HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

That's a great list of players over at the YHH article.

If the criteria is "this kid is a second-year Squirt due to his age," I think O. Moore from Irondale should be on the list. He was a difference maker on MV/I's PeeWee A team as a fifth-grader.

If the criteria is "playing at the Squirt level," then I understand the omission.

jg2112 wrote:That's a great list of players over at the YHH article.

If the criteria is "this kid is a second-year Squirt due to his age," I think O. Moore from Irondale should be on the list. He was a difference maker on MV/I's PeeWee A team as a fifth-grader.

If the criteria is "playing at the Squirt level," then I understand the omission.

I'm not big on articles like that or naming kids or whatever... but that said since you brought it up, I've seen the player you mentioned and yea, that kid is pretty fantastic for his age, he's in the discussion for top 5 players in the age group up there right now if you ask me.... so yea my guess is because he didn't play squirts is the reason for omission...

Why not just make a list of top 5th graders? I can think of at least 12 kids from Made in SL1 (checking league) who would be on this list. There are kids on this list who play at Made who wouldn't be part of the 12 I am thinking of.

If you're going to make a "top" list...then include all 5th graders.

thefatcat wrote:Why not just make a list of top 5th graders? I can think of at least 12 kids from Made in SL1 (checking league) who would be on this list. There are kids on this list who play at Made who wouldn't be part of the 12 I am thinking of.

If you're going to make a "top" list...then include all 5th graders.

It is YHH's list -- and it says kids that YHH watched play at the Squirt level. Perhaps Tony Scott didn't travel to Mn Made to watch SL1. Feel free to publish your own top 50 list of all 5th graders.

Based on the NHL playoffs we're all watching top squirt means zippo.

mnhockey2019 wrote:

thefatcat wrote:Why not just make a list of top 5th graders? I can think of at least 12 kids from Made in SL1 (checking league) who would be on this list. There are kids on this list who play at Made who wouldn't be part of the 12 I am thinking of.

If you're going to make a "top" list...then include all 5th graders.

It is YHH's list -- and it says kids that YHH watched play at the Squirt level. Perhaps Tony Scott didn't travel to Mn Made to watch SL1. Feel free to publish your own top 50 list of all 5th graders.

I would....but I'm not allowed within 200 feet of youth hockey arenas.

Does YHH have a beef with Made? Just seems shortsighted to me that they make a "top" list without including Made. There is very good hockey played over there during the winter and it isn't very hard to find...google maps.

thefatcat wrote:

mnhockey2019 wrote:

thefatcat wrote:Why not just make a list of top 5th graders? I can think of at least 12 kids from Made in SL1 (checking league) who would be on this list. There are kids on this list who play at Made who wouldn't be part of the 12 I am thinking of.

If you're going to make a "top" list...then include all 5th graders.

It is YHH's list -- and it says kids that YHH watched play at the Squirt level. Perhaps Tony Scott didn't travel to Mn Made to watch SL1. Feel free to publish your own top 50 list of all 5th graders.

I would....but I'm not allowed within 200 feet of youth hockey arenas.

Does YHH have a beef with Made? Just seems shortsighted to me that they make a "top" list without including Made. There is very good hockey played over there during the winter and it isn't very hard to find...google maps.

There are a few Choice Leaguers in that top 50.

jg2112 wrote:

thefatcat wrote:

mnhockey2019 wrote: It is YHH's list -- and it says kids that YHH watched play at the Squirt level. Perhaps Tony Scott didn't travel to Mn Made to watch SL1. Feel free to publish your own top 50 list of all 5th graders.

I would....but I'm not allowed within 200 feet of youth hockey arenas.

Does YHH have a beef with Made? Just seems shortsighted to me that they make a "top" list without including Made. There is very good hockey played over there during the winter and it isn't very hard to find...google maps.

There are a few Choice Leaguers in that top 50.

Yes, ones that pull double duty and played choice and association. As I stated previously, some of the kids on this list wouldn't be part of the dozen 5th graders from Made who should be on this list...and the reason they're not on this list is because is because they play exclusively at Made.

maybe Tony dosen't like Bernie,

I would be interested to hear the MN made staff picks for top squirts statewide.....

Some would be the same, but a lot of heads are deep in the sand.....

How about we point out the obvious, that it is completely insane that someone is posting the top 50 squirts at all? The fact that arguments are being made that someone was "shunned" by the author is even more ridiculous. I can picture some pathetic parent in 5 years, sitting in a seedy bar, complaining that little Johnny is playing 3rd line varsity after being named one of the top 50 squirt players a few years back. This sums up what is so totally wrong about youth sports.

On another topic, when does the top 50 mini-mite list come out?

zooomx wrote:
On another topic, when does the top 50 mini-mite list come out?

It‘s locked in Bernie's safe

zooomx wrote:How about we point out the obvious, that it is completely insane that someone is posting the top 50 squirts at all? The fact that arguments are being made that someone was "shunned" by the author is even more ridiculous. I can picture some pathetic parent in 5 years, sitting in a seedy bar, complaining that little Johnny is playing 3rd line varsity after being named one of the top 50 squirt players a few years back. This sums up what is so totally wrong about youth sports.

On another topic, when does the top 50 mini-mite list come out?

True. I'm sure there will be several kids on that list that never play varsity at all and right now they are thinking they will get a scholarship from the Gophers. Things change a lot once puberty kicks in.

JSR wrote:I'm not big on articles like that or naming kids or whatever... but that said since you brought it up, I've seen the player you mentioned and yea, that kid is pretty fantastic for his age, he's in the discussion for top 5 players in the age group up there right now if you ask me.... so yea my guess is because he didn't play squirts is the reason for omission...

Also not a fan of naming youth players. Also agree the kid is special. Slightly younger 5th grader. Best '05 in the state, IMHO.

I see a few people coming out as not being a fan of naming youth in articles, lists etc. but, I think we're in the minority. In another topic post, opinions seem to favor this kind of thing. Either that or no opinion. Nearly 1500 views and only 7 replies. ???

scoreandscoreoften wrote:I see a few people coming out as not being a fan of naming youth in articles, lists etc. but, I think we're in the minority. In another topic post, opinions seem to favor this kind of thing. Either that or no opinion. Nearly 1500 views and only 7 replies. ???

Are the same people against these players being mentioned on association websites? What about their pictures?

I'm not sure this is a point upon which to make a stand. It takes 12 seconds to find a player's name on his/her association website. If they're good they are going to be talked about in rinks or online. So long as it's positive I think it is appropriate. On the other hand, if the parent wants the name removed, I also think it's appropriate to remove the name.

jg2112 wrote:Are the same people against these players being mentioned on association websites? What about their pictures?

I'm not sure this is a point upon which to make a stand. It takes 12 seconds to find a player's name on his/her association website. If they're good they are going to be talked about in rinks or online. So long as it's positive I think it is appropriate. On the other hand, if the parent wants the name removed, I also think it's appropriate to remove the name.

In general, for association websites, I think names without pictures is okay. Some of that is simply for logistical purposes. Also, I would strongly advise against public stats. I'm all for talking about them at rinks. Online... not so much.

Again, this is all just an opinion.

I think we're talking about two levels of exposure here. One is to keep a team web site updated on how the local team is doing. The other is stats, POG's, tournament MVP's, player rankings, top prospects, top draft eligible players, players of the year, etc. all to sell their product. Some of the articles you can't even read if you don't subscribe. It's only my opinion but, I don't agree with it. Disclaimer - I think some of the other things they do are great. Scores, tournament coverage, recent news, etc. just think they go overboard on the other stuff

In regards to the squirt list changing between now and varsity........of the PeeWee player of the year candidates from just last season 4 of the 5 were 2001 birth years that participated in this seasons HP 15s process. Of the 4, only 1 of them was in the 102 kids that advanced to the summer camp in St, Cloud. So yes, there will likely be a lot of changes between squirts and varsity.

scoreandscoreoften wrote:I think we're talking about two levels of exposure here. One is to keep a team web site updated on how the local team is doing. The other is stats, POG's, tournament MVP's, player rankings, top prospects, top draft eligible players, players of the year, etc. all to sell their product. Some of the articles you can't even read if you don't subscribe. It's only my opinion but, I don't agree with it. Disclaimer - I think some of the other things they do are great. Scores, tournament coverage, recent news, etc. just think they go overboard on the other stuff

I agree. Posting scores, covering tournaments, showing "grow your game" videos is fairly harmless, and I started checking out YHH just to see how other teams were doing. Covering these kids like they are college or pro athletes is where I have issues. It's smart business, as it pulls in page views as parents hope their little johnny will get mentioned. "Smart" business is not always healthy when it comes to our kids. YHH is not alone, as there are so many people profiteering off of youth sports. Again, I think Tony started out with good intentions, and probably thinks he is doing a service to youth hockey families. I just don't agree. I think it is unhealthy for the kids, their families, and youth hockey. I am surprised and disappointed that this has not been addressed by MN Hockey.

I personally don't like that tournaments publish stats at the squirt or pee wee level. Refs have a tough time getting the right scorer let alone the assist (s). Plus many coaches double shift their kid which adds more drama to the team.

Player of the game should also be eliminated at this level

zooomx wrote:

scoreandscoreoften wrote:I think we're talking about two levels of exposure here. One is to keep a team web site updated on how the local team is doing. The other is stats, POG's, tournament MVP's, player rankings, top prospects, top draft eligible players, players of the year, etc. all to sell their product. Some of the articles you can't even read if you don't subscribe. It's only my opinion but, I don't agree with it. Disclaimer - I think some of the other things they do are great. Scores, tournament coverage, recent news, etc. just think they go overboard on the other stuff

I agree. Posting scores, covering tournaments, showing "grow your game" videos is fairly harmless, and I started checking out YHH just to see how other teams were doing. Covering these kids like they are college or pro athletes is where I have issues. It's smart business, as it pulls in page views as parents hope their little johnny will get mentioned. "Smart" business is not always healthy when it comes to our kids. YHH is not alone, as there are so many people profiteering off of youth sports. Again, I think Tony started out with good intentions, and probably thinks he is doing a service to youth hockey families. I just don't agree. I think it is unhealthy for the kids, their families, and youth hockey. I am surprised and disappointed that this has not been addressed by MN Hockey.

Zoo, what could MN Hockey do? They have no legal authority over private images and opinions, which is really what YHH is. Sure they could make it difficult for "YHH sponsored" Tournaments, but the tournaments are "hosted" by MN Associations which get a pretty nice revenue stream from the events (just like any tournament). Just my opinion, I don't think MNH wants to open the door of being an "editor" of public websites. Do they start to monitor twitter and other web pages etc?

All online content (including Twitter, Facebook,etc.) Is covered under USA Hockey's Safesport policy. MN Hockey would have the authority to step in. Personally, I don't think they should, enough to deal with already.

As for the content on YHH, I've followed it for years. I like some of the coverage and I think other times it's a little too much. Take the good with the bad, I guess.

SCBlueLiner wrote:All online content (including Twitter, Facebook,etc.) Is covered under USA Hockey's Safesport policy. MN Hockey would have the authority to step in. Personally, I don't think they should, enough to deal with already.

As for the content on YHH, I've followed it for years. I like some of the coverage and I think other times it's a little too much. Take the good with the bad, I guess.

Understood it is covered under safe sport but I have never seen anything that violates safe sport. A list of top players or game recaps with no negativity does not violate safe spoer

America.