HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I have been hearing the past couple of years that there is a push for Minnesota Hockey to change the July 1 date for classification of play. Has anyone else heard this and if so, any new developments?

The planning or discenment committee is (were told) to study the issue. In particular how to handle summer birthdates that want to play with their classmates.

That does not sound like MN is looking to fall in line with USAH, as may interest a gentleman from Colorado.

InigoMontoya wrote:That does not sound like MN is looking to fall in line with USAH, as may interest a gentleman from Colorado.

MN Hockey will not change to January 1.
At least anytime soon.

elliott70 wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:That does not sound like MN is looking to fall in line with USAH, as may interest a gentleman from Colorado.

MN Hockey will not change to January 1.
At least anytime soon.

Out of curiosity ... why not? Wouldn't it make sense to be standard with the rest of the hockey world? Play in Nationals, always be on competitive ground etc. What is the thinking behind the July 1 date? Anyone know?

MN has great high school hockey and great youth hockey in the winter and I don't think you can have it any other way than to break it out by school year, thus July 1st. I hope it does not change as the Jan 1 for summer hockey and July 1 for winter has been great for the development of my son. He plays catch up for the first part of the summer due to a late birthday and then really benefits in the winter. My guess is that some are stars in the summer and play catch up in the winter. Seems to even out in the end.

What kind of time line would they be looking at. It would be a tough change to make for kids that are already in pee wee's or beyond.

8691 wrote:MN has great high school hockey and great youth hockey in the winter and I don't think you can have it any other way than to break it out by school year, thus July 1st. I hope it does not change as the Jan 1 for summer hockey and July 1 for winter has been great for the development of my son. He plays catch up for the first part of the summer due to a late birthday and then really benefits in the winter. My guess is that some are stars in the summer and play catch up in the winter. Seems to even out in the end.

I agree Minnesota has great high school hockey. The absolute best!

The youth hockey could use a little work, however. The school year model works well by single grade, like in football, keeping the athletes closer in age proximity while they are developing, particulary through the middle school years. As it is, the age disparity in Bantam and Pee Wee hockey is too great, creating situations where young men are playing against little boys.

The USA hockey birth year model keeps kids within 12 months of each other, not only increasing player retention, player development, game competitiveness and fun for the players but would also keep Minnesota hockey on an even playing field with the rest of the world and open up other opportunities to Minnesota kids, like Nationals, without sacrificing anything they already have.

Seems like a win/win for Minnesota youth hockey. I can't see the downside.

I am sure the powers that be have some reason for the manatory 2 year gap July-June through Bantam youth hockey ... I am just curious to know what the constructive reasoning is that is great enough to offset the obvious downsides to this structure ...

The July 1 date is based on the old USAH date.
MH changed from Sept 1 to July 1.
When USAH changed MH just stayed at July 1 rather than go back to Sept 1.

MH is based on something closer to the school year to try and let most 9th graders play bantam hockey, then start JV or varsity as sophomores.

MH is geared to MnHS hocley not the rest of the country. The rest of the country is geared to International Hockey - not what is good for any particular part of this country.

Two years gap was the standard USAH rule becasue of numbers.
It still fits MH as many associations need that age group to field a team or to make a competitive A and competitive B team.

There will be no change to January 1 or a single year for a long time in MH.

elliott70 wrote:MH is geared to MnHS hocley not the rest of the country. The rest of the country is geared to International Hockey - not what is good for any particular part of this country.

With great regard for your opinion Elliot, respectfully disagree.

The rest of the country is geared towards the rest of the country. That's why they can harmoniously interact with each other, playing on an even keel at the State, inter-State and National levels as well as the International level.

MH is an affiliate of USA Hockey, no different than Associations in Minnesota are affiliates of MH.

If individual associations used the same logic as MH does with USAH we would risk pockets of anarchy within the state, (ex "Association X is geared towards Association X, not what is good for Association Y.")

A standard age and tier classification year does nothing to detract from Minnesota High School Hockey or any other Minnesota hockey program. There is no downside and has plenty of upside.

That said, you are correct in saying that will not happen any time soon. Too much arrogance and stuborness with the current powers that be. Only fresh blood and progressive minds will get us up to speed. It will happen eventually but not any time soon.

If kids only played hockey with their age group, they would be in for a rude awakening when they hit HS. Imagine a kid who has only played with kids who are their age, now they get to HS an they have kids 2-3 years older..........kind of a shock.



Right now, they are playing against kids who are bigger/stronger/older and even though they may not shine, they are improving, isn't that what we want?

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:If kids only played hockey with their age group, they would be in for a rude awakening when they hit HS. Imagine a kid who has only played with kids who are their age, now they get to HS an they have kids 2-3 years older..........kind of a shock.

Right now, they are playing against kids who are bigger/stronger/older and even though they may not shine, they are improving, isn't that what we want?

Your not giving Minnesota kids enough credit. They do it in every other part of the country and the world (where hockey is played). Are those kids "tougher" than ours? I don't think so.

Further, playing against bigger/stronger/older kids does not translate to development/improvement. In fact, it can severly hinder development and improvementand and fun and risk serious injury.

Keeping the players in competitive blocks grouped by birth year all the way through Bantam Major does ensures a higher retention rate, higher rate of fun, lessens the risk of serious injury and maximizes development opportunities. That's what we want.

The part I found most educational in Elliott's post was the reasoning for two years. Most associations in the state need two years to have enough talent to field a team at the A level and fill out B teams, etc. That's a pretty true statement and, while I know there are people who would willingly drive to a arena three associations away to play with 'like skilled skaters' I'd just as soon have my kid be the youngest on his bantam team this year, so he can shine next year, and only have to drive a couple miles to accomplish that.

Perhaps this, like chocolate and peanut butter, could be combined for the uber-sized associations. What if Edina/Eden Prairie/Wayzata was allowed to have a 94, 95 and a 96 A team at the bantam level, each could play in Minnesota, well not the early 94s, presumably they are all at High school. Let those teams than compete locally and at nationals. Or have one team of all 95s and have the 94 and 96s compete, giving each group one shot at nationals. Reeses? or melted mess?

DMom wrote:The part I found most educational in Elliott's post was the reasoning for two years. Most associations in the state need two years to have enough talent to field a team at the A level and fill out B teams, etc. That's a pretty true statement and, while I know there are people who would willingly drive to a arena three associations away to play with 'like skilled skaters' I'd just as soon have my kid be the youngest on his bantam team this year, so he can shine next year, and only have to drive a couple miles to accomplish that.

Perhaps this, like chocolate and peanut butter, could be combined for the uber-sized associations. What if Edina/Eden Prairie/Wayzata was allowed to have a 94, 95 and a 96 A team at the bantam level, each could play in Minnesota, well not the early 94s, presumably they are all at High school. Let those teams than compete locally and at nationals. Reeses? or melted mess?

I agree DMom. The obvious and most logistical reason for playing in 2 year gaps is for numbers in small associations. Indeed, there are associations out there who would not be able to field a team based on single birth years. However, that's no different in any other part of the country. In fact, our numbers in Minnesota should give us an advantage in this regard. Many small associations in other parts of the country meet this challenge by combining associations at challenged age groups etc.

Further, many areas offer both 2 year gaps and single year. Manitoba is a good example and so is Wisconsin. Both Hockey Manitoba and WAHA have a variety of programs available (Major/Minor, 2 Year Groups, Association + Club, AA/AAA etc.) that cater to a range of interests and communities helping individual associations and families make choices that suit them best, rather than a gestapo style dictated "one-size fits all" approach.

I like your idea, but I wouldn't restrict it to uber-associations. It would be nice to see Minnesota kids get the opportunity to represent Minnesota at some of the premiere hockey tournaments on the continent, including Nationals, weather they need to do that within their association or in some other capacity under the MH umbrella is for another discussion, but it would be great to open up these opportunities somehow to all Minnesota kids.

Good discussion ...

Some rules are good, some are not. If USA hockey wanted Minnesota to participate, it would allow them to put together a few birth year teams to compete at nationals. Most likely the Bureaucrats would get in the way of something that could be nice to see. Why not let Edina, Wayzata, EP, WBL, D8 or some common sense grouping playoff and the winner goes to nationals? You get to keep the association model, then also allow some of the higher end kids play in front of 200 people for the national championship. If it is for insurance or registration purposes, then I will just puke in the trash can now.

sorno82 wrote:Some rules are good, some are not. If USA hockey wanted Minnesota to participate, it would allow them to put together a few birth year teams to compete at nationals. Most likely the Bureaucrats would get in the way of something that could be nice to see. Why not let Edina, Wayzata, EP, WBL, D8 or some common sense grouping playoff and the winner goes to nationals? You get to keep the association model, then also allow some of the higher end kids play in front of 200 people for the national championship. If it is for insurance registration purposes, then I will just puke in the trash can now.

No reason you can't do both. Other states do it and anything that can be done by other states (with regards to hockey) can be done and done better by Minnesota. Just a matter of the MH guys and USAH checking their egos at the door, putting on progressive thinking caps. It's all do-able.

Somewhere in the archives I posted a while ago the study that Mn Hockey did when USA Hockey made the last change. The conclusion was that the benefits of remaining the same date July 1 out weighed moving to Jan. 1, with that date most 9th graders would have to play either High school or Jr Gold. As for the 2 year gap check the titles of the National Championships and you will find a 2 year gap also.
The Jan 1 birth date would have some classmates playing together every other year. The birth date has been a long standing disagreement between USA and Mn Hockey, the last change USA Hockey also increased the year where before a 9th grader could play bantams and now with the change some can not.

Under an age classificaiton change, why couldn't high school hockey become U16 and U18 hockey, an extension from the Youth Program.

Freshman and Sophmores play High School U16
Juniors and Seniors Play High School U18

Continue Junior Gold or incorporate as part of a B level of play or as the U16 league.

the exceptional freshman and soph's that can make the U18 team, do so.

State champions at each level go to the USA Hockey National Championship.

just a scenario...

greybeard58 wrote:Somewhere in the archives I posted a while ago the study that Mn Hockey did when USA Hockey made the last change. The conclusion was that the benefits of remaining the same date July 1 out weighed moving to Jan. 1, with that date most 9th graders would have to play either High school or Jr Gold. As for the 2 year gap check the titles of the National Championships and you will find a 2 year gap also.
The Jan 1 birth date would have some classmates playing together every other year. The birth date has been a long standing disagreement between USA and Mn Hockey, the last change USA Hockey also increased the year where before a 9th grader could play bantams and now with the change some can not.

If by Birth year below is this years breakdown.

99-00- Squirt
97-98- PeeWee
95-96- Bantam

Bring back the Midget level and Dump Junior Gold!

95-94 Midget level

A friend of mine has a son whom is going to be in 9th grade next year, he is a summer birthday. The son, and mom are worried he won't be playing hockey next year. He will not be eligible for bantams, and they don't think he will be chosen for JV next fall.

The association does not have jr gold. They could commute to a another association for jr gold. The attraction of the somewhat long commute, and playing jr gold in 9th grade is very small. She wishes her son could play bantams in 9th grade with his classmates next season.

If MN hockey is truly looking at a way for summer birthdays to play with their classmates they should be applauded. Clap - Clap

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

elliott70 wrote:MH is geared to MnHS hocley not the rest of the country. The rest of the country is geared to International Hockey - not what is good for any particular part of this country.

With great regard for your opinion Elliot, respectfully disagree.

The rest of the country is geared to USAH who made the change to be in step with the international teams.

That's why they can harmoniously interact with each other, playing on an even keel at the State, inter-State and National levels as well as the International level.

National level play was eliminated by MH prior to the age change. MH reasoning was based on feed-back that the expense of going to naitonals versus the benefit was not there. The state tourneament was the culmination of the year for the teams that had gone on to Nationals. National was just an after thought.

MH is an affiliate of USA Hockey, no different than Associations in Minnesota are affiliates of MH.

MH follows USAH registration rules.

If individual associations used the same logic as MH does with USAH we would risk pockets of anarchy within the state, (ex "Association X is geared towards Association X, not what is good for Association Y.")

A standard age and tier classification year does nothing to detract from Minnesota High School Hockey or any other Minnesota hockey program. There is no downside and has plenty of upside.

What is the upside?

That said, you are correct in saying that will not happen any time soon. Too much arrogance and stuborness with the current powers that be. Only fresh blood and progressive minds will get us up to speed. It will happen eventually but not any time soon.

I am not arguing, just trying to keep everything in line as to why it happened the way it did.

If an argument is to be made then these statements need to have credence and support of the majority of MH members. Most are not concerned with the issue, I am asusming because there has been no ground swell of request for a change.

But a change in the way the MH board is elected is what is needed. something I have advocated for years. Next April may bring a beginning of a change depending on the elections, but I do not foresee any major change in philosophy ever coming becasue the fire in the cause leaves once a child moves on to HS or out of hockey.

Having lived in another part of the country the only way Minnesota will be able to compete is to remove geographical boundries for players. Our teams had players coming from 40 to 100 miles away to play. I knew of players going on a daily basis to other states to play with friends at other teams. They failed miserably...but hey it was their money and time.

In order to play for Nationals all players on the National team must have played a minimum of 10 games in a league on the team. Hard to do here when you don't have single age years. We could compete at the Nationals at the Tier two level pretty well though, but then again that age/date thing creeps in and we would have to change I would guess. Unless of course someone could convince USA Hockey of the compelling reasons to go to our model.

In my opinion I would rather everyone have the ability to play for the best of Minnesota title at their age group, then 15 or 30 kids playing for the Nationals. Quite frankly I think there are too many tournaments now. I would rather lose to any Minnesota registered team then spending money by going halfway across the country to lose to a select team which came from god only knows where.

In truth the Minnesota age model makes more sense to me, as it allows boys who may be held back in school for a variety of reasons, to still if in age by birth date to play with their classmates, then the USA model accomplishes.

If USA hockey forced boundries by township or school or whatever like Little League baseball does, I would guestimate the majority of teams that play for Nationals would not be able to field a team much less compete.

I do think that having the larger and slightly older kids on our teams vs the USA Hockey model does improve skating, passing and the speed of the game.

In my opinion be thankful for what you have, work to improve it, and as a community cherish these young boys and girls who lay it on the line every time they lace up as they are the ones who represent the feature.

"Lets Play Hockey"

WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:If kids only played hockey with their age group, they would be in for a rude awakening when they hit HS. Imagine a kid who has only played with kids who are their age, now they get to HS an they have kids 2-3 years older..........kind of a shock.

Right now, they are playing against kids who are bigger/stronger/older and even though they may not shine, they are improving, isn't that what we want?

Your not giving Minnesota kids enough credit. They do it in every other part of the country and the world (where hockey is played). Are those kids "tougher" than ours? I don't think so.

Further, playing against bigger/stronger/older kids does not translate to development/improvement. In fact, it can severly hinder development and improvementand and fun and risk serious injury.

Keeping the players in competitive blocks grouped by birth year all the way through Bantam Major does ensures a higher retention rate, higher rate of fun, lessens the risk of serious injury and maximizes development opportunities. That's what we want.

Not arguing with you, but just want to know, Why and based on what stats is this true?

Looks like Minnesota Hockey System is working just fine.

G Jack Campbell 2010 Draft eligible
G Mike Lee Phoenix (3rd round, 2009)
D John Carlson Washington (1st round, 2008)
D David Warsofsky St. Louis (4th round, 2008)
D Matt Donovan N.Y. Islanders (4th round, 2008)
D John Ramage 2010 Draft eligible
D Max Nicastro Detroit (3rd round, 2008)
D Jake Gardiner Anaheim (1st round, 2008)
D Justin Faulk 2010 Draft eligible
D Cam Fowler 2010 Draft eligible
D John Moore Columbus (1st round, 2009)
D Brian Lashoff Detroit (FA, 2008)
F Derek Stepan N.Y. Rangers (2nd round, 2008)
F Jerry D'Amigo Toronto (6th round, 2009)
F Danny Kristo Montreal (2nd round, 2008)
F Chris Brown Phoenix (2nd round, 2009)
F Jordan Schroeder Vancouver (1st round, 2009)
F David Wohlberg New Jersey (6th round, 2008)
F Vinny Saponari Atlanta (4th round, 2008)
F Kyle Palmieri Anaheim (1st round, 2009)
F Chris Kreider N.Y. Rangers (1st round, 2009)
F Jason Zucker 2010 Draft eligible
F Jeremy Morin Atlanta (2nd round, 2009)
F Philip McRae St. Louis (2nd round, 2008)
F A.J. Jenks Florida (4th round, 2008)
F Luke Walker 2010 Draft eligible
F Tyler Johnson 2010 Draft eligible
F Ryan Bourque N.Y. Rangers (3rd round, 2009)

phil mccracken wrote:A friend of mine has a son whom is going to be in 9th grade next year, he is a summer birthday. The son, and mom are worried he won't be playing hockey next year. He will not be eligible for bantams, and they don't think he will be chosen for JV next fall.

The association does not have jr gold. They could commute to a another association for jr gold. The attraction of the somewhat long commute, and playing jr gold in 9th grade is very small. She wishes her son could play bantams in 9th grade with his classmates next season.

If MN hockey is truly looking at a way for summer birthdays to play with their classmates they should be applauded. Clap - Clap

**Is this kid a spring birthday (doesn't July 1st covers ~90% of summer birthdays)? Do ALL the kids in this association end up playing JV/V after bantams? That is a dream come true in most communities. Even kids in large associations sometimes have to go to other communities in order to play on a Jr Gold team (if numbers are too high or too low).

**Regarding the Jan 1st proposal. That is wonderful for early birthdays but terrible for late birthdays.

**No system is perfect. Kids that truly love the game adapt and perservere in spite of less than optimal situations. They are stronger though it all and appreciate their OWN accomplishments rather then having parents intervene to make things easier for them.