District 6 New Rule involving playing hockey only with Dist

[longrebound]

I am not so sure about the whole litigation angle. They aren't denying your ability to play hockey just saying that if you choose to play for a different organization such as Minnesota Made that you are not welcome to play for them. This happens every now and then. The MSHSL, for one, says that while trying out or playing for your high school team, you are not allowed to play games or practice with any other teams.

And, at least outwardly, I don't think that they are publicly supported through tax dollars at any level -- especially at the state level. Sure, your association may benefit from a publicly funded arena or a volume discount at that facility but, on the surface, Minnesota Hockey seems to be funded in whole by their sponsors, members, and private donations. Doesn't this limit their exposure to litigation?

I don't necessarily care for the rule but I don't think I can argue their ability to make it.

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

You people are all arguing about nothing. D6 backed down on the rule last week. This is from an email sent out to members of the Edina Hockey Association last Thursday:

Associations-

District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.

Pete Skophammer
D6 President

[hockeyover40]

You people are all arguing about nothing. D6 backed down on the rule last week. This is from an email sent out to members of the Edina Hockey Association last Thursday:

Associations-

District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.

Pete Skophammer
D6 President

Doesn't mention squirts. Are they still forbidden to play both?

[dogeatdog1]

Yep - we can have our children rise to the top of a pile of mediocrity and be proud!

Having your kid skate at both programs will almost guarantee that he rises to nothing after quitting at 15 years old... good luck to you.

[HockeyDad41]

Yep - we can have our children rise to the top of a pile of mediocrity and be proud!

Having your kid skate at both programs will almost guarantee that he rises to nothing after quitting at 15 years old... good luck to you.

Not really sure that you can almost guarantee that.

How long has Choice League been going on now?

We seem to hear a lot about how a kid that skates in both is going to burn out at 15, mostly from people I suspect have never had a kid skate in both. Can we hear from anyone who has had a kid go through Choice and maybe is in peewees or bantams? If Choice has been around long enough I mean. The alarmist crowd has got me wondering if all the kids that did are pitching their skates after they hit 15.

The other thing I am wondering about is how many squirts are actually trying to do both? I know a lot of mite kids do it, but for Squirts at 145 hours, even I think both would be over the top. Just my own opinion. Most everyone (only one indicated they were attempting both) I have talked to has said they were only doing one at the squirt level.

I think this rule was aimed at the mites and because of the response it received they found a nice way to save a little face and reverse their decision. Good for them.

[Quasar]

Having your kid skate at both programs will almost guarantee that he rises to nothing after quitting at 15 years old... good luck to you.

Not really sure that you can almost guarantee that.

How long has Choice League been going on now?

We seem to hear a lot about how a kid that skates in both is going to burn out at 15, mostly from people I suspect have never had a kid skate in both. Can we hear from anyone who has had a kid go through Choice and maybe is in peewees or bantams? If Choice has been around long enough I mean. The alarmist crowd has got me wondering if all the kids that did are pitching their skates after they hit 15.

The other thing I am wondering about is how many squirts are actually trying to do both? I know a lot of mite kids do it, but for Squirts at 145 hours, even I think both would be over the top. Just my own opinion. Most everyone (only one indicated they were attempting both) I have talked to has said they were only doing one at the squirt level.

I think this rule was aimed at the mites and because of the response it received they found a nice way to save a little face and reverse their decision. Good for them.

The idea that all these kids burn out at 15 is just a red herring thrown out by people that know better.

If it were true there would be no ..USHL...No NAHL ..NO Mnjhl

And by extension, no college hockey seeing as 80 percent of the college players now- a- days come from these three Jr. Leagues.

[BadgerBob82]

HockeyMom87: All I can say is Wow! To tie this rule to abusive husbands, Title IX and the biggest pile of garbage I have read for a long time is remarkable.

This D6 rule was written by people (men or women) with clear vision of the big picture in youth sports. Yes, the rule protects the local associations from renegades. But, it has the best interest in the kids in mind.

All it really says is pick one or the other. Excludes Mites from the rule. And provides for a case-by-case ruling by the director. I believe this means if a kid plays Sunday mornings in a church league "for fun" it would be viewed differently than a MM league "for fun". It also appears to allow enrollment in skill development "clinics or camps" , but not "leagues".

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

You people are all arguing about nothing. D6 backed down on the rule last week. This is from an email sent out to members of the Edina Hockey Association last Thursday:

Associations-

District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.

Pete Skophammer
D6 President

Doesn't mention squirts. Are they still forbidden to play both?

I don't see how it would be possible to do both at the Squirt level. It would be completely disruptive to at least one if not both teams.

Here's something else that I've never seen mentioned. If you think you have an A level player I wouldn't expect to make the team if the first Association event you show up to is the tryout. Without at least a year in the Association to get to know the other families, coaches, and get some exposure it's going to be a tough sell. You can argue about whether or not that's the way it should be, but generally that's the way it is.

[scoreandscoreoften]

You people are all arguing about nothing. D6 backed down on the rule last week. This is from an email sent out to members of the Edina Hockey Association last Thursday:

Associations-

District 6 and the folks at Minnesota Hockey discussed the concept of a "league" and it was determined that Mites don't fit cleanly into the definition of a league. As a result, Mites will be able to participate on multiple teams. However, to protect the kids, they must have the required amount of rest time between events as outlined by MNH. Parents would be required to sign a form acknowledging this.

Pete Skophammer
D6 President

Doesn't mention squirts. Are they still forbidden to play both?

I don't see how it would be possible to do both at the Squirt level. It would be completely disruptive to at least one if not both teams.

Here's something else that I've never seen mentioned. If you think you have an A level player I wouldn't expect to make the team if the first Association event you show up to is the tryout. Without at least a year in the Association to get to know the other families, coaches, and get some exposure it's going to be a tough sell. You can argue about whether or not that's the way it should be, but generally that's the way it is.

Are you talking about someone coming from MM squirt league back to an assoc. Or someone new moving into a new assoc. Or both. I would think any A team coach worth his weight would welcome an A level player to his team. If he don't, he shouldn't be coaching.

[jackdaw]

Hockeymom87-this is a great forum and thanks for the response, but I do get the point. It is totally appropriate for District 6 to pass this rule-but it won't hold up unless people are trying to sign up their kid with another MN Hockey Affiliate which MM is not, and as I used in my example, is the poster child for this discussion. Legality is not the issue, it is common sense. These people who sign up kids for both don't get it and that is what D6 is hoping to express.

I never said MM has a policy of not missing, I said "Usually with MM you will have to go to their ice or you will be put on the black list at MM and will not be given a shot to play for the Machine or other MM team. This is the fear of many who hope to be placed on the MM teams during summer league in which you cannot miss. So in essence it is a, you can't miss a session, winter league. Believe me, they know who shows up and who doesn't and you are fooling yourself if you don't think they know. They only want the Kool-Aid drinkers for the summer.
I agree some kids can handle every day, but it is few and far between.
As far as seat belts go, it is an example. The rule is not that old; and yes the State did interfere with a parent's judgment and implemented the seat belt rule for the betterment of kids (who happen to have stupid parents too)!

As far as separate seasons go, again it is common sense. There might be a slight overlap in seasons; the point is to not be on two teams at the same time during the winter season.
As far as legal fee go, USA Hockey provides legal insurance representation for board members, as long as there is no intentional fraud/neglect.
I also never said that MM is in the business of selling dreams to kids-which I agree with you, kid should have dreams. I said MM is selling the dream (Kool-Aid) to the parents, not the kid, in hopes of watching their kid play D3 or the NHL. Why do you think MM has all the NHL jerseys on the wall from MM players- you don’t think the parents see that and open the checkbook-rhetorical question.

This will be a never ending issue. Good luck to all of you who put your kid in Association hockey and another non-MN Hockey Affiliate. I hope it works out for you and your kids. As a wise hockey person said once, “The best parents are the ones who have a Bantam and a Mite, they get it” and most who will enroll in both don't get it.

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

Doesn't mention squirts. Are they still forbidden to play both?

I don't see how it would be possible to do both at the Squirt level. It would be completely disruptive to at least one if not both teams.

Here's something else that I've never seen mentioned. If you think you have an A level player I wouldn't expect to make the team if the first Association event you show up to is the tryout. Without at least a year in the Association to get to know the other families, coaches, and get some exposure it's going to be a tough sell. You can argue about whether or not that's the way it should be, but generally that's the way it is.

Are you talking about someone coming from MM squirt league back to an assoc. Or someone new moving into a new assoc. Or both. I would think any A team coach worth his weight would welcome an A level player to his team. If he don't, he shouldn't be coaching.

Doesn't.

In a large Assocation there is usually more than 17 kids capable of making an A team. That's when other factors like the players and parents attitudes come into play. I suppose this could work against you if everyone knows your a tool and your kid hates to practice, but usually the known quantity is a safer bet.

[HockeyDad41]

I don't see how it would be possible to do both at the Squirt level. It would be completely disruptive to at least one if not both teams.

Here's something else that I've never seen mentioned. If you think you have an A level player I wouldn't expect to make the team if the first Association event you show up to is the tryout. Without at least a year in the Association to get to know the other families, coaches, and get some exposure it's going to be a tough sell. You can argue about whether or not that's the way it should be, but generally that's the way it is.

Are you talking about someone coming from MM squirt league back to an assoc. Or someone new moving into a new assoc. Or both. I would think any A team coach worth his weight would welcome an A level player to his team. If he don't, he shouldn't be coaching.

Doesn't.

In a large Assocation there is usually more than 17 kids capable of making an A team. That's when other factors like the players and parents attitudes come into play. I suppose this could work against you if everyone knows your a tool and your kid hates to practice, but usually the known quantity is a safer bet.

you're

[jancze5]

If minnesota made is a non USA hockey affiliated training facility, what's stopping the Bern-ster from hosting a winter long clinic that includes 2 1.25 hour weekly skating session with a clinic training scrimmage on saturday mornings. Call it a clinic and not a "league" and then D6 can suck ballz, no?

[BadgerBob82]

If it is truly a learning clinic, they could adopt the education world lingo and call them "enrichment opportunities" and "cumulative assessments". All is good until little Jonny is skipping association practices to drive to the Made. Coach will be mad. Little Jonny will be sitting on the bench for association games, Jonny's Mom will get her make-up smudged throwing her little fit.

Call it whatever you want!

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

Are you talking about someone coming from MM squirt league back to an assoc. Or someone new moving into a new assoc. Or both. I would think any A team coach worth his weight would welcome an A level player to his team. If he don't, he shouldn't be coaching.

Doesn't.

In a large Assocation there is usually more than 17 kids capable of making an A team. That's when other factors like the players and parents attitudes come into play. I suppose this could work against you if everyone knows your a tool and your kid hates to practice, but usually the known quantity is a safer bet.

you're

Damn, I hate that one! Serves me right for climbing on my high linguistic horse.

[SnowedIn]

Statement: Kids will burn out by doing both?
Question: How would this happen?
Answer: If the player does not like the amount of skating they are doing.
Question: Does this apply to all kids that play hockey?
Answer: No, only those that do not like the extra skating?
Question: What about the kids that are pushed into doing both?
Answer: If they are being pushed by the parents, then the kid may burn out because they don't want the extra skating.
Question: What if they are not being "pushed" and like the extra skates?
Answer: Then they will not burn out. In fact if they like the skates and do them they will have fun and become better players.
Question: Will these kids develop better then those kids not doing the skates?
Answer: Sure. They are happy to be there, are having fun, and learning different skills from different coaches which will positively impact their hockey development.
Question: Does this represent a large or small % of kids?
Answer: Who knows what % it is. Does it really matter?
Question: So if a % of kids that enjoy the extra ice and get better with it, why would anyone want to prevent them from doing this?
Answer: Various reasons, but mainly concerns that these kids will develop more rapidly than kids that don't do this extra ice. Concerns about missing games.
Question: If these kids have more desire and fun playing hockey then why would someone stand in their way? If they are concerned about missing games then why not have a no tolerance policy with repercussions by the coach.
Answer: First question: Ego, power, jealousy and protecting their own kids. Second question: The coach of each team should address a specific game policy this with their players and the policy should apply to any other outside activity as well.
Question: So why is this such a big issue?
Answer: Once again - ego, power, jealousy.
Question: Lastly, winter is just around the corner and my son loves to skate. Last year he was on the outdoor rinks at least 6 hours a week. Should I be concerned with him burning out?
Answer: If you were forcing him to skate for the 6+ hours then he may burn out. If he was doing it on his own and had fun, then no, he'll be fine.

[goaliewithfoggedglasses]

Statement: Kids will burn out by doing both?
Question: How would this happen?
Answer: If the player does not like the amount of skating they are doing.
Question: Does this apply to all kids that play hockey?
Answer: No, only those that do not like the extra skating?
Question: What about the kids that are pushed into doing both?
Answer: If they are being pushed by the parents, then the kid may burn out because they don't want the extra skating.
Question: What if they are not being "pushed" and like the extra skates?
Answer: Then they will not burn out. In fact if they like the skates and do them they will have fun and become better players.
Question: Will these kids develop better then those kids not doing the skates?
Answer: Sure. They are happy to be there, are having fun, and learning different skills from different coaches which will positively impact their hockey development.
Question: Does this represent a large or small % of kids?
Answer: Who knows what % it is. Does it really matter?
Question: So if a % of kids that enjoy the extra ice and get better with it, why would anyone want to prevent them from doing this?
Answer: Various reasons, but mainly concerns that these kids will develop more rapidly than kids that don't do this extra ice. Concerns about missing games.
Question: If these kids have more desire and fun playing hockey then why would someone stand in their way? If they are concerned about missing games then why not have a no tolerance policy with repercussions by the coach.
Answer: First question: Ego, power, jealousy and protecting their own kids. Second question: The coach of each team should address a specific game policy this with their players and the policy should apply to any other outside activity as well.
Question: So why is this such a big issue?
Answer: Once again - ego, power, jealousy.
Question: Lastly, winter is just around the corner and my son loves to skate. Last year he was on the outdoor rinks at least 6 hours a week. Should I be concerned with him burning out?
Answer: If you were forcing him to skate for the 6+ hours then he may burn out. If he was doing it on his own and had fun, then no, he'll be fine.

Assumption: You will only burnout on something if you do not like it. You can never burnout on something you enjoy doing.

[InigoMontoya]

There is definitely something for which I've not burned out. Though, I'll make it my life-long mission to try.

[DMom]

There is definitely something for which I've not burned out. Though, I'll make it my life-long mission to try.

[HockeyMom87]

Wow! Interesting responses.

1. As for legality - public high school kids play in sanctioned MN Hockey events. They skate for a public institution. Parenting is a constitutionally protected right. Interference with parenting decisions with the appropriate "state interest" is unconstitutional. Perhaps state high schools should not be part of MN Hockey if this is how they rule.
2. No checks. No balances. No responses to this.
3. Disparate impact - only hurts those that like to play more.
4. No one has addressed the question as to why district 6 thinks it is OK to substitute their judgment for that of a parent. Issue isn't if it is a good idea to skate in 2 leagues. Issue is who's call is it.
5. I'm not a first time Mite or Squirt parent - and I oppose it becaue it isn't in their jurisdiction.
6. If a parent chooses to do this and their kid burns out - unfortunate. Misses the point. Still isn't up to some "director" and is up to parents.
7. BadgerBob - you can call it garbage but you didn't come up with good reason that parents' judgment should be substituted. This is America. Additionally - the amount of control the director is trying to do seems like an abusive husband - I know what is best for you but you don't. REALLY! What do you mean it protects associations from renegades? You talk out of both sides of your mouth - protects associations in one sentence and has best interests of kids in other. Your position is internally inconsistent. Unfortunately - the pick one or the other rule may ultimately hurt associations. Also - if really is just about leagues - why the reference to Boy Scouts, etc.
8. I personally agree not smart to do both. Still - not up to associations. Is up to parents and kids.
9. Jackdaw - you call it common sense. For who? Are you really taking the position that you know what is best for every kid over and above their parents. Also - your statements about not missing at MM are erroneous. That is assumption. Regarding seat belts - those apply to adults too. Hard to believe states would touch this with a 100 foot pole. There are all kinds of stupid things parents do that the state cannot legislate. Look around your community. Regarding the legal insurance - have you read the policy? I would love to read it. Also - MM made has NHL jerseys hanging on the wall for the same reason CEOs have pictures of them with influential people hanging in their office. They are proud. So what. Still misses the point about the rule. This isn't about MM. This is about a district substituting their judgment for that of a parent. Where does it end?
10. HockeyDad41 - love the you're comment.
11. I'm guessing a few of you engage in activities for which you've never burnt out.

In any event - people obviously have strong feelings. Still haven't read the appropriate justification for the rule.

[mkpfb]

MM defenders are claiming that the D6 rule that requires kids who play D6 to not play in other leagues because it adds consequences to a parent's choice about where their kid plays.

This is exactly what MM does with its players.

Here are a few examples from back when my kid played for MM a few years ago.

1. MM players could not play another sport.
2. Can't miss practice for any reason (in one case a player was disciplined for missing practice to go to his Grandma's birthday party).
3. Can't play for another hockey team without his permission.
4. Can't play in the Super Series
5. Bernie once scheduled a practice at the last minute on a Sunday so that some of his 96 players were conflicted out of a local tournament.
6. He won't let his players play at the Brick.
7. He cut an older brother from the Duece because the younger brother chose a different organization.

Integrity is about applying the same rules to yourself that you apply to others. D6 seems to have adopted some of MM's exclusionary rules.

[HockeyMom87]

If what you are saying is true, MM was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. District 6 still needs rational justification for its rule. Still not seeing one legitimate reason.

[trippedovertheblueline]

[quote="mkpfb"]MM defenders are claiming that the D6 rule that requires kids who play D6 to not play in other leagues because it adds consequences to a parent's choice about where their kid plays.

This is exactly what MM does with its players.

Here are a few examples from back when my kid played for MM a few years ago.


4. Can't play in the Super Series

this is incorrect

[Toomuchtoosoon]

You are all nuts!!

[warmskin]

I heard a rumor today that District 6 has rethought this ruling and will resind it.