New participation rule

GreekChurch · Post by **GreekChurch** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:38 pm

That is exactly how I read it too.

ilike2score · Post by **ilike2score** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:14 pm

My case for why the new participation rule is right. I am a divorced father whom my kids live with their Mother. When my kid starting playing hockey he lived and went to school in Proctor. His mother and stepdad moved into the Hermantown school district. It was decided to keep the kids attending the Proctor schools. My kid realizes that Hermantown may have a better reputation for Hockey than Proctor...but his choice is to continue to play for the school that he attends. This is not a Private School issue only. I also reside within the Hermantown School District and am an Alumni. We based our decision for the kid to play hockey for his school not because he would be in a higher quality hockey environment at Hermantown, but rather it was for the best interest of the kid to stay with his friends and hopefully future teammates when they hit high school.

PoniesDad45 · Post by **PoniesDad45** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:24 pm

I agree with the spirit of this new rule but to be honest I was always amazed at the way people went right around the old rules that were in place. I knew a parent who had his child tryout every year in his home association and if he didn't make the "A" team he immediately enrolled him in a nearby program and they always put him right on the A team.

The last tryout season the Association Pres asked him if he was actually going to tryout or did he just want to go to the other association and save the red tape!

I always thought there were strict rules against that sort of thing.

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:56 am

Not sure if this is related, but Wayzata added a Squirt B1 team this year and left the B2s intact due to increased numbers.

council member retired · Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:03 pm

[quote="Toomuchtoosoon"]Not sure if this is related, but Wayzata added a Squirt B1 team this year and left the B2s intact due to increased numbers.[/quote]

Squirt b1 and b2? Is there a league that is distinctive to squirt b1 and b2?
Anyone know why would they not have 10 evenly rostered squirt B teams? I like it when an association places a kid where they belong. If you have 30 A players, have 2 A teams..etc.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:23 pm

SWPrez wrote: Just got word the other day that 15 kids from North Minneapolis would like to join our program....but can only afford $200 of the $1,300 they need to play (self promoting plug - would love to have a few sponsors from those reading this! PM me if you can help! Anyone have an inside line to the NHL Diversity Fund?). So, In the next few weeks/months I'll be staying up late fundraising to make sure these kids can play.

I know this isn't the forum for this, but this is a case where MN Hockey needs to step in and help out, be it a $5-$10 charge on every kid who registers (heck we give $40 to USA Hockey for nothing) or giving it to the kids straight out of their trough. The survival of hockey depends on getting new kids to play and shutting out much of our two largest cities based soley on economics is shortsighted. The decline of hockey in Minneapolis and St. Paul our among USA/MN Hockey's biggest failures in my opinion.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:02 am

goldy313 wrote:
SWPrez wrote: Just got word the other day that 15 kids from North Minneapolis would like to join our program....but can only afford $200 of the $1,300 they need to play (self promoting plug - would love to have a few sponsors from those reading this! PM me if you can help! Anyone have an inside line to the NHL Diversity Fund?). So, In the next few weeks/months I'll be staying up late fundraising to make sure these kids can play.
I know this isn't the forum for this, but this is a case where MN Hockey needs to step in and help out, be it a $5-$10 charge on every kid who registers (heck we give $40 to USA Hockey for nothing) or giving it to the kids straight out of their trough. The survival of hockey depends on getting new kids to play and shutting out much of our two largest cities based soley on economics is shortsighted. The decline of hockey in Minneapolis and St. Paul our among USA/MN Hockey's biggest failures in my opinion.

Goldy, It is my understanding that MN Hockey will be putting up some money to pay for transportation for these kids to their practices/games. What I have been told is many are single parent, or double parent situations where the parents are working a couple of jobs to make ends meet and thus it is difficult for them to even get to the rink and they need transportation.

Minneapolis Hockey is on the rebound. Washburn and Southwest will be combining mites and squirts this year. We will have approximately six or seven squirt teams (and our "A" team looks to be pretty solid) and we are estimating, with our successful recruiting, to have a combined 250+ mite/U8 population consistently pumping 60-70 kids into our squirt level each year over the next four years (more if we keep doing the right things).

Having been involved with Minneapolis Hockey for ten years, I can say that the only way for survival and growth of quality hockey in the city is for financially sound associations with critical mass like WAHA and SWHA to slowly bring in players of ethnic and financial diversity into the program, while looking to the NHL Diversity fund, USA Hockey, foundations and MN Hockey to support us with this growth...which isn't cheap and it needs to be a long term plan/commitment. We have the mass and the infrastructure to absorb them and provide quality coaching and development, its the money that is the issue.

It is also important to point out that Minneapolis has a recreational program run by the Park & Rec which provides hockey opportunities for approximately 500-600 kids. Its mainly outdoor ice hockey with some weekend games mixed in. A great, fun, rec program for kids who aren't concerned about development and more concerned about having fun with their buddies at the local park.

vikes40for60 · Post by **vikes40for60** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:35 pm

How would you handle this situation......

Player lives in association X, played Bantam A last year with Association last year, and is a 2nd year Bantam.

Player enrolled in new school outside of association X, and has registered with association Y per the new participation rule. According to the new participation rule, he cannot play at the A level because of a school change.

Family has asked association X if they will provide him a waiver to circumvent the new participation rule. Should association X give him a waiver so that he can try out with association Y and play at the "A" level?

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:51 pm

vikes40for60 wrote:How would you handle this situation......

Player lives in association X, played Bantam A last year with Association last year, and is a 2nd year Bantam.

Player enrolled in new school outside of association X, and has registered with association Y per the new participation rule. According to the new participation rule, he cannot play at the A level because of a school change.

Family has asked association X if they will provide him a waiver to circumvent the new participation rule. Should association X give him a waiver so that he can try out with association Y and play at the "A" level?

I say sure...why not? If he's an "A" player, he should have the opportunity to try out for that "A" team/

tourneytickssince59 · Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:09 pm

Heard from district rep that this rule will be rescinded early in 2010 and participation guidelines will revert back to the way they were for the most part.