Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[muckandgrind]

Again, I'm agnostic to the decision. But, technically, all the Julys-Mays are harmed incrementally, since they all move one notch lower if Junes become the new oldest month. Again, Junes receive a huge advantage under this scenario. But the disadvantage that other birth months receive is much smaller than the advantage that Junes recieve. I do believe that whatever decision is made, it should be done thoughtfully, with input from all, and done for a very good reason.

I'm still curious as to stats on recent birth month enrollment, especially specific to Minnesota, but can't find any. If I try to Google this, some of the "highest-rated" links turn out to be earlier posts in this thread. Can I use any of those as definitive sources?

Again, I don't see the big deal. Under the current situation, July b-days have the advantage...under the proposed new scenario, that advantage shifts to June b-days.....BIG FREAKIN' WHOOP.

[welders]

Further evidence which proves that the June 1 movement is a ruse.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2000/ch ... popup=true

Minnesota Hockey cannot credibly contend that there areVirtually all kids enter Kindergarten before age 6. Almost no one delays. A fact which cannot be denied.

Such blatant ignorance of the facts is questionable - a small minority that want to seemingly advantage their own by changing the rules for all.

The Date is irrelevant. It is the objectiveness of the process (or the lack there of) which needs to be called into question.

Are you kidding me? The data you cite is from all 50 states 12 years ago. That hardly proves that there aren't "large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten", especially in the state of MN. I hope you don't intend to reference this 12 year old nationwide data to call into question the coming results of the recent survey by MN Hockey.

[CoachCleats]

Ok use the 2009 number from the Minn Dept of Ed. I don't care - use something, anything.

Can't you provide even 1 credible source of information to support your cause?

The survey is a total joke

[Haute hockeymom]

Forget about the "survey". It employs nonprobability sampling and the results are therefore meaningless.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

I have some real data that I will post, but before I do ... a question for the opposers of the date change and the agnostics of the date change.

Specifically, CoachCleats, HauteMom, valleyball, sinbin, wasilla, spin-o-rama;

Setting aside, for the moment, the prospect of a September 1 or January 1 date and just look at the current Minnesota Hockey philosophy;

Can we at least agree that June 1 makes more sense than July 1? That if we are going to make allowances for summer birthdays then we should include them all?

Please post your answer yes or no if June 1 makes more sense than July 1 ... If your answer is no, then please explain, how can you argue against the June kids while advocating for the July kids when they are in the same boat? By what reasoning do you allow for only some of them but others not?

I have very compelling and factual data that I will post, but first, I would like to see if we have some common ground in this discussion. Have we at least shed the July 1 date, (in this discusson anyways), and if not, why?

[old goalie85]

I know I'm not on the list. My feeling is that if you have July, why not june. I still think it should be up to the parents!

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

LOL oldgoalie ... i was directing at opponents/agnostics ... wasn't leaving you out

[old goalie85]

Puck- I got ya.

[spin-o-rama]

I have some real data that I will post, but before I do ... a question for the opposers of the date change and the agnostics of the date change.

Specifically, CoachCleats, HauteMom, valleyball, sinbin, wasilla, spin-o-rama;

Setting aside, for the moment, the prospect of a September 1 or January 1 date and just look at the current Minnesota Hockey philosophy;

Can we at least agree that June 1 makes more sense than July 1? That if we are going to make allowances for summer birthdays then we should include them all?

Please post your answer yes or no if June 1 makes more sense than July 1 ... If your answer is no, then please explain, how can you argue against the June kids while advocating for the July kids when they are in the same boat? By what reasoning do you allow for only some of them but others not?

I have very compelling and factual data that I will post, but first, I would like to see if we have some common ground in this discussion. Have we at least shed the July 1 date, (in this discusson anyways), and if not, why?

Short answer: It's a move in the wrong direction.
MH says they want kids playing with their grade. More kids (including June-Aug born) start school at age 5. The date should be 9/1 to match the school cutoff date.

[spin-o-rama]

I know I'm not on the list. My feeling is that if you have July, why not june.

If June, why not May? If May, why not April?

I still think it should be up to the parents!

Are you ok with 97s playing in a 98 tournament against your son?
And if yes, why not 96s, etc?

[observer]

I agree that June 1 makes more sense than July 1.

September is just weird as it makes no sense in terms of a natural split.
I don't favor January as I believe the MN kids do have an advantage playing with their grade during the association season but playing with their birth year during the off season.

I honestly believe the fussers have a child who's on a team with a player/friend that that is a June and they don't want to lose them. I think it's for selfish reasons. Hopefully most associations would allow a player to play up with their classmates if they chose.

But, when they changed the traveling baseball date from June to May 1 the large associations forced their kids down which was interesting but you realize they did it to make the rule clean, skip all the pleading phone calls, but also it immediately improved all their levels as each level got 1-2-3-4 May birthday kids that got to repeat a season. If they forced all their kids down, and some associations didn't, it was an immediate advantage as they now had some May birthdays and some other competing associations did not. I think June makes more sense and hopefully someone has numbers that show the natural split. Baseball went with May simply because traveling baseball starts in May and they wanted to say that the kids on the 12 team really were 12.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

MH says they want kids playing with their grade. More kids (including June-Aug born) start school at age 5. The date should be 9/1 to match the school cutoff date.

I understand your point. You have a strong argument based on the school year. September 1 is a date that treats all 12 months the same, creates exceptions for no one. There is a certain fairness in that.

But on the chance that MH doesn't see it that way and decides to continue to allow exceptions for summer babies ... shouldn't all summer babies get that same option? Why does the baby born July 1 get an option the baby born June 30th doesn't when the option itself is based on his off-season birthday? They both have off-season (summer) birthdays! How do you aregue against one while advocating for the other?

[muckandgrind]

MH says they want kids playing with their grade. More kids (including June-Aug born) start school at age 5. The date should be 9/1 to match the school cutoff date.

I understand your point. You have a strong argument based on the school year. September 1 is a date that treats all 12 months the same, creates exceptions for no one. There is a certain fairness in that.

But on the chance that MH doesn't see it that way and decides to continue to allow exceptions for summer babies ... shouldn't all summer babies get that same option? Why does the baby born July 1 get an option the baby born June 30th doesn't when the option itself is based on his off-season birthday? They both have off-season (summer) birthdays! How do you aregue against one while advocating for the other?

Personally, I couldn't care less.....make the cutoff date March 13th.

[spin-o-rama]

I agree that June 1 makes more sense than July 1.

September is just weird as it makes no sense in terms of a natural split. Yes it does. It matches the split put in by the dept of education.
I don't favor January as I believe the MN kids do have an advantage playing with their grade during the association season but playing with their birth year during the off season.

I honestly believe the fussers have a child who's on a team with a player/friend that that is a June and they don't want to lose them. I think it's for selfish reasons. Hopefully most associations would allow a player to play up with their classmates if they chose.

But, when they changed the traveling baseball date from June to May 1 the large associations forced their kids down which was interesting but you realize they did it to make the rule clean, skip all the pleading phone calls, but also it immediately improved all their levels as each level got 1-2-3-4 May birthday kids that got to repeat a season. If they forced all their kids down, and some associatrions didn't, it was an immediate advantage as they now had some May birthdays and some other competing associations did not. I think June makes more sense and hopefully someone has numbers that show the natural split. It doesn't make more sense based on the valid data provided. Speculative and conjured data is all there is to support June 1. Baseball went with May simply because traveling baseball starts in May and they wanted to say that the kids on the 12 team really were 12. That makes sense. If you want the cutoff date to match the season, set it at the beginning of the season. If you want the cutoff date to match the school grades, set it at the school cutoff date.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

It doesn't make more sense based on the valid data provided. Speculative and conjured data is all there is to support June 1.

Based on what does July 1 make more sense than June 1? Tell me exactly, based on what? Tell me exactly how you advocate that one summer birthday is different than another summer birthday. What is your reasoning? Where is your data?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Personally, I could care less.....make the cutoff date March 13th.

March 18 would suit me fine. That makes my kid the oldest

[spin-o-rama]

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_art ... r_id=80470

No change in the Age Classification start date of July 1st for the 2010-11 season
.The Minnesota Hockey Board of Directors is currently considering a change to the Minnesota Hockey Age Classification. Currently the Age Classificationyear is from July 1st – June 30th. The change being considered is to adopt a June 1st – May 31st Age Classificationyear. There are several reasons to consider this change, most notably the large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten and thus end up playing hockey every other year with players that are ahead of them by one – two grades in school. There are approximately 4000 Minnesota Hockey players with June birthdates. All of these families were recently sent a survey via email. The intent of the survey is to gather real data and feedback about this proposed change to help guide the Board of Directors in their decision making process. The Minnesota Hockey Board of Directors will discuss this topic further at the next Board Meeting held June 25th – 27th in Red Wing. Please note that if a change is adopted it will not take effect until the 2011-12 season. If you have any feedback you’d like to share, please email it to info@minnesotahockey.org

MH is doing their own spinning of things. What is a "large number of players?" 500 is a large number. If it were the majority, surely they would have stated it that way. Basically they are proposing a move to cater to a minority of the kids.
MH is not being transparent.

[CoachCleats]

A bit of refinement in our population and.......

we are down to 5%. Where are the large numbers?

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000039.pdf

I don't oppose any Date.
What I am opposed to is MH being played by a tiny minority using false representations to advance their personal agenda.

[old goalie85]

Spin- I'm talking about summer B-days, giving the parents the choice. And my 01 does play summer hockey with the 00's. Not a big deal at this age. When talking about 2nd year Pee Wees and Bantams bigger deal. I just don't think that many parents would play the kids down. I think most ,like 90% of the folks out there, are honest. [ at least when it comes to children]

[spin-o-rama]

It doesn't make more sense based on the valid data provided. Speculative and conjured data is all there is to support June 1.

Based on what does July 1 make more sense than June 1? Tell me exactly, based on what? Tell me exactly how you advocate that one summer birthday is different than another summer birthday. What is your reasoning? Where is your data?

July 1 is less wrong than June 1.
I'm fine with March 13. It's mh claiming the move will allow more kids to play with their grade that makes the date wrong.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

July 1 is less wrong than June 1.

go on ... because ...

Notwithstanding the fact that more kids will play with their grade, how do you advocate for a July baby and rally against a June baby? What is the logic?

[spin-o-rama]

MH says they want kids playing with their grade. More kids (including June-Aug born) start school at age 5. The date should be 9/1 to match the school cutoff date.

I understand your point. You have a strong argument based on the school year. September 1 is a date that treats all 12 months the same, creates exceptions for no one. There is a certain fairness in that.

But on the chance that MH doesn't see it that way and decides to continue to allow exceptions for summer babies ... shouldn't all summer babies get that same option? Why does the baby born July 1 get an option the baby born June 30th doesn't when the option itself is based on his off-season birthday? They both have off-season (summer) birthdays! How do you aregue against one while advocating for the other?

Why should summer (and more specifically June-Aug) be the standard? Why not astrology? June 1 would cut the Gemini in half. Better move the date to May 18th or whatever. There has to be a cutoff somewhere.
The standard mh claims to be using is school grade. 9/1 is the logical date. Some kids delay their K start. Some start early. Most kids start at 5, including June kids. Align the date with the school date. 9/1.

[muckandgrind]

It doesn't make more sense based on the valid data provided. Speculative and conjured data is all there is to support June 1.

Based on what does July 1 make more sense than June 1? Tell me exactly, based on what? Tell me exactly how you advocate that one summer birthday is different than another summer birthday. What is your reasoning? Where is your data?

July 1 is less wrong than June 1 .
I'm fine with March 13. It's mh claiming the move will allow more kids to play with their grade that makes the date wrong.

Now you have my curiosity piqued.....why is July 1 "less wrong" than June 1??

[old goalie85]

This suject sucks, I'm with muck make it the 13th.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Why should summer (and more specifically June-Aug) be the standard?

June 1 makes sense for the same reason (and then some) as September 1. You advocate September 1 because it signifies (roughly) the BEGINNING of the school year. Proponents of June 1 advocate it because it signifies (roughly) the END of the school year. It's exactly the same argument with some added considerations for summer birthdays.

Because they are different in that their bithdays fall outside of the school year and at the end, making them more likely to be held back than kids who turn 6 during the school year.

Therefore, we either make an exception or we do not. I understand you believe we should not. You might be right. However, if we do make the exception then we need to make the exception for all of them and not just some of them. That's the issue at hand.

So back to the question; If we decide to make an exception for a July 1 baby because he is born after the school year and might get held back - then why are we not making the same exception for the June 25 birthday, who is also born after the school year and might get held back? How do you advocate for one while supressing the other?

I understand the logic behind cutting at December 31 & January 1 signifying the end of one year and beginning of another.

I understand the logic behind cutting at August 31 and September 1 signifying the start of a new school year.

I understand the logic behind cuting at May 31st and June 1 signifying the end of the old school year.

What I am trying to understand is the logic behind a July 1 cutoff and I am hoping that opponents/agnostics of the improvement to June 1 over july 1 can somehow clarify for us the significance of this cutoff.

If we decide to make an exception for a July 1 baby because he is born after the school year and might get held back - then why are we not making the same exception for the June 25 birthday, who is also born after the school year and might get held back? How do you advocate for one while supressing the other?