Age change in Minnesota Hockey?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

hmmmm ... even when we agree you disagree ... now you're just being difficult

[spin-o-rama]

hmmmm ... even when we agree you disagree ... now you're just being difficult

If you are agreeing with me then you are switching sides again, because I do not agree with 6/1. Remember we both have stated that 9/1 is the best date out there.
But there has been little else to agree on. Your blindsided propoganda is tough to swallow.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

hmmmm ... even when we agree you disagree ... now you're just being difficult

If you are agreeing with me then you are switching sides again, because I do not agree with 6/1. Remember we both have stated that 9/1 is the best date out there.

You've stated 9/1 is the best date. I submit that 9/1 has merit.

We both agree that ;

"MH has 2 criteria they are trying to follow. 1) keep the age gaps inside a 2 year window. 2) have kids play with their grade. "

Clearly, June 1 is the date that best serves these purposes.

[spin-o-rama]

hmmmm ... even when we agree you disagree ... now you're just being difficult

If you are agreeing with me then you are switching sides again, because I do not agree with 6/1. Remember we both have stated that 9/1 is the best date out there.

You've stated 9/1 is the best date. I submit that 9/1 has merit.

We both agree that ;

"MH has 2 criteria they are trying to follow. 1) keep the age gaps inside a 2 year window. 2) have kids play with their grade. "

Clearly, June 1 is the date that best serves these purposes.

Glad you agree on the criteria. Now you can drop your talk about keeping summer birthdays together and other rubbish since it is not part of the criteria.
Tell us if you agree with this: The date should be placed where both conditions can be met for the majority of the membership and potential membership.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Tell us if you agree with this: The date should be placed where both conditions can be met for the majority of the membership and potential membership.

June 1 satisfies this criteria the best, (keeps the age gaps inside a 2 year window and alows all kids to play with their grade) coinciding with the school end date and onset of summer.

[spin-o-rama]

Tell us if you agree with this: The date should be placed where both conditions can be met for the majority of the membership and potential membership.

June 1 satisfies this criteria the best, (keeps the age gaps inside a 2 year window and alows all kids to play with their grade) coinciding with the school end date and onset of summer.

That is only true if June 1 is the hard date for school admission. 9/1 is the date and it is soft.
Stop spreading falsehoods.

[welders]

You are not aware that Squirts, PeeWees, Bantams, etc are based on 2 year windows? The cutoff date defines the window. Please don't embarrass yourself further.

Doing away with age windows and playing with your grade would
allow 100% to play with their grade. However, MH wants the age window. The question is to find a date that best integrates the 2 criteria. You have presented nothing to support June 1. Rather, your estimate that 60% of June births are regular starts supports not moving the date earlier than July 1.

I don't think you should be talking about who is embarrassing themselves. Do you realize that with a July 1 date MN Hockey essentially has a 26 month window in each age group. July and August birthdate kids who start early could, and often do, move up one year in order to play with their grade every year. The kids that don't move up in youth hockey almost always move up as a tenth grader rather than play Bantams. Every youth association that I know of allows these kids to move up. It should be encouraged, so that early start summer birthdate kids play with their grade K-12, from mites to varsity hockey. June, July, and August late start birthdate kids would be also be allowed to play with their grade K-12 with a June 1 cutoff. Now who in MN Hockey isn't playing with their grade under this scenario? Now do you see where the 99%+ comes from?

You say Sept. 1 should be the cutoff. How can you force over 10%(literally thousands) of all MN Hockey players to play up one grade and then when they get to 10th grade they are reunited with their friends and classmates. The alignment should start in mites and continue through varsity hockey. Do you think we need to force these same late start summer birthdates to play a year ahead in high school as well?

Some people, no matter how clearly you lay it out for them, won't see what they refuse to see.

[spin-o-rama]

You are not aware that Squirts, PeeWees, Bantams, etc are based on 2 year windows? The cutoff date defines the window. Please don't embarrass yourself further.

Doing away with age windows and playing with your grade would
allow 100% to play with their grade. However, MH wants the age window. The question is to find a date that best integrates the 2 criteria. You have presented nothing to support June 1. Rather, your estimate that 60% of June births are regular starts supports not moving the date earlier than July 1.

I don't think you should be talking about who is embarrassing themselves. Do you realize that with a July 1 date MN Hockey essentially has a 26 month window in each age group. July and August birthdate kids who start early could, and often do, move up one year in order to play with their grade every year. The kids that don't move up in youth hockey almost always move up as a tenth grader rather than play Bantams. Every youth association that I know of allows these kids to move up. It should be encouraged, so that early start summer birthdate kids play with their grade K-12, from mites to varsity hockey. June, July, and August late start birthdate kids would be also be allowed to play with their grade K-12 with a June 1 cutoff. Now who in MN Hockey isn't playing with their grade under this scenario? Now do you see where the 99%+ comes from?

I don't recall reading about 26 month age levels on the MH website. Perhaps you have a link? Most associations have a play up provision that allows an underage player to play up in order to stay with their grade. That does not mean they are not disadvantaged.

You promote a kid being able to delay K entry to avoid being disadvantaged. But claim that regular start kids should just suck it up and play up. That is very shortsighted. If you are against kids being disadvantaged you would not promote a widening of the window to 27 months. Can you not see the discord in your reasoning?

You say Sept. 1 should be the cutoff. How can you force over 10%(literally thousands) of all MN Hockey players to play up one grade and then when they get to 10th grade they are reunited with their friends and classmates. The alignment should start in mites and continue through varsity hockey. Do you think we need to force these same late start summer birthdates to play a year ahead in high school as well?

There is no perfect date until the dept of education mandates a hard cutoff date for K entry. Is there a date that will allow a greater percentage to play with their grade without expanding the 24 month window? The submitted data suggests 8/1 might be that date (data is not precise by month and some sources linked are unclear). There has been nothing presented to support 7/1 or earlier.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Is there a date that will allow a greater percentage to play with their grade without expanding the 24 month window?

>> Yes, June 1 accomplishes this.

The submitted data suggests 8/1 might be that date (data is not precise by month and some sources linked are unclear). There has been nothing presented to support 7/1 or earlier.

>> Many times by many on this thread alone have submitted overwhelming evidence in support of June 1

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

[spin-o-rama]

Is there a date that will allow a greater percentage to play with their grade without expanding the 24 month window?

>> Yes, June 1 accomplishes this.

The submitted data suggests 8/1 might be that date (data is not precise by month and some sources linked are unclear). There has been nothing presented to support 7/1 or earlier.

>> Many times by many on this thread alone have submitted overwhelming evidence in support of June 1

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

It's a smart horse that won't drink from your poisoned well.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Do you think we need to force these same late start summer birthdates to play a year ahead in high school as well?

Some people, no matter how clearly you lay it out for them, won't see what they refuse to see.

Unfortunate, but true ... hopefully, the Minnesota Hockey Board members are objective folks and correct the date to June 1.

Helps Many. Hurts No One.

[timcorbin21]

if you move the date to june to accommodate the kids that got held back dont you then push the june birthday kids that didnt get held back to play with the lower class. you've got sophmores playing bantams.
i'd bet we lose more of the summer birthdays that didnt get held back than ones that did.

seems to me that the kids that are disadvantage by this accommodation for the older summer birthdays are the younger summer birthdays that have been competing throughout school with bigger stronger kids. dont we want that type of player

[council member retired]

[quote="timcorbin21"]if you move the date to june to accommodate the kids that got held back dont you then push the june birthday kids that didnt get held back to play with the lower class. you've got sophmores playing bantams.
i'd bet we lose more of the summer birthdays that didnt get held back than ones that did.

seems to me that the kids that are disadvantage by this accommodation for the older summer birthdays are the younger summer birthdays that have been competing throughout school with bigger stronger kids. dont we want that type of player[/quote]

good ? tc
Associations in Minnesota Hockey allow a player to "play up" with their grade. So to answer your question, they would would not be dissadvantaged.

[welders]

You promote a kid being able to delay K entry to avoid being disadvantaged. But claim that regular start kids should just suck it up and play up. That is very shortsighted. If you are against kids being disadvantaged you would not promote a widening of the window to 27 months. Can you not see the discord in your reasoning?

I'll say it again. I promote all kids playing with the grade they are in from Kindergarten through 12th grade. A June 1 cutoff does exactly that. Any other cutoff date doesn't come close. If summer birthdate kids delay, they are a grade behind those that start early. They will have an extra year of hockey. Live with it. I you want to call that an advantage, then do so. It is what it is. That doesn't mean early start kids have to "suck it up and play up" or are somehow "disadvantaged". It simply means they would be playing with the SAME friends and classmates from the SAME grade that they will always play with throughout youth hockey and into high school hockey.

I think we both know there will never be a hard cutoff date for K entry. I predict that within a few years, if our economy starts back in the right direction, this late entry trend will continue to increase and June 1 (end of the traditional school year) will become the new standard date to decide entry into Kindergarten. Get used to it.

[goldy313]

Same answer for this issue I had before----GET RID OF JV HOCKEY and promote U16/Junior Gold as the next level after Bantams. Kids will have a place to play all the way through and this birthdate question is a NON issue. As a matter of fact, it should be now under the current system where 15 year old high schoolers who have aged out of youth hockey can still play JV or JRGold if they can't make Varsity.

Why is this discussion even happening

In my association Bantam A hockey runs after registartion, team fees, ancillary stuff like hotels at tournaments 200 miles away and travel runs about $3000-$4000 per year. Jr Gold with far fewer games is slightly less but travel is all on the parents. High school hockey, JV or varsity, is $220 and travel for the players is free.

[timcorbin21]

council member retired-- from your handle i'll assume you know more about the state than i do but i checked yesterday and our association doesnt allow younger players to move up to "play up" with their grade

our high school jv/varsity has one summer birthday that didn't get held back and he wasnt allowed to play up with his grade.
eight that did get held back and played jv as freshmen.

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

council member retired-- from your handle i'll assume you know more about the state than i do but i checked yesterday and our association doesnt allow younger players to move up to "play up" with their grade

our high school jv/varsity has one summer birthday that didn't get held back and he wasnt allowed to play up with his grade.
eight that did get held back and played jv as freshmen.

Playing up is not generally a problem in Minnesota. Certainly Minnesota Hockey has no problem with it, with the caveat being that;

"Two-thirds (2/3) of the players on a team must be within the age division in which the team is registered."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.ngin.com ... _rules.pdf

They (MAHA) do defer to the Asociations to have the final say on this, but most Associations have no problem with this unless there are some other prevailing circumstances. So playing "playing up" to stay with your classmates isn't a problem with Minnesota Hockey.

The problem comes with "playing down". Minnesota Hockey simply doesn't allow it, even for matters like playing with your grade;

Only players with a severe disability are allowed to move down. Being small in size, a first year player or an otherwise inexperienced player does not, in-itself, qualify as a justification for moving a player down.

Moving a player down should not be considered if such a move is for the convenience of the player, the player’s parents or guardian or the local association.

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... n-requests

By moving the date to June 1 and accomodating the lions share of kids who held back (June/July/August out-of-school-year summer babies), parents of these children retain the OPTION of both A.) holding him back and playing with his grade or B.) pushing him ahead and playing his grade.

Hence, effectively, June 1 includes 99.9% of the Minnesota Hockey Membership.


If there is a hard-to-deal with Association on the issue of allowing kids up to "play-up" with their grade, that is one thing, but having the entire State block a group of kids from playing their grade (the way it is right now) leaves no recourse whatsoever for those families.

Curious ... does your Association give any reason for not letting the kids play up? Is it a numbers thing in a small association?

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

JSR - "the masses" do not exist .

I didn't see any references to "masses" either. But for the sake of those who are in the system, I hope they get the fair and equitable resolution they deserve.

You said "helps MANY, hurts no one". The word "many" insinuates there are these masses of kids this change will help and if it is not a mass of kids then what is it really doing. Systematic changes like this shouldn't be made to help a small minority

ummm ... don't know how the dictionaries read in Wisconsin, but MANY & MASSES are two different concepts.

A simple change from July 1 to June 1 potentially helps 1 in 12 Minnesota players without detracting from anyone else (May kids still play with their grade and play at the same level they are now. Has no impact on July or August kids either or any other kids for that matter)

Helps 1 in 12 Minnesota Players
Helps 33% of June/July/August summer birthdays
Helps 100% of all those needing the help

That may not be masses, but that's for sure MANY

Jesus fed the MASSES ... do you suppose he was feeding 1 in every 12 people in the group or the vast majority of them ...

I heard on the news this morning that MANY houses were in foreclosure ... I hope it's not more than 1 in 12 ... I hope it's less than that

There are MANY people unemployed ... 12% would be some sort of economin epidemic ... but the current small percentage still qualifies as MANY

Anyways, this isn't about symantecs ... it's about our kids - ALL of them - even if they aren't our own , they are ALL part of this shared community - and they ought to be given the same fair shake that the rest of the kids get.

There ought to be no distinction between June, July & August babies. If parents of July babies are getting the option of having their held back child play with his grade, by virtue of the sheer number of summer babies who are often held back, then parents of the June holdbacks ought to have that same option. It's really not rocket science. It's a simple matter of fairness that any objective observer would easily grasp.

[observer]

I agree.

[phil mccracken]

[quote="timcorbin21"]council member retired-- from your handle i'll assume you know more about the state than i do but i checked yesterday and our association doesnt allow younger players to move up to "play up" with their grade

our high school jv/varsity has one summer birthday that didn't get held back and he wasnt allowed to play up with his grade.
eight that did get held back and played jv as freshmen.[/quote

If Roseville, check with the board but I believe now they can. On another note, association policy can be and are rather easy to change. 8 out of 9 summer b-days you say stayed back, interesting.

[tonyleepers]

Everyone here goes on and on and on. And I guess I'm stupid enough to keep reading. We will all have to agree to disagree. One of my boys is a July birthday, the pre-school teachers recommended to hold him back and start kindergarten the following year, as they stated they recommend for all kids that have summer birthdays. They also recommended that I should have held back my May born son as well. We did not hold back either boy and we certainly do not regret our decision. Both do well in both school and sports, even though they may be younger than most. I myself, was a June birthday, glad my parents didn't hold me back either. You move the date to June 1, guess what, people will start working to move it back to May 1. Most schools are not done on June 1st, it is more like June 10th or so. Maybe the argument should be June 10th? There is always going to be a cutoff, always a day or month that is going to be 1 day or less than a month to the cutoff. It is what it is. It will never change, just the date that you are arguing about. I would never hold anyone back to play with the younger kids so they have an advantage. I come from a sports first family, it is the activity we enjoy most, 24/7/365.
Alot of people say it helps many, hurts no one. In the grand scheme of life and I will include just hockey alone, how does moving this date for HOCKEY help many? How is it helping them? The saying sure sounds good, but in reality, how does it help my kids, or how would it have helped me? I guess my life would have been helped if I would have been held back, because I would be a better human being. I guess my July son is going to live less of a life and be less of a hockey/baseball player because we sent him to kindergarten when he was 5 and didn't wait till he turned 6. How would it help little Johnny down the road? What help are you looking for or talking about?
I guess I went on and on and on......

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

how does moving this date for HOCKEY help many? How is it helping them?

Glad your kids were mature enough to handle the early start. Some aren't as fortunate.

It allows parents of summer kids who aren't mature enough to start early to start at their own speed and not be penalized for it, getting the same benefits your July born child currently enjoys.

[tonyleepers]

Well my youngest is my daughter, she may not have been mature enough to have entered kindergarten last year. Most would say she was not mature enough. Maybe we should have held her back. Oh wait, now we have to move the date back to December. Yes, she was closer to 6 than 5 when she entered kindergarten. We didn't really have a choice then, did we? You cannot make the maturity argument, because maturity doesn't start because someone turned 5 in May or not mature enough because you turned 5 in June/July. Hell, my brother is 40+, and no one would call him mature!!!

[WhosPuckIsItAnyways?]

Right, but the lions share of the kids that are held back are June-August summer babies who would be starting younger than the others. Not sure if your 40 year old brother qualifies in this context ...

Minnesota Hockey chose July 1 to accomodate these exact kids, but the left out 1/3 of them. Moving to June 1 includes ALL of the kids in that boat without having adverse effects on the other kids.

Again, Helps Many. Hurts No One. More than a slogan, it's just a fact in this instance.

[tonyleepers]

You missed my question. How does it truly help someone? How does it help many? What help are you talking about?
Alot of kids start skating when they are 4, some start when they are 7. There is no documentation or proof that starting at 4 is better than starting at 7. Maybe when they are 8 the skater that has skated longer will look better. But how about when the both reach 15? Some kids go to school when they are suppose to, and some wait an extra year. The reason in this case does not matter. Point is: kids start playing hockey at different ages.
So again, how does changing the date help or what does it help with? What is helping the many by changing the date? So they are the oldest and may look better when they are 8? Look better when they are 10? Look better when they are 12? Maybe it helps because they made the A team because they were allowed to play with the younger age group and wouldn't have made the A team when they were the youngest. Is this what you mean by helping the many? My boys have both played C hockey and they have both played A hockey, you can mix in a B as well. So please dont make an argument about my kids being great or bad. Again, someone has to be the oldest and someone has to be the youngest. How does this change truly affect someones life? It makes the May30th the youngest and the June 1st the oldest instead of June 30th the youngest and July 1st the oldest. That is change to believe in!!!!!
MN Hockey changed the date to July 1st which may have been the wrong decision, an argument should not be made based on this change. If you truly believe the date should be June 1st, then so be it, but don't base it on the fact MN Hockey didn't include everyone. Because nothing includes everyone, there will always be variables, because everyone is different, there are grey areas, not everything is black and white. That is real life. Maybe this is what we should be teaching are kids. Don't feel sorry that Johnny is the youngest, be proud and show everyone what little Johnny has in his heart.
One last time, how does it help many? What is this help I keep reading about? By the way, it hurts no one is true. But because it hurts no one isn't good enough for the change. I could steal 10 bucks from a millionaire, it certainly wouldn't hurt them, but that doesn't make it right.