The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://www.ushsho.com/forums/
Back when my kid played JG it was a nice soft landing after getting cut by the varsity. Any change made to a DE roster would have been met with a collective yawn, by the rest of the league. Most years they could barely field a full roster - and even with a late addition, probably got pounded at state.tourneytickssince59 wrote:They were told they won't be seeing any ice time the rest of the season so they quit rather than play JV.
Apparently, Duluth East did the same thing a few years back so there was precedent to allow this.
WERE HER WORDS CAPITALIZED.?Rick O'Shay wrote:I was told by a Stillwater JGA mother that they were ABSOLUTELY abused and belittled by the high school coach/coaches! Her words not mine. Keeping in mind that there are always two sides to every story. She claimed they were so poorly treated that the association begged the JGA team to let them play.
I will say that at least one of the players (#4) was noticeable during the JGA game I watched. Not sure what could have happened at the varsity level but to me he looked like he would have easily been skilled enough to play on their varsity squad.
TheMayor wrote:Yes, I was there.elliott70 wrote:At the winter meeting the MH board of directors voted to suspend the rules and then voted to allow late registration of these two players.
It carried with only one dissenting vote.[/quote
Elliott
Were you there for the vote? What was the justification given for circumventing long held roster deadlines? Was there Metro League representation?
The deadline has been extended in the past but to my knowledge only a few days. The justification was the boys were not playing.
The metro league was not there and to my knowledge not consulted.
Again, only one dissenting vote.
elliott70 wrote:Just seems like a bad precedent to set. Not sure what justification was used in the past, but lack of playing time feels thin. Also looks bad when district director with obvious conflict of interest brings forth proposal. Objectively, with no dog in the fight, MN hockey missed badly on this one.TheMayor wrote:Yes, I was there.elliott70 wrote:At the winter meeting the MH board of directors voted to suspend the rules and then voted to allow late registration of these two players.
It carried with only one dissenting vote.[/quote
Elliott
Were you there for the vote? What was the justification given for circumventing long held roster deadlines? Was there Metro League representation?
The deadline has been extended in the past but to my knowledge only a few days. The justification was the boys were not playing.
The metro league was not there and to my knowledge not consulted.
Again, only one dissenting vote.
TheMayor wrote:If these 2 players were underclassmen, I might question this. But if they’re seniors, I have no problem with bending the rules to allow them to play Junior Gold (for the remainder of this season)elliott70 wrote:Just seems like a bad precedent to set. Not sure what justification was used in the past, but lack of playing time feels thin. Also looks bad when district director with obvious conflict of interest brings forth proposal. Objectively, with no dog in the fight, MN hockey missed badly on this one.TheMayor wrote: Yes, I was there.
The deadline has been extended in the past but to my knowledge only a few days. The justification was the boys were not playing.
The metro league was not there and to my knowledge not consulted.
Again, only one dissenting vote.
District 2 directorTheMayor wrote:In talking to some of my JG contacts, this one does not seem to pass the sniff test.
From what I’ve heard, this was brought to the MN hockey by the District 10 director, who has a kid on the Stillwater team. This would seem to be a conflict of interest. In addition, it appears that there was no Metro league input on the topic, and it was never an agenda item. MN Hockey doesn’t keep their meeting minutes up to date, so there’s no way to tell what was proposed, or discussed.
Dissatisfaction with playing time at varsity is hardly a valid reason to change a rule. Imagine the precedent this could set. There are probably numerous players every year who might consider dropping to JG after January 1st, due to playing time, burn-out, time commitment, etc.
MN Hockey should never have let this one happen just for the slippery slope it may have created.
If, as one poster suggests, there was bullying going on, then that’s a larger issue for the Stillwater AD to look into.
Thanks for clarifying. I believe his son is on the team. Not a good look.tourneytickssince59 wrote:District 2 directorTheMayor wrote:In talking to some of my JG contacts, this one does not seem to pass the sniff test.
From what I’ve heard, this was brought to the MN hockey by the District 10 director, who has a kid on the Stillwater team. This would seem to be a conflict of interest. In addition, it appears that there was no Metro league input on the topic, and it was never an agenda item. MN Hockey doesn’t keep their meeting minutes up to date, so there’s no way to tell what was proposed, or discussed.
Dissatisfaction with playing time at varsity is hardly a valid reason to change a rule. Imagine the precedent this could set. There are probably numerous players every year who might consider dropping to JG after January 1st, due to playing time, burn-out, time commitment, etc.
MN Hockey should never have let this one happen just for the slippery slope it may have created.
If, as one poster suggests, there was bullying going on, then that’s a larger issue for the Stillwater AD to look into.