Walser/Effects of the D6 Rule on MM

[JDUBBS1280]

I never said anything about "murderers", but parents have shown up at games intoxicated and have been arrested and there have been incidents where threats were made towards coaches and/or officials and parents have been prohibited from arenas by court order. Yes, those things have happened. And that's just what has happened in the last several years that I know about.

[InigoMontoya]

I read the post.

So if my kid is going to attend a 5 day baseball camp which causes him to miss a day of hockey practice, you're saying there needs to be a district rule about that?

You'll have to let me know which district you play in. I don't see any drunk rules in our district handbook.

[JDUBBS1280]

I read the post.

So if my kid is going to attend a 5 day baseball camp which causes him to miss a day of hockey practice, you're saying there needs to be a district rule about that?

You'll have to let me know which district you play in. I don't see any drunk rules in our district handbook.

When a substantial number of kids start missing practices and games over a prolonged period of time because they are attending "5 day baseball camp", then coaches and parents are going to start complaining to the associations. The associations, in turn, will complain to the District. If the District gets enough complaints over a period of time, it may feel compelled to try and do something.

And public intoxication is against the law wherever you go. The parents I was referring to were arrested by the police. No discipline was handed down by the District, but the District did step in to try and help the parents. That shouldn't be the District's job either.

You are quick to criticize, but you forget that these people aren't compensated for what they do. You should show more respect towards people who are doing the best they can to try and make MN YOUTH hockey better.

[Shinbone_News]

On the other hand, consider Honeywell -- which went from thermostats to autopilots to bombs to computers to implosion back to thermostats in the same period. Not sayin, just sayin.

I stand by my original thesis. As long as high school varsity hockey remains the ACHIEVABLE holy grail for most youth players, I think community-based hockey will be just fine. If we lose the top 1% to the NTDP or HCPs or some other form of Tier 1 AAA, that will just open the door to the JV bubble players and on down the line to that bottom 1% who will make the jump from park-rec to C leagues.

It's all relative. How many high school hockey players go straight to D1 anymore, from MN or not? To the NHL? Even when they DO leave early, does that make the state tourney less interesting or exciting to 90% of hockey players and fans in MN? I think not.

Plenty of players are making that jump right now -- Mario Lucia comes to mind, giving up his senior year at a competitive Tonka to chase NHL dreams one year early up in BC? Why? Versus a Kyle Rau who sticks it out for a year and may never play in the NHL because he's too small, but who dominated the high school league and capped it with the winning goal in championship OT? What about a Dave Spehar (going back a bit) who clearly was one of the best high school hockey players ever, but who frankly peaked at about 17 years old?

I think varsity high school hockey is a noble goal for all Minnesota hockey players, even for the top 1% (see Kyle Rau). And community-based association hockey is actually strengthening its bond with high school hockey right now.

Curious what everyone thinks: Will all those HPC kids set their sites on, say, the NTDP or Juniors or will they want to play out their high school years at home? Will alternative-league AAA players even WANT to play HS hockey, and if they do, won't they be at a political disadvantage (for not playing up through the feeder association?)

So now I'm all excited for this change. When is it coming and how will I know when it gets here. So far all I see is the same old same old.

I had the chance to talk with several hockey dads at a practice a few days ago and gave them the sad news that association hockey is dead and the new order is upon us.

One guy grumbled that it was a bit ealy to be drinking, but he wasn't going to judge me. Another guy reminded me that the numbers for the association had increased exponentially in the last two seasons and they were expecting another good showing at the mite level this fall. I said I was sorry to have to burst their bubble, but it's over Johnny! It's over!!! Maybe they just haven't gotten the news.

I'm not sure if "the Bernster" is as hell bent on world domination as some of you alarmists seem to think he is, personally, I just think he wanted a fair shake from D6 and wasn't going to get it without dragging them to court.

Give the association folks some credit before you write off the community based model, the local association just un-assed a complete do-nothing from the presidency and have begun to reform in other areas. I will take a wait and see approach and root for common sense to prevail.

Oh and in case you didn't know it. IBM (founded in 1911) is the 18th largest and 7th most profitable company in the United States. They used to make typewriters. You can't expect MH to reform overnight.

Alright - let me have it.

[InigoMontoya]

You should show more respect towards people who are doing the best they can to try and make MN YOUTH hockey better.

I would, if they did. In my experience that is not the case.

I have tremendous respect for Elliot, et al, that seem to be making rational decisions for the mass of kids and parents and also make commen sense exceptions.

I have little respect for those whom seem bent on driving hockey straight into the ground, making up rules designed to perpetuate the control to which they so desperately cleave.

[JDUBBS1280]

You should show more respect towards people who are doing the best they can to try and make MN YOUTH hockey better.

I would, if they did. In my experience that is not the case.

I have tremendous respect for Elliot, et al, that seem to be making rational decisions for the mass of kids and parents and also make commen sense exceptions.

I have little respect for those whom seem bent on driving hockey straight into the ground, making up rules designed to perpetuate the control to which they so desperately cleave.

Take a look in the mirror pal. All I have read from you here is hate, slander, and name-calling. Ever stop and think that maybe YOU are part of the problem?

If you think that anyone at District 6, especially Brad Hewitt, has any interest in "power" or "control", then you are COMPLETELY clueless and out of touch and further response by myself would be a waste of time.

Comments like those make me wonder if you really know the people you're bashing because NOTHING I have seen from them in the long time I have known them has given me that impression what-so-ever.

Talk about taking things way too far. Wow.

[HockeyDad41]

You should show more respect towards people who are doing the best they can to try and make MN YOUTH hockey better.

I would, if they did. In my experience that is not the case.

I have tremendous respect for Elliot, et al, that seem to be making rational decisions for the mass of kids and parents and also make commen sense exceptions.

I have little respect for those whom seem bent on driving hockey straight into the ground, making up rules designed to perpetuate the control to which they so desperately cleave.

Take a look in the mirror pal. All I have read from you here is hate, slander, and name-calling. Ever stop and think that maybe YOU are part of the problem?

If you think that anyone at District 6, especially Brad Hewitt, has any interest in "power" or "control", then you are COMPLETELY clueless and out of touch and further response by myself would be a waste of time.

Comments like those make me wonder if you really know the people you're bashing because NOTHING I have seen from them in the long time I have known them has given me that impression what-so-ever.

Talk about taking things way too far. Wow.

I often bash people I don't know. I thought everyone did.

Not everyone has the same deep, deep deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deeeeeeep love for Brad Hewitt as you do. As such from time to time he may face a criticism, Brad's a big boy and understands this. In fact it wouldn't surprise me to find out he frequents this forum.

[JDUBBS1280]

I would, if they did. In my experience that is not the case.

I have tremendous respect for Elliot, et al, that seem to be making rational decisions for the mass of kids and parents and also make commen sense exceptions.

I have little respect for those whom seem bent on driving hockey straight into the ground, making up rules designed to perpetuate the control to which they so desperately cleave.

Take a look in the mirror pal. All I have read from you here is hate, slander, and name-calling. Ever stop and think that maybe YOU are part of the problem?

If you think that anyone at District 6, especially Brad Hewitt, has any interest in "power" or "control", then you are COMPLETELY clueless and out of touch and further response by myself would be a waste of time.

Comments like those make me wonder if you really know the people you're bashing because NOTHING I have seen from them in the long time I have known them has given me that impression what-so-ever.

Talk about taking things way too far. Wow.

I often bash people I don't know. I thought everyone did.

Not everyone has the same deep, deep deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deeeeeeep love for Brad Hewitt as you do. As such from time to time he may face a criticism, Brad's a big boy and understands this. In fact it wouldn't surprise me to find out he frequents this forum.

I just assumed that most people have the emotional maturity to have a rational, adult conversation and don't feel the need to use insults to make their points. Usually, sound arguments do that for you. Clearly, you're incapable.

[the_juiceman]

Save the B.S. Way more often than not, there are some conflicts throughout the season and kids have to choose to miss games or practices at one or the other. Please, deny that.

like basketball, church, family holidays, volleyball, football, camps, clinics, sleepovers, visiting relatives, school assignments, x-mas pageant, colds & flu, band practice and/or other social/academic/athletic/family activities that are part of everyday life. we've never needed a rule that forces kids between these activities and a squirt hockey team and we don't need one now. thats why we have more kids on a team than we need to play a game. it's ok if we aqre missing a kid or two or three at any given game, the sun always has a way of rising oin the morning.

i'll teach my own kid about commitment and priorities and how it relates to a childrens hockey team. i don't need mr. hewit or any other control freak substituting his values for mine.

the courts already laughed at mr. hewits lame attempt at control. now its time for d6 to finish the job and laugh mr. hewit straight out to the curb.

First off, you obviously have trouble reading as I have already touched on the HUGE difference between family and religious commitments and another hockey practice. And as for sleep overs, etc... when kids missing practices and games because of sleepovers becomes a persistent and chronic issue, then you may see action taken.

And you're right. Teaching the importance of keeping commitments to your child is your responsibility. However, it is the district's responsibility to make certain that it doesn't effect other children when you do a piss poor job of it

And no one is going to "laugh Mr. Hewitt to the curb". Though it truely does show how classless you are to make such a remark.

JD--I agree with most of what you are saying--except--setting standards in regards to missed games and practices and the commitment that is expected from it's members/players sounds more like an Association problem/issue--not a District issue. The district should'nt even be involved in issues of that level--that's not there responsibility.

[JDUBBS1280]

like basketball, church, family holidays, volleyball, football, camps, clinics, sleepovers, visiting relatives, school assignments, x-mas pageant, colds & flu, band practice and/or other social/academic/athletic/family activities that are part of everyday life. we've never needed a rule that forces kids between these activities and a squirt hockey team and we don't need one now. thats why we have more kids on a team than we need to play a game. it's ok if we aqre missing a kid or two or three at any given game, the sun always has a way of rising oin the morning.

i'll teach my own kid about commitment and priorities and how it relates to a childrens hockey team. i don't need mr. hewit or any other control freak substituting his values for mine.

the courts already laughed at mr. hewits lame attempt at control. now its time for d6 to finish the job and laugh mr. hewit straight out to the curb.

First off, you obviously have trouble reading as I have already touched on the HUGE difference between family and religious commitments and another hockey practice. And as for sleep overs, etc... when kids missing practices and games because of sleepovers becomes a persistent and chronic issue, then you may see action taken.

And you're right. Teaching the importance of keeping commitments to your child is your responsibility. However, it is the district's responsibility to make certain that it doesn't effect other children when you do a piss poor job of it

And no one is going to "laugh Mr. Hewitt to the curb". Though it truely does show how classless you are to make such a remark.

JD--I agree with most of what you are saying--except--setting standards in regards to missed games and practices and the commitment that is expected from it's members/players sounds more like an Association problem/issue--not a District issue. The district should'nt even be involved in issues of that level--that's not there responsibility.

I am not here to stick up for the D6 rule. I realize that the rule isn't perfect (maybe far from it) and that there probably isn't a perfect solution for this issue (lots of grey area). That's what made it such a tough one to tackle.

My biggest issue is with the lack of respect that people are showing to the people at D6. It's not an easy job and they don't get compensated for it. I know for a fact that the reason most do it is because they love Minnesota Hockey and believe in it and genuinely want to make a difference.

As for the District involvement. It was being handled at the association level until multiple complaints started coming from multiple associations and those associations urged the District to act. Maybe the District should have restrained, maybe not. All I know is they acted in what they believed to be the best interest of their District.

[luckyEPDad]

One thing I'm wondered is how the D6 rule does anything to teach kids about commitment. I hear over and over that it teaches the kids to be committed to the program. Exactly how does that work?

What does teach commitment is getting playing time commensurate with the effort you put in at practice. Show up at practices and work hard and you play. Skip practices or show up and goof off and you don't get as much playing time. No district wide rule, no saying what you can't do. Just a policy that lays out the consequences for the decisions you make.

Unfortunately such a policy would require coaches to think more about lessons learned than win/loss records. Most coaches have that figured out pretty well, but a few would find it hard to sit their best player in a tight game.

[JDUBBS1280]

One thing I'm wondered is how the D6 rule does anything to teach kids about commitment. I hear over and over that it teaches the kids to be committed to the program. Exactly how does that work?

What does teach commitment is getting playing time commensurate with the effort you put in at practice. Show up at practices and work hard and you play. Skip practices or show up and goof off and you don't get as much playing time. No district wide rule, no saying what you can't do. Just a policy that lays out the consequences for the decisions you make.

Unfortunately such a policy would require coaches to think more about lessons learned than win/loss records. Most coaches have that figured out pretty well, but a few would find it hard to sit their best player in a tight game.

The rational behind the rule is pretty simple. Again, not here to justify the rule, just to explain the reasoning...

It's difficult to impossible to play in several hockey leagues simultaneously and not miss time in either one, the other, or both. When you miss time, that is unfair to your teammates. It is also unfair to the kids who tried out for, but did not make, the team.

Here's where the commitment part comes in. The rational is that you should pick a team and make a commitment to it. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread - It isn't the District's job to teach your child about commitment. However, when a player's lack of commitment is hurting other players, then it becomes a coaching issue.

When numerous coaches repeatedly make the same complaints to their association, the association is either going to handle the issue or bring it up with the District if they don't feel as though they have the resources to handle the issue. It is then up to the District to access the situation and act or not act depending on how many associations are involved and what it feels is in the best interest of the District.

As others have pointed out, the rule has flaws, but the rule was not created with any malicious intent. I suggest people let this whole thing play out before getting too worked up.

[luckyEPDad]

The rational behind the rule is pretty simple. Again, not here to justify the rule, just to explain the reasoning...

It's difficult to impossible to play in several hockey leagues simultaneously and not miss time in either one, the other, or both. When you miss time, that is unfair to your teammates. It is also unfair to the kids who tried out for, but did not make, the team.

Here's where the commitment part comes in. The rational is that you should pick a team and make a commitment to it. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread - It isn't the District's job to teach your child about commitment. However, when a player's lack of commitment is hurting other players, then it becomes a coaching issue.

When numerous coaches repeatedly make the same complaints to their association, the association is either going to handle the issue or bring it up with the District if they don't feel as though they have the resources to handle the issue. It is then up to the District to access the situation and act or not act depending on how many associations are involved and what it feels is in the best interest of the District.

As others have pointed out, the rule has flaws, but the rule was not created with any malicious intent. I suggest people let this whole thing play out before getting too worked up.

Still not seeing it. The rational may be simple, but not as simple, or simplistic as the solution. Let's say that my missing time is unfair to my teammates. I don't believe that is true, but I'll agree for the sake of arguement. How is missing time due to hockey any different than missing time due to soccer, basketball, tennis, a sporting event or family vacation? After all, I am a kid with no committment to my teammates. I'm going to do what is fun for me and they can all hang. In 8 years I've seen kids miss hundreds of hours of practices, games and tournaments. Almost none of that was because they were playing on another hockey team

As for malicious intent, I could not care less. Much (most?) damage in the world is done by misguided but well intentioned people. The rule is obviously illegal, doesn't solve any real or imagined problem, and has cost D6 money that is better spent elsewhere. This is not the work of evil, just the work of ignorance. When I do something stupid that hurts others, the injured have every right to be angry with me. That I am a nice guy trying hard to do my best does not absolve me.

[JDUBBS1280]

The rational behind the rule is pretty simple. Again, not here to justify the rule, just to explain the reasoning...

It's difficult to impossible to play in several hockey leagues simultaneously and not miss time in either one, the other, or both. When you miss time, that is unfair to your teammates. It is also unfair to the kids who tried out for, but did not make, the team.

Here's where the commitment part comes in. The rational is that you should pick a team and make a commitment to it. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread - It isn't the District's job to teach your child about commitment. However, when a player's lack of commitment is hurting other players, then it becomes a coaching issue.

When numerous coaches repeatedly make the same complaints to their association, the association is either going to handle the issue or bring it up with the District if they don't feel as though they have the resources to handle the issue. It is then up to the District to access the situation and act or not act depending on how many associations are involved and what it feels is in the best interest of the District.

As others have pointed out, the rule has flaws, but the rule was not created with any malicious intent. I suggest people let this whole thing play out before getting too worked up.

Still not seeing it. The rational may be simple, but not as simple, or simplistic as the solution. Let's say that my missing time is unfair to my teammates. I don't believe that is true, but I'll agree for the sake of arguement. How is missing time due to hockey any different than missing time due to soccer, basketball, tennis, a sporting event or family vacation? After all, I am a kid with no committment to my teammates. I'm going to do what is fun for me and they can all hang. In 8 years I've seen kids miss hundreds of hours of practices, games and tournaments. Almost none of that was because they were playing on another hockey team

As for malicious intent, I could not care less. Much (most?) damage in the world is done by misguided but well intentioned people. The rule is obviously illegal, doesn't solve any real or imagined problem, and has cost D6 money that is better spent elsewhere. This is not the work of evil, just the work of ignorance. When I do something stupid that hurts others, the injured have every right to be angry with me. That I am a nice guy trying hard to do my best does not absolve me.

There is no difference between missing for hockey or for an event for another sport. As for religious and family activities, there is a difference. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but I think many people would agree with me.

The reason there was a rule implemented for missing time because of attending another hockey event was a direct result of the district receiving countless complaints from parents and coaches in multiple associations regarding this specific issue (missing for other hockey leagues).

As I explained, if a large number of kids over an extended period of time missed games or practices because of football or baseball, and a large number of parents and coaches complained to the associations, who in turn complained to the District, you would probably see that get addressed.

Not sure how much clearer I can explain it. Large numbers of kids are not missing games and practices consistently over a long period of time for other things. They may miss a game or practice here or there for another activity, but it hasn't become a widespread, chronic issue.

The rule has flaws, but it does have it's merits as well. If there weren't a very large number of people who pressed for a rule like this to be passed, it never would have been. That's where a lot of you are wrong. This isn't the act of a few who are looking to maintain or consolidate power or contol. To act like it was is irresponsible. And while intent doesn't absolve anyone for mistakes, they certainly don't deserve the slander I have read here either. No one does. It's childish, petty, and classless.

Disagree with the rule if you wish. I disagree with it as-is. Just do so respectfully. As for money lost. The decision to implement the rule goes above and beyond District 6 and even Minnesota Hockey to some extent (as any money lost will be covered by insurance policy). So, if that's what you're upset about, I would aim higher than District 6.

[the_juiceman]

The rational behind the rule is pretty simple. Again, not here to justify the rule, just to explain the reasoning...

It's difficult to impossible to play in several hockey leagues simultaneously and not miss time in either one, the other, or both. When you miss time, that is unfair to your teammates. It is also unfair to the kids who tried out for, but did not make, the team.

Here's where the commitment part comes in. The rational is that you should pick a team and make a commitment to it. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread - It isn't the District's job to teach your child about commitment. However, when a player's lack of commitment is hurting other players, then it becomes a coaching issue.

When numerous coaches repeatedly make the same complaints to their association, the association is either going to handle the issue or bring it up with the District if they don't feel as though they have the resources to handle the issue. It is then up to the District to access the situation and act or not act depending on how many associations are involved and what it feels is in the best interest of the District.

As others have pointed out, the rule has flaws, but the rule was not created with any malicious intent. I suggest people let this whole thing play out before getting too worked up.

Still not seeing it. The rational may be simple, but not as simple, or simplistic as the solution. Let's say that my missing time is unfair to my teammates. I don't believe that is true, but I'll agree for the sake of arguement. How is missing time due to hockey any different than missing time due to soccer, basketball, tennis, a sporting event or family vacation? After all, I am a kid with no committment to my teammates. I'm going to do what is fun for me and they can all hang. In 8 years I've seen kids miss hundreds of hours of practices, games and tournaments. Almost none of that was because they were playing on another hockey team

As for malicious intent, I could not care less. Much (most?) damage in the world is done by misguided but well intentioned people. The rule is obviously illegal, doesn't solve any real or imagined problem, and has cost D6 money that is better spent elsewhere. This is not the work of evil, just the work of ignorance. When I do something stupid that hurts others, the injured have every right to be angry with me. That I am a nice guy trying hard to do my best does not absolve me.

There is no difference between missing for hockey or for an event for another sport. As for religious and family activities, there is a difference. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but I think many people would agree with me.

The reason there was a rule implemented for missing time because of attending another hockey event was a direct result of the district receiving countless complaints from parents and coaches in multiple associations regarding this specific issue (missing for other hockey leagues).

As I explained, if a large number of kids over an extended period of time missed games or practices because of football or baseball, and a large number of parents and coaches complained to the associations, who in turn complained to the District, you would probably see that get addressed.

Not sure how much clearer I can explain it. Large numbers of kids are not missing games and practices consistently over a long period of time for other things. They may miss a game or practice here or there for another activity, but it hasn't become a widespread, chronic issue.

The rule has flaws, but it does have it's merits as well. If there weren't a very large number of people who pressed for a rule like this to be passed, it never would have been. That's where a lot of you are wrong. This isn't the act of a few who are looking to maintain or consolidate power or contol. To act like it was is irresponsible. And while intent doesn't absolve anyone for mistakes, they certainly don't deserve the slander I have read here either. No one does. It's childish, petty, and classless.

Disagree with the rule if you wish. I disagree with it as-is. Just do so respectfully. As for money lost. The decision to implement the rule goes above and beyond District 6 and even Minnesota Hockey to some extent (as any money lost will be covered by insurance policy). So, if that's what you're upset about, I would aim higher than District 6.

It seems that the people who did the complaining were upset that the reason the kids were missing was due to a "conflict of interests" so to speak. D6 hockey vs MM hockey. the other reasons for missing were, it seems, in their eyes anyways, legitimate. That's how it appears IMHO, from the North side of the cities

[old goalie85]

Apples ta Oranges.

[Ugottobekiddingme]

Watched "Dancemoms" tonight on TV because I was held hostage towards the remote. Now I'm totally getting the hockey discussion on this thread. Many have agenda's that limit focus towards childrens development/goals and hide behide their own personal agenda. Time for a real time hockey show program within Minnesota....called "Dancemnhock".

[InigoMontoya]

All I have read from you here is hate, slander, and name-calling. Ever stop and think that maybe YOU are part of the problem?

I haven't slander anybody, and I don't name-call.

You like the rule, great. I don't think the district should be making that rule or others like it.

An example of what I think MNH and the districts could be working on, rather than policing how we parent.
D9 has Rochester opting out of playing its best players within the district during the season.
D4 can't fill an Advanced 15 roster.
D5 can only get one team to state.
There is no hockey being played south or west of the twin cities. It's getting old hearing the blame placed on the kids. Good football teams come from that part of the state; there is a lot of good baseball. Why is there no hockey? To whom would one expect to look for guidance and assistance?

[Shinbone_News]

I'm curious about what the reasons why there was pressure on the district to make this rule. D6 is notoriously deep in talent, so "losing a few" kids to MM has hardly impacted the overall quality of D6. I infer that it was coaches primarily? Losing their best kids for a percentage of practices and games, and having to explain that to the other kids and their parents? I kind of doubt it was the parents -- those with kids wanting to play both are obviously fine with it, while association-only kids presumably get more ice time at a better coach-to-player ratio? I can see where it would really chafe to have perfect attendance and still sit on the bench while Johnnie M. Made waltzes into the arena every couple of weeks for his first-line shift during a big game. As a coach, I'd feel conflicted about this and I think I too would want some recourse to The Rules (though a simple attendance rule would, as others have said, do 90% of the work on this.)

I think everyone can agree with JDubbs though that this goes much, much higher than D6 and MM. Maybe we should be thanking Brad and Bernie for starting would could, in a few years, be a class action suit between numerous alternative programs and MH and USAH.

Which reminds me. Since I'm always harping about high school hockey, how do the high school league and MN Hockey and USAH manage to co-exist peacefully? Obviously the MSHSL has captured the imagination and hearts of youth hockey players, while Junior Gold is still sort of like after-school detention for the "problem kids" (with a few notable exceptions in -- ready for it? -- D6.)

[MnMade-4-Life]

You can't play in both leagues and not miss time in one of them.

Um, yes you can. Unless you know something I don't about my kids and his team mates whereabouts, which in that case we really do need to talk ... at dawn ... 40 paces ...

Save the B.S. Way more often than not, there are some conflicts throughout the season and kids have to choose to miss games or practices at one or the other. Please, deny that.

Perhaps way more often than not, but I personally know 4 kids that played Choice and association and did not miss a single event except a pizza party. So in the sample size I've seen, definately NOT the norm. So, I guess I'll count that as a denial. I have no idea about any one elses kids. Not my business.

[JDUBBS1280]

Um, yes you can. Unless you know something I don't about my kids and his team mates whereabouts, which in that case we really do need to talk ... at dawn ... 40 paces ...

Save the B.S. Way more often than not, there are some conflicts throughout the season and kids have to choose to miss games or practices at one or the other. Please, deny that.

Perhaps way more often than not, but I personally know 4 kids that played Choice and association and did not miss a single event except a pizza party. So in the sample size I've seen, definately NOT the norm. So, I guess I'll count that as a denial. I have no idea about any one elses kids. Not my business.

Really not sure how much clearer I can say this. It happens. A lot. I am going to say this one last time on this board.

Despite what you might want to believe, this rule was NOT created on impulse and was NOT created out of spite or to gain power or control. This rule was a genesis of increasing feedback that the District was getting from many, many coaches, parents, and their associations.

[JDUBBS1280]

All I have read from you here is hate, slander, and name-calling. Ever stop and think that maybe YOU are part of the problem?

I haven't slander anybody, and I don't name-call.

You like the rule, great. I don't think the district should be making that rule or others like it.

An example of what I think MNH and the districts could be working on, rather than policing how we parent.
D9 has Rochester opting out of playing its best players within the district during the season.
D4 can't fill an Advanced 15 roster.
D5 can only get one team to state.
There is no hockey being played south or west of the twin cities. It's getting old hearing the blame placed on the kids. Good football teams come from that part of the state; there is a lot of good baseball. Why is there no hockey? To whom would one expect to look for guidance and assistance?

When did I EVER say I liked the rule? See, you aren't really listening to what I am saying. You only hear what you want to hear. I don't agree with the rule as-is, and I have said that explicitly.

However, I do know how much pressure D6 was getting to do something about what was being percieved by many of it's associations as a problem and they did what they thought was the right thing to do. I believe good will come out of this because I think we'll see some needed change (that many like you are asking for) enacted and we will hopefully see a better relationship long-term between Minnesota Hockey and programs like MM.

So, instead of placing blame and name-calling, I am patiently waiting to see how this plays out before issuing any judgement.

[JDUBBS1280]

I'm curious about what the reasons why there was pressure on the district to make this rule. D6 is notoriously deep in talent, so "losing a few" kids to MM has hardly impacted the overall quality of D6. I infer that it was coaches primarily? Losing their best kids for a percentage of practices and games, and having to explain that to the other kids and their parents? I kind of doubt it was the parents -- those with kids wanting to play both are obviously fine with it, while association-only kids presumably get more ice time at a better coach-to-player ratio? I can see where it would really chafe to have perfect attendance and still sit on the bench while Johnnie M. Made waltzes into the arena every couple of weeks for his first-line shift during a big game. As a coach, I'd feel conflicted about this and I think I too would want some recourse to The Rules (though a simple attendance rule would, as others have said, do 90% of the work on this.)

I think everyone can agree with JDubbs though that this goes much, much higher than D6 and MM. Maybe we should be thanking Brad and Bernie for starting would could, in a few years, be a class action suit between numerous alternative programs and MH and USAH.

Which reminds me. Since I'm always harping about high school hockey, how do the high school league and MN Hockey and USAH manage to co-exist peacefully? Obviously the MSHSL has captured the imagination and hearts of youth hockey players, while Junior Gold is still sort of like after-school detention for the "problem kids" (with a few notable exceptions in -- ready for it? -- D6.)

From what I understand, it had little to do with losing kids and more to do with kids taking spots on community travel teams and then missing signfiicant time to attend other hockey practices and games. This upset a lot of coaches and other parents.

[luckyEPDad]

Um, yes you can. Unless you know something I don't about my kids and his team mates whereabouts, which in that case we really do need to talk ... at dawn ... 40 paces ...

Save the B.S. Way more often than not, there are some conflicts throughout the season and kids have to choose to miss games or practices at one or the other. Please, deny that.

Perhaps way more often than not, but I personally know 4 kids that played Choice and association and did not miss a single event except a pizza party. So in the sample size I've seen, definately NOT the norm. So, I guess I'll count that as a denial. I have no idea about any one elses kids. Not my business.

My daughter had to miss a AAA practice to play in the state championship game. Therefore I must assume that kids are skipping AAA practices all the time to play in the state tournament. Maybe AAA needs a rule banning kids from playing association hockey?

That would be anecdotal evidence. What is the statistical significance of 4 kids for 1 season. Close to zero? Are you using the same logic to oppose the D6 rule as as was used to support the rule in the first place?

Disgruntled D6 Coach complains to D6 Officer about Player A missing a game because he's playing in a MM tournament. D6 Officer thinks "that's unfortunate", and puts it in the back of his mind. D6 officer hears this again and again and begins to think "this may be a problem". How do we jump from there to "We need a rule to prevent kids from playing MM?" Was there any study to see how widespread the problem is? Are 50% of teams affected or 5% of teams? Was MM approached to see if some sort of schedule consolidation could be done? I don't know, but that is the sort of thing that reasonable people do. Was D6 reasonable?

I stumbled across the D6 rule while searching for info on out-of-state tournaments. I remember thinking how much it sounded like soccer coaches who say you can't play hockey and soccer, or fast pitch coaches who say you can't go on vacation during fast pitch season. Like those admonishments I assumed there was no way the rule could be enforced. Kids play soccer and hockey. Families do go on vacation during fast pitch. People do their best to accommodate the team, but don't let it rule their lives. Somehow the team doesn't crumble.

[InigoMontoya]

Wouldn't the D6 rule be read to say that your daughter, if she played association hockey in D6, would not be able to participate in AAA hockey until she was done with her association season?