Minnesota Hockey board meeting...

[Mnhockeys]

Mark,
What was the attitude of all regarding the proposal to remove checking at the PW level?

Most rural districts were 100% against.
Some metro districts were 100% against.
Some had mixed reactions, but not all have put the same effort into gathering data as D16 and hae been instructed to do so.

VP's and other non-youth hockey members were mostly supportive.

General feeling is that USAH is going to go ahead with it.

What does "general feeling" mean? And public opinion poll of almost 100% against means nothing? Very interesting!

[silentbutdeadly3139]

[quote="silentbutdeadly3139/

I'm guessing but many of the same 3-4 kids wouldn't touch the puck in a cross ice game unless you remove many players who then would be watching a cross ice game. But I bet they still liked playing a game ... unless mom and dad remind them how little they touch the puck.

Like everything too much of anything is bad and variety is the best. IMHO mix in full ice and cross ice so they can learn all aspects AND prepare for squirts.

As for your count of minutes. That would apply to all hockey games at all ages ... do you wanna do away with all games ? i'm thinking not.

You could have 3-4 cross ice games going on one sheet, compared to 1 on full ice. Therefore, at 4 on 4 cross ice, times 3 games going at once = 24 kids on the ice at once, compared to only 12 in a full ice game, assuming 5 on 5 plus goalies. Now factor in that mite teams ( in my assoc) have about 12 players per team. Now you can get 4 teams on 1 hour of ice, and even if all they did was play cross ice for an hour, each kid would be going every other shift. Can you really ask for anything more?

I'm not saying it's the end all say all, but I will say that I am sold on the idea.

Like someone said in another thread.... Should we have our 6-8 year olds playing baseball on 90 foot bases, and pitching from MLB mounds??? Is there a FEW kids that could do this? Probably, but would not be good for the majority of the players. And for the kids that might be able to play on the longer bases, are they REALLY going to get any worse by playing with everyone else, on shorter bases?

this can be directly related to the checking debate. Some say kids aren't physically ready to check as pee wee's? But some of you think that 6-8 year olds are menally developed enough to know how to run a forecheck, and go to their "positions" on a break out? Let's give them the tools, then we can show them how to use them.

Yes cross ice has a place but I believe does full ice too. I've seen mites who only play cross ice and what happens when they get to squirts . Its not elegant, their development seems stunted. I've also seen mites learn the basics of positioning and forechecking. I'm not sold on the baseball - Hockey analogy, the major difference being baseball players don't play defense and offense all over the field. Like i said, I believe full ice games have a place in mite development along with cross ice games. Wonder how all these successful programs and players ever made it having been cursed with full ice games

[hockeyfan74]

I posted this on another thread as well - Might be better here.

I would have to say there needs to be a compromise. Once again the problem with USA hockey is it is all or nothing. Just like removing checking from pee-wee's. First I see a lot of value in small area games for development - that includes but is not limited to cross-ice hockey. However there is also a time and place for full ice games as well. First reason is at least for my son who is a last year mite - He wants to play full ice games like his older brother - the gophers - the wild. He watches hockey and wants to play they way they do. If it is not fun for the kids they will not continue to play the game. If he knows they are going to do a cross-ice game he is not nearly as excited as when he knows they are going to play a full-ice game. I have seen a lot of very good full ice mite games this year. In fact some times I give his older brother who is an A pee-wee a hard time because they move the puck better than some of the kids on the pee-wee team. In my opinion and I ran a mite program I was in charge like this - First the teams should be picked on ability - not age. Get kids of similar ability on the ice together. Then you have the lowest level group play 100% cross-ice or half-ice games. The next level could do 50% cross-ice / 50% full ice. Start the year cross-ice finish full ice. The next level (was our highest level) do 75% full-ice / 25% cross-ice with an emphasis on small area games in practices at all three levels. There is no question both have a place in the development of young hockey players. I don't think it has to be all or nothing. You have not seen good mites skate or play if you don't believe mites can handle full-ice games. I was told by my old district director that USA hockey went to Russia and other places to study how they develop players and that is why we came up with cross-ice games - yet when I ran into a couple of Russian dad's this summer who grew up in Russia and played in Russia they laughed at that idea. They have boys that were probably the most skilled 99's I have ever seen. They play out of California and my son played against them this past summer so I had a very lengthy conversation with them on what they did for development. They started their own hockey team because they didn't agree with a lot of the ideas in the ADM. Once again I think there are some good points and some not so good. The tough part is competition keeps companies honest and USA Hockey really doesn't have any competition to keep them honest. They are a monopoly so they can basically do what they want - good or bad. They use what ever stats they want to make up to get their point across, but usually have nothing to prove it. Most of their decision come down to money - not necessarily what is best for the kids. I recently read an article on how the US has more players in the NHL today than ever before and USA hockey wanted to credit the ADM - That is a pile because the ADM was not around when they grew up playing. I would bet that the players in the NHL today played full-ice games at the mite level - worked out pretty good for them! Let's not be so close minded and say it has to be one way or another. Sorry so long winded.

[elliott70]

Mark,
What was the attitude of all regarding the proposal to remove checking at the PW level?

Most rural districts were 100% against.
Some metro districts were 100% against.
Some had mixed reactions, but not all have put the same effort into gathering data as D16 and hae been instructed to do so.

VP's and other non-youth hockey members were mostly supportive.

General feeling is that USAH is going to go ahead with it.

What does "general feeling" mean? And public opinion poll of almost 100% against means nothing? Very interesting!

The MH people that were at the USAH meeting said, 'the general feeling' amongst participants at the winter meeting in Florida was that it would pass.

I doubt anyone in USAH has looked or will look at public opinion polls.
The MH D16 poll and the poll on this sight was presented to people of MH and will be again in April.

[Wildcathcky]

Is there any chance that MN Hockey would refuse to follow a USA Hockey rule banning checking in peewee? MN Hockey has gone on it's own with regard to the age cut off.

[InigoMontoya]

I'll throw in the locker room policy, as well. How many Minnesota associations are strictly enforcing that rule?

[HockeyDad41]

I'll throw in the locker room policy, as well. How many Minnesota associations are strictly enforcing that rule?

Great point! The associations that choose to ignore the new no-checking policy are going to kill the ones that do decide to go with it.

[MrBoDangles]

Most rural districts were 100% against.
Some metro districts were 100% against.
Some had mixed reactions, but not all have put the same effort into gathering data as D16 and hae been instructed to do so.

VP's and other non-youth hockey members were mostly supportive.

General feeling is that USAH is going to go ahead with it.

What does "general feeling" mean? And public opinion poll of almost 100% against means nothing? Very interesting!

The MH people that were at the USAH meeting said, 'the general feeling' amongst participants at the winter meeting in Florida was that it would pass.

I doubt anyone in USAH has looked or will look at public opinion polls.
The MH D16 poll and the poll on this sight was presented to people of MH and will be again in April.

It sure will be interesting the way things are trending........ Soon we'll be having padded sticks to shoot orange nerf balls. People will tell stories of something called a slapshot. The boards will all be pillowed and colored pink. The games will all be 3on3 and if a less skilled player doesn't touch the puck on the play it will be a penalty of 2:00 minutes, I meant 1:30.......... What am I thinking??? It will probably be 10 seconds soon enough. Check? What is that? There was contact in Hockey?

These people are destroying Hockey as we know it. I hope you represent us well.

[elliott70]

Is there any chance that MN Hockey would refuse to follow a USA Hockey rule banning checking in peewee? MN Hockey has gone on it's own with regard to the age cut off.

Yes and No.

And No, MH did not go their own way on the age cut-off.
If you look at rosters they say USAH bantam, MH pee-wee. Our pee-wee teams are 'really' USAH bantam teams and bantams are midgets.
MH 'went its own way' but here was a way to do it.

But to answer the question: Not following USAH rulebook on checking would be hard to do. BUT the idea of it is being kicked around.

[elliott70]

And North Dakota will likely follow what MH does.
Wisconsin????

And where would Ontario and Manitoba be????

[elliott70]

I'll throw in the locker room policy, as well. How many Minnesota associations are strictly enforcing that rule?

Which rule are you referencing?
USAH rule is very broad. MH rule is less so but is recommended rule.
From what I know, each MH district adopted some form of the MH rule. Is each local following their respective district rule? Hard to tell. Based on what I have seen, been told and the questions asked I think MH District 16 is trying to comply.

[elliott70]

What does "general feeling" mean? And public opinion poll of almost 100% against means nothing? Very interesting!

The MH people that were at the USAH meeting said, 'the general feeling' amongst participants at the winter meeting in Florida was that it would pass.

I doubt anyone in USAH has looked or will look at public opinion polls.
The MH D16 poll and the poll on this sight was presented to people of MH and will be again in April.

It sure will be interesting the way things are trending........ Soon we'll be having padded sticks to shoot orange nerf balls. People will tell stories of something called a slapshot. The boards will all be pillowed and colored pink. The games will all be 3on3 and if a less skilled player doesn't touch the puck on the play it will be a penalty of 2:00 minutes, I meant 1:30.......... What am I thinking??? It will probably be 10 seconds soon enough. Check? What is that? There was contact in Hockey?

These people are destroying Hockey as we know it. I hope you represent us well.

Friday and Saturday I brought a lot of 'passion' into my arguments to keep checking.

On Saturday I was told there was no room for passion. This was a matter of scientific study. I continued on with scientific study questions that had answers like, 'I don't know', 'We are not sure', 'We will have to see'....
On Sunday I put pressure on all of them by moving to immediately discontinue checking in MH peewee C hockey leagues based on MH committee study.
There was some heated and passionate discussion as I sat there and smiled through the recess to 'discuss' it.
After the recess I rescinded my motion with a comment regarding the passion that IS involved with this discussion.

Let your directors and the MH board members know how you feel.

[O-townClown]

Mark, would you be okay if USA Hockey moved forward as they'd like and the Minnesota affiliate figuratively 'seceded from the union' a la Quebec and kept hitting at Pee Wees?

I think it would be nice to have a control group to compare the rest to as these kids age.

[elliott70]

Mark, would you be okay if USA Hockey moved forward as they'd like and the Minnesota affiliate figuratively 'seceded from the union' a la Quebec and kept hitting at Pee Wees?

I think it would be nice to have a control group to compare the rest to as these kids age.

No, not for secession.
If everyone (USAH & MH leadership) thought a control group would be a good thing than yes.

I dont support this idea but I do support unity.

MH will communicate with USAH throughout this process.

[PanthersIn2011]

Friday and Saturday I brought a lot of 'passion' into my arguments to keep checking.

On Saturday I was told there was no room for passion. This was a matter of scientific study. I continued on with scientific study questions that had answers like, 'I don't know', 'We are not sure', 'We will have to see'....
On Sunday I put pressure on all of them by moving to immediately discontinue checking in MH peewee C hockey leagues based on MH committee study.
There was some heated and passionate discussion as I sat there and smiled through the recess to 'discuss' it.
After the recess I rescinded my motion with a comment regarding the passion that IS involved with this discussion.

Brilliant!

[Wildcathcky]

Is there any chance that MN Hockey would refuse to follow a USA Hockey rule banning checking in peewee? MN Hockey has gone on it's own with regard to the age cut off.

Yes and No.

And No, MH did not go their own way on the age cut-off.
If you look at rosters they say USAH bantam, MH pee-wee. Our pee-wee teams are 'really' USAH bantam teams and bantams are midgets.
MH 'went its own way' but here was a way to do it.

But to answer the question: Not following USAH rulebook on checking would be hard to do. BUT the idea of it is being kicked around.

Based on the roster explanation given above, a USAH rule banning checking at the peewee level would not apply to MN peewees since they are actually USAH bantams. Seems like there is a pretty straightforward argument that MN could allow checking in peewee without refusing to follow the USAH rulebook.

[defense]

Is there any chance that MN Hockey would refuse to follow a USA Hockey rule banning checking in peewee? MN Hockey has gone on it's own with regard to the age cut off.

Yes and No.

And No, MH did not go their own way on the age cut-off.
If you look at rosters they say USAH bantam, MH pee-wee. Our pee-wee teams are 'really' USAH bantam teams and bantams are midgets.
MH 'went its own way' but here was a way to do it.

But to answer the question: Not following USAH rulebook on checking would be hard to do. BUT the idea of it is being kicked around.

Based on the roster explanation given above, a USAH rule banning checking at the peewee level would not apply to MN peewees since they are actually USAH bantams. Seems like there is a pretty straightforward argument that MN could allow checking in peewee without refusing to follow the USAH rulebook.

Ya, what gives??? or do they want to ban checking for the age group that is our peewees??

[elliott70]

Is there any chance that MN Hockey would refuse to follow a USA Hockey rule banning checking in peewee? MN Hockey has gone on it's own with regard to the age cut off.

Yes and No.

And No, MH did not go their own way on the age cut-off.
If you look at rosters they say USAH bantam, MH pee-wee. Our pee-wee teams are 'really' USAH bantam teams and bantams are midgets.
MH 'went its own way' but here was a way to do it.

But to answer the question: Not following USAH rulebook on checking would be hard to do. BUT the idea of it is being kicked around.

Based on the roster explanation given above, a USAH rule banning checking at the peewee level would not apply to MN peewees since they are actually USAH bantams. Seems like there is a pretty straightforward argument that MN could allow checking in peewee without refusing to follow the USAH rulebook.

Yes, that was brought up but I am not sure the MH board in total sees it that way.

[the_juiceman]

Yes and No.

And No, MH did not go their own way on the age cut-off.
If you look at rosters they say USAH bantam, MH pee-wee. Our pee-wee teams are 'really' USAH bantam teams and bantams are midgets.
MH 'went its own way' but here was a way to do it.

But to answer the question: Not following USAH rulebook on checking would be hard to do. BUT the idea of it is being kicked around.

Based on the roster explanation given above, a USAH rule banning checking at the peewee level would not apply to MN peewees since they are actually USAH bantams. Seems like there is a pretty straightforward argument that MN could allow checking in peewee without refusing to follow the USAH rulebook.

Yes, that was rought up but I am not sure teh MH board in total sees it that way.

USAH peewee is 98 & 99, MN peewee is some 97's, all 98's and some 99's--how is that considered USAH bantam's?

[Bronc]

Mark, would you be okay if USA Hockey moved forward as they'd like and the Minnesota affiliate figuratively 'seceded from the union' a la Quebec and kept hitting at Pee Wees?

I think it would be nice to have a control group to compare the rest to as these kids age.

No, not for secession.
If everyone (USAH & MH leadership) thought a control group would be a good thing than yes.

I dont support this idea but I do support unity.

MH will communicate with USAH throughout this process.

Unity for the sake of unity is not a good thing when we are talking about such dyametric viewpoints. Again a vast majority of those were against it in Minnesota, not 50%, not 60%, but appx 90% over a key issue.

When two people always agree, one of them is not needed.

[elliott70]

Based on the roster explanation given above, a USAH rule banning checking at the peewee level would not apply to MN peewees since they are actually USAH bantams. Seems like there is a pretty straightforward argument that MN could allow checking in peewee without refusing to follow the USAH rulebook.

Yes, that was rought up but I am not sure teh MH board in total sees it that way.

USAH peewee is 98 & 99, MN peewee is some 97's, all 98's and some 99's--how is that considered USAH bantam's?

The group is measured by the oldest player.
That is how all MH pee-wee teams are registered; as USAH bantams.

[elliott70]

Mark, would you be okay if USA Hockey moved forward as they'd like and the Minnesota affiliate figuratively 'seceded from the union' a la Quebec and kept hitting at Pee Wees?

I think it would be nice to have a control group to compare the rest to as these kids age.

No, not for secession.
If everyone (USAH & MH leadership) thought a control group would be a good thing than yes.

I dont support this idea but I do support unity.

MH will communicate with USAH throughout this process.

Unity for the sake of unity is not a good thing when we are talking about such dyametric viewpoints. Again a vast majority of those were against it in Minnesota, not 50%, not 60%, but appx 90% over a key issue.

When two people always agree, one of them is not needed.

And who is going to lead the revolution?
I am part of tjhe organization or I am not.
If (IF) I were to be involved in a change, I would first resign from the current organization.
My position, I am part of it, I work within for those things that I (or the people I represent) want changed.

[O-townClown]

Sometimes you hear that leaders should lead. This seems to be an objective counter to representing constituents. Yes, there is a great deal of resistance to what USA Hockey is working on. Some of it is informed. Most of it isn't.

I'm fine either way, but I have yet to hear anyone refute Fisher's concussion reasoning, Norris's window of trainability, or McLaughlin's assertion that PW age players fall into two camps.

If the governing body needed majority support before changing anything, it sure would call into question the need for a governing body.

Basketball at one point didn't allow dribbling. Football was played without helmets. In soccer a goalkeeper could pick up a ball passed by his own defender.

Youth hockey could easily weather a small change and it will still be hockey. Very interested in seeing how this plays out.

[MrBoDangles]

Sometimes you hear that leaders should lead. This seems to be an objective counter to representing constituents. Yes, there is a great deal of resistance to what USA Hockey is working on. Some of it is informed. Most of it isn't.

I'm fine either way, but I have yet to hear anyone refute Fisher's concussion reasoning, Norris's window of trainability, or McLaughlin's assertion that PW age players fall into two camps.

If the governing body needed majority support before changing anything, it sure would call into question the need for a governing body.

Basketball at one point didn't allow dribbling. Football was played without helmets. In soccer a goalkeeper could pick up a ball passed by his own defender.

Youth hockey could easily weather a small change and it will still be hockey. Very interested in seeing how this plays out.

And public schools still teach one man's theory from the early 1800's.
There is also a kid that started Hockey at fourteen and ended up being the school's second all time leading scorer at a pretty decent program.
Divide the PeeWees and some won't get the same opportunity....

[Bronc]

Sometimes you hear that leaders should lead. This seems to be an objective counter to representing constituents. Yes, there is a great deal of resistance to what USA Hockey is working on. Some of it is informed. Most of it isn't.

I'm fine either way, but I have yet to hear anyone refute Fisher's concussion reasoning, Norris's window of trainability, or McLaughlin's assertion that PW age players fall into two camps.

If the governing body needed majority support before changing anything, it sure would call into question the need for a governing body.

Basketball at one point didn't allow dribbling. Football was played without helmets. In soccer a goalkeeper could pick up a ball passed by his own defender.

Youth hockey could easily weather a small change and it will still be hockey. Very interested in seeing how this plays out.

And public schools still teach one man's theory from the early 1800's.
There is also a kid that started Hockey at fourteen and ended up being the school's second all time leading scorer at a pretty decent program.
Divide the PeeWees and some won't get the same opportunity....

What we have learned is that USA Hockey & Minn Hockey don't really care what the membership wants or believes (even though they keep telling us to make our voices heard). You are correct the vast majority disapprove of their opinions, because that is all they are just like yours or mine (I loved the idea of a test to judge results, but then again that might prove them wrong and they don't want that).

What we have proved is that regardless if people are united in Minnesota or not, their is enough "Unity" amongst the board that they don't care about the memberships "Unity" in their beliefs. You are correct they don't need to listen to us, much like our politicians and that is why we get to vote them in and out. Unfortunately these boards have postured themselves so they can do what they want when they want and the membership cannot have them removed.

All we have heard is we think and we believe. We are going to create even more ambiguity in the rules and for the officials.

So much for clarity, facts and bringing unity to the membership. You are not reinventing the wheel for the membership, but dumbing it down on someones intuition because they (a very small group) feel they are smarter than everyone else. And just maybe it will work.

Yes Minnesota is a single voice to USA Hockey, but I have to believe we are one of the single largest voices in the membership.

Will hockey survive, yes. Is this a small change? NO!

We are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and I believe we will lose higher end players and those that like physical play (In junior high you don't play touch football).

The majority of football players, fans and coaches wanted helmets and facemasks, but they didn't say lets play touch football.

Lets worry about unifying Minnesota Hockey. Not running from litigation or towards USA Hockey.

Kum By Ya (or however you spell it)