Poll- is the new participation rule good or bad

[SWPrez]

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?

I think the problem is the rule and those drafting it drafted it from the perspective of a large association with a very small private/parochial school population. I believe the drafters were from Edina and Eden Prairie. To be even more direct, District 6.

To those larger associations, private/parochial kids are probably more of a nuisance than anything else. Hassles faced over the years have included Holy Family students and Bloomington players (jumping ship from Kennedy to Jefferson).

The problem is that the rule may make things easier for those associations to operate, but never took into account smaller associations with large private/parochial and open enrolled public kids. Our Bantam A team had kids going to 6 or 7 high schools. St. Paul Johnson had 7 or 8. Highland Central had 4 or 5. Edina and Eden Prairie had one (the local school) or two (a private). These are high schools.....get down to the squirt level and you have grade and middle school....possibly dozens and many outside of our geographic area!

"Playing where you live" is the only workable solution.

My problem is that this shouldn't have come to a vote, or, if they were going to have a vote, those that actually were affected and had a stake in the matter (remove a half dozen outstate districts and ALL MN Hockey non District Directors) should have been the only ones voting. I am sure many of those voting "For" were tired of this issue, did not read it thoroughly, did not think of the potential consequences to certain programs, and just wanted to get out of there and move on.

With that said, if MN Hockey is going to continue down this path, yes, the problem is forcing kids to register in their school home and then obtain a waiver. This may have been a good idea for Edina or Eden Prairie, but it is a horrible idea for many associations like ours. Players should register first where they are located, and then obtain a waiver. Otherwise, my whole fall will be consumed filling out paperwork for all of the kids that were forced to register where they go to school when they want to play with their local buddies and 'community'.

[HockeyGuy81]

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?

Zubaz were and always will be awesome

[InigoMontoya]

"Playing where you live" is the only workable solution.

Combined with "we deny all waiver applications", I can see why folks were pushing for a rule change.

I am convinced that, along with high costs, etc., it is the monopolistic nature of MN hockey that causes the most stress in parents. The choice that exists is 'play our way or wrestle'. It's no wonder MM is thriving - it is a choice; the Fire, same thing. Occassionally analogies are made to youth baseball, but there is no monopoly there; if you don't like what you have, there is Little League, Babe Ruth, Pee Wee Reese, and a dozen others - as a parent you could become disenchanted and find a different program every year your child is involved.

Do we really need to follow the rule anyway? Can't we just consider a recommendation rather than a rule? Kind of like squirt game limits? Or coaching certification? Or any of the other rules that are written, but only enforced when it suits an agenda or can be used to punish someone with whom we disagree.

[observer]

Minnesota Made is not thriving. I hear they're selling off equipment, laying off staff, as we speak. 3rd sheet? Doubt it. Trouble in paradise?

[mngopherfan]

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?

I think the problem is the rule and those drafting it drafted it from the perspective of a large association with a very small private/parochial school population. I believe the drafters were from Edina and Eden Prairie. To be even more direct, District 6.

To those larger associations, private/parochial kids are probably more of a nuisance than anything else. Hassles faced over the years have included Holy Family students and Bloomington players (jumping ship from Kennedy to Jefferson).

The problem is that the rule may make things easier for those associations to operate, but never took into account smaller associations with large private/parochial and open enrolled public kids. Our Bantam A team had kids going to 6 or 7 high schools. St. Paul Johnson had 7 or 8. Highland Central had 4 or 5. Edina and Eden Prairie had one (the local school) or two (a private). These are high schools.....get down to the squirt level and you have grade and middle school....possibly dozens and many outside of our geographic area!

"Playing where you live" is the only workable solution.

My problem is that this shouldn't have come to a vote, or, if they were going to have a vote, those that actually were affected and had a stake in the matter (remove a half dozen outstate districts and ALL MN Hockey non District Directors) should have been the only ones voting. I am sure many of those voting "For" were tired of this issue, did not read it thoroughly, did not think of the potential consequences to certain programs, and just wanted to get out of there and move on.

With that said, if MN Hockey is going to continue down this path, yes, the problem is forcing kids to register in their school home and then obtain a waiver. This may have been a good idea for Edina or Eden Prairie, but it is a horrible idea for many associations like ours. Players should register first where they are located, and then obtain a waiver. Otherwise, my whole fall will be consumed filling out paperwork for all of the kids that were forced to register where they go to school when they want to play with their local buddies and 'community'.

The MPLS Park Bantam team is hardly "community" based...well i guess it is 4 communities...

Though i do agree with your message...especially being in you're area. It's tough to lose those kids left and right if they are forced to go...

[HockeyDad41]

delete

[SWPrez]

"Playing where you live" is the only workable solution.

Combined with "we deny all waiver applications", I can see why folks were pushing for a rule change.

I am convinced that, along with high costs, etc., it is the monopolistic nature of MN hockey that causes the most stress in parents. The choice that exists is 'play our way or wrestle'. It's no wonder MM is thriving - it is a choice; the Fire, same thing. Occassionally analogies are made to youth baseball, but there is no monopoly there; if you don't like what you have, there is Little League, Babe Ruth, Pee Wee Reese, and a dozen others - as a parent you could become disenchanted and find a different program every year your child is involved.

Do we really need to follow the rule anyway? Can't we just consider a recommendation rather than a rule? Kind of like squirt game limits? Or coaching certification? Or any of the other rules that are written, but only enforced when it suits an agenda or can be used to punish someone with whom we disagree.

Inigo, I should correct my prior statement. Our waiver policy allowed for the following:

We will provide a waiver if we do not offer a team that is at that player's skill level (for instance, if we had a solid A player, girls or boys, and we did not have an A team, they could waive out, if we did not have a C team, they could waive out).

We also waive to any private or parochial school that has been issued an affiliate agreement by Minnesota Hockey.

There are also other considerations that can be looked at.....for example, a Bantam moving into our association in their final year who would like to finish their hockey with their 'community friends' that they played with in their old community, would also most likely get approval from our board. We do have a heart......however, we also are running a hockey program and need to project numbers, set budgets, and work to provide product for our members.

Our policy gets reviewed each year and modified if necessary. So far it has worked out with minimal to no parental conflicts. In fact, virtually all families that have had waivers denied have been happy with their experience and with their kids having community 'hockey buddies' in addition to their school buddies.

Many parents don't get it or are living in the past. Through social networking (myspace/facebook), these kids have developed friendships that cross over community boundaries. When they step on the ice, they are buddies with half the kids on the other team. Playing where you live is not a big deal because the kids are still developing their friendships in every direction. I think that the rule was not put down to provide choice, but to save a few people (association presidents or District Directors) from having a few overly vocal folks raising stinks every year.

Finally, there is a lot of choice in Minnesota hockey. In Minneapolis, over 500 kids play recreational league hockey at the parks. There is Minnesota Made (Choice). There is the Fire. There is the XL League. However, if you want to play under a MN Hockey affiliate, there are rules and requirements for that priviledge. One of them should be that you play in your geographic area....otherwise, choose one of the options listed. MN Hockey is no longer a monopoly and there are options for kids.

All for now......gotta run.

[bluemind]

The rule proposed has so many holes in it that it seems to me it might be best if they scrap it and take a longer look.

If a family chooses to send their child to a school for a reason (religous, education, special need etc..) MN hockey should not wrap restrictions around the family. The "what if's" are going to cause so much pain for the families as proposed I don't see it working.

Examples: What if the student changes campuses within the school they attend ? What if the family for economic reasons better/worse chooses another school. What if the open enrollement the family enjoyed one year is not available the next year? What if the child develops or requires a change in the school based on a learning or physical disability. What if the family chooses another school based on preference (teaching , administration, course work). What if the family has children in two differnt schools.

The other challenge seems to exsist on the decsion authority provided to the district directors. I am not sure I want people in these positions to have the power to accept or deny the families based on their feelings about the legitimacy of the change requested. I can see several situations where a director can simply deny a request based on the child and their particualr association or districts needs. I can also see a great deal of privacy to the families being impacted as they deal with issues not relevant to hockey. I for one would not want to have to explain to a director that little Johnny needs to change because he is struggling with a personal challenge. Why put a family through this?

While I like the notion of providing the choice as it could provide the ability to play with your school friends or your neighbor friends, the choice to do this should be provided to everyone every year no matter how old your child is. In essecnce they are creating more headaches and barriers surrounding issues families face that have nothing to do with hockey.

[puckboy]

Elliot: Any idea if Minnesota Hockey will take a hard line on illegal rosters this year. With the rule change I would expect there to be quite a few examples of illegal rosters either due to the players or the registrar not catching something. If I remember correctly a team can be excluded from playoffs. Is Minnesota Hockey ready to enforce this?

[elliott70]

Elliot: Any idea if Minnesota Hockey will take a hard line on illegal rosters this year. With the rule change I would expect there to be quite a few examples of illegal rosters either due to the players or the registrar not catching something. If I remember correctly a team can be excluded from playoffs. Is Minnesota Hockey ready to enforce this?

Rosters this year will be reviewed and signed by the USAH associate registrar and her team.
They also are reviewed by the district directors.
The directors will be responsible for enforcing the new participation rule and the registrars will be checking birth cerificates and other underlying documentation. This should make it easier for dierctors to look for improprieties (intentional or not), but it is the first year for this system and this new rule.
What steps the DD's in the metro will take to determine if a player is indeed in a particular school and just where it lies, I do not know.
In D16 the rule does not change the way we were doing things other than a few minor things, but we have so few this effects it willn ot be difficult for us to enforce.
If we (D16 enforcers) believe an overt attempt has been made to place an illegal player on a roster, yes, we will sanction in some way. Banning from post-season is one possibility.

[puckboy]

Elliot- thanks for the response.

Shouldn't there be a uniform penalty for all districts so this infraction would be handled the same in district 1 as in district 16?

Since this is a minnesota hockey rule I would expect a standard penalty

[elliott70]

Elliot- thanks for the response.

Shouldn't there be a uniform penalty for all districts so this infraction would be handled the same in district 1 as in district 16?

Since this is a minnesota hockey rule I would expect a standard penalty

A standard monetary penalty would not work. A $500 penalty in D16 is devastating, in D6 it may not be as meaningful.

A restriction in post season play could be possible, as well as tournament hosting, etc...
The problem in uniformity is that we are not uniform.
A coach in one assoiciation may be able to thwart the system, while in another it may take a board member or two. Should one organization be punished more? My thoughts are 'yes'. But in a larger association (which we do not have) a couple of board members may not be as significant and require greater penalty then it would be in D16.

I predict no problems in D16 (unless it comes from a coach) and our penalty would be individual orientated in that case. In the metro it may have to be more severe than that.

[puckboy]

since registration has started in the metro- does anybody have any feedback on how this rule is impacting associations? How are associations verifying player information?