St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:49 am

Let me set a few things straight on the one vs. two team history. I pushed for two A teams at Pee Wee the first year my kid was a Pee Wee. It didn't get anywhere but the planning stages for the next year (I wasn't on the board that year, just coaching). The next year it happened. Both Pee Wee teams did decent, won a few games in district playoffs -- I think the other team got farther than we did. The following year we had the split for both Pee Wees and Bantams. About 12 bantams left to play high school and we kept the two teams in place.

Both teams got divided up and both struggled, although the other one made district playoffs and we did not. The year after, it was suggested that the SCYHA hockey committee study and recommend how many teams at each level and it recommended one Bantam A team. We voted to follow all hockey committee's recommendations. I don't know how it was done this year. It should have remained two teams two years ago. But that's the history of my involvement. In addition, I voted against Squirt travel when the issue came before the board in the mid or late 1990s.
Last edited by wickedshot on Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:58 am

Stealth:

You're right on the back and forth on the one team vs. two issue and yes other associations have found it frustrating. Of the votes I cast for one or two teams, I would take back the vote for one A team in 06-07. I voted to follow the hockey committee recommendation and I shouldn't have. I think everyone who has ever been on the board or executive board might take back a vote or two along the way.

brokenbat
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by brokenbat » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:06 pm

As not being apart of SCYHA and not knowing first hand, I have talked with members of SCYHA and for the most part the problem I am hearing is how this all came about and the way in which the movement began, which after hearing and reading about this issue I agree with has been done the WRONG way. I really hope this is done the right way, I do agree with having 2 A teams at PeeWee and Bantam level, but my biggest gripe is that this issue was brought on by a small select group that involved Tech HS Boys Hockey Coach that would benefit that program and according to survey was in the minority. It should have been done the proper way, through SCYHA even though it sounds old administration had some serious problems. I think there are enough smart hockey people to create best environment for the development of youth hockey players in St. Cloud, this isn't the way

This thread has to do with a handful of people that maneuvered themselves within the SCYHA and for the last 5 or six years have tried to manipulate SCYHA with the sole purpose of benefiting St Cloud Tech High School.
How could this all come about when 81% of people who responded to survey said it should remain intact? My point is it should have done differently and I don't think wickedshot has that in mind, even when he can now state that he would be willing to work under 1 association with 2 different teams...the fact of the matter is they went behind everyone's back without a majority to start this movement!
My question to you wickedshot is why not drop the entire seperate association because it clearly states in survey results that the majority residents of south who participated do not want this and let start over with this discussion involving all members of SCYHA from the start?

Idiot
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:58 pm

Question for Wickedshot

Post by Idiot » Tue May 06, 2008 6:25 pm

Mr. Kennedy,

I have read the information on your website, sounds like you have a number of people who are willing to put in a lot of time into the kids to reduce cost and increase numbers. Why aren't these people willing to put that effort into the current association to help all the kids?

In reading your response to the survey and how you justify the numbers and implying that there is still a majority of people that want a split it does not make sense to me. If a sample population responds against it by such a margin how can you swing it in your favor? I do not think that there is a politician out there that could swing those responses in their favor?

How could you elect a board to represent the population if there was not a general election? If the split takes place, when do you plan to hold an election for the people to decide?

Once again, lots of good ideas. My original thought is that the energy is being put to the wrong use. With the energy you and your group have you could do wonders for the current group of kids!!!

Thoughts?

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Tue May 06, 2008 10:00 pm

To the above poster:

I don't want to address you by your screen name -- seems a little harsh to choose that moniker.

That being said, I think you should read all the above posts. We are asking SCYHA to appoint a committee to look at a split within the assocation. We asked this a year ago. Hopefully, we can look at some options with one association. I'm going in with an open mind.

George Blanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: St. Schmo

Post by George Blanda » Wed May 07, 2008 8:49 am

wickedshot wrote: That being said, I think you should read all the above posts. We are asking SCYHA to appoint a committee to look at a split within the assocation. We asked this a year ago. Hopefully, we can look at some options with one association. I'm going in with an open mind.
Would a split within the association allow Tech to have their own teams and Cathedral/Apollo be joined? Since there isn't association split (by community), it seems to me that this would be a good possibility.

As numbers currently are I believe that would be a good idea. Not to mention it would protect Cathedral kids from growing under the realm of Hommerding, but that's my personal opinion.
"they are LAME" -darkdemon on SJU hockey

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Wed May 07, 2008 10:32 am

Hopefully the split doesn't occur as having one strong association, with everyone being supportive of each other, has to be the first choice.

Frankly, I don't think youth hockey associations should be named after schools. Try northside and southside or something. I really don't think they should be all that closely related. Youth hockey is Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam and then comes high school hockey and they aren't really connected. There are several problems when they become to closely connected. If you were to split you'd still have northside kids open enrolling in the south side high school and visa versa. Kids must play youth hockey in their community but they don't have to go to high school there so don't connect the two discussions. It's best to operate independently of the high school and just be in the youth hockey development business.

For the most part youth hockey associations are independent 501c 3 organizations not supported by, or dependent to, a high school. Nor can they discriminate as non-profits. I see some school district language creeping into mission statements and bylaws but it shouldn't be there and may not be legal for it's inclusion. ie Stillwater.

If a family is a member of a community, taxpayer to the community which helps build and maintain a community, public, arena facility and the youth hockey association is a 501c 3 non-profit organization there is no way they can discriminate against a family, or hockey player, that is a member of the community. It's wrong and must stop. I've stated, there are youth hockey associations that develop players for as many as 8 high schools off of one single bantam team of 17 players. They must not and can not discriminate. Discrimination is NEVER the right thing to do.

Youth Hockey Associations should be in the business of developing as many youth hockey players as they can for as many high schools as they can. That's the reward. Operate independently. If a high school coach wants to volunteer some time to run clinics and build trust and friendships with youth hockey association players there's probably nothing wrong with that. Does the youth hockey association owe anything to that particular coach or school. NO.

Let's create better situations for all hockey players as we move forward. That's something we can all celebrate.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Wed May 07, 2008 10:53 am

George Blanda:

I think that the kind of divide you mention should be looked at by the committee (hopefully blessed by SCYHA). I would think that having an Apollo/CHS split not only would keep the kids going to those two schools playing together, but would also equalize the numbers more -- possibly even giving larger numbers to the Apollo/CHS teams.

JoeBoy
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:52 pm

Post by JoeBoy » Wed May 07, 2008 11:42 am

wickedshot wrote:To the above poster:

I don't want to address you by your screen name -- seems a little harsh to choose that moniker.

That being said, I think you should read all the above posts. We are asking SCYHA to appoint a committee to look at a split within the assocation. We asked this a year ago. Hopefully, we can look at some options with one association. I'm going in with an open mind.
that hilarious, sounds like SCYA has looked into it and people dont want it but you keep pushing it THEN you are open to look at how to improve things within current system/association. Seems backwards and disingenuous. isnt it St. Cloud Youth Hockey not St. Cloud Tech or St. Cloud Apollo hockey association focus on the youth.

I have read the whole post and web sites etc.

BlueGoose5
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by BlueGoose5 » Wed May 07, 2008 12:43 pm

wickedshot wrote:To the above poster:

I don't want to address you by your screen name -- seems a little harsh to choose that moniker.

That being said, I think you should read all the above posts. We are asking SCYHA to appoint a committee to look at a split within the assocation. We asked this a year ago. Hopefully, we can look at some options with one association. I'm going in with an open mind.

Crap, he's back. The gift that keeps on giving, even when it won't be received. How about this as a gift, Wicked? Give it up and move on. Focus your efforts on being a Tech HS hockey fan. Leave SCYHA alone. You have nothing to offer SCYHA but descension and stress. You had your day in the sun as a SCYHA board member for several years, which is when you should have made your move with the split. Now that your time is done, let it go and give the new leaders some breathing room and a chance to implement some fresh ideas for once.

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Thu May 08, 2008 10:15 am

Wasn't the SCYHA meeting last night to discuss this? Any feedback for us, anyone?

MetCenterFan
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:13 pm

Post by MetCenterFan » Thu May 08, 2008 11:20 am

Blue&Gold wrote:Wasn't the SCYHA meeting last night to discuss this? Any feedback for us, anyone?
There was a St. Cloud Youth Hockey board meeting last night. I was there. Two District 10 reps attended. Mr. Kennedy presented. The board reiterated that there has been no call for a split from the local hockey families other than from a select few. The District 10 reps stated that St. Cloud youth hockey does not seem to have enough numbers to support a split at this time. Makes sense. The board expressed frustration that they were blindsided by Mr. Kennedy and his group and that having to spend so much time dealing with the split issue has taken away from other work such as recruiting and fundraising.

Discussion ensued regarding the importance of developing a focus on recruitment to build youth hockey numbers up so that a split of some sort could be considered in the future. Mr. Kennedy volunteered to work with the recruitment committee of the Association and to also provide support for the girls hockey committee. The board welcomed this.

Overwhelmingly, the board is opposed to splitting youth hockey into two associations in St. Cloud but is willing to work with Mr. Kennedy to address his concerns. This seems constructive.

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Thu May 08, 2008 11:37 am

So in your opinion, things are moving in the right direction, and we won't have to worry about the SCTYHA for a while? If Mike is engaging again with SCYHA I think that's a good thing..

MetCenterFan
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:13 pm

Post by MetCenterFan » Thu May 08, 2008 11:42 am

One more point. Mr. Kennedy stated that he would ask the MH official to withdraw his motion to vote on the St. Cloud split at the MH meeting in June.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 11:54 am

MetCenter is correct in his recollection of the way the meeting went. I did volunteer to be on the recruiting committee and sent an e mail to Laurie Kissner to volunteer me and another SCTYHA member to be on the hockey committee. We also will be submitting a name or two for the girls committee.

One thing that I think was misunderstood was I came to the meeting to ask that all options be looked at on splitting under one association, north/south and by school or combination of schools (CHS and Apollo together, Tech separate). That doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to play A hockey. One could be A, two could be B1 or whatever. Some seemed to think dividing kids just meant having 2 A teams and then worried about talent numbers etc.

What SCYHA had this year at the bantam level was an example. You had a Tech A team and a couple of B1 teams that had some southside kids on them but a good share of CHS and Apollo kids. Everyone did well and it worked. Why not formalize that? I still haven't heard one good reason why it wouldn't. However, it is interesting that most of the people who think that might be a good idea no longer have kids in youth hockey but did have kids go through the system.

I did say I would visit with other people involved in this regarding talking to Mr. Elliott about his motion and would contact Laurie. Final note. The recruitment committee has three of us on it. Now that I'm on it, I'm looking for some help doing the heavy lifting.

huskyhockey17
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 am

Post by huskyhockey17 » Thu May 08, 2008 12:13 pm

I was also at the meeting and Mr. Kennedy was asked directly if he would ask Mr. Elliot to remove the motion for a separate association and he didnot say yes. He said that he would have to ask his committee and would let us know in a day or two. I am very interested to hear what his response will be. If he continues to push the motion after the association has tried to be open to discussion then all of our time will have been wasted. He also stated that Chad Hommerding is not involved in their new proposed association and is not involved in their meetings. I found out after the meeting last night that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hommerding drove down to the MH hockey meeting together. Seems to me that there is communication between the two going on about this issue even if Mr. Kennedy would like to deny it.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 12:26 pm

Thanks for the clarification on getting back to Mr. Elliott. I did drive down there with Hommerding and Andrea Coulter and I called Rich Inderieden and Jon Peterson to ask them if they needed a ride. Hommerding wanted to go to listen in. Seemed sensless for all of us to drive separately.

Is Hommerding on our board? No. Did I consult with him on anything I've said on the website, at the public meeting, at least night's meeting or with anything we've mailed out to SCYHA members. No.

I think if you were to have listened in regarding what was talked about on on the way down or back (on tape), you'd hear me doing most of the talking about my intentions.

huskyhockey17
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 am

Post by huskyhockey17 » Thu May 08, 2008 12:54 pm

Wickedshot. It's interesting to me how you like to point things out and twist them to make them sound good. You mentioned that most people that think it's a good idea no longer have kids in youth hockey. You are talking about a small number of people to begin with, 11 families to be exact from the survey that would like the split and a few on your board that do not have kids in youth hockey anymore. Saying most makes it sound as if there are a whole boat load of people pushing for this and that is not the case. By the way, there was a few people at the meeting last night who do not have kids in the association anymore who spoke out against what you are proposing. Isn't that interesting?

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 1:12 pm

Oh, i just have to chuckle at that one.

This is too rich. I've admitted I've made some mistakes, sat in front of your board and attendees (by the way, where was the agenda published a week or two ago so that more people knew about the discussion last night)? Took all the questions and lectures and volunteered.

And this is the best you can come up with? Your own adminsistrative director admitted to me that the board should have taken some kind of split more seriously last year and that it should have never come to this.

But no one on the existing board wanted to discuss it nor admit they maybe should have engaged earlier. And I'm the one not being honest....................excuse me. I had to laugh for a second.

Also, private e mail me please with the names of the people you referred to. I would find it interesting.

huskyhockey17
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 am

Post by huskyhockey17 » Thu May 08, 2008 2:25 pm

Maybe if you would have brought the issue as an agenda item sometime in the last year it may have been addressed. Where have you been inthe last year? You have not been to a board meeting nor have you requested this item be place on the agenda prior to last night. This was brought up last year at the general meeting and since then we have not heard from you. You have to remember that most of the board is new and if you had brought this item to a board meeting than we might not be where we are right now.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 2:36 pm

The executive board is not new. Two of the members of the executive board were on it when I was on it. They are the ones who set the agenda.

Many on the board have been on it for some time and I can name names. Good point. This hasn't been an issue during the past eight months. It was taken off the agenda in May (no one bothered asking me my opinion and I was the one that brought it up). So the question is, what has the board been doing the past eight months to address what it identifies as the most important issue facing SCYHA -- recruiting? And contact and communication doesn't doesn't work one way. It works both.

MetCenterFan
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:13 pm

Post by MetCenterFan » Thu May 08, 2008 2:43 pm

A note in defense of the current youth hockey board. Last night at the meeting, Mr. Kennedy was very clear to point out that he absolutely has no issues with the current board of directors for St. Cloud youth hockey.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 2:59 pm

No issues with the current board outside our disagreement with this issue. I wasn't the one who suggested that the north/south issue took away from their other duties. They were. So I'm responding to it.

Regarding the agenda, I guess I expected more people at last night's meeting so I did a little research today on when the agenda was posted and that's why I asked when it came out.

As I've stated many times before, I believe every organization owes it to their members to make it as easy to participate in meetings etc. as possible. But it is every member's responsibility to then attend meetings, volunteer to serve on committees, coach, take board positions etc.

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Thu May 08, 2008 3:44 pm

Wicked... just one point on your last statement, and you probably will remember this: Back "in-the-day" every board meeting had a packed house. We used to hold them at the old Legion behind Pan'o Gold.. and they moved them to the other side of the building just to hold the people. Over a period of time, all the power was taken from the people of the organization and control was given to one or two folks. (you know who I'm talking about..) We discussed that last time we talked. Anyway, people quit attending meetings as their voices weren't being heard and personal agendas took precedent. What I'm getting at is that you can't get folks to attend any more. It will take time to get them to come in for regular meetings IF things are run as they used to be.

We have a wounded association that is trying to build itself back up. I applaud you for volunteering to help out, but I honestly don't know if the cut you and your group inflicted on the organization will heal very quickly. But I hope so.

That's all I wanted to add. Some history may help to explain things..

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Thu May 08, 2008 7:10 pm

Blue and Gold:

I got two calls today from people who I haven't talked to more than a year. Both said they don't go to meetings now because they don't feel their voice is being heard by the current board. Interestingly, one of the callers didn't like the leader of the group I served under; so I don't quite know how to interpret that. Maybe some people are never happy.

I think if you have an organization that goes out of it's way to find people who don't necessarily agree with the majority of the committee, board etc. you have a chance at really getting something done. Hopefully, that is the case here. Every organization needs dissent; if everyone happily marches in lockstop......everyone will soon march right over the cliff.

Post Reply