who loses the most to private school transfers?

hockeygod · Post by **hockeygod** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:41 pm

BIAFP wrote:
Govs93 wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying by "grumbling rights". Like I've said before, IMO, the grumbling rights belong to the public schools that have developed kids through the 8th grade only to see them magically turn up at places like HM for the 9th grade because they have some athletic aptitiude.

What is truly magical is that the only players that turn up at the private schools in 9th grade are the ones that were "stars" in 8th grade Things that make you say hmmmmmm?

stars have to make the team at the private schools, there are many more that don't. There is nothing magic about it, families are given choices in America so who can blame them for wanting to compete with the best talent available.

I'm not sure what you're saying by "grumbling rights". Like I've said before, IMO, the grumbling rights belong to the public schools that have developed kids through the 8th grade only to see them magically turn up at places like HM for the 9th grade because they have some athletic aptitiude

since when do public schools develop kids up until 8th grade?

Govs93 · Post by **Govs93** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:42 pm

hockeygod wrote:
BIAFP wrote:
Govs93 wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying by "grumbling rights". Like I've said before, IMO, the grumbling rights belong to the public schools that have developed kids through the 8th grade only to see them magically turn up at places like HM for the 9th grade because they have some athletic aptitiude.

What is truly magical is that the only players that turn up at the private schools in 9th grade are the ones that were "stars" in 8th grade Things that make you say hmmmmmm?
stars have to make the team at the private schools, there are many more that don't. There is nothing magic about it, families are given choices in America so who can blame them for wanting to compete with the best talent available.

I'm not sure what you're saying by "grumbling rights". Like I've said before, IMO, the grumbling rights belong to the public schools that have developed kids through the 8th grade only to see them magically turn up at places like HM for the 9th grade because they have some athletic aptitiude

since when do public schools develop kids up until 8th grade?

Kids attending public schools through the 8th grade. There's more to development than just hockey, genius.

Charliedog · Post by **Charliedog** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:56 pm

Okay Govs.....I am a strong believer in statistics so after you wrote that the numbers didn't jive, I actually sat down and counted the Woodbury kids from the school directory. I apologize for my off base estimate.

Here are the real numbers: There are 204 Woodbury high school students at Hill and according to MSHSL there are 861 total h.s. students. That puts the percentage of Woodbury kids at 23% And if I follow your math then Hill should only have 23% of the skaters being from Woodbury. 23% puts them at 4.6 kids! Gov, you are a genius! (though you are missing .6 of a kid).

Pucknutz - varsity and jv have 18 skaters plus 2 goalies each.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:05 pm

Public schools don't have hockey programs. Public schools don't have any pre high schoool sports programs in my area except 8th grade baseball.

Where does anyone get the idea that any public programs develop youth athletics.

Its all private.

And BIAFP, we are sick and tired of our privately funded, owned and operated by unpaid volunteers private programs supplying the public schools wih participants for their athletic teams.

The school disctricts should write out a check to these programs on a pro rata basis for the cost to develop their kids.

Thats what I think.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:10 pm

packerboy wrote:Public schools don't have hockey programs. Public schools don't have any pre high schoool sports programs in my area except 8th grade baseball.

Where does anyone get the idea that any public programs develop youth athletics.

Its all private.

And BIAFP, we are sick and tired of our privately funded, owned and operated by unpaid volunteers private programs supplying the public schools wih participants for their athletic teams.

The school disctricts should write out a check to these programs on a pro rata basis for the cost to develop their kids.

Thats what I think.

Roseau Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Moorhead Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Grand Rapids Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Eden Prairie Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Where exactly is the private in those equations?

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:14 pm

BIAFP wrote:
packerboy wrote:Public schools don't have hockey programs. Public schools don't have any pre high schoool sports programs in my area except 8th grade baseball.

Where does anyone get the idea that any public programs develop youth athletics.

Its all private.

And BIAFP, we are sick and tired of our privately funded, owned and operated by unpaid volunteers private programs supplying the public schools wih participants for their athletic teams.

The school disctricts should write out a check to these programs on a pro rata basis for the cost to develop their kids.

Thats what I think.

Roseau Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Moorhead Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Grand Rapids Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Eden Prairie Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Where exactly is the private in those equations?

Do you really not know how those teams are funded and operated?

Dazed&Confused · Post by **Dazed&Confused** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:15 pm

Roseau has a transfer on the team. One of the better players. I bet Roseville would love to have him back.

Govs93 · Post by **Govs93** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:15 pm

Charliedog wrote:Okay Govs.....I am a strong believer in statistics so after you wrote that the numbers didn't jive, I actually sat down and counted the Woodbury kids from the school directory. I apologize for my off base estimate.

Here are the real numbers: There are 204 Woodbury high school students at Hill and according to MSHSL there are 861 total h.s. students. That puts the percentage of Woodbury kids at 23% And if I follow your math then Hill should only have 23% of the skaters being from Woodbury. 23% puts them at 4.6 kids! Gov, you are a genius! (though you are missing .6 of a kid).

Pucknutz - varsity and jv have 18 skaters plus 2 goalies each.

Well, I will say that that is interesting assuming the numbers are right. Now I'll need a breakdown of the percentages of all of the other cities & states! I have a feeling St. Paul is vastly under represented (5%) and Wisconsin is vastly over represented (10%).

Still doesn't change my opinion though. It also proves my theory (and this is a new one) that private school backers just throw blanket numbers and ideals to back their rationales without providing actual facts. Right, PB?!

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:20 pm

Govs93 wrote:

Still doesn't change my opinion though. It also proves my theory (and this is a new one) that private school backers just throw blanket numbers and ideals to back their rationales without providing actual facts. Right, PB?!

Yup. You and BIAFP. When you don't have the facts argue the ideals . When you dont have the ideals , argue the facts. When you have neither...just argue.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:24 pm

packerboy wrote:
BIAFP wrote:
packerboy wrote:Public schools don't have hockey programs. Public schools don't have any pre high schoool sports programs in my area except 8th grade baseball.

Where does anyone get the idea that any public programs develop youth athletics.

Its all private.

And BIAFP, we are sick and tired of our privately funded, owned and operated by unpaid volunteers private programs supplying the public schools wih participants for their athletic teams.

The school disctricts should write out a check to these programs on a pro rata basis for the cost to develop their kids.

Thats what I think.

Roseau Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Moorhead Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Grand Rapids Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Eden Prairie Pee Wee and Bantam teams?

Where exactly is the private in those equations?
Do you really not know how those teams are funded and operated?

Very well thank you! I will use International Falls for one of hundreds of examples. The arena is owned by the school district (public). So if a kid spends his time on the rink paid for by the district from age 4 until 15 when he transfers to Duluth Marshall, the Falls School District has nothing invested in his development??????? You private school pirates have no shame

thorhockey · Post by **thorhockey** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:27 pm

Dazed and confused wrote twice

thier

we'll give you that word
I graduated with honors as well, but for the life of me I can't remember the rule past " i before e except after c" I just memorized the their word.

My speling on hear is only goood becuse i lok for the litle red line undr my mispelled werd

Dazed&Confused · Post by **Dazed&Confused** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:30 pm

That has got to be the worst argument ever. BIAFP what is your deal!
The only person having anything invested is the child playing the sport.
You are borderline____________________

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:32 pm

BIAFP, the "bored' is frequented by many posters and readers who know that the public schools dont pay for youth hockey. The participants do.

These same people know that the folks who run the programs arent paid by the school district to do so. The parents of the participants do so and as volunters.

All of these same people know that Minnesta Hockey is a private organization that oversees all youth hockey in the state.

Youth hockey is private. The public schools should develop their own players or pay those who do develop them.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:34 pm

packerboy wrote:BIAFP, the "bored' is frequented by many posters and readers who know that the public schools dont pay for youth hockey. The participants do.

These same people know that the folks who run the programs arent paid by the school district to do so. The parents of the participants do so and as volunters.

All of these same people know that Minnesta Hockey is a private organization that oversees all youth hockey in the state.

Youth hockey is private. The public schools should develop their own players or pay those who do develop them.

Great non answer

Dazed&Confused · Post by **Dazed&Confused** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:35 pm

I like to make up words and use them allota. I Also Like to capitalize Words for no Reason.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:38 pm

Dazed and Confused................I agree

PINHEAD

Dazed&Confused · Post by **Dazed&Confused** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:45 pm

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dazed and Confused................I agree PINHEAD
BIAFP
Do you argue with the weather man ? Do you take Lithium? Is the Sky Blue in your world? Will you be Voting for Ross Perot?

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:47 pm

Ok BIAFP, so the school district pays for the ice time?

Even if the answer to that question is "yes" , which I doubt, the people paying the taxes are the same good folks that you call "pirates".

Private school people remain taxpaying members of the community but get nothing from the school districts who want a free handout.

If there are any school districts up north that pay for hockey for kids, they are in a very small minority and the vast majority of yutes in this state are developed by private programs.

And as far as rink ownership goes, thats a 2 way street. If it werent for the private youth programs buying the ice, those rinks would have never been built. Private youth hockey subsidize figure skating and all other usage of those rinks.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:52 pm

packerboy wrote:Ok BIAFP, so the school district pays for the ice time?

Even if the answer to that question is "yes" , which I doubt, the people paying the taxes are the same good folks that you call "pirates".

Private school people remain taxpaying members of the community but get nothing from the school districts who want a free handout.

If there are any school districts up north that pay for hockey for kids, they are in a very small minority and the vast majority of yutes in this state are developed by private programs.

And as far as rink ownership goes, thats a 2 way street. If it werent for the private youth programs buying the ice, those rinks would have never been built. Private youth hockey subsidize figure skating and all other usage of those rinks.

There are no private high schools in the Falls, Grand Rapids, Warroad, Roseau, Brainerd, Virginia, Hibbing, Moorhead, Bemidji, Eveleth, East Grand Forks, or Cloquet. So what is your point?

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:59 pm

I thought my point was clear. You should pony up and start paying for the cost of the hockey players.

Whats the problem with that? ..... or have you changed political parties?

Govs93 · Post by **Govs93** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:21 pm

packerboy wrote:
Govs93 wrote:

Still doesn't change my opinion though. It also proves my theory (and this is a new one) that private school backers just throw blanket numbers and ideals to back their rationales without providing actual facts. Right, PB?!
Yup. You and BIAFP. When you don't have the facts argue the ideals . When you dont have the ideals , argue the facts. When you have neither...just argue.

I was just simply questioning the numbers that our private school backer friend, Charlie, initially provided us - as it turns out, they were wrong. What are the odds?!

I think you and I have established a similar stance on this that differs from BIAFP's. We both agree that kids who have grown up playing hockey for "public" youth programs but going to private schools are well within their rights to continue that path into secondary school - you can't throw the kids out of the "public" youth program.

Our difference is that you would prefer getting kids off of your taxpayer "payroll" at any point, whereas I see a real problem with schools actively seeking out 14 year old kids strictly for athletic purposes.

Charliedog · Post by **Charliedog** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:27 pm

Govs,

I now have a headache, but this should give you something to do tonight.

At Hill-Murray:

204-Woodbury
62 - Oakdale
32 - Lake Elmo
73 - St Paul
57 - Stillwater
79 - White Bear
28 - North St. Paul
88 - Maplewood
35 - Wisconsin
25 - Cottage Grove

The rest are tiny amounts from the following areas:

Bayport, Gem Lake, Afton, Andover, Oak Park Heights, South St. Paul, North Oaks, Lino Lakes, Roseville, Hugo, Vadnais Heights, Mahtomedi, Forest Lake, Marine on St. Croix, Little Canada, Wyoming, Willernie, Scandia, Lake Croix Beach, Minneapolis, Elk River, Birchwood, Inver Grove, Stacey, Lilydale, East Bethel, West St. Paul, Grey Cloud Island, Lakeville, Blaine, Arden Hills, West Lakeland, Shoreview, Mendota Heights, Hastings and Dellwood.

Now I either have to go and drink a beer or take some Tylanol!

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:29 pm

Charliedog wrote:Govs,

I now have a headache, but this should give you something to do tonight.

At Hill-Murray:

204-Woodbury
62 - Oakdale
32 - Lake Elmo
73 - St Paul
57 - Stillwater
79 - White Bear
28 - North St. Paul
88 - Maplewood
35 - Wisconsin
25 - Cottage Grove

The rest are tiny amounts from the following areas:

Bayport, Gem Lake, Afton, Andover, Oak Park Heights, South St. Paul, North Oaks, Lino Lakes, Roseville, Hugo, Vadnais Heights, Mahtomedi, Forest Lake, Marine on St. Croix, Little Canada, Wyoming, Willernie, Scandia, Lake Croix Beach, Minneapolis, Elk River, Birchwood, Inver Grove, Stacey, Lilydale, East Bethel, West St. Paul, Grey Cloud Island, Lakeville, Blaine, Arden Hills, West Lakeland, Shoreview, Mendota Heights, Hastings and Dellwood.

Now I either have to go and drink a beer or take some Tylanol!

What the?

Govs93 · Post by **Govs93** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:31 pm

Neutron 14 wrote:
Charliedog wrote:Govs,

I now have a headache, but this should give you something to do tonight.

At Hill-Murray:

204-Woodbury
62 - Oakdale
32 - Lake Elmo
73 - St Paul
57 - Stillwater
79 - White Bear
28 - North St. Paul
88 - Maplewood
35 - Wisconsin
25 - Cottage Grove

The rest are tiny amounts from the following areas:

Bayport, Gem Lake, Afton, Andover, Oak Park Heights, South St. Paul, North Oaks, Lino Lakes, Roseville, Hugo, Vadnais Heights, Mahtomedi, Forest Lake, Marine on St. Croix, Little Canada, Wyoming, Willernie, Scandia, Lake Croix Beach, Minneapolis, Elk River, Birchwood, Inver Grove, Stacey, Lilydale, East Bethel, West St. Paul, Grey Cloud Island, Lakeville, Blaine, Arden Hills, West Lakeland, Shoreview, Mendota Heights, Hastings and Dellwood.

Now I either have to go and drink a beer or take some Tylanol!
What the?

SEE?!?! How do you like it?!

ALSECORD · Post by **ALSECORD** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:52 pm

Hard to gauge of course what kids to what programs were the most devastating losses, but how about Hastings?They lost 3-4 kids to Privates now there on this 20 something in a row losing streak? Haven't won in a year.

who loses the most to private school transfers?

thorhockey