Wayne Gretzky played with 10 year olds when he was 6 and he turned out fine too. A good rule to go by is if your kid won't be in the top 20% in the older age group then playing up is ill advised. I am not so concerned with playing up as I am with spending thousands of dollars to watch my kid have to do another year of cross ice games which he really doesn't want to do. He wants to move on and I think he is ready. He is born in March 09 and next year will be his 4th or 5th year of hockey. A kid born in December 08, just 4 month older, could be in his 2nd year of hockey playing Squirt B and gets to (or really has to) play full ice. Who would benefit more from cross ice? If small area games are so beneficial for development then why aren't B level teams at all levels playing cross ice? People make the argument that after mites kids play small area games in practice. That"s true and it is also true that small area games are good for development at any level. But the other levels aren't banned from playing full ice on Sunday. The whole system of advancing based on age rather than skill level makes little sense (except for pee wee to bantam when checking starts). Scaha clubs are either going to lose mites to an insurgent aau league or local house leagues which already play full ice 5 on 5 games at the mite level (tsc, lakewood, palos verdes, probably many others).. I have already talked to some people who say they won't have their younger kids play travel now until squirts.
Another issue for some clubs is that they are limited as to how many kids they can have in their mite program due to ice availability. If you create a log jam at the top of the mite level then you are potentially being forced to shut out kids at the bottom end of the level who want play but can't get a roster spot. You could have an 8 yr old player that could do fine at Squirt bb but his not being allowed to move up could keep a 6 or 7 year old out of travel hockey all together. Doesn't make sense.