delete

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:32 am

This got forwarded to me the other day. Again, is this where we want to go?

Minnesota vs Massachusetts

Rink Ownership
MN - Public/Municipal
MA - Private (creates profit-driven business model)

Governance
MN - MinnKota / USA Hockey rules followed strictly
MA - Mass Hockey has almost no control over each town association and USA Hockey rules are very loosely interpreted, if followed much at all beyond equipment rules

Organization
MN - Town-based Youth Associations Only
MA - Town-based Youth Associations PLUS multiple “For Profit” Leagues packaged as Select, AA, AAA, Elite, Tier-1 National AAA, etc. – No limits, restrictions, or requirements as to where to play

League Rules
MN - Organized by Districts; Each District governs town associations within it
MA - Town programs subscribe to various leagues at different levels – Rinks own and run leagues so they each have different rules; Districts come into play only at HS Level

USA Hockey Affiliation
MN - Exclusively USA Hockey
MA - Varies by League – affiliations include USA Hockey, NCAA-based, and “private” Rules

Association Governance
MN - Elected Board of Directors and Coaches Board; open meetings; clear policies and procedures
MA - Board of Directors but no Coaches Board; closed meetings; NO evaluations of coaches or organization; No grievance or other policies – very little, if any, constituent participation or representation***

Play on Multiple Teams
MN - NO
MA - Yes; there are no limits as to how many teams a skater can play on – some “select” leagues require skaters to play for both town and “select” team simultaneously through Squirts

Age Brackets
MN - 7/1-6/30 (more similar to school grade)
MA - 1/1-12/31 – (calendar year) straddles school grades; becomes a problem during the puberty years

Season Length
MN - October – February
MA - Late August – Mid-April

Tryout Timing
MN - Fall
MA - Spring

Practice Game Ration
MN - 3:1
MA - 1:1 or as bad as 1:3 (and practices are only 50 mins)

Games in Season (excluding Tournaments)
MN - 25-30
MA - 30-40 (for Town programs); 60-90 for non-Town leagues – HEAVY primary focus on games; skating fundamentals a very distant second

Practice Formats
MN - Full Sheets & Half Ice
MA - 85-90% Half-Ice; some non-Town leagues will provide one full-ice practice per week; skills sessions can include up to 6 teams on the ice at once!

Tryouts/Travel at Mite Level
MN - NO
MA - YES – Mites must go through full tryouts; they play full-ice games all season and all leagues (Town and others) are travel-based – NO inhouse programs for Mites

Ice time costs
MN - $165 for full hour
MA - $275 minimum for 50 minutes

In the end, MN Hockey had a good thing going. The new participation rule starts the slippery slope towards Massachusetts hockey. I had heard last night at a meeting that a private school is already promoting a 'freshman team' for the upcoming season by having students register at the local association. Don't know all the facts yet, so take it as second hand news. I figured it would take a year or two before people began figuring out the loopholes.

It begins.......

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:50 am

delete

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:03 pm

Excuse me. You're all over the place. First, what part do you think is bullcrap? Second, what is your situation?

Is your child changing schools to play somewhere else?
Already attends somewhere not in your geographic community and will will now play hockey with the association where he attends school?
Live and attend school in the same community so it doesn't impact you?

And, it's not MN Hockey - We Fear Change

It's, MN Hockey - We Don't Need Change

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:04 pm

HockeyDad41 you are on the other end of the spectrum from SWPREZ,
he feels its the end and you feel its the way(it seems to me).

I have yet to see somebody on here say "we like the rule change because it helps our family by............"

It seems to me it's all about being able to move to the other associations that have good programs.

Not sure that EP/Edina/Wayzata kids are going to be excited to flock to Hopkins because they go to Breck (or whatever private school is in a poor association compared to their current one). Are all the Totino Grace kids looking forward to playing in Fridley/Columbia Heights or whatever association they fall into? I think not! The Providence Academy/St. Johns Luthern kids that are not from MG/Wayzata are sure liking it.

It benefits the few and that is a problem for me!

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:25 pm

delete

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:27 pm

This new rule needs to be killed ASAP. Like today.

Associations start registration around September 1. Fall meeting is September 18th. Can't wait for fall meeting.

Have other Associations been contacted by parents wanting to bring a group of players, from one particular school, into their Association? This will be driven by parents, not school administrators. This suggests that community members will be displaced from teams by players from outside the community. It takes 70 hours of ice to add a team. Do Associations that may gain players from other communities have the ice allocated, and purchased, to host another team?

I also heard a geographical community might charge a resident $1000 for hockey but charge someone from outside the community $2000 because part of the resident's fee is subsidized by charitable gambling, in the community, and the law states the revenue must be used to reduce costs for the residents of that community. So, yeah, you can play for us but it will be twice the cost for you.

This was so poorly written, and could possibly benefit such a small percentage of total hockey families in the State, and cause pain for so many more, it needs to be dropped now before registration cranks up. It's not entirely startling that associations have been contacted already about having their kids tryout for the community based Association because some selfish person, that stood to benefit personally, was behind the idea in the first place.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:09 pm

HockeyDad41 wrote:Bullcrap.

You are an alarmist with an agenda. For all we know your stats are made up by another alarmist with an agenda.

You make it sound like this rule change is the genesis for MA hockey. Simply not true. Nothing I have read indicates that this is going to happen.

New motto:

Minnesota Hockey - We Fear Change.

Hockeydad41 - Those stats were forwarded to me by the President of another association who has a friend in MA that plays hockey out there. I have nephews who play out there also and have compared notes over the years and those notes seem to be inline with what this President sent me. If they were made up, it wasn't by me.

I am not trying to scare anyone. My point has been that those who wrote the participation policy, wrote it from their "shoes" (big association with small private/parochial membership) while totally disregarding the "shoes" of those that are the MOST effected by this new policy. I also firmly believe that, yes, this rule and its ultimate grey areas places MN Hockey on a path that is not good for the long term product and will resemble inferior products being offered in other states.

What would Edina or Eden Prairie do if 50-60% of their players suddenly were gone next year because they had to register where they went to school? Do you think they would say go ahead and play elsewhere, or would they be clamoring about this policy?

My agenda is clear and I wear it up front. This participation rule, as drafted, is very destructive to my association and others similar. It barely harms or has no impact on the large associations in the western suburbs and you can see why many just shrug their shoulders and say 'who cares...doesn't effect me".

I have had lengthy discussions with three association Presidents regarding this. One stated simply, "Our association has been struggling and working hard to build, but this rule will be the end of hockey in our community". Another association echoed a similar message.

Tonight, District 1 Presidents will be meeting with MN Hockey to discuss this rule further. Hopefully, I will be able to understand the genesis and why this was pushed through in the current form that it is in. What problems were they trying to solve? Did they realize the problems it would create for certain programs? If not, how do they remedy?

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:14 pm

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:HockeyDad41 you are on the other end of the spectrum from SWPREZ,
he feels its the end and you feel its the way(it seems to me).

I have yet to see somebody on here say "we like the rule change because it helps our family by............"

It seems to me it's all about being able to move to the other associations that have good programs.

Not sure that EP/Edina/Wayzata kids are going to be excited to flock to Hopkins because they go to Breck (or whatever private school is in a poor association compared to their current one). Are all the Totino Grace kids looking forward to playing in Fridley/Columbia Heights or whatever association they fall into? I think not! The Providence Academy/St. Johns Luthern kids that are not from MG/Wayzata are sure liking it.

It benefits the few and that is a problem for me!

Read the rule...Kids going to TG will not have to play at North Metro.

c. Changing Schools; A player who newly enrolls in a school outside of the geographic boundary of their current Affiliate without a corresponding change of residence shall elect one of the following:
i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance; or
ii) be eligible at the "B" classification or lower in their new Affiliate of School Attendance for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school.

The kids attending TG or Hill Murray or any other private high school will get the opportunity to stay with their home association if they choose, or play "B" hockey at the new one...which option do you think the "A" level players will choose?

The sky will not fall people!!!!

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:30 pm

Hey at least SWPREZ is on the front lines of this thing and has a vested interest in it because it will affect his association (not just a couple of kids). He is telling you that it is not good for the association he is actively involved in........is his the only one? I bet not, he just happens to be on this forum.

The kids attending TG or Hill Murray or any other private high school will get the opportunity to stay with their home association if they choose, or play "B" hockey at the new one...which option do you think the "A" level players will choose?

i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance.

Great it sounds like they get to play where they live for 1 year then have to go to the other association.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:35 pm

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:Hey at least SWPREZ is on the front lines of this thing and has a vested interest in it because it will affect his association (not just a couple of kids). He is telling you that it is not good for the association he is actively involved in........is his the only one? I bet not, he just happens to be on this forum.

The kids attending TG or Hill Murray or any other private high school will get the opportunity to stay with their home association if they choose, or play "B" hockey at the new one...which option do you think the "A" level players will choose?
i) Retain full eligibility to compete at any classification in their Affiliate prior to the new school enrollment for one (1) year beginning with the first day of attendance in the new school, after which time the player shall become fully eligible in their Affiliate of School Attendance.

Great it sounds like they get to play where they live for 1 year then have to go to the other association.

Wrong again....

Do I need to spell it out for you? A kid who has played youth hockey in, let's say for example, Coon Rapids decides to enroll at Totino Grace his freshmen year. Under the new rule, he can play out his freshmen season on his Coon Rapids Bantam team as a 2nd year. The next year, he will be a sophmore, thus will NOT be playing bantams, but high school hockey at Totino Grace...not at North Metro.

Do you understand it now?

Kids who attend private high schools with grades 9-12 will, by and large, not be affected by this new rule at all (with the exception of Junior Gold players). Only the kids who attend private or public schools K-8 outside of their geographical area will be affected.

I keep hearing the Chicken Little's whining and fussing over the "selfish few" that will benefit from the rule on one hand, and on the other hand, they say this rule will ruin hockey in Minnesota as we know it. If it's true that only a few will benefit, how can that POSSIBLY spell ruination for everyone??? This change will not affect the situation for 99+% of all players.

Again, the sky will not fall because of this change.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:42 pm

delete

Shoot Higher · Post by **Shoot Higher** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:27 pm

HockeyDad41 wrote:
SWPrez wrote:
HockeyDad41 wrote:Bullcrap.

You are an alarmist with an agenda. For all we know your stats are made up by another alarmist with an agenda.

You make it sound like this rule change is the genesis for MA hockey. Simply not true. Nothing I have read indicates that this is going to happen.

New motto:

Minnesota Hockey - We Fear Change.
Hockeydad41 - Those stats were forwarded to me by the President of another association who has a friend in MA that plays hockey out there. I have nephews who play out there also and have compared notes over the years and those notes seem to be inline with what this President sent me. If they were made up, it wasn't by me.

I am not trying to scare anyone. My point has been that those who wrote the participation policy, wrote it from their "shoes" (big association with small private/parochial membership) while totally disregarding the "shoes" of those that are the MOST effected by this new policy. I also firmly believe that, yes, this rule and its ultimate grey areas places MN Hockey on a path that is not good for the long term product and will resemble inferior products being offered in other states.

What would Edina or Eden Prairie do if 50-60% of their players suddenly were gone next year because they had to register where they went to school? Do you think they would say go ahead and play elsewhere, or would they be clamoring about this policy?

My agenda is clear and I wear it up front. This participation rule, as drafted, is very destructive to my association and others similar. It barely harms or has no impact on the large associations in the western suburbs and you can see why many just shrug their shoulders and say 'who cares...doesn't effect me".

I have had lengthy discussions with three association Presidents regarding this. One stated simply, "Our association has been struggling and working hard to build, but this rule will be the end of hockey in our community". Another association echoed a similar message.

Tonight, District 1 Presidents will be meeting with MN Hockey to discuss this rule further. Hopefully, I will be able to understand the genesis and why this was pushed through in the current form that it is in. What problems were they trying to solve? Did they realize the problems it would create for certain programs? If not, how do they remedy?
I know this will be hard to believe, but I do sympathize.

I just don't care for the scare tactics. We are not MA hockey and never will be.

Why do you say we are not MA hockey and never will be? I was just in Ohio and heard similar stories of their hockey programs (from a family who had been in MN previously). I am guessing there are other states out there with similar stories. The only ones playing are those familes with enough cash and the time to drive long distances for games and practices.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:27 pm

Wrong again....

Do I need to spell it out for you? A kid who has played youth hockey in, let's say for example, Coon Rapids decides to enroll at Totino Grace his freshmen year. Under the new rule, he can play out his freshmen season on his Coon Rapids Bantam team as a 2nd year. The next year, he will be a sophmore, thus will NOT be playing bantams, but high school hockey at Totino Grace...not at North Metro.

Do you understand it now?

Crystal Clear and ends up not affecting anything.

So now Carnac, explain to me the kid that is going into his 1st year of squirts and makes the Blaine squirt A team. He just happens to attend one of the 21 private schools in k-8 in Anoka county ( http://www.privateschoolreview.com/stat ... stateid/MN ). His school is in Fridley, Spring Lake Park or some place with a "weaker" association. Now he has to play for the other association next year.

Am I wrong?

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:33 pm

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:
Wrong again....

Do I need to spell it out for you? A kid who has played youth hockey in, let's say for example, Coon Rapids decides to enroll at Totino Grace his freshmen year. Under the new rule, he can play out his freshmen season on his Coon Rapids Bantam team as a 2nd year. The next year, he will be a sophmore, thus will NOT be playing bantams, but high school hockey at Totino Grace...not at North Metro.

Do you understand it now?

Crystal Clear and ends up not affecting anything.

So now Carnac, explain to me the kid that is going into his 1st year of squirts and makes the Blaine squirt A team. He just happens to attend one of the 21 private schools in k-8 in Anoka county ( http://www.privateschoolreview.com/stat ... stateid/MN ). His school is in Fridley, Spring Lake Park or some place with a "weaker" association. Now he has to play for the other association next year.

Am I wrong?

If he is going into his 1st year of Squirts and goes to school outside of the Blaine affiliate, he wouldn't even TRYOUT for the Blaine team, he would try out for the team in whichever association his school is located. If the kid was on the Blaine "A" Squirts last year, then he is grandfathered in and can choose to spend the rest of his youth hockey years playing in Blaine.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:44 pm

If he is going into his 1st year of Squirts and goes to school outside of the Blaine affiliate, he wouldn't even TRYOUT for the Blaine team, he would try out for the team in whichever association his school is located. If the kid was on the Blaine "A" Squirts last year, then he is grandfathered in and can choose to spend the rest of his youth hockey years playing in Blaine.

I bet there are plenty of people who will be excited that they have no choice in staying in their mite association because there were a few who wanted to play with all their school buddies.

Seems funny how those so in favor of this say they should be able to have a choice but now they are forcing others to play where they maybe don't want to.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:53 pm

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:
If he is going into his 1st year of Squirts and goes to school outside of the Blaine affiliate, he wouldn't even TRYOUT for the Blaine team, he would try out for the team in whichever association his school is located. If the kid was on the Blaine "A" Squirts last year, then he is grandfathered in and can choose to spend the rest of his youth hockey years playing in Blaine.
I bet there are plenty of people who will be excited that they have no choice in staying in their mite association because there were a few who wanted to play with all their school buddies.

Seems funny how those so in favor of this say they should be able to have a choice but now they are forcing others to play where they maybe don't want to.

They have a choice. If hockey is that important to them, ENROLL IN SCHOOL WHERE YOU LIVE!!!!

My bet is that there are far less than 100 kids TOTAL in the Metro Area that this rule will affect....outstate, even less. I would think that 99% of all hockey-playing youths go to school within their geographical affiliate boundaries. It's my opinion, this change doesn't go far enough in giving the parents the right to choose where their kids play hockey.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:12 pm

I would think that 99% of all hockey-playing youths go to school within their geographical affiliate boundaries.

Actually, the thing that bothers me about this rule is now that more kids will open enroll into our district. We just voted a few years ago to lower class sizes, which raises my taxes. Now we will have a potential wave of kids having another reason to open enroll.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:41 pm

sorno82 wrote:
I would think that 99% of all hockey-playing youths go to school within their geographical affiliate boundaries.
Actually, the thing that bothers me about this rule is now that more kids will open enroll into our district. We just voted a few years ago to lower class sizes, which raises my taxes. Now we will have a potential wave of kids having another reason to open enroll.

I think you are vastly overstating the impact of this new rule. Sure, they may be a few families who move schools to take advantage...but there could also be a few more that go back to schools close to where they live so their kids can stay where they are at.

hockey_is_a_choice · Post by **hockey_is_a_choice** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:02 pm

For those of you who are opposed to allowing a child some choice in where he or she plays, you likely have not witnessed the bias that some coaches and associations have against a skater who will not attend the local high school. Believe it or not--the bias exists. That bias is harmful to a child's mental health and causes kids to quit the great sport of hockey. Minnesota Hockey heard from folks whose kids have been punished because of where they go to school and the stories were compelling.

The new Participation rule is poorly written, but the rule reflects an attempt by the Minnesota Hockey Board to reach a compromise and allow kids to play where they live or where they go to school. There is nothing wrong with this approach. The sky will not fall.

Sure, some associations will be impacted more than others, but, if you are afraid that kids may leave your association, give them a reason to stay. Don't force them to stay.

bluemind · Post by **bluemind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:01 pm

What if your kid went to a private school from k- today and you were playing in your local association. You spent the last 4 years of mites and squirts building friendships and having a good time. Little Johnny is now ready to start Pee Wees and is looking forward to tryouts.... Whoops, the new rule says that little Johnny needs to play for the association where he was enrolled last year. Oh that's right he is too old at 11 years of age to make the one time choice to stay local cause he is no longer a squirt. You need to go to the new association and tryout because MN hockey says these are the rules.. The opportunity to make new friends... The pleasure of being looked at as a over zealous parent with aspirations for the NHL.. The chance to be tossed on to the C/B team cause they protect their own... The opportunity to pay more based on MN State laws surrounding charitable fund raising. The fun, the joy and the pleasure of being told what to do...

Whoops.. I guess you should just yank him outta school away from friends and bring him to the local public school. He can sit in a class of 35 kids who warmly accept him and are a year behind him in test scores/studies. Good choice for Johnny as you enroll in school where you live.

Not the best choice, limited options most of which stink.. Whether you choose to play by the rules or disrupt your family.. Oh! I forgot to mention your daughter who also goes to that same private school. Aww heck she should switch too and share in the fun, she doesn't even play hockey. Nice choice???

davinci · Post by **davinci** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:41 pm

observer wrote:Excuse me. You're all over the place. First, what part do you think is bullcrap? Second, what is your situation?

Is your child changing schools to play somewhere else?
Already attends somewhere not in your geographic community and will will now play hockey with the association where he attends school?
Live and attend school in the same community so it doesn't impact you?

And, it's not MN Hockey - We Fear Change

It's, MN Hockey - We Don't Need Change

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:44 pm

delete

bluemind · Post by **bluemind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:50 pm

hockeydad41,

I don't think so read the whole rule once you pass Squirts you are outta luck and you will be playing where you enroll whether you like it or not. I suppose you could ask for a waiver but that may be no more than a roll of the dice.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:55 pm

delete

bluemind · Post by **bluemind** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:01 pm

Hockeydad41..

Keep thinking and reading.. Keep in mind they only address choice for mites and squirts.. Remember little Johnny (God bless his new slap shot) is a Pee Wee this year. He is screwed.. They are saying you have choice until... You have decision once. After that you have the circumstance I describe.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

delete

muckandgrind what if?

Re: muckandgrind what if?

Nope

delete

Your not there yet