Here come the girls

[spin-o-rama]

Minnesota's hockey culture is much different from what you see in competitive youth soccer. Girls are separated out by age 9 and are never seen playing with boys past age 11.

Minnesota has enough girls playing youth hockey. A cultural shift that saw travel coaches cut all girls that try out would eliminate your concerns.

Nice clean illegal solution just itching for a lawsuit.

Nothing illegal about it. Sue away. Coach: I routinely cut players to get down from the 45 registered to form a team with 12 skaters. Association: We provide B teams and girls teams for those that don't make the A team. Everyone that wants to play is allowed.

O-town, you haven't been giving legal advice to D6 and Hewitt, have you?

MH dictates that all players are to have an equal opportunity to participate in competition regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. Not being eligible for the A team based on sex would violate the rule.

[blindref]

I wonder how big of stink would be made if five Hopkins boys basketball players decided to go out fog girls high school volleyball.

[old goalie85]

Forest Lake had a working meeting on tournys last night. Girls director said she has gotten calls from two parents telling her they will be having thier returning u12's try-out for Pee-wee's. She thinks @ least one more will as well.[she played A squrit two years ago] Maybe not a big deal in edina, but for us it will mean one big team-vs-two small ones. "And it is just begining"

[observer]

spin-o-rama wrote:

Explain how there will be a move from U10 to PW.

observer wrote:

There won't be. Currently many girls skate with boys at the Squirt level. Most opt to move to U12 when checking starts. That's changed now. Most girls that skate successfully at the Squirt level will stick with the boys game and play PeeWee. Never a big number but a very important one as they are often the 2-3 girls that could make a huge impact on a U12 team but now they're not there. It will hurt many, mostly smaller, associations.

spin-o-rama wrote:

So the key is having a stable U10 program. It's unrealistic to expect a U12 level to thrive when there isn't a viable U10 level. U10 numbers are not affected by the new rule and have everything to do with U12 success. So, on paper, there should be no girl program issues with the new rule.

Feel free to quote me in a year if I'm wrong. It's happened lots before.

I fully understand your idyllic point of view but that's only looking at 8U and below. The solution to the entire problem, as I've often said, is recruiting. 30 new 5 and 6 year olds this year is the goal. The 10U and 12U levels will be a rocky road for a few years until the new younger batch of players comes up and selects their path from the beginning. For now, some will switch and cause a lot of pain for their associations. Boys will be displaced which always causing some fussing.

[spin-o-rama]

spin-o-rama wrote:

Explain how there will be a move from U10 to PW.

observer wrote:

There won't be. Currently many girls skate with boys at the Squirt level. Most opt to move to U12 when checking starts. That's changed now. Most girls that skate successfully at the Squirt level will stick with the boys game and play PeeWee. Never a big number but a very important one as they are often the 2-3 girls that could make a huge impact on a U12 team but now they're not there. It will hurt many, mostly smaller, associations.

spin-o-rama wrote:

So the key is having a stable U10 program. It's unrealistic to expect a U12 level to thrive when there isn't a viable U10 level. U10 numbers are not affected by the new rule and have everything to do with U12 success. So, on paper, there should be no girl program issues with the new rule.

Feel free to quote me in a year if I'm wrong. It's happened lots before.

I fully understand your idyllic point of view but that's only looking at 8U and below. The solution to the entire problem, as I've often said, is recruiting. 30 new 5 and 6 year olds this year is the goal. The 10U and 12U levels will be a rocky road for a few years until the new younger batch of players comes up and selects their path from the beginning. For now, some will switch and cause a lot of pain for their associations. Boys will be displaced which always causing some fussing.

Idyllic? Hopefully more like straightforward.
30 new kindergarteners a year? Those are Edina/Wayzata type #s. That's idyllic.

You're right, 8U recruiting is the key. Counting on squirts moving to 12U to build the 12U level is like counting on move-ins to build the youth program. 8U will feed 10U, 10U will feed 12U. Girls who play mites, squirts, PW, etc will eventually move over. Some might not do so until HS. They will add strength to the girls program eventually.

Pens4 said it well on the girls forum.

Girls hockey has started to develope it's own culture and identity. That is really the goal and the growth will continue. The few that travel the peewee route are at least committed to hockey and at best....will eventually be back contributing to the girls side at the next level.

[spin-o-rama]

Forest Lake had a working meeting on tournys last night. Girls director said she has gotten calls from two parents telling her they will be having thier returning u12's try-out for Pee-wee's. She thinks @ least one more will as well.[she played A squrit two years ago] Maybe not a big deal in edina, but for us it will mean one big team-vs-two small ones. "And it is just begining"

What did your U10 program do 2 years ago when those girls were playing squirts? Why can't you do at least that well next year at 12U?

Think like a college coach. They only made a verbal commitment, actually only a verbal intent. No LOI has been signed. Turn on the sugar and go get them back!

[observer]

Idyllic? Hopefully more like straightforward.
30 new kindergarteners a year? Those are Edina/Wayzata type #s. That's idyllic.

I'm tracking with ya and I love the vision but there will be some bumps the next few years.

Regarding recruiting, I also agree with you pushing idyllic back at me but I also know that several associations don't set recruiting goals and they all should. Why not say 30 new, that's the goal. All member organizations depend on growth. Too many associations have big huge peaks and valleys in numbers and team strength and it's because they don't have a consistent, proactive, recruiting committee. That needs to be a bigger function at most every association. There is nothing more important than growth. More and better players, more and better volunteers and more and better coaches. Now's the time to set your recruiting committee goal for the 2011-2012 season.

[old goalie85]

Spin- I hear ya. Only one played "boys" hockey that year,the others played girls. My point is now the landscape has changed and the people in ivolved [ girls director, coaches] need to change w/ it. Some assc. our size and smaller will feel it & unless Mn hockey changes youth hockey to boys hockey towns like FL will become co-ops.[And that sucks]

[spin-o-rama]

Spin- I hear ya. Only one played "boys" hockey that year,the others played girls. My point is now the landscape has changed and the people in ivolved [ girls director, coaches] need to change w/ it. Some assc. our size and smaller will feel it & unless Mn hockey changes youth hockey to boys hockey towns like FL will become co-ops.[And that sucks]

A 2nd year U12 aged girl electing to play PW might be the rare occurance, but I'll bet no girl who played U10 last year will sign up for PW this year - the exception being a situation like Richfield where they fold the girls program. Either you play youth or waiver.

Hopefully the 3 families change their minds. It seems very pro-active that they called the girls director in June to announce they were going PW. There must be more the director didn't share with you. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the actual results are statewide after registration.

[O-townClown]

O-town, you haven't been giving legal advice to D6 and Hewitt, have you?

MH dictates that all players are to have an equal opportunity to participate in competition regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. Not being eligible for the A team based on sex would violate the rule.

Minnesota Hockey dictates what? That a coach can't take who they want? When I was a Pee Wee, one coach took all second-year Pee Wees for the A team and the other coach took all second-year Pee Wees for the B team. Even though one kid (who would go on to score over 150 points in the WCHA) was a heckuva lot better than almost all of them.

Who is there to sue?

Like I said. Pick who you want and if someone wants to bring a lawsuit, let 'em.

[luckyEPDad]

O-town, you haven't been giving legal advice to D6 and Hewitt, have you?

MH dictates that all players are to have an equal opportunity to participate in competition regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. Not being eligible for the A team based on sex would violate the rule.

Minnesota Hockey dictates what? That a coach can't take who they want? When I was a Pee Wee, one coach took all second-year Pee Wees for the A team and the other coach took all second-year Pee Wees for the B team. Even though one kid (who would go on to score over 150 points in the WCHA) was a heckuva lot better than almost all of them.

Who is there to sue?

Like I said. Pick who you want and if someone wants to bring a lawsuit, let 'em.

Bias against an individual is hard to prove. Bias against a gender much easier. Statistical data is all the proof needed. Pick who you want and let your association hang. Selfish.

[O-townClown]

Bias against an individual is hard to prove. Bias against a gender much easier. Statistical data is all the proof needed. Pick who you want and let your association hang. Selfish.

I'm not an attorney, but I can read.

MH dictates that all players are to have an equal opportunity to participate in competition regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. Not being eligible for the A team based on sex would violate the rule.

Please explain how a girl that is not selected for a Squirt or Pee Wee A team and plays U10 or U12 is denied "an oppotunity to participate".

I would love to hear the argument. The Coon Rapids Squirt coach takes all boys and a girl's father says what? "My daughter is better than that kid!" Parents already make the statement their son is better than that kid. Should they sue?

You and Spinner completely missed the point. Somehow the culture up there has girls playing with boys for youth hockey. Is it the same for soccer? Girls don't play competitive youth soccer with boys here. They play with girls. If one showed up at my son's tryout there would have been a lot of people asking the same question. "What the heck are you doing here?"

My son's league did have one team of girls. They got blasted every match, so I'm not sure what they got out of it. The coach told the parents they were improving at a faster rate than they would have playing against girls. What do I know?

[InigoMontoya]

I am just failing to see what all the fuss is about. There just aren't that many girls playing squirt hockey right now. There are certainly exceptions, for example New Prague squirt A team, in the game I saw one of the girls was the best player on the ice from either team - fastest, best stick handler, great wrist shot, backchecked her butt off, and was the toughest in the corners. Those girls that were going to play with the boys anyway, still will; those that weren't, still won't.

[spin-o-rama]

O-town, go back to your post and replace "girl" with "Mexican." It may be a bit more obvious that way. Until USAh changes "youth" to "boys" it has to be.

As far as the lawsuit goes, you'd need better evidence than Dad's verbal that his kid is better. A bubble kid will be harder to prove than a dominant kid. A girl/minority scores twice as many goals as the next best player on the B team. Next season 3 kids from that team make the A team, the girl/minority is still on the B team. Quite obvious. Hopefully there will never be a lawsuit, it would be a blackeye for hockey.

Inigo, great post. It says it all.

[Burnbabyburn]

I am just failing to see what all the fuss is about. There just aren't that many girls playing squirt hockey right now. There are certainly exceptions, for example New Prague squirt A team, in the game I saw one of the girls was the best player on the ice from either team - fastest, best stick handler, great wrist shot, backchecked her butt off, and was the toughest in the corners. Those girls that were going to play with the boys anyway, still will; those that weren't, still won't.

One of the reasons that some girls don't skate with boys at U10 is that people figure, why bother, we'll be headed to play with girls at U12. Now they won't have to. I just think that some people will think that their daughter is better served by the faster speed of boys and no longer are concerned about the hitting. Yes, Girls hockey has made great strides, but as someone put it somewhere on these boards, never underestimate the lengths some parents will go to for their kids' "development"

[hornethockeymom]

The USA Hockey rule states: "Beginning in the 2011-12 season, legal body checking in games will begin at the Bantam age level".

Based on conversations I have heard, checking will still be used in practices and is allowed in scrimmages. My understanding from several coaches is that they plan to play fewer games, and many more scrimmages to ensure the boys continue to practice those skills.

If girls leave U12 because they(or their parents) believe there won't be any checking, they are sadly mistaken!!!! Checking is still allowed in PeeWee's, just not in games.

[observer]

That's funny. Interesting interpretation and rumor.

PeeWees do tend to pound their own team mates in practice much more than their opponents on game night. I’ve watched tons of PeeWee practices over the years and often there are more serious injuries at practices than at games. They often have more confidence hitting their own team mates than a solid opponent.

The silliest rule change of all time. This could have been solved by the coaches, refs and players working together to improve the game instead of their current, often adversarial, relationship. Also silly.

One factor I've considered is that if you look at the entire hockey population only a small percentage play at the A level where I would guess most favor no change in the checking rules. Large associations have 10-12 PeeWee teams (170-200 PeeWees) yet only 17 A players. That's where the fussing and votes came from.

[Cdale]

The USA Hockey rule states: "Beginning in the 2011-12 season, legal body checking in games will begin at the Bantam age level".

Based on conversations I have heard, checking will still be used in practices and is allowed in scrimmages. My understanding from several coaches is that they plan to play fewer games, and many more scrimmages to ensure the boys continue to practice those skills.

If girls leave U12 because they(or their parents) believe there won't be any checking, they are sadly mistaken!!!! Checking is still allowed in PeeWee's, just not in games.

Isn't pretty much everything allowed in PeeWee's, just not games? And how do you accomplish less games, isn't the game schedule set up by the districts and everything else is technically a scrimmage anyways?

[observer]

everything else is technically a scrimmage anyways?

This is where some Squirts moving to PeeWees get confused. Also, some associations have just used the definition that games mean in District games and everything else is a scrimmage.

New and correct definition.

If there's a ref and a clock it's a game.

They're all "games."

At Squirts you can do some "controlled scrimmaging" which is coaches on the ice, no clock or score and no refs but when the kids get to PeeWee you'll learn you need a referees and if you hire and pay refs you might as well fire up the clock. You need refs partially because of the checking and having a coach from one of the teams making the calls often didn't work real well. The ref provided the third party decision making.

[O-townClown]

O-town, go back to your post and replace "girl" with "Mexican." It may be a bit more obvious that way. Until USAh changes "youth" to "boys" it has to be.

So Spinner, we'll not take the Mexican kid and he then goes to play where?

Flawed analogy. By not taking a Mexican you deny him the opportunity to play. By not taking the girl the same is not true.

Like I said. Coaches should cut who they want and let people sue away. Futile.

[spin-o-rama]

O-town, go back to your post and replace "girl" with "Mexican." It may be a bit more obvious that way. Until USAh changes "youth" to "boys" it has to be.

So Spinner, we'll not take the Mexican kid and he then goes to play where?

Flawed analogy. By not taking a Mexican you deny him the opportunity to play. By not taking the girl the same is not true.

Like I said. Coaches should cut who they want and let people sue away. Futile.

The girl in your scenario would have B or C as options, so would the Mexican. The analogy does work, both would have a place to play, but would be denied an equal opportunity (making the youth A team) the other kids have.

Sex or race can't be a deciding factor in determining teams.

We can talk more about it offline.

[NSHA Rules]

If they do this like they are proposing then the physical play will be the same minus the open ice blow up checks and the checks where they are clearly trying to intimidate without playing the puck.

You can still go in the corners and use your body in a physical manner to establish body position on the puck. You can still be physical to the point of knocking the other player around in the corners. You can still knock another player over while fighting for the puck as long as you are playing the puck.

Will some refs mess this up? Yes but they already mess calls up all the time so whats the difference.

What does this have to do with this thread? Girls can come play boys hockey but they still better be ready and strong enough to handle the physical nature of boys hockey.

If I am coaching this year, I will still tell my kids to be as physical as they were before but make sure you are playing the puck while playing the body. This is what I saw on all the USA Hockey videos that explains the rule!

[O-townClown]

The girl in your scenario would have B or C as options, so would the Mexican. The analogy does work, both would have a place to play, but would be denied an equal opportunity (making the youth A team) the other kids have.

Sex or race can't be a deciding factor in determining teams.

We can talk more about it offline.

Wait a minute. I'm not up there so I don't know what happens. Remember, my initial comments were about the culture of Minnesota youth hockey where girls playing with boys is considered somewhat normal.

Do you mean to tell me girls try out for the Squirt A team in some communities and when they don't make it choose boys Squirt B over playing for the U10 A team? If I saw a girl doing pretty well playing boy's B hockey it would beg the question, why doesn't she just play on the girl's A team?

Nobody is being denied any opportunity to play in the Twin Cities. The whole premise is ridiculous.

Now back to your analogy. If you are talking about a coach cutting a Mexican because he's Mexican, it is obviously wrong/unfair. However - how could you prove anything?

I think you are a little too worried about a lawsuit. On a large scale, something like moving games from Ridder to Xcel can affect enough people to get support. Suing over one association cutting one kid is pointless.

If I'm the coach, I cut whoever I want without concern for the impending lawsuit. Otherwise you have to take everyone, right? Even the Mexicans and girls. Seriously, kids will get cut. It hardly seems like it's worth a lawsuit.

[Pens4]

If they do this like they are proposing then the physical play will be the same minus the open ice blow up checks and the checks where they are clearly trying to intimidate without playing the puck.

You can still go in the corners and use your body in a physical manner to establish body position on the puck. You can still be physical to the point of knocking the other player around in the corners. You can still knock another player over while fighting for the puck as long as you are playing the puck.

Will some refs mess this up? Yes but they already mess calls up all the time so whats the difference.

What does this have to do with this thread? Girls can come play boys hockey but they still better be ready and strong enough to handle the physical nature of boys hockey.

If I am coaching this year, I will still tell my kids to be as physical as they were before but make sure you are playing the puck while playing the body. This is what I saw on all the USA Hockey videos that explains the rule!

It is interesting how the main focus of the board is looking for any opportunity to get the boys back to the physical side of the game. The opportunity is now there for us to teach these kids that the game is a lot more fun when your team has the puck. It is not about racing to the red-line for a chance to dump it in and hit someone.

IMO Peewee hockey just took a giant step towards a model that is closest to the highest level of hockey...Puck procession and controlled checking. We don't see many Selke Trophy winners in the greatest hit's video.

[the_juiceman]

everything else is technically a scrimmage anyways?

This is where some Squirts moving to PeeWees get confused. Also, some associations have just used the definition that games mean in District games and everything else is a scrimmage.

New and correct definition.

If there's a ref and a clock it's a game.

They're all "games."

At Squirts you can do some "controlled scrimmaging" which is coaches on the ice, no clock or score and no refs but when the kids get to PeeWee you'll learn you need a referees and if you hire and pay refs you might as well fire up the clock. You need refs partially because of the checking and having a coach from one of the teams making the calls often didn't work real well. The ref provided the third party decision making.

I believe MH defines them as "league" games & "Non-league" games. Scrimmage is a term parents use for "non league" games