U14 and JV

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:18 pm

XK1 is right, and I do agree too w/SEMetro that either of these options would be better than the current setup. I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with SEMetro as to which would be best however. Let me add that I think the intermediate step is going to U19 and keeping everything else the same. Then, if that doesn't work, I would say going to U13 would be the more drastic step (more change needed). The most dramatic idea would be for 7th&8th's to be banned from G HS Hockey unless playing regularly on V by MSHSL (never will happen). I think it's easier to pitch/gain backing of U19 for this reason (least change needed), and also would like to see if a U19 scenario like this would actulaly result in more stable/better/more youth options vs. HS JV. If it didn't, then go U13 for certain and try that. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/16/06 11:19 pm

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:57 am

Here are the State Tournament results for the U19B level. The EP co-op won. <a href="http://www.minnesotahockey.org/assorted ...  As you can see, nothing has to be done, all of these teams are co-ops, if you want to play hockey after U12 and you don't have a JV or U14 opportunity you can play U19B. If this becomes a better way to go then players will start taking this path. One thing that hasn't been discussed is HS grads that want to play Hockey but aren't going to a college with a program. U19B could be a good choice as it takes many girls through 2 years of college. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 3/17/06 8:09 am

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:13 pm

Unfortunately the only catch is that I don't believe that you can waive "up & out" to U19??? Meaning, if you have to find a U19 team due to no U14 in your area, you're out of luck??? The bottom line is that the most easy step is to eliminate 14 and go 8/10/12/19. Next step is 13/19 in my mind. Most drastic is no sub9ths @ HS unless @ V. I think Sr. Women's is the best option for post-HS players, as it may too be for 17-18 year olds that don't want to play with 13 year olds in a "new" U19 or even 16 year olds in the old U19 setup.

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:19 am

To me, the key to this whole issue is the JV teams. Why is it so important to have a JV team if the numbers don't support it? On the flipside, why is it so important to have your 8th grade daughter play JV instead of youth hockey? (I know the answer to this last question; costs less, better practise times, intro into the HS system.) IMO, there aren't enough good reasons to take apart the youth teams in order to build the JV teams. Although the logistics may be difficult, I see coops as a good alternative. I was suspicious when some U14A coops started popping up, (and I know of one that was more AAA than survival) but I've come around on coops. It makes all the sense in the world to me to coop JV's and U14's. If a couple schools with low JV numbers coop, then they don't have to raid the youth team. And if a community doesn't have enough competitive players to make an A team, then a coop with another community can create a viable U14A team, which gives the players incentive to play U14's instead of jumping early to HS. Sounds good to me, but I know the headaches that could arise from trying to integrate teams that are used to competing against each other. There's also the "all hometown-grown" mentalities that would need to be overcome. Still, I'd think its worth a try.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:32 am

You can waiver up if no age appropriate team exists for you association. I believe at least one of the EP U14s did so this year. (EP was a co-op so it was one of the players not living in EP as I recall) In the early days of girsl hockey many associations had only a U15 team because they only had enough girls for one team and the age range was split from 10-15 years old. U19 could provide the same opportunity for 14-16-HS girls.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:22 am

Right on wave up within if not an A in YOUR assn. But, you can't waive up & out to another assn. You'd have to waive into another assn. at the true level you're at. You can't go hunting for a U19 if you're U14 eligible still, etc. no mater what your home assn. offers A or B. Same is true for 12 and 14, etc. can't waive to another assn. 14 just because you don't have a 12A in yours.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:29 am

There are many plusses to both JV & U14 and the reason that we'll never totally get rid of either is that they both provide flexibility to do what's needed in each individual community based on that communities issues. this flexibility is key. If MN/USA H wants to grow an intermediate/HS aged youth level in G Hockey, they need to make it flexible to capture/keep as many kids involved as possible in a setup that gives the greatest flexibility/creativity to the youth assn to co-op & take different segments of kids from the U14, U16, U19, etc. levels. Those that pushed for U14 vs. U16 when the age changes happened are the ones that were in the wrong as they added another "cutoff" to force kids/groups to make tough decisions about some aging out and then a mass exodus often occuring re: JV. If you don't have the U14/U16 cutoffs and run it as anyone up to 19 you will keep more kids in youth as youth tems/groups won't be foreced to split at the end of any given year as they have to now. Until we try this I can't believe that there is any easier/better option. The facts are the facts - JV & youth/U14/16/19 aren't going away, so we have to find ways to maximize participation/offerings/flexibility in both. JV is terribly flexible and cheap - it can run from 7th's-12th's any level of player. The cutoffs of U14 is what kills it being viable and more stable. remove the U14 cutoff - run it to U19 - and watch that level strengthen...

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:04 am

And yet people do. All that's required is approval on both sides as in the EP case. Every District also has it's own rules.

slporiolesfan · Post by **slporiolesfan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:17 am

Is there a list somewhere of who does and who doesn't have JV teams? Is there something on the MSHSL web site? What percentage of schools sponsoring girls hockey have JV teams now?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:20 am

I belive U19 is the best option for many reasons. It is like the U15 scenario of years ago. Gives the greatest flexibility, creates a flexible youth option for kids that can choose when to move to HS then (if ever) at their own pace with no predefined cutoffs that force whole groups of kids to HS currently (12 or 14), etc. There are always exceptions to the rules like the EP example, but I've found that it's very very rare for a kid to be granted an "up & out" or "out & up" waiver.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:25 am

I would say all but maybe 25 or so have JV. So, I'm betting we have 100 JV's in the state and 125 or so varsities. It never used to be this much JV's, but with the U15 age change, and then the decision to go U14 vs. U16 that just sealed the deal. I applaud the move to .5 birth years, but it cuts both ways now that I think about it. While the U14 becomes U14.5 (nearly back to U15) as a result, you also lose .5 of the U12's that play to U12.5 that way... In some respects, we may be better off going back to Jan 1 cutoffs for everything but U14 if nothing else is done as that would give us another .5 for U14 that are kids currnelty playing U12's??? If you took that .5 out of 12's and bumped them to 14's it would help. I still believe that it is best to go to U19, but maybe the other part of the solution is to look at if you keep .5/July cutoffs in girls or if you go back to Jan 1??? I'd be more inclined to stay with July (for school/grades of kids being kept together) and then go to a U19 instead of U14/U16/U19 as currently done.

wrestlelaw3 · Post by **wrestlelaw3** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:54 am

I can't believe there are only 25 teams in the state that don't have a JV. Here in the Southwest corner of the state there are no JVs. I don't believe there any in what will be the new section 3A. Furthermore I believe that New Ulm may have the only U14 in the section. Most of these teams are struggling to dress 15 girls 7-12 to have a varsity team. Other outstate areas are similar. I point this out to indicate everyone is not in the same situation as Twin Cities schools. In outstate schools we are struggling to keep the girls skating with the boys until they are eligible for varsity. As a pratical matter that means that they have to skate one year of peewees with checking before they can skate on girls varsity.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:04 am

Maybe I overestimated. The number of JV's has grown at the expense of more U14 teams. I think the need for U19 vs. U14/U16/U19 is best illustrated in the areas that are just trying to be creative and keep girls playing until HS. Those areas need the flexibility that a U19 scenario would provide vs. the rigid U14 cutof forcing poor decisions or kids out of hockey altogether!

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:35 am

Interesting to note this past weekend, both the U14A and U12A state championship finals featured Edina vs. White Bear Lake, the state's largest associations. U14A-- Edina 1, WBL 0 U12A-- WBL 3, Edina 0 Congratulations to the teams.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:06 pm

That WBL U12 is an amazing team. I think Coach Hill is running that team? They went 6 OT's in regions with my IGH squad.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

U14 and JV

Re: U13

Re: U19(b)

Re: U19(b)

U14's & JV

Re: U19b

Re: U19b

Re: U14's & JV

Re: U19 play up

How Many JV Team Are There?

Re: U19 play up

Re: How Many JV Team Are There?

Re: How Many JV Team Are There?

Re: How Many JV Team Are There?

Re:

Re: