SOUTH ST PAUL GIRLS HOCKEY

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

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

puck1669
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:37 am

SOUTH ST PAUL GIRLS HOCKEY

Post by puck1669 » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:45 am

The SSP girls hockey team with a 5 year record of 143 wins and 10 losses moves to class A !! Give me a break ! You lose your superstars and Go back to the enrollment excuse so that you can win another state title. CONGRATULATIONS on beating Warroad. What is their enrollment ? Maybe they should go back to how many years a city has had a girls program. That would put you back where you belong in AA <p></p><i></i>

luvhssports
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: SOUTH ST PAUL GIRLS HOCKEY

Post by luvhssports » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:56 am

Maybe they can make a third class that SSP can move down to if they aren't happy with the upcoming talent pool. Can't believe that the MSHSL would let any defending state champion in any sport to move down a class the following year. Goes to show that it's hard to see when you don't have a glass stomach..... <p></p><i></i>

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

Re: SOUTH ST PAUL GIRLS HOCKEY

Post by WarroadWarrior » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:54 am

The only reason they won is because the ref's messed up the call badly. The whistle blew before the puck went in the net. The ref that blew the whistle then came in and pointed a goal. IF YOU BLEW THE WHISTLE WHY WOULD YOU CALL IT A GOAL. You SSP fans can say well the whistle was premature so it souldn't matter. And i won't fight you that the whistel was premature. However the fact is the whistle blew and the play should have been dead. however there is nothing that can be done now, so congrats and i'm proud of our girls for making it as far as they did. Just don't think you earned this one as easily as you did <p></p><i></i>

SectionFan
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:56 pm

Re: SOUTH ST PAUL GIRLS HOCKEY

Post by SectionFan » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:32 am

It is a "Tainted Title" - and, the stain can never be removed. So, let's not hope that SSP beats their chest and celebrates too loudly. <br><br>Winners of the game - yes.<br>Champions - I think not. <p>SectionFan</p><i></i>

Cola21
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:26 pm

luvhssports

Post by Cola21 » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:37 am

Alexandria's enrollment is 1088. New-Prague M/L have an enrollment of 1073. South St. Paul's is 786. So don't play the enrollment card unless you are looking for a third class in girls hockey.<br><br>Warrior has a legit argument though the refs blew that call. Counting the goal doesn't make up for blowing it before they should have. It just makes them look worse for screwing up twice on the same play. <p></p><i></i>

mnhockeygal
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:15 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by mnhockeygal » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:55 am

What a pathetic thread. SSP has had to deal with this jealousy for years now. The fact of the matter is this - if it was year by year decision there is no question SSP would have been AA this season and no they wouldnt have stopped EP. But thats a moot point because the reason they HAD to move back where they belon is the mshsl requires I believe a 4 year committment. SSP numbers in its youth are dwindling and are best suited for A. Would you feel better had they moved to A 4 years earlier and won title games by 6 or 8 goals and more importantly this would have been their 5th straight title? <br><br>Your embarrassing yourselves with petty and silly jealousy. SSP is not even to the large end of spectrum in class A and simply decided to no longer play up to AA level because their numbers wont support it short or long term. <br><br>As for the call and game yesterday - I agree it was a wierd play. To say they stole the game is assinine especially considering they had about 4 or 5 totally phantom calls on them. 10 mins in box in 2nd period. Bottom line - terribly officiated game, well played by 2 very good class A teams, and a gritty, heart filled effort by the best dynasty this state has seen in a long long time - SSP.<br> <p></p><i></i>

luvhssports
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by luvhssports » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:34 pm

Jealousy...lol...I could care less about girls hockey...ever try to watch a game...just stating fact, unlike yourself...HAD to drop down after 4 year committment...try again...requested to move when they saw the talent pool get alittle light...no guts to try to defend their title...I suppose they'll request (or in your world HAVE) to move back up when things look rosey again...give me a break! <p></p><i></i>

birdmister
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 7:27 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by birdmister » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:37 pm

I love when women try to make an argument about a sport they don't belong in.<br><br>It is like those damn female announcers they have at football games. Who wants to hear a FEMALE voice during a football game. <p>I know a tie is a lot like kissing your sister, but think of it more like kissing a really hot step-sister.</p><i></i>

ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Re: luvhssports

Post by ghshockeyfan » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:38 pm

#1 SSP moved to A due to the 4-year opt-up commitment being too far into the future to be able to predict being competitive at the AA level. I too questioned this move to stay at A, but I think in light of the 4-year part they had to stay A for now.<br><br>#2 My guess is that had they been able to make a 1 or 2 year opt-up, they would have. I don't believe that everyone in SSP was happy with the decision to go to A, and that likely also included some of the people affiliated with the team.<br><br>#3 I don't believe that it's far fetched that SSP could one day again opt up, but that will depend on how strong the team becomes as it rebuilds these next couple years. They have a great U10 program and it just may happen that that talent may also attract some additional outside talent and they may again be able to compete with the AA schools.<br><br>#4 It's said that two wrongs don't make a right, but on the quick whistle and then subsequent goal call afterwards, this may actually have been the case (two wrongs made it right). What this really illustrates is that we need additional clairification about the parameters that we're able to review (interesting that we can review visual evidence, but not sound in this day and age - I agree (like saying you can call someone for a video conference, but not talk - just see them!)). I saw goals allowed in some cases and others disallowed in others that I would have went the other way on having seen some of the replays, but what really needs to happen is that we need to learn from all of this moving forward. <p></p><i></i>

luvhssports
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by luvhssports » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:50 pm

I try to keep on an even keel when I read and respond on these threads...sometimes I don't...I just want to state that I'm not trying to take away from SSP accomplishments...no one is faulting the move to AA, it's always a good move if a small school feels (and does) compete with the big schools...the fact of the matter is that once at the higher level one should move back down only after they have continued to compete at that level without success...not base on "we think we won't be able to compete" without even trying..... <p></p><i></i>

ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Re: luvhssports

Post by ghshockeyfan » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:00 pm

I agree with the thought that they should try to compete until they fail, but you have to remember that the MSHSL is a "participation" based entity. They don't care about the "competitive" part too much I don't think - as they stress participation instead.<br><br>This being said, I would agree with doing what most leagues do for senior mens & womens sports - if you win it all, have some level of success, you can't drop down/have to move up the NEXT YEAR. Do it year-by-year - or every two years for the sake of the section realignment consistency purposes, but don't make it a 4-year requirement.<br><br>What likley put SSP @ A this year was the 4-year rule, not the lack of desire by the team/coaches to play AA this season... Many were disapointed at the A vs AA situation... And ultimately I believe a school's admin - not the HS coach or players - make this decision to opt up. <p></p><i></i>

puck1669
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:37 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by puck1669 » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:27 pm

NO YOU EMBARRASSED YOURSELVES HOCKEYGAL BY TAKING A TEAM WITH 3 RECENT CLASS AA STATE TITLES AND MOVING DOWN TO A SO YOU CAN WIN ANOTHER TITLE. YOU NEED TO MAKE A 4 YEAR COMMITTMENT. BIG DEAL , DEAL WITH IT. WHAT A POOR EXCUSE. HATE TO BE 500 HA ! TYPICAL SSP <p></p><i></i>

Nostalgic Nerd
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: luvhssports

Post by Nostalgic Nerd » Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:12 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>#4 It's said that two wrongs don't make a right, but on the quick whistle and then subsequent goal call afterwards, this may actually have been the case (two wrongs made it right). What this really illustrates is that we need additional clairification about the parameters that we're able to review (interesting that we can review visual evidence, but not sound in this day and age - I agree (like saying you can call someone for a video conference, but not talk - just see them!)). I saw goals allowed in some cases and others disallowed in others that I would have went the other way on having seen some of the replays, but what really needs to happen is that we need to learn from all of this moving forward.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In terms of the goal being a matter of right and wrong, then it was right because SSP would've been at an even more of a loss than Warroad because the replay showed the goalie clearly never had control of the puck to begin with coupled with the quick whistle.<br><br>In terms of what is in the rule book, I don't know. Anyone? (I found the Stillwater/Eden Prairie game interesting where the refs disallowed a Stillwater goal under review. First for one thing, then the second time they concluded there was a hand pass.)<br><br>In the end I'm very happy for SSP. Even though they are in A, they EARNED this title. SSP was getting dusted in the first half of the game. Some 10 short-handed opportunities for Warroad, and they couldn't put the game away. That coupled with SSP will to find a way to create scoring opportunities (which they weren't creating during the first half of the game) was the key. I mean watching #2 Jackie Robertson on defense transition to offense is like a freight train comin' at ya. She and Bloemers took it upon themselves to find a way.<br><br>You get your Warroad's and your Coon Rapids coming in that people cheer for, but the greatest of the dynasties always seem to bring home all the hardware. I'm happy for them because of the way they had to win without their offensive stars. It's kind of like icing on the cake. Their winners, and that isn't something that can be said about the boys. <br><br>BTW, how does that Holly Roberts do it?! 3 Packers crunched all around her and she still comes out stick handling the puck! Jeez!!! <p>"Dream as if you'll live forever; Live as if you'll die today." --James Dean</p><i></i>

mnhockeygal
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:15 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by mnhockeygal » Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:17 pm

NO YOU EMBARRASSED YOURSELVES HOCKEYGAL BY TAKING A TEAM WITH 3 RECENT CLASS AA STATE TITLES AND MOVING DOWN TO A SO YOU CAN WIN ANOTHER TITLE. YOU NEED TO MAKE A 4 YEAR COMMITTMENT. BIG DEAL , DEAL WITH IT. WHAT A POOR EXCUSE. HATE TO BE 500 HA ! TYPICAL SSP <br><br>Your right, I am embarrassed. Much the same way the New England Patriots must be and how the NY Yankees were. Take your petty antics somewhere else. Deal with the dynasty.<br> <p></p><i></i>

brookyone
Posts: 730
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:37 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by brookyone » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:48 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>the fact of the matter is that once at the higher level one should move back down only after they have continued to compete at that level without success...not base on "we think we won't be able to compete" without even trying.....<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br>I agree with this 100%. Some programs just can't seem to handle going thru the ups & downs most teams have to endure as a natural cyclical occurrence...don't seem to think they should be subject to "down" seasons like others when / where it's pretty certain they won't compete for a championship.<br><br>This position certainly doesn't appear exclusive to SSP tho...and I understand many associated with SSP were not in agreement with or happy about the decision to move down...good for them. I think they should have been more vocal in their objections at the time.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Warroad11
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 8:05 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by Warroad11 » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:29 pm

Ok if SSP was worried about the future and how the numbers in there youth program are going down then why did they say on the tv time and time again that alot of the girls on the team are from places around SSP? If it isnt just the girls in there program that they count on for total numbers then how can they tell what the future for them holds? They could have stayed up for another 4 years, they had just won a AA title why not try to defend that title? They had a good enough team to make a run at it, hell even Warroad this year could have made a run at it, would they win it all more then likely not but atleast try. They won on a bad call and no two wrongs dont make a right in any case. When the ref blew it dead and the D stop moveing and allow a girl to chip it in how is that fair? Yes a fast whistle but still it was blown, bad call and a bad job by them all game long <p></p><i></i>

hockeydad
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 9:57 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by hockeydad » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:07 pm

Not really part of the argument here, but someone used the New Prague Montgomery Lonsdale enrollment figures during their argument. There is no cooperative program with New PRague and ML in girls hockey. It is just New Prague, always has been in girls hockey. Enrollment for NP is 798, which is close to teh same as South St. Paul. <p></p><i></i>

puck1669
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:37 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by puck1669 » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:19 pm

The New England Patriots & New York Yankees play the best teams Galpal. They didn't move down to arena football. They actually stayed "up" in the NFL and continued to beat the best not the second best ( sorry class A schools ) It's too bad Warroad didn't kick your butts. <p></p><i></i>

ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Re: luvhssports

Post by ghshockeyfan » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:23 pm

I agree with the thought that they should try to compete until they fail, but you have to remember that the MSHSL is a "participation" based entity. They don't care about the "competitive" part too much I don't think - as they stress participation instead.<br><br>This being said, I would agree with doing what most leagues do for senior mens & womens sports - if you win it all, have some level of success, you can't drop down/have to move up the NEXT YEAR. Do it year-by-year - or every two years for the sake of the section realignment consistency purposes, but don't make it a 4-year requirement.<br><br>What likley put SSP @ A this year was the 4-year rule, not the lack of desire by the team/coaches to play AA this season... Many were disapointed at the A vs AA situation... And ultimately I believe a school's admin - not the HS coach or players - make this decision to opt up. <p></p><i></i>

xk1
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:24 pm

Re: luvhssports

Post by xk1 » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:48 am

I think the class enrollment size as a class determining factor became moot the day open enrollment began. Schools now build teams based on the best players from multiple school districts, this years State teams certainly reflect that. I would argue that to be in class A you would be required to have only players from within your school district. (don't interpret this as whining about open enrollment) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 2/27/06 9:40 am<br></i>

Big Red
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:05 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by Big Red » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:10 am

"I would argue that to be in class A you would be required to have only players from within your school district." <br><br>Now, there is a very good idea! <p></p><i></i>

hubbaa
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 8:52 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by hubbaa » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:31 am

i guess i don't understand how someone can possibly expect the refs to get the call right on the ssp goal when they rarely got anything right during the game. hell, the calls were so blatantly one sided that at one point the TV announcer was wondering if the refs were from Warroad.<br><br>the ssp team, coaching staff and fans were against the move to class "a". the desicion was out of their hands as the school administration made that call. i agree they should have stayed in "aa". heck, their record against all state tourney entrants was 4 wins and 1 loss. they could have come through in "aa" again this year as i think its "a" section was almost as tough than its "aa" section would have been.<br><br>very predicatable to see all the venom come out against ssp. no one loves a dynasty simply because people get sick of seeing them win all the time. soon people look at everything concerning the team dynasty under a microscope and blow things completely out of proportion and will always side with the group which opposes the dynasty. the thing that can be learned from this is that the coach and team have proven over and over again they are much classier than the bashers are should be emulated by all, including myself. i am very proud of them for that, even more so than them winning 4 out of 5.<br><br>for all us classless losers it is now it is time to look for the next dynasty and bash the hell out of them... <p></p><i></i>

luvhssports
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:16 pm

Please close this thread...........

Post by luvhssports » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:14 am

Puck1669, are you out there?...please close this thread since it's not going anywhere...the air is thin way up on that tall horse which mnhockeygal sits...it effects her ability to read and understand what most people on here are trying to say...she keeps coming back with the jealousy/dynasty card...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Most of us DON"T CARE about girls hockey, just were stating how spineless it was to run from AA...that's all. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ssports</A> at: 2/27/06 10:28 am<br></i>

hubbaa
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 8:52 am

Re: Please close this thread...........

Post by hubbaa » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:35 am

luvie,<br><br>no one ran from anything, in fact they were denied the opportunity to remain in "aa". immediately after the championship game in 2005 the coach was being interviewed on the ice and was asked about the decision to go to "a". as he stated he and the team were extremely dissappointed in the decision and in fact they didn't really have a say in what the decision was going to be. i guess sometimes we all need to gather the facts before spouting off. the facts are there for you to find, just don't be spineless and do your diligence. you may one day find someone respecting you if you do... <p></p><i></i>

hockeyrube
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:31 am

Re: luvhssports

Post by hockeyrube » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:37 am

Again - being opposed to the way some people "use" open enrollment to enhance their sports teams.....<br><br>I have much more respect and admiration for a true "grass roots" dynasty, one that is built from the bottom up at the youth hockey level. A youth program that is built cooperatively by many selfless and energetic volunteers and the HS coaching staff which then supports and feeds the HS program with an endless supply of talent for several years.<br><br>As opposed to a Dynasty built even partially with "drive-in" transfers, kids looking to join a "winning" team for whatever reason (exposure, chance to go to state, etc.).<br><br>I just give more credit to the "Home Grown Dynasty", then the "Open Enrollment Dynasty". Go ahead and bash me, and call me old fashioned - and tell me that open enrollment is here to stay. I stick with my beliefs.<br><br>Rube <p></p><i></i>

Post Reply