The Gentry Academy Thread

[Wise Old Man]

Great discussion...First to Puck, I really appreciate the detailed info about Gentry that you've provided. I've definitely learned a lot. I also commend you for how you've handled any negative comments or criticisms. You haven't taken anything in a personal manner -- at least, it doesn't seem as though you have. In your responses, you simply push back in a factual way without getting personal or using ad hominem attacks.

I have no doubt that Gentry is operating within the guidelines/rules of the MDE and the MSHSL. As I said previously, I give Gentry credit for making the jump to AA as soon as they're able. It proves that the school and the coaching staff "get it". However, as others have pointed out, very few schools have a rink either on-campus or close buy where they could replicate what Gentry is doing with regards to the mid-day, pre-practice ice. Although I don't doubt that the average kid is only skating 2-3 days a week on the extra ice, it still adds up to a significantly greater total of in-season practice time compared to the average high school program. Will others possibly try to copy the program? Maybe. And, like others have also said, to this point we haven't seen other sport specific schools like Gentry forming.

Puck, let me ask you this. If the kids/players that choose Gentry weren't able to skate/practice any more than any other school's players could, would they still choose Gentry? Because for me, that's the big differentiator between Gentry and other options at the high school level. I'm sure the perception of the potential coaching quality between Gentry's staff and a player's normal options for schools would be a factor as well. Not to mention the possible ability to play on a team with higher level players and against better competition. Let's face it, it's the exact same reasons why some of our top players choose to play juniors or go to the NTDP in their 11th or 12th grade years.

And that's why I don't agree with what Gentry is doing at the high school level in our state. I disagree strongly with Schotzy when he states that the "Minnesota model" -- the community based model -- isn't being threatened. If the model is still so healthy, why is the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" getting wider and wider each year? Westy is right in that the teams in our state are now tiered between three different levels. And, if we/the MSHSL don't start addressing the reasons why the gaps are widening so much, in 20 years we'll have a third less teams playing at the high school level than we do now. Along with a pretty poorly attended state tournament because it will be the same 16 teams playing in it every year.

We absolutely need to strengthen the traditional community based, play where you live (or pay to go to a private school) model. If these kids/parents want the opportunity to have all of that extra practice time during the season, then either go play juniors or, play at the Tier I or Tier II U18 or U16 levels. I honestly don't have any problems with how and what Gentry is doing. I just strongly believe they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the MSHSL. And no, they aren't the same as "normal" private school. I'm not a fan of private schools who can draw kids from a large metro area or, even statewide playing in class A. But, at least they aren't able to offer (or haven't as of yet) a possible extra 100 plus hours of ice during the season/school year. I also disagree with Puck about the extent of how many kids are doing significant, third party, in season training. I'm sure that at most of the traditional "hockey power" schools in the Twin Cities metro, there are a significant number of kids doing a little of it in season. But not to the degree you seem to think. Certainly not 100 plus hours worth. Nor am I aware of very many players doing third party training at the smaller outstate schools. Thus, the ice time difference is far from a "red herring"...

As I said earlier as well, Minnesota Hockey hasn't helped either. They need to go back to the traditional "play where you live" eligibility rule. We are losing way too many youth teams in the smaller communities that are within a 30-45 minute drive of a larger metro area. In turn, that's what driving so many of the co-ops we've seen established at the high school level the last 10-15 years. If you want to play somewhere else, then either move into that association's boundary, or petition the district director if you feel your player has a unique and justifiable reason to be allowed to change associations. If parents think their home association is lacking in either coaching or facilities or competition or whatever, then making it almost impossible to leave should motivate them to increase the level and quality of their involvement. Which in turn will make their association much stronger if enough parents feel the same way.

Finally, in regards to the Massachusetts discussion... As I've said previously, I've been very fortunate to have been able to make this game we all love my full time avocation for 30 years. And, I've literally traveled to and spent time in, 28 different states and one province. I've also been very fortunate to have developed relationships with hundreds -- yes, HUNDREDS -- of coaches, GMs, owners, administrators, players, arena staff, and even officials in that time. Thus, I have a pretty good understanding of Massachusetts' situation in regards to high school hockey the last 20-25 years. Originally, Mass's development model was the community based model. But, over the last two decades, it has transitioned to the Tier I Tier II/club team model. In turn, their overall numbers have declined, along with the number of players that move on to the NCAA Div. I level. If we continue to allow our community based development model in Minnesota to slide closer and closer to the club team/Tier I and Tier II models, we will suffer the same fate as Massachusetts. However, that would require the MSHSL to show far more interest in enforcing it's current eligibility rules and, investigating any reports of recruiting, no matter who or which type of schools are involved. And, if a school is caught recruiting, assessing the appropriate penalties to the school, coach, players, or parents involved. Sadly, it doesn't appear as if the MSHSL is truly willing to do so....

[Smooth]

Looks like the mshsl needs to add the AAA class. That's where we're headed.

[Slap Shot]

Every school (except yours, I guess) has a gym. Most don't have ice rinks.

I don't believe you are well equipped for the future. My guess is that a few established high schools mimic Gentry. Bounced this off a couple people I trust and they concur.

People can't have it both ways. Minnesota hockey can't be the be all and end all if kids are only playing a little youth hockey in the winter and moving on to baseball, football, golf, and fishing. Look what happens elsewhere, and (more importantly) what kids are willing to move away from home for and you'll see it is pretty intense. Northstar, Shattuck, Selects Academy, etc... In Minnesota Bernie McBain was considered the anti-Christ; now supplemental training at places like MAP is the norm. Breakaway was the "all hockey all the time" target for a while and it was easy to dismiss those parents as the crazies.

Gentry has figured out a way to offer what people want, within the existing MSHSL rules.

It's like people are demanding Minnesota HS hockey follow the path of Massachusetts where the level of play is low and kids don't get recruited to play for colleges.

Brace yourself for what's coming. If the Gentry business model is viable you'll see others follow.

Good Lord - MN hockey has been outshining all other state for years with nary a Gentry like academy in sight.

That’s where the vision part of what I mentioned comes in. And it seems that you just blow by the fact that many HS kids do supplemental training with a third party during the school year. The total ice theory is a red herring in many cases. The angst is that instead of electives that garner moderate to little interest, the students can choose to participate in their passion. I see that as a good trade. Doesn’t matter if they never play past HS. It’s an invaluable experience.

Outside the school day sure they do. Not the same thing and you know it.

The supposed lack of visionaries in MN hockey isn't short-changing putting MN athletes into the NCAA nor NHL. MN already has the model that all other states envy so what exactly is broken that needs fixing?

[Puck8]

WOM - good stuff.
Lots there, so here we go.

You ask if parents would send their kids to Gentry if there was no day ice. I can only answer for myself and incorporate the feedback I’ve heard directly from others. I, and those I’ve talked to on this exact topic, have all said they would continue to send their kid to the school if that ice were not available. In fact, it was the exact question I asked a couple Gentry parents before I sent my son to the school. They said the same. The academic and social side is what gets ignored in all this discussion about it being a hockey school. I would remove my kid far earlier if the academic or social side was lacking - that was a big reason why we left our school district. That said, the day ice is undoubtably a big positive.

And you touched on it - the quality of training is very high and the progression of what they have accomplished with players is greater than I’ve experienced elsewhere. In one way, it’s hard to believe that the team won the title considering where we started. In another way, it’s not that surprising when you look at the quality of the coaching, the players’ development and the style of play. We didn’t see any other teams play a puck possession or passing game like we can do. That’s a takeaway from the tier 1 teams and it is primarily taught in practices as day ice focuses on individual skills. The style of play makes the whole much better than the sum of its parts. Very appealing when looking from the outside in.

As far as your thought on kids having to live in the boundaries of the school/association, I can appreciate the spirit, but that ship has sailed. I don’t see it ever coming back, and personally, I think choice is a good thing. Your comment about staying and improving the environment is again a good thought in spirit. But the notion that a parent, or even a group of parents are going to change the direction of a youth association or school system is just not the experience many have. They are serving the masses and that’s great, but if you are looking for more opportunity or a higher level, more focused experience (academically and/or athletically), you often have to look elsewhere.

Maybe not as many kids do supplemental training as I proposed, but a lot goes on. I get multiple emails with training opportunities virtually every week for programs all year long and I talk to parents whose kids are on and off training virtually year round. Those wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t demand. I am not denying that day ice gives an advantage, but that’s only part of the equation when selecting the school. Weighing ice time too heavily is irresponsible and would likely lead to other issues. It has to be the right fit for the student and family. Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to at the school can cite multiple reasons why they are at Gentry. People can continue to refer to it as a hockey school - no one’s going to change that perception, but for those in it, we know there is much more to it than that.

As far as the bigger picture discussion of where MN hockey is going and how it compares to out east, that’s a discussion I’ll leave for others.

Thanks again for the discussion. It’s been good to clear up some points and to hear the concerns about the Gentry model.

[WestMetro]

WOM ,

Many fair well reasoned points

But , We obviously have many of the same teams at state tournament almost every year already , LVN/S, EP/Tonka , STA, HM, Deast/GR , MH . 5AA and 6AA are less concentrated and have each had a few.

But yet things are always evolving.

EP youth counts are declining with others growing in 2AA. 3AA
becomes a 2 horse race ,at least, if CDH returns , instead of 1. HM faces new competition from Gentry . 5AA opens up more as MG departs. Andover emerges to section dominance as Deast falters a bit and Peart graduates . NTDP and juniors is always a threat to pick off some talent , which forces home teams to try to continue improving to keep kids , and yet in a weird way levels the remaining talent pool if kids do depart

MSHSL apparently will not take opportunity to diversify strength in 1AA which many had hoped for . That’s probably the most obviously area of continued concentration . And a certain 7a team of course, which apparently never seems to make the move it should be making .

Moorhead continues to kickout unbelievable quantity of talent every year in a public community environment , it really is amazing, and is obviously going to go on for another five years at a minimum. Yet other some other 8AA programs are expanding rapidly in facilities and numbers , so competition continues .

“Out-of-state move-in’s” in youth hockey and HS continues to grow as Minnesota HS Hockey becomes more broadly recognized in the country due to its success . That’s a good thing I think , So long as they integrate into the rules in place

So things continue to change, and will always continue to change with competition and wise section structural planning

Many/most/all of these programs kids , and other programs, have supplemental on and off ice training year round , including extra during the season in one form or another. Higher and higher amounts of kids time will be spent on refining their skill and improving their physical conditioning . I don’t see anything wrong with that if that’s what they and parents want

[Puck8]

Every school (except yours, I guess) has a gym. Most don't have ice rinks.

I don't believe you are well equipped for the future. My guess is that a few established high schools mimic Gentry. Bounced this off a couple people I trust and they concur.

People can't have it both ways. Minnesota hockey can't be the be all and end all if kids are only playing a little youth hockey in the winter and moving on to baseball, football, golf, and fishing. Look what happens elsewhere, and (more importantly) what kids are willing to move away from home for and you'll see it is pretty intense. Northstar, Shattuck, Selects Academy, etc... In Minnesota Bernie McBain was considered the anti-Christ; now supplemental training at places like MAP is the norm. Breakaway was the "all hockey all the time" target for a while and it was easy to dismiss those parents as the crazies.

Gentry has figured out a way to offer what people want, within the existing MSHSL rules.

It's like people are demanding Minnesota HS hockey follow the path of Massachusetts where the level of play is low and kids don't get recruited to play for colleges.

Brace yourself for what's coming. If the Gentry business model is viable you'll see others follow.

Good Lord - MN hockey has been outshining all other state for years with nary a Gentry like academy in sight.

That’s where the vision part of what I mentioned comes in. And it seems that you just blow by the fact that many HS kids do supplemental training with a third party during the school year. The total ice theory is a red herring in many cases. The angst is that instead of electives that garner moderate to little interest, the students can choose to participate in their passion. I see that as a good trade. Doesn’t matter if they never play past HS. It’s an invaluable experience.

Outside the school day sure they do. Not the same thing and you know it.

The supposed lack of visionaries in MN hockey isn't short-changing putting MN athletes into the NCAA nor NHL. MN already has the model that all other states envy so what exactly is broken that needs fixing?

Someone did math to show the ice time difference. You may disagree with ice time being part of the school options, but if a calculation is going to be done to show ice disparity and that’s the basis to show why the team is winning, I believe it’s only appropriate to look at it as a net difference. I get that not everyone does supplemental training, but that’s their choice. From there, it becomes a discussion on the quality of training. As I mentioned, I probably overstated the number of kids doing third party training, but it exists and at a high volume for many.

Is it fair that players go to Jr programs then come back? Aren’t they compromising the school experience for a time and receiving more on-ice training and resources than others? I know that’s a bit different and it’s short-lived, but do you have any issue with that? I don’t but I’m just curious.

Lastly, I’m not proposing that MN hockey is “broken”, but it’s not a one-size fits all. For some, the educational/social/athletic experience just doesn’t work well in their home school district or youth hockey association. Thus, they look for alternatives. For us, Gentry is a great fit and I suspect that’s why so many privates do well year after year - public schools and youth associations will fall short in areas that people are passionate about. Some take the initiative and sacrifice to improve their situation and others are fine with the status quo. MN hockey will continue to succeed with or without the Gentrys or privates. But those schools certainly expand the opportunity and influence upward.

[O-townClown]

Good Lord - MN hockey has been outshining all other state for years with nary a Gentry like academy in sight.

I lived away and moved back. Couldn't believe how many guys earn a living solely from training kids in hockey. Programming at Minnesota Made, MAP, Breakaway, many others, and scores of guys working independently. Then add in the instruction for goalies.

Minnesota emulated innovations in other places. Gentry puts a roof over it and has a team competing at Varsity, but I don't see anything new about intensive training. Now go ask your friends over 30, over 40, over 50 what options they had. It's night and day. 7? kids in one draft from Breakaway Academy. C'mon, to pretend the State of Hockey is status quo is missing the obvious.

[Slap Shot]

Neither one of you addressed anything I stated - you're just tossing out platitudes to justify a narrative you're stuck upon.

Of course more ice time = more experience. No one would argue otherwise. But what is truly being suffered on a competitive level nationally from all the skaters not attending SSM or Gentry?

Also to claim none of the students at Gentry wouldn't have otherwise chosen HM or BSM or CDH or whatever were Gentry not a pseudo-hockey factory is one leaves me unconvinced.

To each their own and I will never wish ill will to those choosing that route. But MN doesn't need more Gentry and less Maple Grove or heck even Centennial or St. Cloud Cathedral, etc.

[Stang5280]

In the spirit of "adapting" and getting creative with solutions to compete with some of these super programs why don't more small programs follow the Rock Ridge model. They don't actually have to combine schools like that, but just for certain sports (keep the youth programs separate too). Look at the programs that have success. Either they have a ton of kids and then get some move ins on top or they are a private school. The theme I hear is that the community hockey ship has sailed anyway.

Roseau/Warroad have done crap the last decade (two trips to state between them). But combine and suddenly there are some dynamite teams. Teams would be deeper and talented. Think Huglen/Slukynsky or Shaugabay/Strand playing together. This one could play A still with a combined enrollment of about 600. Basically an instant favorite in 8A every year. Without it each has a decent chance of losing to a team that has goal scorers from somewhere in ND.

Others that could work would be any combination of Denfeld/Marshall/Cloquet/DE, Rapids/Greenway, Sartel/St Cloud, etc. There are several opportunities. None of those teams are doing squat for at least the next 7-8 years but combine and they may become favorites. People want to win and they want to be in state tournaments. Sure there is some tradition that is lost, and that is too bad, but beats the snot out of sitting home watching Gentry or large public associations that have added blue chips players to an already huge base win every year (see EP-Langenbrunner, EGF-Panzer, Hermantown-Pierce......you get the point there are tons).

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

[elliott70]

In the spirit of "adapting" and getting creative with solutions to compete with some of these super programs why don't more small programs follow the Rock Ridge model. They don't actually have to combine schools like that, but just for certain sports (keep the youth programs separate too). Look at the programs that have success. Either they have a ton of kids and then get some move ins on top or they are a private school. The theme I hear is that the community hockey ship has sailed anyway.

Roseau/Warroad have done crap the last decade (two trips to state between them). But combine and suddenly there are some dynamite teams. Teams would be deeper and talented. Think Huglen/Slukynsky or Shaugabay/Strand playing together. This one could play A still with a combined enrollment of about 600. Basically an instant favorite in 8A every year. Without it each has a decent chance of losing to a team that has goal scorers from somewhere in ND.

Others that could work would be any combination of Denfeld/Marshall/Cloquet/DE, Rapids/Greenway, Sartel/St Cloud, etc. There are several opportunities. None of those teams are doing squat for at least the next 7-8 years but combine and they may become favorites. People want to win and they want to be in state tournaments. Sure there is some tradition that is lost, and that is too bad, but beats the snot out of sitting home watching Gentry or large public associations that have added blue chips players to an already huge base win every year (see EP-Langenbrunner, EGF-Panzer, Hermantown-Pierce......you get the point there are tons).

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

Stang,
Northern teams are already super.

[Wise Old Man]

Puck, I’m genuinely happy for you and your player if the fit at Gentry is working as well as you say. It’s also great to hear that you and others there would keep their players at Gentry even without the extra ice opportunities. I agree with your assessment that the style of play Gentry is emphasizing is how kids both enjoy playing the game, as well as how most organizations/coaches play the game above the high school level. So good on them for focusing on that style of play. .

And yes, all things in life evolve. We all know that the only true constant in life is change. So, in response to O-town’s point that opportunity for improvement and development have changed/improved dramatically compared to 20 or 30 years ago, that’s obviously true. But, as with all things in life it’s about degrees. More is not always better. Unfortunately, most parents aren’t very well versed in the latest science about development, including the risks of doing too much/overuse. The medical community is seeing more and more significant sports related injuries at younger and younger levels than ever before. And, although it’s often very challenging to do, sometimes it’s up to a sport’s administrative leadership — including coaches — to attempt to limit negative behavior choices if parents aren’t willing to do so.

Meaning, just because a coach can make an extra $5000 more for their summer camp by having it go through the end of September vs ending it in early August, doesn’t mean they should. So, if a coach is unwilling to police himself, then it’s up to his school or school district or state association to make rules or create policies that force limits on them in order to protect the kids.

That leads us to the point about the value of having choices. Sure it’s nice to have choices. However, if the ability to choose where you can play is as proven to be as much of a threat to the core foundation of the organization as it obviously has (both MH & MSHSL), then I believe that leadership/administration has an obligation to limit that choice. Adults chose to change MH’s eligibility rule and adults can choose to change it back if they want to. And, they absolutely should.

I respectfully disagree that if parents are frustrated with their “home” association/school that they should have free reign to move wherever they want to. Nor do I believe it’s as difficult as you state to improve an association from the inside out, especially if enough parents are committed to doing so. A parent’s first instinct if things aren’t going well shouldn’t be to run to the nearest alternative they think might be better. What life lesson are we teaching our kids if that’s the reaction to adversity?

Now, should a parent be forced to keep their child in a situation where a coach is literally abusing their players either physically or emotionally? Absolutely not. That’s why we would maintain the ability to petition for an exception.

Finally, to Puck’s question about kids playing before and after in juniors; no, I don’t think that’s anywhere near the same as leaving their “home” program permanently for a different school. That decision doesn’t affect the core foundation of high school hockey. The player is playing at the same school they otherwise would have. That’s a way to improve the amount of game play and practices for an individual player, while maintaining the core foundation of the sport/organization. If we truly love the current set up of high school hockey and, more importantly, the value and importance we place on maintaining the state tournament in its current form, then we need to be able to fairly and accurately evaluate what makes it what it is and, if necessary, do what’s necessary to protect it. Even if that means limiting choices or, more strictly policing recruiting/transfer violations.

[Puck8]

In the spirit of "adapting" and getting creative with solutions to compete with some of these super programs why don't more small programs follow the Rock Ridge model. They don't actually have to combine schools like that, but just for certain sports (keep the youth programs separate too). Look at the programs that have success. Either they have a ton of kids and then get some move ins on top or they are a private school. The theme I hear is that the community hockey ship has sailed anyway.

Roseau/Warroad have done crap the last decade (two trips to state between them). But combine and suddenly there are some dynamite teams. Teams would be deeper and talented. Think Huglen/Slukynsky or Shaugabay/Strand playing together. This one could play A still with a combined enrollment of about 600. Basically an instant favorite in 8A every year. Without it each has a decent chance of losing to a team that has goal scorers from somewhere in ND.

Others that could work would be any combination of Denfeld/Marshall/Cloquet/DE, Rapids/Greenway, Sartel/St Cloud, etc. There are several opportunities. None of those teams are doing squat for at least the next 7-8 years but combine and they may become favorites. People want to win and they want to be in state tournaments. Sure there is some tradition that is lost, and that is too bad, but beats the snot out of sitting home watching Gentry or large public associations that have added blue chips players to an already huge base win every year (see EP-Langenbrunner, EGF-Panzer, Hermantown-Pierce......you get the point there are tons).

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

I answered your question and laid out particulars. I specifically said that myself and those I’ve talked to have indicated they would continue with the school if the day ice disappeared. I am certain some would leave. I’m guessing they would offer supplemental training outside of school that most would take advantage of. But you discount the overall point that there is more to this school than hockey (again, I yield that hockey is a key part of it). It’s your choice to believe it or not, but don’t claim that the question was not answered just because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear.

Frankly, I’m not interested in debating the merits of MN hockey model. I’ll leave that up to others. I will not detail why we pulled out of association hockey and public school, but I am certain ours is not a unique story. And I can assure you that had either one of those entities been a great fit, we would have stayed.

I even answered your question about MN hockey being ‘broken’. I have never said it’s broken - I simply stated that it’s not a one-size fits all. If you disagree with that, then there’s no point in continuing discussion. If your statement is by de facto we all must think it’s broken because we left it, then well, that’s your conclusion.

I’m stuck in a narrative? Sorry, but that’s laughable. We escaped an insulated narrative and entered the school on a leap of faith. The school has delivered on its promise by providing the environment and options it said it would and continues to evolve every year.

I say all of this in the context that I am fully aware that the day ice causes people the most consternation. That’s understandable - I don’t expect to change that take. I just wanted to present facts and challenge some of the statements made. But you seem to be pulling on a train that has left the station. MN hockey model will still be relevant, but the landscape is changing - probably better stated that it HAS changed - and for the better in many eyes.

[Puck8]

WOM
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the changing of an association and/or school from the inside. I do agree that one should push for change or at least raise concerns when they see opportunities for improvement. However, every situation is unique and when you find yourself in a situation where there is a powerful board (school or hockey association) and despite repeated attempts at working with that group going nowhere while the general mood of the surroundings is negative and deteriorating, you have to eventually make a decision. This may be over years (in our case it was). Do I stay in this negative environment or do I seek a better way? I doubt too many people leave associations at the first sign of trouble without trying in some fashion to forward change or work with the boards, but maybe that happens. Pulling a kid from his friends and established routine and surroundings is not done as lightly as you state. It’s a hard decision to restart and comes with financial, logistical and many other ramifications. People talk about transferring like it’s changing a t-shirt. Just not the way it is.

What life lesson is being taught? If you believe in something, pushback on the authority through articulating your concerns. If that authority refuses to change, continue to try. If, however, you find yourself in a situation that is negative and without direction, you may need to find a better way - not an easier way, but a better way. No need to burn them down, simply improve your own situation.

[7TIMECHAMPS]

In the spirit of "adapting" and getting creative with solutions to compete with some of these super programs why don't more small programs follow the Rock Ridge model. They don't actually have to combine schools like that, but just for certain sports (keep the youth programs separate too). Look at the programs that have success. Either they have a ton of kids and then get some move ins on top or they are a private school. The theme I hear is that the community hockey ship has sailed anyway.

Roseau/Warroad have done crap the last decade (two trips to state between them). But combine and suddenly there are some dynamite teams. Teams would be deeper and talented. Think Huglen/Slukynsky or Shaugabay/Strand playing together. This one could play A still with a combined enrollment of about 600. Basically an instant favorite in 8A every year. Without it each has a decent chance of losing to a team that has goal scorers from somewhere in ND.

Others that could work would be any combination of Denfeld/Marshall/Cloquet/DE, Rapids/Greenway, Sartel/St Cloud, etc. There are several opportunities. None of those teams are doing squat for at least the next 7-8 years but combine and they may become favorites. People want to win and they want to be in state tournaments. Sure there is some tradition that is lost, and that is too bad, but beats the snot out of sitting home watching Gentry or large public associations that have added blue chips players to an already huge base win every year (see EP-Langenbrunner, EGF-Panzer, Hermantown-Pierce......you get the point there are tons).

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

Seems like MSHSL should reevaluate this rule to level the playing field. Between player movement and private schools most of the winners are super teams. The best players congregate at the same schools for a reason. Yes they are also good schools, but you can't tell me that it is random that all these good hockey players end up at Hill (or wherever) every year. At least a part of the decision is that their home association doesn't have a strong program. So instead they send them to a private (or public) super team. I would venture to say most of the high end, impact players that move primarily move for hockey. There have even been northern kids move to the metro (public schools and private schools) and I don't think it was because they felt they were getting a poor education at their northern school.

I guess I just don't understand why the rule makes sense if the two schools agree to it. If it is because there would be kids that don't get opportunities to play varsity sports the first thing that should be done is some of these huge associations should be forced to field multiple varsity teams.

Maybe the northern teams could look into building a centrally located arena and starting a charter school. I am not sure what the difference would be but I guess it would fit within the rules.

I also feel this would be a better solution than 3 classes. It would allow some of the smaller schools to still compete, but not further water down the tournament. I realize that some people don't care about having outstate teams in the tournament and would be fine having 8 suburbs. But for some people it adds interest, it adds intrigue. So if the northern team is Cloquet/Denfeld, Rapids/Greenway (which is already the girls coop), Greenway/Hibbing (as mentioned above), Roseau/Warroad, or Brainerd/Little Falls (also a girls coop) I think people live with it. Best of both world's really. Everyone that wants outstate representation gets their way and everyone that just wants the best hockey gets their way too.

[WestMetro]

7Time

I know two communities near the Canadian border in section 8 that if they ever combined would be an instant super regional and would likely be favorites to beat Moorhead (or EGF ) every year .

But it would be blasphemy to even suggest it. And I think those kids already get all the ice time they could ever want anyway , since the doors of the arenas are never locked?

[east hockey]

In the spirit of "adapting" and getting creative with solutions to compete with some of these super programs why don't more small programs follow the Rock Ridge model. They don't actually have to combine schools like that, but just for certain sports (keep the youth programs separate too). Look at the programs that have success. Either they have a ton of kids and then get some move ins on top or they are a private school. The theme I hear is that the community hockey ship has sailed anyway.

Roseau/Warroad have done crap the last decade (two trips to state between them). But combine and suddenly there are some dynamite teams. Teams would be deeper and talented. Think Huglen/Slukynsky or Shaugabay/Strand playing together. This one could play A still with a combined enrollment of about 600. Basically an instant favorite in 8A every year. Without it each has a decent chance of losing to a team that has goal scorers from somewhere in ND.

Others that could work would be any combination of Denfeld/Marshall/Cloquet/DE, Rapids/Greenway, Sartel/St Cloud, etc. There are several opportunities. None of those teams are doing squat for at least the next 7-8 years but combine and they may become favorites. People want to win and they want to be in state tournaments. Sure there is some tradition that is lost, and that is too bad, but beats the snot out of sitting home watching Gentry or large public associations that have added blue chips players to an already huge base win every year (see EP-Langenbrunner, EGF-Panzer, Hermantown-Pierce......you get the point there are tons).

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

Seems like MSHSL should reevaluate this rule to level the playing field. Between player movement and private schools most of the winners are super teams. The best players congregate at the same schools for a reason. Yes they are also good schools, but you can't tell me that it is random that all these good hockey players end up at Hill (or wherever) every year. At least a part of the decision is that their home association doesn't have a strong program. So instead they send them to a private (or public) super team. I would venture to say most of the high end, impact players that move primarily move for hockey. There have even been northern kids move to the metro (public schools and private schools) and I don't think it was because they felt they were getting a poor education at their northern school.

I guess I just don't understand why the rule makes sense if the two schools agree to it. If it is because there would be kids that don't get opportunities to play varsity sports the first thing that should be done is some of these huge associations should be forced to field multiple varsity teams.

Maybe the northern teams could look into building a centrally located arena and starting a charter school. I am not sure what the difference would be but I guess it would fit within the rules.

I also feel this would be a better solution than 3 classes. It would allow some of the smaller schools to still compete, but not further water down the tournament. I realize that some people don't care about having outstate teams in the tournament and would be fine having 8 suburbs. But for some people it adds interest, it adds intrigue. So if the northern team is Cloquet/Denfeld, Rapids/Greenway (which is already the girls coop), Greenway/Hibbing (as mentioned above), Roseau/Warroad, or Brainerd/Little Falls (also a girls coop) I think people live with it. Best of both world's really. Everyone that wants outstate representation gets their way and everyone that just wants the best hockey gets their way too.

Well, there is an unused high school sitting on top of the hill in Duluth, so.....

Lee

[raidergrad72]

Except that the MSHSL has to approve all cooperative agreements. Bylaw 403 requires an application laying out the reasons a co-op is necessary, such as participation numbers, lack of facilities, and financial burden. The applicant must also obtain approval from a majority of ADs from the conference and section. It’s a interesting thought experiment, but good luck assembling northern superteams under those rules.

Seems like MSHSL should reevaluate this rule to level the playing field. Between player movement and private schools most of the winners are super teams. The best players congregate at the same schools for a reason. Yes they are also good schools, but you can't tell me that it is random that all these good hockey players end up at Hill (or wherever) every year. At least a part of the decision is that their home association doesn't have a strong program. So instead they send them to a private (or public) super team. I would venture to say most of the high end, impact players that move primarily move for hockey. There have even been northern kids move to the metro (public schools and private schools) and I don't think it was because they felt they were getting a poor education at their northern school.

I guess I just don't understand why the rule makes sense if the two schools agree to it. If it is because there would be kids that don't get opportunities to play varsity sports the first thing that should be done is some of these huge associations should be forced to field multiple varsity teams.

Maybe the northern teams could look into building a centrally located arena and starting a charter school. I am not sure what the difference would be but I guess it would fit within the rules.

I also feel this would be a better solution than 3 classes. It would allow some of the smaller schools to still compete, but not further water down the tournament. I realize that some people don't care about having outstate teams in the tournament and would be fine having 8 suburbs. But for some people it adds interest, it adds intrigue. So if the northern team is Cloquet/Denfeld, Rapids/Greenway (which is already the girls coop), Greenway/Hibbing (as mentioned above), Roseau/Warroad, or Brainerd/Little Falls (also a girls coop) I think people live with it. Best of both world's really. Everyone that wants outstate representation gets their way and everyone that just wants the best hockey gets their way too.

Well, there is an unused high school sitting on top of the hill in Duluth, so.....

Lee

I'm not sure on this but with the combining of Eveleth & Virginia programs wouldn't there be at least one high school & one arena available on the east Range?
If so, c'mon Lee, you're just trying to consolidate everything in Dulute which would further dilute the Range!

[BodyShots]

The problem I see (not with Gentry) is that a third class of hockey has progressed in Minnesota.
The problem with it is how do you segregate this class to make things more even for finding a state champion at the various levels.

We currently have:
1. small schools
2. bigger schools and
3. those that 'attract' elite hockey players

Suggestions?

Just a thought. What if we created a Class AAA that was strictly for opt ups (nobody was placed into it to start). The premise being, this is for those teams that want to be considered the BEST High School team in Minnesota! And the rules are different, where recruiting and transfers are allowed!

Who do you think would "Opt up" to be in this new class?

I'm guessing the schools that are currently doing it, like HM, STA, BSM, EP, SSM, Gentry.

Who else?

[BodyShots]

We didn’t see any other teams play a puck possession or passing game like we can do.

Will be interesting to see how well that works in AA.

Everybody knows who the best mite players are, because they are the ones with the puck on their stick all of the time. When competition levels off (or even becomes better) the puck possession game changes dramatically. Time will tell.

[O-townClown]

Just a thought. What if we created a Class AAA that was strictly for opt ups (nobody was placed into it to start). The premise being, this is for those teams that want to be considered the BEST High School team in Minnesota! And the rules are different, where recruiting and transfers are allowed!

No. Just stop.

Private schools have to recruit all their students. Families move all the time and kids need to be able to transfer.

I don't want to live in a world where the family that moves into Sleepy Eye has a kid that isn't allowed to play high school hockey because you made the rules.

[O-townClown]

When competition levels off (or even becomes better) the puck possession game changes dramatically.

I just watched puck possession win in HS, at the NCAA level, and I know it works at the Olympic level. Players spending two years in the NTDP have the importance of puck possession ingrained into their style of play. On what do you base this assertion?

[Puck8]

We didn’t see any other teams play a puck possession or passing game like we can do.

Will be interesting to see how well that works in AA.

Everybody knows who the best mite players are, because they are the ones with the puck on their stick all of the time. When competition levels off (or even becomes better) the puck possession game changes dramatically. Time will tell.

Comparing Gentry’s style to mite hockey - did you even watch the games? Puck possession through passing, relentless forecheck, regrouping and speed are successful at every level. Next year will be more challenging, but the style of play isn’t going away. It undoubtedly is greater than the sum of the parts - just look at the point totals and compare it to virtually every other team. If this was mite-like, there would have been 1-2 with 60 points and the team would have been watching the tourney from home.

[TTpuckster]

We didn’t see any other teams play a puck possession or passing game like we can do.

Will be interesting to see how well that works in AA.

Everybody knows who the best mite players are, because they are the ones with the puck on their stick all of the time. When competition levels off (or even becomes better) the puck possession game changes dramatically. Time will tell.

Those on the board know I am biased, but I believe the Green Wave did demonstrate a strong puck control game against Gentry and did outshoot them. To me the difference in the game was goaltending.
EGF has been a very competitive program over the years. So, yes, it will be very interesting to see how Gentry does in AA.
Good luck to Gentry.

[Puck8]

We didn’t see any other teams play a puck possession or passing game like we can do.

Will be interesting to see how well that works in AA.

Everybody knows who the best mite players are, because they are the ones with the puck on their stick all of the time. When competition levels off (or even becomes better) the puck possession game changes dramatically. Time will tell.

Those on the board know I am biased, but I believe the Green Wave did demonstrate a strong puck control game against Gentry and did outshoot them. To me the difference in the game was goaltending.
EGF has been a very competitive program over the years. So, yes, it will be very interesting to see how Gentry does in AA.
Good luck to Gentry.

It was a heck of a game. EGF was the best team we played. Did a great job of clogging things up on us for 2 periods and the Green Wave was talented enough to do that and bring the offense at the same time. The 3rd period turned and we got loose a bit. Goalies were a difference (especially on our 2nd goal), but we’ve made a few really good goalies look average this year. Wish we would have had more games like this over the year, but looking forward to next season’s rematch. Should be another good one.

[LSQRANK]

A little outdated...I did a some research a couple weeks ago. On February 8th - 106 of the team's 153 points were from Minnesota kids. 6 out of the top 7 scorers are from MN. Many of the kids that appear to be from out of state have family connections to Minnesota. Gentry is what you can kids are allowed to follow their passion. Personally, I'd much rather have my kid get some additional ice time during the day rather than sit in "study hall" 1 or 2 hours a day in order to meet MDE attendance/funding requirements. I don't buy the sub-standard education argument. You get want you put into it.

While I agree to an extent in regard to "you get what you put into it"....I know kids who attended when it was $16K per year and kids who attend now that it's free and each have said that the curriculum is not challenging at all. It's a hockey school, that's how it was started and that's how it is. It's fine if that's what you want for your kid but people are being intellectually dishonest if they say it's for education. If you're a college admissions office how are you going to view a 4.0 student at a Breck, Blake, BSM, Providence, H-M, SPA, Mounds View, Wayzata or Edina versus a 4.0 at....Gentry Academy.

Kids at Gentry also have the PSEO option during their Jr & Sr years to take afternoon classes at Saint Paul College or Century College to take advantage of free tuition, free book rental, and free parking.