redistricting

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:03 pm

SEMetro You are exactly right about things changing in afew years. Taht is why we are trying to find a 'system' rather than just move teams around now. So in that vain, I (we) are trying to get input from as many people that wish to provide it. Two heads are better than one type thing. And just being a director or board member does not make you a genius. But it should make you a leader. And that is the point here, if you have an opinion, please share it.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:08 pm

The spiltting up of A teams doesn't work either, just look at Rochester they load up the north team and also waiver in kids from the smaller towns around, if they are any good they are on the north team. They only had 1 A peewee team this year that played on the District 8 schedule, the other team scrimmaged and played in tournaments. Lakeville did it right they had 2 even A teams at every level. How Rochester gets away with it then also has the balls to try and dictate what district they play in and who has to drive down and play them just blows me away.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:21 pm

Agree that having the 1-13 play A1 and 14-26 play A2 didn't work for Roch - don't create another level of hockey talent. Should have evened out the talent per level and/or split by geography. Not sure of Roch's total numbers -- if they are 5-6 or 8-10 per level. Whatever: should have split like Lakeville. Lakeville did it right - 8-9 teams at a level, 2 A teams by geography not talent. Lakeville NandS would have been unbelievable combined but teams are more evenly matched with surrounding communities split.

Ex Tridens Scientia · Post by **Ex Tridens Scientia** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:06 pm

PN an SeM, when all the Metro associations field (2) A teams then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, Rochester will continue to use the same structure that 99% of the associations in MN use and that is field (1) A team. Next year, they should turn the A2 teams into B1 to follow suit. The number of teams fielded should correlate directly to the number of players in the Association. In terms of waivers, there was only (1) that I am aware of at all levels of RYHA and obviously it was approved by MAHA

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:31 pm

As of 2003 census; Populations Hastings = 18,000 SSP = 19,000 White Bear Lake = 24,000 IGH = 31,000 CG = 31,000 Lakeville = 47,000 Woodbury = 49,000 Eagan = 66,000 Rochester = 97,000 This is why it is wrong for Rochester to LOAD up teams. This is why nobody wants you in District 8. They should have 2 equal A teams and B1, B2 teams. You also have 3 rinks to support these teams, Lakeville has 19 Mite teams and 29 travelling teams (including girls) 2 rinks, They make even teams. You have enough to make 2 A teams they should be even. You also have 1 B bantam team (13-0) and 3 C bantam teams. So you water it down at the C level, How convenient for you. If you made 2 B teams and 2 C teams it would level the playing field. I hope you get put in District 4. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... knutz69</A> at: 3/1/06 5:34 pm

Ex Tridens Scientia · Post by **Ex Tridens Scientia** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:06 pm

PN, Number of teams fielded should equate to the size of the association not the population size. If every assn. adhered to one standard when determining the number of teams fielded at each level, then there would be no problem. Rochester follows the same structure as all the other associations and you call that stacking.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:44 pm

Rochester follows it's own path period. Wayzata has 1 big association that feeds 1 high school, same with White Bear Lake, Hastings, etc.. Lakeville has 2 associations that feed 2 high schools, same with Bloomington, Apple Valley, etc. Rochester has 1 association that feeds 3 high schools, no one else does that, that is why it is an issue. Rochester is the 4th largest city in Minnesota but only has 1 association, they complain they're too good for district 4 yet can't consistantly beat them at the high school level when their kids split. If you combine Lakeville and Woodbury you have a population equal to Rochester, same # of schools, but 3 associations to 1. What other association has lawyers lined up to fight redistricting? Let alone the formation of another association in their town. BTW, this year Rochester has 7 bantam teams (2A, 2B, 3C) and 9 peewee teams (2A, 2B, 1C traveling, 4C house). The bantam A teams aren't stacked, the peewee A is.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:13 pm

I need to respond to Wayzata ABC and Puckboy: First the smaller associations that have success, Roseau, Warroad, Duluth East you see there numbers dont include the west and central areas those are different, Cloquet, most of the Iron Range competes and there numbers arent even close to the metros. That is my answer for Puckboy. My response for Wayzata ABC: You said that Centennial, Edina, Minnetonka, WBL, etc dont play "Wayzata" teams, I think that is bull. Wayzata teams play in the best elite tourneys at there coaches discretion. but they are not limited to the "smaller" less quality teams. Oh and by the way so everyone knows this...it is the COACHES responsibilty for getting the teams schedule together. Coaches that stay a while always seem to get the games they need. I find that unique. Just a tip to you associations trying to get rid of good coaches that have been there a while. does it seem odd that the same teams follow each other all over the state?? We have no choice but to play all our district opponents but for the most part that accounts for maybe 20 games a season what about the rest. Do you think the elite teams are going to call you. how about you calling them? That is my whole point, you want to get better maybe it is time to start doing the things that the best do. It is like fishing you go where all the boats are because there is probably fish there. you dont go to the bay that no one is in...do you? Everyone has talked about how to make it equal and fair and make 2 classes and make this and make that...how about good old fashion hard work, energy, time, commitment, a vision for your program, it didnt happen overnight for any program but it seems once they get to the pinnacle to they never fall that far away. with the exception of the city teams but that is dmeographics and even some of the range because of economics. edina is land locked, jefferson land locked, ep is land locked even though like wayzata they have enough people to make a state the size of s dakota. that is my point. people today want easier...<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Maximum results, minimum effort<hr></blockquote> please respond I am always interested in how people rationalize all this success and how it needs to be taken away or subjected so everyone has a chance just like the Class A high school tourney. Or the girls playing at Xcel...that is unbelievable if feel bad for them. Roseau played Grand Rapids in the 1990 state final of which I believe like 16 players between the 2 teams went D1 anyway they pleaded with the crowd and the HS league to keep one tournament and you know there was always upsets along the way for the team that had a horseshoe in there rear. that is what it is all about. small associations by the way. Roseau 1999 AA champs gives me goose bumps when I see that coming west on Hwy 11 oh and the 1990 champs I would guess maybe even the 2006, 07 ,08, 09 they have some pretty squads coming through. small association. are they different yeah they are, they care, they work at it, they live it. everyone else just wants it handed to them. pop 3,000 including deer and they have 3 indoor rinks and the whole town is a outdoor rink. tell me there a special case. Let me name a few programs that have multiple sheets of ice because having ice is a positive thing. Blaine 4 rinks, Wayzata 4 rinks, Ep 2 rinks should have ten, Edina 3 probably 1 more coming, centennial 3 rinks, wbl at least 3 rinks, roseau 3, warroad 2....on and on. Redistricting since I digressed: Fix the districts so people dont have to travel an hour or more to play a one hour game. Put some quality thought to this. Dont put one powerhouse with ten "smaller associations" was that PC enough? I see some real easy fixes. Will some programs be unhappy...yes but the majority would make sense and they can always play the better teams. District 10 lose the northern teams(Central MN) that is alot of travel for people during the week. District 8 see above. keep the regionals the way they are for the most part the best teams get there. If you really care you make a few minor tweeks because ultimately parents decide if the kid plays the game and if they dont want to travel like that they focus on swimming or piano which are fine but they are not playing hockey. Mr. Ellliot I know you are a district director, there is very little wrong with the gold regions and the North Districts. But dont make exceptions for the bigger communities outside the metro Rochester and St Cloud put them back in there geographic districts and make them come out of 4 and 5. they will still travel to the cities to play the best teams just now they get to pick who and when. Enough said.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:27 pm

Puckhead: My questions to you was name smaller METRO associations that have had success.

windowpeeper · Post by **windowpeeper** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:37 pm

Yeah Puckhead name one, I bet the first one you might say is Mathomedi, oh yeah money. Any others I don't think so. And if I diagree with you I might get banned like other people who have seemed to dissapearc lately like Icypalms , Barado23, Big7stars just to name a few. Who runs this board Osama Bin Ladin?

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:42 pm

my sincerest apologies, the smaller associations Jefferson 45 players a level that is pretty small and they still hold there own. lets face it unless you are a first ring suburb you probably have small numbers. but what about the large programs that have huge numbers and havent done squat please explain that? I think that is a better question. my advice to the smaller associations play better competition at a young age so they are use to the better teams. dont play the better teams when you are bantam age it is to late.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:48 pm

windowpeeper, hockey is expensive so economics does play the part of success because they can afford more ice. you want to be a piano player you must have a piano not cheap. But thanks Mahtomedi is a good example they are really small compared to there neighbors. so what is it that you are looking for?? five classes so some how johnny feels good about the Peewee A5 state title what are we looking for ten champs...back to my original post ever see meet the fockers ninth and tenth place ribbons now that is a classic total soccer mom. it is ok if you dont win the big enchilada as long as you prepare for it properly. that is why teams covet the state championship because there is one a year.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:48 pm

I'm afraid that Puckhead & I are never going to agree on everything. That's fine. It's probably because we've had different experiences in our years w/kids' hockey in MN. Come from different places. He's incorrect in most of his assumptions about how things work in the association I've been involved with for more than 10 years. But to correct him would be to go off point--again. But he and I both agree that things should be re-districted to make sure there isn't one "powerhouse" in a district full of "smaller" associations. My primary concern continues to be regular-season play--not regions or state. Do whatever is fair there. But for Oct-Feb, I'd suggest forming leagues of larger associations, to play against each other. (Contrary to Puckhead's opinion, we don't see them unless we're in tournaments together, which is decided by a Tournament Scheduler in August before teams & coaches are decided. Oops, I'm straying off point again...sorry.) I don't think this approach would require an "A" and "AA" approach to regions or state. I know it would solve the problems with the regular season that I have experienced for a number of years, and that families from "smaller" and "larger" associations have voiced to me as well.

Ex Tridens Scientia · Post by **Ex Tridens Scientia** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:01 am

Goldy, RYHA actually feeds (4) high schools. This does not mean that we have 4x the number of skaters than Wayzata or 2x that of Lakeville. In terms of numbers it is smaller than many of the Metro associations. Number of High Schools and number of assn. A teams have nothing to do with one another. Once again, number of (A) teams should be determined by size of the association not surrounding population. I could also be had that association should be tiered into (AA) and (A) like the high schools. I find it interesting that you think it is ok that Wayzata fields one A team, but Rochester should field two with less skaters. Your argument seems to be based more on emotion than fact.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:55 am

Differentiate between HS and youth hockey -- not the same because HS has open enrollment, private schools and super short benches. Because its numbers are shrinking, Jefferson is not youth hockey power. It is an average sized association with average sized results lately. It has some strong older classes (HS/bantams), but is average below that. Really struggling at the B level. Not much happening on the girls side. As far as the competitveness of the Northern teams against today's mega-associations, Edina's website says it beat Warroad in the Fargo squirt tourney 15-0 last week-end as Edina went on to win a 48 team tourney filled with AAA teams. I don't think they lost this year. I'm betting Warroad had a down game and maybe a down year -- but 15-0 with running time -- I'm just saying Puck that I doubt the Northern teams would like to be playing against disparate numbers over the course of a whole season.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:48 am

Just want to clarify that the info I am trying to gather about AA A B S is not to classify teams into two leagues, but rather so I have a better understanding of the numbers with an association. One idea I have is to 1. establish districts with ten associations capable of putting travel teams ont he ice (B or higher) with at least 7 associations of A level hockey in the association. I am not sure how many districts we would end up with but 10 associations gives a Director just about the right number of associations to handle. 2. establish these districts with geography in mind AND no more than @ megas per district. (Not sure what a 'mega' would be defined as.) 3. establish regions or state play-ins once these districts are established. 4. allow the MEGAS to form a conference where they play, but require them to play a certain # of district games. 5. playoffs will be done based along district lines not conference lines. (But may have some sort of mega conference vs mega conference title game also (just an afterthought)). Just one idea - not drawing lines yet, just the theory behind the lines. Please comment here or email me on this sight or my personal address. Thanks. And please feel free to add other ideas.

1goallead · Post by **1goallead** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:57 am

I think associations are loosely based on high schools. What about Eastview? They are mostly AV kids. What about Bloomington? Jefferson and Kennedy. What about Duluth? DE and the Lakers (Denfeld). Central doesn't count. Lakeville split because of two high schools. What do most of these kids what? They want to play for their high school. Look at Jefferson during the Sats era. He had his fingers in all aspects of the youth program. Rochester with 97K is equivalent to Edina and EP combined or EP and Minnetonka combined.

barado23 · Post by **barado23** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:28 am

Why go on and on, Just make up your minds Minnesota hockey and let's not talk about it anymore. Someone no matter what is going to be unhappy.. Pimp Daddy is back!!!!!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat">

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:31 am

Elliott: Can you share with non-MAHA knowledgeable folks some information about the redistricting process: Is there a committee for redistricting? Is some group going to issue suggestions or a report? Then would MAHA vote on it or ask for input? The timing on decision-making? For a major overhaul wouldn't the decision have to be made by April/May at the latest? Given all that would flow: reconstituting district boards/drafting new by-laws and district rules/electing district officers -- would it even be possible to do this by next year? Maybe I as seeing roadblocks that don't exist. Maybe people can operate under temporary rules until new district administrations get on their feet. Anyway, thanks for any nuts and bolts you can share.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:54 am

Nearly every association loses kids to private schools, that's why I used the 3 high school comparison. The majority of RYHA kids will end up at the public schools. The level of high school hockey in Rocheaster is really falling and falling rapidly, but econonmicly Rochester is in very good shape; to say the least it's a contradiction compared to what's happening in the rest of the state. If you have 3 associations then at least the kids keep playing with the same kids year after year maybe breeding some semblance of cohesiveness since RYHA has decided neighborhood hockey should go the way of the dinosaurs. Is it better to have 3 marginal A and B teams than 1 really good A team? If you're in district 4 then yes, but I think that's half the fight to keep in district 8 is so that the status quo can be maintained. It's not about kids making A teams that shouldn't, it's about developing more kids to play high school, but that's where I differ with some. In RYHA when nearly all the voting board memebers have kids playing A hockey there is a narrow minded view that has developed that has really hurt the rank and file hockey kids and that's the kids who are most needed to fill roles once they hit high school.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:04 pm

SE Yes, the process will take some time. The redistricting/restructure committee would present their proposal to the full MN Hockey Board for approval. Hopefully, the proposal will go out to everyone for discussion across the state before the Board votes on it. If the number of districts were to expand, the difficult part would be finding people (a director) to run it. But temporarily everything could be done rather quickly. This coming season - no.

VicKevlar · Post by **VicKevlar** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think associations are loosely based on high schools.<hr></blockquote> Very loosely in some cases. Brooklyn Park Association 'feeds' four different high schools....Cooper, Park Center, Champlin Park and Osseo. Of course, Cooper has it's own association, so does Champlin and Osseo. There is some fear that Brooklyn Park is going to get nailed with the upcoming "restructuring".

hangumhigh · Post by **hangumhigh** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:29 pm

It is a year away but do what recruiting you have to now one can follow every person to see if they are telling lies about where they live. That came right from Elliott70 earlier posts. Unless someone reports you play where you want. Ridiculous Huh!!!

1goallead · Post by **1goallead** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:25 pm

Yes, there are cases where the school boundaries overlap hockey district boundaries. This is a good example of where Cooper, BP, and Osseo could merge into one association and give Wayzata and MG stiff competiition, see earlier post about parent egos and their kids being "A" players. This also gives those true "A" players in small associations a chance to play with kids of like ability without having to completely leave their association. Don't SLP, Armstrong and Cooper merge for the girls, or something like that? I know this because my daughter played them. In the metro the small associations can solve the competition problem and redistricting if necessary can solve some of the travel concerns.

toedrag · Post by **toedrag** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:40 pm

I don't think the districts or maha have any way to force a merger on any association that doesn't want to merge. A lot of people want osseo to merge with them. The motive for some might be to get at their two sheets of ice. Also be aware that a third of BP's kids were forced to move to osseo by D3 ~3 or 4 years ago.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Redistricting

Hey EX Navy Guy

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

redistrict

Re: redistrict

Re: redistrict

Re: redistrict

redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting