The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://www.ushsho.com/forums/
MrBoDangles wrote:I didn't plan well either, just dumb luck with 1/4 and 1/30 birthdates for the oldest two or maybe thinking with the wrong head...Who says the little head isn't smarter then the big head?helightsthelamp wrote: We all didn't plan our kids birth/c-section as well as you.....
That's thinking globally and without reacting locally by the membership.InigoMontoya wrote:So if D6 decided it wanted to allow checking in PW's, they'll just allow it for D6?MN Hockey is run by it's members.
Relax...16,17 & 18 are much more fun for the players and parents. Sit back and enjoy...where were you two years ago?MrBoDangles wrote:
Early birthdate kids will always get to try out for the 13's/14's twice and the late birthdate kids will only get to once. This is a terrible fail!
Time is ticking for MNH
It gets worse?Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Relax...16,17 & 18 are much more fun for the players and parents. Sit back and enjoy...where were you two years ago?MrBoDangles wrote:
Early birthdate kids will always get to try out for the 13's/14's twice and the late birthdate kids will only get to once. This is a terrible fail!
Time is ticking for MNH
A dad last night called it Reebokgate....... Very fitting!observer wrote:Maybe they should have added just one year, the 99s. To add the 00s, with birthdays before July 1, is unusual since only Minnesota uses the July 1 cutoff. The Advanced Program is usually about birthyear and it unfair to include the older 00s unless all are invited. I'm sure some Districts have no problem rounding up a big group and others needed to add the older 00s to get to a decent number of registrants. Districts are quite a bit different from one another in terms of numbers and numbers willing to double up on spring sports activity.
I'm sure the 99 and 00 AAA coaches are upset as it's disturbing their spring season. That's probably causing even more distress among the 00s with birthdays after July 1 as they're left out. I didn't look at any of the schedules but are the top 99 and 00 AAA players trying to skate 50 hours in the summer even participating?
I'll agree the extra year of participation for the older 00s is totally unfair.
District 3- still on their sitegreybeard58 wrote:Which Districts are inviting just bantam eligible 00's?
helightsthelamp wrote:I'm no math whiz, but I do know that even the oldest 00, born on January 1 2000, cannot possibly be aged 14 this year. So MNHockey needs to call this group 13s/14s/15s.
edgeless2 wrote:helightsthelamp wrote:I'm no math whiz, but I do know that even the oldest 00, born on January 1 2000, cannot possibly be aged 14 this year. So MNHockey needs to call this group 13s/14s/15s.
I'm no math wiz either but the oldest 99, born on January 1 1999 won't be 15 this year.... so it is really the 12s/13s/14s.... Born December 31st 2000 will still be 12 when this program is all said and done... This group seems really broad. How well will a late birthdate 00 physically match up with an early birth date 99? Players going into second year of PW going into the corner with a kid going into second year of Bantam's???? These age groups do not play against each other until HS.... While don't disagree with Bo that their needs to be consistency with the program, I do wonder if MOST early 00's might be a litte above their head.
Good to hear.... It was the only SANE thing they could do.Chanmanblue wrote:District 6 has accepted my 2nd half 2000 player into the program, so I think they have modified their stance.
Why should 00' born Duster McGill get to try out twice and the much better 00' Conner McDavid only once? Some parents scared of a little younger McDavid and trying to get their kids in the door before he can......?MrBoDangles wrote:edgeless2 wrote:helightsthelamp wrote:I'm no math whiz, but I do know that even the oldest 00, born on January 1 2000, cannot possibly be aged 14 this year. So MNHockey needs to call this group 13s/14s/15s.
I'm no math wiz either but the oldest 99, born on January 1 1999 won't be 15 this year.... so it is really the 12s/13s/14s.... Born December 31st 2000 will still be 12 when this program is all said and done... This group seems really broad. How well will a late birthdate 00 physically match up with an early birth date 99? Players going into second year of PW going into the corner with a kid going into second year of Bantam's???? These age groups do not play against each other until HS.... While don't disagree with Bo that their needs to be consistency with the program, I do wonder if MOST early 00's might be a litte above their head.
Ding! Although we may have some 00 Connor Mcdavid's around town. Or at the very least some eager parents that think little Johnny is. Either way nice revenue for MNH.
I'm with you Bo....If Barry McConnell wants to contribute to the fund, more power to him. Maybe they will pass out participation medals![/quote]edgeless2 wrote:Why should 00' born Duster McGill get to try out twice and the much better 00' Conner McDavid only once? Some parents scared of a little younger McDavid and trying to get their kids in the door before he can......?MrBoDangles wrote:edgeless2 wrote:
I'm no math wiz either but the oldest 99, born on January 1 1999 won't be 15 this year.... so it is really the 12s/13s/14s.... Born December 31st 2000 will still be 12 when this program is all said and done... This group seems really broad. How well will a late birthdate 00 physically match up with an early birth date 99? Players going into second year of PW going into the corner with a kid going into second year of Bantam's???? These age groups do not play against each other until HS.... While don't disagree with Bo that their needs to be consistency with the program, I do wonder if MOST early 00's might be a litte above their head.
Ding! Although we may have some 00 Connor Mcdavid's around town. Or at the very least some eager parents that think little Johnny is. Either way nice revenue for MNH.
Have all the Districts come to their senses?
Good thing they kept some kids from participating.edgeless2 wrote:Rumor has it.....no cuts in many districts including the bigger ones.
Seriously, what point are you making here? Happy holiday!hockeygirl2 wrote:Do you know why there will be no cuts. Or is it just money? I think some of the districts are taking all players no matter if they were on a A team or a B team for the tryouts. So no cuts seems like you could get a wide range of kids. IMO
helightsthelamp wrote:D10 tryouts started last night, very wide range in ability. 2 one hour sessions. First half was very ugly with players not moving the puck much, hard to watch. In second half, puck movement picked up and was a lot more fun to watch. I didn't count, but at least 25 on each bench and 5 goalies. Whistle blew every minute, go out for a minute then wait another 5 to get back onto the ice.... UGH. It seems to me with the $80 price tag for tryout, could have easily broken into a couple of groups to provide a little more flow for the players. Final round on continues on Friday.
This goes back to:stromboli wrote:helightsthelamp wrote:D10 tryouts started last night, very wide range in ability. 2 one hour sessions. First half was very ugly with players not moving the puck much, hard to watch. In second half, puck movement picked up and was a lot more fun to watch. I didn't count, but at least 25 on each bench and 5 goalies. Whistle blew every minute, go out for a minute then wait another 5 to get back onto the ice.... UGH. It seems to me with the $80 price tag for tryout, could have easily broken into a couple of groups to provide a little more flow for the players. Final round on continues on Friday.
I'd hate to think that anyone thinks they're going to get a leg up for the HP 15/16/17 teams by having their 12-13 year old participate. Most of these kids haven't gone through puberty. Many haven't even started. The changes that occur among players over the next few years will cause some pretty wide swings in how they "rank" against one another in a couple more years.
Don't get me wrong, there's no harm in the kids getting some more ice time, coaching, etc... There's nothing wrong with using this as an opportunity to gauge where players need to work on their skills/game relative to their peers. But leave it at that. Kids aren't going to get left behind come the 15/16/17 selection process because they didn't participate as a 2000 this year.
I don't think this is a conspiracy issue. I think it just wasn't well executed, and I agree with your question.MrBoDangles wrote:This goes back to:stromboli wrote:helightsthelamp wrote:D10 tryouts started last night, very wide range in ability. 2 one hour sessions. First half was very ugly with players not moving the puck much, hard to watch. In second half, puck movement picked up and was a lot more fun to watch. I didn't count, but at least 25 on each bench and 5 goalies. Whistle blew every minute, go out for a minute then wait another 5 to get back onto the ice.... UGH. It seems to me with the $80 price tag for tryout, could have easily broken into a couple of groups to provide a little more flow for the players. Final round on continues on Friday.
I'd hate to think that anyone thinks they're going to get a leg up for the HP 15/16/17 teams by having their 12-13 year old participate. Most of these kids haven't gone through puberty. Many haven't even started. The changes that occur among players over the next few years will cause some pretty wide swings in how they "rank" against one another in a couple more years.
Don't get me wrong, there's no harm in the kids getting some more ice time, coaching, etc... There's nothing wrong with using this as an opportunity to gauge where players need to work on their skills/game relative to their peers. But leave it at that. Kids aren't going to get left behind come the 15/16/17 selection process because they didn't participate as a 2000 this year.
Why have the 00's with the 99's?
Why, in a birthyear program, were they only planning on letting some of the 00's try out?
