So Elliot when do we get our District all star teams? Thats what we seem to be headed to. AAA hockey in MN (for a select 170 kids) with a traditional comunity based hockey for the rest of the players.
The only reason I ask, is because I think it is time we get back into the national scene with our players. And having the kids at the proper major and minor level would do this. Our bantam teams currently have kids to old to compete at the national level, so we are excluded.
Minnesota Hockey proposed new residency rule
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Chuck Norris Fan
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:01 pm
- Location: North Metro
- Contact:
-
Community Based
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:01 am
From Elliott,
Private School (nor public school) will be allowed an affiliate agreement.
Sometimes missing letters, or words, are important. Are you saying schools will be given youth hockey affiliate agreements? Or, not be allowed affiliate agreements? Or, private schools will but not public ones?
We have plenty of youth hockey associations currently and certainly don't need any more. Most associations, and districts, are already dealing with declining numbers. Is there something in this new residency rule that allows for formation of additional affiliate agreements? More youth associations and more teams?
Right now there are no schools with affiliate agreements. Only youth associations have affiliate agreements. Blake has had one but doesn't any longer. Those bantam aged kids will skate with their residence community youth associations this fall. St. Thomas convinced Prior Lake to host their Bantam B team, or a Prior Lake parent convinced the Prior Lake Association, and District 6, to host the Bantam B team but that's sure to go away as it was sheer lunacy. They found a loophole in the loophole. Why allow one single Prior Lake dad, with two boys that attend St. Thomas, change the whole structure of our State's community based model. Great, you're crafty. You get a star for screwing the system. I've spoken with several families in Prior Lake and none knew of this arrangement. It was between the dad and the President and then got approval from the District 6 District Director without District 6 Associations knowledge or support.
Make it simple. Play where you live and then comes high school. It's the same for everybody. Works just fine for 99% of all hockey families. We don't need to cave to a few little babies.
Private School (nor public school) will be allowed an affiliate agreement.
Sometimes missing letters, or words, are important. Are you saying schools will be given youth hockey affiliate agreements? Or, not be allowed affiliate agreements? Or, private schools will but not public ones?
We have plenty of youth hockey associations currently and certainly don't need any more. Most associations, and districts, are already dealing with declining numbers. Is there something in this new residency rule that allows for formation of additional affiliate agreements? More youth associations and more teams?
Right now there are no schools with affiliate agreements. Only youth associations have affiliate agreements. Blake has had one but doesn't any longer. Those bantam aged kids will skate with their residence community youth associations this fall. St. Thomas convinced Prior Lake to host their Bantam B team, or a Prior Lake parent convinced the Prior Lake Association, and District 6, to host the Bantam B team but that's sure to go away as it was sheer lunacy. They found a loophole in the loophole. Why allow one single Prior Lake dad, with two boys that attend St. Thomas, change the whole structure of our State's community based model. Great, you're crafty. You get a star for screwing the system. I've spoken with several families in Prior Lake and none knew of this arrangement. It was between the dad and the President and then got approval from the District 6 District Director without District 6 Associations knowledge or support.
Make it simple. Play where you live and then comes high school. It's the same for everybody. Works just fine for 99% of all hockey families. We don't need to cave to a few little babies.
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
it seems to me that this new proposed rule doesn't change the "community based" model of MN hockey very much at all. It just redfines community based to be - school location instead of House location. Which really makes some sense, as many choose to send their children to different schools based on where they work, where grandma lives, to a charter or magnet school - and yes - even to private schools, amonst other valid reasons as well.
Now... for what i don't get... Why should there be a choice for these kids??? If the definition of residency is changed to where the school is located as opposed to where the home is located - than why aren't the kids required to play for that association? Why do these kids get a choice while others do not?
I thought the whole idea was to tighten up the waiver policy, and take the decision making away from the Association presidents, so all players were treated more equally in regards to the waiver policy???
And now i also hear that associations can also put added rules on these kids? if they live somewhere else, and "waive" in to an association because they go to school within those boundaries, then they might not be able to play traveling? Again, instead of MN hockey making rules that make the decision process easier for the local associaitons, and to create uniformity, it appears to me they are doing just the opposite.
Now... for what i don't get... Why should there be a choice for these kids??? If the definition of residency is changed to where the school is located as opposed to where the home is located - than why aren't the kids required to play for that association? Why do these kids get a choice while others do not?
I thought the whole idea was to tighten up the waiver policy, and take the decision making away from the Association presidents, so all players were treated more equally in regards to the waiver policy???
And now i also hear that associations can also put added rules on these kids? if they live somewhere else, and "waive" in to an association because they go to school within those boundaries, then they might not be able to play traveling? Again, instead of MN hockey making rules that make the decision process easier for the local associaitons, and to create uniformity, it appears to me they are doing just the opposite.
Wake Up Mn
My understanding is USA hockey will be abopting the NPD program. My understanding is Mn Hockey is not in agreement with this. Please wake up minnnesota. Community based hockey is a dead horse. The only state in the nation you see it is is MN and it is declining rapidly. AAA hockey will be the future (already else is in most states). Minnesota must Follow the NPD.
[quote="elliott70"]It should be noted that teh current language on the web page is not at all like the original proposed change.
Specifically geting approval from the presidents and the DD and allowing affiliates to put restrictions on the players transferring.
I add this just so you know things may greatly change again before a vote comes forward and the vote could be this weekend.
The 'new' rule is not any different than what already exists other thatn it provides language that would be given a greater benefit of the doubt for a DD to overturn but is not mandatory.[/quote]
That's what I don't understand, you can do this already. This will place tremendous pressure on Presidents and DDs in the metro area.
I had a phone conversation yesterday with a hockey mom who has already started the process to open enroll her son in a neighboring school district, and suprisingly, not the neighboring school district with a reputation for better schooling. She was calling and asking me questions about the local junior high because I have a son attending there. What I don't think she realizes is that she will still need to get the waiver signed by both associations.
One thing that makes hockey different than baseball, is that hockey doesn't cut kids. There is always a place for kids to play within their community. With the unavailability of prime time ice in the metro area, there will not be enough ice in some communities to service both their kids and the incoming kids, so does hockey begin to cut C teams? Know the realities of your association's ice situation before your answer that. Did your kid get enough ice last winter?
My home association probably has more kids open enrolling in other school districts for educational purposes than any other district in the metro area. We have a huge busing district (geographical area) that doesn't follow major freeways, etc, and the school district, while doing much better in their test scores, has not been a leader in the area. There are kids who, legitimately, have been going to a different district's schools for five years(before squirts even starts) and are forced to travel to skate. I don't believe those types of kids have ever had a problem getting a waiver to leave, but they have had, and I probably know 15 families, a problem getting a waiver to play. This probably won't change anything for them, there still won't be room at the association where their school is located.
As to the language limiting waivered players to non-tryout teams, I don't think any association is rushing out to change their language, but if it's already in place, you have to live with it and abide by it or you are asking for even more problems.
Specifically geting approval from the presidents and the DD and allowing affiliates to put restrictions on the players transferring.
I add this just so you know things may greatly change again before a vote comes forward and the vote could be this weekend.
The 'new' rule is not any different than what already exists other thatn it provides language that would be given a greater benefit of the doubt for a DD to overturn but is not mandatory.[/quote]
That's what I don't understand, you can do this already. This will place tremendous pressure on Presidents and DDs in the metro area.
I had a phone conversation yesterday with a hockey mom who has already started the process to open enroll her son in a neighboring school district, and suprisingly, not the neighboring school district with a reputation for better schooling. She was calling and asking me questions about the local junior high because I have a son attending there. What I don't think she realizes is that she will still need to get the waiver signed by both associations.
One thing that makes hockey different than baseball, is that hockey doesn't cut kids. There is always a place for kids to play within their community. With the unavailability of prime time ice in the metro area, there will not be enough ice in some communities to service both their kids and the incoming kids, so does hockey begin to cut C teams? Know the realities of your association's ice situation before your answer that. Did your kid get enough ice last winter?
My home association probably has more kids open enrolling in other school districts for educational purposes than any other district in the metro area. We have a huge busing district (geographical area) that doesn't follow major freeways, etc, and the school district, while doing much better in their test scores, has not been a leader in the area. There are kids who, legitimately, have been going to a different district's schools for five years(before squirts even starts) and are forced to travel to skate. I don't believe those types of kids have ever had a problem getting a waiver to leave, but they have had, and I probably know 15 families, a problem getting a waiver to play. This probably won't change anything for them, there still won't be room at the association where their school is located.
As to the language limiting waivered players to non-tryout teams, I don't think any association is rushing out to change their language, but if it's already in place, you have to live with it and abide by it or you are asking for even more problems.
-
auld_skool
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:39 pm
-
Community Based
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:01 am
-
dumb blonde
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:59 am
Okay, be nice since this is my first post. Have read the Board but have never participated.
I think this proposal starts us down a slippery slope. I had hoped that it would put teeth into the current rule and not allow for DD & Assn Presidents to work around it (as some not all currently do). Our DD has been a great upholder of the current rule.
I understand the verbaige in the proposal to allow for associations to add their own rules as to not allowing waivered children in to the traveling program. Ours has one but by allowing this proposal to pass really leaves the Board with a great deal of pressure to uphold the language they have adopted as DMom stated. I have seen my Board decide on a waiver issue based on feelings and not what the rule states. We had many new Board members who did not understand the rules and had their heartstrings tugged by the parents wanting to waive their child out.
As far as tax dollars from the community go, if a rink was purchase by low interest city backed bonds then the cities within the community probably do have some cash input. When we bought additional ice we went to the cities within our school district boundaries not those in neighboring cities where children who are open enrolled live. Even if open enrolled students pay their hockey fees their parents probably aren't contributing in taxes that go to pay for the building in which we skate. Private school enrollment is a whole new slope. We have none within our boundaries but many of our kids attend their schools. Based on many replies I am not certain of the impact but I can see lawyers...
I think this proposal starts us down a slippery slope. I had hoped that it would put teeth into the current rule and not allow for DD & Assn Presidents to work around it (as some not all currently do). Our DD has been a great upholder of the current rule.
I understand the verbaige in the proposal to allow for associations to add their own rules as to not allowing waivered children in to the traveling program. Ours has one but by allowing this proposal to pass really leaves the Board with a great deal of pressure to uphold the language they have adopted as DMom stated. I have seen my Board decide on a waiver issue based on feelings and not what the rule states. We had many new Board members who did not understand the rules and had their heartstrings tugged by the parents wanting to waive their child out.
As far as tax dollars from the community go, if a rink was purchase by low interest city backed bonds then the cities within the community probably do have some cash input. When we bought additional ice we went to the cities within our school district boundaries not those in neighboring cities where children who are open enrolled live. Even if open enrolled students pay their hockey fees their parents probably aren't contributing in taxes that go to pay for the building in which we skate. Private school enrollment is a whole new slope. We have none within our boundaries but many of our kids attend their schools. Based on many replies I am not certain of the impact but I can see lawyers...
I completely disagree with the proposed policy. My interpretation of the MN Hockey survey results are that members find this to be a pressing issue because of the lack of enforcement of the existing policies. I don't believe that a majority of MN Hockey members felt that the existing policy was too tight, but rather it was inconsistently apllied. I do believe the majority of MN Hockey memebers would like to see less waivering between associations and more kids playing where they live (as MN Hockey states).
The fact that a number of people surveyed indicated that the current waiver policy is an issue does not by default mean that the solution is to increase the movement of players across association and district boundaries. In fact, I would argue that the proper response is quite the opposite. Enforce the current MN Hockey policy that does NOT recognize open enrollment as a valid reason to play hockey in an association other than where you live.
What percentage of MN Hockey members want the ability to play somewhere other than where they live? 3%? 6%?. I don't know the number, but it certainly is the minority that are pushing this issue. When does it stop being about Billy and start being about the greater good?
Assoications whose boundaries contain weaker school districts and/or no private schools will lose players. Assocaitons with strong school districts and private schools within their boundaries will attract more players. The associations (communities) that can least afford to lose players will be at the greatest risk of doing so.
Just one man's opinion
The fact that a number of people surveyed indicated that the current waiver policy is an issue does not by default mean that the solution is to increase the movement of players across association and district boundaries. In fact, I would argue that the proper response is quite the opposite. Enforce the current MN Hockey policy that does NOT recognize open enrollment as a valid reason to play hockey in an association other than where you live.
What percentage of MN Hockey members want the ability to play somewhere other than where they live? 3%? 6%?. I don't know the number, but it certainly is the minority that are pushing this issue. When does it stop being about Billy and start being about the greater good?
Assoications whose boundaries contain weaker school districts and/or no private schools will lose players. Assocaitons with strong school districts and private schools within their boundaries will attract more players. The associations (communities) that can least afford to lose players will be at the greatest risk of doing so.
Just one man's opinion
From this and other threads, most of you know I favor a change to the current rule.
That said, the proposed rule only muddies the water further. Bad move.
The proposed rule looks like a half-hearted attempt by MH to do "something" rather than take a firm stance one way or the other.
Take a position, make it clear, don't leave wide room for local interpretation or inconsistent decisions, and move on. One way or the other. Make play-where-you live stronger, or clearly establish the rules for play-where-you-go-to-school and any other exceptions -- without leaving further room for associations to be "creative" in defining yet more conditions.
To be clear, that means fewer discretionary decisions by association CEOs and DDs, which will always be viewed by others as "bad" decisions. That means not leaving it up to local associations to decide whether kids can participate fully or only with conditions (i.e., travel vs. house teams).
INCONSISTENT RESULTS are what truly drives everyone nuts, and will continue to do so as long as the current rule and local politics drive different results BASED ON WHERE YOU LIVE. (not trying to e-yell, just emphasize the key point).
I leave it to smarter hockey minds to determine which stance is the best course for now.
Good luck Elliot, and thanks for taking time to get some imput from outside of the DDs and Discernment Committee.
That said, the proposed rule only muddies the water further. Bad move.
The proposed rule looks like a half-hearted attempt by MH to do "something" rather than take a firm stance one way or the other.
Take a position, make it clear, don't leave wide room for local interpretation or inconsistent decisions, and move on. One way or the other. Make play-where-you live stronger, or clearly establish the rules for play-where-you-go-to-school and any other exceptions -- without leaving further room for associations to be "creative" in defining yet more conditions.
To be clear, that means fewer discretionary decisions by association CEOs and DDs, which will always be viewed by others as "bad" decisions. That means not leaving it up to local associations to decide whether kids can participate fully or only with conditions (i.e., travel vs. house teams).
INCONSISTENT RESULTS are what truly drives everyone nuts, and will continue to do so as long as the current rule and local politics drive different results BASED ON WHERE YOU LIVE. (not trying to e-yell, just emphasize the key point).
I leave it to smarter hockey minds to determine which stance is the best course for now.
Good luck Elliot, and thanks for taking time to get some imput from outside of the DDs and Discernment Committee.
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
Simple solution, tax the player waiving in an extra fee to cover that. What would be be talking about? Maybe $25 per skater...tops?dumb blonde wrote: Even if open enrolled students pay their hockey fees their parents probably aren't contributing in taxes that go to pay for the building in which we skate. .
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself.gorkbird wrote: When does it stop being about Billy and start being about the greater good?
muckandgrind wrote:Simple solution, tax the player waiving in an extra fee to cover that. What would be be talking about? Maybe $25 per skater...tops?dumb blonde wrote: Even if open enrolled students pay their hockey fees their parents probably aren't contributing in taxes that go to pay for the building in which we skate. .
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself.gorkbird wrote: When does it stop being about Billy and start being about the greater good?
- Excellent point Muck! That is certainly the first time I have been mentioned alongside Karl Marx!! My point was poorly communicated. We can't legislate the game to be an ideal situation for every individual. No matter what the policy is, there will be individuals that are disgruntled. Does this proposed policy best serve the members of MN Hockey? For some individuals, absolutely, but for most of our memebers I believe it does not.
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
Community Based wrote:From Elliott,
Private School (nor public school) will NOT be allowed an affiliate agreement.
Sometimes missing letters, or words, are important. Are you saying schools will be given youth hockey affiliate agreements? Or, not be allowed affiliate agreements? Or, private schools will but not public ones?
We have plenty of youth hockey associations currently and certainly don't need any more. Most associations, and districts, are already dealing with declining numbers. Is there something in this new residency rule that allows for formation of additional affiliate agreements? More youth associations and more teams?
Right now there are no schools with affiliate agreements. Only youth associations have affiliate agreements. Blake has had one but doesn't any longer. Those bantam aged kids will skate with their residence community youth associations this fall. St. Thomas convinced Prior Lake to host their Bantam B team, or a Prior Lake parent convinced the Prior Lake Association, and District 6, to host the Bantam B team but that's sure to go away as it was sheer lunacy. They found a loophole in the loophole. Why allow one single Prior Lake dad, with two boys that attend St. Thomas, change the whole structure of our State's community based model. Great, you're crafty. You get a star for screwing the system. I've spoken with several families in Prior Lake and none knew of this arrangement. It was between the dad and the President and then got approval from the District 6 District Director without District 6 Associations knowledge or support.
Make it simple. Play where you live and then comes high school. It's the same for everybody. Works just fine for 99% of all hockey families. We don't need to cave to a few little babies.
-
vikes40for60
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:28 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. Great comments.gorkbird wrote:I completely disagree with the proposed policy. My interpretation of the MN Hockey survey results are that members find this to be a pressing issue because of the lack of enforcement of the existing policies. I don't believe that a majority of MN Hockey members felt that the existing policy was too tight, but rather it was inconsistently apllied. I do believe the majority of MN Hockey memebers would like to see less waivering between associations and more kids playing where they live (as MN Hockey states).
The fact that a number of people surveyed indicated that the current waiver policy is an issue does not by default mean that the solution is to increase the movement of players across association and district boundaries. In fact, I would argue that the proper response is quite the opposite. Enforce the current MN Hockey policy that does NOT recognize open enrollment as a valid reason to play hockey in an association other than where you live.
What percentage of MN Hockey members want the ability to play somewhere other than where they live? 3%? 6%?. I don't know the number, but it certainly is the minority that are pushing this issue. When does it stop being about Billy and start being about the greater good?
Assoications whose boundaries contain weaker school districts and/or no private schools will lose players. Assocaitons with strong school districts and private schools within their boundaries will attract more players. The associations (communities) that can least afford to lose players will be at the greatest risk of doing so.
Just one man's opinion
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
Elliott... I'm sure you are watching the discussion, as have I. It appears clear to me that almost everyone agrees on one point: MAKE A DECISION AT THE STATE LEVEL SO THE INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY!
After that - everyone has a different opinion.
Can you explain to us the point of the new language - if the ultimate decisions are still left to the local associations? How does that change anything? Right now anyone going to school outside there associaiton boundaries can ask for a wiaver out and a waiver in. If they still have to ask - than what has changed? What am I missing here?
After that - everyone has a different opinion.
Can you explain to us the point of the new language - if the ultimate decisions are still left to the local associations? How does that change anything? Right now anyone going to school outside there associaiton boundaries can ask for a wiaver out and a waiver in. If they still have to ask - than what has changed? What am I missing here?
Failed.
Every (almost) DD felt it muddied the water with no clarification what so ever.
A revised proposal will be coming.
Once I have it I will post it.
Every (almost) DD felt it muddied the water with no clarification what so ever.
A revised proposal will be coming.
Once I have it I will post it.
Last edited by elliott70 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Help Elliott70
Lets say that this does indeed get changed. Can each District implement their own version? Furthermore can each individual association implement something different from the district and/or mn hockey? I can see both sides on this one, like most policies. What I am really having a hard time with is the following:
Why does this seem to be a priority for MN hockey when it could effect less than 3 percent of the kids?
Please Elliot educate me!
Why does this seem to be a priority for MN hockey when it could effect less than 3 percent of the kids?
Please Elliot educate me!
elliott70 wrote:This is not open enrollment as the player will still be in a community based program. It is redefining residency - where your house is or where your school is.
Is it good or bad, well, that's what I am trying to find out here, so post your opinion and your rebuttals.
Thank you.
And the 'waiver' is for one year, and the player must continue in the school district.
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
3%???
Oholene:
Thank you,
What 3% are you referring to? Please explain why you think this only effects 3% of the kids? And most importantly - where did you come up with this figure? What does it represent? And where can we cross-reference the statistacal value of this number?Why does this seem to be a priority for MN hockey when it could effect less than 3 percent of the kids?
Thank you,
-
hockeyboys
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
I would like to see the figure of how many kids open enroll + those that attend private schools outside thier HS boundary.
I would also guess 3% may be close - but I'm not sure it it is just a guess, or fact. I'm certain metro and outstate are different. Also areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul are going to by considerably higher.
My point is this - it may be only 3% - or 5% - or 8 % - or whatever, but it affects everyone. And some associations would have a huge impact. I think someone mentioned St. Thomas earlier. If all kids that went to St. Thomas - and they start in middle school - so Peewee age - were required to play for the association in which St. Thomas was located, then that association would be tremendously impacted.
I would also guess 3% may be close - but I'm not sure it it is just a guess, or fact. I'm certain metro and outstate are different. Also areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul are going to by considerably higher.
My point is this - it may be only 3% - or 5% - or 8 % - or whatever, but it affects everyone. And some associations would have a huge impact. I think someone mentioned St. Thomas earlier. If all kids that went to St. Thomas - and they start in middle school - so Peewee age - were required to play for the association in which St. Thomas was located, then that association would be tremendously impacted.
typically your registrar will track where kids go to school so you could start there.
you are correct this would have a huge impact on a smaller association that could gain or lose kids. Not sure how they would plan what level there teams would be each year and what tourmaments to enter. Imagine Richfoeld who might have only 30 kids at each level and then all of a sudden you either lose kids or the kids at Holy Angles decide to play in Richfield at the last minute. yuk.
you are correct this would have a huge impact on a smaller association that could gain or lose kids. Not sure how they would plan what level there teams would be each year and what tourmaments to enter. Imagine Richfoeld who might have only 30 kids at each level and then all of a sudden you either lose kids or the kids at Holy Angles decide to play in Richfield at the last minute. yuk.