HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

It's not about when they start. It doesn't matter when they start. If it is just about when they start it doesn't matter if the date is Feburay 3rd or November 16th etc. etc.

It also doesn't matter who's the oldest and who's the youngest. Somebody is going to be oldest and somebody is going to be youngest.

What matters is that they have fun at it, share the experience with their friends and have a place to play through grade 9 and bantams.

Currently, June summer kids who are held back only get to play with their class mates every other year and have no place to play in their association in their 9th grade.

This phoenomina doesn't happen to September - May born kids either, because their birthdays fall during the scool year. It is not an issue for these kids, hence, the date will never be argued for December 1st, as you suggest. They stay with their classmates all the way up andtheir Associations will always have a place for them to play in Grade 9.

Minnesota Hockey has made allowances so this doesn't happen to your July born kid and so this doesn't happen to any July or August born kid.

This potentially affects 1 in 12 Minnesota Hockey players (June birthdays) unessecarily. A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9.

It's that simple. Truly hurts no one and helps many June kids who face this unique situation.

I realize you have no June kid in this boat so it's not a big deal to you. I get that.

There are many families who do feel it's a big deal because there children are on the outside looking in, sitting on the sidelines in grade 9 while there buddies play hockey together ... be it C, B or A level.

Why is so hard to accept that these children want to be included?

If we all agree that the cutoff doesn't matter for any other reason, that it's no big deal for someone to be oldest and someone to be youngest, then why not make the cutoff a meaningful date which INCLUDES more Minnesota Children - nearly all of them.

* It doesn't increase the age window - it's still 24 month.
* It is consistent with the Minnesota School Year
* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at

* It addresses the problem of kids finishing Association Hockey in grade 8 and sitting in grade 9
* It allows the kids to play with their peers every year instead of every other year

Again, these are the same benefits extended to your July born child and all other summer kids - what's the problem with including all the summer kids?

Earlier someone said if parents didn't want their child to miss a year of hockey and not play with their buddies they should usher them into school early. That's ridiculous. There are many reasons for summer kids to be held back and sports is the least of them. Currently, Minnesota hockey penalizes June kids who don't share thew Minnesota Hockey timetable but now they have they have an opportunity to correct that and patner with the parents of Minnesota familes of June children to give them the options of making the right choice for their individual child (as has already been extended to July & August children) without penalty.

Helps Many. Hurts No One.

Puck - I couldn't agree more. We have kids in our association who have June birthdays and started school at 6 vs. 5. Because we are a small association, the likelihood of even having a JV team is small. Since they will exhaust their bantam eligibility after their 8th grade year, they are forced to make a varsity team as a freshman, move to another program with a JV team or hang it up all together.

MN Hockey has the demographic information to make an informed decision. As you say, helps many, hurts no one.

They need to spend more time on this type of issue rather than expend all their energy on trying to figure out how to hose the Fire (pun intended).

you nailed it... they are held back from starting school. It is not starting school at the normal time. The only help they get is IF they are held back, they can play 1 more year of hockey before high school. That is it, playing with their classmates is not help. Association hockey may not last forever, many people want AAA all year long. Then how does your argument stand. I hope you don't want AAA hockey all year because this would blow away your argument here. More than likely that move would be to birth year and they are no longer playing with their classmates. i'll have to pay closer attention to your arguments on those threads. I have multiple friends that have June birthdates for boys. I understand the argument and it is an understandable argument. But it just that, an argument. There is not a date that is perfect, nor is there a date that best makes sense. There are multiple options and you will always have kids on the border of the age group. Again, that is why there are so many opinions and why this thread goes on and on. Also, other sports have other dates that they use, example MBL uses May 1st. Not saying it is right, just throwing it out there.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:It's not about when they start. It doesn't matter when they start. If it is just about when they start it doesn't matter if the date is Feburay 3rd or November 16th etc. etc.

It also doesn't matter who's the oldest and who's the youngest. Somebody is going to be oldest and somebody is going to be youngest.

What matters is that they have fun at it, share the experience with their friends and have a place to play through grade 9 and bantams.

Currently, June summer kids who are held back only get to play with their class mates every other year and have no place to play in their association in their 9th grade.

This phoenomina doesn't happen to September - May born kids either, because their birthdays fall during the scool year. It is not an issue for these kids, hence, the date will never be argued for December 1st, as you suggest. They stay with their classmates all the way up andtheir Associations will always have a place for them to play in Grade 9.

Minnesota Hockey has made allowances so this doesn't happen to your July born kid and so this doesn't happen to any July or August born kid.

This potentially affects 1 in 12 Minnesota Hockey players (June birthdays) unessecarily. A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9.

It's that simple. Truly hurts no one and helps many June kids who face this unique situation.

I realize you have no June kid in this boat so it's not a big deal to you. I get that.

There are many families who do feel it's a big deal because there children are on the outside looking in, sitting on the sidelines in grade 9 while there buddies play hockey together ... be it C, B or A level.

Why is so hard to accept that these children want to be included?

If we all agree that the cutoff doesn't matter for any other reason, that it's no big deal for someone to be oldest and someone to be youngest, then why not make the cutoff a meaningful date which INCLUDES more Minnesota Children - nearly all of them.

* It doesn't increase the age window - it's still 24 month.
* It is consistent with the Minnesota School Year
* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at

* It addresses the problem of kids finishing Association Hockey in grade 8 and sitting in grade 9
* It allows the kids to play with their peers every year instead of every other year

Again, these are the same benefits extended to your July born child and all other summer kids - what's the problem with including all the summer kids?

Earlier someone said if parents didn't want their child to miss a year of hockey and not play with their buddies they should usher them into school early. That's ridiculous. There are many reasons for summer kids to be held back and sports is the least of them. Currently, Minnesota hockey penalizes June kids who don't share thew Minnesota Hockey timetable but now they have they have an opportunity to correct that and patner with the parents of Minnesota familes of June children to give them the options of making the right choice for their individual child (as has already been extended to July & August children) without penalty.

Helps Many. Hurts No One.

Great post. You can't lay it out any clearer than that. The argugument isn't about whether late start summer birthdate kids should be able to play back one grade level. MN Hockey has already acknowledged this with their change to the July 1 cutoff. The question is whether they should move it back to include June.

When this age change issue came up for discussion again, June 1 was THE date discussed. But since that time, everyone who ever had an idea of what they thought the cutoff date should be has argued against June 1 in favor of their date. If you favored Sept. 1 you would argue against June 1 hoping to make Sept. 1 the new cutoff date. Likewise if you wanted Jan. 1, you are likely to argue against June 1 in favor of Jan. 1. Interestingly enough, I haven't heard anyone say it should be left at July 1.

Some people want MN Hockey to align with USA Hockey and adopt a Jan. 1 cutoff. This date is the absolute worst as it almost perfectly cuts entire grade levels in half. The older half play one year ahead of the younger half their entire youth hockey career until they come together as sophmores in high school. If you want to cater to the elite 5% of players and wouldn't mind seeing the demise of local Association Hockey and eventually the end of MN High School hockey as we know it, be sure to support a Jan. 1 cutoff. We can all agree that a Sept. 1 cutoff would be perfect if we had a hard school start date of Sept. 1. But since we don't and never will, Sept. 1 still falls way short of keeping all (as close to "all" as possible) kids in the same grade playing together from kindergarten to 12th grade. Where July 1 mostly accomplishes this, June 1 fully achieves the goal.

tonyleepers wrote:you nailed it... they are held back from starting school. It is not starting school at the normal time.

If the vast majority of June-Aug. bithdate kids delay entry (especially boys), wouldn't they now be starting at the normal time. These days, it is the summer birthdates that don't delay (often against the Kindergarten screeners recommendation) that could be looked at as out of the norm. Like it or not, most people agree, the trend to delay entry is increasing.

tonyleepers wrote:you nailed it... they are held back from starting school. It is not starting school at the normal time. The only help they get is IF they are held back, they can play 1 more year of hockey before high school.

With the excetion of weird small town in Wisconsin where apparently it's all the rage, people don't hold their kids back for the sake of hockey - nor should they. As you stated with your own kids, educators are routinely advising parents of summer babies (especially boys) to let them mature further before entering, as there is mounting research that shows kids are entering too soon.

This practice has already been accepted by MAHA and they have already set the date at July 1 to account for most of these kids. June 1 includes them all. That's it. Nothing more to it.

tonyleepers wrote:Association hockey may not last forever, many people want AAA all year long. Then how does your argument stand. I hope you don't want AAA hockey all year because this would blow away your argument here. More than likely that move would be to birth year and they are no longer playing with their classmates.

This has nothing to do with Tier 1 Hockey. This is specifically with regards to Association Hockey, which is built as a feeder system to Minnesota High School Hockey. Specifically designed to give kids a place to play through grade 9. Moving the date to June 1 accomplishes that. It has no bearing whatsoever on Tier 1 hockey.

tonyleepers wrote:I have multiple friends that have June birthdates for boys. I understand the argument and it is an understandable argument.

Yes, it is.

tonyleepers wrote:There is not a date that is perfect, nor is there a date that best makes sense.

Yes, June 1 makes the most sense. Setting the date to June 1 would effectively allow 99.9% of Minnesota players to play Bantam Hockey in their Associations through grade 9. No other date achieves this.

welders wrote:

tonyleepers wrote:you nailed it... they are held back from starting school. It is not starting school at the normal time.

If the vast majority of June-Aug. bithdate kids delay entry (especially boys), wouldn't they now be starting at the normal time. These days, it is the summer birthdates that don't delay (often against the Kindergarten screeners recommendation) that could be looked at as out of the norm. Like it or not, most people agree, the trend to delay entry is increasing.

Yes, exactly. They are with their peer groups all the way up. There is no age advantage. It's still a 24 month window. It's a zero sum move that hurts no one while accomodating late starting children.

puck,

Which is it? Tier 1 or association? You keep talking (and your biggest argument) is that moving the date allows kids to play with their classmates. Yet you seem to advocate AAA or tier 1 hockey, not association.
Your quote "You may not like or agree with our reasons for playing Tier 1 hockey. You don't have to. Just get out of the damn way."

If that is the case, you certainly dont seem to care about keeping kids with their classmates. In addition, many cities have multiple schools. You also have multiple teams, many of these kids dont play with any of their classmates. Some certainly will play with a couple. My younger son did not play with 1 kid from his class or grade last year from his school. Yes, he does attend his proper public school. That statement does not mean that private school is bad, it is great for many. Just wanted to make clear the situation. You can use this to help your argument for AAA or Tier 1 vs. association hockey. Again, your argument sounds good if you dont look at the entire picture. I will say it one last time, there is always going to be a date people argue about because there is no best date. MN hockey tried to meet people half way with regards to the hold backs from summer birthdays. They gave a little, maybe that is the best date and decision, maybe it wasn't. I'm still up in the air on what date is best. No one has swayed me, no one has wowed me with a great and truly convincing argument. I made my decision with my kids and that is that. Was right for them, wouldn't change it. However, if the rule changed I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It certainly can be fun and entertaining to exchange opinions. I do however, get a little miffed by people like yourself that make outragous statements that you are the only one right. Then you talk on another discussion topic and say something almost entirely different. You lose credibility!! Not a way to win an argument, abut sure is a good way to lose one.

tonyleepers wrote:puck,

Which is it? Tier 1 or association? You keep talking (and your biggest argument) is that moving the date allows kids to play with their classmates. Yet you seem to advocate AAA or tier 1 hockey, not association.

You talk on another discussion topic and say something almost entirely different. You lose credibility!! Not a way to win an argument, abut sure is a good way to lose one.

??? ummm ... ok ... it's two seperate conversations. I asked my wife this morning if February looked like a good time for a winter vacation ... does that mean I'm advocating February as a cutoff date for Hockey?

welders wrote:

tonyleepers wrote:you nailed it... they are held back from starting school. It is not starting school at the normal time.

If the vast majority of June-Aug. bithdate kids delay entry (especially boys), wouldn't they now be starting at the normal time. These days, it is the summer birthdates that don't delay (often against the Kindergarten screeners recommendation) that could be looked at as out of the norm. Like it or not, most people agree, the trend to delay entry is increasing.

This is off topic but will clarify anyway. The normal time is based on state legislation. That is the only rule. As I stated, where my kids went to pre-school they advised all summer birthdays as well as May birthdays to hold back a year. They did not base it on what was best for each individual child. They just went with the new generalization that waiting is better. I cant disagree with being older is better, it certainly cant hurt. i will also say it was not an easy decisionThe holding back for summer birthdays is a relatively newer idea, I wonder sometimes how we as people have made it this far. With all the studies out there that our parents and grandparents did wrong raising us, how did we survive? How did our Nation become the envy of many? Today, we are losing some of that envy. Maybe it isn't change to believe in? Please dont answer these last questions, they were meant to be rhetorical.

now you really lost me? February vacations? vacations relate to hockey cutoff?

Let me make the connection more clear for you.

Your main reason for changing the date to June 1st is to let classmates play together. Children that have been held back because their birthday was in June through August. Let them play with their classmates. A clear and relatively good argument. You have made that abundantly clear. Right??
Yet on other discussions you have also made it abundantly clear that you believe in AAA or tier 1 hockey. Completely ruins your basis of your argument above. First part, the birthdates involved with this group is year based, January through December. Secondly, and most important, these kids will not be playing with many classmates, when it is not association based, are they? So, why make your play with your classmates argument if you prefer the AAA system over association.
Again, make consistent arguments with your posts. It will earn you more respect and maybe earn you a winning argument. Or maybe with you it is do as I say, not as I do.

tonyleepers wrote:Your main reason for changing the date to June 1st is to let classmates play together. Children that have been held back because their birthday was in June through August. Let them play with their classmates. A clear and relatively good argument.

OK, we are clear on that ... so far so good ... (though it's not really "my main reason" - it's a strong position, which many support, including myself. I don't have a reason. I don't have a dog in the fight.)

tonyleepers wrote:Yet on other discussions you have also made it abundantly clear that you believe in AAA or tier 1 hockey.

Yes. Tier 1 Hockey exists in most of the rest of the hockey world outside Minnesota (and the Dakota's). I've been involved in it. I have a kid that plays it. I do see it's benefits. Yes. Guilty as charged.

tonyleepers wrote:Completely ruins your basis of your argument above.

No, not all. It's 2 different things. I am not advocating one over the other (Tier 1 over Association). They can, do, and should exist in harmony.

tonyleepers wrote:So, why make your play with your classmates argument if you prefer the AAA system over association.

Maybe you need to go back and read the entire thread. I don't prefer the "AAA system" over Association. They are both great models. I advocate having them both available and keeping option open to Minnesota players and families. The vast, VAST majority (97%) of Minnesota kids will always play Association Hockey. It's a great system and one that works well as a feeder system to the High School system. That's what this "Age Change" thread is about.

If Tier 1 Hockey ever came to Minnesota, the talent in the State would probably only support 3-5 Tier 1 teams at any age group, accounting for 500 - 700 kids, depending on which age groups were involved. Players who chose to play in that system and could make the team(s) would have to accept the USA Hockey dates of January 1 - Deceber 31. We wouldn't have any control over that in Minnesota. Players and families who chose that rout would have to accept USA Hockey rules, but players/families playing Association Hockey wouldn't. In that thread, we aren't talking about cutoff dates, (we have no control over that), we are talking about wether or not Minnesota families should have the option of playing Tier 1 Hockey (at home) at all.

I also have a kid playing Association Hockey and he loves it and it suits him well.

tonyleepers wrote:Again, make consistent arguments with your posts.

It's 2 different things. One post talks about apples and the other oranges. I like my apples red and I like my oranges orange.

I like my Association Hockey. I like it a lot. But if we want to pursue Tier 1 as an option for our kids, I don't need Big Brother telling me I can't. I can raise my own kids and I trust others can make the best choices for their children. But that has nothing to do with this "Age Change" discussion. It's 2 different things.

Hope that clears it up for you.

That said, this thread isn't about me or my belief that families should have all the great hockey options available to them, including access to Winter Tier 1 Hockey in the State.

This thread is about selecting a date that is fair to the children who hockey in Minnesota's great Associations which feed the State's phenominal High School Programs.

What matters is that they have fun at it, share the experience with their friends and have a place to play through grade 9 and bantams.

Currently, June summer kids who are held back only get to play with their class mates every other year and have no place to play in their association in their 9th grade.

This phoenomina doesn't happen to September - May born kids either, because their birthdays fall during the scool year. It is not an issue for these kids, hence, the date will never be argued for December 1st, as you suggest. They stay with their classmates all the way up andtheir Associations will always have a place for them to play in Grade 9.

Minnesota Hockey has made allowances so this doesn't happen to your July born kid and so this doesn't happen to any July or August born kid.

This potentially affects 1 in 12 Minnesota Hockey players (June birthdays) unessecarily. A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9.

It's that simple. Truly hurts no one and helps many June kids who face this unique situation.

I realize you have no June kid in this boat so it's not a big deal to you. I get that. Why would you lose any sleep over it?

There are many families who do feel it's a big deal because there children are on the outside looking in, sitting on the sidelines in grade 9 while there buddies play hockey together ... be it C, B or A level.

Why is so hard to accept that these children want to be included?

If we all agree that the cutoff doesn't matter for any other reason, that it's no big deal for someone to be oldest and someone to be youngest, then why not make the cutoff a meaningful date which INCLUDES more Minnesota Children - nearly all of them.

* It doesn't increase the age window - it's still 24 month.
* It is consistent with the Minnesota School Year
* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at

* It addresses the problem of kids finishing Association Hockey in grade 8 and sitting in grade 9
* It allows the kids to play with their peers every year instead of every other year

Again, these are the same benefits extended to your July born child and all other summer kids - what's the problem with including all the summer kids?

You don't control any of the dates, but you fight only 1, and it matters in only 1 of them? You have clearly pointed out that tier 1 is far better than association hockey. You just cant seem to look at the big picture. One affects the other. We are not talking apples and oranges, we are talking about youth hockey. If MN allowed Tier 1 in the winter, more than 3% would leave the association. I'm not arguing which sytem is better. Look at how summer hockey has grown. This would be a major shift, dont be naive.
All forms of youth hockey are great feeder programs of high school hockey. It all adds up, a season ofspring/fall AAA hockey + a season of association winter hockey= 1 hockey year. These kids get plenty of hockey when playing both. And high school hockey is a great feeder program to college hockey. You cant seperate everything, there is a big picture. When I look at my house, I see a home. What you seem to see is windows, doors, walls. If you were fixing a door to your home, you would not believe you were fixing your house. These are all parts to a whole, they begin individually but when put together can make a home. We will have to agree to disagree. I'm tired of this, a clear waste of your and my time.

tonyleepers wrote:You don't control any of the dates, but you fight only 1, and it matters in only 1 of them? You have clearly pointed out that tier 1 is far better than association hockey. You just cant seem to look at the big picture. One affects the other. We are not talking apples and oranges, we are talking about youth hockey. If MN allowed Tier 1 in the winter, more than 3% would leave the association. I'm not arguing which sytem is better. Look at how summer hockey has grown. This would be a major shift, dont be naive.
All forms of youth hockey are great feeder programs of high school hockey. It all adds up, a season ofspring/fall AAA hockey + a season of association winter hockey= 1 hockey year. These kids get plenty of hockey when playing both. And high school hockey is a great feeder program to college hockey. You cant seperate everything, there is a big picture. When I look at my house, I see a home. What you seem to see is windows, doors, walls. If you were fixing a door to your home, you would not believe you were fixing your house. These are all parts to a whole, they begin individually but when put together can make a home. We will have to agree to disagree. I'm tired of this, a clear waste of your and my time.

ummm ... ok. I did change a hinge on my back door this morning and didn't have re-paint the house.

I didn't realize the USA dates were on the table ... someone posted a thread on an Age Change in Minnesota Hockey and I joined the conversation ... is there a thread on the USA birthdate? Not sure ... I didn't see one.

When /where did I "clearly point out that tier 1 is far better than association hockey. "? I have kids that play both. They are different kids. They have different needs, wants, preferences. I support them both in their different preferences.

I love the Association model. I love the Tier 1 model. I see a world where they live in harmony. I come from a world where they do live in harmony (Canada). A lot of the world's greatest hockey players come from that same culture and the same dual system. I know it works and works well.

So I guess I'm not sure what we are agreeing to disagree on. If we both love the Association model it's not that. You have a July child that benefits from the summer allowance made by Minnesota Hockey ... I agree with that, and I also agree that June kids should get the same benefit for exactly the same reasons, so it can't be that.

Maybe I should have painted my house ... though we might not agree on the color ...

Anyways, this age change proposition is a very serious matter to a lot of people. If you want to join the Tier 1 discussion, we should do that in that thread ... it's here;
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 62&start=0

I'll see ya over there ... bring all the mud you can sling

Stop promoting falsehoods.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:It's not about when they start. It doesn't matter when they start. If it is just about when they start it doesn't matter if the date is Feburay 3rd or November 16th etc. etc.

It also doesn't matter who's the oldest and who's the youngest. Somebody is going to be oldest and somebody is going to be youngest.

What matters is that they have fun at it, share the experience with their friends and have a place to play through grade 9 and bantams. Why not expand post bantam options of U16/JG so all kids have more options post bantams?

Currently, June summer kids who are held back only get to play with their class mates every other year and have no place to play in their association in their 9th grade. They still were eligible to play 2 years of bantams, the same as everyone else. They have 4 years of HS eligibility post bantams, should everyone else be HS eligible their freshman year of college?

This phoenomina doesn't happen to September - May born kids either, because their birthdays fall during the scool year. There are kids who are delayed start in these months, too. It is not an issue for these kids, hence, the date will never be argued for December 1st, as you suggest. They stay with their classmates all the way up andtheir Associations will always have a place for them to play in Grade 9.

Minnesota Hockey has made allowances so this doesn't happen to your July born kid and so this doesn't happen to any July or August born kid. This is not why MH chose 7/1. It is a by-product. MH went to 7/1 to match USA hockey.

This potentially affects 1 in 12 Minnesota Hockey players (June birthdays) unessecarily. It effects far less than that. Only the delay starts. The regular K start kids are playing with their grade. A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9. That is only 1/2 the equation. You have agreed that the other part is to keep 24 month age gaps. June born regular start kids (and July & August) will be outside that age window.

It's that simple. Truly hurts no one and helps many June kids who face this unique situation. Until there is a hard K entrance date, there are tradeoffs to all hockey cutoff dates. Your slogan is an outright lie.

I realize you have no June kid in this boat so it's not a big deal to you. I get that.

There are many families who do feel it's a big deal because there children are on the outside looking in, sitting on the sidelines in grade 9 while there buddies play hockey together ... be it C, B or A level. They don't have to. Varsity, JV, U16, & JG should all be made available to them. That's where the effort should be!

Why is so hard to accept that these children want to be included? Inclusion at the expense of others is not a slam dunk decision.

If we all agree that the cutoff doesn't matter for any other reason, that it's no big deal for someone to be oldest and someone to be youngest, then why not make the cutoff a meaningful date which INCLUDES more Minnesota Children - nearly all of them.

* It doesn't increase the age window - it's still 24 month. An age window of 24 months displaces all the June-Aug regular K start kids. That's a problem.
* It is consistent with the Minnesota School Year To be consistent with the dept of education would mean a change to 9/1. The K age cutoff date. The end date of school classes is not pertinent.
* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at Yes it does. June-Aug reg start kids either play outside the 24 month window or a grade down.

* It addresses the problem of kids finishing Association Hockey in grade 8 and sitting in grade 9 Not all kids. There are late starts with b-days before 6/1. The expansion of post bantam hockey would bless all kids post bantam. A far better goal.
* It allows the kids to play with their peers every year instead of every other year Once again, what is good for the late start is not good for the regular start. There is no perfect solution.

Again, these are the same benefits extended to your July born child and all other summer kids - what's the problem with including all the summer kids? 24 month age windows and play with your grade can't be accommodated perfectly.

Earlier someone said if parents didn't want their child to miss a year of hockey and not play with their buddies they should usher them into school early. No one has said parents should start their kids in K at age 4. That's ridiculous. There are many reasons for summer kids to be held back and sports is the least of them. Parent's have that right. It's not like it's against the law to hold back a year. But there are tradeoffs to holding back. 1 is that age based activities (in this case hockey) may make it difficult to play with your grade if you hold back your kid. Parents know this (or at least one who is carefully assessing the pros/cons) when they decide on delaying K entry. Currently, Minnesota hockey penalizes June kids who don't share thew Minnesota Hockey timetable but now they have they have an opportunity to correct that and patner with the parents of Minnesota familes of June children to give them the options of making the right choice for their individual child (as has already been extended to July & August children) without penalty.

Helps Many. Hurts No One. Straight up bunk.

Your distorting of the situation is astounding. Quit spreading falsehoods.

Spinner,

Lay out your personal situation, with details, so we can understand why you would oppose a change to June 1. We're missing something. It's a perfectly logical change.

TonyL,

You should let someone else do the talking because most of us have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Tell us about your situation too as I can't figure out your beef.

spin-o-rama wrote:Stop promoting falsehoods.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:Currently, June summer kids who are held back only get to play with their class mates every other year and have no place to play in their association in their 9th grade. They still were eligible to play 2 years of bantams, the same as everyone else. They have 4 years of HS eligibility post bantams, should everyone else be HS eligible their freshman year of college

>>> Right. But it's not about the years they are eligible. For the kids affected, it's about more than that. I can't really put it any clearer for you than has already ben stated by others ...

council member retired wrote:With the current date so many kids are not eligible for association hockey in the 9th grade. And during their earlier years so many of them are not playing with their peers for 1 year at each age level, i.e. peewees. Having a July 1 date now has benefited so many kids, that is what it is about. Both those that attended school at age 5, and those that didn't have options. Currently many June kids do not. And some don't have anywhere to play association hockey in the 9th grade. I don't think anyone "pro youth hockey" would want a kid not to be able to play the game?

This phoenomina doesn't happen to September - May born kids either, because their birthdays fall during the scool year. There are kids who are delayed start in these months, too.

>>> Right. I'll defer here to someone who has seen the data ...

council member retired wrote:I have asked and seen the data. The trend to start school if a August b-day at 6 is substantial, 50%. The trend to start school at 6, if July and June is rather identical to each other, 25%. The number is enhanced when you see the % of MN hockey registered player that starts at age 6, August born MH is showing over 80% at age 6, July and June is about or over 50%.

May is like walking outward into a lake, you go slow to 8' then 30'... May is not measurable, under a percent.

Minnesota Hockey has made allowances so this doesn't happen to your July born kid and so this doesn't happen to any July or August born kid. This is not why MH chose 7/1. It is a by-product. MH went to 7/1 to match USA hockey.

>>> Right. Ok, instead of continuing to argue the point with you, once again, I'll refer to those in the know ... or in fact, the actual meeting ...

greybeard58 wrote:Here is the statement from the planning committee in 2002-03:

Another option studied was to go to Sept 1 so everyone plays with his grade. However, evidence indicates that boys in Minnesota born in July & August are very often held back a year before starting kindergarten. The original goal of this option, to keep everyone playing with their grade, is negated by the fact that samples taken indicate 80% of the boys registered to play hockey, with July and August birthdates, were held back from starting kindergarten as 5-year olds.

council member retired wrote:The new data, well continual data over the last decade has shown that June 1st is what MH once reasoned their July 1st date at.

A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9. That is only 1/2 the equation. You have agreed that the other part is to keep 24 month age gaps. June born regular start kids (and July & August) will be outside that age window.

>>> No they won't. June 1 2000 - May 30 2002 is a 24 month window.

It's that simple. Truly hurts no one and helps many June kids who face this unique situation. Until there is a hard K entrance date, there are tradeoffs to all hockey cutoff dates. Your slogan is an outright lie.

>>> How is it a lie? We know who it helps. Tell me, who does it hurt? The only parents asked to make a tradeoff under the current date are the parents of June kids. Parents of July & August kids aren't asked to tradeoff anything. They have the option of having their children play with their grade.

I realize you have no June kid in this boat so it's not a big deal to you. I get that.

There are many families who do feel it's a big deal because there children are on the outside looking in, sitting on the sidelines in grade 9 while there buddies play hockey together ... be it C, B or A level. They don't have to. Varsity, JV, U16, & JG should all be made available to them. That's where the effort should be!

>>> But it's NOT made available to them. Maybe it should be. That's another story. This is a simple adjustment that helps many and hurts no one.

Why is so hard to accept that these children want to be included? Inclusion at the expense of others is not a slam dunk decision.

>>> Ok. Who is at the expense of? Again, I'll defer to an expert ...

Elizabeth Cascio, Dartmouth College and Visiting Scholar wrote:"Age at entry," suggests that older entrants outperform younger entrants because they are better equipped to succeed. While this interpretation of the EAAG might seem quite similar to the relative age interpretation, it differs in a very important way: Here, it is no longer the case that older children gain at the expense of younger children; rather, older children gain without affecting younger children at all. This suggests that increasing the minimum age at entry may indeed raise outcomes of a cohort on average by promoting the achievement of children who would have otherwise started one year younger.

If we all agree that the cutoff doesn't matter for any other reason, that it's no big deal for someone to be oldest and someone to be youngest, then why not make the cutoff a meaningful date which INCLUDES more Minnesota Children - nearly all of them.

* It doesn't increase the age window - it's still 24 month. An age window of 24 months displaces all the June-Aug regular K start kids. That's a problem.

>>> June 1-May 30 is a 24 month window

* It is consistent with the Minnesota School Year To be consistent with the dept of education would mean a change to 9/1. The K age cutoff date. The end date of school classes is not pertinent.

>>> It is pertinent. It's the approximate end date of the school year and also the one single date that minimizes the relative age effect.

* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at Yes it does. June-Aug reg start kids either play outside the 24 month window or a grade down.

>>> ok ... umm ... no they don't

* It addresses the problem of kids finishing Association Hockey in grade 8 and sitting in grade 9 Not all kids. There are late starts with b-days before 6/1. The expansion of post bantam hockey would bless all kids post bantam. A far better goal.

>>> Not disagreeing with the expansion of post bantam hockey. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

* It allows the kids to play with their peers every year instead of every other year Once again, what is good for the late start is not good for the regular start. There is no perfect solution.

>>> It can be if the OPTION is available to those kids. Currently the option is available only to July & August babies. Why not include them all?

Again, these are the same benefits extended to your July born child and all other summer kids - what's the problem with including all the summer kids? 24 month age windows and play with your grade can't be accommodated perfectly.

>>> No, not 100%. But June 1 would get 99% of them ... a higher number than is currently accomodated.

Earlier someone said if parents didn't want their child to miss a year of hockey and not play with their buddies they should usher them into school early. No one has said parents should start their kids in K at age 4.

>>> Starting kids in school early for the sake of hockey is a bad idea. Educators suggest holding summer birthday kids back (especially boys). Let parents have that option without penalty - as is currently the case with 2/3rds of those kids (July & August)

That's ridiculous. There are many reasons for summer kids to be held back and sports is the least of them. Parent's have that right. It's not like it's against the law to hold back a year. But there are tradeoffs to holding back. 1 is that age based activities (in this case hockey) may make it difficult to play with your grade if you hold back your kid. Parents know this (or at least one who is carefully assessing the pros/cons) when they decide on delaying K entry.

>>> Yes, true, but Minnesota Hockey has partnered with parents of July & August children who have decided to hold their children back and allowed them the option of playing with their grade. All parents of June summer babies are asking for is the same consideration.

Currently, Minnesota hockey penalizes June kids who don't share thew Minnesota Hockey timetable but now they have they have an opportunity to correct that and patner with the parents of Minnesota familes of June children to give them the options of making the right choice for their individual child (as has already been extended to July & August children) without penalty.

Helps Many. Hurts No One. Straight up bunk.

>>> I'll refer to someone who has asked and seen the data on this ...

council member retired wrote:Having the right age classification is something MH has looked at from time to time. It has been switched before, each time with reason to better community hockey and allow more kids to participate. Not once has it been for size, competition, or to win a national title. With recent data MH may realize that changing to June 1, betters the program as a whole. If they do I applaud them.

>>>Me too CMR, me too.

Your distorting of the situation is astounding. Quit spreading falsehoods.

>>> It's already been stated earlier in this discussion and repeated many times, but it's just as true now as it was then ...

council member retired wrote:It would hurt no one allowing June b-days the opportunity for all of them to play hockey with their peers - it would help many.

Couldn't have said it better myself

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote: A simple change to start date from July 1 to June 1 addresses the issue so that ALL Minnesota kids get the same opportunity - to play their peers through youth hockey all the way through to grade 9. That is only 1/2 the equation. You have agreed that the other part is to keep 24 month age gaps. June born regular start kids (and July & August) will be outside that age window.
>>> No they won't. June 1 2000 - May 30 2002 is a 24 month window.

* It doesn't disenfranchise anyone else - they stay where they are at Yes it does. June-Aug reg start kids either play outside the 24 month window or a grade down.
>>> ok ... umm ... no they don't

A kid born June 1 2002 to Aug 31, 2002 who started K at age 5 is going into 3rd grade. To play with the rest of the 3rd graders (delayed K entry June 1 to Aug 31, 2001 and regular K start Sept 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002) they will have to play outside the June 1 2000 - May 31, 2002 window. Otherwise they will be playing with the 2nd and 1st graders.

But you know that, just like you know that Peewee nationals are eliminated.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote: Earlier someone said if parents didn't want their child to miss a year of hockey and not play with their buddies they should usher them into school early. No one has said parents should start their kids in K at age 4.
>>> But that's what they would need to do to keep their june kid playing with grade under the current system

A June born kid who starts K at age 4 would be playing hockey a grade down under the current system. Not only are you distorting the facts to everyone else, but you can't even keep things straight in your own mind.

When your whole campaign is based on the perpetuation of untruths, there leaves considerable doubt that there is anything valid to be gained listening to you.

I can see disadvantages and advantages to any date. Quit acting blind.

if you held your child back, he has an advantage over his classmates in every area. his social skills, speech, vocab, math skills, size and coordination will all be more advanced at 6 then at 5. All of us were more advanced at 6 than 5.
These advantages diminish over time. And by the time high school comes around problem start to develop. There is a good and bad to everything.

I've grown tired of parents that answer the question "how olds you son" with "hes in Such and Such grade".
These same parents will complain about the Select 15, 16 or 17 process because it "Favors" the kids born in the first part of the year. Which is true. In Minnesota the kids born in the early part of the year are older and have played with bigger stronger kids throughout their hockey experience.

If you move the date back you accommodate the parents that chose to to hold their kids back, you will at the same time you make it a little tougher for the kids that entered school when it was age appropriate.

If a change is to happen I hope its after feedback from the parents of kids born in every month and every year.
To Minn Hock please don't pole just the people that have held there kids back, pole everyone.

And to all the passive aggressive people that have bit your tongue over this, Speak Up.

keepmeoutofit wrote:if you held your child back, he has an advantage over his classmates in every area. his social skills, speech, vocab, math skills, size and coordination will all be more advanced at 6 then at 5. All of us were more advanced at 6 than 5.
These advantages diminish over time. And by the time high school comes around problem start to develop. There is a good and bad to everything.

I've grown tired of parents that answer the question "how olds you son" with "hes in Such and Such grade".
These same parents will complain about the Select 15, 16 or 17 process because it "Favors" the kids born in the first part of the year. Which is true. In Minnesota the kids born in the early part of the year are older and have played with bigger stronger kids throughout their hockey experience.

If you move the date back you accommodate the parents that chose to to hold their kids back, you will at the same time you make it a little tougher for the kids that entered school when it was age appropriate.

If a change is to happen I hope its after feedback from the parents of kids born in every month and every year.
To Minn Hock please don't pole just the people that have held there kids back, pole everyone.

And to all the passive aggressive people that have bit your tongue over this, Speak Up.

Well stated.

spin-o-rama wrote:A kid born June 1 2002 to Aug 31, 2002 who started K at age 5 is going into 3rd grade. To play with the rest of the 3rd graders (delayed K entry June 1 to Aug 31, 2001 and regular K start Sept 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002) they will have to play outside the June 1 2000 - May 31, 2002 window. Otherwise they will be playing with the 2nd and 1st graders.

No. I have a boy born March of 2002. He started school at 4 like most kids, 4 is Pre-K in Canada. For the sake of this conversation, he started school (Kindergarten) at 5. He is going into Grade 3 this year. For this conversation, let's call him "Regular".

He plays in a summer program with a couple of June born kids. One started at age 5 (we'll call him "Early") and one waited until he turned 6 (we'll call him "Late").

Regular and Early are both going into grade 3 while Late is entering Grade 2. All 3 of these boys will play on the same Mite team this season.

Regular and early will both play with their classmates in Grade 3 while Late will play with the 3rd graders and NOT his 2nd grade classmates. (Our association runs Mites in a 1 year window)

This is not a big deal to people it does not affect. "So what? " You might say.

I know when we moved here Association hockey played a big role in helping our 2002 boy adjust to the move. Once hockey started he was able to make friends with other boys in his class based on shared interests. Sports are great that way.

Next year, all 3 of these boys will play with our Association's Squirt program. Regular and Early will play with other grade 4 students as well as grade 5 students. Late will be playing with the grade 4 and 5 year students while the rest of his Grade 3 classmates play together in Mite.

It all evens out in the end? It will just make him better? It'll toughen him up? Maybe so, but that doesn't address the situation the little boy has right now, of just wanting to hang, play and share the game of hockey with his firends like everybody else.

The July kid who is 1 week younger and also stayed back doesn't have this issue. he is free to play with the other kids in his grade. Not sure what the big issue is with extending the same courtesy to the June kid.

My boy is March. A move to June will make him 1 month younger. So what? He's still playing with the friends in his community in his own grade. He doesn't care and we don't feel that allowing the June kid the same benefit is somehow at "the expense" of our son. It's just common sense.

Not sure where you get the idea that my belief is that no other date has merit ...

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:I'm not opposed to January 1, but I don't think Minnesota has the appettite for that.

I agree also with September 1, based on the school year (school start).

June 1 also corresponds with the school year (school end) and has two added components
1.) it accomodates summer babies (all of them) who start who school late
2.) it minimizes relative age within an age group better than any other cutoff

I think we can all agree that July 1 makes no sense at all ...

There are good arguments for other dates, but in reviewing the information put forth to the MH committee, the information on this thread by intelligent, respectful and thoughful contributors such as Council member Retired, Greybeard and others, adding in the extensive research that has been done by experts on Relative Age and childhood maturity the case for June 1 becomes overwheliming in my opinion as the BEST date of them all.

More important than all of this information however, are the instances of the June Mites scattered accross the State who are on the outside-looking-in when it comes to learning and playing the game with the kids they go to school with.

Those little kids don't care about relative age or 24 month windows or Age at Test or who, where or if they will be playing hockey in grade 9. All those little kids want to do is play with their friends. And you know what - research suggests that if you let them, they will have more fun, be more engaged and be more apt to stay with the sport and get more out of it. It's a win-win scenario. Nobody loses. Dare I say - "helps many. hurts no one."

As for the latter comments in your post hat don't relate to this thread ... someone stated that U12 Nationals had been eliminated. I simply pointed out that they were scheduled for March 30th of 2011 in Hackensack and San Jose. Thus, they have NOT been eliminated. Are they on the outs? yes. But not yet eliminated. A correction of a fact, not distorion. They are phasing out AAA hockey at the Squirt age in Michigan but tell a 2000 Tier 1 team at the Bauer Invitational that Tier 1 Squirt has been eliminated in Michigan and they will look across at the 2000 Compuware squad and say ... "well who the hell are those guys?"

Regardless, continually pulling in tidbits from other threads to somehow make an argument in this thread says more about the lack of your argument than the merits of June 1. The old "attack the messenger, not the message" tactic. I'm not even the messenger, so that may be a wasted strategy. Maybe it's easier to launch an attack on a percieved outsider. If that's the case, bring it on - I have large shoulders, a thick skin and a delete button.

The case for June 1 is strong and is already in front of the Minnesota Hockey Board. I guess we'll all now wait and see. The outcome won't affect my little guy one way or the other, so we won't lose any sleep over it on a personal level, but I do hope that the board looks past the status quo to the kids themselves and make a strong decision on their behalf.

observer wrote:Spinner,

Lay out your personal situation, with details, so we can understand why you would oppose a change to June 1. We're missing something. It's a perfectly logical change.

TonyL,

You should let someone else do the talking because most of us have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Tell us about your situation too as I can't figure out your beef.

I second the motion.

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

spin-o-rama wrote:A kid born June 1 2002 to Aug 31, 2002 who started K at age 5 is going into 3rd grade. To play with the rest of the 3rd graders (delayed K entry June 1 to Aug 31, 2001 and regular K start Sept 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002) they will have to play outside the June 1 2000 - May 31, 2002 window. Otherwise they will be playing with the 2nd and 1st graders.

No.

Actually, what I wrote is a true statement. It is not open to subjective argument.

Calling a kid who starts K at age 5 "early" is more distortion.

welders wrote:

observer wrote:Spinner,

Lay out your personal situation, with details, so we can understand why you would oppose a change to June 1. We're missing something. It's a perfectly logical change.

TonyL,

You should let someone else do the talking because most of us have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Tell us about your situation too as I can't figure out your beef.

I second the motion.

I third the motion.

The information I had posted from Mn Hockey planning committee minutes were the reasons for staying with the July 1 birth date when USA Hockey went back to Jan 1. Nowhere in the minutes is the date of June 1 even mentioned and in all of my posts on this subject you would read that I am not in favor of the Jun 1 date.
My first preference again is to not make a change and encourage the associations that do not have a move up policy to implement one. This is the easiest way to go.
Second change to Sept 1 and go with the same birth year as the legislature has for the grades in school as an example a bantam would have to be 14 before Sept 1 to be eligible means a 96 birth year this year as an example. This would put Mn Hockey younger than USA Bantams. Negative would be all players losing a year at a level.
Third would be to use the USA birth dates, with the exception of the Jr Gold level all registration software and materials would be the same nation wide. The June 1 date does not benefit the majority of Mn Hockey members only a small minority who have been making the most noise. Next group will want May 1 and that was already brought up at a Mn Hockey meeting. Maybe April 1 would be a good one also.