Future of St Cloud Apollo

The Latest 400 or so Topics

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

Post Reply
HSPuckFan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:57 pm

Future of St Cloud Apollo

Post by HSPuckFan » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:32 pm

I recall reading around tournament time that Apollo's future could be in trouble?Can anyone elaborate on this issue?How can a team that just made it's second trip to state in 3 years and finish 4th be in a position were we are talking about them not being around in 5 years?
Go Zephyrs

karl(east)
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:28 pm

Coach Matanich explained this some in a press conference after one of the Tourney games. He said they only had 23 kids come out this year, and they expect to have 21 next year. The current junior class (next year's seniors) is a pretty good group, but it's hard to know what to expect beyond that. Because they have a single youth feeder program for three high schools, they can't really do much to tap into the community base, either. They're at the mercy of where the high school lines are drawn, and how many of the kids in their area go to Cathedral. It's not a guarantee that they'll disappear, but it's a tough situation.

Mite-dad
Posts: 1233
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:16 am

Post by Mite-dad » Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:56 am

It was my understanding that a combined team with SC Tech was in the near future. Maybe someone could elaborate on that who knows what is going on???

almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:44 am

karl(east) wrote:Because they have a single youth feeder program for three high schools, they can't really do much to tap into the community base, either. They're at the mercy of where the high school lines are drawn, and how many of the kids in their area go to Cathedral. It's not a guarantee that they'll disappear, but it's a tough situation.
How common is it to have community hockey program borders extend beyond an associated high school's collection area? I know that there are efficiencies in scale, and that the low numbers in some areas might make the youth equivalent of co-ops, but this is the kind of situation where it would help to have a 1:1 correspondence. You'd have a high school coach who could engage with kids that he knew would be feeding eventually into his program, and youth hockey boards whose interests wouldn't be divided.
Two minutes for...embellishment (ding!)

karl(east)
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:32 pm

almostashappy wrote:
karl(east) wrote:Because they have a single youth feeder program for three high schools, they can't really do much to tap into the community base, either. They're at the mercy of where the high school lines are drawn, and how many of the kids in their area go to Cathedral. It's not a guarantee that they'll disappear, but it's a tough situation.
How common is it to have community hockey program borders extend beyond an associated high school's collection area? I know that there are efficiencies in scale, and that the low numbers in some areas might make the youth equivalent of co-ops, but this is the kind of situation where it would help to have a 1:1 correspondence. You'd have a high school coach who could engage with kids that he knew would be feeding eventually into his program, and youth hockey boards whose interests wouldn't be divided.
Off the top of my head, Rochester is the only place that is really comparable to St. Cloud. Woodbury and Chaska/Chanhassen are also like this, though those are both involve very new high schools, so we'll see if the new high schools split off and go their own way in time. I'd hope they would, especially considering the numbers those numbers can and should have. There are plenty of co-ops, of course, but most of those arise out of necessity.

It sounds like Century may face similar troubles in Rochester. If programs don't have solid bases to tap into or traditions to lean on, things can dry up very, very quickly. If a high school has the numbers to support its own youth program, I don't understand why it wouldn't move in that direction.

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

Post by observer » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:36 am

Minneapolis Youth Hockey ends up with players skating for 5+ high school teams. They move to the Minneapolis HS team, an occasional additional public school team, as well as having players at 3-4-5 privates.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:39 am

karl(east) wrote:
almostashappy wrote:
karl(east) wrote:Because they have a single youth feeder program for three high schools, they can't really do much to tap into the community base, either. They're at the mercy of where the high school lines are drawn, and how many of the kids in their area go to Cathedral. It's not a guarantee that they'll disappear, but it's a tough situation.
How common is it to have community hockey program borders extend beyond an associated high school's collection area? I know that there are efficiencies in scale, and that the low numbers in some areas might make the youth equivalent of co-ops, but this is the kind of situation where it would help to have a 1:1 correspondence. You'd have a high school coach who could engage with kids that he knew would be feeding eventually into his program, and youth hockey boards whose interests wouldn't be divided.
Off the top of my head, Rochester is the only place that is really comparable to St. Cloud. Woodbury and Chaska/Chanhassen are also like this, though those are both involve very new high schools, so we'll see if the new high schools split off and go their own way in time. I'd hope they would, especially considering the numbers those numbers can and should have. There are plenty of co-ops, of course, but most of those arise out of necessity.

It sounds like Century may face similar troubles in Rochester. If programs don't have solid bases to tap into or traditions to lean on, things can dry up very, very quickly. If a high school has the numbers to support its own youth program, I don't understand why it wouldn't move in that direction.
Mankato?

We've had a similar discussion before in other threads. The consesus was that youth hockey is a seperate entity from high school hockey and that the association boundaries shouldn't mimic the high schools it feeds. Some posters disagreed. I brought up that if it was ok for the publics to have associations lined up to feed them then why can't there be a parochial grade school association to line up and feed the privates. That thought gained no traction.

Personally, I think each high school should have its own feeder association. Hockey, especially, is a sport where a lot of player development is done at the youth level. In order for a high school to be good it has to have the players. You want to have a good high school program? It starts when the kids are 6,7,8 years old. A more linear model in St. Cloud, Rochester, and Mankato would seem to work better in my eyes, but those are not my communities. I don't live there so probably don't understand the dynamics as well as the locals.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:38 am

Johnson/Como/NSP all one co-op. Feeds Three or so highschools. [I don't know how many go to hill these days.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:43 am

Mounds View Irondale had a co-op this year and will the next with a likelihood of merging after that. They feed two high schools with the Irondale side having fewer kids. That's not dissimilar to St. Cloud's situation.

If either MVHS or IHS has too few kids for a JV team next season, the association will likely sponsor a junior gold team or two. That may be Apollo's only recourse too.

They also lose a fair amount of kids to private schools. I don't think any association is immune to that. MVI kids tend to go to TG, CDH, and a little bit to HM.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:59 pm

The Exiled One wrote:Mounds View Irondale had a co-op this year and will the next with a likelihood of merging after that. They feed two high schools with the Irondale side having fewer kids. That's not dissimilar to St. Cloud's situation.

If either MVHS or IHS has too few kids for a JV team next season, the association will likely sponsor a junior gold team or two. That may be Apollo's only recourse too.

They also lose a fair amount of kids to private schools. I don't think any association is immune to that. MVI kids tend to go to TG, CDH, and a little bit to HM.
I recall a quote after the 2013-14 season from the recently let go coach Thomas, where he said something to the effect of, "Well, I think we did a good job winning 5 games this year, considering there are 15 Mounds View eligible kids playing high school hockey elsewhere this season."

Add Shattuck to your list of schools that pillage the Mustangs. MV had a likely varsity kid go there this past season as well.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:43 pm

jg2112 wrote:I recall a quote after the 2013-14 season from the recently let go coach Thomas, where he said something to the effect of, "Well, I think we did a good job winning 5 games this year, considering there are 15 Mounds View eligible kids playing high school hockey elsewhere this season."

Add Shattuck to your list of schools that pillage the Mustangs. MV had a likely varsity kid go there this past season as well.
Adam Schmidt at Irondale said about the same. Schmidt is a lot more involved with the youth hockey level, but that doesn't mean too much when you're a solid bantam player looking at a 3-19-3 record versus the potential of playing at a private school.

Rick Thomas was not involved with the youth program at all other than raiding the bantams for players. That's likely one of the reasons he got the boot. He just wasn't interested in helping local hockey in the greater sense.

Yes, there is talk of a HS merger, but it's not going to happen for next season at least. Demographically, there's just not a lot to be optimistic about in the district 621 footprint. It's going to take a greater community movement to bring hockey participation rates back up as a whole. It's going to take a charismatic hockey leader to succeed and retain players at the HS level. MVHS in particular gets a lot of their better players from North Oaks. Those parents tend to have the resources to send their kids to private schools even if it's not related to hockey.

EP1955g
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:35 pm

Post by EP1955g » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:59 pm

Unless someone moves in or transfers out they will have 17 skaters and 2 goalies for a grand total of 19 for 15-16. They had 23 players try out this past year. All varsity Apollo varsity players played one period of JV before the varsity game. Looks like no JV this year so scheduling may be difficult. Cathedral had over 40 players this year, many were kids from the Apollo boundary. They provide a great education at Apollo but families in St. Cloud can send their kids to the private school to avoid certain issues that have been in the news earlier and lately. Apollo was a heck of a story that the twin city media missed. The little engine that could, might be back one more time before its death after next year. Come on Hockey Gods, one last time.

HSPuckFan
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:57 pm

Post by HSPuckFan » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:05 pm

Here's a question.Has there ever been a situation were a school has gone co-op because of low numbers,only to see the numbers come back up to a point were they can become there own entity again?
Go Zephyrs

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:33 pm

HSPuckFan wrote:Here's a question.Has there ever been a situation were a school has gone co-op because of low numbers,only to see the numbers come back up to a point were they can become there own entity again?
St. Paul Highland Park

Mitch Hawker
Site Admin
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:16 pm

Post by Mitch Hawker » Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:08 pm

Is there a list somewhere of the HS teams we have lost and the years we lost them?

How about a list of the number of MSHSL teams for all years?

It is good to see hockey embraced in some non-traditional areas but it is also tough to see so many "traditional" hockey schools become non-competitive, have to merge, or lose their programs entirely.

It seems it is mostly economic, with hockey becoming too expensive for many (or is it "many becoming too poor for hockey"?).

Solutions anyone?

Froggy Richards
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:15 am

Post by Froggy Richards » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:37 pm

Mitch Hawker wrote:Is there a list somewhere of the HS teams we have lost and the years we lost them?

How about a list of the number of MSHSL teams for all years?

It is good to see hockey embraced in some non-traditional areas but it is also tough to see so many "traditional" hockey schools become non-competitive, have to merge, or lose their programs entirely.

It seems it is mostly economic, with hockey becoming too expensive for many (or is it "many becoming too poor for hockey"?).

Solutions anyone?
I agree, it's pretty sad to see what Youth Hockey has become. I don't think Economics is the driving factor, which is why you're still seeing it embraced and thriving in non-traditional areas like you said. If it was too expensive, it wouldn't get off the ground in those places. People have been talking about how expensive hockey is since the early 80's. It never affected the growth of the game though. What is ruining the game is that it's no longer an activity for the kids to have fun with their friends and play a game that they love.

It's become a status symbol and measure of self-worth for the parents. People used to play where they lived, with the kids they grew up with. Now, as soon as kids start to separate from the pack and show any sign of advanced skills, the parents think they are too good for their Association, so they send them to the closest powerhouse. This is ruining hockey in larger urban areas because there is always a powerhouse nearby. Minnesota Hockey helped to facilitate this when they allowed kids to open-enroll for hockey. I've watched it unfold over the last 4-5 years in the Duluth area, with Hermantown being the destination. So what we have now are the haves and the have-nots. Even the kids that want to play where they live are having their hands forced as they realize they have no chance of competing. You can't lose your top 1-3 kids from each birth year to the crosstown rival and have any hope of success. This also kills your chances of recruiting the next generation of players when there isn't any buzz around your program. The non-traditional, out-state areas that you referred to are not affected by this as much because the hockey teams/towns are spaced further out. You can't just open-enroll and drive an extra 5-10 minutes to drop your kid off at the Hockey Powerhouse school. Where is a parent from Luverne going to take their kid when they think the coach isn't doing enough to feature him in the offense? So it's no surprise that those areas are thriving while traditional programs are dying.

I was on here as recently as a year ago defending the Neighborhood Association Model, saying it was the best system, wasn't going anywhere and would always survive. I don't believe that anymore. First of all, it's not neighborhood anymore. Which Association you play for depends on how good you are or how good your parents think you are, not where you live. I'm not sure why our generation is so much different than the ones prior or what exactly happened. But we've managed to take a near-perfect youth sports model that has given so much to so many kids, and pretty much destroy it. It's pretty sad.

karl(east)
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:21 pm

I guess I'd blend Mitch's economic explanation and Froggy's status explanation and say it's "socioeconomics" that decide where the good hockey teams are. Money and status are huge. The piece I did recently on Twin Cities urbanism and HS hockey backs that up pretty strongly, and as I pointed out, these trends pretty much hold up in Greater Minnesota as well, with the North's history also being a distinguishing factor. I'd also argue that parts of southern MN are still relatively low-hanging fruit for building up hockey in this state, given their lack of tradition.

I'm guessing these things actually feel most cutthroat in places like Duluth, St. Cloud, and Rochester. As Froggy says, it's hard to switch schools in large parts of Greater Minnesota, when towns are 30 miles apart. And in the Metro, the movement is spread around...there are obvious teams that are net "winners" and "losers" from player movement, but they don't all go to or come from the same place. It's a lot harder to point to one or two programs that are dominating things, as may happen in the smaller metro areas around the state.

It's obviously a troubling trend for a number of programs in the state. Bruce Plante, ironically, said it as well as anyone a couple years ago in a press conference, when he worried about "30 good teams and the rest of them becoming feeder programs for them." (One would be curious to hear Bruce's take now.)

But, I'm not sure how much can be done about it. Open enrollment isn't going anywhere, and that has nothing to do with hockey. Private schools became hockey magnets after the 2-class split, and I doubt the rise of St. Thomas, Benilde, Lourdes, Cathedral, or Marshall could be undone even if we did go back to one class. In an economy where there is increasingly little upward mobility, many parents are going to do all they can to get their kids into "better" schools or situations, real or perceived.

I know it can be very hard to move on when players do leave. An occasional failure to do so earlier in his career is the greatest failing of my favorite coach. But, in the end, what else can you do other than laugh and shake your head at the people chasing greener pastures? Life goes on, and often the greatest lessons in hockey come off the ice.

Back on topic to Apollo's case, the looming numbers crunch is no excuse for giving up on it all. With any luck their success will draw in a few kids who might keep things afloat, and even if they do have to merge, a stronger effort at the base of the pyramid might make it possible to split again in time. I realize that is a tough sell for people who will be directly affected, but it's all I've got. Once again, take the long view and look at the bigger picture here.

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN

Post by east hockey » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:09 pm

Mitch Hawker wrote:Is there a list somewhere of the HS teams we have lost and the years we lost them?

How about a list of the number of MSHSL teams for all years?

It is good to see hockey embraced in some non-traditional areas but it is also tough to see so many "traditional" hockey schools become non-competitive, have to merge, or lose their programs entirely.

It seems it is mostly economic, with hockey becoming too expensive for many (or is it "many becoming too poor for hockey"?).

Solutions anyone?
I only have solid data going back to the 1997-98 season:

1997-98: 152
1998-99: 156
1999-2000: 159
2000-01: 158
2001-02: 155
2002-03: 155
2003-04: 156
2004-05: 156
2005-06: 153
2006-07: 153
2007-08: 154
2008-09: 156
2009-10: 157
2010-11: 156
2011-12: 155
2012-13: 154
2013-14: 154
2014-15: 152

The growth in the 90's was due to a number of new programs springing up in outstate; Annadale, Benson, Dodge County, Fairmont, Long Prairie, Luverne, Marshall, Morris, North Branch, Park Rapids, Pequot Lakes, River Lakes, Rochester Century, Sartell, Sauk Centre, Waseca, Windom, Worthington. The Twin Cities area also added teams during that period.

This has been offset by a glut of programs which either turned into co-ops or disappeared altogether, both in the Twin Cities Metro and outstate. In seems no area has been immune from this, either; the Twin Cities has lost a large number of teams, mainly in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Northerneastern Minnesota has suffered some losses, also (Aurora-Hoyt Lakes, Babbitt, Chisholm, Duluth Central, Duluth Morgan Park, Two Harbors, Silver Bay, Gilbert).

Contraction is happening and will continue.

Lee
Message Board arsonist since 2005
Egomaniac since 2006

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:57 pm

Froggy Richards wrote:
I agree, it's pretty sad to see what Youth Hockey has become. I don't think Economics is the driving factor, which is why you're still seeing it embraced and thriving in non-traditional areas like you said. If it was too expensive, it wouldn't get off the ground in those places. People have been talking about how expensive hockey is since the early 80's. It never affected the growth of the game though. What is ruining the game is that it's no longer an activity for the kids to have fun with their friends and play a game that they love.
Much of the growth in "those places" can be directly attributed to the Mighty Ducks money the state legislature authorized in 1994, giving communities $250,000 for ice arenas made communities able to overcome the biggest hurdle to getting hockey going, indoor ice.

Mitch Hawker
Site Admin
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:16 pm

Post by Mitch Hawker » Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:35 pm

How expensive is hockey for the schools when compared to other sports?

I am sure that it varies by district policy on how much they charge the players for hockey vs what they pick up.

It is interesting to ponder that the facilities for about every sport except hockey are fully subsidized by the school districts (e.g. football fields, basketball gyms, baseball fields, soccer fields,...). How many school districts own their rink?

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Rochester posts their fees; Lacrosse and Skiing are the highest at $300, Tennis, Soccer, and Volleyball are the cheapest at $135. Hockey is $225, Football is $195, Basketball $185, everything else is $160.

The Rochester school district doesn't own an ice rink though they did give money for the consturction of the Rec Center and some of the Graham Arena rinks. I think that's a pretty common occurance around the state. I don't know of any one school district that owns it's own rink, Park has a rink on their property and I believe Minnetonka does as well. I thought the Minneapolis Public schools owned a rink at one time.

Until the early 1990's Rochester had one football stadium, John Marshall, Mayo, Lourdes, and Rochester Community College all played there. Mayo got theirs when voters approved money to build Century I think and at that time I think the school district looked at building an ice rink at Century on the ground the current football stadium sits on but built a stadium there instead.

I've always wondered the sense in districts having a football field at each school, it seems like such a waste for a venue used 4-5 times a year. Aren't Apple Valley and Eastview less than a mile away from each other?

Mitch Hawker
Site Admin
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:16 pm

Post by Mitch Hawker » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:53 am

Goldy,

Thanks for the info. I do agree with your sentiments about football stadiums.

However, it was strange at Mayo to have to get all of our football equipment on and then take a bus ride across town to our rival school for our home games and then bus back across town afterwards in dirty and sweaty gear.

EP1955g
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:35 pm

Post by EP1955g » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:35 am

Anyone from Europe looking to play hockey and being a foreign exchange student? Uncle Apollo Eagle wants you.

mnhockeyfan11
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:59 pm

Post by mnhockeyfan11 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:20 pm

goldy313 wrote:Rochester posts their fees; Lacrosse and Skiing are the highest at $300, Tennis, Soccer, and Volleyball are the cheapest at $135. Hockey is $225, Football is $195, Basketball $185, everything else is $160.

The Rochester school district doesn't own an ice rink though they did give money for the consturction of the Rec Center and some of the Graham Arena rinks. I think that's a pretty common occurance around the state. I don't know of any one school district that owns it's own rink, Park has a rink on their property and I believe Minnetonka does as well. I thought the Minneapolis Public schools owned a rink at one time.

Until the early 1990's Rochester had one football stadium, John Marshall, Mayo, Lourdes, and Rochester Community College all played there. Mayo got theirs when voters approved money to build Century I think and at that time I think the school district looked at building an ice rink at Century on the ground the current football stadium sits on but built a stadium there instead.

I've always wondered the sense in districts having a football field at each school, it seems like such a waste for a venue used 4-5 times a year. Aren't Apple Valley and Eastview less than a mile away from each other?
At least at Rochester Mayo (Where I graduated) the football field is also used for soccer, track and field, and lacrosse so you can't accuse Mayo of using it "4-5 times a year".

goldy313
Posts: 3949
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Post by goldy313 » Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:11 pm

Yes I can, the stadium is used 4-5 times a year. The 200 people who show up for soccer, lacrosse, or track could do so without the two large grandstands. Mayo had plenty of track meets and soccer games prior to building their stadium and it worked just fine.

Rochester could have put a first class soccer field in at Mayo 25 years ago all the schools could use, one without a crown like soccer wants. Instead they rent RCTC. Austin did this and the facility is very nice and works very well.

Post Reply