Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[Pioneerprideguy]

Thanks for the input, "CRN" guy. It is nice to have actual data to support public opinion. Let's hope MH opts to make the change and does so now, rather than brush it aside and let another year of kids be affected.

So will "CRN" guy make an appearance at the meeting?

[greybeard58]

Many years ago Mn Hockey switched the birth date to Sept. 1 and at that time we were because of the birth year at the time 8 months younger than the rest of USA Hockey. USA Hockey then changed to July 1 and then Mn Hockey also went to the July 1 date. USA Hockey then went to Jan 1 and also changed the birth year making Mn Hockey 6 months older. The reasons are posted earlier here.

[Pioneerprideguy]

Prediction Greybeard? How does this get resolved & when?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The new data, well continual data over the last decade has shown that June 1st is what MH once reasoned their July 1st date at.

I have asked and seen the data. July and June is rather identical to each other, say 25%.

Having a July 1 date now has benefited so many kids, that is what it is about. Both those that attended school at age 5, and those that didn't have options. Currently many June kids do not. And some don't have anywhere to play association hockey in the 9th grade. I don't think anyone "pro youth hockey" would want a kid not to be able to play the game? It maybe time to improve on that.

Data shows both National and MN schools trend over the last 15 to 20 years increases the % of summer b-days to enter school at age 6. In the data I saw, some states recently implemented a age increase for when a child can start school. There is your school data.

Having the right age classification is something MH has looked at from time to time. It has been switched before, each time with reason to better community hockey and allow more kids to participate.

With recent data MH may realize that changing to June 1, betters the program as a whole. If they do I applaud them.

Great info CRM, and an excellent and CORRECT conclusion ...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I am guessing Jordan Schroeder, a very small player growing up, never complained about contact from Big guys.

I would hope he didn't. Small or not, his September birthday would have given him up to a 22 month age advantage over the younger players he was skating against every other year, creating significant balance, strength and co-ordination benefits.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Minnesota system flawed? Change something? Why? Team USA World Junior Team is/was comprised of 22 players, 5 of which are Minnesotans. Once again more players from Mn than any other state.

In any event, no one is trying to re-invent the wheel with a June 1 date. That's simply in keeping with the spirit of the July 1 date originally assigned by Minnesota Hockey to keep the option of Bantam hockey open to all 9th graders. Those in the decision making process say that July 1 made sense at the time based on the trends of the time.

Research shows that June 1 is now more consistent with recent trends.

One of the great things about Minnesota Hockey and one of the REASONS that Minnesota Hockey is producing high quality hockey players is due to their ability to adapt with the times and do what is best for Minnesota Hockey players as a group.

The adjustment from July 1 to June 1 is an appropriate response to our times and will accomodate many Minnesota June born hockey players as they reach there 9th grade and still have the option of playing Bantam Hockey with their peers. This in turn creates a better overall experience for all Minnesota players and continues Minnesota's leadership roll in creating quality hockey players and quality people.

Remember, July 1 wasn't always the date. There was a change implemented there as well in reaction to trends of the time. The message here is DON'T FEAR CHANGE. It's neccesary to adapt with our environment and sometimes changes are the best course - even small changes like this opne.

Fear status quo for the sake of status quo ... that's truly dangerous.

Again, no downside to June 1 (at least I haven't heard of a downside as yet. Who does it hurt?) but tremendous benefit to 1 in 12 Minnesota hockey players and for Minnesota Hockey as a whole. Hurts no one. Helps many.

[council member retired]

So will "CRN" guy make an appearance at the meeting?[/quote]

a few of us are indeed, should i say, regulars at mnhock meetings

[Pioneerprideguy]

Minnesota system flawed? Change something? Why? Team USA World Junior Team is/was comprised of 22 players, 5 of which are Minnesotans. Once again more players from Mn than any other state.

In any event, no one is trying to re-invent the wheel with a June 1 date. That's simply in keeping with the spirit of the July 1 date originally assigned by Minnesota Hockey to keep the option of Bantam hockey open to all 9th graders. Those in the decision making process say that July 1 made sense at the time based on the trends of the time.

Research shows that June 1 is now more consistent with recent trends.

One of the great things about Minnesota Hockey and one of the REASONS that Minnesota Hockey is producing high quality hockey players is due to their ability to adapt with the times and do what is best for Minnesota Hockey players as a group.

The adjustment from July 1 to June 1 is an appropriate response to our times and will accomodate many Minnesota June born hockey players as they reach there 9th grade and still have the option of playing Bantam Hockey with their peers. This in turn creates a better overall experience for all Minnesota players and continues Minnesota's leadership roll in creating quality hockey players and quality people.

Remember, July 1 wasn't always the date. There was a change implemented there as well in reaction to trends of the time. The message here is DON'T FEAR CHANGE. It's neccesary to adapt with our environment and sometimes changes are the best course - even small changes like this opne.

Fear status quo for the sake of status quo ... that's truly dangerous.

Again, no downside to June 1 (at least I haven't heard of a downside as yet. Who does it hurt?) but tremendous benefit to 1 in 12 Minnesota hockey players and for Minnesota Hockey as a whole. Hurts no one. Helps many.

Well summarized and simply put. Let's hope the committee meeting on Thursday night comes to the same conclusion and makes the recommendation to the Board. Many people will be positively affected by this & hopefully the change is made for next year.

[fleury]

Really great change for kids with May B-days but I am sure someone will have some stats for that as well.

[observer]

No change for kids with May birthdays.

I believe stats show that a high percentage of May birthdays, higher than June, start school as 5 year olds. It's really about getting the highest percentage of kids playing with their school classmates all the way up. Most associations allowed the July birthdays to "play up" with their classmates which seemed wise and fair. Now, hopefully all, will allow any June birthdays to play up with their classmates but that will be a smaller number.

[hockey relic]

No change for kids with May birthdays.

I believe stats show that a high percentage of May birthdays, higher than June, start school as 5 year olds. It's really about getting the highest percentage of kids playing with their school classmates all the way up. Most associations allowed the July birthdays to "play up" with their classmates which seemed wise and fair. Now, hopefully all, will allow any June birthdays to play up with their classmates but that will be a smaller number.

Why leave the May birthdays out? If the goal is for the kids to play with thier classmates?

[observer]

Don't know what you're asking. Almost all May birthdays start school as 5 year olds. If you have a child with a 5th birthday this coming May get them in school this fall.

I think holding your June birthday kid back is unusual but we're hearing it's more frequent. June is more common to hold back now as opposed to 5-10 years ago hence the suggested change.

Developmentally (hockey that is) it will do nothing but help your May birthday to get him in school competing with his classmates with August, September, etc. birthdays as that is who they'll compete with for spots on the high school team.

[spin-o-rama]

Elliott70:
The concern Minnesota Hockey is addressing is:
1) two years of bantam hockey (those years being 8th & 9th grade
2) kids in 9th grade not eligible for bantam hockey, not making a JV team, and having little or no other option for hockey.
3) kids playing with kids that they attend school with as a deterrent to retention of players.

The easy solution would be to define youth levels at grade levels. However, this does not translate well at the younger levels. Because parents can delay their kids from starting school until age 6, this can lead to a 3 year gap in the squirt level - or a first year squirt facing off against a kid 37.5% older. Having an age cutoff date makes good sense for MH. A 2 year age grouping allows for up to a 25% age gap in the squirts. That is plenty large enough.
Whether the date is placed at 9/1, 7/1, or 6/1 there will always be kids with a birthday just in front who delayed starting school when 5. You cannot guarantee all 9th graders being bantam eligible with an age cutoff date.

Greybeard58:
Another option studied was to go to Sept 1 so everyone plays with his grade. However, evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds. So now you are back at square one with age classifications split by grade.

Was the sample taken while MH had the 9/1 cutoff date or after they had gone to 7/1? In other words, did those parents delay starting their kids in K for athletics? Is the current July 1 cutoff date encouraging late starts? Certainly there are kids who delay K for reasons other than athletics, but every parent I know who delayed their kid’s K entrance and their kid plays sports have mentioned the athletic advantage as a reason. I bet there would be fewer July/August late starts if the cutoff date were changed to 9/1.

Most MH bantams don’t go on to play HS hockey. I believe efforts to expand U16 would be more productive to the whole membership than changing the cutoff date to serve a few.

9/1 is the MN K age start date. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor ... 0A/20.html 9/1 would be a logical cutoff date for MH to use to match with the school system. Parents who start their summer born kids in school on time at age 5 and have them play hockey with their grade are already the youngest. Why disadvantage them further by moving the cutoff date up? Let the parents decide if their kid is 9th grade Bantam eligible - when they sign them up for K.

If MH decides to have an earlier cutoff date than 9/1, they should dictate better options for the kids who want to play up with their grade. Most associations allow for this, but many make it a non-reversible decision – A kid can’t drop back and play with his age group, he must play up his entire youth career. These kids should be allowed a fresh option every year to choose to play by age or grade.

BTW, I believe soccer uses 8/1. Too bad Tomass is in exile. It would be entertaining to hear his 2 cents.

[jancze5]

Get rid of JV hockey

Promote U16 or Junior Gold, keep it in the association and offer more levels

the current model works for Minnesota, if Minnesota had birth year hockey the game would be even slower and smaller associations would struggle to field teams to compete, heck they have a 3 year gap right now and unless you're one of the big dog associations, you're not that deep year in and year out.

there is an endless list of players who are where they are because of the god given genetics, work ethic and exposure to great coaching. It had nothing to do with there birthday.

(I still am pro AAA though...but believe in what we have)

[council member retired]

[quote="jancze5"]Get rid of JV hockey

Promote U16 or Junior Gold, keep it in the association and offer more levels


(I still am pro AAA though...but believe in what we have)[/quote]


Some communities have or maybe losing jv hockey as budgets are cut.
Unfortunate

[Pioneerprideguy]

Anyone going to the committee meeting tomorrow (Thurs)?

[Goose]

Lets face it, parents hold kids back in school so they are more mature physically, socially, mentally, and emotionally than their classmates. However, the actual cutoff for every school year in the state of MN is Sept 1.

Do I understand why a parent with a child born in July, August or even June would hold their child back in school? Sure I do. It is so that they have an advantage over the other kids in the areas described above. But when a parent holds a child back, their child is no longer with their defined peer group. This is not my opinion, it is a fact. They are now in the peer group that is a grade below their actual peer group.

MN hockey has tried to align themselves with the Minnesota school system, to separate players by school year, or a Sept 1st birth date as a means to define a peer group. Is this tough for the kids born in July or August? Yes it is, (but no more that it is unfair to those born in May or June under the current July 1st cutoff) they will be the youngest kids in their defined peer group. Is it fair to have them play down a peer group and have an advantage on all the other kids in that group? No it is not fair, not to the kids who legitimately fall in that age group. So why cater to those who want to gain what would be determined as an unfair advantage on the rest of the kids in an age group? So that when they are in 9th grade they can play in Bantams with their peers? We have determined that their peers are in 10th grade. These kids should play either in a High School, U16, or Junior Gold program. All three of which are available options in almost all circumstances. Move the cutoff date to June 1st? Give me a break, move it to Sept. 1st and be consistent with the MN school system grade cutoff.

[InigoMontoya]

Wow a 'first' post from someone who obviously knows everyone else's children better than their own parents do. Thank you for pointing out our failings; where have you been up until now.

Kids born in August, July, June, even May are not "held back". The starting age for MN schools is more like a speed limit than a requirement. A kid that is born on August 31 is allowed to start kindergarten in the state of MN, she is not required to start school the day after her 5th birthday. The child that is born September 1 is not allowed to start school at 4 (theoretically, though the school year never starts on the 1st due to state mandates regarding financial hardships that would be imposed on districts 11, 12, 15, and 16). How much more advanced is the kid born one day earlier, that we need to define his peer group based on an arrival time of a couple hours? There is no "unfair advantage" that the 8/31 kid has wrestled from the 9/1 kid. Thankfully, where these kids "legitimately fall" will be decided by MNH, not by you.

[observer]

Look what happened to Bjugstad. A July 92 birthday that was held back from his natural peer group to gain an advantage academically and athletically. Now he's working overtime to catch up to his natural peer group and graduate this spring with the rest of the students his age.

I still prefer leaving it at July 1 but agree a change to June 1 may be sensible as more June birthdays are held back today than 10 years ago.

Here's the stats we still haven't seen. What percentage of July 92 birthdays are currently seniors and what percent are currently juniors? What percent of June 92 birthdays are seniors and juniors? Where's the statistical break?

[Goose]

IndigoMontoya,

It appears that mom and dad told you that you were never held back, sorry to burst your bubble. Is this more credible because it's my 2nd post?

[InigoMontoya]

I was the 3rd youngest in my graduating class, which responds to your personal attack rather than a defense of your argument, but has no relevance to whether a 5 year old goes to school or not; neither would my insinuation that you must have daily had your head shoved in a toilet when you were in school, it may have been because you were 'misunderstood', not because the other kid was older. In addition, you could have posted under the name goose several hundred times, and it wouldn't lend credibility to your argument.

[spin-o-rama]

In addition to Bjugstad, Aaron Ness and Joe Finley are May and June birthdates who delayed K entrance and later accelerated to graduate "early."

If it is so important for all 9th graders to be Bantam eligible and for kids to play with their school year peers then MH should define levels by grade, not by age. However, doing so may lead to more delayed K starts and more physical discrepancies at the younger levels. I knew a guy in college who's family delayed their kids starting K until 7 for basketball reasons. Clearly, levels defined by age are more desirable.

So the decision is between accommodating kids who start K on time or the held back kids. I favor the former. They will already be the youngest if the cutoff date is 9/1. Why make them younger when they want to play with their grade peers who are the kids they will compete with for HS spots?

It is true that there is no requirement that a kid start K at age 5. However, parents who delay the start are accepting the tradeoffs with that decision. If you want your kid bantam eligible in 9th grade then start K at age 5.

[InigoMontoya]

Here's the stats we still haven't seen. What percentage of July 92 birthdays are currently seniors and what percent are currently juniors? What percent of June 92 birthdays are seniors and juniors? Where's the statistical break?

At this point, Minnesota hockey shouldn't care when June 92, 93, or 94 kids started school. A more relevant question would be how many June 95 kids (more specifically, hockey players) are in 9th v 8th, all the way to how many June 04 kids started school this year and how many are waiting until next year.

[InigoMontoya]

So the decision is between accommodating kids who start K on time or the held back kids. I favor the former. They will already be the youngest if the cutoff date is 9/1. Why make them younger when they want to play with their grade peers who are the kids they will compete with for HS spots?

I think I understand what your trying to say, but what you typed is contradictory. The kid born in September is going to have to compete with the June born kid when he gets to high school, since they'll be in the same grade, however, currently the June kid will have an advantage over the September kid because he will have played at a higher level the entire time the two grew up.

Whether you agree with them or think those parents are cheaters and child abusers, if more than half of the kids born in June, July, and August are waiting to start school, then they have defined the peer group for the kids in that class. It is no longer true that a school grade is made up of kids born from September through August, with a couple older kids thrown in.

[spin-o-rama]

Inigo,
nothing contradictory about what what I typed. In your example is your June kid a 5 year old K start or a 6 year old start?

It is true that there is no requirement that a kid start K at age 5. However, parents who delay the start are accepting the tradeoffs with that decision.

How does that translate to cheating and child abusing? A parent who holds their kid back obviously does it because they perceive it to be to their child's advantage. As long as they aren't doing the Danny Almonte with his birth certificate they are merely playing the game, not cheating. That does not mean all rules need to be adjusted in their favor. The rules need to be balanced to all.