Mn Hockey summer meeting

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:45 pm

Mac15 quote "I don't believe that the Director has ever denied a waiver that was signed by the presidents of the outgoing and incoming associations."

I agree with the sentiment expressed but would like to add that there are personal politics going on at the association presidency level where moves are blocked for personal reasons (don't like the parent, carry a grudge, etc). I suggest that the District Level make decisions based on residency with the associations making case for an kid to stay or not, to welcome the kid or not. Second I would recommend that younger kids (especially mini mites and mites) be exempt from the waiver process of the association they live in. Let's face it, we are talking about 5-year old kids. What is more important, that they learn the sport and enjoy the experience or that they must commit to a given association. This exception would also likely end any potential legal issues on access.

Mac15 · Post by **Mac15** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:39 pm

Frederick61,

I would agree that it would not be a positive experience when we deny a 5 and 6 year old the opportunity to play for any reason. Unless these kids are the children or siblings of hockey players, they generally come to the sport because their friend wants to play with them. The only problem with ignoring boundaries would be when the kids grow older and move to squirts and then if the boundaries excluded them they would either need to apply for a waiver or accept the fact that they will have to play in the association whose boundaries they live within.

As I have read your many posts I have to assume that you have been around youth hockey and youth sports for a long time. I'll also assume that you have held a board position or have been a volunteer in some capacity. One of the most difficult challenges to any program is planning and forecasting the numbers of players that we will have in the upcoming season. As a girls director I get to try to forecast waivers in, waivers out and who is moving to high school rather than playing in our association. Its not an art or a science but a best guess.

Our association is only closely bordered by one other association so the player movement between our association and neighboring associations is limited to about 15 kids per season. When I lived in the metro area we had 6-8 associations within 20 minutes so I can imagine that waivers options would really multiply.

I read your comment regarding the politics and fortunately I have not seen that in our program regarding the waivers.

iwearmysunglassesatnight · Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:54 pm

[quote="frederick61"]Mac15 quote "I don't believe that the Director has ever denied a waiver that was signed by the presidents of the outgoing and incoming associations."

I agree with the sentiment expressed but would like to add that there are personal politics going on at the association presidency level where moves are blocked for personal reasons (don't like the parent, carry a grudge, etc). I suggest that the District Level make decisions based on residency with the associations making case for an kid to stay or not, to welcome the kid or not. Second I would recommend that younger kids (especially mini mites and mites) be exempt from the waiver process of the association they live in. Let's face it, we are talking about 5-year old kids. What is more important, that they learn the sport and enjoy the experience or that they must commit to a given association. This exception would also likely end any potential legal issues on access.[/quote]

freddy, what if a association is offering FREE hockey ( icetime) and FREE equipment for all 1st year mites, should ANYONE be allowed to sign up for their association mite program? While we applaud those that offer FREE, lets be honest, they are doing it to get more numbers in their travelling program in latter years.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:47 am

What I have said really supports the association that seeks to build numbers by offering easy or free access to the association’s program. It allows the association to restrict access to those in the community and to those outside the community, but inside the association’s boundary. It allows the association to decide how to encourage growth.

Neighboring associations might not like it since they could potentially lose kids in their youth program through high school. The simple truth is if the younger kids are happy playing hockey in an association, they will stay with that association because most parents want their kids to have a positive experience. The only negative I see is that it could create a situation where an association offering incentives might have to eventually cap their numbers because of a lack of ice or facilities, but that would put the association in a good position.

My comments were directed more to the other side of an issue where an association tries to restrict kids within their association from leaving in a mistaken belief that they can build a solid program. The association is dealing with negatives, basically telling the parents they have no choice but to spend a lot of their money sending their kid to play in their program at the age of 5 or 6. That makes the parents angry, the kid’s experience negative, and really discourages participation.

conditioningsucks · Post by **conditioningsucks** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:40 am

So what were the highlights/lowlights from this meeting?

mnhcp · Post by **mnhcp** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:06 am

Mac15 wrote:The D8 board has addressed this change (residency vs membership) at two different meetings this spring. In both cases the vote was unanimously opposed to using school attendance vs residency to establish which association a player belongs to. Every association rep and all officers feel that the current residency rule and the waiver process works. Bottom line, the D8 Director will vote against the change.

I don't believe that the Director has ever denied a waiver that was signed by the presidents of the outgoing and incoming associations.

During our local associations registration process we can verify that a person's address falls within the boundaries of our affiliate agreement. The local schools will not verify if a prospective player attends their school so this is not a good method. Last year we had some players waive in from the nearby association and we had some players waive out to their association. Every request to waive out was granted and all waiver request that came from the nearby association was signed by our president. The current system works as intended.

May I ask the reason the waivors were signed for those waiving out of our association?

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:21 am

Just so I understand this change - it is a done deal - and the rule has been changed. This is no longer open for discussion. Private school kids will play for the association in which thier private school falls in.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this change:

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... 0470/25930

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:59 am

So will Highland-Central (Cretin & SPA), Minneapolis-Park (Minnehaha, Blake & Benilde), Hopkins (Breck) and Sibley (STA) have the most to gain as elementary school aged students opt to play for the association where the school is based as opposed to where their home is based? Others?

Tartan (Hill Murray)
Richfield (Holy Angels)
North Metro (Totino)

Because some privates start in kindergarten will those kids be able to claim a move as early as Mites? What about schools like Holy Angels that don't start until 9th grade? No one can move to the Richfield Association until 9th grade?

I think this rule change is a huge mistake but if it's been passed let's discuss likely implications. Remember, a 5th grader can't claim they attend some of the privates until 9th grade. The whole private and parochial elementary school discussion will be an interesting one.

Good luck administering this one.

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:58 pm

it appears to me that other than this next year - 09-10 - this is not a "choice" for the player. If they attend school in st paul - public or private - than that is the associaiton they go to. They don't get to pick if they play where they live, or where they go to school. Association hockey is now based on where a school is located, not where a player lives.

some privates start in elementary - such as SPA and Breck. Some start in middle school - such as St. Thomas - starts in 7th. And others such as Cretin start in 9th.

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:58 pm

So a kid living in Eden Prairie, going to school in Edina. Later leaves to go to school at Benilde (7th grade). Plays in Edina into Pee Wee.

He has to leave Edina's association? Has to either rejoin EP (they'd just love that, I bet) or become a player on the Mpls/Park team? This is confusing, man.

...and is Blake in Edina or SLP?

...and did they do away with Regions?

hockeyboys · Post by **hockeyboys** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:02 pm

Has to either rejoin EP (they'd just love that, I bet) or become a player on the Mpls/Park team?

I don't think under any scenerio that player plays for EP. MN Hockey is not based on where a kid lives - it is based on where they go to school. so, if they go to school in edina, then they play in edina. If they then attend a school that is located in a different association, then they play for the association in which that school is located.

this isn't just about private schools. lots of kids open enroll at public schools. This affects ALL players - not just the ones who go to private schools.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:06 pm

I absolutely can't believe that this passed. I would have thought all the District Directors would have voted no. It will be interesting to hear who favored it and why? Kind of like the Iran vote, I'm a little suspicious of the final tally. I'm also curious who the clearing house for all the questions there will be? MN Hockey? Enjoy the folly. Again, the DD should have seen that coming as their job just turned full time.

Someone please lay out a juicy scenario, or actual situation, that you can dream up. If there aren't any, and nobody can dream one up, why was the rule rewritten. Must be 2-3 dads working on something.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:10 pm

Blake High School is in Minneapolis. The Blake lower campus is in Hopkins and the school headquarters appears to be registered in Hopkins as well.

Night Train · Post by **Night Train** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm

Could someone, maybe the rules authors, write up a description regarding how this is a good thing and how they see this benefiting Minnesota Hockey. Maybe some examples of how this is a win/win situation for all involved. Examples of real life situations?

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:45 pm

Night Train wrote:Could someone, maybe the rules authors, write up a description regarding how this is a good thing and how they see this benefiting Minnesota Hockey. Maybe some examples of how this is a win/win situation for all involved. Examples of real life situations?

I question whether anyone will have the courage to put to paper why? I also suggest that first time an association puts to paper a denial of a residence of the local community to that community's youth hockey program is the first time the lawyers will get involved. I further predict their involvement will result dramatically changing Minnesota Hockey. Most people involved in these positions are volunteering; they will now think twice about volunteering.

countryboy · Post by **countryboy** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:20 pm

This has been along time coming. We live in a rural area and happen to live in a dying school with a dead program. I have open enrolled my kids to do whats best for their education and there is NO WAY that they will ever play for this school down the road. They refuse to grant waivers out if you attend a different program for some and allow others based on if you are one of their buddies in this small town. They have no issue in allowing kids to come into the program if a kid wants to open enroll here. The program is basically free here but remember you get what you pay for. I am looking for a good expierience for my kids and that is not available here any longer. Well this new rule allows my children to continue to have a hockey career without having to get the blessings of the old boys club that has done nothing but pushed player after player out of the program. They would rather have a kid quit hockey than allow them to play some where else even if they attend school somewhere else. In todays economic times school offerings are being cut in the rural areas and now the cuts have gone way to deep here to offer a student a learning opportunity. Would you want to send your kids to a school that has cut band and choir to one day a week and classes like sociology are cut out completely? Oh and they need to cut another 500K next year. This rule has been a long time coming. It is not just a rule for the metro but also puts in a rule that will be the same for everyone and not allow one or two to play god. Thank you MH for making this ruling. It is not that complicated. Play where you go to school and who you will compete with for a roster spot down the road and they are your classmates and buddies. Why would a program want to give an equal opportunity to a player that they know will not be in the program after bantams ie Stillwater. No rule would be perfect but this rule is alot closer to aligning kids to play with their buddies than the old one and the chances are better that kids will play with the same kids that they will through out there school days whether its HS or Junior Gold. This is simple and has been along time coming.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:23 pm

So, a kid who lives in one district but attends school at a private k-8 in North St. Paul, will now be required to play in North St. Paul? No waiver back into their home association where they've been playing for the last 8 years? hmmm....

boardmember · Post by **boardmember** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:54 pm

DMom wrote:So, a kid who lives in one district but attends school at a private k-8 in North St. Paul, will now be required to play in North St. Paul? No waiver back into their home association where they've been playing for the last 8 years? hmmm....

No. That player can make a onetime choice to stay with their current Association.

d. For the 2009-2010 Season, players that participated in their Affiliate of Residence for the 2008?2009 Season but attended school elsewhere will be given a one-time choice to continue participation in their Affiliate of Residence. This alternate participation determination will continue through that player's Youth or Girls' Hockey career unless the player moves outside of their Affiliate of Residence geographical boundary, at which time school attendance will be used to determine Affiliate participation.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:49 pm

I don't think it's that difficult to decipher any more than previously. You play where you go to school. If you change school districts, then you change associations. (The sitting out 'A' level stinks though. I suppose this is to keep kids from changing schools just to change associations every year.)
However, this certainly isn't what I had in mind for the new rule--and I'm pretty sure when I first read about it in Let's Play Hockey in May this isn't what was being advertised. I thought it was going to allow for flexibility, at least that's what it sounded like, but this rule keeps the power in the same places and just shifts a few kids around the first year.

Haute hockeymom · Post by **Haute hockeymom** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:04 pm

What a mess

If only there was an alternative to Mn Hockey?...A Choice of some sort. A League where kids could play regardless of where they lived, without consideration for what School they attended.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:44 pm

Anything else decided or discussed?

What's the status on region realignment?

Mac15 · Post by **Mac15** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:59 pm

mnhcp wrote:
Mac15 wrote:The D8 board has addressed this change (residency vs membership) at two different meetings this spring. In both cases the vote was unanimously opposed to using school attendance vs residency to establish which association a player belongs to. Every association rep and all officers feel that the current residency rule and the waiver process works. Bottom line, the D8 Director will vote against the change.

I don't believe that the Director has ever denied a waiver that was signed by the presidents of the outgoing and incoming associations.

During our local associations registration process we can verify that a person's address falls within the boundaries of our affiliate agreement. The local schools will not verify if a prospective player attends their school so this is not a good method. Last year we had some players waive in from the nearby association and we had some players waive out to their association. Every request to waive out was granted and all waiver request that came from the nearby association was signed by our president. The current system works as intended.
May I ask the reason the waivors were signed for those waiving out of our association?

This is what I remember from last year... Waiving Out: One girl was friends with a Byron girl and wanted to play with her. One peewee was going to be moving to Byron and asked to waive out to DCYH before they moved. Waiving in: One DCYH girl wanted to play in our girls city league. One wanted to play on our 10UA team. Two DCYH girls wanted to tryout for 12UA. Two DCYH girls wanted to tryout for 14U since DCYH doesn't have a 14U team. One DCYH bantam will attend Lourdes and wanted to skate in our program.

dumb blonde · Post by **dumb blonde** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:31 pm

Greybeard or Elliott,

Care to share any insights on the participation rule/vote in St. Cloud? Also, any news on redistricting from the meeting? I am interested in hearing both of your takes from the weekend.

Thanks.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:48 pm

DB,
The participation rule passed on Sunday was cleaner then what had been proposed. It also made this now uniform through out the state. Before some associations or DD's had a no waiver rule and others allowed open enrollment. Yes I was there but I do not vote and had a few friends I was visiting. The rule needed a 2/3 vote to pass and if I remember right there were only 5 no votes. Just this weekend there was loud and very passionate discussion and the feeling is that this issue will be revisited again in the near future.
As for the district alignment it is being put on the drawing board as a few issues came up in discussion which are not appropriate to discuss on this forum.
I will say I was very disappointed that the really vocal ones here chose not to attend.
BTW the letters and e-mails sent to the board on residency;the ones for the school attendance change far outnumbered the others.

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:38 am

>As for the district alignment it is being put on the drawing board as a few issues came up in discussion which are not appropriate to discuss on this forum.

Wow, that sounds ominous. "Not appropriate to discuss on this forum?" What, are they R-rated?

Or, are they just going to redraw boundaries and TELL people what district they're in, instead of situations like D6, where they nicely asked some people to move and nobody would?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Mn Hockey summer meeting

THIS IS A GREAT RULE

Mn Hockey summer meeting