U14 and JV

nottachance · Post by **nottachance** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:25 pm

U14 is almost all 8th grade every where you look. It is just not viable, and numbers are decreasing. Almost all 9th grade go to their JV, unless you live in Edina or White Bear Lk. Maybe we should do something radical (think outside the box) and after U12 make it just one level - U19. That is what JV is anyway - anyone from 7-12 gr can play JV in most schools. There would never be any way for MSHSL to rule to make JV and youth coordinate, too hard. But U14 can't compete with JV, the better player will almost always head to HS if there is room.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:05 am

I agree. Problem is that you won't get HS's to give up JV ever - and kids, parents, etc. want it for the subsidy and all the other positives (there are negatives too...)... A compromise would be having all JV's & non-HS U19's-U14's (meaning all MH U14, U16, U19) eligible for a U19 MH tourney at the end of the season. I can't see why all these teams couldn't play each other either HS JV, U14, U16, U19. JV pretty much is a mix of these same groups as notta said. What really screwed everything up was the USA H switch from U15 to U16/U14 a couple years back, and I think MH tried to do what was best to fix this by having U14's be a half year older (so almost back to U15), but it just didn't work.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:13 am

I still think the simplest fix is replacing U12 with U13. I know of few high schools that cut kids off of JV, so I think at least 95% of the kids would find a home and there would be a natural break after middle school. The problem with JV is that many school districts do not allow 8th graders to play JV only varsity. The extra year would also make it easier for associations to field U13 A and B teams with the extra year. Also, there are healthy ##'s of A level and B level teams at U12, but not a U14.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:04 am

I agree about the natural break. Actualy, I'd take U19 & U13 but allow U19 to play JV teams, etc. as described above. If you think about it, we already essentially have U13 with the U12 + mid year MH age break change giving us up to U12.5 essentially. I know of only two schools that don't allow middle school kids to play HS. How many are there out there? Some that had this rule years ago have reversed it recently, etc. I believe this rule too could be challenged legally and thrown out if someone tried at the schools that have it. Not that I agree or disagree, but... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 11:05 am

nottachance · Post by **nottachance** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:04 am

The shift from youth to HS is a year earlier for girls than boys. U13 would make sense. U7, then U9, then U11, then U13, then U19 to capture the oldest. The U13 would be 7 and 8 graders, which is perfect. It is 6 and 7 now. U11 would be 5 and 6 graders. Not completely perfect, since most 6th are middle school so it mixes elem and middle together. But it could work. At the older end, then you have 9th gr to age 19. Seems like a perfect solution to me. Wouldn't be many U19 teams state-wide but it gives girls cut from hs a place to play. not bad, where do we sign a petition <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

OnFrozenPond · Post by **OnFrozenPond** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:12 am

I agree 100% with a shift from U12/U14/U19 to U11/U13/U19. It would make both U11 and U13 very competitive. Right now U12 is really the only high quality youth league. U14 is too watered down by limited numbers and HS defections. The U11/U13 plan would provide two grades for each level. That is huge!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:36 am

OK, I like it, but don't we already essentially have this? This was the thrust behind the MH age change. That gives us up to 8.5/10.5/12.5/14.5, etc. pretty close to the 9/11/13 that we talk of. Here's the problem... You still are now talking of drawing 7th/8th's for U13. The problem here is that you're still then in competition with JV HS eligible kids, so you really solve nothing in my mind HS/Youth wise. The problem is this overlap between U14/U12 now and 7th/8th/9th grades. What I guess I'd propose instead is sticking with our U12.5 setup now which is essentially U13, but then adding U19 for everything else and allowing those teams to be JV HS or youth sponsored groups that could compete for U19 MH State. What are the problems with this? #1 getting MH & MSHSL to OK it as they essentially already have as they let U19, U16, and HS JV's play now. So, really no problem there - but the agreement would have to become more formal vs. just looking the other way now. #2 in MH eyes, the JV/U19 would have to be the U19 "B" I believe for regions/state as they have an U19 "A" portion already SSM/TB/B&A teams and that's a different clasification that WHAM runs the state tourney for. I would think that someone could approach WHAM about running this tourney too with volunteers (as everything is based on by the way in MH & WHAM). #3 if true young teams wanted to stick/play together (in a 7th & 8th grade sense like the proposed grade based U13) maybe they could declare as a B2 vs B1, etc. and play only like based teams with a similar designation (i.e all teams COULD play each other (true HS JV, true U14/U16/U19, or our "U13" 7th/8th based teams) but you COULD chose only to play similar based teams until regions & state). #4 MSHSL guidelines for JV teams still need to be followed, and some guideline needs to be in place not allowing HS V kids to play down with JV come U19 regions/state, etc. Also, unfortunately "State" would have to be held before the MSHSL state tourney ended to be withing MSHSL guidelines, and those JV teams form the HS level that would be participating also need to be within the max. # of games/periods allowed per year for their players for a region & state tourney, etc. There are more concerns I'm sure... but I still think this is a better option. Some kids woudl chose to play in a Youth assn based U19 vs. with the HS as they would get the EXACT same competition minus the locker room drama of HS V right there too. Of course, the only thing they lose is the chance to play 'up" with V and skate those practice etc. if they are with the youth based U19 vs. JV based one, and there woudl be some economic benifits lost too with the JV being HS subsifized and youth not, but that may be worth it to keep kids from HS program before they are ready maturity wise... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 11:40 am

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:19 pm

I changed my mind about post-season HS JV play. Just allow the youth teams to play as they do now. JV HS teams wouldn't need to participate. This would simplify things, and I've been told that essentially this setup would be more posible this way...

hihockey · Post by **hihockey** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:12 pm

A U13/U11/U9 scenario would have one big problem with Minnesota Hockey with regard to the U11 age. The U11s would be generally 5th and 6th graders. The current MH and USA hockey criteria is that 4th and 5th grade is Squirt level, and there are no standings kept, no playoffs, no state tournaments, etc. If you suddenly shift the girl's ages by a year and allow the 5th graders to have those things that Squirts do not....well, all hell breaks loose at the association level. Girls get something boys don't - which is not a popular thing from my own history of working with our youth association! I like the idea of going U8 to U10 to U12 to U19, however in reality it might not solve too much. U14 right now is a one-year age group, the vast majority are 8th graders in most communities. The elite 8th grader and virtually all 9th graders are on JV/Varsity if there is room in their community. Expanding the current U14 to make it U19 probably won't add too many bodies to the eligible pool. But when you are trying to put together just one U14 in a given community, every additional kid counts. I suppose it could help the average sized association field that one U14 team instead of doing so many coops. I do like the idea of shifting the ages by a year better (U9, U11, U13, U19). U9= 3rd/4th, U11=5th/6th, U13=7th/8th, U19=9th to age 19. Then there are truly two years worth of girls at each level. However, I'm not very optimistic that the hurdles could be overcome there.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:24 pm

I agree with all of this! I think the biggest point is that elimination of the formal U14/16/19 designation would allow for more options by youth assn's to compete with the JV offering. I agree with rainbow/co-ops 100%+++ but it is nice when you can keep it a home assn. team by picking up a 16 or 19 kid that has no where else to go and doens't want to play HS. Sometimes, that kid can get a lot out of this too - learn to be a leader, etc. for some younger kids - even though I know some HS girls despise being associated with younger kids, etc. Sometimes that also brings out the best in them though too... Also very key on switching to U11. Anything that makes the boys feel cheated will be a problem. I think that the compromise is simple. Stick with the .5 ages that we have now - 8.5/10.5/12.5 and have a 19 age range as well for anything over 12.5-19. I believe our 19's only go to 19 vs 19.5 too by the way... I doubt you'd get too many kids older than juniors playing anyway... the value of the 19 move would be to pick up those couple extra players to make a team viable beyond 12.5's in many communities and to create more rainbow/co-op teams. I do still believe in allowing JV/U19 crossover play to fill out games for HS JV & U19 as needed, but keeping the JV HS teams out of the U19 MH regions/state is best and easiest from a MSHSL & MH perspective I would imagine. In reality, I think that this is somewhat how thhings are done now, but the only change is that 14/16/19 would become 19 and we'd formally recognize crossover play legal between HS JV's & these "U19" teams... Not really a big change... In the end I think this results in more U19 teams, less JV's, and better options for the 7th-9th grade players through either MH (youth) or MSHSL (HS). What may happen is that a bunch of kids may decide to NOT go to HS JV and instead play U19 in youth as they can do so together no matter where they are all heading off to school at (public, private, OE, home schooled, still in Jr High, not eligible for HS team due to sub-9th grade, etc.), or if some are out of U16 and some are still U14 those teams could stick together as a youth team vs. having to go to HS team JV's, etc. Many forget how powerful the social element is in this game especially when the kids are young... The options that this possibility provides are endless and that flexibility may be what's needed to keep more kids in youth hockey. You should also hold the "U19" tryouts after HS - starting Nov 6th this year. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 1:32 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:37 pm

The other option is for: 1) JV's to go away (which won't happen) 2) MSHSL to say grades 9-12 only eligible for HS JV &V. (which also won't happen) - some HS's do still have this rule, and some also have talked about the old "seniors can't play JV" rule too I hear. There are pros and cons to both of these approaches. If either or both of these things did happen, we'd have strong U19, U16, U14, U12, etc. - but this just isn't the case. Some also feel that a U12 kid should not be playing HS if they aren't a contributing member of the V team. Of course, I think kids are best served playing youth, but there are unique situations that do arise from community to community. For example, are some kids better served to play HS JV, get to skate both JV & V practice, play all JV games and possibly some V vs. the youth option? This is debatable. HS JV option quality hinges on the philosophy of the coach/team/organization. I think it's what you make of it. If it's a place for kids to go to end their HS career vs start it, then it may not be productive and worthwhile. If instead it's a place for development, improvement, and a stepping stone from the highest youth level offered in a community to the HS V, then it makes sense. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 1:45 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:01 pm

I had a good discussion about 17-19 year olds not wanting to play with little kids on their team (or against them). 2 options. 1) they can form a co-op team in their area with only older players on their roster and only scheudle like composed older teams. 2) they can go play WHAM Sr. Women's at 17 years of age I believe. Either are GREAT options under such a setup... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 2:30 pm

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:12 pm

GHS- I think you might be off on the 12.5 thought. 5/6ths of 8th graders are not U12 eligible (born before July 1) Only July/August kids can still do U12. Also, ISD 196 (Eagan, EV, AV, Rosemount) prohibits middle schoolers from JV. Must be a starter on varsity. So I would go with U13. It makes too much sense, so I doubt anyone would do it.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:25 pm

So - the question becomes - do you go U13.5 or U13? Jan or July cutoff? Good call on most 8ths being too old for U12.5. Interesing question though comes out of this... What's best development wise? For an 8th grader to play with the U12's or up with the U19's? I'm sure the answer is different for different reasons for every player, but I'm going to say that it may be best to send most 8ths up to "U19." I just think that many would opt for HS JV over 12's/13's in 8th grade? Isn't that somewhat the problem we have now? I fear that the "U19" would become less stable than U14's now w/o the 8ths in that age bracket too. Seems the goal is to create a more stable option between 12 & HS, and so U13 w/all 8ths may be counterproductive in that sense relative to a U19? I may advocate for moving all 8th's up to U19 instead actually (as should maybe be done with 12's that want to now re: U14's as well?). Isn't this what the boys do in keeping kids with their grades at times? And - the 196 rule is one of the few I know of. ANy others out there? My guess - is that MH will consider this when they consider U14 issues, but this may be hard to have happen no matter how logical it is as many are accoustomed to the way things are. Change isn't always bad... and it can be good to try something to see it it's better... a trial basis... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 3:33 pm

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:32 pm

In our high school and I believe in a number of neighboring high schools, there are no cuts off of JV, so there are no other players for the 8th graders to play with.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:36 pm

But would there be with a new option in place that woudl allow for U14, U16, and U19 age players to play together? What I see is a far worse scenario. What can happen is that b/c of the U14 cutoff (vs. U16 or up to U19) a U14 team can see it's top/oldest players age out, be foreced to JV, and then the rest of the team could follow as a result. The opposite effect could be that those U14 age outs could stay and play in a U19 setup, keep the U14 team intact, and not have so many kids being forced to go JV due to the movements/age outs of the few above them. This creates many kids moving to JV when they don't have to, but are following the few...

IGiveBlood · Post by **IGiveBlood** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:47 pm

Edina does not allow 7th and 8th graders to participate on their Varsity or JV. They also do not allow seniors to play JV as of this year. They have a U19 team that these players and any cut from varsity who have aged out of U14 can play on.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:52 pm

I thought there were only 2-3 community-based/rainbow U19B teams in the metro. (Not talking about the B&A teams). I might be missing something, but I don't think too many high schools have a full Varsity, full JV and a full U14 squad as it is. Adding a U19 team level isn't realistic unless you shut down JV. So if you are an average player, I would suggest you would progress from U13, to JV to varsity. Right now, average 8th grader players are all over the place - some on JV, most on some co-op U14 team put together at the last minute after try-outs.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:50 pm

Every association and high school has different problems every year starting with their numbers. In schools with sufficient numbers to permit a team, I believe JV should be promoted as the step up from U14. Although their season is shorter, they practice every day and receive good coaching in the systems the varsity uses. It should be up to the HS coaches (working closely with the association prior to the season to project the numbers) and make cuts as necessary to best serve the two programs as a whole and provide skill-appropriate oppotunities for every girl who wants to play the greatest game in the world. I believe skilled 8th graders should be able to tryout for the varsity and JV if their parents feel they are mature enough, but the HS coaches should be allowed to send them back to U14 if they feel the player isn't ready for the physical demands OR the culture of the team creates a locker room situation that isn't the best for the individual's personal development. Those aspects should be considered first. I would even go as far to let exceptional 7th graders in, but probably only if they can contribute on varsity, otherwise stay with U14 and develop (socially) with like players. Some 8th and even 7th graders are just a fact of life from a numbers perspective in smaller and outstate programs. If there isn't sufficient numbers to have a JV and a U14, I would defer to the JV team from a development standpoint, unless there are a number of players who cannot play on the JV team. Unlike the current model, I believe U14 co-ops with neighboring communities should be cultivated and ENCOURAGED by MN Hockey to create opportunity for players whose schools have no JV, are in private schools with no program, in communities that are too small, or are felt by their families to be otherwise not ready for the JV/V team. U14 teams should be created AFTER HS tryouts with a later season like Junior Gold does now in boys. Granted this will be a 2 week scramble every November, but some things can be projected if the HS coaches work with the girls U14 commissioners. Critical to integrity, the people working with the HS coaches in this planning process shouldn't have an affected daughter in the U14 program. I believe high level U14 teams should be able to freely schedule games with JV teams. I am okay with U19 playing against U14 teams as well if the coaches/associations feel it is positive. This puts a lot of power in the HS coaches hands to shape the program, but if the community association, the HS, and in smaller programs any co-op associations, can project their numbers and all work together in August to create the best situation for THAT PARTICULAR SEASON, it will go a long way to stabilizing U14 and JV hockey alike. Smart HS coaches will recognize a degree of cooperation and advance planning will benefit them down the road.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:58 pm

Smetro This is a good question - how many U14's are there out there? Where are they based? Are they rainbowed? etc.? So you'd do away with "U19" or current U14 entirely besides those few rainbows in favor of 13's? That's an interesting concept that I didn't consider. I guess I'd prefer a setup where it's U8.5/U10.5/U12.5(no 8th's)/U19(8ths & up)/JV/V. I think some JV's may go away that way, but if they don't there would still be more U19 opportunities than U14's I think for 8th's currently... Also, I am concerned about what would happen in communities w/o JV teams??? It woudl seem that their "U19" would need 8ths to remain viable vs U13??? I think if more communities blocked 7th/8th from HS and 12th's from JV then the 13 option would be perfect, but that's by far the minority unfortunately currently. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/15/06 5:00 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:11 pm

keepitreal - well said & I do agree about co-ops and the philosophy about youth vs. HS JV/V etc. I should note that I believe most 7ths would have to go back to U12, not U14, if they aren't ready for the HS program. Also, the debate will continue about JV vs. youth forever I'm sure. Neither is going away any time soon, so planning is important. It's hard too as even when HS coaches wish to cooperate, youth people aren't always too receptive - especially if they have a particular agenda, which usually results in both being "suspicious" of the motivations of the other! Typically, what I've found is no HS coach in their right mind would try to destroy their own youth program by taking kids prematurely, so I think many times that rationale being used by youth people for why they won't work with HS coach is wrong. I will say though that some coaches have their backs against the wall as far as team viability (and I'm not just talking about JV here...) and that can lead to taking more kids than you'd like sometimes at a younger age (been there, done that, and will likely have to do so again soon). While youth season is longer in duration & # of games, HS season typically has more practice hours and longer games in a more compact season. When I look at the numbers as far as hours of game & practice ice, often the HS program comes out on top, but these alone can't be the only considerations as was said in the prior post. You must look at the maturity/cultural aspect of the HS at a young age, and also must look at the philosophy of the JV coach/program. These things are critical. As I was told as a young coach by a very knowledgeable source - All too often kids run to the HS team at a young age as they want a letter jacket and it's cheap, etc. They have to know what they are getting into though. There are no Varsity guarantees, and also different communities have different opportunities to offer. I can tell you that the 'JV" scenario in my HS program is very different than many others in surrounding communities with tons of older players involved. #1 suggestion, ask questions as a parent - but be clear that you're only doing so so that you know you're making the best decision for your kid. Also, any coach should send kids back to youth that aren't ready when a good option to do so exists. There is something to be said for getting experience with the HS coaches, systems, etc. - but not at all costs. The other attributes/opportunities have to be best too.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:54 pm

GHS- In District 6, which has many of the large, affluent high school/hockey associations, there are 17 U12 teams but only 10 U14 teams from teams within the district. Most of the U14's are rainbowed in some fashion at the last minute with other associations, sometimes from other hockey districts, e.g., Tonka/Orono, Kennedy/EV, Chaska/Prior Lake, AV/Rosemount. The high schools within D6 are Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Burnsville, EV, AV, Kennedy, Jefferson, Chaska, Waconia, Shakopee, Prior Lake. A number of the schools do not even have a U14 team at all. So if a number of these associations struggle to make a U14, JV and Varsity squad, you know that almost everyone else in the state will struggle as well. I don't think there is a strong need for a U19 level, except for the handful of upper class (9-12) girls that actually get cut from a high school program. I don't know how many of those exist, certainly much less than the boys. Personally, I would build the levels with the average player in mind, not the elite nor the recreational. A handful of metro area U19B teams can be put together for the girls that are cut but would like to continue to play. Given the healthy U12 numbers, the U13/JV/High school progression makes sense to me. What did you guys at IGH do - I didn't think you guys could field a U14 team but I could be wrong - did you keep all your 8th graders on high school teams or did they coop?somewhere?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:23 pm

It may be that U14 hockey is worse off than I had anticipated. I guess my main point is that I think that MH would likely buy into something that supported a U19 level more and not elimination of the U14 8th's to 12's. I may be wrong on this, but I also believe that we lose a lot of kids out of hockey that simply don't want the HS commitment, but would play in this "U19" setting. I still believe that the best option for a 17-18-19 year old that doesn't want to play HS and is "above" playing with younger players is to play WHAM (I think they can). I also believe that if U19 can be sold as a way to run along side HS (as it already does) and have the 8th graders involved (that are already currently playing U14 in a bunch of rainbows it appears) this would be best. Why? Becuase then you would get more "groups" of kids to stay together beyond the 12, "13," 14, 16 cutoffs. This forces less kids to HS JV at any point as it takes the "cutoff" part out of this for "groups" that would otherwise continue to play youth together until they were truly ready to take a shot at HS V. For example, a group of U12's may decide to stick together through all of them clearing U14 this way (some may not go to HS until 10th/11th graders), etc. This would be HUGE for the sport in some respects as it would solidify U19 as a viable option post 12's but pre-HS JV/V. When we consider the average vs top or bottom as the player we're concerned about, I think we need to allow for as much flexibility for each program/area/district/etc. to adapt the possibilities of a more flexible setup to their issues. If we go to a U13, I'm not sure what problem that solves beyond that of the 8th grader. Where does a 9th grader go then that isn't HS ready? And a 10th? To a current U19 I suppose (may have to drive half way across the metro?), or out of hockey, or into a HS JV if they'll accept her maybe? I just think a U19 option is better for the flexibility it provides as that - I believe - will keep more kids playing youth hockey, and create more options and teams besides going to HS at 13. A 13 would force the move at 13 in my mind, whereas the U19 would allow kids to progress at their own rate. If MH went for a U13, I'd agree with it as anything is better than the current U14/JV issue we have now, but I just don't see that happening. I'd say it's far more likely to stick with currnet cutoffs that already have U12.5 essentially, and move all 8ths to a U19 that combines the eligibility of U14, U16, and U19 currently. Gives all associations more flexibility, and I believe we'd see more U19 teams next year than we would if we had U13, U14 still, etc. As far as IGH - we had two 8th graders in the program. We have a boatload of very strong 5th, 6th, 7ths I guess, but are low #'s in the 8th's and 9th's. We aren't the best program to use as a case study for what would be best for U13, U19, etc. to say the least!

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:17 pm

I would agree that ditching U14 in favor of U13 or U19 would be better than the current situation. In preferring U13 over U19, I am thinking primarily about what I have heard from numerous people over the years - that community-based U12 hockey is often stronger than U14 hockey due to defections to high school and lower ##'s. I know this is not a universal fact in all associations. However, I am bothered by the notion that a large number of 8th graders take a step back in competition (or don't take a step forward) in a lot of places right before high school. Quite different from going from peewees to bantams. I'll shut up now. Thanks for the information and thoughts as always GHS.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:20 pm

The decline of U14 started when MNHockey decided to go to half year age cutoff. When we had U15 and Jan 1 as a cutoff U15 was mostly older 7th graders and all 8th graders. Half year made all those older 7th graders U12 and the summer kids (July-Aug) that are in 8th were now also U12. This reduced the U14 pool to essentially only girls born before July 1 that are in 8th grade plus those 9th graders that didn't want to play HS. When kids get into HS they want to play on the HS team so the half year of 9th graders that needed to fill in for the now missing 7th graders just never showed up. Going to U19 won't hurt but it will never be as successful as going back to Jan 1 cutoff as the pool of potential players in the older group is significantly smaller than the ones moved back to U12. I should add that the half year change did have the positive effect of allowing older 7th graders the ability to play U12 rather than being forced to HS as the only alternative in areas unable to form a U14 team. One more thing, many kids that go to private schools for K-8 have nowhere to play after U12, U14 provides a place for those kids to play until they make their HS choice in 9th grade. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 3/17/06 7:38 am

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

U14 and JV

U14 and JV

Re: U14 and JV

U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13

Re: U13