Slapshotdude wrote:I would like to personally challenge Gopher9 to actually discuss his/her points of view on the subject of OE's instead of listening to his/her short little pointless comments.
I sense a little hostility? How about dropping the subject! And personally challenging me to see whos slapshot is harder instead? Ok SLAPSHOT DUDE
Got it... interesting concept to say the least. The "only 1 O/E per team" concept has been thrown around before on this board.
Just for some laughs............. Can you imagine if that were the rule, and little Susie from town A (Susie is a 4th line varsity player) wants to O/E into town B. Coach from town B, knowing that he can only have 1 O/E, hears through the grapevine that a stud NDP player from town C wants to O/E into town B. He then must tell little Susie that he will have to get back to her on the O/E thing as he waits for his prized NDP player to come to fruition, at which point he then calls Susie and says that he has already filled his 1 O/E exception, and that while she is welcome to come to school in town B, she cannot play hockey !!!!!!!!!!
Ya, there are a lot of interesting situations that would come up. It obviously needs a way for perfectly innocent people to show up but the major concern brought up here is all the summer stuff that goes on where people suddenly show up at school. I think any off season contact at all plus showing up would be required. There is an interesting part of the OE statute that staes athletic ability can't be used as a reason for acceptance or denial as well. The idea comes from the recruiting rules now that state if a player gets any financial aid it constitutes evedence of recruitment, I was looking for a similar way to provide evidence of recruiting through summer hockey.
<edit>
Other evidence might include being on a summer team with a player from said team, again, go with the concept here not the exact wording.
I may be over simplifying it but in my humble opinion if we make the rules too tough we punish the masses for the abuses of a few, all extracurrecler activities are a gift that should be open to as many kids that want to take part, if my child transfers to a school because they have an awesome biology department but she also likes to play hockey she would be punished for the athletic part but not for the acedemic part, when all she wanted was to take part in more of what is avaiable to her...it makes no sense
We keep hearing the part about the O/E student’s rights and how they are not doing anything wrong and how they should not be punished.
What about those kids that already go to that school and if the O/E did not come in would have had a spot on the team. Are you telling me she did something wrong and it is ok for her to sit out? She is not any different she just wants to play hockey, and it is her parents that paid the taxes in that town so they could build that nice school that the O\E wants in on.
What about the kids on the team asking other kids during summer hockey to come and play. The the kid goes to mom and dad and says "I want to move to school X and play with the kids I played with this summer". Mom and dad say "ok", then look at how to do this and getter done.... Is this recruiting and who is to blame?
Zamman wrote:What about the kids on the team asking other kids during summer hockey to come and play. The the kid goes to mom and dad and says "I want to move to school X and play with the kids I played with this summer". Mom and dad say "ok", then look at how to do this and getter done.... Is this recruiting and who is to blame?
I can't imagine this would be considered recruiting unless the kids were put up to it by the high school team's coach or others in an official capacity. You also get situations where the parents of a kid might go up to the parents of another kid and ask, "How does Suzie like it at [name of school]? If the parents say, "She likes it a lot and really likes the coach and her teammates too" then is this recruiting? Or are all people involved including the players and parents required to Plead the Fifth when asked about their school and athletic experience?
Since all children in the state of Minnesota have the right to an education but no where is it written they have the right play sports or be in the school play it comes down to what is best for them, but even more important, what is best for school system as a whole. We should not go the route of complex rules (NCAA) and these kids a way to young to for NHL waivers. We need "Public" school rules that are simple to understand and implement, keeping paperwork and cost to minimum, has the best interest of the child’s education at stake and does not negatively affect others. OE is good for many reasons and bad for only a few. I think since privates are almost impossible to control on this matter, combining them into one section is the only fair way deal with them. Publics should be allowed endless non-resident transfers but only 2? can play in any one sport on any one team for any one school. It could be a first come first serve deal lasting for the however many years they plays. This makes recruitment issues a non-factor, gives most of the local kids an equal chance and still lets kids transfer for the most part since most teams only have a few OE anyway. If the parents move, they should follow the rules as they are written today. Personally I would not let any of my kids at the age of 16-17 jump into a car and drive rush hour traffic in the morning just to get across town to a school. That is being an irresponsible parent.
As for Gopher9's challenge, sounds like fun. I'm a little disappointed that you would pick something so simple for a challenge. I was hoping for a little game of chess.
Slapshotdude wrote: Personally I would not let any of my kids at the age of 16-17 jump into a car and drive rush hour traffic in the morning just to get across town to a school. That is being an irresponsible parent.
So what you are saying is that the kids that live in E.P. or MTKA or the LK. MTKA area that are driving to Blake,Breck or BSM. That their parent's are irresponsible??? Thats kind of a low blow!!
It's common sense. Besides, many privates have bussing options or the parents can drive them. Non-residant public school OE's can only get a ride or drive them selves and I know many that do. No bussing is offered. Letting kids drive in rush hour traffic on a daily basis is irresponsible.
At my kids school, they have to drive to the arena for practice, there is NO BUS, are parents supposed to take off work to attend practice all through HS?
In Richfield you do not get a bus in the high school. You walk or find a ride. Yes Richfield is small, but who is going to walk for a few miles to get to school before 7:00 AM???
I forgot one thing, all the OE from Mpls get bused. I see them when I pick up my daughter after school.....
AHA and Richfield do not get buses to the arena for practice or games. They are responsible for finding their own way. This has been the way at AHA since I was there in the 70's. Richfield used to bus the kids from the high school for gamees a few years back, but with budget cuts, this practice is not used anymore....
We have a bus that runs from the HS that is probably 10 blocks away to the Community Center for Swimming/Diving & Hockey.
In St. Paul we had cabs & busses. That was a nightmare and cut the year after I left I believe.
I think the kids were on their own at Kennedy.
When I was in HS we had to find our own way from HS to rink, and that was back in the day when Tartan played at Polar/NSP. Of course now both schools have their own rinks right next to the schools...
Slapshotdude wrote:Letting kids drive in rush hour traffic on a daily basis is irresponsible.
Given a choice I would rather my daughter drive to and from school than be out late on a Friday or Saturday night, driving around with friends. That's only of course if she's proven herself to be responsible enough to drive safely and handle heavy traffic (for which you get plenty of practice around here even when it's not rush hour).
In any case at her school they provide a bus - but for games only - from the arena and back when the game is finished. For practices it's up to each kid (along with her parents) to find a ride to and from if they don't drive themselves.
I must not have explained my thoughts properly. I was only commenting on kids that have to drive during rush hour and on the highway system for more then 10 miles or so. Driving a few miles on slower city roads to and from school and practice is common practice and relatively safe. I was rear ended on the freeway by a boy from Holy Angels coming home from work a few years back. He did not have his DL or Insurance paperwork with him so I followed him home to get the info. His father seemed to be annoyed by me being there. After explaining to him that I could have called the police and that he may have gotten a ticket for failure to have his DL or insurance paperwork he settled down. While talking with the boy I found out he was a hockey player and was coming home from practice. It was just a fender bender but I think my point has been made.
hockeyrube wrote:Sadly, I am not surprised at all. For the past 2-3 years, I have voiced my concerns over the negative ramifications regarding our current O/E situation. I assure you that the authors of the School Choice statute did not intend for it to be used for these purposes. EP may win another State Championship this year, but they will leave alot of wreckage behind them for many years to come. Their lack of fan base can also be attributed to the lack of connection between their HS and Youth programs - as noted at the State Tournament last year (where every school they played had 10X the fans that EP had)
Rube
The educated observer would note... EP's low fan base is not because of OE/Transfers but the fact they win in every sport and it's really not a big deal to the student body when another team qualifies for any tourney. Being one of the largest schools in the state allows them to draw from a larger pool of players. Football, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, etc... are all top teams at their high school.
The 2 or 3 games I have attended for EP, there have been above average attendance. I haven't gone to games I knew were not going to be close (like Lakeville North).
IMO: The score was 9-0 last night. Goal by period were 6-2-1. There were a couple Top 10 teams that scored 13 or 14 the last couple nights. Maybe it could have been worse. I think using the "don't score more than 10 rule" works for many.
OE/Transfers: To me needs to be looked at and modified. The correlation I see with transfer going to both EP and Edina started when BSM was put into their section. To me it just levels the playing field. IMO: If these two teams didn't have OE student athletes it would probably be a slam dunk for BSM advancing to the State Tourney. I don't know the situation for either team too well, but I don't think there were OE students before the addition of a private school into section 6. I see the same happening with section 5 and those competing with AHA may have to look elsewhere to compete.
Edina only has 2 open enrollees... one is Christy Smith, who has been going to Edina since middle school and who lives within a mile of the Edina/SLP border... and the other is Brittany Hartman, who moved to Prior Lake from Chicago her freshman year before transfering to Edina this year... Honestly, Christy Smith can't really count as an open enrollee since she lives so close to Edina and also since she played GOALIE up until this year... that leaves Hartman as the only true open enrollee at Edina...
If Edina wins state, it will be fair and square... they have only 1 true open enrolee, as do many teams in Minnesota.
I know you weren't insulting Edina... but it would be appreciated if Edina was left out of conversations regarding O/E because, as I just mentioned, they only have 1 open enrollee
Last edited by thefriendlyfan on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the rule that is likely to be passed by the MSHL is targeting Edina and every other athlete and school who transfers and accepts transfers after 9th grade or the players first varsity season. To somehow suggest that Edina is better than Eden Prairie because your number of transfers is less is, at the very least, inconsistent. To suggest that Brittany Hartman has not made an impact for Edina this year is also untrue. Had the new rule been in effect, Brittany Hartman would have been able to go to school in Edina, but she would have had to continue to play for Prior Lake, whose team is not doing quite as well after Brittany's departure. Either that or Brittany's father, a HS teacher could just incur the expense of moving. No big deal, right?
According to what was published in the Star Tribune, the new transfer policy is meeting much support in the community. Perhaps part of the reason for this is that people think it doesn't apply to them or at least will somehow be of benefit. My guess is that you would find many parents in Prior Lake, just like you would in Bloomington, that support the ruling.
As I've said before on this forum, I am against the proposed change because I believe it puts too much power in the hands of the school. I would prefer to have the freedom to change if I determined that another school better met my daughter's needs. Now, because my daughter is a varsity athlete, she can't make a change and continue playing sports. I see this as a loss, even though my daughter loves her school and will likely never be affected by the new ruling.
However, I guess I am resigned to the fact that the MSHL is just giving the people waht they want. It will be interesting to see if those that are in favor or perceive a benefit from the new ruling actually receive one. The Brittany Hartman's and Edinas of the world will certainly be impacted.
Now, because my daughter is a varsity athlete, she can't make a change and continue playing sports.
The new rule doesn't prevent this, she will be allowed to play for her original school for a year then play for her preferred school thereafter. Of course this sets up a situation where you have teenage girls racing from one town to another to make practice, but if they really want to play hockey the tickets and accidents are a small price to pay.
Xk1 said; The new rule doesn't prevent this, she will be allowed to play for her original school for a year then play for her preferred school thereafter.
Good point. I stand corrected. I am also sure that there will be many, many athletes choosing to play for their old school while they attend their new school. After all, the teammates and coaches at the old school are certain to be very understanding and supportive about someone wanting to change schools. So,what if there are accidents that happen in a students rush to go from one school district to another. As xk1 points out, this is a small price to pay in order to prevent the sports dynasties that have all of a sudden began popping up since Open Enrollment began.
It is clear that, for Varsity athletes, there is a right way and a wrong way for a student to change schools. The right way is to move. However, I am familiar with a situation where a family adopted a player from their son's summer team so he could play at their son's school with their son. Anyway, according to the new MSHL ruling, open enrollment, for all practical purposes, has just become closed enrollment to Varsity athletes. Play a varsity sport, and the school you play for now 'owns' your right to play Varsity athletics.
Xk1 said; The new rule doesn't prevent this, she will be allowed to play for her original school for a year then play for her preferred school thereafter.
Good point. I stand corrected. I am also sure that there will be many, many athletes choosing to play for their old school while they attend their new school. After all, the teammates and coaches at the old school are certain to be very understanding and supportive about someone wanting to change schools. So,what if there are accidents that happen in a students rush to go from one school district to another. As xk1 points out, this is a small price to pay in order to prevent the sports dynasties that have all of a sudden began popping up since Open Enrollment began.
It is clear that, for Varsity athletes, there is a right way and a wrong way for a student to change schools. The right way is to move. However, I am familiar with a situation where a family adopted a player from their son's summer team so he could play at their son's school with their son. Anyway, according to the new MSHL ruling, open enrollment, for all practical purposes, has just become closed enrollment to Varsity athletes. Play a varsity sport, and the school you play for now 'owns' your right to play Varsity athletics.
It will be interesting to see how playing for your old school works out in practice. I some situations it will be impossible to make it to practice for your old school. Team chemistry and parent bickering should provide some interesting scenarios. If the transferred player doesn't make the team even though they are clearly better than others there could be some legal action as well. Should be some good times, drama wise.
xk1 wrote:It will be interesting to see how playing for your old school works out in practice. I some situations it will be impossible to make it to practice for your old school. Team chemistry and parent bickering should provide some interesting scenarios. If the transferred player doesn't make the team even though they are clearly better than others there could be some legal action as well. Should be some good times, drama wise.
It's hard to imagine too many situations where a coach would choose to have a "non-student" play for his varsity team. I think effectively these players would be locked out from playing any varsity at all, and I don't think legally they would have a good case either. Like you said there would be a lot of "interesting scenarios" and team chemistry could become a big problem. Unless their jobs were on the line, I would think most coaches would rather avoid all that whenever possible.
I agree but don't you think because the MSHSL mandated this as part of the transfer solution there is some validity in claiming that if you were on varsity before you should still be so unless you were clearly beat out of the job?
<edit>
I would also add, if the player was a good one, playing them or not you are going to have issues with parents and and team chemistry.
How about dropping the subject! And personally challenging me to see whos slapshot is harder instead? Ok SLAPSHOT DUDE 