Top 25 are 50% non district teams
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Jethrotull
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:43 am
Top 25 are 50% non district teams
If you look at the AA QRF rankings on Minnesota-scores.net you will see that 11 of the top 25 teams are either Privates, Coop's, so called "Area teams", or teams that are known for large numbers of recent transfers. That's 44% of the top 25. Teams ranked #26 -#70 have only 11 out of 44 of these types of teams. That's only 23%. On average it is getting harder for public schools to compete. Combining school districts (Coop's and Area's) seems to be a way to stay ahead of the game but the privates have the best deal around for getting quality players together. I'm not going to bash any one team or group of teams but even with the new transfer rules I don't foresee any changes to this trend. What do you guys think?
-
keepitreal
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:35 pm
Okay, I'll play. Statistically speaking as it were, I think a counter-argument can be made about the mega-schools like Eden Prairie or Wayzata with 3000+ students from which to draw their teams. Do we feel that's an advantage that should be corrected too? Would Lakeville be a top team with only one high school? Should Grand Rapids/Greenway with 1100 students demand that EP be split into three teams to level the playing field? Should girls hockey be for metro or large city teams only? This argument is the genesis of club hockey. I guess no one should tell the Roseau boys they can't compete.
However, this being girls hockey, it's a simple reality that not many of these co-ops and/or non-district entries would be able to consistently field viable numbers year-to-year without working together. Anyone involved in smaller youth associations will tell you all about the challenge. Girls hockey would simply cease to exist in many places, especially outstate and in the inner-city ring, were it not for co-ops.
As far as the new transfer rule, we should see a decrease in 9-12 transfers now that it's implemented. Not this year, as there was a rush under the 3-31-07 wire. I don't know if it can be suggested there is any trend present (and I don't know that I'd use QRF as the basis of my statistical arguement either
)
If you want to kick the dead horse that is the public/private debate, go ahead, but it's far easier and cheaper to open enroll to a public than transfer to a private, so why is that not the "best deal" as you put it? You won't have to look far to see the benefactors of key transfers over the past decade in nearly every HS sport, many to the larger or usually more successful public school programs for the particular sport. People also tend to conveniently ignore many of the best private school players have always been students at those schools and were never part of the public school system. However, it's fair to say that many people seek what they might feel is a better environment for their kids, whether it's public or private, for sports or academics, so movement does occur. Though not always the top players. Many very good players who transfer find life is very different when they are surrounded by several others of similar ability and many top players are finding it's best to "stay home".
My opinion is that a co-op should be broken if it finds itself cutting from JV, i.e., more than 35-40 players for consecutive years. If a program is able to support one or more U14 teams plus JV, it's a large program indeed.
I believe if public HS coaches want to ensure the success of their team in the future, they will make it a large priority to volunteer a great deal of time and attention to their youth program and work closely with youth coaches to demand developmental excellence. The success of a public school lives and dies by the development of its youth program. Participation in a sport with such a small base is also very cyclical, and it has roots in area demographics and economics as much as anything else.
However, this being girls hockey, it's a simple reality that not many of these co-ops and/or non-district entries would be able to consistently field viable numbers year-to-year without working together. Anyone involved in smaller youth associations will tell you all about the challenge. Girls hockey would simply cease to exist in many places, especially outstate and in the inner-city ring, were it not for co-ops.
As far as the new transfer rule, we should see a decrease in 9-12 transfers now that it's implemented. Not this year, as there was a rush under the 3-31-07 wire. I don't know if it can be suggested there is any trend present (and I don't know that I'd use QRF as the basis of my statistical arguement either
)If you want to kick the dead horse that is the public/private debate, go ahead, but it's far easier and cheaper to open enroll to a public than transfer to a private, so why is that not the "best deal" as you put it? You won't have to look far to see the benefactors of key transfers over the past decade in nearly every HS sport, many to the larger or usually more successful public school programs for the particular sport. People also tend to conveniently ignore many of the best private school players have always been students at those schools and were never part of the public school system. However, it's fair to say that many people seek what they might feel is a better environment for their kids, whether it's public or private, for sports or academics, so movement does occur. Though not always the top players. Many very good players who transfer find life is very different when they are surrounded by several others of similar ability and many top players are finding it's best to "stay home".
My opinion is that a co-op should be broken if it finds itself cutting from JV, i.e., more than 35-40 players for consecutive years. If a program is able to support one or more U14 teams plus JV, it's a large program indeed.
I believe if public HS coaches want to ensure the success of their team in the future, they will make it a large priority to volunteer a great deal of time and attention to their youth program and work closely with youth coaches to demand developmental excellence. The success of a public school lives and dies by the development of its youth program. Participation in a sport with such a small base is also very cyclical, and it has roots in area demographics and economics as much as anything else.
Re: Top 25 are 50% non district teams
Tull,Jethrotull wrote:If you look at the AA QRF rankings on Minnesota-scores.net you will see that 11 of the top 25 teams are either Privates, Coop's, so called "Area teams", or teams that are known for large numbers of recent transfers. That's 44% of the top 25. Teams ranked #26 -#70 have only 11 out of 44 of these types of teams. That's only 23%. On average it is getting harder for public schools to compete. Combining school districts (Coop's and Area's) seems to be a way to stay ahead of the game but the privates have the best deal around for getting quality players together. I'm not going to bash any one team or group of teams but even with the new transfer rules I don't foresee any changes to this trend. What do you guys think?
Why do privates "have the best deal around for getting quality players together?"
You say that, despite the new transfer rules, the trend you uncovered won't change for those schools that are "known for large numbers of recent transfers." Will the new rules prove to be ineffective, or are these schools just always going to be competitive, or will kids continue to transfer into these schools by doing it before 9th grade, or what? Which schools are these?
How many co-ops do you think were honestly formed "to stay ahead of the game" vs. to keep programs with low numbers alive.
-
Jethrotull
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:43 am
At the low salaries and huge commitments the coach’s deal with already, few will commit the remaining bits of time they have unless they get compensated.keepitreal wrote:
I believe if public HS coaches want to ensure the success of their team in the future, they will make it a large priority to volunteer a great deal of time and attention to their youth program and work closely with youth coaches to demand developmental excellence. The success of a public school lives and dies by the development of its youth program. Participation in a sport with such a small base is also very cyclical, and it has roots in area demographics and economics as much as anything else.
I guess I'm old school when it comes to athletics. The days of kids playing together in neighborhoods, feeding off each other’s strengths and forming a team that was competitive are long gone in the metro. Now it's all about spending money to get the best training rather then Rink Ratting it to teach yourself. Parents split kids up into groups by age and skill level instead of letting 12 year old Johnny spend time with the high schoolers and seeing and learning first hand how it is done. Many northern teams still work the old ways and it pays off with highly skilled players and state championships from towns with very small populations. Now many parents just move the kid around to get the best deal for them. It's not about hard work and dedication; it's about finding the right coach or team for them and sometimes "outspending" the competition. What I'm getting at here is simple. There are way to many options for parents to interfere with the old public school district rules and boundaries and because of it a trend is in motion that will destroy what we have right now. You are going to see multiple classes just like Football and the separation of privates and publics is not far away either. Change is inevitable, but do we really benefit from it in this case? I fear that the David vs Goliath games will become a thing of the past. Most will agree that those games are the most cherished of all memories.