Minnesota Hockey Annual meeting April 25-27

[elliott70]

Meeting is at Crowne Plaza in Brooklyn Center.

Everyone is welcome to attend. I am not aware of any closed meetings this weekend.

Friday night at 7 tournament committee.
8 pm district directors meet.
Saturday 8 am Hockey Operations
9:30 Publicity-Promotions
10:30 Rules
Noon Lunch
I will buy for the first ten that show up.
1 pm Discernment Committeee
3:30 Executive Committee

Sunday

[elliott70]

Sunday - actual meeting
start at 8 am
start with President, treasurer and exec dir reports.
then committee reports with voting on anything htat comes out of committee from Saturday or earlier.
Followed by USA Hockey reports
then new business as follows
residency proposal
st cloud assn proposal
private school affiliate agreements - 2 separate matters
one site state tournaments
election of board members
VP planning
VP tournaments
Sec Treasurer**
ratify adult mens director
elect 2 directors to USA Hockey

** I know the incumbant is not running for this position.
Anyone can nominate anyone.


Would like to see a lot of people show up.

[elliott70]

ttt

[Whatthe]

Elliott:

Can you update on redistricting?

Has anyone put forth a concrete proposal to redistrict beyond Lakeville's request of last year?

If so, any chance anything related to redistricting gets voted on at this meeting?

If not, why in your opinion haven't the earlier meetings resulted in a concrete proposal?

Seems like this issue is disappearing, at least from this board.

[elliott70]

Elliott:

Can you update on redistricting?

Yes, redistricting is part of the discernment committee. The chairs told the committee members 'we are not going to rush through this.'
And I guess we are not. I hope to put the spurs to it a little next weekend.

Has anyone put forth a concrete proposal to redistrict beyond Lakeville's request of last year?

No, three of us have ideas we would like to put together, but we have to it following the "process". Process has been stressed over solutions.

If so, any chance anything related to redistricting gets voted on at this meeting?

No, there is no current proposal.

If not, why in your opinion haven't the earlier meetings resulted in a concrete proposal?

Again, the 'process' has been stressed. We have not looked at 'solutions'.
Hopefully, that changes at the meeting.

Seems like this issue is disappearing, at least from this board.

Not disappearing at MH, just not moving very fast. Again, my resolve is to speed up the 'process' ten days from now.

[conditioningsucks]

Elliott,

Can you give a little clarity to what these are about?

residency proposal - Is this regarding some sort of overall waiver policy to govern all Minnesota Hockey teams?


st cloud assn proposal - looks like this is being handled on another thread so I think I understand...basically it sounds like St. Cloud wants to separate based on the highschools that they feed? Just my two cents, but I think that Minnesota Hockey associations should operate separately from the high schools as the high school coaches and influences only lead to more politics. Not to mention that several suburban bantam coaches are directed to shun private school kids from "A" level teams as they want to develop players for their own interests. In St. Clouds case, though I don't believe there is a private school involved, I think it is a bad idea to align based on where high schools kids will end up. Perhaps they should focus on developing the kids and in the end both high schools will benefit.


private school affiliate agreements - 2 separate matters - What are the two separate matters? Is it whether to issue any affiliate agreements for 08-09? Is it to determine whether to let all private schools have teams? Help us out here in the Internet world as to what these 2 separate matters are.

Thanks!

[FREDFLINTSTONE]

How about getting the regional playoffs back to the "double elim bracket tournament." The pool play needs to go away.

[Mac15]

Elliott,

Do you have an idea of how may affiliates base their boundaries on a school rather than on a city or collection of cities?

It seems like most metro programs are named after their school rather than a town. West St Paul recently renamed themselves "Sibley Area". I am also curious how many associations support muliple public schools. Rochester supports 3 public and 1 private HS. To my knowledge there are no pending plans to split RYHA into 2 or 3 groups.

[Marty McSorely]

What's the Process to redistricting? It seems like MN hockey takes longer then the Federal Govenment to make a decision.

[elliott70]

Elliott,

Can you give a little clarity to what these are about?

residency proposal - Is this regarding some sort of overall waiver policy to govern all Minnesota Hockey teams?

This is a by-law proposal to change the definition within the handbook. Basically makes it easier to understand and ties to what most metor areas are doing in terms of tying into public shool districts. It is on my desk to read tomorrow. If I get an email I can forward it to anyone that wants to read it.


st cloud assn proposal - looks like this is being handled on another thread so I think I understand...basically it sounds like St. Cloud wants to separate based on the highschools that they feed? Just my two cents, but I think that Minnesota Hockey associations should operate separately from the high schools as the high school coaches and influences only lead to more politics. Not to mention that several suburban bantam coaches are directed to shun private school kids from "A" level teams as they want to develop players for their own interests. In St. Clouds case, though I don't believe there is a private school involved, I think it is a bad idea to align based on where high schools kids will end up. Perhaps they should focus on developing the kids and in the end both high schools will benefit.

Read all about it...
Yes, the jist to the board will be 'how do we want associations defined?'
In this particulary case - which argument is the best for kids to have fun and develop.
private school affiliate agreements - 2 separate matters - What are the two separate matters? Is it whether to issue any affiliate agreements for 08-09? Is it to determine whether to let all private schools have teams? Help us out here in the Internet world as to what these 2 separate matters are.
Two proposals from two private schools to accept their limited affiliate agreement application.
A simple matter on the face of it but since we have been discussing it in committee it ahs become complicated.


Thanks!

You are welcome, although these things should be on the MH web page as they info is for all of us (serious), not just us fruit cakes dumb enough to stick around long after our kids are grown and having their kids (kidding).

[elliott70]

How about getting the regional playoffs back to the "double elim bracket tournament." The pool play needs to go away.

I will bring this up Friday night at the DD meeting.
The northern regions have used pool play for close to 30 years, though.

[FREDFLINTSTONE]

So what your saying is the northern teams believe that if "it ain't der broken den dont er fix it?"

[elliott70]

So your what your saying is the northern teams believe that if "it ain't der broken den dont er fix it?"

No, I am saying you do not make a change based on what was done in the past and jsut refer back to that method.

The northern system was a little different then what is used now.
Just jumping back to double elim may or may not work for all. Unitl the structure is laid out it is difficult to say 'yes, this is fine - no it will not work - or we need to adjust a bit and then it shuld work for all.'

And this has not been something that coaches inmy area have complained about. Some close by have after they failed to win a Sunday game and a team they had beat the day before did. bu there is no guarantee a team will win all the games necessary to get to state.

But like I said, I will bring it up and we will see what direction it goes.

[FREDFLINTSTONE]

Two problems with the Pool Play tourament is the 0-2 team that is done, but still has too play one more game, and the second is that tie breakers have no place in a regional touranament. A team advancing because of their goal differential is not good.

[observer]

Why complicated. All youth hockey players in Minnesota live in a youth hockey association area. We have plenty and don't need more. Bantam teams already face pressure losing bantam aged players to high school teams. Youth hockey associations offer youth hockey teams (Squirt, PeeWee, Bantam and girls) for all youth that live in their area. Why would the system be changed? Please don't tell me the selfish fussers have infiltrated the committee?

St. Thomas had a one year experimental program that violated multiple MN Hockey rules in their formation and during the season. They will not return as both District 1 and 8 have voted not to allow. These decisions are made by the Districts where the schools reside.

Blake, the only other private school with a single level team and youth association status, has an agreement that has expired, easy, over. The privates have said these are low level kids that otherwise wouldn't play youth hockey. Well, maybe they should host a Bantam C team then instead of a State Championship Bantam B team with kids from several different youth hockey associations, some A level at that. That's not a level playing field.

Now all of us can focus our energy and attention on strengthening our community based youth hockey associations instead of opening a door to a number of future problems.

The best path, for the broad majority, 99% of all hockey families, is to keep youth hockey teams with youth hockey associations and save school hockey teams for high school aged players. As I've suggested, the squeaky wheel can't get the grease on this one. It would show lack of ability to make a pretty simple decision that benefits the vast majority.

There are single associations that have players that will attend 8 different high schools. Should each have a Bantam team? Why would private schools be allowed to have bantam teams but public schools not allowed? Wouldn't that be unfair? Wouldn't all public schools be interested in hosting bantam teams as well? They have the same transfer issues as the privates.

And, as for the privates. How selfish can you be? Why start a new school program for 15 kids? How about a new environmental studies program for the entire school. Improve the theater program for all the kids. Other ideas that benefit the entire student body? You've totally lost sight of your purpose.

[conditioningsucks]

Observer,

You bring up many interesting points on privates. Here is my main beef with Minnesota Hockey on this issue and perhaps Elliott can voice it at the meeting:

How can Minnesota Hockey allow some kids within a hockey association the CHOICE to play somewhere else (e.g. a private school), while kids that attend a public school aren't given a CHOICE to play somewhere else?

What if your kid is stuck on a crappy Bantam A team because a half dozen of the top kids fled to play Bantam B hockey at a private? What are your kid's options. HE HAS NONE outside of enjoying a year of getting his butt kicked and a loss of a year of development.

Are there financial incentives (e.g. sponsorships - it was rumored STA last year paid Richfield to use their affiliate agreement, golfing buddies with MN Hockey people, MN Hockey donations, etc.) that are driving this? Let's not forget that these schools have a lot of influential people with big wallets that know how to get things done - if ya know what I mean.

Again, if you are going to provide 'free agency' to private school kids where they have the option to play in their association or with a private. Minnesota Hockey should provide options for ALL kids in the state to play in alternative programs (I am sure there are a lot of summer AAA kids that would rather play with their AAA buddies than their association buddies --- where is the option for them to play with the buddies of their choice?).

Minnesota Hockey prides itself on trying to be fair and do the right thing. Allowing affiliate agreements that give some kids options and others not is not fair and not the right thing.

[elliott70]

Two problems with the double elim tourament is the 0-2 team that is done, but still has to play one more game, and the second is that tie breakers have no place in a regional touranament. A team advancing because of their goal differential is not good.

You mean pool play?
Sometimes that team can make the top two with a win and the right combo in the other game.
If not, they can still act as a spoiler.
In double elim. two teams will play two games and go home.
Long drive and motel room for just two games.
In the north regions we always played to a winner at least since about 1994 or a little earlier. Prior to that it switched every other year.

In double elim you would ahve to have modified to make it work Fri - Sat.
A simple change, winner of championship side would be the winner of the region. Everyone else would play for second place.
I like that set-up. You give two teams only two games, one Friday and one Saturday. Depending on how it is set-up and how the motels react, they may get stuck staying another night.

[elliott70]

St. Thomas had a one year experimental program that violated multiple MN Hockey rules in their formation and during the season. They will not return as both District 1 and 8 have voted not to allow. These decisions are made by the Districts where the schools reside.

This is not true.
The District Board does not make the decision on new affiliates.
The District Director does.
The District Board only has such power as given by the Director.
The DD will approve an affiliate contingent on teh MH board ratifying that decision.

[observer]

Excuse me Mark. You are correct. District 8 membership representatives, from the 16 youth associations that make up District 8, voted against admission of a St. Thomas Bantam B team into District 8. Association District Reps represent the opinion of the approximately 5000 members of District 8 and they voted no.

The DD from District 8 made an interesting decision, going against his thousands of members, and gave St. Thomas permission to form a Bantam B team. When asked by his members not to allow why would he do that? I'm guessing membership wasn't/isn't real pleased.

Anyways, he learned his lesson and I'm sure won't favor continuation of the failed experiment that caused nothing but problems for he and his membership. Frankly, he caused problems for members of Districts 2 & 1 as well.

[elliott70]

Excuse me Mark. You are correct. District 8 membership representatives, from the 16 youth associations that make up District 8, voted against admission of a St. Thomas Bantam B team into District 8. Association District Reps represent the opinion of the approximately 5000 members of District 8 and they voted no.

The DD from District 8 made an interesting decision, going against his thousands of members, and gave St. Thomas permission to form a Bantam B team. When asked by his members not to allow why would he do that? I'm guessing membership wasn't/isn't real pleased.

Anyways, he learned his lesson and I'm sure won't favor continuation of the failed experiment that caused nothing but problems for he and his membership. Frankly, he caused problems for members of Districts 2 & 1 as well.

I would have to agree.

[DMom]

The open enrollment at public schools also causes an issue for younger hockey players. We had up to fifteen families referred to our association this year because they reside in our school district but attend school in another. Often times the other school district has an elementary school that is geographically closer to the player's home When the kids go to sign up for hockey, they have been told that because they don't actually reside in the school district they need to register at another association. It's not my situation, but I have talked to quite a few families in the last few years who are in this position. As they say, "nothing against your association but our son/daughter thought they were going to be playing with the kids from their school".

Ultimately that does not need to be the concern of the local hockey associations. The parents made a conscious decision to have their children attend a school outside of their district. They will probably make the same decision at Jr. high and senior high. They will probably never play hockey for the senior high loosely affiliated with the association they have been told to play hockey in. The parents I have talked to are not happy about it, and not necessarily because we have a bad program in place. Sometimes the other arena is far closer to their home.

This seems to be happening in greater numbers each year. Whether because more people are open enrolling their kids, or because associations are cracking down and paying attention to mailing addresses. None of the families asked for a waiver because they had already registered in the other associations and were given their money back and told to contact our association. One family did choose not to enroll their five year old son. I am sure that we are not the only association this is happening to.

If everyone were free to pick their school, and thus pick their youth athletic teams--even $4.00/gallon gasoline wouldn't stop them from traveling great distances to be on the "right" team.

[observer]

This is an easy one. Open enrollment is a school discussion not a hockey one. All hockey players must register with the youth hockey association where they reside. Kids can attend schools outside of their communities but must play hockey, through their youth hockey years, in the community where they reside.

District 6, and Bloomington specifically, have played this a little loose and let some families apply the school open enrollment issue to hockey. ie, "my son plans to attend Jefferson High School even though we live in the Kennedy Youth Hockey area." The proper answer is, "fine, when he plays high school hockey he can play for Jefferson, until then, your family resides in the Kennedy Youth Hockey area and your children will play for Kennedy Youth Hockey.

There's no reason to confuse open enrollment for school with Youth Hockey Association boundaries. It's where you live.

[elliott70]

The open enrollment at public schools also causes an issue for younger hockey players. We had up to fifteen families referred to our association this year because they reside in our school district but attend school in another. Often times the other school district has an elementary school that is geographically closer to the player's home When the kids go to sign up for hockey, they have been told that because they don't actually reside in the school district they need to register at another association. It's not my situation, but I have talked to quite a few families in the last few years who are in this position. As they say, "nothing against your association but our son/daughter thought they were going to be playing with the kids from their school".

Ultimately that does not need to be the concern of the local hockey associations. The parents made a conscious decision to have their children attend a school outside of their district. They will probably make the same decision at Jr. high and senior high. They will probably never play hockey for the senior high loosely affiliated with the association they have been told to play hockey in. The parents I have talked to are not happy about it, and not necessarily because we have a bad program in place. Sometimes the other arena is far closer to their home.

This seems to be happening in greater numbers each year. Whether because more people are open enrolling their kids, or because associations are cracking down and paying attention to mailing addresses. None of the families asked for a waiver because they had already registered in the other associations and were given their money back and told to contact our association. One family did choose not to enroll their five year old son. I am sure that we are not the only association this is happening to.

If everyone were free to pick their school, and thus pick their youth athletic teams--even $4.00/gallon gasoline wouldn't stop them from traveling great distances to be on the "right" team.

This is a problem everywhere, but more so in the metro area.

Up here in the woods, we let the parents chose in which association they want their child to play, in the first year the child registers.
As an example, we have people that live in the Red Lake Falls school district but both parents work in Crookston. Their child goes to the Crookston school so we let them have the choice in that first year and fromthen on the child is a Crookston hockey palyer uless there is a physical move or some other exception applies (we have these detailed inour policy manual).

And this could be Crookston - East Grand Forks; Red Lake Falls - Crooskton; Red Lake Falls - Thief River Falls; Bemidji - Bagley; Bemidji - Blackduck; Bagley - Park Rapids; Roseau - Warroad or Warroad - Baudette.
In the metro it could be accross district lines as is the case with Park Rapids - Bagley for us (or possibly Intl Falls - Baudette; EGF and GF ND or NE ND and Hallock).

It seems to work for us, bu then we have less cases then come up in the metro area.

[hockeyparent11]

D6 has a very sensible waiver rule that would work for the state.

If a player lives in one D6 association district and goes to school in another, he can choose where he wants to play in his first traveling year, and he gets an automatic waiver. Wherever he plays the first year is his district.

After that, if he wants to switch, the automatic waiver rule does not apply.

[ninety5]

Seems if we apply strict logic, as has been suggested above, there is no need for youth assoc boundries in the first place. You play where you live right?

Define the assoc by the city limits. That would be fun to see.

Plymouth would be a new power in youth hockey. There would be no need to agrue about residency rules, no grey areas. Why would that not fly? (and yes, that is a rhetorical question and not meant to be seriously answered)