Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[spin-o-rama]

wpiia,

basically you are advocating a grouping by grade rather than age. Otherwise you are slicing off the poor May heldbacks.

How's that data presentation coming along?

[spin-o-rama]

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??

If Sept 1 is the correct date (my argument) then July 1 is closer to Sept 1 than June 1 is, and therefore less wrong.

[spin-o-rama]

Spin- I'm talking about summer B-days, giving the parents the choice.

Why not let May decide if they want to be oldest? It has to end somewhere.

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 was asking about playing against kids that were "playing down." Some people don't think you should be allowed to play up. Another discussion topic.

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]

But if it were allowed in the rules, it wouldn't be dishonest and lot's would do it. If USA hockey changed the cutoff date to Dec 1, do you think only 10% of Dec born kids would elect to be the oldest, and the rest would play up?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

wpiia,

basically you are advocating a grouping by grade rather than age. Otherwise you are slicing off the poor May heldbacks.

How's that data presentation coming along?

data is ready to go spin ... but I'm still waiting for the answer to this 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?

[black sheep]

i am now completely convinced that people need better guidance from planned parenthood or please stop whining

what people are looking for are continuous short cuts or advantages to everything.

1 yr is 1 yr...no matter where it starts or ends...

maybe so jonny can be more "equal" to other kids we need to divide up into 6 month periods and have major and minors, then you only have to compete with half of the kids ur age...that would be easier right...until u grow up and realize there are still going to be other people better than u.

jan 1st screws dec, feb 1st screws jan, march 1st screws feb, apr 1st screws march, may 1st screws apr, june 1st screws may, july 1st screws june, aug 1st screws july, sept 1st screws aug, oct 1st screws sept, nov 1st screws oct, dec 1st screws nov....

one of our flock is a late June...youngest in grade...youngest player on teams...great kid...so who cares...make no excuses


life is a marathon not a sprint

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

jan 1st screws dec, feb 1st screws jan, march 1st screws feb, apr 1st screws march, may 1st screws apr, june 1st screws may, july 1st screws june, aug 1st screws july, sept 1st screws aug, oct 1st screws sept, nov 1st screws oct, dec 1st screws nov....

"who cares?"


Yes, you could focus on the negative and then just pick a date out of a hat ... or ... you could put some thought into it and select an appropriate date ... thought requires effort ... certainly not for everybody ... believe it or not, all dates are not created equal and every 12 month period is not equal ... in the mix there is a date that best suits Minnesota Hockey as a whole, minimizing relative age advantages and speaking to reason ... thank God for people who do care ...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Here's some facts relating to cutoff dates and relative age , which is more important to starting something than actual age ...

Let's examine 3 different cutoff dates and kids starting school/hockey this season - the only 3 hat have any merit. By birth year, by school start and by school end.

By Birth Year - January 1 cutoff date
January 1/2003 = 70 months
December 31/2003 = 58 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 20.7%

By School Start - September 1 cutoff
September 1/2003 = 73 months
August 31/2004 = 61 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 19.7%

By School End - June 1 cutoff
June 1/2003 = 76 months
May 31/2004 = 64 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 18.7%

As you can see, the 12 month actual age difference is always the same, but the older the boys get and farther removed their birthdays are from the hockey start date, the less the relative age difference becomes.

The most exaggerated example is the January-December example, as the December kids would be the absolute youngest starters of any group sampling. No doubt, this exaggerated relative age difference accounts for much of the January advantage in systems that run by birth year.

However, here in Minnesota we go by school year. Both the school start and school end models cater to that philosophy, however, the school end model (June 1) MINIMIZING the relative age advantage and ensure the oldest start date of the 3 models. This gives kids a greater chance to begin with a positive experience and thus - continue with one.

MINIMIZING the relative age advantage in sports is one of the key ingredients to MAXIMIZING a positive experience, MAXIMIZING player retention and MAXIMIZING competitiveness all the way up.

As you can see, not all 12 month gaps are created equal and there is an appropriate start date based on the Minnesota School calendar and it is June 1.

The June 1 date also captures the bulk of kids who are held back (summer birthdays) and ensures that kids in grade 9 will have the option to play bantam hockey.

July 1 fits no where in the equation and makes no sense whatsoever based on any model, school year, birth year or otherwise. It's an arbitrary date which serves to empower some while alienating others for no particular reason - it (July 1) needs to go.

[council member retired]

If a June 1st date allows more kids to play hockey with their peers it will have my support. It is frustating to hear about a 9th grader whom isn't eligible for bantam or U14. The next level, jv, varsity, or jr gold is not always a option or some members. Some cities may not even have one of those programs. From past experience May is no more relevant then February.

[spin-o-rama]

Here's some facts relating to cutoff dates and relative age , which is more important to starting something than actual age ...

Let's examine 3 different cutoff dates and kids starting school/hockey this season - the only 3 hat have any merit. By birth year, by school start and by school end.

By Birth Year - January 1 cutoff date
January 1/2003 = 70 months
December 31/2003 = 58 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 20.7%

By School Start - September 1 cutoff
September 1/2003 = 73 months
August 31/2004 = 61 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 19.7%

By School End - June 1 cutoff
June 1/2003 = 76 months
May 31/2004 = 64 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 18.7%

As you can see, the 12 month actual age difference is always the same, but the older the boys get and farther removed their birthdays are from the hockey start date, the less the relative age difference becomes.

The most exaggerated example is the January-December example, as the December kids would be the absolute youngest starters of any group sampling. No doubt, this exaggerated relative age difference accounts for much of the January advantage in systems that run by birth year.

However, here in Minnesota we go by school year. Both the school start and school end models cater to that philosophy, however, the school end model (June 1) MINIMIZES the relative age advantage and ensure the oldest start date of the 3 models. This gives kids a greater chance to begin with a positive experience and thus - continue with one.

MINIMIZING the relative age advantage in sports is one of the key ingredients to sustaining a positive experience, player retention and competitiveness all the way up.

As you can see, not all 12 month gaps are created equal and there is an appropriate start date based on the Minnesota School calendar and it is June 1.

The June 1 date also captures the bulk of kids who are held back (summer birthdays) and ensures that kids in grade 9 will have the option to play bantam hockey.

July 1 fits no where in the equation and makes no sense whatsoever based on any model, school year, birth year or otherwise. It's an arbitrary date which serves to empower some while alienating others for no particular reason - it (July 1) needs to go.

You stated examples, not factual data.

Why do you assume that all June born kids are late starts? The linked data presented by the dept of education indicates less than 40% of Jun-Aug birthdays are late starts. Now you have a 8/31 born kid who started school at age 5 having to choose between playing with their grade and being further underage than your example's worst extreme or not playing with their grade. And these kids represent the majority.

[black sheep]

MAXIMIZING a positive experience, MAXIMIZING player retention and MAXIMIZING competitiveness all the way up.

if this is the goal...kids should be grouped by relative talent...not age

age does not create equality...talent does.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

By Birth Year - January 1 cutoff date
January 1/2003 = 70 months
December 31/2003 = 58 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 20.7%

By School Start - September 1 cutoff
September 1/2003 = 73 months
August 31/2004 = 61 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 19.7%

By School End - June 1 cutoff
June 1/2003 = 76 months
May 31/2004 = 64 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 18.7%

You stated examples, not factual data.

ummm, nope ... I'm pretty sure that's factual data. I don't think mathematics can be subjective. Though I'd be interested (and a little amused) in watching your attempts to refute it ...

Picking an ideal date means finding one that fits the Minnesota Hockey Philosophy while minimizing advantages. That's exactly what would be accomplished by synchronizing the start date with the end of the Minnesota School Year. June 1 is the perfect date for hockey in Minnesota - for ALL of it's participants ...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

if this is the goal...kids should be grouped by relative talent...not age

age does not create equality...talent does.

Ummm , I am speaking of relative age NOT relative talent ... that's a separate issue ... (in fact, kids are grouped by both appropriate age and appropriate level(talent) in Minnesota Hockey) ... the issue at hand is finding the BEST date (most appropriate) and not all dates are created equal ... we are working on the School Calendar because Minnesota Hockey is built around the Minnesota School system.

That in mind, synchronizing with the school end date MINIMIZES early advantages while preserving the current allowance for fsummer birthdays and in fact, enhancing the fairness in that by including ALL summer birthdays.

June 1 is the best fit.

[spin-o-rama]

If a June 1st date allows more kids to play hockey with their peers it will have my support.

Define peers. If it is age then any date will suffice. If it is by grade then let's align the age groups with grade - remembering that more June b-days start school at age 5.

It is frustating to hear about a 9th grader whom isn't eligible for bantam or U14. The next level, jv, varsity, or jr gold is not always a option or some members. Some cities may not even have one of those programs. From past experience May is no more relevant then February.

Parents can choose if their 9th grader is bantam eligible when they start them in school.
I bet for every 9th grader that isn't bantam eligible (earlier than 7/1 birthdate and a late start) and also has no other hockey options (jv, varsity, jr gold) there are at least twice as many kids (currently 7/1-8/31 regular start who never played hockey because they either would be playing a grade down or be over 2 years younger than their hockey peers if they played with their grade.
Move the date to 9/1 and expand jr gold/ jv options. It will grow hockey at both ends.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Move the date to 9/1 and expand jr gold/ jv options. It will grow hockey at both ends.

Move it to 6/1 and it will really grow ... at both ends and in the middle ...

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

If a June 1st date allows more kids to play hockey with their peers it will have my support. It is frustating to hear about a 9th grader whom isn't eligible for bantam or U14. The next level, jv, varsity, or jr gold is not always a option or some members. Some cities may not even have one of those programs. From past experience May is no more relevant then February.

Yes, not to mention, May simply fragments the kids further. One of the knocks on the January 1 cutoff is that it fragments the kids every other year.

Right now the kids are already in 2 groups;

1.) those whose birthdays fall within the school year

and;

2.) those who have summer birthdays

Just as January separates them again in the midst of the school year, so would May 1 or March 1 or December 1 or any other school year cut. This is exactly what the July 1 cutoff does now, further fragmenting kids again, creating 2 classes of summer birthdays (entitled and non-entitled) in addition to the in-school birthdays.

Keep it simple. Synchronize by the school calendar and keep all summer birthdays in the same grouping. June 1 accomplishes this PLUS it has the added benefit of accomodating the lions share of held back kids and it also MINIMIZES relative age, ensuring the most balanced and fair start for all kids.

The case for June 1 is very compelling if you believe, like most do, that Minnesota Hockey has the right philosophy.

[black sheep]

Ummm , I am speaking of relative age NOT relative talent ...

Ummmm...u were talking about maximizing...experience, retention & competitiveness

MAXIMIZING a positive experience, MAXIMIZING player retention and MAXIMIZING competitiveness all the way up.

relative age does not accopmplish those goals...age is not an equalizer it is a grouping

playing with peer groups (a person who is of equal standing with another in a group ) would

[blondegirlsdad]

My kid is an 8/29 kid, was too smart for her own good (still is) and entered kindergarden 2 days early. Now playing hockey "with her grade" and is probably youngest in her group, and lives on the bubble. Sucks, because if she were really playing with her age, she'd dominate, but school would be way too easy, and she wouldn't be playing with her friends.

So, instead of changing the hockey registration date, what can be done about changing the school registration date?

[spin-o-rama]

If a June 1st date allows more kids to play hockey with their peers it will have my support. It is frustating to hear about a 9th grader whom isn't eligible for bantam or U14. The next level, jv, varsity, or jr gold is not always a option or some members. Some cities may not even have one of those programs. From past experience May is no more relevant then February.

Yes, not to mention, May simply fragments the kids further. One of the knocks on the January 1 cutoff is that it fragments the kids every other year.

Right now the kids are already in 2 groups;

1.) those whose birthdays fall within the school year

and;

2.) those who have summer birthdays

Just as January separates them again in the midst of the school year, so would May 1 or March 1 or December 1 or any other school year cut. This is exactly what the July 1 cutoff does now, further fragmenting kids again, creating 2 classes of summer birthdays (entitled and non-entitled) in addition to the in-school birthdays.

Keep it simple. Synchronize by the school calendar and keep all summer birthdays in the same grouping. They aren't already. Check out blondegirlsdad. June 1 accomplishes this PLUS it has the added benefit of accomodating the lions share of held back kids and it also MINIMIZES relative age no it doesn't. explain how the 8/31 regular start kid is getting less gapped under your 6/1 example. Remember the goal to have this kid play with their grade. ,ensuring the most balanced and fair start for all kids.

The case for June 1 is very compelling if you believe, like most do, that Minnesota Hockey has the right philosophy.

June 1 doesn't minimize an age gap. The age gap is only minimized if there is a hard line on birthdays. Then it doesn't matter what the cutoff date is. It's the minimizing of the age gap while allowing kids to play with their grade that is the trick. 9/1 does that more than 6/1 or 7/1. More kids born 6/1 to 9/1 start school at age 5. Crunch your numbers again and you'll see that a move to 6/1 widens that gap.
You have yet to show how more June kids will be advantaged by a 6/1 move than will be disadvantaged. And with more June kids starting K at age 5, you won't be able to.

[CoachCleats]

Here's some facts relating to cutoff dates and relative age , which is more important to starting something than actual age ...

Let's examine 3 different cutoff dates and kids starting school/hockey this season - the only 3 hat have any merit. By birth year, by school start and by school end.

By Birth Year - January 1 cutoff date
January 1/2003 = 70 months
December 31/2003 = 58 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 20.7%

By School Start - September 1 cutoff
September 1/2003 = 73 months
August 31/2004 = 61 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 19.7%

By School End - June 1 cutoff
June 1/2003 = 76 months
May 31/2004 = 64 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 18.7%

As you can see, the 12 month actual age difference is always the same, but the older the boys get and farther removed their birthdays are from the hockey start date, the less the relative age difference becomes.

The most exaggerated example is the January-December example, as the December kids would be the absolute youngest starters of any group sampling. No doubt, this exaggerated relative age difference accounts for much of the January advantage in systems that run by birth year.

However, here in Minnesota we go by school year. Both the school start and school end models cater to that philosophy, however, the school end model (June 1) MINIMIZING the relative age advantage and ensure the oldest start date of the 3 models. This gives kids a greater chance to begin with a positive experience and thus - continue with one.

MINIMIZING the relative age advantage in sports is one of the key ingredients to MAXIMIZING a positive experience, MAXIMIZING player retention and MAXIMIZING competitiveness all the way up.

As you can see, not all 12 month gaps are created equal and there is an appropriate start date based on the Minnesota School calendar and it is June 1.

The June 1 date also captures the bulk of kids who are held back (summer birthdays) and ensures that kids in grade 9 will have the option to play bantam hockey.

July 1 fits no where in the equation and makes no sense whatsoever based on any model, school year, birth year or otherwise. It's an arbitrary date which serves to empower some while alienating others for no particular reason - it (July 1) needs to go.

PUCK - Is this the Real Data you referred to earlier - or is that forthcoming?

[greybeard58]

The July 1 birthday was what USA Hockey went to, so ask them why,MN Hockey moved back from Sept 1 and also the birth year also was changed to match USA Hockey.
The season for Mn Hockey starts Sept.1 and ends in March. So if an age change is needed then Sept 1 but also change the birth year to the way it was when we were younger that USA Hockey
The numbers that came out of the committee at the winter meeting were just that numbers with no facts which was admitted at the time. No registration numbers were used at the time and that was also admitted. I would bet this is pushed by a few that are in associations that do not allow players to move up and are looking very close to home rather than what is the best for Mn Hockey. I was disappointed when Mn Hockey moved the date from Sept 1 just to be nice to USA Hockey, they should have left it where it was.

[valleyball]

Here's some facts relating to cutoff dates and relative age , which is more important to starting something than actual age ...

Let's examine 3 different cutoff dates and kids starting school/hockey this season - the only 3 hat have any merit. By birth year, by school start and by school end.

By Birth Year - January 1 cutoff date
January 1/2003 = 70 months
December 31/2003 = 58 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 20.7%

By School Start - September 1 cutoff
September 1/2003 = 73 months
August 31/2004 = 61 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 19.7%

By School End - June 1 cutoff
June 1/2003 = 76 months
May 31/2004 = 64 months
Actual Age Difference =12 months
Relative Age Difference = 18.7%

As you can see, the 12 month actual age difference is always the same, but the older the boys get and farther removed their birthdays are from the hockey start date, the less the relative age difference becomes.

The most exaggerated example is the January-December example, as the December kids would be the absolute youngest starters of any group sampling. No doubt, this exaggerated relative age difference accounts for much of the January advantage in systems that run by birth year.

However, here in Minnesota we go by school year. Both the school start and school end models cater to that philosophy, however, the school end model (June 1) MINIMIZING the relative age advantage and ensure the oldest start date of the 3 models. This gives kids a greater chance to begin with a positive experience and thus - continue with one.

MINIMIZING the relative age advantage in sports is one of the key ingredients to MAXIMIZING a positive experience, MAXIMIZING player retention and MAXIMIZING competitiveness all the way up.

As you can see, not all 12 month gaps are created equal and there is an appropriate start date based on the Minnesota School calendar and it is June 1.

The June 1 date also captures the bulk of kids who are held back (summer birthdays) and ensures that kids in grade 9 will have the option to play bantam hockey.

July 1 fits no where in the equation and makes no sense whatsoever based on any model, school year, birth year or otherwise. It's an arbitrary date which serves to empower some while alienating others for no particular reason - it (July 1) needs to go.

puck - good stuf but do you know how we can see the info about "the large numbers of players with a June birthdate that delay entry into Kindergarten" Any idea when that will be revealed?

US and Mn Depts of Educ have no idea what they are doing - probably transposed the numbers

[valleyball]

The July 1 birthday was what USA Hockey went to, so ask them why,MN Hockey moved back from Sept 1 and also the birth year also was changed to match USA Hockey.
The season for Mn Hockey starts Sept.1 and ends in March. So if an age change is needed then Sept 1 but also change the birth year to the way it was when we were younger that USA Hockey
The numbers that came out of the committee at the winter meeting were just that numbers with no facts which was admitted at the time. No registration numbers were used at the time and that was also admitted. I would bet this is pushed by a few that are in associations that do not allow players to move up and are looking very close to home rather than what is the best for Mn Hockey. I was disappointed when Mn Hockey moved the date from Sept 1 just to be nice to USA Hockey, they should have left it where it was.

No facts is correct but is MH starting to believe PD's babble? His claim about the large numbers is on the MH website front and center

[valleyball]

It took me less than 15 minutes to find the NCES and MDE stats....MH does no due dilligenece before they post?

[valleyball]

and nobody had an inckling that this giuy was making this stuff up?

and now he has his own survey?

Its unbelievable