Should it be a Choice-Participation Rule
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Should it be a Choice-Participation Rule
Should it be a player's choice to play where they live or go to school?
-
Air Force 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:22 pm
- Location: East Grand Forks
My vote was "Don't Care"
If I heard it from the kid's mouth in the typical language that a kid of that age would typically use, then I say by all means, play with your friends whether it be where he/she lives or where he/she goes to school. If it was the parent(s) saying their child said this or that OR the 6 year old sounding like a polished politian, then it would smell like association/team building to me. It's their money, I don't care if they drive from one end of the metro to the other.
Either way, it doesn't affect my house, we play where we live AND go to school. I know, that is so old school in thinking, how can we ever survive?
Besides, if somebody wants their kid in a particular association, they will figure out a way to get them there, rules or no rules.
If I heard it from the kid's mouth in the typical language that a kid of that age would typically use, then I say by all means, play with your friends whether it be where he/she lives or where he/she goes to school. If it was the parent(s) saying their child said this or that OR the 6 year old sounding like a polished politian, then it would smell like association/team building to me. It's their money, I don't care if they drive from one end of the metro to the other.
Either way, it doesn't affect my house, we play where we live AND go to school. I know, that is so old school in thinking, how can we ever survive?
Besides, if somebody wants their kid in a particular association, they will figure out a way to get them there, rules or no rules.
N. Pike wrote:A vote in favor of "choice" would be a vote against the new participation rule since that is not what it provides for Squirt aged kids and above.
A vote in favor of "choice" would be a vote in favor of the new participation rule. Make your choice at Advanced Mites and live. Since change comes slowly maybe in time they'll be more aggressive with choice? Especially the girls who "RARELY" ever are able to play with girls of similar abilities.
-
HockeyDad41
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm
mnhcp wrote:Some kids don't have a choice of where they play hockey in 2009-10. They are required to play in the association where their school is located next year without any advance notice. Theoretically, they could "choose" to send their kid to a different school, but that doesn't seem like something MN Hockey ought to encourage.N. Pike wrote:Make your choice at Advanced Mites and live.
Whoa mnchp,
First, no. A vote for choice is not support for the new rule.
But then, are you suggesting that people are changing elementary schools for hockey, even girls, and then others can't even play for the association where they live? I suspect some would like to play where they live.
Someones mixed up youth hockey with high school and that must be where they got their support and votes. There must be clear separation. Youth through bantam/U14 and then comes high school. Play youth hockey where you live and then comes high school.
First, no. A vote for choice is not support for the new rule.
But then, are you suggesting that people are changing elementary schools for hockey, even girls, and then others can't even play for the association where they live? I suspect some would like to play where they live.
Someones mixed up youth hockey with high school and that must be where they got their support and votes. There must be clear separation. Youth through bantam/U14 and then comes high school. Play youth hockey where you live and then comes high school.