Will D6 end support of St. Thomas Bantam B team?

[Community Based]

District 6 was part of a one year experiment to allow D6 member, Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, to host a Bantam B team for St. Thomas Academy.

Will D6 end their support of the STA Bantam B team?
Will Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association discontinue hosting the team?

My popular stance is that youth hockey teams should be hosted by youth hockey associations only. Youth hockey associations don't sponsor school teams so why would a school think it appropriate to host a youth hockey team? And, why would only one private school in the state be allowed to host a youth hockey team when none of the others can.

At last summer's Minnesota Hockey meeting leadership voted to end support of schools hosting youth teams by ending Blake's affiliate agreement after the 2008-2009 season. Even though consensus was that decision would repair the landscape, so only youth hockey associations host youth hockey teams, someone spotted a loophole.

No more affiliate agreements for schools which would be consistent across the many private schools. So, some slippery individuals thought, just because Minnesota Hockey leadership voted the best direction for youth hockey is to keep youth hockey teams hosted by youth hockey associations they dreamed up a slippery solution for their school only.

A Prior Lake dad, with two sons that attend St. Thomas, thought, what if Prior Lake, in D6, hosted a Bantam B team for St. Thomas? Who would I have to convince that that would be a good idea? So, selfish dad buddies up with the Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association President and convinces him that Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association could host a Bantam B team for St. Thomas Academy students that attend a school 20 miles away. What? President interestingly thinks it sounds ok to him forgetting for a moment that he's an officer of a youth hockey association and yet he's approving formation of a youth hockey team by a school that will take Bantam aged players from teams across his Youth Hockey District 6 including his own. But, it benefits his buddy so it must be ok. Then they approach the District 6 Director about the idea and he forgets that his role is to serve and protect the member youth hockey associations of District 6 and says he'll work to help with formation of youth hockey teams that will compete with his member associations for players and allow for Prior Lake/Savage to host the only private school Bantam B team in the state without an affiliate agreement. What? Done.

St. Thomas had a Bantam B team and skated in D6. At one time they didn't have enough players, or a goalie, but they rounded up 10 skaters and had a go at it. They ended up near the bottom of the D6 Bantam B standings. Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association members didn't know or vote on the subject. D6 members didn't know or vote on the subject.

I support a clear distinction between youth hockey and high school hockey. It's unfair for one single private school to offer Bantam B hockey when none of the others can. People pushing for STA to have a Bantam B team have totally lost focus of their responsibility to their community based youth hockey association. Several youth hockey associations are struggling with shrinking numbers, especially at the Bantam level, and the last thing that is needed are organizations other than youth hockey associations diluting their numbers further by hosting teams.

Let's protect the Community Based model and allow our hard working youth associations to host all youth teams through Bantam/U14. When a player is through with their youth hockey years they move to a high school team. Sound fair? Seems to work for the vast majority? I don't think Minnesota Hockey should be in the business of granting favors for a few people at the expense of the majority and at the expense of the youth hockey associations that make up their membership.

With Blake and St. Thomas Bantam B teams gone for the 2009-2010 season the hockey landscape will be clear of rogue organizations trying to selfishly add youth teams at the detriment of their own neighbor youth associations. If the loophole is left open the landscape continues to be confused with some getting different deals than others.

Hopefully we enter the fall season protecting our community based model and only allowing our partner youth hockey associations, with teams at all levels, to host youth level teams. Play where you live and then comes high school. Easy and clean.

[phil mccracken]

go to district 6 meeting and call brad hewitt on it. If not satisfied bring it to mn hockey summer meeting. Hewy is a puppet for a few, seldom listening too or working for the whole.

[GMANDAD]

Doesn't SSM have Bantam hockey?

District 6 was part of a one year experiment to allow D6 member, Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association, to host a Bantam B team for St. Thomas Academy.

Will D6 end their support of the STA Bantam B team?
Will Prior Lake/Savage Hockey Association discontinue hosting the team?

My popular stance is that youth hockey teams should be hosted by youth hockey associations only. Youth hockey associations don't sponsor school teams so why would a school think it appropriate to host a youth hockey team? And, why would only one private school in the state be allowed to host a youth hockey team when none of the others can.

At last summer's Minnesota Hockey meeting leadership voted to end support of schools hosting youth teams by ending Blake's affiliate agreement after the 2008-2009 season. Even though consensus was that decision would repair the landscape, so only youth hockey associations host youth hockey teams, someone spotted a loophole.

No more affiliate agreements for schools which would be consistent across the many private schools. So, some slippery individuals thought, just because Minnesota Hockey leadership voted the best direction for youth hockey is to keep youth hockey teams hosted by youth hockey associations they dreamed up a slippery solution for their school only.

A Prior Lake dad, with two sons that attend St. Thomas, thought, what if Prior Lake, in D6, hosted a Bantam B team for St. Thomas? Who would I have to convince that that would be a good idea? So, selfish dad buddies up with the Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association President and convinces him that Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association could host a Bantam B team for St. Thomas Academy students that attend a school 20 miles away. What? President interestingly thinks it sounds ok to him forgetting for a moment that he's an officer of a youth hockey association and yet he's approving formation of a youth hockey team by a school that will take Bantam aged players from teams across his Youth Hockey District 6 including his own. But, it benefits his buddy so it must be ok. Then they approach the District 6 Director about the idea and he forgets that his role is to serve and protect the member youth hockey associations of District 6 and says he'll work to help with formation of youth hockey teams that will compete with his member associations for players and allow for Prior Lake/Savage to host the only private school Bantam B team in the state without an affiliate agreement. What? Done.

St. Thomas had a Bantam B team and skated in D6. At one time they didn't have enough players, or a goalie, but they rounded up 10 skaters and had a go at it. They ended up near the bottom of the D6 Bantam B standings. Prior Lake/Savage Youth Hockey Association members didn't know or vote on the subject. D6 members didn't know or vote on the subject.

I support a clear distinction between youth hockey and high school hockey. It's unfair for one single private school to offer Bantam B hockey when none of the others can. People pushing for STA to have a Bantam B team have totally lost focus of their responsibility to their community based youth hockey association. Several youth hockey associations are struggling with shrinking numbers, especially at the Bantam level, and the last thing that is needed are organizations other than youth hockey associations diluting their numbers further by hosting teams.

Let's protect the Community Based model and allow our hard working youth associations to host all youth teams through Bantam/U14. When a player is through with their youth hockey years they move to a high school team. Sound fair? Seems to work for the vast majority? I don't think Minnesota Hockey should be in the business of granting favors for a few people at the expense of the majority and at the expense of the youth hockey associations that make up their membership.

With Blake and St. Thomas Bantam B teams gone for the 2009-2010 season the hockey landscape will be clear of rogue organizations trying to selfishly add youth teams at the detriment of their own neighbor youth associations. If the loophole is left open the landscape continues to be confused with some getting different deals than others.

Hopefully we enter the fall season protecting our community based model and only allowing our partner youth hockey associations, with teams at all levels, to host youth level teams. Play where you live and then comes high school. Easy and clean.

[Community Based]

Yes. Different discussion.

[relax please]

take a chill pill pal. I think you are a little to afraid of things that are not that scary. Some Bantam age kids want to play on a team with their school buddies. Why don't you consider where they go to school as being their community based association then you can relax. If they were at the bottom of the pack and still had fun what is it to you. There are very few bantam b players that will make a high school team, even fewer that will make STA. Life is short that them have fun.

[hockeyboys]

If they were at the bottom of the pack and still had fun what is it to you

Because it does affect other kids, the teams they play against. If they just want to play hockey together, and hang out, they can do that together any time they want - just rent ice and don't belong to any association.

[Community Based]

Currently there are no schools with Bantam B teams. Are you suggesting one be allowed but not others? If one school is allowed to have a Bantam B team do you suppose other schools may want to do the same in the future? Do you suppose if several private schools had Bantam B teams that they might ask if they could evolve to Bantam A teams in the future? It's just a bad path to head down when you're uncertain of it's final direction. So, the solution is? Don't head down the path and allow organizations other than community based youth hockey associations, with teams at all levels, to form youth hockey teams.

All metro communities have Youth Hockey Associations and all offer Bantam B hockey. Bantam numbers are shrinking so it's not necessary to add additional Bantam B teams when there are already several. In fact, it is detrimental to all youth hockey associations in the metro if more Bantam B teams are formed.

As to your let them have fun comment. Remember, no youth player ever asked to play Bantam B hockey at their school. A few parents thought it would be easier in their own personal situation if their child's school offered Bantam B hockey. They didn't so they hatched an unusual plan to accomplish their personal goal at the expense of the majority.

We've got a structure in place that doesn't need to be made more complex and confusing. Youth hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school hockey. It's the same for everyone. Leave it that.

[muckandgrind]

Currently there are no schools with Bantam B teams. Are you suggesting one be allowed but not others? If one school is allowed to have a Bantam B team do you suppose other schools may want to do the same in the future? Do you suppose if several private schools had Bantam B teams that they might ask if they could evolve to Bantam A teams in the future? It's just a bad path to head down when you're uncertain of it's final direction. So, the solution is? Don't head down the path and allow organizations other than community based youth hockey associations, with teams at all levels, to form youth hockey teams.

All metro communities have Youth Hockey Associations and all offer Bantam B hockey. Bantam numbers are shrinking so it's not necessary to add additional Bantam B teams when there are already several. In fact, it is detrimental to all youth hockey associations in the metro if more Bantam B teams are formed.

As to your let them have fun comment. Remember, no youth player ever asked to play Bantam B hockey at their school. A few parents thought it would be easier in their own personal situation if their child's school offered Bantam B hockey. They didn't so they hatched an unusual plan to accomplish their personal goal at the expense of the majority.

We've got a structure in place that doesn't need to be made more complex and confusing. Youth hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school hockey. It's the same for everyone. Leave it that.

Whatever.

Is it "selfish" for a parent to want the best for their kid? If so, than count me in that group. Personally, I want my kids to have the best hockey experience possible. Life is too short, and I could really give a rats behind what you think. If a family is trapped by a poorly run local association, why should they be forced to shell out thousands of dollars and their kids not have any fun as a result?

And spare me the old "if it's broken, roll up your sleeves and volunteer to fix it". Some associations will never change no matter how much effort some parents put into it. If the majority don't care to make the association stronger, how can a couple of parents overcome that?

Personally, I don't care WHAT Prior Lake, D6, or St. Thomas do. Sounds like a couple of parents tried to create a situation where their kids could have fun and play hockey with their buddies....Maybe these kids, if forced to play in their associations, may have quit hockey altogether and by playing on the St. Thomas B team, they decided to play another year...My only hope is that their kids had fun...because isn't that what's really important?

[gdahl]

As I understand it the private school kids do put a bit of a monkey wrench into the community based organization. There is alot of peewee and bantam kids that play association based hockey in the winter and go to private schools. When they hit high school age they leave their "community" team to play for their school. I see nothing wrong with this. On the flip side you could argue these kids are taking advantage of the system of association hockey where they should really be playing for their school, as that is where they will play high school. If a private high school wants to field their own youth teams that is a good thing. That will keep opportunities open for the public kids to play at a higher level longer in their own community based model before the private kids move to greener pastures.

[Doglover]

M&G and gdahl are right! The kids that go to private schools do want to play with their community - their school friends are their community. It doesn't hurt the local association to have them play on their school Bantam team. They are already penalized since MNHoc won't let them have an A team so let them play B or B1. How exactly does that "hurt" the association teams other than when they get beat? If they were terrible teams, no one would care.

Community based - be honest about your real motivation - and it's not to have all the community kids play together. If having private school B teams keeps the kids playing because they can be with their buddies, then MN Hockey should allow it. Community based - I think you are way off base in my opinion.

[Community Based]

I don't have any hidden agenda but believe the proponents of this idea do. We have a structure that works well for the vast majority of all skater families and don't feel there needs to be change. I know St. Thomas is not the only private that would like to host a Bantam B team. I believe if they do then several others will do the same. We don't need 8 more Bantam B teams in the metro as every association currently has one. No kids are being denied an opportunity to skate near their home with the kids they've grown up with. It's just not necessary or needed. The notes on the "bored" in support are very one sided (selfish) and don't lay out any real reasons why the change is needed. I believe it's a slippery slope and once MN Hockey heads down it will be difficult to reverse course. I think the privates were concerned about the new transfer rule and thought of the idea to offer Bantam B to their students as they come in to 9th grade as opposed to 10th. They asked to form a Bantam A team but were denied. I don't think it's turned out to be as important as they thought which is why it should go away. Kids now just come in for 9th grade to avoid the transfer issue. They play Bantam A in their community association or play on the JV team if their local association isn't strong. Still no need for a Bantam B team which is why St. Thomas had trouble coming up with enough kids or a goalie. Not needed and, as it turns out, just kind of a dumb idea. Let's work to develop ideas that will benefit all players instead of just a few.

[hockeyboys]

Elliott can shed some light on this subject. The proposal to change some of the community based wording was apparently sent back for revisions.

Eliott - any thought to simply changing the definition of "community" from where a kid lives - to where a kid goes to school - and leaving the rest alone?

This would REQUIRE kids to play with their friends from school - and not have a choice if they played with thier community where they lived, or thier community where the went to school.

thoughts?

[play4fun]

Currently there are no schools with Bantam B teams. Are you suggesting one be allowed but not others? If one school is allowed to have a Bantam B team do you suppose other schools may want to do the same in the future? Do you suppose if several private schools had Bantam B teams that they might ask if they could evolve to Bantam A teams in the future? It's just a bad path to head down when you're uncertain of it's final direction. So, the solution is? Don't head down the path and allow organizations other than community based youth hockey associations, with teams at all levels, to form youth hockey teams.

All metro communities have Youth Hockey Associations and all offer Bantam B hockey. Bantam numbers are shrinking so it's not necessary to add additional Bantam B teams when there are already several. In fact, it is detrimental to all youth hockey associations in the metro if more Bantam B teams are formed.
As to your let them have fun comment. Remember, no youth player ever asked to play Bantam B hockey at their school. A few parents thought it would be easier in their own personal situation if their child's school offered Bantam B hockey. They didn't so they hatched an unusual plan to accomplish their personal goal at the expense of the majority.

We've got a structure in place that doesn't need to be made more complex and confusing. Youth hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school hockey. It's the same for everyone. Leave it that.

Community Based

Saying that more Bantam B teams would be detrimental to all youth hockey associations is a bit of a stretch, even for you.

If having more Bantam B teams keeps more kids skating in organized hockey, then that's good for the sport and the kids, even if it's not ideal for your association.

Just call it what it is -- a control/power issue. You believe associations should have a monopoly over where, when, how, and with whom kids skate. That way, the association can be good, bad, or indifferent when it comes to meeting the needs of its members. It won't matter, because parents and kids won't have a choice.

If parents are motivated enough to jump through hoops to have their kids play someplace else, that typically means one of two things. Either the parents in the association can't play nice (even if their kids can), or the association isn't appealing enough to offset the effort required to skate someplace else. Either way, the folks running the association probably need to look in the mirror just as much as the folks who want to skate their kids somewhere other than the association.

The best long-term opportunity is to work with people who want to be a part of growing your organization and make it the most attractive choice for parents and kids (reasonable costs, good instruction, competitive number of ice hours and games, etc.) -- rather than trying to brow beat dissatisfied parents and/or kids into staying. Dissatisfied parents are typically not enthusiastic volunteers or promoters. To the contrary, they're more likely to spread negativity within the association and badmouth their experience within the larger community, which hurts the recruiting efforts of the association.

I get your point about not wanting schools to field Bantam teams. But shouldn't the focus be on making association hockey more appealing to more people, rather than obsessing over trying to control a shrinking number of skaters?

True success would be growing the number of kids in youth hockey to the point where your concerns about schools fielding Bantam B teams is a non-issue. That would be great. For everyone. Not just a few. Or the declining majority.

[Doglover]

Nicely said play4fun.
Having more Bantam B teams and allowing private school kids to play together with their school if they'd like in Bantams, is not detrimental to anyone in association hockey. Hockey in MN should not be shrinking and if it is in the associations, we need to take a hard look at why.

[elliott70]

Elliott can shed some light on this subject. The proposal to change some of the community based wording was apparently sent back for revisions.

Eliott - any thought to simply changing the definition of "community" from where a kid lives - to where a kid goes to school - and leaving the rest alone?

This would REQUIRE kids to play with their friends from school - and not have a choice if they played with thier community where they lived, or thier community where the went to school.

thoughts?

This was brought up but with no support.

[council member retired]

If the private school, or parents of that school would like to create a team at the bantam level they should be allowed to do so. Unfortunately there has been instances in community associations at the bantam level. Some have not allowed a private school kid to play at the level they belong. Let them create a team.

[hockeyboys]

they can't create teams because associations won't give waivers. St. Thomas had that problem last year too.

[Whatthe]

Absent MH oversight, associations will cut deals with the privates to "host" bantam teams so they can jump to the front of the line for their available ice.

Letting a private school with its own rink leverage its ice for a "host" association is crappy. There are plenty of associations near STA desperate for ice.

[muckandgrind]

they can't create teams because associations won't give waivers. St. Thomas had that problem last year too.

If enough schools create their own teams, they could form a private school league and be completely independent of MH.

[hkdkgr]

So if private schools can have bantam teams, then what happens in a few years when they then request peewee teams? The slope DOES become very slippery if you go down this path, do we allow public schools to start creating their own bantam teams (of course just b teams) so their buddies can play together (why do the private school kids get to use this excuse for their bantam team)? When and where do you draw the line? Maybe waivers should be used (you can request to play for you private school bantam team, but waiver may not be granted)? That is how MH is proposing to address open enrollment (which is how public schools may get their own bantam team).

Is it acceptable for community associations to limit the team a private school kid can play on (if you go to a private school and your school has a bantam team we won't let you ever play 'A' hockey in our association - I know this exists in other sports)? Why develop the private school kid for his/her newly created bantam youth team.

The reason I see this as a slipper slope is the line becomes fuzzy (similar to the proposed residency changes.

Just some food for thought, not trying to start a fight or be called any names.

[auld_skool]

If enough schools create their own teams, they could form a private school league and be completely independent of MH.

I don't think it could get off the ground in MN in the winter. Mainly because they'd lose affiliation with USA Hockey, so no one else could play them.

[InigoMontoya]

Would that make them subject to MSHSL?

[InigoMontoya]

Mainly because they'd lose affiliation with USA Hockey, so no one else could play them.

Does SSM have some special exemption? Why wouldn't any other private school be able to be sanctioned through USA Hockey, but not MNH? They don't have a problem finding teams to play them.

[auld_skool]

SSM IS affliated. I'm saying I don't think USA Hockey would allow private schools to form their own league in MN in the winter, if it were possible I think it would have been done already...although I could be wrong.

[Doglover]

If a private school wants to offer a Bantam team, let them. It doesn't harm anyone else and the kids get to play with their buddies. It will keep more kids playing and overall be good for MN hockey. I don't understand the folks that want to force them to play for "their community association team" Who exactly are they hurting?

Also I know of many cases where association A and B1 level coaches penalized private school kids with the ignorant reasoning "why should they develop them when they will never play for OUR High School". Those guys should not be coaching "community based" association hockey in my opinion. Let them play with their friends and I'd go so far as to say, let the private schools field an A team if they have the talent! More opportunities for association players to play better competition. Win-Win scenario!