St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:22 pm

This thread was started to help remove clutter from all of the other threads...mainly in the high school forum.

Helpful websites to gain knowledge from both sides can be found at...

www.stcloudhockey.com

and

www.sctyha.com[/url]

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:35 pm

Thanks.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:14 pm

Good luck to the St Cloud Tech families in making this work.

Maybe Rochester should divide too so that our kids get to play together growing up and then JM wouldn't have bantam C players skating varsity.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:39 am

I looked at the site and the survey and I believe that St. Cloud is thinking in the right direction by thinking about a split, but haven’t gone far enough.

With the projected population growth in the I-94 corridor, why not put a recommendation together to Minnesota Hockey that would base a split on forming an I-94 corridor district that would accommodate St. Cloud, Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Cold Springs, MALM, Princeton, St. Micheal/Albertville, Becker/Big Lake, and Rogers.

One of the expenses of the coming season will be travel expenses and such a District would greatly reduce travel costs, encourage more rivalries, allow for greater usage of arena facilities and over all grow the sport in an area that is growing. Other associations such as Sauk Center may also be interested. That would form a nine or ten association district with most of the drives to games, etc of less then a half hour.

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:32 am

frederick61 wrote:I looked at the site and the survey and I believe that St. Cloud is thinking in the right direction by thinking about a split, but haven’t gone far enough.

With the projected population growth in the I-94 corridor, why not put a recommendation together to Minnesota Hockey that would base a split on forming an I-94 corridor district that would accommodate St. Cloud, Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Cold Springs, MALM, Princeton, St. Micheal/Albertville, Becker/Big Lake, and Rogers.

One of the expenses of the coming season will be travel expenses and such a District would greatly reduce travel costs, encourage more rivalries, allow for greater usage of arena facilities and over all grow the sport in an area that is growing. Other associations such as Sauk Center may also be interested. That would form a nine or ten association district with most of the drives to games, etc of less then a half hour.

No offense Fred but with the exception of St. Cloud you'd practically be creating the Mississippi 8 of youth hockey...is that a good thing?

Also District 10 is one of the best in youth hockey I wouldn't think members would want to leave for lesser competition, just to reduce travel?? IDK just my 2¢

zippitydoda · Post by **zippitydoda** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:41 pm

George Blanda:

Good job putting both links on the message board so that people can read what both groups are saying and make their minds up, good, bad or indifferent. I'm sure some have strong opinions one way or the other, while others couldn't care less.

BlueGoose5 · Post by **BlueGoose5** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:22 pm

It's a dead issue. There will be no split. The short lived St Cloud Tech effort was an abysmal failure. This was nothing but a small core group of Tech parents trying to ram-rod a break-up of SCYHA, and they did it by taking the low-road. It was a text-book example of what not to do to enact change.

It's no coincidence that this group of parents have kids who will be trying out for the Tech HS team next year. Could it be that these parents are trying to earn special favors with the Tech coach?

zippitydoda · Post by **zippitydoda** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:38 pm

Goose:

Not what I heard. The group is on the agenda at Minnesota Hockey's Meeting later this month to make its case. I don't think it's going away from talking to members of the group -- nothing but wishful thinking. This issue has been simmering for years and it's not likely to go away.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:41 pm

Can't Never Tried wrote:
frederick61 wrote:I looked at the site and the survey and I believe that St. Cloud is thinking in the right direction by thinking about a split, but haven’t gone far enough.

With the projected population growth in the I-94 corridor, why not put a recommendation together to Minnesota Hockey that would base a split on forming an I-94 corridor district that would accommodate St. Cloud, Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Cold Springs, MALM, Princeton, St. Micheal/Albertville, Becker/Big Lake, and Rogers.

One of the expenses of the coming season will be travel expenses and such a District would greatly reduce travel costs, encourage more rivalries, allow for greater usage of arena facilities and over all grow the sport in an area that is growing. Other associations such as Sauk Center may also be interested. That would form a nine or ten association district with most of the drives to games, etc of less then a half hour.
No offense Fred but with the exception of St. Cloud you'd practically be creating the Mississippi 8 of youth hockey...is that a good thing?

Also District 10 is one of the best in youth hockey I wouldn't think members would want to leave for lesser competition, just to reduce travel?? IDK just my 2¢

I have had to travel the "bottleneck" that begins everyday around 3 pm from 494/694 and is slow and go until Albertville. I have experienced slowdowns going the other way over a similiar distance. If I lived in St. Cloud, it would be a welcome relief to not have to drive to the D10 associations like Blaine for an hour of hockey. D10 has 22 associations already and its time for a change. I would rather play in a new growing district that will likely foster a new level of competition in 3 or 4 years then to hang on to the old.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:00 pm

Hey All:

I'm the president of the proposed SCTYHA and have been reading the comments. Zippy is right. Contrary to what some people have said, this is far from a dead issue. We'll be holding public meetings in the next few weeks and all SCYHA members will be invited to attend. We've been getting calls and e mails of support from within St. Cloud, as well as from other associations, some high school coaches (from as far as the Twin Cities, including a private high school coach), which has done nothing but encourage us. Our names are all listed on the web site, www.sctyha.com, as well as our cell numbers and e mail. And we'll be at the MN Hockey meeting in April and probably back again in the fall or winter. This is all meant to put things in context as to where this stands.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:17 pm

Wicked, For the record, I've been told that your son was in high school hockey last season, correct? With that in mind, I think you are doing this for the best interests of the kids. What was the makeup of this past season's bantam A team comparing Tech to Apollo?

Most associations are set up on high school boundaries. In some cases like Rosemount, Apple Valley and Eastview those boundaries seem kind of blurry. Rosemount and Eastview do some kind of co-op for their girls but keep their boys separated with the exception of a few kids that seem to waive over to the other program. Bloomington has separate associations for Kennedy and Lincoln but have a catch all program through BAA.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:31 pm

Rocket:

You're right. My son played varsity last year. He'll be a junior this year. I pushed for school attendance boundries when I first got on the executive board three years ago, at which time he was going to one of the private middle schools.

The makeup of Bantams this past year was about 50 south side and about 22 northside. However, the 08-09 estimates from what we looked at are about 43 southside and 30 northside. Every kid on the Bantam A team this year was or is a Tech kid, but several others who were not chose to drop down to B1. This was not a typical year. Some of my kids best friends who played Bantam A with him were CHS or Apollo bound.

We have publicly said that we think the girls programs should stay together until the numbers are bigger and perhaps even include Sauk Rapids and Sartell. That program could be run by either assocation or rotated between the two.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:43 pm

Rocket:

Correct that. One of the key players on this year's Bantam A team is an Apollo kid. I didn't want to slight him -- a big reason for their success.

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:06 pm

Wicked,
How do you propose to draw the line between north and south?

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:12 pm

Wicked, I'm not familiar with St Cloud geography. I know Tech, Cathedral, and Apollo but don't know which is North or South.

I read the statement on the SCTYHA website. I assume that one of the main goals is to create a "Roseau" like experience where the kids play together in youth and then in high school rather than mixing up kids based 100% on their current talent in youth hockey. BTW, Bloomington K & J have a blended girls program like you are proposing with the host association changing by level. StLouisPark/Armstrong/Cooper also have a blended association. With the girls programs it is hard to say if this is being done based on numbers or as a tool to try to win the State (NSP/Roseville). The girls numbers are growing fast so I would have guessed that the number of co-ops would decrease.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:13 pm

That's just a description. The high school attendance boundries are pretty established.

Personally, I think each high school should have teams at every level -- Bantam, Pee Wee etc. and have argued with MN hockey about that. They are the ones that define "natural hockey community" by public high school attendance or boundary. I don't agree with it --- nor do a lot of people. It likely will come up at their April meeting with St. Thomas and Blake on the agenda, as well as us.

I think it would benefit all the kids at every level and all the high schools if they allowed it.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:29 pm

Rochester used to divide A and B teams using the old JM/Mayo school line. Some enterprising traveling people got it moved further South which on the surface seemed to give JM a huge advantage since about two thirds of the players were North and only one third were South. The reality was that JM is in a less affluent section and the majority of the "North" kids were Century. Now, many of the top kids are finding their "inner peace" and leaving public school to enroll at Lourdes. When I was a kid, many of my friends went to St Pius or St Johns but switched to John Adams or Central for 9th grade rather than go to Lourdes. My how things change!

In St Cloud is Tech North or South?

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:59 pm

wickedshot wrote:That's just a description. The high school attendance boundries are pretty established.

Personally, I think each high school should have teams at every level -- Bantam, Pee Wee etc. and have argued with MN hockey about that. They are the ones that define "natural hockey community" by public high school attendance or boundary. I don't agree with it --- nor do a lot of people. It likely will come up at their April meeting with St. Thomas and Blake on the agenda, as well as us.

I think it would benefit all the kids at every level and all the high schools if they allowed it.

Before you can decide, one has to look at the School District 196 and not just the Cities they serve. School District 196 covers a triangular piece of land with a base that goes from County Road 5 in Burnsville approximately 18 miles east to the Mississippi River. The north/south height of the triangle is also 18 miles long starting in Eagan at Lone Oak Road and going south to Empire township (another 18 miles). Most of that land area (60%) is the Rosemount High School. That land is mostly open and will likely develop over the next ten years. Eagan area is about 20% of the school district and covers the northern tip of the triangle. Eastview is a 10% slice in the west central part of 196 and Apple Valley High School is the 10% in the southwest corner.

So now the fun begans. All the kids I am talking about live in an environment that offers choice. Kids who live in the City of Eagan can skate for Eagan, but for public school will go to Burnsville High, Eagan High, Eastview High, Rosemount High and Inver Grove High. This is because the Eagan Youth Hockey program is dependent on the Eagan Community furnished ice arenas. One can’t exclude a child of an Eagan Resident from participating in community sponsored sports. One can point out that Apple Valley has the same problem with Eastview, Rosemount, Burnsville and Lakeville kids that all live in Apple Valley High School Boundaries. So a kid that lives in right spot of Burnsville, can skate can skate Apple Valley or Burnsville while growing up without moving.

Eastview is not a city and the High School totally consists of kids from Apple Valley, Eagan and Rosemount. Rosemount has kids that live in Lakeville, Empire Township, Coates, Apple Valley, Inver Grove Heights and perhaps Hastings. All these kids are have multiple opportunities to skate between residency, youth hockey program, and High School. Thats before they grow and add new communities in the area.

If that wasn’t enough confusion, St. Thomas Academy is located just north of District 196 sitting like a crown on the district map.

Programs like Edina and Minnetonka have grown around one High School because they developed years before District 196 area. Edina and Minnetonka city growth is limited with little open land and will likely remain one high school. However Eden Prairie and Chaska are growing with Waconia to the west and Shakopee and Prior Lake to the south both growing. Shakopee is, I think, adding another school. Farmington is also growing and will open a new high school soon and there is a tremendous amount of land between Lakeville and Prior Lake that is being opened up for development.

So what does all this mean to St. Cloud hockey. One has to really think about not just school boundaries, but communities and growth and find a workable compromise between all interests to build a best interest for the kids approach. Hopefully, if you split, there will be a clean enough slate to allow to processes or procedures that can smooth out the workings of the split to be put in place.

By the way, for the D10 folk, isn’t there a new city, Columbia, that has just been incorporated between Centennial and Forest Lake.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:13 pm

All good points. We have never taken the position that there can't be some kind of compromise, and you cite some very interesting situations. I've been watching many of those situations and developments.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:15 pm

Rocket:

Tech is south. I grew up in Rochester, as well -- graduated in 1978 from Mayo and played on the south side my whole life so I came from the old north south split. I came to St. Cloud in 1984. That's my background and what I'm used to. Nice to hear from a fellow Roch native.

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:34 pm

Fred,

Wow, what a cluster. How to keep it straight? Guess you just play where you think you'll get the best opportunity.

Rochester, for better or worse, does not allow a kid in Century area to just decide to open enroll at JM. There needs to be an address or guardianship change. If a student is moved due to disciplinary reasons they are generally not eligible to particpate in sports. Moving to Lourdes is easy if you can pay the tuition and then you are just subject to MSHSL transfer rules. My stepson was buddies with a kid that attended Century as a 9th grader while playing bantam A. He "moved" in with his grandparents in 10th grade and played at JM. In 11th grade he showed up at Lourdes but then seemed to disappear off of the map. Not sure what went on there...

At the youth level it is easier...sort of. Dodge County youth hockey based out of Kasson has their claws into Olmsted County (Byron and Pine Island for sure plus maybe some others). Rochester Youth Hockey takes the rest of Olmsted County. I've heard that there were some kids from Wabasha and Winona ccounties that have played in Rochester too.

The Rochester public high schools do not allow co-ops anymore (at least in hockey) so you must attend a school to play for their team. The exception is that there are so few Lourdes girls that they co-op with JM. The Dover-Eyota and St Charles kids (that may have played for Rochester youth) must play high school for Winona. The Lourdes boys team selectively co-ops (based upon talent and not numbers) with Stewartville, Chatfield etc. They used to co-op with Plainview when they needed a good goalie but now that the Plainview kids aren't as good anymore they dropped that co-op. Plainview kids have to play Jr Gold but I hear they are trying to get into the Winona co-op. Dodge County (Kasson-Mantorville H/S) is co-oped with Triton H/S, Byron, Pine Island and Hayfield. They lose players to Lourdes and even 1 to the Ice Hawks (Jr A in Roch).

Rocket78 · Post by **Rocket78** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:42 pm

Wicked, I'm a bit older and obviously am biased to the JM side. Won't hold it against you though

. Good luck with your efforts.

wickedshot · Post by **wickedshot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:40 pm

Thanks, Rocket. Your side of town had some fantastic players in my day --the Lecy boys, Butters, Teal, Aikins (sp), Brandrup, Nelson -- I got to play against many of them growing up. That 1977 team was something else. But our side of town cheered as loud as anyone when you guys made your run to the state title. Brings back a lot of memories.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:59 pm

Well, wicked, you and the boys on the other side better be ready, because I am making a long list of questions.

puckeyone · Post by **puckeyone** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:00 pm

Back to the subject , Mn hockey is a community based organization, i for life of me cannot see how they can say NO, when they are drawing it up to the school distirct lines, if they say no what would this cause in other communities, theywould not have to follow boundries at all , They were split a few years ago, and many good D-1 players came from both,,, But if Mn Hockey is serious about redistricting then they should be put in D-5 with the other St Cloud and Sauk Rapids, if this did not happen then Mn Hockey is not serious at all about redisictering and should not spend any more wasted time on it,, Its only been 15 years since they have been talking about it,,, and at 4.00 a gallon gas i think the majority of parents would favor this also,.. ya the minority that think competition is the driving key will be upset for a year or so, but it would be a HUGE elling point to get more people involved in this great game if we all can cut some cost , and travel is getting to be than ice time and thats scary