New participation rule

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:17 pm

Again, the residence affiliation continues for the whole youth career until you move out of your city.

goaliewithfoggedglasses · Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:37 pm

Pens4 wrote:Again, the residence affiliation continues for the whole youth career until you move out of your city.

Where are you getting that from? Only Mites have the choice of a residence affiliation or a school affiliation. Once they become Squirts it's only a school affiliation.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:03 pm

goaliewithfoggedglasses wrote:
Pens4 wrote:Again, the residence affiliation continues for the whole youth career until you move out of your city.
Where are you getting that from? Only Mites have the choice of a residence affiliation or a school affiliation. Once they become Squirts it's only a school affiliation.

Part D of the post below...it's from Section B [Part 2(d)]

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:16 pm

It is becoming clearer now how such a ridiculous rule could have been adopted.

goaliewithfoggedglasses · Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:21 pm

Pens4 wrote:
goaliewithfoggedglasses wrote:
Pens4 wrote:Again, the residence affiliation continues for the whole youth career until you move out of your city.
Where are you getting that from? Only Mites have the choice of a residence affiliation or a school affiliation. Once they become Squirts it's only a school affiliation.
Part D of the post below...it's from Section B [Part 2(d)]

Are you referring to this:

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.

As I read it that only applies to players that are eligible for (meaning they attended school elsewhere in 2008-09), and elect to take (in 2009-10), the one time exemption.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:40 am

hockey_is_a_choice wrote: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.

Yes, but in 2008-2009, Danny did not "attend[] school elsewhere." In 2008-2009, Danny attended the local Catholic k-6 school that is located within his current association's boundaries. In 2010-2011, Danny will be in 7th grade and will move to the 7-12 Catholic prep school that is located in another association boundaries. By its terms, this exception does not apply to Danny's situation.

He answered the question. This season is the determining season, if Danny opts to stay with his geographical association than he stays there until the end of his hockey career.

I think it's unfortunate that this had to happen. I do think it was in response to many mite parents who want their kids to play with their kindergarten buddies, and as such, it should help to grow hockey. But....in the short term you have an association like Forest Lake which is geographically sandwiched between two traditionally strong programs like Centennial and White Bear Lake. People won't pause to see that the school district has greatly improved and has better test scores than the neighboring districts, they won't remember that both the Bantam and PeeWee A teams went to Regions this year (didn't happen in White Bear or Centennial) and that there are two brand new sheets of ice waiting for kids to skate on them, we will lose a substantial amount of kids this season, or they'll come in from North Branch and Chisago. Either way growing associations will stop growing, and the largest will get larger. ?But hey, it saves a couple families from having to pay those pesky apartment rents to establish those required residencies.

Registration is already beginning and a lot of associations have moved to online registration ( I know I am supposed to pay for three boys with a credit card all at one time--that's not happening so maybe we aren't playing hockey this year). Who is online that is going to explain the options to people, other than here. I met a woman this weekend whose kids live in Blaine but attend private school in Andover. She didn't know anything about the rule and has a pre-mite, is that child going to have to play in Andover, when everything about the family is oriented in Blaine (and all of the hand-me-downs are blue?)

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:49 am

There should be a giant flea market where they can exchange the bengal blue for blue and gold, and the folks in the SW can trade in the green for skippy blue.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:07 am

These families that thought driving to Breck or Blake from Wayzata, Edina, Champlain Park, wherever, once a day was bad enough now get the joy of driving twice as they'll have to run back to Hopkins Arena for their 8pm youth practice with their new association.

How come no one has generated a private school list and the new association the kids that attend will now skate with? The school, where it resides and then what grade the school starts in. Has Hopkins Youth Hockey Association met with Breck and Blake schools to discuss? Both Breck and Blake are K-12.

It could cost some privates some families too. Does a St. Thomas student leave Lakeville Youth Hockey to play for Sibley? Or, decide that maybe they'll attend Lakeville schools, save some money, and skip the Sibley experience.

Muck, after all your fussing I'll presume your kids are off to a new association this fall where they attend school? Working on that right now? Where are they going to play? When good volunteers just bail instead of working to improve their community based youth hockey association the pain will worsen at the associations. People won't have the same determination to help and improve their local situation so some associations will face new volunteer problems.

I'll guess they'll kill this sucker. Dumbest idea ever. Who's going to administer? Who has the new maps? Our volunteer registrars need to handle all of this? What associations have the highest percentage of private and parochial school members that attend schools outside the community based hockey association boundaries. SWPrez said 60% of their members are private or parochial students that attend school outside of their SW Minneapolis community. Could they lose 60% of their members? 2% of families in favor of this rule change and 98% opposed. Way to do your research Bakke and Nagan. Maybe the two of them should pay for the new tools and training the associations will need. Can you say loss of revenue? All together now, play where you live and then comes high school. A clear distinction is best.

Puckboy, I'll take a few of the signs.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:51 am

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:13 am

i don't think people fear change. What people don't like is a rule you can't understand . This rule only benefits a small number of kids but complicates many things for big and small associations. I wonder how many teams will be DQ'ed for having invalid rosters?

Community based- sign is on the way:)

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:58 am

I've been doing an informal personal survey at the rink since this partcipation rule changed. In asking many parents, 100+ now, about 85% have favored the rule changed since most go to school where you live anyways. But the majority also stated that it should be a choice, let them play where they live or go to school. Or, a several others threw out, leave as is, play where you live but making it any automatic waiver grant if a child open enrolls and wants to play with his/her school buddies. Doesn't get much simplier than that. That takes the power away from the local association President and puts it into MH where it belongs.

Any by the way, I don't have a child affected by this either way. We play where we live and go to school.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:02 am

100% of people that I've surveyed have no idea that there is a rule change.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:03 am

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:11 am

InigoMontoya wrote:GB58 or Elliot,

In addition, if a kid lives in WI (ND, SD, IA or even Canada) and goes to school in MN, can he play hockey in MN?

Please advise.

I am interested in this question as well. We have a private school here in town that has kids from Grand Forks. I don't know how many, if any, play youth hockey, BUT prior to this, they played it back across the river in Grand Forks. IF this applies to out of staters, those kids attending private school in EGF could then elect to play in EGF.

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:12 am

HockeyDad41 wrote:
puckboy wrote:i don't think people fear change. What people don't like is a rule you can't understand . This rule only benefits a small number of kids but complicates many things for big and small associations. I wonder how many teams will be DQ'ed for having invalid rosters?

Community based- sign is on the way:)
I keep reading about the infinitesimally small number of privileged rich kids this change will benefit vs the large number of kids/associations that will be thrown into utter and cataclysmically horrific turmoil resulting in panic and despair the like of which has not seen since Black Monday.

Unless I am mistaken, in circumstances where common sense should prevail, a waiver can be obtained.

However, if the new association you are going to have to play hockey at should be a complete wreck and not even close to the glory and splendor of your old association, and your new association president will not grant a waiver, don't worry about it, this is your chance to pull up those boot straps I have been reading so much about and make it a better place to have little Johnny spend his hockey years.

Two problems here..Many associations won't grant waiers for school change.. Secondly, the issue for most isn't about leaving a weak association, it's about letting their kid play witht here school friends. From my previous post, about 95% weren't aware of the rule change either.

spin-o-rama · Post by **spin-o-rama** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:12 am

puckboy wrote:What people don't like is a rule you can't understand .

Not even MH can understand their rule. The FAQs they presented in Lets Play Hockey provide ambiguous and contradictory answers.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:08 am

MNH ambiguous and contradictory? Say it isn't so.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:12 am

The participation rule will only apply to Minnesota residents. All other states are in different USA Hockey Districts and residency is governed by each USA Hockey and affiliate rules.
Now that all have taken the time to comment on the new participation rule, how many are going to take the time and attend the next Mn Hockey meeting? It will be held in the later part of September not sure of dates and location or will all be to busy to attend and voice your opinion. Voicing your opinion there will mean more than voicing your opinion here!

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:17 am

Community Based wrote:Muck, after all your fussing I'll presume your kids are off to a new association this fall where they attend school? Working on that right now? Where are they going to play? When good volunteers just bail instead of working to improve their community based youth hockey association the pain will worsen at the associations. People won't have the same determination to help and improve their local situation so some associations will face new volunteer problems.

I'll guess they'll kill this sucker. Dumbest idea ever. Who's going to administer? Who has the new maps? Our volunteer registrars need to handle all of this? What associations have the highest percentage of private and parochial school members that attend schools outside the community based hockey association boundaries. SWPrez said 60% of their members are private or parochial students that attend school outside of their SW Minneapolis community. Could they lose 60% of their members? 2% of families in favor of this rule change and 98% opposed. Way to do your research Bakke and Nagan. Maybe the two of them should pay for the new tools and training the associations will need. Can you say loss of revenue? All together now, play where you live and then comes high school. A clear distinction is best.

Puckboy, I'll take a few of the signs.

Actually no...both of my boys will stay where they are because they don't go to school in another association area. But I'm 100% in favor of this change. Just because it doesn't affect me doesn't mean that I have to be opposed to it.

And, BTW, WHO exactly is doing all the fussing? It appears that you are fussing more about this than anyone else is.

2% of families in favor of this rule change and 98% opposed

Got a source to back up this statement?

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:29 am

nhl'er wrote:I've been doing an informal personal survey at the rink since this partcipation rule changed. In asking many parents, 100+ now, about 85% have favored the rule changed since most go to school where you live anyways.

Your survey matches the process taken by Minnesota Hockey in drafting the agreement. It takes into account the opinions of those who are minimally or non-effected and creates a solution that seems right for their situation.

The scrivners looked at their individual situations without looking at every situation in the state and its effects on those individual associations.

Washburn
Southwest
Highland
Johnson
Como
Orono
Richfield
Kennedy
Mound-Westonka

Smaller associations with higher private/parochial membership or open enrollments. I would think Duluth may have some issues as the Lakers and Duluth East juggle Catholic school/Marshall players among them.

I have asked for the genesis of this policy (the specific situations it was trying to solve) and have come up empty. I am left to guess what problems the scrivners were attempting to solve.

1) Were the large associations like Edina or Eden Prairie (or any other large association) tired of the half dozen waiver hassles they have each year from private/parochial kids?
2) Were they trying to solve a bigger problem - more and more of the good players from their associations are leaving for privates, so try to get them out as early as possible to reserve spots for the public school kids?
3) Were they trying to create a policy that let's private's run their own bantam b1 teams so that they don't have to go through the affiliate agreement fights every few years?
4) Were they trying to shut out the people who don't live in a community, don't go to school in a community, but rent an apartment in the community in order to give their kids a better hockey opportunity than the association they live in (yes, this does happen)?

Again, I am just trying to get my arms around what the problem is that was attempted to be solved. The folks at MN Hockey are volunteers and I fully respect their efforts - but I do not think this policy was well thought out when one actually gets in the shoes of other associations and the issues it would cause.

We start sign-ups in three weeks and we are going to maintain our policy - we do not waive players except for co-ops. People that want out can appeal to our District Director or Minnesota Hockey where they will approve/deny the request, handle the paperwork for signing and moving the waivers forward and long term tracking of where the kids are playing if they choose to approve the waiver. We will not track whether a kid is jumping from one association to another and whether they should play B level or below hockey. With 60%+ of our membership in public/private, and a policy that is too confusing and cumbersome for us to administer, handing those that want to request a waiver and want to leave our program to the DD or MN Hockey is our best and most efficient way of handling. Our version of community based hockey is different than most others and we will govern in a matter that promotes our community based model.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:51 am

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:54 am

Now that all have taken the time to comment on the new participation rule, how many are going to take the time and attend the next Mn Hockey meeting? It will be held in the later part of September not sure of dates and location or will all be to busy to attend and voice your opinion. Voicing your opinion there will mean more than voicing your opinion here!

All may agree that it's a bad idea to leave the barn door open, but I don't see all planning a trip to discuss the closing of the door two months from now when all would agree that the cows would have left the barn weeks before the discussion. Would all call for the cows to be rounded up and put back in the barn? Not to mention those who believe the cows should be given a choice between the barn and the pasture.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:13 pm

MN Hockey please reply

Is this new rule meant to solve a previous issue, if so what was the previous issue you were trying to solve.

34FC · Post by **34FC** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:38 pm

Hard to know what MN Hockey was trying to address...

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:45 pm

Air Force 1 wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:GB58 or Elliot,

In addition, if a kid lives in WI (ND, SD, IA or even Canada) and goes to school in MN, can he play hockey in MN?

Please advise.
I am interested in this question as well. We have a private school here in town that has kids from Grand Forks. I don't know how many, if any, play youth hockey, BUT prior to this, they played it back across the river in Grand Forks. IF this applies to out of staters, those kids attending private school in EGF could then elect to play in EGF.

North Dakota rules would supercede MN rules.
They would need a waiver.