Girls JV is the option.
* JV Programs create and develope the bloodline and character of the High School you play for. Youth Association promote the development of the Game of Hockey.
* There is no response to the statement " Girls JV is B-Level Hockey. That is completely ignorant and insulting to anyone's intelligence.
* Boys Hockey - Girls Hockey at the High School Level, whether it be JV or Varsity is still Hockey! An equal in the eyes of MSHSL and it will stay that way!

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:51 pm

trilogy wrote:

So what is the purpose of a girls jv anyway? In my community, it is mostly to develop the future third line player. And occasionally, to nurture a talented 7th-9th grader until there is room on V. But mostly it is the girls that came up through the youth B teams. So I can see the argument that the jv could go away without hurting the development of varsity teams, at least on the girls side of hockey.

This is a perfect description of ours as well. There are three girls this year who were cut from the U14A team (they have to go to another association to play U14B) who are now on the JV team. Our 14A is way better than the JV team. The 14As who move up next year will take their place on varsity, and these JV players will still be JV, and maybe JV for the rest of their playing days. However, if we get rid of JV then it needs to be replaced by something else--that's my point. I don't like the idea of having girls who want to play with no team to play on, at least in this point in the development of girls' hockey. Someone mentioned U16 or U17. If JV is dropped, I expect these types of teams would be formed. Minnesota hockey is doing a good job of expanding the ranks of U19B right now.

ice29 wrote:

* There is no response to the statement " Girls JV is B-Level Hockey. That is completely ignorant and insulting to anyone's intelligence.

ice29 -- I'd say this is one of the most thoughtful and restpectful discussions I've seen on this forum. But this is pretty much how it is for most programs. There are definitely huge programs like EP, Edina, Wayzata, etc, as well as northern teams with no 14A where this isn't the case, but most of us have U14A which is an excellent and exciting level of hockey, and the JV being B level is just a fact of life.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:20 pm

There are plenty of schools that only have 3-6 girls at any one age that play hockey and if it take grades 7th -12th to make enough for a Varsity there is no one left at the U14,
also some schools end up with girls on ther JV that have never played before but are given the Opportunity because the JV team is available for a larger span of ages for girls ages 13-18 at HS
I also would not say that there might not be a kid who is very talented and in three years could make the Varsity team with a little hard work.
I dont ever like to see opportunitys taken away from the kids I know that some will say but there is always U14 or maybe U16 or U19 but not every community can support the numbers like that.

It would not affect me or my family if it were dropped,
but I would fight for the girls to have that right to have a jv until the end!
If it is good enough for the Boys it darn well better be good enough for the Girls.

ice29 · Post by **ice29** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:49 am

I was wondering, wasn't there a time when AD's and coaches used the criteria that if you didn't have a JV team that they wouldn't schedule a game with your school? I think that's what promoted Girls 12U and 14U to the fantastic level of play that it is today.
Would scheduling of games become an issue again?

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:05 am

That may be true some places but we play some towns that don't have a JV and then their 14u plays our JV or there is only a varsity game. So, I don't think that has a direct impact on scheduling of games in our area.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:19 pm

SportsMa wrote:That may be true some places but we play some towns that don't have a JV and then their 14u plays our JV or there is only a varsity game. .

I am not positive but I believe it is against USA rules to play non USA teams!

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:40 pm

there are boy teams out there that have to pluck boys from Bantams to fill out their JV teams, so are these JV teams going to be cut?

I think this is a similar situation to some girls JV teams. If your having low numbers than a co-op should be the next phase in this discussion, not dropping the JV level

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:21 pm

In regard to being against the USA rules, I am guessing that the 14u teams our town's JV team are playing have researched what they need to do so as not to be breaking any rules as this is not something new this year. Possibly it is being called a scrimmage.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:55 pm

SportsMa wrote:In regard to being against the USA rules, I am guessing that the 14u teams our town's JV team are playing have researched what they need to do so as not to be breaking any rules as this is not something new this year. Possibly it is being called a scrimmage.

They get prior approval from MN Hockey's district directors who have gained approval through USA Hockey's associate registrar for the Minnesota Hockey affiliate.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:54 pm

MH registered teams shall not participate in any way with any team that is not registered with USA
19&Under teams may play High School Varsity or Junior Varsity teams with the permission of the cognizant MH District Director and the USA Hockey Minnesota District Registrar in that order.
Additionally, 14&Under and 16&Under teams may play High School Junior Varsity teams under the approval provisions above, with the condition that if the association involved has multiple teams in either the 14&Under or 16&Under divisions, only the highest level team in that division will be
considered. Failure to obtain proper permission to play a non-registered team may result in sanctions which could include forfeiture of eligibility to play in MH playoff tournaments. Any affiliate member representing a community, association, or group whose teams intend to

Well it looks to be ok as long as ther are not higher teams than U14 in that association, But that is good to know.

SportsMa · Post by **SportsMa** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:25 pm

Thanks for the additional information. Figured there was a process that was being followed as the 14u teams would not risk sanctions by playing a JV team.

Central · Post by **Central** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:57 pm

Our JV plays 14u sometimes, too. May be more common in the outstate area where numbers do not always support 14u and JV teams and communities may have one or another.

Back to thread topic, JV teams are not going away unless MSHSL does away with boys' JV, too.

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:54 pm

ice29 wrote:

...wasn't there a time when AD's and coaches used the criteria that if you didn't have a JV team that they wouldn't schedule a game with your school?

That might be but it can't be the case now. What do you do with the teams in your conference who have every girl who tries out on the varsity? There are at least two in our conference. They seem to get plenty of non-conference games.

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:20 pm

This may be a stupid question, or at least appear to be as much to some, but what about a girl(s) who isn't highly skilled, may never develop to anything other than average skill at best, doesn't care, doesn't want or plan to play beyond her high school years (except perhaps for recreation) but wants to have some fun, stay fit, participate in athletics / activities outside of academics, meet new people, make friends...have some fun etcetera etcetera? Isn't a high school JV team the best opportunity for these girls (I'm assuming they exist). Or are there better ones I'm unaware of? Some of these things used to be the primary purpose of high school sports...when I was there a long time ago.

I feel it would be a very bad idea to eliminate JV and the opportunity it provides for many who might want to play for their HS even if it isn't varsity.

xwildfan · Post by **xwildfan** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:38 pm

Brook, agree 100%. Makes perfect sense; JV teams could be in trouble.