Section Assignments

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

esox101
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Section Assignments

Post by esox101 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:09 pm

State Champ 97 wrote:Funny that doesn't work in other places. Enrollment is enrollment regardless how many hockey players you have.
Certainly it works other places, and in both directions...

If everything is based on enrollment, why do Roseau (371), Benilde-St Margrets (897), Holy Angels (691) and Hill Murray (599) play AA? Why did people scream bloody murder about Saint Thomas Academy playing in the Class A bracket for so long? Didn't have a thing to do with enrollment...it had to do with the relative strength of the program.

If the point of having a two-tier system is competitive balance, it only makes sense to have movement bi-directional, with enrollment as a baseline factor, but not the only factor. On paper, Central HS alone (1621) would be AA. One of their players could play all three forward positions, and the other both D plus tend goal. I'm sure they'd do fine. As it is, only 3 of the 5 schools technically part of the coop actually contribute players. Why do you think 5 large high schools need to coop to field a team in the first place?

Programs petition the HSL to play a class above where their on paper enrollment puts them because they are competitive at that level. Why should a program not be able to move down for the same reason? Enrollment only tells a very small part of the story, whichever direction you're riding on the escalator.

Ram Hockey
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 12:58 pm
Location: Roseau, Minnesota
Contact:

Roseau staying Class AA

Post by Ram Hockey » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:56 pm

There was a mistake my the MSHSL and the website has been corrected. Roseau was always intending to stay Class AA for both boys and girls.

State Champ 97
Posts: 1970
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Bemidji

Re: Section Assignments

Post by State Champ 97 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:07 pm

esox101 wrote:
State Champ 97 wrote:Funny that doesn't work in other places. Enrollment is enrollment regardless how many hockey players you have.
Certainly it works other places, and in both directions...

If everything is based on enrollment, why do Roseau (371), Benilde-St Margrets (897), Holy Angels (691) and Hill Murray (599) play AA? Why did people scream bloody murder about Saint Thomas Academy playing in the Class A bracket for so long? Didn't have a thing to do with enrollment...it had to do with the relative strength of the program.

If the point of having a two-tier system is competitive balance, it only makes sense to have movement bi-directional, with enrollment as a baseline factor, but not the only factor. On paper, Central HS alone (1621) would be AA. One of their players could play all three forward positions, and the other both D plus tend goal. I'm sure they'd do fine. As it is, only 3 of the 5 schools technically part of the coop actually contribute players. Why do you think 5 large high schools need to coop to field a team in the first place?

Programs petition the HSL to play a class above where their on paper enrollment puts them because they are competitive at that level. Why should a program not be able to move down for the same reason? Enrollment only tells a very small part of the story, whichever direction you're riding on the escalator.
You are allowed to move from A to AA if you choose. You cannot move from AA to A because you aren't very good.

State Champ 97
Posts: 1970
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Bemidji

Post by State Champ 97 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Oh and enrollment is a huge part along with free/reduced lunch numbers as stupid as that sounds.

Silent But Deadly
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:49 pm

Re: Roseau staying Class AA

Post by Silent But Deadly » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:17 pm

Ram Hockey wrote:There was a mistake my the MSHSL and the website has been corrected. Roseau was always intending to stay Class AA for both boys and girls.
It has been corrected.....thankfully the Bison (who were moved from 6AA to 8AA) don't appear to be shoved out by this change.

allhoc11
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:12 pm

Re: Roseau staying Class AA

Post by allhoc11 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:24 pm

Silent But Deadly wrote:
Ram Hockey wrote:There was a mistake my the MSHSL and the website has been corrected. Roseau was always intending to stay Class AA for both boys and girls.
It has been corrected.....thankfully the Bison (who were moved from 6AA to 8AA) don't appear to be shoved out by this change.
Actually if you pull it up now Buffalo is in Section 6AA again, who knows if there are changes yet to come.

The one odd thing is there are 3 sections with 9 teams, and one with 7, seems like you would at the very least but 8 teams in every section.

Sue's a girls name
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:30 pm

No domino

Post by Sue's a girls name » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:55 pm

sinbin wrote:Interesting. If Roseau moves back to AA, will there be any kind of domino effect to move other teams around to balance things out?
Roseau was put back into 8AA. But, there was no domino effect. I'm sure Buffalo remains ecstatic about this. However, Buffalo was moved into 8AA to make 8 teams since Roseau left. Now that Roseau is back and it makes 8 teams, shouldn't Buffalo be moved back to 6AA in order to put them in the correct geographical category?

6AA has 8 teams now, and 8AA has 9, but it's a heck of a lot closer from Buffalo to the 6AA schools than it is from Buffalo to the 8AA schools.

I bet that would be too much work for the MSHSL, that and letting Buffalo know that they just went from the preseason #1 favorite in their section back to hoping they can get the #4.

Moral of the story is the MSHSL may never get it right - you look at the pins, and there are a bunch of different ways that they can divide out 8 or 9 teams. Either way, someone is upset!

State Champ 97
Posts: 1970
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
Location: Bemidji

Re: No domino

Post by State Champ 97 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:56 pm

Sue's a girls name wrote:
sinbin wrote:Interesting. If Roseau moves back to AA, will there be any kind of domino effect to move other teams around to balance things out?
Roseau was put back into 8AA. But, there was no domino effect. I'm sure Buffalo remains ecstatic about this. However, Buffalo was moved into 8AA to make 8 teams since Roseau left. Now that Roseau is back and it makes 8 teams, shouldn't Buffalo be moved back to 6AA in order to put them in the correct geographical category?

6AA has 8 teams now, and 8AA has 9, but it's a heck of a lot closer from Buffalo to the 6AA schools than it is from Buffalo to the 8AA schools.

I bet that would be too much work for the MSHSL, that and letting Buffalo know that they just went from the preseason #1 favorite in their section back to hoping they can get the #4.

Moral of the story is the MSHSL may never get it right - you look at the pins, and there are a bunch of different ways that they can divide out 8 or 9 teams. Either way, someone is upset!
NWC county in 8AA, geographically they have no business there. But they are the defending section 8AA champs.

MinnGirlsHockey
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Roseau staying Class AA

Post by MinnGirlsHockey » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:56 pm

allhoc11 wrote:
Silent But Deadly wrote:
Ram Hockey wrote:There was a mistake my the MSHSL and the website has been corrected. Roseau was always intending to stay Class AA for both boys and girls.
It has been corrected.....thankfully the Bison (who were moved from 6AA to 8AA) don't appear to be shoved out by this change.
Actually if you pull it up now Buffalo is in Section 6AA again, who knows if there are changes yet to come.

The one odd thing is there are 3 sections with 9 teams, and one with 7, seems like you would at the very least but 8 teams in every section.
I think you may have been looking at the current Competitive Section Assignments. For the next 2 years, Buffalo is still in 8AA (at least for now) and there are no AA sections with fewer than 8 teams: http://mshsl.org/mshsl/competitiveSectionsone3.asp

MinnGirlsHockey
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Section Assignments

Post by MinnGirlsHockey » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:10 am

State Champ 97 wrote:
esox101 wrote:
State Champ 97 wrote:Funny that doesn't work in other places. Enrollment is enrollment regardless how many hockey players you have.
Certainly it works other places, and in both directions...

If everything is based on enrollment, why do Roseau (371), Benilde-St Margrets (897), Holy Angels (691) and Hill Murray (599) play AA? Why did people scream bloody murder about Saint Thomas Academy playing in the Class A bracket for so long? Didn't have a thing to do with enrollment...it had to do with the relative strength of the program.

If the point of having a two-tier system is competitive balance, it only makes sense to have movement bi-directional, with enrollment as a baseline factor, but not the only factor. On paper, Central HS alone (1621) would be AA. One of their players could play all three forward positions, and the other both D plus tend goal. I'm sure they'd do fine. As it is, only 3 of the 5 schools technically part of the coop actually contribute players. Why do you think 5 large high schools need to coop to field a team in the first place?

Programs petition the HSL to play a class above where their on paper enrollment puts them because they are competitive at that level. Why should a program not be able to move down for the same reason? Enrollment only tells a very small part of the story, whichever direction you're riding on the escalator.
You are allowed to move from A to AA if you choose. You cannot move from AA to A because you aren't very good.
Since this thread is more current, I'm re-posting esox101's earlier post here on the same topic but in a separate thread: (I think there are some valid points in here)
esox101 wrote:I think it goes beyond just section make-up, and I also think basing class solely on enrollment is incredibly deceptive, especially when you look at some of the Co-op programs. .

I realize this is a larger issue perhaps, but I think it still fits in to the conversation - if the conversation is about a fairly balanced league anyhow.

Two good examples: The Minneapolis Novas and the St Paul Blades.

Take the Blades. With players from Como, Central and Highland, the student enrollment is almost 4,000. Central alone has more than 1700 students...

Two of them play varsity girls hockey for the Blades.

With two youth associations to draw from (Como/Johnson and Highland) there is a moderately strong youth program at the base of the pyramid. Highland Central HA's girl's teams are consistently competitive in D2 - not powerhouses by any stretch, but not doormats either. Middle of the pack to upper third depending on the year.

But that talent disperses to multiple HS programs. As near as I can figure, of 15 HS eligible players on Highland's 14U team from last season, 11 went to various private schools (CDH, SPA, Minnehaha, HA). 4 play for the Blades. I'm not sure Como/Johnson HAD a 14U team last season. They may have cooped with another association. Cretin-DH (300 fewer students than Central alone) had I want to say 40-some girls at tryouts. The Blades were ecstatic to have enough for a JV team this season - and most of them are 7th and 8th graders.

I don't know the details for the Novas, but I expect they're similar.

During the regular season the Blades are competitive with the Novas, SP United, Minnehaha (Tri-metro conference teams) and non-conference teams like St Louis Park, Holy Angels, Waseca, etc. They get smoked by Blake and Breck, along with pretty much everyone else in the Tri-Metro conference with the occasional exception of SP-U.

Come sections, Blake, Breck, SP-U, etc, head to Class A, while The Blades and Novas (4th and 5th in the Tri-metro behind Blake, Breck and SP-U) are in 4AA.

Last night the Blades and Novas played a play-in game - an exciting, very competitive 2-1 game that the Blades ultimately won. It was the rubber match for a regular season split between the two teams.

Their reward? Hill Murray. If the final looks like anything less than a lopsided football game, it will be a moral victory for the Blades.

I want to be clear - this isn't a complaint about private schools recruiting, or using enrollment size as a justification for playing in Class A for a theoretically easier path to the state tournament. Nor is it a complaint about having to play tougher teams you might not be able to compete against.

It's to point out that largely arbitrary yardsticks like enrollment don't tell the whole story on either end of the spectrum, whether it's highly competitive teams from small schools like BSM or co-op teams like the Blades or Novas ( or, I suspect, other co-ops.) On paper, a team like the Blades has a far larger student body than a private school like Blake, or smaller (relative term) public schools like St Louis Park. On the ice, the Blades are moderately competitive with 'smaller' programs, but have no business being on the ice with teams like Hill Murray, Edina, Roseville or Minnetonka, and no prayer of being competitive, even though their enrollment size says they should be. Check the score Friday night to see what the result of the current system looks like, and ask yourself if it did either Hill Murray or the Blades' programs any good.

There will always be powerhouses and weaker programs, but if the ultimate goal is to have teams play against teams of at least comparable ability, there has to be a better way to do this than current practice.

Sue's a girls name
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:30 pm

Blades are in A

Post by Sue's a girls name » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:50 am

I see the points of the poster above. Now for the interesting question.

How did the Blades end up in class A? What makes their Coop different from all the others that they get to take their extra large enrollment and head down to class A.

I totally agree with esox101 that they are now playing level appropriate hockey, but there are at least 10 other coops out there that deserve the same. So, how did the Blades end up in class A?

Seems as through the common thread here is to head to a tier system in order to guarantee that level of play is equal in sections. Is that what Esox is talking about?

How would people feel about Tier 1 and Tier 2. 8 sections, 20 teams per section. Seed 1-20. Top 8 in each section go play for Tier 1 (AA) championship, everyone else play for the Tier 2 championship.

You'd get level appropriate hockey. But, like greenway of 1992, you'd be chanting, we're #65. Remember the Rosemount team that went 1-20, or something similar, but made the tourney?

sinbin
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:12 pm

Post by sinbin » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:40 am

I don't have a problem with a weak team beating one weak team and two strong teams to make it to State; they earned it. I do have a problem with a weak team beating three other weak teams to make it to State. Unfortunately, many weak teams will still have that opportunity since the Sections are anything but competitively balanced. This could be done, within the rules, by MSHSL, if they wanted to, but it's clear that it's way too much work for them to do so and they're satisfied with something very close to the status quo.

Bulldog3489
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:52 pm

Post by Bulldog3489 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:21 am

sinbin wrote:I don't have a problem with a weak team beating one weak team and two strong teams to make it to State; they earned it. I do have a problem with a weak team beating three other weak teams to make it to State. Unfortunately, many weak teams will still have that opportunity since the Sections are anything but competitively balanced. This could be done, within the rules, by MSHSL, if they wanted to, but it's clear that it's way too much work for them to do so and they're satisfied with something very close to the status quo.
Maybe you could could help the high school league by identifying all the weak teams for the 2014-2015 season now?

luckyEPDad
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by luckyEPDad » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Bulldog3489 wrote:
sinbin wrote:I don't have a problem with a weak team beating one weak team and two strong teams to make it to State; they earned it. I do have a problem with a weak team beating three other weak teams to make it to State. Unfortunately, many weak teams will still have that opportunity since the Sections are anything but competitively balanced. This could be done, within the rules, by MSHSL, if they wanted to, but it's clear that it's way too much work for them to do so and they're satisfied with something very close to the status quo.
Maybe you could could help the high school league by identifying all the weak teams for the 2014-2015 season now?
There's the rub. It's difficult to predict the future with surety, and repeating the process every two years s a lot of work. The way to fix this problem, if it truly is a problem, is to modify the tournament structure, not seed the teams two years in advance.

Bighead
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:44 pm

Post by Bighead » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:05 pm

For the 17th time the solution is simple (boys & girls)...Keep their little Sections formula, criteria, rules, whatever they want to call it...play down to 16 teams (top 2 in each Section) Re-seed and play at neutral sites to get the best 8 teams to State!
If a School doesn't have the money for transportation, then look to the Boosters for support! Get it DONE!!!

esox101
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:01 pm

Post by esox101 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:06 pm

Sue's... I don't doubt other coops are in the same situation. That's part of my point with saying enrollment alone doesn't tell you much about what programs actually are capable of on the ice and that if competitive balance does matter, it can't be the only yardstick, or even the most important one.

I think the reality of the sport as it is now makes a different way of looking at class A or AA slotting necessary. On the one hand HS hockey is expanding into areas of the state where it previously hadn't been available, and in many of those areas, especially for girl's programs, coops are a necessity to field a team (look at Section 3A - every single team is a coop). On the other hand, some programs - small and large, public and private schools - are firmly established, highly competitive, and capable of competing at AA regardless of enrollment. Look at the reaction in this thread to Roseau mistakenly being listed as class A. If Hill Murray announced that since their class size made them a 'small school' they were going to play Class A from now on, every other Class A program would be screaming bloody murder...just like some have done re: STA for years. Why? Because their competitive ability says they don't belong there. Why should that line of reasoning be a one-way street?

As far as 'weak' teams making the tournament, I think that's always a possibility no matter what you do, especially with a 'one and done' playoff format. A strong team that lays an egg against a lower seeded and manifestly weaker team or has a key injury, or a weaker team with a goalie that gets hot for a stretch of games at the right time... Just hockey being what it is, puck luck alone can flip a single game. We've all seen games where the team that 'should' have won didn't because a puck bounced off a skate, a stick, a helmet and a defenseman's butt and went in.

Maybe part of the solution is to make petitioning to play up OR down a more formal process that happens along with section realignment. With cross-class conference and non-conference play, over time you should be able to get a pretty good picture of where an individual program is at competitively, and - at least somewhat - cross-level the effects of historically strong programs having a couple down years vs. weaker programs that have built themselves up over time to the point where they can be more competitive overall. That, plus factors completely external to the on the ice performance like enrollment suggests an A or AA classification. If a program doesn't feel the assessment is accurate, whether they feel they should move up or down, allow them to make the case as to why.

I don't claim to have THE answer, and I don't think there is an easy answer, especially when you add geography into the equation. But with the analysis tools and data that's available there should be a way to come up with a rational process that factors in the reality of a program's ability to compete at a given level independent of enrollment.

Bulldog3489
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:52 pm

Post by Bulldog3489 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:31 pm

At a number of Minneapolis and St. Paul city high schools almost all the students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, and the high school league doesn't count all of these students.

MinnGirlsHockey
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 am

Post by MinnGirlsHockey » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:04 pm

Bulldog3489 wrote:At a number of Minneapolis and St. Paul city high schools almost all the students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, and the high school league doesn't count all of these students.
Here's the MSHSL formula:
"Board policy initially places schools in competitive classes based on total enrollment as supplied by the Minnesota Department of Education, minus 40 percent of the number of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch."

I assume many of the St. Paul public schools were included in the appeals mentioned below, based on their classification in other sports too. That must be how the Blades were moved down to Class A in Girls Hockey. Because with the MSHSL formula, they'd still be well above the 1200 student threshold for Girls Hockey.

MSHSL Board of Directors Meeting - January 24, 2013
Meeting Synopsis
Action Items:
 Twenty member schools were considered for placement in one competitive class lower than enrollment would dictate. The schools appealed on varied grounds that included demographics, current and past participation levels, and economics among others. In order to make an appeal, for team sports only, a minimum of 50 percent of the school’s students must qualify for free or reduced lunch programs. Board policy initially places schools in competitive classes based on total enrollment as supplied by the Minnesota Department of Education, minus 40 percent of the number of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch. The appeals were reviewed by the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee and recommendations were made to the Board. The recommendations were unanimously approved, but will not be made public until noon on Friday, Jan. 24, to allow League staff time to contact the schools to advise them of the Board action.

Rocketwrister
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:45 am

Post by Rocketwrister » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:51 am

Bighead wrote:For the 17th time the solution is simple (boys & girls)...Keep their little Sections formula, criteria, rules, whatever they want to call it...play down to 16 teams (top 2 in each Section) Re-seed and play at neutral sites to get the best 8 teams to State!
If a School doesn't have the money for transportation, then look to the Boosters for support! Get it DONE!!!
I like this idea....and I like Sue's idea (I've said it before too) that go back to the tier 1 and 2 idea...2 sections in the state.

luckyEPDad
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by luckyEPDad » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:25 am

Bighead wrote:For the 17th time the solution is simple (boys & girls)...Keep their little Sections formula, criteria, rules, whatever they want to call it...play down to 16 teams (top 2 in each Section) Re-seed and play at neutral sites to get the best 8 teams to State!
If a School doesn't have the money for transportation, then look to the Boosters for support! Get it DONE!!!
I held an informal straw poll of HS girl hockey players and this idea was universally panned. In competitive sections the final game is very big and much loved. An Eden Prairie/Edina section final is an event. An EP/Andover state qualifer wouldn't be the same.

Bulldog3489
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:52 pm

Post by Bulldog3489 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:54 am

MinnGirlsHockey wrote:
Bulldog3489 wrote:At a number of Minneapolis and St. Paul city high schools almost all the students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, and the high school league doesn't count all of these students.
Here's the MSHSL formula:
"Board policy initially places schools in competitive classes based on total enrollment as supplied by the Minnesota Department of Education, minus 40 percent of the number of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch."

I assume many of the St. Paul public schools were included in the appeals mentioned below, based on their classification in other sports too. That must be how the Blades were moved down to Class A in Girls Hockey. Because with the MSHSL formula, they'd still be well above the 1200 student threshold for Girls Hockey.

MSHSL Board of Directors Meeting - January 24, 2013
Meeting Synopsis
Action Items:
 Twenty member schools were considered for placement in one competitive class lower than enrollment would dictate. The schools appealed on varied grounds that included demographics, current and past participation levels, and economics among others. In order to make an appeal, for team sports only, a minimum of 50 percent of the school’s students must qualify for free or reduced lunch programs. Board policy initially places schools in competitive classes based on total enrollment as supplied by the Minnesota Department of Education, minus 40 percent of the number of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch. The appeals were reviewed by the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee and recommendations were made to the Board. The recommendations were unanimously approved, but will not be made public until noon on Friday, Jan. 24, to allow League staff time to contact the schools to advise them of the Board action.
Allowing schools with more than 50% free and reduced lunch rates to petition down makes sense. They should have excluded 100% of these students from enrollment numbers for hockey in the first place.

sinbin
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:12 pm

Post by sinbin » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:33 pm

Oh, I'm certain we all have the utmost confidence that the MSHSL braintrust can do a quality job.

MinnGirlsHockey
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Section Assignments

Post by MinnGirlsHockey » Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:02 am

MinnGirlsHockey wrote:
MinnGirlsHockey wrote:The new competitive sections for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 school years have been published: http://mshsl.org/mshsl/competitiveSectionsone3.asp

I didn't go through all sections yet but I did see a few interesting changes for Girls Hockey.
I think below are all of the changes for Girls Hockey.

Change of section but same class:
Mound-Westonka from 2A to 5A
Totino-Grace from 4A to 5A
Chisago Lakes from 7A to 4A
Andover from 5AA to 7AA
Buffalo Bison from 6AA to 8AA

Change from AA to A:
Bloomington Kennedy from 2AA to 5A
St. Paul Blades from 4AA to 4A
Roseau from 8AA to 8A

Change from A to AA:
Minnehaha Saints from 4A to 4AA
AHA/Richfield from 5A to 2AA
Rogers from 5A to 5AA
St. Louis Park from 5A to 6AA
Princeton/Big Lake/Becker from 7A to 7AA

Here are some of my observations:
* Enrollment threshold for Class AA appears to be 1200
* St. Louis Park’s enrollment increased by only 22 students from 1178 to 1200 and was moved from A to AA (6AA, no less – lucky them)
* Rogers’ enrollment increased from 1161 to 1251 and was moved from A to AA
* Bloomington Kennedy’s enrollment decreased from 1275 to 1180 and was moved from AA to A
* Roseau apparently is no longer opting up to AA, as mentioned previously
* St. Paul Blades and Minnehaha Saints were swapped between 4AA and 4A. I’m not sure that I understand this one, Blades have a total co-op enrollment of 5778 and Minnehaha has a total co-op enrollment of 1976. Also, if M’haha were to remove the 2 Lutheran schools from their co-op, which according to their 2012-13 team roster on the MSHSL website do not provide them with any players currently, their total enrollment would be 1237 – still above the AA threshold but much lower than the Blades' total enrollment. Possibly the Blades were proactive in getting the MSHSL to move them to A based on their schools' demographics?
* I believe AHA/Richfield, Minnehaha Saints, and Princeton/Big Lake/Becker were previously granted exceptions to remain at Class A when they added school(s) to their co-op’s. Apparently these exception approvals have expired (maybe they can appeal to the MSHSL again?).
It looks like a few of these changes were reverted recently by the MSHSL:

Change from AA to A:
Bloomington Kennedy from 2AA to 5A
St. Paul Blades from 4AA to 4A
Roseau from 8AA to 8A - REMAIN IN 8AA

Change from A to AA:
Minnehaha Saints from 4A to 4AA - REMAIN IN 4A
AHA/Richfield from 5A to 2AA
Rogers from 5A to 5AA
St. Louis Park from 5A to 6AA
Princeton/Big Lake/Becker from 7A to 7AA - REMAIN IN CLASS A, BUT MOVED TO 5A

Hansonbrother
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:28 pm

Post by Hansonbrother » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:10 pm

Rocketwrister wrote:
Bighead wrote:For the 17th time the solution is simple (boys & girls)...Keep their little Sections formula, criteria, rules, whatever they want to call it...play down to 16 teams (top 2 in each Section) Re-seed and play at neutral sites to get the best 8 teams to State!
If a School doesn't have the money for transportation, then look to the Boosters for support! Get it DONE!!!
I like this idea....and I like Sue's idea (I've said it before too) that go back to the tier 1 and 2 idea...2 sections in the state.
As good as those ideas are, it'll never happen. The small schools have been polled and they want no part of it. They want the chance as is, regardless of how good or bad the section is, to get to the dance.

And let me throw this idea into the ring...Who cares if a school like STA or Warroad want to hide in "A" hockey. Let them. However, make this rule change...they will no longer be allowed to play any AA teams on their schedule...tournaments included. When they get tired of putting the whooping on the same teams year in and year out, perhaps they might make the choice to play schools of their caliber. 10-0 games get boring after a while

Goalie-Dad
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:53 pm

Post by Goalie-Dad » Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:30 pm

Bighead wrote:For the 17th time the solution is simple (boys & girls)...Keep their little Sections formula, criteria, rules, whatever they want to call it...play down to 16 teams (top 2 in each Section) Re-seed and play at neutral sites to get the best 8 teams to State!
If a School doesn't have the money for transportation, then look to the Boosters for support! Get it DONE!!!
Lots of problems with this idea:
1. The tourney will be extremely boring with the field of 8 constantly comprised of western suburban teams.
2. You expect some team from Roseau (just an example) to book hotel rooms and take a 6 hour bus ride with only a couple days notice. Remember, these are kids - school comes first.
3. This proposal will require teams to collect more money from parents for booster fees. Hockey is extremely expensive already, this will only drive the marginal kids away from the game . . .not a good idea.
4. Lastly, who will do the re-seeding? The last thing this great system needs is a bunch of parents sitting in a room, pouring over rankings and charts, determining the fate of teams. This is not the NCAA. Let the kids play hockey against their local teams to determine who makes it to state.

Post Reply