Poll- is the new participation rule good or bad

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:52 pm

please vote- maybe MN Hockey will look at the results

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:11 pm

looks like the majority believes MN Hockey needs to start over on this.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:27 pm

Or not. I guess I mean, just ditch the whole bad idea.

No one has been able to explain how all of this came up in the first place. What is wrong with the concept of playing where you live? And no one has been able to explain, specifically, who this rule change benefits.

We did learn that Minnesota Hockey is not Minnesota Youth Hockey and so some of their goals are different than those of the Minnesota Youth Hockey Associations. Maybe only those involved in youth hockey should vote on issues that involve youth hockey. Why are people voting on issues they know nothing about and don't impact them personally.

Someone championed this cause (Bakke and Nagan?) and lobbied for the vote for change.

Play where you live through Bantam/U14 and then comes high school. Easy to understand and administer. Clear distinction.

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:20 pm

Community Based wrote:Or not. I guess I mean, just ditch the whole bad idea.

No one has been able to explain how all of this came up in the first place. What is wrong with the concept of playing where you live? And no one has been able to explain, specifically, who this rule change benefits.

We did learn that Minnesota Hockey is not Minnesota Youth Hockey and so some of their goals are different than those of the Minnesota Youth Hockey Associations. Maybe only those involved in youth hockey should vote on issues that involve youth hockey. Why are people voting on issues they know nothing about and don't impact them personally.

Someone championed this cause (Bakke and Nagan?) and lobbied for the vote for change.

Play where you live through Bantam/U14 and then comes high school. Easy to understand and administer. Clear distinction.

Even simplier..Just ammend last years rule to allow kids the right to play by residence or school..Period..Simple.Or make it an automatic waiver grant if it is for school enrollment. Let the kids play and have fun..Period. Let's stop trying to dictate and hold kids hostage from association to association. The new rule is broken, but the old rule was equally broken. Times change and open enrollment needs to ne recognized in today's youth athletics. It was refreshing to see MH make an attempt to address open enrollment, they just put way to much thought into it instead of making a simple minor language change to the previous version.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:35 pm

they just put way to much thought into it

Let's not go overboard.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:17 pm

nhl'er,

I don't agree. Are you a family that will personally benefit? Tell us how.

I know we're not supposed to discuss soccer on here but soccer has some of that freedom and it just weakens everyone (or most everyone). Two middle of the pack to weak teams serving the same community where there should be one strong team. Now who does that benefit? Not the kids on either team.

Also, I don't find it refreshing that MN Hockey messed with the core of our Community Based model because 2-3 selfish babies couldn't bring themselves to be supportive of the community based hockey association where they live. So lets dream something up that benefits us without consideration to the other 98% of the families in the State. IM gottcha on the other one. Frankly, they put very little thought into it and just listened to the opinion of a few squeaky wheels.

Play where you live and then comes high school.

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:26 pm

observer wrote:nhl'er,

I don't agree. Are you a family that will personally benefit? Tell us how.

I know we're not supposed to discuss soccer on here but soccer has some of that freedom and it just weakens everyone (or most everyone). Two middle of the pack to weak teams serving the same community where there should be one strong team. Now who does that benefit? Not the kids on either team.

Also, I don't find it refreshing that MN Hockey messed with the core of our Community Based model because 2-3 selfish babies couldn't bring themselves to be supportive of the community based hockey association where they live. So lets dream something up that benefits us without consideration to the other 98% of the families in the State. IM gottcha on the other one. Frankly, they put very little thought into it and just listened to the opinion of a few squeaky wheels.

Play where you live and then comes high school.

As previously stated, this doesn't benfit or hinder my family. We play where we live. But, I personally know of at least 5 families that have open enrolled to other neighboring public schools for educational purposes and their children (not the parents) want to play with their school friends. I'm an advocate for the kids, not personal gain. I voluteer my time in amatuer athletics because I enjoy working with youth athletes and believe that they should have a choice in the programs in which they participate. Whether it means playing by skill level, by friends, by travel distance etc. We need to make it easy for them and the parents to play the great sport of hockey and quit trying to hold kids hostage. This is only causing kids to quit the game.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:37 pm

No way. That's all parent talk. The kids didn't ask their parents if there's anyway possible that they could play hockey with the kids they met while attending school. Never would have even thought of it. It's not causing kids to quit the game either. Playing at the rink closest to your home, on a team with neighbors and other kids that live near by, is as easy as it gets. Driving back and forth to Hopkins 4 times a day from Wayzata to school and evening hockey practices is not likely to get more kids to stay in the game. Very bad idea to gut our entire successful model for a few fussers.

nahc · Post by **nahc** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:43 pm

Lakeville is a good example of the "two association" failure. Its the view of providing the "experience" of playing up for as many players as possible. Nothing has ever been discussed concerning the question of whether or not the kids can even compete at the upper levels.........doesn't matter as long as parents can say, "My son/daughter is playing A/B/whatever.....". And the thought is correct, this only causes the team overall to be weakened........one sits and watches these levels and you can pick out the "bubble" kids.........and then we again talk about rolling lines or playing your best.........mites and most squirt teams not included..........all has been discussed at nauseum in the past. New rules probably won't make a beans of differance.........

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:48 pm

Community Based wrote:No way. That's all parent talk. The kids didn't ask their parents if there's anyway possible that they could play hockey with the kids they met while attending school. Never would have even thought of it. It's not causing kids to quit the game either. Playing at the rink closest to your home, on a team with neighbors and other kids that live near by, is as easy as it gets. Driving back and forth to Hopkins 4 times a day from Wayzata to school and evening hockey practices is not likely to get more kids to stay in the game. Very bad idea to gut our entire successful model for a few fussers.

You can believe what you wish, I stand by my statement. You obviously have a different agenda and stand for something different then making the game better for all. Change is needed, change has come, although not perfect in current form. Give it a year, tweak where neccessary and we improve for all.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:00 pm

There are hockey friends and school friends. There is no overlap and that's just fine with my kid. There is no interest at all in playing with school friends. It's two different worlds and allows her to meet twice as many people as she would otherwise. I'm convinced now that this is some kind of red herring to keep everyone off the trail of the true, and unsavory reasoning behind the new rule.

trippedovertheblueline · Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:32 pm

Community Based wrote:Or not. I guess I mean, just ditch the whole bad idea.

No one has been able to explain how all of this came up in the first place. What is wrong with the concept of playing where you live? And no one has been able to explain, specifically, who this rule change benefits.

We did learn that Minnesota Hockey is not Minnesota Youth Hockey and so some of their goals are different than those of the Minnesota Youth Hockey Associations. Maybe only those involved in youth hockey should vote on issues that involve youth hockey. Why are people voting on issues they know nothing about and don't impact them personally.

Someone championed this cause (Bakke and Nagan?) and lobbied for the vote for change.

Play where you live through Bantam/U14 and then comes high school. Easy to understand and administer. Clear distinction.

You keep sayin play where you live. But my son may live in Eagan yet by state school districts, he attends burnsville school district. So we may play for burnsville. We don't play where we live. We play for our public school district and the underlying association of our high school if our son was in high school. "Play where you live" does not define what your stating, I don't think. I believe, I apologize if wrong, you want the policy to be play with your association of your underlying public school district: what high school you would attend w/out open enrolling or private.

trippedovertheblueline · Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:38 pm

nahc wrote:Lakeville is a good example of the "two association" failure. Its the view of providing the "experience" of playing up for as many players as possible. Nothing has ever been discussed concerning the question of whether or not the kids can even compete at the upper levels.........doesn't matter as long as parents can say, "My son/daughter is playing A/B/whatever.....". And the thought is correct, this only causes the team overall to be weakened........one sits and watches these levels and you can pick out the "bubble" kids.........and then we again talk about rolling lines or playing your best.........mites and most squirt teams not included..........all has been discussed at nauseum in the past. New rules probably won't make a beans of differance.........

Uh come again

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:13 am

delete

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:42 am

I know we're not supposed to discuss soccer on here but soccer has some of that freedom and it just weakens everyone (or most everyone). Two middle of the pack to weak teams serving the same community where there should be one strong team. Now who does that benefit? Not the kids on either team.

Lakeville is a good example of the "two association" failure. Its the view of providing the "experience" of playing up for as many players as possible. Nothing has ever been discussed concerning the question of whether or not the kids can even compete at the upper levels.........doesn't matter as long as parents can say, "My son/daughter is playing A/B/whatever.....". And the thought is correct, this only causes the team overall to be weakened........one sits and watches these levels and you can pick out the "bubble" kids.........and then we again talk about rolling lines or playing your best.........mites and most squirt teams not included..........all has been discussed at nauseum in the past. New rules probably won't make a beans of differance.........

I know it's impossible to communicate tone on a post, so I apologize if I misinterpret, but I'm missing the "I'm in it for the kids" in these type of offerings. There are enough kids interested in playing that there can be multiple teams; how is that terrible? What is 'in it for the kids' when the number of teams is cut in half? If you can pick out the bubble kids at the end of the year, then the issue likely lies with the development plan and coaching, not the kids. Again, I'm probably reading it wrong.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:02 am

As previously stated, this doesn't benfit or hinder my family. We play where we live. But, I personally know of at least 5 families that have open enrolled to other neighboring public schools for educational purposes and their children (not the parents) want to play with their school friends.

nhl'er,

For these 5 families, how many kids that they attend school with would actually play on their team?

I find it hard to believe that there are that many kids in a class or even their school that would play on the same team.

I would love to see how many kids in say Osseo/MG/Wayzata/Woodbury/Edina/etc actually played on the same team as kids in their school since many districts have 10 plus elementary schools.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:22 am

great point on playing with kids from your school. I would bet at most at the the larger associations you might have 2-3 kids from your class.

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:43 am

Play Where You Live is the easiest and best rule, certainly in the metro.

Easiest to administer: No question. Just check the parents' drivers license.

Best because associations should be stronger when the kids don't bolt for another association. Go help your local association for the 5 months of the season.

If you hate playing where you live, then AAA is your real season - it's longer anyway. Open enroll in high school. You're putting your kid in plenty of clinics and camps anyway. If your kids only friends are in school, you're probably doing him a favor by getting him more friends.

And if that's too hard, move.

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:43 am

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:
As previously stated, this doesn't benfit or hinder my family. We play where we live. But, I personally know of at least 5 families that have open enrolled to other neighboring public schools for educational purposes and their children (not the parents) want to play with their school friends.
nhl'er,

For these 5 families, how many kids that they attend school with would actually play on their team?

I find it hard to believe that there are that many kids in a class or even their school that would play on the same team.

I would love to see how many kids in say Osseo/MG/Wayzata/Woodbury/Edina/etc actually played on the same team as kids in their school since many districts have 10 plus elementary schools.

These families live on the border to a small association, both boys and girls. Average B level players, Mite and Squirt aged. So they would almost all play with their friends at their given level at the school association.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:10 pm

These families live on the border to a small association, both boys and girls. Average B level players, Mite and Squirt aged. So they would almost all play with their friends at their given level at the school association.

That seems funny to me, I also live in a smaller association, our squirts had 4 teams (1A, 1B and 2 C that were both finished off with 4 -5 mite move ups), 3 Peewee teams and 2 bantams.

On my sons team, kids went to 4 different schools and it broke down to 1player, 2 players 4 players and 8 players at each and we only have 3 elementary schools.

I called an found that in a MG players school he had 0 (zero) other players on his team that attended his school (Osseo/MG has 17 elementary schools listed on their website).

I would love to see stats on how many kids moved to the big power associations with the ruse that it's to play with their school friends.......but you can be sure that they will bury that number away.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:23 pm

nhler,

Why is change needed? You say better for all and I say, maybe better for a few but I can't figure out which few. The much more logical approach is to leave it as it was. Many, many more people are fine with community defined as it was. Why are we changing for a few? Explain please? Roger touches on the herring but no one will lay it out.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:28 pm

it would be interesting to know how the metro associations feel about this. If you know FOR SURE how your association feels on this rule chance please post the name of association and if they are for or against it.

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:15 am

While this rule is certainly a good first step, it does not do enough to accommodate the needs of families with open enrollment kids. Rather than having all private and parochial school kids travel 10, 20 or more miles to play hockey in an association they didn’t choose (and may not have wanted them), why don’t we have the friends of the open enrollment kids (particularly those families who are supportive of this new rule but are nevertheless required to suffer another year of “playing where they live”) be required to play in the association in which the open enrollment kids live? That way more kids will experience the benefits of this new rule, particularly the opportunity to make new friends with kids in an association they had never dreamed of playing with before, and the open enrollment kids wouldn’t be required to bear the additional travel time and expense of playing outside of the association in which they live. Don’t the open enrollment kids deserve contributions from all of us to help make their hockey experience better?

Ontheice · Post by **Ontheice** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:26 am

N. Pike wrote:it does not do enough to accommodate the needs of families with open enrollment kids.

?????
Rather than having all private and parochial school kids travel 10, 20 or more miles to play hockey in an association they didn’t choose (and may not have wanted them), why don’t we have the friends of the open enrollment kids (particularly those families who are supportive of this new rule but are nevertheless required to suffer another year of “playing where they live”) be required to play in the association in which the open enrollment kids live?
???????

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:51 am

Question for SWPrez, and all those that think this rule is the worst thing since zubaz. Is the problem in FORCING the kids to play where they go to school? Would allowing a choice to play where you live or where you learn be OK or just as bad?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Poll- is the new participation rule good or bad

is the new participation rule good or bad for MN hockey

Poll- is the new participation rule good or bad