redistricting
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
jaketownsend2000
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:41 pm
-
outdoorshcky17
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:44 am
-
Cross_Bar_In
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:58 pm
-
HockeyRocks1
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Not anywhere near Ram Country Unfortunately
Simple is good. Sections like High School with two classes. You play an open schedule from Nov. through Jan. In Feb. there is a sectional tourney. Top two teams from each section and class move forward to the State tourney. You finish with A playing AA for the Brooks Cup.
It would be cool to put levels all over the state but think of the whole thing at the Super Rink or better yet. All Championship games at the U or X.
It would be cool to put levels all over the state but think of the whole thing at the Super Rink or better yet. All Championship games at the U or X.
-
outdoorshcky17
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:44 am
HockeyRocks1 wrote:Simple is good. Sections like High School with two classes. You play an open schedule from Nov. through Jan. In Feb. there is a sectional tourney. Top two teams from each section and class move forward to the State tourney. You finish with A playing AA for the Brooks Cup.
It would be cool to put levels all over the state but think of the whole thing at the Super Rink or better yet. All Championship games at the U or X.
this is a very good idea it is true that not the best teams are getting to state or regions
example last year sartell made it to state for pee wee a i mean come on sartell?
maybe keep the districts as leagues like they hae the lake conference or north suburban etc.?
but having the ship at the excel for pwa and b1 bantam a and b1 is a geat idea
-
hockeystud26
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:53 pm
-
northwoods oldtimer
- Posts: 2679
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:01 pm
Request
Hey Elliot one request to make at the summer meeting. During Regionals the #1 Red (pool winner) should square off against #1 Blue (pool winner) with the winner of that game going to State as the number 1 seed. While the #2 Red (2nd place in pool) and #2 Blue (2nd place in pool) square off and the winner takes on the loser of the #1 Red vs. 1#Blue (State Number 1 seed game) than that winner is the number 2 seed going to State.
Elliot- please update us
Elliot:- can you give us an update on where redistricting is at. Especially on how it relates to the metro area. From my perspective this effort has either stalled or it is just to big an issue where people will never agree. Maybe the presidient or board just need to say this is the new policy and be done.
thank you for your support of minnesota hockey!!
thank you for your support of minnesota hockey!!
PUCk
The re-districting has stalled/stopped.
Biggest problem is everyone is afraid of change - theory may not be perfect but at least we have a system.
The over-all question is RESTRUCTRING.
Meaning lets look at everything MN Hockey does and does not do, how it is set-up...
Then try to make a system that satisfies the needs of as many hockey players as we can and make the Board accountable and accessible to those that represent all these players.
Thus
1. How do people get elected to the board?
2. How is the work load spread through committtees (board members and non-board members?
3. Do you have different committee membership (different committees) for different parts of the state to handle regional/size/or whatever differences exist?
4. What can MN H do to assist the local districts/the local associations with their specific problems? Recruiting kids to hockey, recruiting coaches, refs, volunteers...
5. How can we (MH) make life easier and if possible cheaper fo rhockey associations and families?
So what programs stay, expand, go???
And in this whole concept how should the districts be set...
and should leagues be set across district lines... Set up eaualize districts (in terms of numbers) so that each league consists of 7 or 8 or 9 teams,
Should we have waiver of players from small associations to allow a rainbow A team so kids get the opportunity to play at their skill level...
Lots of questions, but I think we need to spend more time addressing this and less time eating.
And fair play points gone, but monitoring players/coaches/refs/fans for unacceptable behavior.
HEP (education - especially of parents) designed to be simple and rewarding.
Training programs for kids so coaches/associations can use classroom time (rather thatn ice time) to teach certain parts of hockey... use an available gym or outdoor field for certain things that can be done off-ice to increase hockey skills.
Sorry to go on and on....
but that is my agenda.
The re-districting has stalled/stopped.
Biggest problem is everyone is afraid of change - theory may not be perfect but at least we have a system.
The over-all question is RESTRUCTRING.
Meaning lets look at everything MN Hockey does and does not do, how it is set-up...
Then try to make a system that satisfies the needs of as many hockey players as we can and make the Board accountable and accessible to those that represent all these players.
Thus
1. How do people get elected to the board?
2. How is the work load spread through committtees (board members and non-board members?
3. Do you have different committee membership (different committees) for different parts of the state to handle regional/size/or whatever differences exist?
4. What can MN H do to assist the local districts/the local associations with their specific problems? Recruiting kids to hockey, recruiting coaches, refs, volunteers...
5. How can we (MH) make life easier and if possible cheaper fo rhockey associations and families?
So what programs stay, expand, go???
And in this whole concept how should the districts be set...
and should leagues be set across district lines... Set up eaualize districts (in terms of numbers) so that each league consists of 7 or 8 or 9 teams,
Should we have waiver of players from small associations to allow a rainbow A team so kids get the opportunity to play at their skill level...
Lots of questions, but I think we need to spend more time addressing this and less time eating.
And fair play points gone, but monitoring players/coaches/refs/fans for unacceptable behavior.
HEP (education - especially of parents) designed to be simple and rewarding.
Training programs for kids so coaches/associations can use classroom time (rather thatn ice time) to teach certain parts of hockey... use an available gym or outdoor field for certain things that can be done off-ice to increase hockey skills.
Sorry to go on and on....
but that is my agenda.
restructuring
Elliot:
Couldn't agree with you more on your assessment on what should be done but if the board cannot get together on redistricting I don't see how they could possibly tackle the issues you stated- in my lifetime.
baby steps- start with with redistricting- please
Couldn't agree with you more on your assessment on what should be done but if the board cannot get together on redistricting I don't see how they could possibly tackle the issues you stated- in my lifetime.
baby steps- start with with redistricting- please
-
niceice909
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:12 pm
New PRague needs to be competing with the same schools the high school program faces, so the kids will know what it takes to get to the next step.
I have heard District 4 and District 8 are talking about working together in forming leagues next year to cut down on travel and give more balanced competition. For instance, this last year, New Prague's Bantam C team had no league to play in. This way, they can play with some District 8 teams and any other District 4 teams that should be fielding C teams.
The plan is for the the teams to play in their own districts come tournament time.
Sounds interesting. Hope they can work out the details.
I have heard District 4 and District 8 are talking about working together in forming leagues next year to cut down on travel and give more balanced competition. For instance, this last year, New Prague's Bantam C team had no league to play in. This way, they can play with some District 8 teams and any other District 4 teams that should be fielding C teams.
The plan is for the the teams to play in their own districts come tournament time.
Sounds interesting. Hope they can work out the details.
"New Prague's Bantam C team had no league to play in"
That's a shame and should be a top priority for MN Hockey. Rochester's bantam C team can't play a non league game or in non prior board approved tournament. I'm sure there are many other teams in the same boat. MN Hockey should set up "leagues" based on teams not based on existing boundries. No team should be forced to try and play an independant schedule, every team that wants to be in a league should be.
"What can MN Hockey do to ....assisst local association in recruiting coaches, refs, volunteers."
Try and make the process easier and more user friendly. As it is you have to jump through a ton of hoops and spend a lot of time at nearly worthless meetings to be a coach or ref. The MSHSL requires a 1-2 hour rules meeting then you take your test online. Many kids have football practice on Saturday mornings and can't make the meetings, and nearly all can't drive a couple of hours to attend a meeting during the week. With technology where it is it should be reletively simple for USA Hockey to get the coaches and rules meetings available online. Nearly everyone has access to a computer at home, school, or at a library where they can accomplish this. Try following the MSHSL and NFS leads and offer clinics as a tool to improve your coaching or officiating skills but don't make them mandatory. At the very least there should be a "test out" function as most level one clinics go by the assumption you don't know anything about hockey and there is only one way to coach.
That's a shame and should be a top priority for MN Hockey. Rochester's bantam C team can't play a non league game or in non prior board approved tournament. I'm sure there are many other teams in the same boat. MN Hockey should set up "leagues" based on teams not based on existing boundries. No team should be forced to try and play an independant schedule, every team that wants to be in a league should be.
"What can MN Hockey do to ....assisst local association in recruiting coaches, refs, volunteers."
Try and make the process easier and more user friendly. As it is you have to jump through a ton of hoops and spend a lot of time at nearly worthless meetings to be a coach or ref. The MSHSL requires a 1-2 hour rules meeting then you take your test online. Many kids have football practice on Saturday mornings and can't make the meetings, and nearly all can't drive a couple of hours to attend a meeting during the week. With technology where it is it should be reletively simple for USA Hockey to get the coaches and rules meetings available online. Nearly everyone has access to a computer at home, school, or at a library where they can accomplish this. Try following the MSHSL and NFS leads and offer clinics as a tool to improve your coaching or officiating skills but don't make them mandatory. At the very least there should be a "test out" function as most level one clinics go by the assumption you don't know anything about hockey and there is only one way to coach.
-
ifallsrocks2
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:38 pm
Re: If you have ideas (opinions)
Why would u put them into district 16 the would get smoked!
-
HockeyGuru#6
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:31 pm
- Location: Minnetonka JGA Alumni
THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT SOME OTHER TEAMS SHOULD MOVE IN2 THERE DISTRICT AND EVEN UP THE DISTRICTS A LITTLE MORE SO WAYZATA DOESNT HAVE A FREE RIDE 2 REGIONALSoutdoorshcky17 wrote:you cant put wayzata into district 6. they already only get three teams to state and this year 8 teams are consistently ranked in lphjaketownsend2000 wrote:I think put wayzata into D6 or a nearby stronger district
First, look outside what's being done now and make some changes.
* Why 8 districts, set districts up using geography not number of teams, if 1 district has 8 teams and 1 16 teams so be it. Slot state tournament berths based on # of teams in each district so the total equals 16 teams at state.
* No B state tournament, eliminate teams playing at that level only for a state tournament shot.
* Everyone plays A hockey, each association, when numbers allow, field 1 team for each public high school hockey team represented by that association. Then the next team in that association would be B, the remaining C. Any Association that can't field 3 teams at any level goes into a seperate division come playoffs for that level. Any association has the option to move up. So instead of an A and B state tournament you have a Division 1 and Division 2 state tournament. Thereby programs that are struggling like Edison or LaCrescent have a better chance of getting some success. As it is a town like Rochester or Wayzata with high numbers can stack a B team slanting the playing field.
* Why 8 districts, set districts up using geography not number of teams, if 1 district has 8 teams and 1 16 teams so be it. Slot state tournament berths based on # of teams in each district so the total equals 16 teams at state.
* No B state tournament, eliminate teams playing at that level only for a state tournament shot.
* Everyone plays A hockey, each association, when numbers allow, field 1 team for each public high school hockey team represented by that association. Then the next team in that association would be B, the remaining C. Any Association that can't field 3 teams at any level goes into a seperate division come playoffs for that level. Any association has the option to move up. So instead of an A and B state tournament you have a Division 1 and Division 2 state tournament. Thereby programs that are struggling like Edison or LaCrescent have a better chance of getting some success. As it is a town like Rochester or Wayzata with high numbers can stack a B team slanting the playing field.
Good ideas.goldy313 wrote:First, look outside what's being done now and make some changes.
* Why 8 districts, set districts up using geography not number of teams, if 1 district has 8 teams and 1 16 teams so be it. Slot state tournament berths based on # of teams in each district so the total equals 16 teams at state.
* No B state tournament, eliminate teams playing at that level only for a state tournament shot.
* Everyone plays A hockey, each association, when numbers allow, field 1 team for each public high school hockey team represented by that association. Then the next team in that association would be B, the remaining C. Any Association that can't field 3 teams at any level goes into a seperate division come playoffs for that level. Any association has the option to move up. So instead of an A and B state tournament you have a Division 1 and Division 2 state tournament. Thereby programs that are struggling like Edison or LaCrescent have a better chance of getting some success. As it is a town like Rochester or Wayzata with high numbers can stack a B team slanting the playing field.
Currently we have 12 districts, the idea being passed around is 16.
Thanks.
Elliot-
Please see my earlier (a year ago) posts on this thread regarding the scheme Wisconsin uses. As Goldie suggests- fewer districts with more levels. Take a look at the WAHA website too. I'm not saying we should copy it exactly but it does make a pretty good model. More State Tournaments- more success for the kids- thus more interest .
Please see my earlier (a year ago) posts on this thread regarding the scheme Wisconsin uses. As Goldie suggests- fewer districts with more levels. Take a look at the WAHA website too. I'm not saying we should copy it exactly but it does make a pretty good model. More State Tournaments- more success for the kids- thus more interest .
I'm curious, why have districts at all?
Try this: 4 regions NW, SW, SE and NE with the dividing lines crossing at Fort Snelling or some other central landmark. That way each region would have a wide variety of associations; growing, shrinking, suburban goliaths and outstate david's, successful or not so much.
During each summer MN Hock gives each association a designation (1, 2, 3) based on the number of players, their success at Pw's and Squirts the previous 3 years and taking into account the quality of athelete/schedule. For instance, Roseau does very well with small numbers, if they had successful groups at PW's and Squirts in recent years, they would be graded high. Other Metro associations with large numbers but less success might be given a middle grading.
Game scheduling would be held in early Fall with each association having to schedule at least 20% of their games against 1's, 20% against 2's and 20% against 3's. The other 40% would be their choice but leave it up to each association to pick which teams from those groups they play. Some of the games would not even have to be against other teams from the same region, maybe set another limit saying up to 1/3 could be against teams outside the region. If at the end of scheduling there are teams that have not met their game minimums the regional staff could force games with other nearby associations. That way you leave it up to the association to craft a schedule that fits their philosophy while making sure that all teams/associations would have to play some 1's, 2's and 3's giving the whole state some balance.
The regular season would run from mid November to end of February and records would be kept for all regular season games. Set a maximum/minimum # of regular season games at each level. 15-25 for squirts, 20-30 for PeeWees and 25-35 for Bantams. Rules regarding play, ref pay, etc would be uniform accross the state for these games, no regional differences for neck guards, period length etc. Tournament games would be outside this framework, we wouldn't want to eliminate those, they are fun and a source of revenue for many associations.
There would be rules for reporting games to the regional website within a certain # of hours and maybe you could use a Mitch Hawker like strength of schedule formula to give it a horse-race like quality.
March 1st each coach would send in a ranking of teams in his region top to bottom on a signed form (no hiding behind anonymity.)
The end of the year would be a 32 team regional tournament (with play ins) at multiple sites within each region to cut down on travel. Make it double elimination if you want. Each region sends its top 2 teams to state.
The regional tournament would run 1.5 - 2 weeks starting the Sunday of the HS State tournament weekend. The 8 team Youth Hockey State tournament would be a weekend in mid March b4 most spring breaks.
This plan shows my bias- I have never understood why the district director (one person) has such a huge impact on associations. Put the decision-making power in the associations hands within a strong framework. That way the association has options and can build a schedule and season for each of its teams according to the associations philosophy, geography, teams needs, etc. No one will get everything they want (game scheduling is always a series of compromises) but they will have no one to blame but themselves so it should cut down a lot on the complaining.
My other bias is our two-tiered high school system. I still don't like it. It eliminates the little guy, the Cinderella run. Good players exist throughout our state. Why shouldn't a couple of quality players from Luverne or Bagley not get a similar hockey experience to those in White Bear or Moorhead? Why not let a hot group from Pine City or Silver Bay make a historic run in the years that they have a nice small group of atheletes?
I think this satisfies Mr Elliott's guideline of being something that changes from year to year but it also stays within a systems that makes sure even the smallest most far-flung association gets a full schedule. And I think the big bottom to top regional tournament would be huge fun for players.
Try this: 4 regions NW, SW, SE and NE with the dividing lines crossing at Fort Snelling or some other central landmark. That way each region would have a wide variety of associations; growing, shrinking, suburban goliaths and outstate david's, successful or not so much.
During each summer MN Hock gives each association a designation (1, 2, 3) based on the number of players, their success at Pw's and Squirts the previous 3 years and taking into account the quality of athelete/schedule. For instance, Roseau does very well with small numbers, if they had successful groups at PW's and Squirts in recent years, they would be graded high. Other Metro associations with large numbers but less success might be given a middle grading.
Game scheduling would be held in early Fall with each association having to schedule at least 20% of their games against 1's, 20% against 2's and 20% against 3's. The other 40% would be their choice but leave it up to each association to pick which teams from those groups they play. Some of the games would not even have to be against other teams from the same region, maybe set another limit saying up to 1/3 could be against teams outside the region. If at the end of scheduling there are teams that have not met their game minimums the regional staff could force games with other nearby associations. That way you leave it up to the association to craft a schedule that fits their philosophy while making sure that all teams/associations would have to play some 1's, 2's and 3's giving the whole state some balance.
The regular season would run from mid November to end of February and records would be kept for all regular season games. Set a maximum/minimum # of regular season games at each level. 15-25 for squirts, 20-30 for PeeWees and 25-35 for Bantams. Rules regarding play, ref pay, etc would be uniform accross the state for these games, no regional differences for neck guards, period length etc. Tournament games would be outside this framework, we wouldn't want to eliminate those, they are fun and a source of revenue for many associations.
There would be rules for reporting games to the regional website within a certain # of hours and maybe you could use a Mitch Hawker like strength of schedule formula to give it a horse-race like quality.
March 1st each coach would send in a ranking of teams in his region top to bottom on a signed form (no hiding behind anonymity.)
The end of the year would be a 32 team regional tournament (with play ins) at multiple sites within each region to cut down on travel. Make it double elimination if you want. Each region sends its top 2 teams to state.
The regional tournament would run 1.5 - 2 weeks starting the Sunday of the HS State tournament weekend. The 8 team Youth Hockey State tournament would be a weekend in mid March b4 most spring breaks.
This plan shows my bias- I have never understood why the district director (one person) has such a huge impact on associations. Put the decision-making power in the associations hands within a strong framework. That way the association has options and can build a schedule and season for each of its teams according to the associations philosophy, geography, teams needs, etc. No one will get everything they want (game scheduling is always a series of compromises) but they will have no one to blame but themselves so it should cut down a lot on the complaining.
My other bias is our two-tiered high school system. I still don't like it. It eliminates the little guy, the Cinderella run. Good players exist throughout our state. Why shouldn't a couple of quality players from Luverne or Bagley not get a similar hockey experience to those in White Bear or Moorhead? Why not let a hot group from Pine City or Silver Bay make a historic run in the years that they have a nice small group of atheletes?
I think this satisfies Mr Elliott's guideline of being something that changes from year to year but it also stays within a systems that makes sure even the smallest most far-flung association gets a full schedule. And I think the big bottom to top regional tournament would be huge fun for players.
-
HockeyRocks1
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Not anywhere near Ram Country Unfortunately
Districts
This is the best idea yet! Someone bring it forward.
-
32HockeyFan
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:59 am
This seems like a good start. There would have to be additional things taken into consideration. I don’t have any answers to my statements, just food for thought.
1) Level 3 teams having to play 20% of their games against level 1 teams. You would have some huge blowouts that wouldn’t benefit the 1 or the 3 team. How about Edina/Wayzata (insert your other level 1 teams here) playing against the likes of Litchfield, STMA, Becker/Big Lake? Scores of 20+ to 0 could be expected. Somehow you would need to balance it out so these types of games don’t happen.
2) If teams are allowed to craft their own schedules, what happens if the other teams refuse to play that team? What if an association like Buffalo want’s to schedule top teams but the top teams don’t want to play Buffalo. They’d be left scrambling to fill their schedule possibly leading to immense travel times.
3) With a points based standing system, equal amounts of games must be played by each team in a region. If team A plays 30 games for 60 points (15 wins + 30 FPP), team B could play 35 games for 61 points. (13 wins + 35 FPP). Team B would be higher in points based strictly on playing more games and earning FPP). Either equal games must be played or Minn Hock could perhaps come up with a combo winning % based standings system + points standings system + schedule ranking.
4) With the proposed system, a level 2 team could schedule 40% of it’s games against level 3 + the 20% required for 60% of it’s games. That team could beat out a level 1 team that knocks heads with other Level 1 teams 60% of the time. I think you’d see an avoidance of level 1’s vs. level 1s. You could also have a level 1 team play 60% of it's games against level 3 teams.
1) Level 3 teams having to play 20% of their games against level 1 teams. You would have some huge blowouts that wouldn’t benefit the 1 or the 3 team. How about Edina/Wayzata (insert your other level 1 teams here) playing against the likes of Litchfield, STMA, Becker/Big Lake? Scores of 20+ to 0 could be expected. Somehow you would need to balance it out so these types of games don’t happen.
2) If teams are allowed to craft their own schedules, what happens if the other teams refuse to play that team? What if an association like Buffalo want’s to schedule top teams but the top teams don’t want to play Buffalo. They’d be left scrambling to fill their schedule possibly leading to immense travel times.
3) With a points based standing system, equal amounts of games must be played by each team in a region. If team A plays 30 games for 60 points (15 wins + 30 FPP), team B could play 35 games for 61 points. (13 wins + 35 FPP). Team B would be higher in points based strictly on playing more games and earning FPP). Either equal games must be played or Minn Hock could perhaps come up with a combo winning % based standings system + points standings system + schedule ranking.
4) With the proposed system, a level 2 team could schedule 40% of it’s games against level 3 + the 20% required for 60% of it’s games. That team could beat out a level 1 team that knocks heads with other Level 1 teams 60% of the time. I think you’d see an avoidance of level 1’s vs. level 1s. You could also have a level 1 team play 60% of it's games against level 3 teams.
status
Hi Elliot
Any update on redistricting? Seems like everyone knows there are issues but nothing gets done. I say it is time for MH leadership to take a stance and tackle this issue once and for all. If MH does not intend to address this they should say so.
thanks
Any update on redistricting? Seems like everyone knows there are issues but nothing gets done. I say it is time for MH leadership to take a stance and tackle this issue once and for all. If MH does not intend to address this they should say so.
thanks
Re: status
Steering committee of about 8 guys meets on Nov 7th.puckboy wrote:Hi Elliot
Any update on redistricting? Seems like everyone knows there are issues but nothing gets done. I say it is time for MH leadership to take a stance and tackle this issue once and for all. If MH does not intend to address this they should say so.
thanks
3 hour meeting
Working committee of about 15 guys meets on Dec 8th.
10 hour meeting
It is first on the list of things to get done by 4/30/08