Community Based Youth Hockey Threatened

[Community Based]

There’s a discussion going on at Minnesota Hockey regarding eliminating the residency status when it comes to youth hockey. The proposal is to allow youth hockey players to waive to the youth association where they go to school instead of playing where they live. I don’t know who dreams these ideas up, or promotes them, but this one is really dumb.

We currently have a community based hockey model at the youth level. Squirts, PeeWees and Bantams, and the corresponding girls level teams, all currently play with their community based youth hockey association. High School hockey is the next step, when youth years are completed, and for that a student moving to 9th grade can attend their community school, opt for open enrolling at a neighboring public school, or attend a private school. At that time the student usually plays hockey with their school team. I like the clear distinction between youth hockey and high school hockey. Youth Associations don’t sponsor high school teams and high schools don’t sponsor youth teams.

The new discussion is promoting the idea of allowing youth hockey players to “open enroll” at a school outside their community boundaries and also open enroll in the community based hockey association in the community where they’ve opted to have their child attend elementary or middle school. In my opinion this is a big problem and poor thinking.

In the metro this is an extremely sensitive and important discussion. Several children attend schools outside their community based hockey association’s boundaries which could mean they can sign up and play for the hockey association where they attend elementary or middle school. High School has some protections in place to control player movement including the transfer rule. This proposal, as I understand it, would have no way to limit player movement. Kids change schools at the youth level more frequently than at high school.

Listen people, play where you live. Today’s society is looking for the easy way out for everything. Something isn’t going right for their own personal situation and they want change to benefit themselves. It’s selfish. Community means community. The question people need to ask is what can they do to improve the situation where they live, their community, instead of bailing. It requires time and involvement and passion to improve the situation for all youth that live in your community not just your child or the idea of looking for an easy way out.

I believe these votes go the District Directors. Metro District Directors are familiar with the problems this change in the residency rule could cause at the youth level. District directors outside the metro might not fully understand what this means as it’s less likely a child will opt for a different school miles away as opposed to a mile and one half away.

I ask District Directors to vote down the change in the residency rule and preserve the community based youth hockey model we currently have. I ask those that want to change a rule that affects thousands for their personal selfish situation to look closely and consider what they can do to improve the situation for all youth in the community as opposed to just their own child.

[muckandgrind]

Listen people, play where you live. Today’s society is looking for the easy way out for everything. Something isn’t going right for their own personal situation and they want change to benefit themselves. It’s selfish. Community means community. The question people need to ask is what can they do to improve the situation where they live, their community, instead of bailing. It requires time and involvement and passion to improve the situation for all youth that live in your community not just your child or the idea of looking for an easy way out.

What J&J, M&G, and others don’t seem to understand is it is about the community you live in, school or hockey. Our hockey model in Minnesota is community based youth associations that are volunteer supported. Period. That’s what we have in this state. You always say others worry about your kid and where he plays but you’re wrong. We don’t give a rip about your kid it’s you we want to be part of our youth association, volunteering and working hard to make it better for everyone. Your passion, your determination, that’s what drives volunteer youth sports organizations to improve themselves. When you just take off, to improve your own situation, without consideration to the community you live in, that’s lazy and selfish. Life is about serving others. What can you do to help others? Not about, I think I’ll bail and let everyone else worry about our community based hockey model.

The first quote is from "Community Based", the 2nd from "Observer"...hmmmm....looks as though somebody got a new moniker.

I've made my points on this clear. Personally, for the most part, I believe in community-based hockey. But not everyone does, and I don't believe the people that don't are necessarily "selfish", they just think differently. They may be used to the current youth soccer model that allows kids to play where ever they choose, prefer that approach and think hockey should be the same.

I think it's more important that kids have fun playing hockey, than it is forcing them to play based upon where they live. This is not the 1950's, more and more kids have friends that live in other communities. Let's face the reality, most kids hang around with friends they go to school, and if they happen to go to school outside of an association boundary, than it's safe to say most of their friends also live outside of their association boundary.

You say "community means community"...what the heck does that mean? There are all sorts of communities and it doesn't HAVE to mean where you live. There are school communities, church communities, etc. Do those communities mean less than what YOU perceive "community" to mean?

Like I said, I like the idea of community-based hockey, because that's what I'm used to. But having said that, more and more I understand the arguments of those aren't as hard core about it as you are, and my opinion is starting to shift.

[frederick61]

Even AAA hockey has "community" requirements. The problem they have is kids (with parents support), change AAA teams often because the "community" requirements are so relaxed. Kids are very self centered normally because they are kids. All the "change team environment" creates is a kid with problems since when they change teams, it is obvious to him and his parents that the team just left "is the one with problems".

[nhl'er]

This is long overdue! Thanks MH for adressing this need and allowing kids to have a choice to play with their school friends. Remember, it's about the kids and ensuring that they are having a great experience in these early years. Forcing kids to play in a different association than their friends just because they live on the wrong side of the street has been wrong!

[conditioningsucks]

Here's my problem with this. Minnesota Hockey will be granting a priviledge to some kids while not others. Here is my thought process:

A kid who lives in Armstrong area attends Benilde. That kid has two options to play hockey - in Armstrong or Saint Louis Park.

How about a kid that goes to Blake but lives in Edina. He gets to pick and choose whether 1) he stays in Edina, 2) he plays for Blake Bantam B1, 3) he plays for Hopkins as the hockey rink lower campus is in Hopkins, or 4) he can choose to skate for Minneapolis Southwest, as the upper campus is located there.

Or what about the kid who lives in Bloomington and attends St. Thomas. He gets the following choices: 1) skate with Bloomington, 2) skate with Sibley Area as that is where STA is located, or 3) skate with Prior Lake as they sponsor the STA Bantam B1 team.

Now --- my kid doesn't attend a private. My kid has only one option for skating - his community based hockey association. Is this fair? If my association is crappy but my kid has some talent - how does the kid best develop (hint - definitely not through community hockey as Minnesota Hockey will be letting kids open enroll everywhere if they are private school kids in my association --- draining the talent pool from my pond so that my kid's development suffers even further).

My point - it is a slippery slope. You can't give one priviledged group (private school kids) multiple options while restricting public school kids to one option. You are just asking for some attorneys to show up and cause Minnesota Hockey a lot of trouble and expense. All kids must receive equal 'Choice' as to where they want to play --- or you restrict to their community boundaries (where they live).

[MoveYourFeet]

IMO - I am also happy to hear that MH is looking at this issue. Minnesota Department of Education has had open enrollment for many years and families have made the choice to send kids to other districts for whatever reason and MH has stayed steadfast with its current (out-of-date)rule for too long.

IMO -It is important for our families to have a choice as to what school and follow through with athletics as well. I have seen it in soccer, baseball, softball etc.. where kids play these sports, without boundaries based on school enrollment, but not hockey. MH hockey, please give those families the opportunity, it only makes sense.

"Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire"

[Community Based]

Muck, who would favor this? The majority? A minority? Does it benefit the majority of youth players in the state? A few? Who would propose such a rule change? Someone that thinks it's a better structure for all youth hockey players or someone that thinks it's better for their own personal situation. That's selfish.

How would it even work? Family lives in Mound View but attends St. Paul Academy. They want to play with the community based association where their PeeWee goes to school which is Highland-Central. They open enroll their child in the Highland Central Youth Association for PeeWee hockey instead of Mounds View. There's problems with that. PeeWees often practice at 9:00pm. What, go home from school, don't play with Mounds View Youth Hockey where you live, eat dinner and then drive back to Highland Arena for a 9pm practice?

Oh, that's not a likely example? What is a more likely example?

Be careful about rules changes like this as they're rarely clear and concise. Usually someone has a different personal agenda but package the change so it appears relatively harmless. Frankly, this one doesn't appear harmless as it's a bad idea. It would harm more associations than it would help. But snakes are slippery and so they dream up ways to make changes appear less harmful until they're enacted and then the real reason, or example, comes clear.

If high school kids change schools, and hockey teams, they sit out a year. Does the PeeWee have to sit a season? Hello, Duluth, several of the Lakers will now open enroll with the Duluth East Youth Hockey. Is that good for the majority? I know they have one association but they divide the kids based on residence.

Make up some examples. I dare a proponent to lay out their personal example of how it will benefit their player. Believe me, it's not what it appears to be on the surface.

[muckandgrind]

Here's my problem with this. Minnesota Hockey will be granting a priviledge to some kids while not others. Here is my thought process:

A kid who lives in Armstrong area attends Benilde. That kid has two options to play hockey - in Armstrong or Saint Louis Park.

How about a kid that goes to Blake but lives in Edina. He gets to pick and choose whether 1) he stays in Edina, 2) he plays for Blake Bantam B1, 3) he plays for Hopkins as the hockey rink lower campus is in Hopkins, or 4) he can choose to skate for Minneapolis Southwest, as the upper campus is located there.

Or what about the kid who lives in Bloomington and attends St. Thomas. He gets the following choices: 1) skate with Bloomington, 2) skate with Sibley Area as that is where STA is located, or 3) skate with Prior Lake as they sponsor the STA Bantam B1 team.

Now --- my kid doesn't attend a private. My kid has only one option for skating - his community based hockey association. Is this fair? If my association is crappy but my kid has some talent - how does the kid best develop (hint - definitely not through community hockey as Minnesota Hockey will be letting kids open enroll everywhere if they are private school kids in my association --- draining the talent pool from my pond so that my kid's development suffers even further).

My point - it is a slippery slope. You can't give one priviledged group (private school kids) multiple options while restricting public school kids to one option. You are just asking for some attorneys to show up and cause Minnesota Hockey a lot of trouble and expense. All kids must receive equal 'Choice' as to where they want to play --- or you restrict to their community boundaries (where they live).

It's not just "private school kids", as you claim, there are public school kids that, for a variety of reasons, attend another school outside of their association boundaries.

How about the kid who's family had to move a few miles due to a job change? Why should he be forced to leave his hockey association because his dad changed his job, ESPECIALLY if he stays at the same school that he has been going to all along?

I mean, this IS supposed to be "about the kids", right?

[play4fun]

If true, I applaud MH for taking a look at this.

Open enrollment hasn't been the end of local schools like some had feared. This is not much different. Here's why...

Transporting children to another school, or even district, takes a higher level of family commitment than most are willing to pay. Think about it for a second, or even two. Taking little Johnny or Suzy to practice and play with another association outside of normal working hours is one thing. Taking them to another school 5 days a week for 9 months out of the year is an entirely different level of commitment, and will be a deterrent to most.

Here's a thought. Maybe for those that open enroll, education is the highest priority, not hockey.

For those that would make the sacrifice to open enroll just to play hockey somewhere else, so be it. The numbers won't be as significant as some might fear.

For a gut check, what are the number of kids who open enroll in the state currently? And, what percentage of kids overall play hockey? Take one as a likely percentage of the other --- I know, rough math -- and we're talking about a pretty small percentage of families?

Please, stop the hysteria mongering. This would be a good step in making today's youth hockey more appealing to more kids by allowing them to play with their classmates, regardless of where they sleep at night.

[muckandgrind]

Muck, who would favor this? The majority? A minority? Does it benefit the majority of youth players in the state? A few? Who would propose such a rule change? Someone that thinks it's a better structure for all youth hockey players or someone that thinks it's better for their own personal situation. That's selfish.

How would it even work? Family lives in Mound View but attends St. Paul Academy. They want to play with the community based association where their PeeWee goes to school which is Highland-Central. They open enroll their child in the Highland Central Youth Association for PeeWee hockey instead of Mounds View. There's problems with that. PeeWees often practice at 9:00pm. What, go home from school, don't play with Mounds View Youth Hockey where you live, eat dinner and then drive back to Highland Arena for a 9pm practice?

Oh, that's not a likely example? What is a more likely example?

Be careful about rules changes like this as they're rarely clear and concise. Usually someone has a different personal agenda but package the change so it appears relatively harmless. Frankly, this one doesn't appear harmless as it's a bad idea. It would harm more associations than it would help. But snakes are slippery and so they dream up ways to make changes appear less harmful until they're enacted and then the real reason, or example, comes clear.

If high school kids change schools, and hockey teams, they sit out a year. Does the PeeWee have to sit a season? Hello, Duluth, several of the Lakers will now open enroll with the Duluth East Youth Hockey. Is that good for the majority? I know they have one association but they divide the kids based on residence.

Make up some examples. I dare a proponent to lay out their personal example of how it will benefit their player. Believe me, it's not what it appears to be on the surface.

Get your facts straight. HS kids DON'T sit out a year if they change schools for athletic reasons. They can still play JV during that year.

You throw terms around like "selfish", when you don't know the reasons why individual families want to make the change. There are a variety of reasons, but a very valid one is that not everyone feels like you do about "loyalty to their locality", that is, they don't feel feel any special connection or bond to where they live. Like I said before, this isn't the 1950's or even 1980's anymore. People are more mobile than they used to be. Gone are the days when a kid's world and their best friends all lived on the same block. Times have changed, and you need to get a grip.

[Community Based]

CS, those are a couple of interesting examples. Oh, Bantam B. This came to a vote last year and Blake will have one more year and then they're done. How St. Thomas got Prior Lake, and D6, to approve Prior Lake hosting a team for a school that's based in Mendota Heights is beyond me. Oh wait, a Prior Lake family has boys that attend St. Thomas so somehow they convinced Prior Lake Youth Hockey leadership, and D6 leadership, that this would be a good idea even after MN Hockey said no to extending Blake's affiliate agreement. It was a one year experiment and I can't imagine it will be approved again because it's just plain stupid. Once that's in line there will be only one model. Youth Associations, where you live, through Bantam years, then high school. That's logical.

Do I dare ask about girls? Never quite enough at their youth association so all open enroll at a nearby public and play for that youth association?

You really have to think this stuff through, and imagine all the likely scenarios, to determine if it benefits the majority. This clearly does not.

[conditioningsucks]

To a large association (Edina, Wayzata, EP, White Bear Lake), you would find that there would be little complaint to this rule change because:

1) they have 1000+ kids in their programs --- who cares if one waives out, they have the depth.
2) they would most likely be the recipient of players, as their open enrollment to their school districts are higher than to others.

Now, take associations like Armstrong, Minneapolis Southwest, Washburn, Highland Central, Moundsview. They would lose a high number of kids due to private school and public open enrollment, killing their numbers.

As Community Based --- er, Observer --- points out - this would also decimate the Duluth Lakers as all of the talented hockey players would 'open enroll' over to Duluth East. Leaving the Lakers with a second tier program.

I don't know what the right answer is. All I am saying is that if you are going to give one kid options ---- you better allow options for other kids that are 'stuck' in a bad situation in a smaller association. Slippery slopes are bad.

[Community Based]

M&G, you just like to Muck and Grind for no apparent reason.

Move.

[spin-o-rama]

http://minnesotahockey.org/assorted/Res ... Change.pdf

David Bakke:

Regardless of where this ends up, we need to work together and get something in place for next season

Hopefully MH will actually put some thought into doing this unlike the usah HPC push.

Elliott, what can you tell us from being on the Discernment committee?

The committee is also considering a provision that would require teams in a District to be complete before players are eligible to be waived out of the District.

How would this work? If a district has their teams set before allowing waivers, how would inter district transfers work? You wouldn't be able to participate in tryouts and would be a C transfer. Wouldn't other districts also have teams set and make cross district transfers equally difficult? Seems like a plan for C player and Rainbow waivers.

Would a kid be able to choose where to play by home address and school attended? Wouldn't this give more choice to private school (wealthier) kids? Would this open the door for privates to have their own associations and field A teams?

[HockeyGuy81]

Community based, people might take your opinion a little more seriously if you were a little less emotional, actually listened to other people's opinions and the other side of the argument, and quit typing things like "oh wait" and "clearly."

Your mind is already 100% made up so why are you even on here discussing this?

[Community Based]

OK, family lives in Lakeville but child attends St. Thomas. Will that PeeWee leave Lakeville Youth Hockey Association to play PeeWee hockey for Sibley? Sibley is the Youth Association in Mendota Heights. Would St. Thomas coaches want the player to leave a strong Lakeville PeeWee team to play for Sibley which isn't as strong? Which is better for development. Oh, only if they decide that would be better for their own personal situation.

Believe me the proponents have tangled ideas that will benefit their own player but no one else. Then they write a vague proposal that doesn't shine a light on the real reasons, look for passage, and then you'll learn of the real "plan." What's the "plan?"

[Toomuchtoosoon]

Couple things-we all know there are probably people out there scheming to create a superteam. Let's say the 2003 Blades say lets all transfer to Hopkins so we can keep our team together. then the 2003 Machine says lets all transfer to Richfield to keep out team together etc. etc. (Please note - all hypothetical). Now the 2003 Icemen say lets all transfer to Maple Grove schools to keep our team together. This is a slippery slope that will get out of hand. Problem is, OMGHA already has 9 teams at each level and may not have enough icetime for another.

Proposed rules-if you waiver out of an association so you can play in the district you open enrol in, you can't play for the "A" team. Remember, this is supposed to be education based, not athletic. I would venture to guess some associations who already do not have enough icetime for their current teams should have the opportunity to reject a transfer since they already have too many teams for the icetime available. However, if you go to Blake, Blake should be able to participate at the players level, not an artificially low one.

I would push more mergers so the smaller associations can compete with the big guys. Their will be more competition to make teams and kids will more likely play at their right level, not one that is artificially higher than they can handle.

This gets tricky, so don't do anything stupid.

[play4fun]

There’s a discussion going on at Minnesota Hockey regarding eliminating the residency status when it comes to youth hockey. The proposal is to allow youth hockey players to waive to the youth association where they go to school instead of playing where they live. I don’t know who dreams these ideas up, or promotes them, but this one is really dumb.

CB, help me understand what's being discussed.

Based on what you presented, kids could waive out of their local association to play where they go to school? I interpret that as the kid can play with either association?

If so, your Lakeville-St.Thomas-Sibley example confuses me.
First, the kid has a choice and would not have to leave the Lakeville association just because he or she attends St. Thomas.

Second, it should be that family's choice.

That's my opinion. Your's differs. That's okay, but at least try to persuade me and others that your concerns are more than simply personal and about your own situation, or maybe that you're way too wound up about what other families may do.

I'm assuming that you're a big contributor to your local association, have everything working well, and shouldn't be threatened by this type of a proposal -- but then there's that old saying about what happens when we assume anything -- and your posts betray something less than a benevolent "what's good for the majority" concern.

[MoveYourFeet]

The opportunity to "open enroll" in hockey will not lead to a mass exodus. How many families will actually open enroll and have the resources to deal with the transportation issues to get the child to school of their choice? Not many, however there will be a few.

It is a very little "slippery slope" but the percentage of families who open enroll for just hockey will be very low especially with the current economic makeup. Time and money are the issue beyond where the child goes to school. Give the option, make families decide. IMO - the number of families will be very low and will not effect associations as some might think. I may be wrong but let the kids play.

"Ain't no mountain high enough. Ain't no valley low enough. Ain't no river wide enough"

[nhl'er]

Couple things-we all know there are probably people out there scheming to create a superteam. Let's say the 2003 Blades say lets all transfer to Hopkins so we can keep our team together. then the 2003 Machine says lets all transfer to Richfield to keep out team together etc. etc. (Please note - all hypothetical). Now the 2003 Icemen say lets all transfer to Maple Grove schools to keep our team together. This is a slippery slope that will get out of hand. Problem is, OMGHA already has 9 teams at each level and may not have enough icetime for another.

Let's get real here!! If parents are choosing a school based upon hockey vs education at these age levels, then these parents have a different set of their own problems to deal with.
Proposed rules-if you waiver out of an association so you can play in the district you open enrol in, you can't play for the "A" team. Remember, this is supposed to be education based, not athletic. I would venture to guess some associations who already do not have enough icetime for their current teams should have the opportunity to reject a transfer since they already have too many teams for the icetime available. However, if you go to Blake, Blake should be able to participate at the players level, not an artificially low one.

Why would you penalize a child in this manner for choosing education?

I would push more mergers so the smaller associations can compete with the big guys. Their will be more competition to make teams and kids will more likely play at their right level, not one that is artificially higher than they can handle.

Or, create a class structure like high school, where large associations play each other, small associations play each other. Let the decision for small associations to play large associations fall to which tournaments they choose to enter. Or level the playing field between large and small by requiring an A, B1, B2, C etc for every x number of kids..

This gets tricky, so don't do anything stupid.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

Let's get real here!! If parents are choosing a school based upon hockey vs education at these age levels, then these parents have a different set of their own problems to deal with.

I know, and those people would try to exploit the system.

Why would you penalize a child in this manner for choosing education?

See above, it would put an end to people with ulterior motives trying to recruit a superteam.

Creating a class system would be a very good idea.

[MoveYourFeet]

Let's get real here!! If parents are choosing a school based upon hockey vs education at these age levels, then these parents have a different set of their own problems to deal with.

I know, and those people would try to exploit the system.

Why would you penalize a child in this manner for choosing education?

See above, it would put an end to people with ulterior motives trying to recruit a superteam.

Creating a class system would be a very good idea.[/quote

BUT REALISTICALLY, WOULD THE NUMBERS BE THAT SIGNIFICANT OF PARENTS WITH "ULTERIRO MOTIVES". Financially speaking, it would create a burden.

[Community Based]

play4fun,

Here's a link to the discussion. The minutes from the January meeting are also posted on the MN Hockey site.

http://minnesotahockey.org/assorted/Res ... Change.pdf

Good one on my Lakeville/St. Thomas example. You're right, no one's leaving Lakeville to skate for Sibley. So who is going to use this vaguely worded potential rule change for their benefit? What other variations might occur?

One is Bantam B teams hosted by schools and playing in Districts with Youth Hockey Association members. This I don't understand. You have a Youth Hockey Association District made up of Community Based Youth Hockey Associations. Who would approve formation of more bantam teams not hosted by a member Youth Hockey Association? Is that protecting the interests of your members? Many hockey association numbers are down. With the growing cost of hockey, and the economy, recruiting is becoming more difficult. Bantam teams seem to lose more players to varsity and JV programs than they did in the past. So, with declining numbers, at the bantam level, among our members, but lets propose adding more bantam teams. This is wrong on so many levels. The district's responsibility is to protect their members interests. If you owned a drycleaner that was a member of the association of your neighborhood drycleaners would you favor construction of a new drycleaner across the street from your own? Does that make sense in these trying economic times? Would you just say, ah, go ahead, what do I care. No. You care and they're going to cut into your business by 20%. So the association of neighborhood drycleaners denies the request to protect their members interests. Please, associations and districts, don't you understand the responsibility to protect your membership?

This proposal is nuts. Some privates start in kindergarten, some in 9th grade. Bantam includes 8th graders that haven't started their new private school. Where do they play. Part of this comes from District 6. I've heard Bloomington has a middle school on the border between Jefferson and Kennedy school districts. But of course the kids live in one neighborhood, and youth hockey association, or the other. District 6 has allowed kids in the Kennedy neighborhood to play youth hockey for Jefferson. Why? I've been told that the families point to open enrollment, which is a high school rule, and say, "my child will open enroll at Jefferson when they enter 9th grade so we're switching youth hockey associations now." What? Of course the genius leadership in D6 also approved that Prior Lake host the St. Thomas Bantam B team even though the two communities are 20 miles apart. Can you say loophole? Of course they'll say things like it's for the kids. Right, their kid.

[muckandgrind]

I think many of you need to actually read the MH letter before commenting on it. In a nutshell, what they are really doing is trying to remove the inconsistant waivering processes that vary from one district to the next:

At the recent MH meeting in January, the Discernment Committee worked through a list of scenarios and tentatively identified some criteria where waivers could be considered. These included co-op teams, school attendance, residence of non-custodial parents, and associations that do not offer a team at a player's skill level. The committee is also considering a provision that would require teams in a District to be complete before players are eligible to be waived out of the District.

IMO, Community Based / Observer should change their moniker to "Chicken Little", but I gotta tell you, the sky is not going to fall.

Even if some kids are allowed to waiver out, the vast majority will still stick with their associations. And if an association is seeing more kids than the norm wanting to waiver out, than that association has to collectively look at itself in the mirror and ask the simple question: "WHY?" and than work on reversing that trend by making the necessary improvements that will make kids WANT to stay instead of being FORCED to stay.

[HockeyDad41]

del