most hated team in state

2ahockeydude
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:37 pm

Public School v Private School

Post by 2ahockeydude » Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:23 am

Some of you complain that the private schools can recruit while the public schools are above that because the kids play for and are developed by the public school programs. <br><br>I call your BS on that!! In St. Cloud, Tech High School has 4 new players this year, from Sartell (2), Sauk Centre, and I think Sauk Rapids.. Of course, since they're a public school, there was no recruiting taking place, right?? So why is it that three of the four are starters?? They were recruited to play for this team, so that perhaps they could go to the state trny for the first time... <br><br>Item two, the youth programs are just that, youth. The all-powerful state organization for youth hockey will only sanction youth organizations based upon the public high school boundries. The kids that go to private schools from K thru 12 have to play in those organizations, so they do. And in many cases, do more to support the youth groups than do the public school people. <br><br>So, let's get it all out in the open and understand the truth.... all of the schools are recruiting to some extent. And education is what you make of it...<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

Hilltopper9
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:41 am

Hatred, or jealousy?

Post by Hilltopper9 » Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:41 am

Only one person has it right; the hated teams are the most successful. No one seems to despise Centennial now, but in two years, after what will potentially be three seasons of state appearances (keeping in mind that anything can happen on any given night) they'll be hated as well, and every jealous hometown fan will be complaining that Centennial recruits (given that Mounds View and Irondale and Roseville and White Bear kids will open enroll) when it is obvious they won't be recruiting (afterall, they've been whining for years about losing kids to Totino and HA).<br><br>About education - Yes, some great public schools (Edina, Mounds View, et. al). But overall, private schools offer something different - quality education, small classes, tightly networked links to good colleges, tradition, religion in some, and a student body that wants to study and excel. (I know plenty of public school puckheads who think scholastics are a joke. I know for a fact Hill has a strict policy regarding GPA for all athletes (they've sat Div. I players in big games because of bad tests), whereas some places allow a kid to fail multiple classes and still play.<br><br>Public? Private? No! It's not money, it's not intelligence, it's not recruitment, it's jealousy. <p></p><i></i>

joe lulic
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 1:30 pm

Re: Most Hated

Post by joe lulic » Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:05 am

JD0004, Exactly. For years it was Edina. They were the first team I remember that actually wore the same colored gloves. The story was that their team was flown around the state to games because one of the dads was a Northwest Airline exec.(wait, I better not abbreviate or petey will think I went to private school). Anyway, Edina was the "cakeater school". <br><br>Then , Jefferson kind of took over because all of their kids drove around in powder blue mustangs and the moms all wore mink coats to the games.<br><br>There were no private schools to hate in those days because they werent allowed to play with the public schools. <br><br>Now, its the private schools because they recruit all of their players and all of their kids are rich ,so its a double whammy.<br><br>I agree with whoever posted that 'hate' is a little stong of a word. But when I was a kid, we called Edina the cakeaters in fun. Nowadays kids actually sit up in the stands and chant "daddys money" at the state tournament games. Someone explain that to me. <p></p><i></i>

Uncle Puckhead
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:16 am

Don't forget Rochester Lourdes

Post by Uncle Puckhead » Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:16 am

In SE Minnesota it has to be Lourdes.... it's pay to play. A couple of years ago, they had more Lutheran's and Methodists on the team than Catholic's....<br>Rochester has a boundary system to divide the public schools, so the kids get together and all go to the private school so they can play together.<br>Makes for good rivalries. <p></p><i></i>

The Fan
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:55 pm

East and Marshall

Post by The Fan » Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:49 pm

Duluth East and Marshall are the most hated teams up north. But Marshall doesnt even compete with how much people hate East, especially from Cloquet. Marshall isnt liked because they recruit in every single sport. And i dont think AA schools want to play Marshall just because they are single A, but a team like CLoquet has to play them because they are in the conference.....And for east they just think they are better then everybody, i dont know if it is because that is how they grew up or just because they are rich kids. Thats why everybody was glad up North that Cloquet handed it to East. <p></p><i></i>

gr19
Posts: 1146
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:01 am
Location: Anchorage, AK
Contact:

missing the point ppl

Post by gr19 » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:39 pm

East, Edina, Jefferson. Financially successful? Yes. Anything wrong with that? No. Are they classy? NO! The kids (most of them) are brats. Last year at the 7AA title game East kids were waving fake $100 bills at the Rapids fans. I've heard of instances where the east students have done this before. The way the world views success based on financial status is wrong. There's nothing wrong with having money, it's a person's attitude about it that can make them classless. <p></p><i></i>

WarroadWarrior
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:14 am

Re: missing the point ppl

Post by WarroadWarrior » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:45 pm

JD0004 hit the nail right on the head when he said "they are all good hockey teams" Everyone hates a winner.....take the Yankees for example...there are alot of people that hate them..why, because they've won so many damn championships..... <p></p><i></i>

statebb1522
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:10 pm

Re: missing the point ppl

Post by statebb1522 » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:32 pm

As a private school attendee, I would like to apologize for BKone's completely ignorant comments about why some people choose to attend a private school vs. a public school. BKone- A student athlete transfers to a public school because he/she couldn't afford it/hack it? That's a lie. Haven't you ever heard of someone transferring for the simple fact that he/she just didn't like the environment, classes, teachers, etc? You, BKone, are part of the reason as to why private schools are hated so much. So we get called cake eaters? So what?! I'm sure you've used worse names in your lifetime. It's not something one should take personally. Also, don't go bragging about how Hill-Murray has such a top-notch hockey program because they opt up to AA when, technically, they could be playing class A. If Hill were truly a prestigious athletic program like you claim to be, then the Pioneers would opt up to the highest class in ALL sports (i.e. Cretin).<br><br>As Petey stated, there is NOTHING wrong with a public school education. Those two girls from Mounds View seem to be pretty well-educated; perfect ACT and SAT scores. And Petey's right- he attends (in my opinion) the most prestigious university in our nation, with a public school education. You're not making a very good case about the "higher" level of private school education with your grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Hey, I'm just trying to help you out.<br><br>Ifhockey88- I don't see how you get off assuming that private school players don't have the heart and desire that public schoolers do. Says who? Last time I checked, the majority of high school athletes play purely out of love for the game. You must have missed a post earlier about private high school feeder schools. I attended a private grade school, and I always wanted to attend CDH. Why? Well for one thing, CDH is the closest high school. You can't go assuming that everyone from a private school doesn't live near their school and only attends the private school for athletics. I grew up playing with the athletes that I played with in high school. I understand that this is a common assumption, but I want to set the record straight. <p></p><i></i>

shutoutking
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:23 pm

Re: most hated team in state

Post by shutoutking » Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:23 pm

Elk River i hands down. They play dirty,recruit from other schools, and piss every team they play with their antics. They are only out there to fight. Just ask Centennial and Eden Prarie, they saw their dirty play at the Preseason Scrimmages at Elk River. The Centennial coach stoped the game 15 minutes in becasue of Elk Rivers antics. They are a disgrace. <p></p><i></i>

Rangrfan
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:43 pm

Hatet tem

Post by Rangrfan » Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:43 pm

Me think Coon Rapids is da worssst tem in da state caus they play drti and have no skll in da game of hokie. <p></p><i></i>

coach
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:48 am

most hated-wear it like a badge!

Post by coach » Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:25 am

Newdikonblock writes " I wonder how good Roseville would be if Hill didn't get all their players" or some crap like that. Newdik- If suzie had balls her name would be steve. What if , What if, What if! <br><br>Petey 90210 uses his diahriaha of the mouth to say " the underdog was Hill against Holy Angels in the State Championship in 2002." Wow, what a blow to try and rip on a perennial powerhouse who made it to yet another State Championship game. Also, to babble inchoherently by trying to sell Hill as a underdog unproven program. Get real! Hill is the program. 18 trips to state out of 28 possible! And thats in a proven section year in and year out. Holy Angels second trip to state in 2002 did not intimidate Hill-Murray. Yes they were favorites but so were Jefferson, Cloquet, Roseville, Moorhead, Elk River.<br>Hill-Murray on a off year finds a way to out do the supposed "pride" of public school kids. Remember, Hill, Holy Angels and Totino Grace were all in State Championship games in 2002, I can't remember hearing such crap as I do now since 2002. Seems on an open forum you can say anything without backing it up.<br><br>lfhockey 88 exclaims that public school kids play with "pride" and HBK15 seems to think that private schools kids always have silver spoons. These two dorks mock what they don't understand. First sacrifice the almighty dollar for your kid to go to school when it could be free and we'll talk about pride and committment.<br><br>MnFan - probably had the most rediculous statement of all! He proclaims that Hill-Murray "doesn't produce good teams year in and year out." Hello!!!!!!!!!! MNfan , is anybody home? Mnfan- are you sure you follow Mn hockey? Maybe you just took too many shots to the head?<br><br>Over the last 28 years nobody has gone to the state tourney more and nobody has had more players drafted professionally than Hill Murray other than Edina! I bet 98% of you guys could never have made a Hill-Murray team. On second thought make it 99%. You actually need to have balls enough to leave your comfort zone of home and pay, yes I said pay for your education. I think their record speaks for itself. <br><br>p.s. Hill Murray will dish out a piece of humble pie to anyone willing to play them. They have a thing called "green pride" and it seems to be working! You can't win em all, but Hill has certainly won much more than their share!<br><br>New dik on blok - when you were sitting in the stands waiting for Edina and Hill to come out for a Championship game, ...booing, .... did you realize that you were joined by eveyone else in the state except for the best 2 teams in the state because they were on the ice actually playing? Stay home next time, remember, its free! you guys seem to like that. <p></p><i></i>

petey1321
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 2:10 am

Sorry coach

Post by petey1321 » Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:55 am

Sorry coach, but Hill-Murray was decidedly the underdog of that game. This was a Holy Angels with at least 6 for sure D-1 players on it that had lost 2 games in the state of Minnesota all season, one of which was in their first game. This was a Hill-Murray team with 2 or 3 D-1 guys that had lost 5 games up to that point, including a 10-1 pasting at the hands of Roseville, a team that AHA whacked in the semis, a team that had lost the last game of its season and almost lost to .500 Lakeville in the quarterfinals. The absolute drubbing of Jefferson didn't change the fact that AHA was clearly the better team, nor did the 18 state tourney trips or any of that history (only 2 titles in 19 trips? Way to go.). Holy Angels got its star back in the lineup for sections and then proceeded to beat the #1 and #4 teams in the state to even make the tournament, then made short work of the #2 team at state. Hill-Murray came into the tourney ranked 10th, Holy Angels came in 6th (and dispatched 3 teams ahead of it to get to the title game). I really see no argument here except that you like Hill-Murray. Beyond that, you've got no ground to stand on. Sorry. Being a "perennial powerhouse"--and perennial bridesmaid, for that matter--doesn't make you a favorite in a game where the team that you're playing is better, and that's really all there is to it. You even wrote yourself that AHA were the "favorites"; how does that differ from me calling Hill-Murray the underdogs? I also never said they were intimidated, for what that's worth.<br><br>And no, Hill-Murray on an off year doesn't find a way tob"out do" anything like you mention there. Hill-Murray on an off year goes 12-14-1. Look it up. Proven section? Section 3's last champion other than Hill-Murray was Hibbing. Hibbing! None of section 3's other teams have done anything at state, so how does that make it a "proven" section?<br><br>And sorry, no, this still doesn't make you the most hated team in the state. That's still Edina. This just makes your objection to my comment ridiculous.<br><br>Finally, I still don't get the point that you guys are trying to make about this private school education supposedly being better because it costs money. Blake, SPA, and Breck are your academic powerhouses, and that's about it. I checked the Hill-Murray website. The average ACT is a 23.8. I got a 35; my school was free. (Average ACT score at the Carlson School at the U? 28.1. Average at Minnesota-Morris? 25. Ouch.) Back to 1995, Hill-Murray couldn't scrape together one kid going to Harvard to put on their website. Not one. My free school could scrape together several. 50% of the kids at H-M go to a public 4-year college vs. 31% at a private 4-year college. What a bunch of freeloaders!<br><br>Looking back, you could drive a bus through the holes in your logic. Keep up the good work. <p></p><i></i>

WarroadWarrior
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:14 am

Most trips?

Post by WarroadWarrior » Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:19 am

I though Roseau had the record for "most times appearing at a state tournament"?? <p></p><i></i>

statebb1522
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:10 pm

Re: Most trips?

Post by statebb1522 » Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:30 pm

Coach- Hill-Murray was undoubtedly the underdog in the state championship against AHA. When one usually thinks of the word "underdog" in a single game, say the state championship, I don't think that the fact that Hill has had more state tourney appearances than the opposition really means anything. What matters is who is on the roster and on the ice that game, and that game only. The fact is that AHA, like Petey said, had 5-6 DI players compared to HM's 2-3 THAT YEAR. Like it or not, many fans look at who beat who and by how much. Hill suffered an absolute drubbing at the hands of Roseville, a team that AHA waxed in the semi's. As a hockey program, maybe HM isn't the underdog compared to AHA, but that's a completely different argument. <p></p><i></i>

oldschool
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:31 pm

youth

Post by oldschool » Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:31 pm

So whoever said that the kids at Private schools have to play for public programs at youth: are you telling me that Blake has no youth hockey program??????????BS....................................think before you talk.......and yes only the few and honest programs in the state are the one's who do not recruit........or should I say coaches........any way this is one the most kicked deadest horses out there so............. <p></p><i></i>

gordo13
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:10 am

fan

Post by gordo13 » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:44 pm

up here in this part of the woods these people hate the international falls broncos but we sure like beating them <p></p><i></i>

Lucky hockey13
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:43 am

Re: hated teams

Post by Lucky hockey13 » Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:02 pm

I agree with puck4ever leave the recruiting aside. ITs a bunch of crap and Warrod and whoever else feels they can't use their home team talent, and need to take other players from other areas to make them state champions. When you recruit a player from out of state you can't brag ur the MN champs bc he's not even part of here! We want to watch real hockey not the cheap kind. <br>Warroad wonders why they are one of the most hated teams, they need to step back and look at the choices. They don't care what measures they take to win the title, but some of us do. <p></p><i></i>

hockeyhunny184703
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:56 pm

eastview

Post by hockeyhunny184703 » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:55 pm

hmm glad no 1 mentioned eastview.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

coach
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:48 am

tisk, tisk, tisk.

Post by coach » Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:34 pm

Petey 90210,<br><br>Your love for your SAT score, public school education and the school you attend are noted. I would like to be the second person to congratulate you. (beside yourself of course)<br><br>Petey, you couldn't possibly have read my comments. Your exhausting position was motivated by something other than my comments. I never said Hill was the favorite. The only time you made sense was when you admitted that I said they weren't. Yet, you seemed to go on and on as if that were the main point I was trying to make. You missed the point. Sometimes high SAT scores don't translate to good conversation. Your a smart guy, read it again.<br><br>I have a good idea of how awesome Holy Angels was due to the fact that I had coached several of their players. They were not just favorites in that game but heavy favorites at that. <br><br>Give credit where it is due. Hill had another strong showing, in a 4-2 game. Of all the years Hill made it to the Championship game ( 7 times total) I feel that this one might have been the most surprising. I felt that bkone15 was trying to say how cool it was that Hill found a way to get to the Championship game. Adding to this satisfaction was Roseville players watching (and I guess booing) as that is what spectators can choose to do. Hill deserved alot of credit and I'm sure Holy Angels would agree. (so would Jefferson)<br><br>Holy Angels has not "completely supplanted Hill-Murray as the private school to be reckoned with." One season does not do that. Hills 19 out of a possible 28 appearances to HA's 2 out of 28 isn't a fair fight. Even if Hill wasn't playing them in that Championship game you would have had a better arguement. Not a strong arguement, but a better one.<br><br>Hill-Murray is no longer the most hated. After 19 state tourney appearances out of 28, I really think people are now appreciating their contributions and constant pursuit for excellence.<br><br>Only those who have followed HM hockey know and appreciate how good they have been in all of the last three decades. (not even counting how good they were prior to "75" and the 2000's seem to be tremendous so far.<br><br>Petey, you can't drive holes in an arguement about how good Hill-Murray is and has been. You can hate them, but don't disrespect them. They have worked to hard to earn that respect. After all, respect is something you earn. It doesn't have holes in it when its earned. <p></p><i></i>

petey1321
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 2:10 am

The classic nonresponse

Post by petey1321 » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:57 am

Here's what you wrote in your first comment:<br><br>"Petey 90210 uses his diahriaha of the mouth to say " the underdog was Hill against Holy Angels in the State Championship in 2002." Wow, what a blow to try and rip on a perennial powerhouse who made it to yet another State Championship game. Also, to babble inchoherently by trying to sell Hill as a underdog unproven program. Get real! Hill is the program."<br><br>You accuse me of "diahriaha of the mouth" (no idea what that is, but it sounds bad I guess) and babbling "inchoherently" because I try to sell Hill as the underdog in that game. Then, you admitted that they were in fact the underdog anyway. Does this mean that you also have some sort of oral affliction, or does it mean that you weren't really sure what you were typing in your bashing of several people's comments, including what was little more than an aside in my original post? Don't write a paragraph ripping somebody for saying something, then agree with it anyway, and expect for it to just slide by. You can't call me wrong then pat yourself on the back for agreeing with me, but it was a nice effort at backpedaling.<br><br>As for AHA supplanting Hill-Murray as THE private school power, unfortunately they have, at least for now. They have arguably the best coach in the state, an easy conference schedule to use as a tune up for playoffs, and they now have a pretty soft section to deal with. At any rate, we can quibble about short term and long term and all of that, but the fact of the matter is that in that season, AHA had certainly become the private school power that people wanted to see lose.<br><br>Furthermore, I never talked about my SAT score. Nonetheless, you and several other people have suggested that a private school education is better than a public school one. To quote your particularly eloquent passage: "You actually need to have balls enough to leave your comfort zone of home and pay, yes I said pay for your education." Earlier, you wrote about 2 high schoolers: "These two dorks mock what they don't understand. First sacrifice the almighty dollar for your kid to go to school when it could be free and we'll talk about pride and committment." (Nope, you never came out and said that a private school was better, but you sure did suggest it. After all, why pay for something that you can have for free unless the pay version is better? So, don't bother arguing that one.) You therefore got both anecdotal and empirical proof that Hill-Murray does not prepare its students any better than a decent public school to take one of the most important tests in his or her life. If that test doesn't count for something to you, that's fine, but it does to college admissions counselors.<br><br>What makes your "reply" most remarkable is that you completely ignored several salient issues that I raised in response to your initial comments. For instance, what happened to the remarks about Hill-Murray in an off year outdoing all the public school pride? That 12-14-1 probably didn't help much, sorry. What about the "proven" section where no team other than Hill-Murray itself has won a title since the early 70s and the only real other state power, White Bear Lake, (until very recently with the ascendency of Roseville and now Centennial) has never made it out of the first round? You sure seemed to pick and choose the arguments where you thought you'd be more successful here than last time, but at least you only took shots at me instead of several other people well this time.<br><br>Lastly, I have no hate for Hill-Murray, and I never even hinted as such. 2-team section or no, making 19 tourney trips is quite an acheivement. I'm making no effort to drive holes in that acheivement. But, I did poke holes in your first bizarre commentary--seriously, read what you said about AHA being the favorites and how every other team in the state tourney was the favorite too...how does that work?--which seemed like little more than an attempt to mock my position and then affirm it, and your condescending second commentary deserved a similar response. <p></p><i></i>

statebb1522
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 11:10 pm

Re: The classic nonresponse

Post by statebb1522 » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:37 am

Wow. I'm absolutely speechless, Petey. Now THAT was your best post! Bravo. <p></p><i></i>

Davesamess
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:04 am

The Worst

Post by Davesamess » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:54 am

Most of us would agree that the worst team in the state is the one with the fans with biggest mouths. All's it takes is one obnoxious fan to start it up. Sorry Petey but hatred for BJ is on the rise. "Daves a killer--- Daves a mess"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

bdabbt75
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 12:04 pm

Style points to Petey.

Post by bdabbt75 » Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:44 pm

Petey, as usual, you're running circles round them logically.<br><br>note to participants... if you end up attacking the veracity of your opponents argument, or your opponent directly, instead of the facts, that means you're likely losing the argument. Stick to your facts, not your opinions, or worse, opinions of your competition. <br><br>Petey's [accurate] critique's are par for the course people.. Bring your A (oops, I mean AA) game to this forum.<br><br><br>-bud<br><br>NB of course I like to think my SAT's (public school, mind you) are on a par with Petey's. Of course, when they measured mine they used a slide rule instead of a TI-97.... <p></p><i></i>

atthepoint
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:04 pm

Blake youth feeder program?

Post by atthepoint » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:27 pm

Oldschool,<br>I would guess you were referring to the bantam team that Blake had for a couple of years. It was like pulling teeth for a couple of Blake parentes to get it approved by the league, I believe it only lasted a couple of seasons and is no more. <p></p><i></i>

SHP55
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:29 pm

private

Post by SHP55 » Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:29 pm

I do not agree with the people who said that Holy Angels is one of the most, if not the most hated team in the state. Well, i agree that they are hated, but, not for the right purpose. In the last 5 years AHA has become a high school hockey power house whether you like it or not, face it. Do they recruit? Who knows but I am sure most teams have done some recruiting but do not neccesarily get nabbed for it because either they have a low profile team, or they have been tagged with the reputation of primarily feeding themselves with their youth programs. Holy Angels I believe have built and are maintaining to build a reputation of the top team in the state like Jefferson had done in the early 90's. They only way i believe they will take a fall is if they lose the Best HS hockey coach of this time, Greg Trebil. Although it is premature to make assumptions Holy Angels will slip if he leaves that program. It is to bad teams like aha hill and others have been slapped in the face and hated because of there success. But thats what it is and it will stay what it is until the tide changes <p></p><i></i>

Locked