Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The discussion centers around leaving it at a July 1 date, moving the date to either June 1 or Sept 1.

The overwhelming evidence suggests June 1. I have been told the board already has that information and it will be available at these meeting. I think I will take you up on your offer and come down, eat a few rolls and listen to the conversation.

See you then!

[council member retired]

"With regards to the summer birthdays ... the current rule was made back in 2002/03 ... quoting a great post by greybeard ..."

I maybe wrong, but I believe that letter or memo to MH on why and how they came to July 1st was written (dated) 2002/03. Which maybe the last time the classification was reviewed.

I believe the current age classification ( july 1) was set a decade or more ago. MH reviews their policies and rules, that is what allows them to
recognize and assess changing demographics and respond with rule and program changes. Minnesota Hockey is not going to sit and stand pat when they can improve, the will be pro-active when it feels to enhance and retain their youth programs.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

OK time for you to describe your own selfish situation and how a switch to June 1 benefits your child. You're wrong anyways.

Nice to see the open mind.

My oldest guy is done with association hockey. My youngest guy is a March kid (Mite). This rule has little impact on him one way or the other.

My personal vision would have hockey going Jan-Dec in single year groupings beginning at the peewee level. at the pee wee level with body checking introduced at PeeWee Major at the earliest.

This would keep more kids playing longer and safer and maximize their development. All of that by the way, will happen in your lifetime, though not anytime soon. I am fine with that. I understand there is no appetite for that much change at this time, but I am encouraged at the authorative voices which continue to speak out on these issues, as these voices will eventually get heard by the right people and positive change will happen.

I am encouraged to see that the Minnesota Hockey Board is willing to change it's own policies when faced with overwhelming evidence of it's positive nature, as that gives me hope that when the changes that I feel strongly about are in front of them they will at least get a fair hearing.

Rightly or wrongly, Minnesota Hockey has been characterized in the past as arrogant and stubborn, so for those of us who do have an appetitite for change, it's refreshing to see this is not always the case.

June 1, July 1 or September 1 means nothing to me personally, but only 2 of the 3 dates make any sense at all - July 1 isn't one of them.

[observer]

I presume you mean the overwhelming evidence is that June makes more sense than September. September makes absolutely no sense at all. I think when we see the hockey registration, and school enrollment figures, July 1 will prove to the natural split. Based on middle of the year and that very few Junes are kept back but the number grows in July.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I believe the current age classification ( july 1) was set a decade or more ago. MH reviews their policies and rules, that is what allows them to recognize and assess changing demographics and respond with rule and program changes. Minnesota Hockey is not going to sit and stand pat when they can improve, the will be pro-active when it feels to enhance and retain their youth programs.

Thanks for the clarification. I especially like when you use the word "retain". I like that word

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I presume you mean the overwhelming evidence is that June makes more sense than September. September makes absolutely no sense at all. I think when we see the hockey registration, and school enrollment figures, July 1 will prove to the natural split. Based on middle of the year and that very few Junes are kept back but the number grows in July.

Curious ... why are you stuck on this Middle of the Year thing. What significance does middle of the year have with regards to September - March Minnesota Youth Hockey or September to May Minnesota School Year.

- Beginning is September
- End is May
- Middle is February
- June-August is off-season school

The question is, should players with summer birthdays have an option? yes or no.

If yes, then June 1.

If no, then September 1.

All July does is split the off-season kids into advantaged (July/August) and disadvantaged (June).

July Makes no sense.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I presume you mean the overwhelming evidence is that June makes more sense than September.

No. June overwhelmingly makes more sense than July.

The difference between June 1 and September 1 is a difference of philsophy. If you believe summer birthdays should have an option then the cutoff date is June 1. If you believe summer birthdays should not have an option, then the cutoff is September 1.

Under no scenario should the cutoff be July 1.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Under no scenario should the cutoff be July 1.

Unless you have some goofy alter-agenda like balancing off-season AAA hockey, which is about as goofy a reason as there is for a July 1 cutoff and doesn't serve Minnesota Association Youth Hockey in any manner whatsoever.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Size is not necessarily related to injury.

Not arguing, and GREAT regard for you and your opinion, the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS disagrees, on several occasions citing SIZE DIFFERENTIAL as a leading contributor to injuries in youth hockey.

Quoting AAP:

"Body checking in combination with substantial differences in size and strength among players was believed to contribute to the high injury rate"

A great online summary of a combination of these studies, entitled "Safety in Youth Hockey" is here;
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;105/3/657

They go on to conclude that ...

"Disparities in size and strength further increase the risk for serious injury from checking and other collisions."

The conclude the paper as followed;

In the interest of enhancing safety in youth ice hockey, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the following.

1. Body checking should not be allowed in youth hockey for children age 15 years or younger.
2. Good sportsmanship programs, such as the fair-play concept, have been shown to reduce injury and penalty rates and should be adopted for all levels of youth hockey.
3. Youth hockey programs need to educate players, coaches, and parents about the importance of knowing and following the rules as well as the dangers of body checking another player from behind.

[HockeyGuy81]

You're starting to have a running commentary with yourself...

[greybeard58]

It was in 2003 that Mn Hockey kept the July 1 birthday when USA Hockey went back to Jan 1. USA Hockey before that had changed from Jan 1 to the July 1 and Mn Hockey which had changed earlier to Sept 1 made the change to follow along with USA Hockey.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

The statement was made by a canadian (when asked how it was that we had so many hurt and there were no canadian kids getting hurt) that the reason for it is because they teach hitting and body contact as soon as they put on the ice hockey gear.

NPC, I am quite familiar with the Canadian system. I coached for years in Saskatchewan, both association and AAA Summer hockey and served on hockey boards in Canada. My kids have played in the Canadian system, the Minnesota system , AAA systems on both sides of the border and in USAH single birth year systems.

I can tell you without question that we did not teach contact as soon as they put on hockey gear. Players had their first taste of body contact (and still do) in body checking camps immediately preceeding their first pee wee season, no different than here.

When I was coaching in Canada the issue of body contact was a hot issue. There were 2 prevailing schools of thought.

- One camp was based on the research, much of what is posted already in this thread, complete with links you can follow up on. A lot of moms, administrators, educators, medical experts.

- In the second camp many shared the opinion that if proper body contact was taught from a younger age then there would be fewer injuries as players would know how to better hit and better protect themselves. This group was mostly throwback hockey guys who did grow up with checking at young ages and stood by it. (initially, I was in this camp)

Here's a brief background from the Canadian Medical Association
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/2/124

Bodychecking, the most common cause of trauma in hockey,2,28,29,30 accounts for 86% of all injuries among players 9–15 years old.31 Players in contact leagues are 4 times as likely to be injured (among those 9–15 years old) and 12 times as likely to receive a fracture (among those 12–13 years old) as players in non-contact leagues.2,32,33,34 Of reported injuries among players 9–15 years old, 45% are caused by legal bodychecks and 8% by illegal checks, without a significant difference in the injury profiles between the 2 types of checking.35 Stricter enforcement of rules would not, therefore, have much impact on injury rates.

Before the start of the 2002–2003 season, Hockey Canada (previously known as the Canadian Hockey Association), reversed its 20-year stance and decided to permit players as young as 9 years old to bodycheck in games.10,11 Although the research12 that was used to justify this policy was later deemed flawed by its author and others,13 the policy stood. This ignited a debate that resounded throughout arenas, homes and league boardrooms across the country. Previously, only those aged 12–13 years and older could bodycheck, although some provinces such as British Columbia had a threshold of 14–15 years. Hockey Canada reversed its decision in May 2003 and decided to raise the starting age to 11; however, it continues to allow bodychecking starting at age 9 in an "experimental" fashion in 4 of some of the largest hockey associations in Canada.14,15,16 The meaning of "experimental" does not appear in Hockey Canada news releases.

Those in favour of bodychecking claim that the game of hockey demands it; youth exposed to bodychecking at only a later age will be ill equipped to avoid injury. They believe that injuries result from improperly delivered or taken bodychecks and that poor technique should not deter leagues from permitting checking. They argue that the focus should be on educating coaches and teaching bodychecking skills at all levels of hockey.

A lot of us were excited when a few of the Provinces decided to accommodate the second camp and institute body contact from the atom level (squirt here). I was coaching both novice (mite) and atom (squirt) through these experiments. One of my boys was part of the 'test group' and played both of his atom (squirt) years with full contact.

We lived near the borders of Manitoba and North Dakota, so we got to watch groups of kids we knew in all 3 areas develop through their squirt years and it didn't take long to see that the medical experts were indeed correct and that the old hockey guys were indeed wrong on this one. Maybe the game is different than we remember it. I don't know.

But there was a clear difference. The atom kids playing without fear of getting clobbered skated through traffic with confidence and continued their skill development with a smile on their face. Sure, they had their heads down a bit but that was ok at this age and easily corrected when they did get into a collision game.

In Saskatchewan we witnessed "career-ending" injuries at 9 years old, an amazing increase in concussion in our children and kids quitting hockey (both mentally on the ice and pulling right out of the game) at 9 and 10 years old because they didn't like getting hit. Of course, many kids were able to adapt but there was a significant enough number of kids getting hurt and getting scared that it out-weighed any benefit.

Of course, there are still the die hard throw-back hockey guys who live in denial and insist early contact is still the answer, but that argument is getting harder to make in the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary.

To date ALL of the provinces who participated in the experiment have since abandoned it and gone back to checking at peewee hockey at it's earliest and some provinces (Quebec & BC) do not allow body-checking until bantam with extraordinary benefits to it's participants which include player safety, player retention, plahyer development, longer and more enjoyable youth careers

Today, the same kids who were the 'test subjects' of that experiment are no better body checkers than their Canadian / American counterparts who were not part of that experiment.

In my opinion, the small percentage elite kids may have ultimately benefited, as they were able to add another obstacle (contact) to chellenge their game. But for the vast majority of *average* players, all this added element did was further diminish what they could do with their 93 seconds of puck time during the game. The kids who really suffered were the bottom end, who were struggling just to keep up. For them the game simply became unplayable.

Bottom line, the guy you met Canada was feeding you a ball of yarn. The Canadian-style of hockey might be more physical where the America game has more focus on puck movement, but kids in Canada are certainly NOT getting taught to hit as soon they lace up. It's no dfferent than here.

I'll let CMA finish out this post "in their own words", it's eye opening stuff ...
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/2/124

Should bodychecking be allowed in youth hockey?

Many proponents of bodychecking argue that it is an important skill that allows players to take control of the puck, creates scoring opportunities and helps with defensive positioning and coverage, making it valuable to overall team play.18 Teams often have a checking line of 3 players who play against an opposing team's top scoring line to minimize their scoring opportunities and tire them out. As is evident in any playoff series, this checking is often used as physical and mental intimidation to gain control of the game.31,68

However, the relation between aggressive play and winning is much weaker than the proponents of bodychecking believe. In a study of 1462 recorded penalties in all 18 Stanley Cup final series from 1980 to 1997, teams playing with less violence were more likely to win.69 Compared with more violent teams, they had on average over 7 more shots on goal per game and 53 more shots on goal over a 7-game series. Losing teams engaged in more violence early in the game, which suggests that their motivation was not frustration of defeat but, rather, the mistaken belief that violence contributes to winning.69

Although the contribution of bodychecking to a team's success is questionable, it is such an integral part of the game at the professional level that it is unlikely to be eliminated soon. However, players should not be introduced to bodychecking until they can make a mature, informed choice regarding the issue. Enforced league policies that disallow bodychecking are still the best hope for reducing young players' injuries.70

The risks of bodychecking make it clear that checking is not necessary for play at the Canadian minor league hockey level55 — a position supported by the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine.4 The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting bodychecking among players 15 years of age and less.2 Variations in body size and strength34 occur in all age groups, but they are most pronounced from 13 to 15 years; differences of 53 kg in body mass and 55 cm in height between the smallest and largest players have been reported in this age group.31 Since most physical growth is not complete before a person is 17 or 18 years old, bodychecking and hitting should be banned until at least that age. Leagues with players old enough to give consent should obtain informed consent from players before they join the body-contact league. The standard waiver that players are asked to sign to release leagues of all responsibility in the event of injury does not reach the standard of consent expected in activities with more than minimal potential harm. Also, it is unclear how informed consent will be obtained from the 9-year-old players in the 4 hockey associations who will be participating in Hockey Canada's "experiment" 15 and whether the process conforms to Tri-Council Policy.71

Awareness of injury prevention is fortunately being raised through programs such as the recently implemented Fair Play in minor hockey leagues.72 Such programs have been shown to reduce injury rates.32 Another strategy for maximizing player safety is education.73,74,75 Hockey Canada has recognized this need and has launched 2 programs to help coaches improve their skills: the Competency Based Educational Program and the Coaches Mentorship Program.55

Although coaches have a responsibility to teach safety techniques and coaches and parents should act as role models for good sportsmanship, these actions rarely happen consistently.69 Recently, 22 of 34 minor league coaches refused to participate in a video about concussion prevention because they thought that watching the video would make their players less aggressive and successful as a team.45,73 In one community, players 14–15 years old were less likely than younger players to believe that sportsmanship was "real important."31,70 Moreover, 26% of players 12–15 years old who understood that bodychecking from behind could cause serious injury or death reported that they would be willing to do so if they were angry or wanted "to get even." 31

In addition, parents may be encouraging their children to win at all costs in the hope of their pursuing scholarships and professional contracts.76 In one study, 32% of injured players said that they would continue to bodycheck to ensure a win; an additional 6% said they would do so in order to injure another player.77 Since aggression may be a learned behaviour rewarded in sport,78 youth and the public in general must be educated about its dangers and social unacceptability. Ideally, as role models for youth,79 professional players and media personnel should emphasize nonviolence.

Moreover, although the use of protective equipment may prevent some injuries, it may foster the attitude that it can prevent all injuries, it may lead to more lenient enforcement of the rules and, paradoxically, it may increase the number of serious injuries.74,75,80,81,82,83

Education and the elimination of bodychecking remain the most effective strategies for preventing concussions and other hockey-related injuries. Eliminating bodychecking could refocus the game on fun and skill — on skating, shooting, passing and team play. Physicians must play their roles as socially responsible citizens: the future of our youth and the game depend on it.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

One of my oldest boys went to Canada to play in a tourney and there were a bunch of kids on his team that got hurt. Ranged from a concussion to broken bones. None of the Canadian kids got hurt. The size of the kids was different to a small degree but not hugely.

One of the most startling observations that I have made in comparing Canadian & American youth teams is the size difference on the blue line. Living in Minnesota, it doesn't take long to see why, as elite athletes with any size are courted early on by football and basketball. To some of those kids hockey is nothing more than a second sport. It's extremely noticeable during off season AAA hockey when the big kids almost dissappear entirely.

In Canada, with few exception, elite athletes put hockey first so a lot of size is retained at all age levels.

The other glaring difference is in the shot. Slapshots are encouraged from the moment they pick up a stick where here in Minnesota my little guy has been instructed by several of his coaches not to even practice his slapshot. He still does ... but he has to hide in in the privacy of the garage ...

[council member retired]

[quote="No Political Connections"]Wow, thanks. One of the reasons that I joined this group was to learn something and learn I did. I wonder if the guy with the info wasn't one of the old timers. It makes sense to me, I just thought that if there is a way to protect these kids by getting them started early it was worth a look. Looks like it is actually worse than our current system. I do think though that there has to be some system wide approach to hitting and getting hit. Like I said, I have seen some pretty bad wrecks just because the kids did not know "how to behave" when it comes to hitting and getting hit and think that something has to be done about it. I am not throwing rocks at coaches but it seems like they are not sure how to teach it or do not really think about it as a tool to slow down or disrupt the other team's flow until they are in a game and then it is the old "drop the shoulder and pop him" deal which seems to get kids hurt.

I have wandered off thread far enough, sorry about that. Thanks for the education.[/quote]


you sure you don't have a future political office in you? For another thread, I would like to see Minnesota Hockey, mandate ( personnaly yes ) but highly recommend ( more likely ) all youth associations hosts a checking clinic for their incoming peewees. The clinic is performed on association ice ( their ice bill) and ran by approved, qualified instructors. The clinic would be written by MN hockey. Teach kids how to check, and why.. and just as important how to take a hit, and not put yourself in position to be ROCKED. Avoid the danger zone. I can guarantee you evert single association in this state would have more then 1/2 dozen coaches sign up for the MH training and then run this clinic for their association annually.

Back to the topic on hand: Can MH improve the system to allow more kids to stay in hockey, and play bantams in the 9th grade?:

It would hurt no one allowing June b-days the opportunity for all of them to play hockey with their peers - it would help many. We can't be that naive to think of a mn hockey parent, planning a mn hockey baby, give them more credit then that. From experience the date of the act did not matter, no way would I have said but hold on, it could be a bad hockey birthday. The flunk, even more bizarre, not only do we have little flunking, but now we are looking for a flunking kid, that plays hockey ( parents don't finally say, school 1st then you can play) but that he/she actually has a June b-day to boot. The june 1 date does not even come into play as the flunkie would also still have to be between ex birth year june 1, and the other birth year.

Is the "relative age" effect very much alive in the current system, emotionally pulling on these current kids? see alberta university study, the worst possible outcome is shown in direct correllation. The fear of change: exist but should not, a change only allows more kids a choice.
Domination - hardly, ask a bantam coach " who are the BEST bantam age players in the state, now ask them how many are playing bantams? Not many, those kids have already moved onto high school and forego their 2nd year. Ask your high school coach, do you think all 9th graders should have bantam eligibility? If you don't know your high school coach, i can give you a hint to their answer.

3rd topic for another forum title, but that Wild team is actually getting to be fun to watch, time to salute one of our own, Coach Richards.

[trippedovertheblueline]

It was in 2003 that Mn Hockey kept the July 1 birthday when USA Hockey went back to Jan 1. .

so when did they first go to july 1? What was USA hockey at before 2003 " usa hockey went back to jan1 " was it sept 1? thank you in advance

[greybeard58]

In the early 1980's the birth date for all was Jan.1, Mn Hockey in the late 80's( I believe) went to a Sept.1 to be inline with the school year and with the birth year Mn players were 4 months younger than the USA Hockey guidelines. Sometime in the 90's USA changed to July 1 birthday and Mn Hockey to be uniform changed also. In 2002-03 under pressure from states that have teams playing in Canada wanted not only the change back to Jan 1 but also change the birth year and Mn Hockey chose to stay with the July 1 birthday as I have posted earlier in this thread. Now Mn players are 6 months older than USA players per classification. The exact years this all took place I can not remember.

[hockeyday]

Canada, most states and the entire international community use calendar birth year so it is puzzling why Minnesota would swim against the current. I think the problem now is changing is tough especially for two main reasons:
1)Kids currently benefitting from a mid year July-Dec birthday would become younger players and lose that edge. Old peewees would become young bantams for example.
2)Competing against Canadian and out of state teams now becomes much more difficult because the age advantage is lost for Minnesota teams.
I think in the interest of fair competition on a level playing field according to well recognized calendar year ages, Minnesota should get on board with the rest of the world and make the change.

[elliott70]

I am pretty sure North and South Dakota use July 1.

[greybeard58]

By what has been done through the Mn Hockey system and the High school system in advancing players beyond High school has worked well.
There is no need to go with the rest of the world,unless you want to see the numbers we send on to both the college and pro levels decline to match the rest of the country therefore giving away more opportunities to other states.

[council member retired]

[quote="greybeard58"]By what has been done through the Mn Hockey system and the High school system in advancing players beyond High school has worked well.
There is no need to go with the rest of the world,unless you want to see the numbers we send on to both the college and pro levels decline to match the rest of the country therefore giving away more opportunities to other states.[/quote]


Hip Hip hooray

That is a proud Minnesotan post right there. Tip of the cap to you.

State of hockey> you betcha

[greybeard58]

Here are some numbers for college players this year. Where it states Canada that is the whole country.These numbers do not include club teams only Div I&III. Went by total number of players Penn and Calif have more Div I Men than Wisconsin.
USA Players
Men Div I-1022, Div.III-1430 Women Div I-433, Div III-840 Total all=3735 or 73.65% of all college players.
Canada
Mens Div. I-508,Div III-317,Women Div I-272, Div-III-121 Total all=1218 or 24.02% of all college players.
Minnesota
Mens Div I-196,Div III-249, Women Div I-128,Div III-231 Total all= 804 or 21.53% of USA players and 15.85% of all college players.
Mass.
Mens Div I-101,Div III-284,Women Div I-71,Div III-135 Total all= 591 or 15.82% of US Players and 11.65% of all college players.
New York
Mens Div I-100,Div III-159, Women Div I-30,Div III-94 Total all=383 or10.25% of US Players and 7.55% of all college players.
Michigan
Mens Div I-125,Div III-79, Women Div I-26,Div III-48 Total all =278 or 7.44% of US players and 5.48% of all players.
Illinois
Mens Div I-63,Div III-58,Women Div I-29, Div III-31 Total all = 181 or4.98% of US Players and 3.64% of all college players.
Wisconsin
Mens Div I-44,Div III-67,Women Div I-14,Div III-41 Total all = 166 or 4.57% of US Players and 3.34% of all college players.
Conn.,Penn., Calif.and New Jersey all have totals over 100 but are listed in order after Wisconsin.
I will repeat what has been said to a number of people by USA Hockey officials that if the other states could start over they would copy what Minnesota has set up including the birth date which was Sept 1. However the politics and the people through out the country want to try and prove they have a better system especially the Tier I organizations.
The truth is that what is done in this state works for the betterment of all players and the numbers prove it. For those who want to copy what the rest of the country has I hope you fail in getting the changes needed or if you feel the other areas are better for your situation, then please move there. There have been many people who have put a lot of hard work in to get this state to where we are, a fix is needed every now and then when needed and maybe it is time to go back to the Sept 1 birth date and if parents hold their children back then every other year they will be with their class mates.

[jancze5]

Classmates excuse is B S, unless you're from outside the metro and have only ONE elementary and middle school for attendance, you probably have no more than 3-4 players on your team that you actually sit in a classroom with. On my sons pee wee team, we have kids from 2 middle schools, 3 elementary schools, and 3 different grades. So don't give me the "play with your classmates" excuse. Look at your kids rosters today and tell me how many of those kids are in your childs math class???

Minnesota HAS TO keep the current system. If they went to a birth year system, what would happen to every player after the 2 age appropriate birth years? so bantams this year would have an Edina 95's, Edina 96's and then what about the next group of 143 Pee Wee's they have? (using Edina as an example).

The current system allows for the top younger players to play where they should. Alot of AAA teams in the country have players for the later birth year "playing up"...SSM has 3 very talented 96's playing on their their talent 95 team this year, its a common trend.

THE ANSWER: Advance Youth Hockey to the U16 age group in the association. Get rid of JV hockey, allow high school to use what money they would for JV and increase games/funds to the Varsity program.
Allow the youth association to have U16 as the next level after Bantams.

That special onesy twosy freshman who is amazing, plays Varsity still, but the other 73 kids he grew up with, still play in the association. PROMOTE U16 as a level instead of a 'end of the road' with jr gold. Make Varsity hockey U18 level hockey and the only level Owned by the high school.

If anyone has a better solution...please...recommend a SOLUTION instead of whining about the issue..

[greybeard58]

Agree on the 16U level and the elimination of the JV program. When the name change in the Jr Gold and they went from A and B to add the 16U level was in anticipation of High schools cutting costs at the JV level. Instead the cuts have not been made and the Girls side constantly takes the 14U and 16 U to keep their JV program running and on the boys side some allow bantams t be on the JV.
What could be a solution is that Mn Hockey and the High school administrators could come to a working arrangement for players of that age group.

[DMom]

Classmates excuse is B S, unless you're from outside the metro and have only ONE elementary and middle school for attendance, you probably have no more than 3-4 players on your team that you actually sit in a classroom with. On my sons pee wee team, we have kids from 2 middle schools, 3 elementary schools, and 3 different grades. So don't give me the "play with your classmates" excuse. Look at your kids rosters today and tell me how many of those kids are in your childs math class???

Minnesota HAS TO keep the current system. If they went to a birth year system, what would happen to every player after the 2 age appropriate birth years? so bantams this year would have an Edina 95's, Edina 96's and then what about the next group of 143 Pee Wee's they have? (using Edina as an example).

The current system allows for the top younger players to play where they should. Alot of AAA teams in the country have players for the later birth year "playing up"...SSM has 3 very talented 96's playing on their their talent 95 team this year, its a common trend.

THE ANSWER: Advance Youth Hockey to the U16 age group in the association. Get rid of JV hockey, allow high school to use what money they would for JV and increase games/funds to the Varsity program.
Allow the youth association to have U16 as the next level after Bantams.

That special onesy twosy freshman who is amazing, plays Varsity still, but the other 73 kids he grew up with, still play in the association. PROMOTE U16 as a level instead of a 'end of the road' with jr gold. Make Varsity hockey U18 level hockey and the only level Owned by the high school.

If anyone has a better solution...please...recommend a SOLUTION instead of whining about the issue..

Someone just asked me the other day, "What happened to jancze?"

Welcome back to the voice of reason!!!

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Minnesota HAS TO keep the current system. If anyone has a better solution...please...recommend a SOLUTION

For now, keep it, but improve it by moving the cutoff date to June 1 for the reasons posted by so many on this thread. That's a good SOLUTION for that problem.

Then, continue looking at the benefits of a 12 month gap (June-May or Jan-Dec, either/either). Look at the research. It's very clear. Keep this dialogue running ...

I really like your idea as well;

Advance Youth Hockey to the U16 age group in the association. Get rid of JV hockey, allow high school to use what money they would for JV and increase games/funds to the Varsity program.

Allow the youth association to have U16 as the next level after Bantams.

Good discussion ...