Woodbury/East Ridge Coop Disolves

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:40 pm

It was decided late last week that this coop for girls hockey is being dissolved and both Woodbury and East Ridge will field separate girls teams for the 2010-11 season.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:51 pm

Bad decision but no one asked me.

How do the numbers look for each? Returners and 14U graduates? This will hurt the youth association as girls from 14U, and even 12U, will take a shot at high school hockey. To field a varsity and JV team at each school, 4 teams, is a big jump from 2 teams. Seems like an unusual decision. Any insight into the whys?

MNhockeylover · Post by **MNhockeylover** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:05 pm

you don't need a jv program to be a high school team

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:20 pm

I don't know the specifics behind the reason but I am pretty sure they will both field JV teams.

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:07 pm

Its about participation. More teams, more participants, and in my book, thats a good thing. Given a choice, I'd choose to let more girls play rather than sitting or cutting girls in order to create one "better" team.

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:37 pm

Well, then you're saying there will be JV players on varsity. The other problem is weakening the youth association by pulling players up, that the youth association will need for their teams, to fill out the high school teams. Never mind the cost of sponsoring two more teams, ice, refs, transportation, EMTs, uniforms, etc. Another 100K out of the fat school budget. Just totally unnecessary.

Hansonbrother · Post by **Hansonbrother** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:14 pm

Here's a dilemma for the coaches. There will be so many league games in this conference now, teams will now have to drop 2 more non-conference games from their schedules to accomodate.

So, take teams that perennially like to load up with heavy duty competition outside of conference (you know, to see what the other top teams in the other sections have out there). Instead, its going to be two more games against a start up program for those established programs to beat up on. Tell me how Stillwater, Moundsview, Roseville, and White Bear benefit from blowing out a start up team? Tell me what the start up gets out of playing those teams?

I think the SEC needs to start to tier their conference. Everybody plays everyone once, then you seed the top five or six teams to play each other again to determine the top teams in the conference. With a system like this, you'd have 15 conference games instead of 18 and you'd have 3 more non-conference games to schedule according to the strength of your team.

I don't know...thoughts anyone

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:05 am

Hansonbrother wrote:Here's a dilemma for the coaches. There will be so many league games in this conference now, teams will now have to drop 2 more non-conference games from their schedules to accomodate.

So, take teams that perennially like to load up with heavy duty competition outside of conference (you know, to see what the other top teams in the other sections have out there). Instead, its going to be two more games against a start up program for those established programs to beat up on. Tell me how Stillwater, Moundsview, Roseville, and White Bear benefit from blowing out a start up team? Tell me what the start up gets out of playing those teams?

I think the SEC needs to start to tier their conference. Everybody plays everyone once, then you seed the top five or six teams to play each other again to determine the top teams in the conference. With a system like this, you'd have 15 conference games instead of 18 and you'd have 3 more non-conference games to schedule according to the strength of your team.

I don't know...thoughts anyone

Hill Murray likely loses Stillwater and WB games which have always been good. The Suburban Classic is going to a new schedule next year where HM will only play some of the teams one time - 4 pt games rather than 2 2 point games for the standings. I don't know the details but the goal was to allow teams to find more equal competition and eliminate one sided contests.

Ultimately I think Woodbury and EastRidge will both become strong girls programs. There has been a lot of hard work at the youth levels in Wdby and CG with very good coaching and development. Hopefully it all works out.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:17 am

joehockey wrote:
Hansonbrother wrote:Here's a dilemma for the coaches. There will be so many league games in this conference now, teams will now have to drop 2 more non-conference games from their schedules to accomodate.

So, take teams that perennially like to load up with heavy duty competition outside of conference (you know, to see what the other top teams in the other sections have out there). Instead, its going to be two more games against a start up program for those established programs to beat up on. Tell me how Stillwater, Moundsview, Roseville, and White Bear benefit from blowing out a start up team? Tell me what the start up gets out of playing those teams?

I think the SEC needs to start to tier their conference. Everybody plays everyone once, then you seed the top five or six teams to play each other again to determine the top teams in the conference. With a system like this, you'd have 15 conference games instead of 18 and you'd have 3 more non-conference games to schedule according to the strength of your team.

I don't know...thoughts anyone
Hill Murray likely loses Stillwater and WB games which have always been good. The Suburban Classic is going to a new schedule next year where HM will only play some of the teams one time - 4 pt games rather than 2 2 point games for the standings. I don't know the details but the goal was to allow teams to find more equal competition and eliminate one sided contests.

Ultimately I think Woodbury and EastRidge will both become strong girls programs. There has been a lot of hard work at the youth levels in Wdby and CG with very good coaching and development. Hopefully it all works out.

SSP and other Classic Suburban teams had this sort of schedule years ago too - as did the Lake Conf. I believe when EP was so strong (and the Lake was so large too so it made sense). I remember that was one of the tough things about the Lake as a coach. You'd have 18 to 20 Conf games per year so it left little room for Non Conf play beyond a Holiday tourney.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:19 am

observer wrote:Well, then you're saying there will be JV players on varsity. The other problem is weakening the youth association by pulling players up, that the youth association will need for their teams, to fill out the high school teams. Never mind the cost of sponsoring two more teams, ice, refs, transportation, EMTs, uniforms, etc. Another 100K out of the fat school budget. Just totally unnecessary.

At least 100k. I figured it was 100k+ to field a V only Lake Conf team about 7 years ago... JV & V in the 2011 Suburban East? Easily More + the startup costs of splitting a co-op (like uniforms/equipment/etc). I'd bet 150K-200k first year and remember that only maybe 10-15k of that tops is for 3+ coaching positions.

24checking · Post by **24checking** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:09 am

In regards to the South Washington co-op for this year, no girls who played Varsity or JV in the ’08-’09 season were cut from the team. Only a couple U14 eligible girls who were trying out, were cut back to the U14 program, which by the way had to be a co-op U14 between Woodbury and Park, due to lack of numbers.

This is an absolutely horrible decision by the Eastridge administration not to extend the co-op for one more year. The co-op was very successful. This was one of the best years for the program. The team had a record of 9-11-6, with wins over Hastings, Forest Lake, Red Wing, Park, Totino Grace, and ties with White Bear Lake, Hastings, Forest Lake, and CDH (twice). The team was beat by Hastings in sections in 3 OT’s.

One of biggest reasons why the co-op went through for this year, is that Eastridge had no goalies. None for Varsity or JV. During the season, one of the starting goalies (they rotated a 9th grader and a senior for just about every other game) moved from the Woodbury district into the Eastridge district, thus giving Eastridge a Varsity goalie for next year. There was only one JV goalie, an 8th grader. She will be on the Woodbury team. Although she played very well, she is not yet at the varsity level.

As far as the numbers, Woodbury will return 14 players from the Varsity and JV, 10 from Varsity and 4 from JV. Eastridge will return 16 players from Varsity and JV, 5 from Varsity and 11 from JV. So you tell me, do those numbers support two separate teams??? They’re going to have to go deep into the youth program in order to fill BOTH the Varsity and JV squads, for BOTH teams.

They Woodbury Area Hockey Club (WAHC) girls youth program is probably at an all time high for participation and has a solid foundation, FOR THE FUTURE! Not next year. As I mentioned, the U14’s had to co-op with the Cottage Grove Association due to lack of numbers. AND those girls will be split between three teams, Park, Woodbury, and Eastridge respective of what district they live in. Woodbury and Eastridge will have to go into the U12’s to field their teams. The WAHC U12 and U10 programs have good numbers with one A team and two B teams in each age category. As I said, good numbers for the future, but not next year.

And let’s not forget about “being competitive”. As mentioned, this was one of the most successful years with a 9-11-6 record. Not successful in the minds of a lot of other programs! HansonBro is exactly right. How are these 2 teams going fare against Roseville, Stillwater, White Bear Lake and others? Terrible, terrible decision…

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:11 am

OK, 150-200K

That's a lot of money to spend on 30 girls. I hope the theater group (insert any school activity here) gets the same invested in their club.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:04 am

observer wrote:OK, 150-200K

That's a lot of money to spend on 30 girls. I hope the theater group (insert any school activity here) gets the same invested in their club.

Maybe for the time being they could have a combined JV each team has tryouts and whomever is left goes to the combined team.

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:33 am

The youth association spends a lot of time and energy to develop the girls and this is the payback they get. Robbing their 12U and 14U levels of players. Some selfish person came up with this idea. I don't know how they received support from the School District but it never should have gotten very far. It will be chaos in the fall and all could have been avoided.

Have tryouts. One varsity team. One JV team. The rest are cut to go play 19U somewhere or return to youth. Maybe Woodbury Youth Hockey Association should start a 19U team. The high school/s should not.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:48 pm

Splitting up the Woodbury hockey association will be good for both HS. More kids playing hockey at higher levels will not hurt development. May cost them a trip to the U12 state tournament though.

joehockey wrote:
Hill Murray likely loses Stillwater and WB games which have always been good. The Suburban Classic is going to a new schedule next year where HM will only play some of the teams one time - 4 pt games rather than 2 2 point games for the standings. I don't know the details but the goal was to allow teams to find more equal competition and eliminate one sided contests.

Ultimately I think Woodbury and EastRidge will both become strong girls programs. There has been a lot of hard work at the youth levels in Wdby and CG with very good coaching and development. Hopefully it all works out.

HM is in the Classic Suburban Conference. If they change the number of conference games from 2 to 1 like U note above, why would Hill not play Stillwater and WBL.

Seems like a contradiction. Too much political issues because of players leaving for Hill?

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:59 pm

"HM is in the Classic Suburban Conference. If they change the number of conference games from 2 to 1 like U note above, why would Hill not play Stillwater and WBL."

I think you missed the point, Stillwater and WBL will need to add conference games because of the split so they will have fewer non-conf dates available on the schedule. Hill might have open dates but will have to cross town to get top 20 teams with open dates at a school like EP that will now only have 10 conf games (they are joining the 5 team classic lake).

"Seems like a contradiction. Too much political issues because of players leaving for Hill?"

Creating less competitive teams (splitting a sub-500 club) may speed the exodus for top players and cause even more political issues. If you could move to a school not far away and be on a competitive team why stay and be a top player on a team that gets beat by 10 every AA night. I don't think you can blame a family with options taking a look for best fit. You don't own the players and if you make life bad enough some will leave or leave the sport.

I think the real question is if they are making a program people want to get into or if they are making two that people want out of.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:58 pm

royals dad wrote:"HM is in the Classic Suburban Conference. If they change the number of conference games from 2 to 1 like U note above, why would Hill not play Stillwater and WBL."

I think you missed the point, Stillwater and WBL will need to add conference games because of the split so they will have fewer non-conf dates available on the schedule. Hill might have open dates but will have to cross town to get top 20 teams with open dates at a school like EP that will now only have 10 conf games (they are joining the 5 team classic lake).

"Seems like a contradiction. Too much political issues because of players leaving for Hill?"

Creating less competitive teams (splitting a sub-500 club) may speed the exodus for top players and cause even more political issues. If you could move to a school not far away and be on a competitive team why stay and be a top player on a team that gets beat by 10 every AA night. I don't think you can blame a family with options taking a look for best fit. You don't own the players and if you make life bad enough some will leave or leave the sport.

I think the real question is if they are making a program people want to get into or if they are making two that people want out of.

Little too much green beer today royalsdad??

First - in the quote it is Hill that is reducing conference games. Stillwater will remain a top team. Why not keep them on the schedule.

Second I was talking about Hill gaining players from Stillwater and WBL. Nothing implied regarding Woodbury / EastRidge. There is a lot of ill feeling in boys hockey between Stillwater and HM. Accusations of no A hockey for boys headed to HM. HM's boys team had at least 6 Stillwater boys this year.

East Ridge can try join Classic Suburban ... no easier there on the boys side with HM, STA, Maht, Tartan and NSP in hockey.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:05 pm

drop the puck wrote:
royals dad wrote:"HM is in the Classic Suburban Conference. If they change the number of conference games from 2 to 1 like U note above, why would Hill not play Stillwater and WBL."

I think you missed the point, Stillwater and WBL will need to add conference games because of the split so they will have fewer non-conf dates available on the schedule. Hill might have open dates but will have to cross town to get top 20 teams with open dates at a school like EP that will now only have 10 conf games (they are joining the 5 team classic lake).

"Seems like a contradiction. Too much political issues because of players leaving for Hill?"

Creating less competitive teams (splitting a sub-500 club) may speed the exodus for top players and cause even more political issues. If you could move to a school not far away and be on a competitive team why stay and be a top player on a team that gets beat by 10 every AA night. I don't think you can blame a family with options taking a look for best fit. You don't own the players and if you make life bad enough some will leave or leave the sport.

I think the real question is if they are making a program people want to get into or if they are making two that people want out of.

Little too much green beer today royalsdad??

First - in the quote it is Hill that is reducing conference games. Stillwater will remain a top team. Why not keep them on the schedule.

Second I was talking about Hill gaining players from Stillwater and WBL. Nothing implied regarding Woodbury / EastRidge. There is a lot of ill feeling in boys hockey between Stillwater and HM. Accusations of no A hockey for boys headed to HM. HM's boys team had at least 6 Stillwater boys this year.

East Ridge can try join Classic Suburban ... no easier there on the boys side with HM, STA, Maht, Tartan and NSP in hockey. I guess on the girls side you would leave Roseville, Stillwater and WBL behind by moving conferences.

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:14 pm

The suburban east conference teams will have to reduce their non-conference opponents to 7 games instead of 9 with the change so if you include a 3 game tournament during the season they will only have 4 other non-conference games. So as Royals Dad points you may see teams like WB and Stillwater dropping teams such as Hill-Murray. Hill-Murray will have more non-conference games if they change the Classic Suburban schedule but they may have to look elsewhere for games. What is the advantage of teams who lose players to Hill-Murray playing them anyway?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:22 pm

hockeya1a wrote:
observer wrote:OK, 150-200K

That's a lot of money to spend on 30 girls. I hope the theater group (insert any school activity here) gets the same invested in their club.
Maybe for the time being they could have a combined JV each team has tryouts and whomever is left goes to the combined team.

A co-op JV is a great idea as many girls won't play for a U19 due to cost and travel. This wasn't an option as recently as a few years back but in the past few years a number of teams used this option. Also - my understanding is that a HS can field multiple JV teams, not that this would be of value here, but thought that was interesting.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:23 pm

MNhockeylover wrote:you don't need a jv program to be a high school team

This is true. Kennedy in the Lake was this way for a number of years. Other teams have dropped and added back JV teams over the years (I think Sibley was one of them).

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:05 am

It's a scheduling nightmare as teams that you'd like to play want to get two games. One for varsity and one for their JV team. Calling around saying you only have one team is difficult and schools will say they need to save their games for programs that can give them two.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:11 am

"Little too much green beer today royalsdad??"

I try to never drive or post after drinking.

Its been 3 years since I lived on that side of the river but used to hear the private school rants from Woodbury hockey parents quite a bit. So sorry I didn't connect you were talking Stillwater. My point was that families have private schools as a choice, splitting this program might make that choice seem more attractive.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:34 am

royals dad wrote:"Little too much green beer today royalsdad??"

I try to never drive or post after drinking.

Its been 3 years since I lived on that side of the river but used to hear the private school rants from Woodbury hockey parents quite a bit. So sorry I didn't connect you were talking Stillwater. My point was that families have private schools as a choice, splitting this program might make that choice seem more attractive.

Agree. If HM continues to build its girls program to the level of the boys, the top, top talent may began to exit the local HS program in favor of the preceived better chance to reach state.

Woodbury has been a feeder program to Hill just like the other neighboring communities. When you lose one or two top end players it often does make a difference in going to state.

JRG · Post by **JRG** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:54 pm

Had it not been for the goalie situation (none in the ER boundary) the split would have been done this past season. Now that that situation has changed, there is no way the MSHSL would have allowed a co-op for 2010-11, given the numbers at the two schools. And that is all the High School league looks at- number of potential players. They don't care about how competitive you will or won't be (that's the school's problem if they want to field a team), what your long term plans are (co-op's at the AA level are for one year only, so that's all the farther they look ahead) or what it may do to the club level teams (that's outside their jurisdiction).
So don't blame this on District 833; they knew what the MSHSL's response to a co-op request for one more year would be and just saved paperwork and everyone's time.
It is unfortunate for the girls; they have been very competitive in District 8 for several years now and that might have lead to greater success at the H.S. level in another year or two, which could have lead to greater interest in girl's hockey in the community (Woodbury is still a basketball town, even with the recent success of the boy's hockey program). And some very close friends are going to be lining up across from each other instead of next to each other.
Short term, this will hurt the U14 and potentially the U12 programs. However, the numbers are growing at the U8 and U10 levels. And our committment is still to get as many girls involved in this great sport as we can; those efforts are continuing with a fall and spring Intro to Hockey program for girls, which has been a great success the past two years.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Woodbury/East Ridge Coop Disolves

Woodbury/East Ridge Coop Disolves

coop dissolve