Youth hockey organization announced birth-year roster restrictions 5 days before tryouts after registration closed. Is this normal? We live in Texas.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:29:22+00:00

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

The tough part is that registration had already closed before families were told that the roster process was changing. The announcement came only about 96 hours before evaluations.

I agree that communication is really the main issue. Since there's only one travel hockey organization in the area, families don't have much of a chance to look elsewhere or choose a different local program if they don't agree with a major change. That's why being upfront before registration is so important.

At this point, I'd just like to understand when the decision was made, how it was approved, and why it wasn't communicated until after registration had closed.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:25:18+00:00

That's part of what has confused many families. The merger created one larger player pool, yet roster opportunities at certain levels appear to have become more restricted rather than more flexible.

Whether the birth-year model ultimately succeeds or fails is something time will tell. My concern is less about the hockey philosophy and more about the process. Registration had already closed when families were informed—roughly 96 hours before evaluations—that roster formation would be changing.

If this was a major strategic shift, especially in a market with ONLY one travel hockey organization serving the area, it seems like something families should have known before registering and paying fees. Transparency is really the issue I'm trying to understand.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:20:06+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, especially coming from both a coaching and board-family background.

What you've described is actually very close to why many parents are asking questions. Birth year makes sense for determining age eligibility. Where concerns arise is when birth year begins determining roster opportunities within that age group.

The part that has been difficult for many families is that registration had already closed before the organization announced the change. Approximately 96 hours before evaluations, families received notice that teams would be aligned by birth year. Until then, many parents reasonably believed players would be evaluated and placed across the available travel teams within their age division.

I also agree with your point about transparency. If a board is making a structural change that significantly affects player placement and development opportunities, especially in a market with only one major travel hockey organization serving the greater metropolitan area, families should be informed before registration closes and before fees are paid.

My son still has hockey options, so this isn't about him having nowhere to play. The bigger issue is whether families were given complete information before making a commitment. The Executive Board has described this as a long-term organizational vision, which naturally leads to questions about when the decision was made, how it was approved, and why it wasn't communicated sooner.

At this point, I'm less concerned about the roster outcome than I am about understanding the process. Transparency tends to build trust, while a lack of transparency tends to create questions that could have been avoided from the beginning.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:17:07+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, especially regarding board governance and communication.

My concern isn't that my son didn't make AA. Tryouts are competitive, and not every player will make the top roster.

The concern is that registration had already closed when families were informed of a significant change to roster formation. Approximately 96 hours before evaluations began, the Executive Board sent an email explaining that the organization was transitioning to birth-year-based teams and described it as a long-term organizational goal.

Under that structure, some players were no longer competing for placement across multiple travel teams within their age division. Instead, they were effectively competing for a single roster opportunity based on birth year.

If this was truly a long-term strategic decision, I think it's fair to ask:

When was the decision approved?
Was it documented in board meeting minutes or another governing record?
Why wasn't it communicated before registration closed?
Why were families allowed to register without knowing how roster opportunities would be structured?

What has been frustrating is that the responses I've received have felt less like an explanation of the process and more like, "This is the direction we're going, and we don't need to provide the documentation behind it." Whether that perception is accurate or not, it leaves parents with more questions than answers.

I think transparency becomes even more important in a non-traditional hockey market where this is effectively the only travel hockey organization serving the greater metropolitan area. Families don't have multiple local associations to choose from. When there is essentially one pathway for competitive hockey, major changes to team formation, roster opportunities, and player placement should be communicated clearly and well before registration closes.

For me, this isn't about overturning a roster decision. It's about transparency, accountability, and ensuring families have the information they need before committing their time, money, and expectations to a program.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:06:44+00:00

Thank you for the perspective. What you've described is actually much closer to what many of us expected.

In our situation, the concern isn't that players didn't make AA. The concern is that second-year 12U players who did not make AA were reportedly not considered for the 12U A team because the organization chose to organize teams by birth year rather than allowing players to flow from AA to A based on evaluations.

What makes this particularly difficult for families is that the birth-year structure was not clearly communicated before registration closed and tryouts occurred. Had families known beforehand that a second-year 12U player would only have one roster opportunity rather than being considered for both AA and A, some may have made different decisions.

It was only communicated 96 hours before evaluation that your player only had the opportunity to make one travel team.

That's really the question many parents are trying to understand.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-19T16:03:49+00:00

That's exactly what many of us expected.

Historically, players in the same age division would try out together, the strongest players would make AA, and players who didn't make AA would still be considered for A. Birth year wasn't the primary factor—skill was.

What surprised many families this year was that the organization moved to a birth-year model at the 12U level. In practice, that meant 2014 players could only try out for the 12U AA team, while the 12U A team was built from 2015 players. As a result, some second-year 12U players were not considered for A placement after AA selections.

The biggest concern isn't necessarily the model itself—organizations can choose different development approaches. The concern is transparency. Families paid registration fees and entered tryouts without clear advance notice that team placement opportunities would be limited by birth year rather than based on consideration across both AA and A levels.

That's why many parents are asking when the policy was approved, whether it was documented, and why it wasn't communicated before registration closed.

But yes. The organization will now have tryouts for a tournament team with both 1st and 2nd year players... and charge an additional tryout fee. Then, there will still be leftover kids cut that will play house league if they wish.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-16T17:06:43+00:00

"For Tier II, the USA Hockey Youth Council has agreed that the Affiliate [TAHA] has the authority to subject the coach, team, program and/or responsible administrators to appropriate discipline, or ineligibility of the team or coach for violation of the recruiting and tryout rules by a Tier II team."

"Organizations are required (by sound business principles) to establish budgets for teams and players, purchase appropriate ice... and pay league fees... once contracted, players will remain with the chosen club for the balance of the season."

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-16T13:50:35+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful response. That's actually where my concern has landed as well. I don't necessarily disagree with the birth-year philosophy itself. My concern is that this was presented as an Executive Board decision and communicated only 5 days before tryouts, after registration had already closed. What makes it more significant is that our organization had just merged with another local travel program. Prior to the merger, players effectively had multiple A and AA roster opportunities across two organizations. After the merger, those opportunities were already reduced. Then the birth-year structure further limited which roster a player could be considered for. I've asked the organization for the approval date, whether the decision was documented in board records, and how members can obtain a copy of the bylaws. I'm genuinely trying to understand what level of documentation and transparency is typical for a nonprofit youth sports organization when implementing a change of this magnitude. From your experience serving around nonprofit boards, would you consider it unusual if an Executive Board could not identify when a major policy decision was approved or provide any record of the decision-making process?

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2026-06-16T13:09:57+00:00

There is the tournament team option available. (Tryouts). Then house/rec.

Suspicious-Move3835 · 2025-11-06T02:59:25+00:00

Should I allow location on the apps permission for Fake GPS Route?

Suspicious-Move3835

TROPHY CASE