redistricting

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:04 pm

What I would like to know is How does Inver Grove Heights get away with no A team but Farmington puts one in so does Northfield. Then their C Bantam team gets a free pass to play into the B district playoffs, but other B teams with a couple of wins that fielded A teams didn't get the same chance. Rochester should have to make another A team at each level and divide them up evenly. To match the number of high schools. Nice how a kid comes in from Winona and gets put on the North team. I like the Dakota county idea and a Washington county district, i'm sick of driving to Rochester on Tuesday night for an 8 pm game, then have to play a loaded up team. I guess it really doesn't matter I only have a couple of years left to deal with this anyways. By the time this gets fixed my boys will be in high school.

SLP Coach · Post by **SLP Coach** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:46 am

TC District Como - A/B Johnson - A Highland - AA Washburn - A Southwest - B (SW/SLP - A) Irondale - A Richfield - A/B Edison - B Edgcumbe - S District 3 Wayzata - AAAA Maple Grove - AA Osseo - AA Orono - A Hopkins - A Armstrong - A Cooper - B St. Louis Park - A/B TriCity - A Brooklyn Park - A

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:47 am

SLP: I am not speaking from knowledge here, but I think you might want to downgrade Osseo. I think Osseo only has two sqs, pw and bantam teams for the boys -- not quite sure how they combo boys teams in OMGHA. I thought it was MG that had almost all the kids -- Osseo got stuck with many of the less affluent neighborhoods when they drew boundaries. Again, don't know for sure, just questioning.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:50 am

Also, Highland may not be a AA - only 3 bantam teams (but 5 pw teams). Kind of stradling the 4 team level.

SLP Coach · Post by **SLP Coach** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:27 pm

SEMetro - the way I look at both of those associations is this. Field's A level teams and has plenty of kids/players to do so. Highland is by far the largest "inner-city" (TC District Association). And with 5 Peewee teams, they are not hurting for players. Osseo (w/ the help of Maple Grove) does have higher numbers then say a Armstrong, Hopkins, TriCity type association, and should be classified that way, IMHO. Not saying your incorrect either, this is just WHY I put them into the AA classification for these purposes. My thoughts are not necessarily the same as others.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:19 pm

SLPcoach: Osseo numbers are very low- far lower than Armstrong, Hopkins or any other team , except for possibly Cooper. I believe the Osseo Squirt A team is mainly Maple Grove kids due to the lack of Osseo kids. I believe Osseo typically has 20-35 kids tryout at each level. Not quite sure on how Maple Grove factors into this.

National · Post by **National** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:49 pm

We need to remember that our districts reflect our school districts and our schools break out into Class A and AA. We should at least consider doing the same, (eg D2A and D2 AA) that way geography for travel and program size dont need to be traded off.

Cornermukker · Post by **Cornermukker** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:32 pm

District 15 Moorhead - A Brainerd - A Alexandria - A Fergus Falls - A Little Falls - A Detroit Lakes - B Morris Benson- B Long Prairie/ Sauk Center - B Pequot Lakes - B Walker - S Park Rapids - B Wadena - B Crobsy Ironton / Aitkin - B

livedreamhockey · Post by **livedreamhockey** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:45 pm

I would love for my kid to play in a State tournament it's a long shot. That's OKAY though because what's really important is developing (and having fun) and I think he is developing because of excellent coaching, good practice drills and hard work. We have to play powerhouse teams like Edina and EP but I'd rather play the best and lose rather than water them down to help us win. A good lesson in real life is that our success is not based on what others are doing...it is based on how much we've improved and bettered ourselves. We get plenty of chances to play teams at our level of 'A' quality by how we select our tournaments and scrimmage games. Players get a chance to have positive experiences if you take the time to realize your limitations and choose the tourneys you enter and scrimmage opponents accordingly. This is all without requiring other associations to water down their teams. For the record, State tournaments are NOT for the best teams across the state...they are for the teams that were able to pull off wins in playoffs (which usually is the better teams but not always). Even our H.S. State tourney doesn't necessarily get the best teams together...one loss and you're out means that even a long shot might pull off an upset and the BEST team may be sent home. That's GOOD and for some teams, pulling off the upset is as good as winning the State tourney may be for others. If powerhouse associations would rather have 1- A team, that is fine and should be their right (I hope DD's don't impose additional rules regarding requiring multiple A teams). I agree that D6 has hurt some associations by also requiring that each team must have 15 players but that is also fine...good for overall development but it's just harder on smaller associations struggling to field upper level teams. The fact is that there are simply some associations who should NOT field an A team (if all they want are wins)...they should be okay with that and whoever the best players are should dominate at the B1 level where powerhouse associations typically field multiple teams and therefore level the playing field. I think the real issue is regarding the associations ability to judge their talent level and being okay with it. It also is about society being okay with the idea that not everything is always 'fair'. You should always strive to make your program better (hard work, offseason development, etc.) but we shouldn't want to bring others down to our level just because they are stronger. As far as redistricting, I think we need to do what we can to cater to the highest level players. An "outside the box" idea maybe to consider having an 'All district' team that is created by having tryouts within each district and taking the top 15 players and 2 goalies from each district (similar to Advance 15 or 16 but done at the beginning of the year). Tryouts would have to be done EARLY so associations would know how many players they have left to figure out their teams. These teams would play against other 'all district' teams (which would require a lot more travel) and these players would NOT be a part of their local association for that year. They would also have to have their own tournaments, playoffs and State championship because of their structure. In theory, these teams would take the BEST players from all teams and put them together. Assuming the powerhouse teams have more higher talent players, they would end up LOSING more players to the new league and thus equal the playing field some. Some districts may even choose to field more than one 'all district' team if they feel strong enough. One danger of this is that it could weaken our H.S. programs because these kids may not stay with their local H.S.'s once they have the chance. I'm sure that there are numerous other problems with this idea but I'll throw it out there as a different idea.

Blade Side Down · Post by **Blade Side Down** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:54 pm

"maybe to consider having an 'All district' team " Now that is creative! Just Pee Wee, Bantam and Jr. Gold. Keep the Squirts at home to learn.

gferhock1 · Post by **gferhock1** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:14 pm

Awhile back I posted an idea for small associations to combine and to have district (AA for lack of a better term) teams. As for thinking outside the box, thats ok as long as the right poeple are thinking, but too many with power have implemented bad ideas.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:00 pm

livedreamhockey = nice points very well put. I agree i would rather try to beat some of the big dogs than have them watered down for our benefit. Blade= that idea has been brought up before, make a district allstar team play different tournment type weekends to get everyone together. It would also eliminate the AAA talk.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:31 pm

Can anyone else help with the district / association information? It does not have to be entirely exact. I am just trying to gather information.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:26 pm

in what regards?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:44 am

Association by association - what level each is at. Like some have done above. AA - have A teams with several kids playing at one level, say 4 or more teams. A - have A teams but have only 3 or less teams at a level. B - usually play just B level S - just a squirt or mite program or will have only C teams. By association within a District. I believe 16, 15 and a couple of other districts have been assessed. See previous posts.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:16 am

(I'm using a 3-4 cut-off for A / AA - some of these are easy calls - some are close calls depending on the level of team you are using). AV = A Bville = AA Kennedy = A Jefferson = A Chaska = AA Shakopee = A Waconia = A Prior Lake = A Tonka = AA Edina = AA EP = AA My two cents Elliot: I don't think the difference between having a 3-4 association play a 5-6 team association is typically that big of a problem. It is the "AAA" category of teams that have 8-9-10 teams per level that raise difficulties for the 3-4 level associations. Using that definition, I think there are only a handful of AAA teams statewide (Edina, EP, Tonka, WBL, Wayzata, maybe 1 or 2 others) that have those types of ##'s, but I am unfamiliar with the Roch/St. Cloud/OMGHA co-ops and how those work. Good luck

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:45 am

I agree with your assesment SeMetro that the AAA teams are the tough ones. If you look at the Wayzata PeeWee A this year they outscored their D3 opponents 88-7!!! Having them dominate all year like that does not do them any good or the other D3 teams. If associations do not want to field multiple A teams, which I can understand, then Minn Hockey should at a Minimun put these mega associations in a seperate district for league play. I see absolutly no downside to that?

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:56 am

Rochester-AA Hastings-AA Woodbury-AA Lakeville-AA Eagan-AA Red Wing-A Farmington-A Northfield-A Rosemount-A Sibley-A South St. Paul-A Inver Grove Heights-A Dodge County-B LaCrescent-B Winona-B Cannon Falls-S

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:26 pm

AA- Highland A - Johnson A - Washburn A - SLP/SP B - Richfield A - Irondale/Tr-City B - Como B - Edison

Gildan2036 · Post by **Gildan2036** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:09 pm

Icypalms- Which team do you coach again? Washburn?

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:12 pm

D3 Wayzata- AA or higher MG AA Hopkins A Orono A Armstrong A Osseo A BP A SLP/SW A Cooper A/B Tri-City A/B

mnboom · Post by **mnboom** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:54 pm

Elliot another thing MN Hockey will need to factor in is the demographic changes that will occur in the near future. The current good AA & A teams may be passed up in the near future by growing communities, i.e. Rosemount, Farmington, St Michael and many others I am not aware of. Look at how EP, Centennial and Lakeville have begun to dominate amd where they were 5-10 years ago.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:32 am

Maybe it is time for Mn Hockey to pay more attention the the levels below Squirt/Girls10,on the title page is a link to an article by Don Lucia, very good reading and good ideas.Maybe reshape the CEP classes to make sure coaches are educated to teach skills and forget about full ice games for the mites. If skills can be improved across the entire state;then rather then trying to re-draw lines on a major scale,associations on a case by case basis can make decisions based on what fits their associations needs rather then being told from above that this is a solution they will have to live with. The examples on how this has worked already are Irondale, Richfield and a few co-op teams that associations got together to field teams at a higher competitive level.We have a start now and maybe next year their might be a few more co-op teams in place.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:37 am

Lots of good thinking in the posts on this thread--Thanks for asking for our input! Our kids have played A,B & C-league hockey in the Wayzata association for more than 13 years...girls & boys. My husband has been on the Board for years as well. So we've seen the metro-hockey from a lot of different angles. I think the idea of re-districting based on the size of the association makes a lot of sense. The fact is that the mega-associations have a deeper pool of skaters to draw from, which gives them an unfair advantage over associations with fewer registrants. It produces situations like the District 3 PeeWee one currently: Wayzata has 5 teams (one A, two B1, three B2)...and they're all practically undefeated in league play, except against eachother. I'm sure the teams are having fun winning all the time...but I'm also sure the kids aren't learning as much as they could be if they were in a more competitive situation. And it's not fair/fun for the other teams. I think there would be a lot of support from families within WYHA for a "AA" approach, that would put the Mega-Associations together (maybe East & West?). It would even the playing field for all, and give the kids an improved hockey experience (even if they would lose a few more games). It would also help if the mega-associations would consider fielding more A teams...but that's an internal/district discussion (arguement is a more appropriate word, probably). I hope MAHA will make some changes in the metro districts, to make it more fun & fair for the kids. Again, thanks for asking for input.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:03 pm

Actually, with C teams, Wayzata's website shows they have 10 pw teams.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

redistricting

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: redistricting two class system

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas