I see that the OMGHA board voted to combine the MG and Osseo associations in to one big happy family. I know the Osseo people were against this, in fact here is the result of a survey the Osseo side conducted. This is right off the OMGHA website:
Feedback results
57% Preserve Osseo until potential boundary changes are known
37% Merge youth OMGHA travel teams
6% Merge with North Metro
Anyone know what happened in that board meeting? Did the MG side out vote the Osseo side? Will the kids wear Osseo jerseys for home games and MG for away? Seems like there's a lot of questions still left to be answered.
Osseo Maple Grove Merger
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
AAATourney
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:13 am
The best part is the North Metro vote - WHAT is that. Basically comes down to the Osseo guys think the MG guys are snobs and wanted to keep the orange and black (my son bleeds orange and black b.s.). Better off to be with North Metro than MG???
Osseo's numbers are crap - squirts thru bantams - squirt A team borrowed 3 from MG last season and this year they would not have enough for a squirt A this year.
Whether people like it or not this was exactly the right thing to do - hats off to the board and the people that made this happen.
I was suprised they did combine the bantams though - h.s. coaches must be pissed.
Osseo's numbers are crap - squirts thru bantams - squirt A team borrowed 3 from MG last season and this year they would not have enough for a squirt A this year.
Whether people like it or not this was exactly the right thing to do - hats off to the board and the people that made this happen.
I was suprised they did combine the bantams though - h.s. coaches must be pissed.
The reason North Metro is in the mix is not only is it District 279, but MANY of the Osseo kids come from Brooklyn Park. The border for Osseo/North Metro hockey associations is right on Zane next to the rinks in Brooklyn Park. You could literally live less than one block away from the rinks in Brooklyn Park but have to play for Osseo due to the boundary/affiliation.
There's more than a few cases of kids going to school together but since little Johnny/Emily live across the street they have to skate for a different association.
More than a few kids at Osseo attempt to waiver over to North Metro (Brooklyn Park).
Don't get me started on the Champlin/North Metro boundary nightmare (that the MH Board totally $^$%$^ it up last summer/fall at the meetings).
There's more than a few cases of kids going to school together but since little Johnny/Emily live across the street they have to skate for a different association.
More than a few kids at Osseo attempt to waiver over to North Metro (Brooklyn Park).
Don't get me started on the Champlin/North Metro boundary nightmare (that the MH Board totally $^$%$^ it up last summer/fall at the meetings).
-
AAATourney
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:13 am
-
Bass Master
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 5:45 pm
Stagnant? Gotta remember there are 4 associations that pull skaters in BP (Osseo, Champlin, North Metro, Cooper). Add all the players up and you get a pretty good number for the 70,000+ residents of BP.
Decisions like the one last fall by MH forcibly removed approximately 30% of the skaters to Champlin while the one back in 2001 by D3 cutoff the Osseo group. The merger with Tri-City helped offset somewhat but it will be another year before numbers go back above 400. Will it be back to nearly 1000 skaters like 9 years ago? Nope, not with the lines being redrawn and boundaries forcibly moving skaters. But it will recover back to the 600 range in a few years.
Things will change in the near future also. BP is still building up like mad but all of the new development falls north of 610 which is Anoka/Hennepin 11, ie: Champlin association. The North Metro affiliation area is one small section in the middle of the city heading south. With Champlin being in D10 with double the registration fees not to mention the TRAVEL as opposed to D3, I forsee Champlin once again petitioning to move to D3 (as they did 2 years ago). Meaning the whole boundary stuff will re-arise along with issues with the city of BP, etc; etc; etc;
Decisions like the one last fall by MH forcibly removed approximately 30% of the skaters to Champlin while the one back in 2001 by D3 cutoff the Osseo group. The merger with Tri-City helped offset somewhat but it will be another year before numbers go back above 400. Will it be back to nearly 1000 skaters like 9 years ago? Nope, not with the lines being redrawn and boundaries forcibly moving skaters. But it will recover back to the 600 range in a few years.
Things will change in the near future also. BP is still building up like mad but all of the new development falls north of 610 which is Anoka/Hennepin 11, ie: Champlin association. The North Metro affiliation area is one small section in the middle of the city heading south. With Champlin being in D10 with double the registration fees not to mention the TRAVEL as opposed to D3, I forsee Champlin once again petitioning to move to D3 (as they did 2 years ago). Meaning the whole boundary stuff will re-arise along with issues with the city of BP, etc; etc; etc;
-
AAATourney
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:13 am
Yep...stagnant - http://www.d3hockey.org/page/show/16424 ...see standings.
I see.....it appears that records are everything to you at the youth level. Or is it Regional and State appearances? 
Therefore, Orono=stagnant, Armstrong=stagnant, Hopkins=stagnant, SLP=stagnant, Osseo=stagnant.
Wayzata and MG rule all in D3. Which translates to what exactly? Are you looking to stock the trophy shelf? Or feeding the high school (which means the aforementioned schools are all STAGNANT in AA and A and Wayzata and MG are dominating the State Tournament year after year or at least their Sections)? Or giving kids the oppurtunity to play and grow the sport?
I guess since Plymouth is pretty much built out, Wayzata will be stagnant in a couple of years. I mean how can they sustain 1200 skaters year after year when the community isn't growing? When MG is built out will they become stagnant and then you have to head up the 94 corridor to the next "growing" community such as Rogers or STMA.
Therefore, Orono=stagnant, Armstrong=stagnant, Hopkins=stagnant, SLP=stagnant, Osseo=stagnant.
Wayzata and MG rule all in D3. Which translates to what exactly? Are you looking to stock the trophy shelf? Or feeding the high school (which means the aforementioned schools are all STAGNANT in AA and A and Wayzata and MG are dominating the State Tournament year after year or at least their Sections)? Or giving kids the oppurtunity to play and grow the sport?
I guess since Plymouth is pretty much built out, Wayzata will be stagnant in a couple of years. I mean how can they sustain 1200 skaters year after year when the community isn't growing? When MG is built out will they become stagnant and then you have to head up the 94 corridor to the next "growing" community such as Rogers or STMA.
-
AAATourney
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:13 am
Ouch...must have hit a nerve...just pointing the dilemma of saying "hey, how about we join NM who has won 5 games in 2007 or should we go with a program that is having success"?
Could care less about the trophies but the standings are a direct reflection of the effort that is put into the program...very good baseball and other sports so there are athletes in that area...why isn't it transfering to hockey? - hmmm, let me think...
Stagnant doesn't mean size - it means what are they doing to get better!
Could care less about the trophies but the standings are a direct reflection of the effort that is put into the program...very good baseball and other sports so there are athletes in that area...why isn't it transfering to hockey? - hmmm, let me think...
Stagnant doesn't mean size - it means what are they doing to get better!
-
AAATourney
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:13 am
Hey AAA - Based on standings, Maple Grove will become pretty "stagnant" if we start adding more B1 teams and watering down the program to keep all the parents happy. We already have enough, some would argue too many, but now the Osseo side is going to want to make sure their kids don't suffer the "emberassment" of plaing on a B2 team. That attitude reminds me of Participation Trophies!
No...no nerve. That's why I had the confused smilies. Just trying to understand where you're coming from on it is all.
I can only speak for the Bantam A team (last kid almost done wiht youth hockey...yippee!), we lost 4 skaters to Champlin after the boundary resolution. And 4 more moved up to High School after tryouts (Alot of open spots....finally got enough kids to have a JV team. Nobody was cut. Of course, we're on our third high school coach in three years. Ugh.). Kids played hard and they only got blownout twice during season. They had fun.
As for the 6%, alot of us old timers still have a bitter taste in our mouth over that boundary dispute and resolution back in 2000/2001. Not many friends made during that timeframe.
I can only speak for the Bantam A team (last kid almost done wiht youth hockey...yippee!), we lost 4 skaters to Champlin after the boundary resolution. And 4 more moved up to High School after tryouts (Alot of open spots....finally got enough kids to have a JV team. Nobody was cut. Of course, we're on our third high school coach in three years. Ugh.). Kids played hard and they only got blownout twice during season. They had fun.
As for the 6%, alot of us old timers still have a bitter taste in our mouth over that boundary dispute and resolution back in 2000/2001. Not many friends made during that timeframe.
-
whockeyguy
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:56 pm
im confused here, both communities have enough kids, but want to join forces at select levels for what,? sounds like they cant compete so lets form a AAA team of all the communities, is this the going thing in MN Hockey, I can see it if they dont have the kids, but how can they form at diferrenat levels and then not at others, whjos in charge, either they should have ONE assocaition or keep them by themselves, seems to me just some selfish parents agian
-
My_Kid_Loves_Hockey
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:25 am
The whole "selfish parents" comment is really tiring, whenever people don't understand/like what somebody else is doing they throw that out.im confused here, both communities have enough kids, but want to join forces at select levels for what,? sounds like they cant compete so lets form a AAA team of all the communities, is this the going thing in MN Hockey, I can see it if they dont have the kids, but how can they form at diferrenat levels and then not at others, whjos in charge, either they should have ONE assocaition or keep them by themselves, seems to me just some selfish parents agian
Osseo/Maple Grove was a single association back in the day...was it selfish parents that made the split then too?
-
Jimmy Dean
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:04 pm
Recently I overheard several parents and acting O/MG board members imply the lack of trust between the two groups.( O vs MG ) They seemed to think the business relationship would never work. So I was very surprised when I read about this merger. My hope is that these groups do work together and they can field some very solid teams for 2008 and the future. Does anybody close to the situation know if the high school coach's from either of the 2 associations were happy with this decision to merge. Good Luck to the new program.
The coaches were NOT in support of this merger...here is the problem with that - both of these two coaches have taken very little effort (if not zero effort) in getting involved in the respective associations...but then when it comes time where a decision might affect them then they want to be able to control the outcome...too bad - get involved in the association, get to know the kids, help implement concepts you want to have the squirts, peewees and bantams learn and then and only then do you get to have a voice.
PS: this would only take 10 to 15 hours a year to do.
PS: this would only take 10 to 15 hours a year to do.
-
whockeyguy
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:56 pm
There are many more issues that go into a merge like this than numbers of kids, etc.
For instance, Parent Power...in the case of Osseo, with their numbers down it gets harder and harder to run an association. Parents get caught up in the administration in smaller associations and tend to miss the hockey development boat because they are spending most of their time administering. District responsibilities, tournament volunteering, running the program, concessions, etc. with limited volunteers burns out everyone.
Player Development - Smaller associations need to provide competitive product in the marketplace. When an association is not providing 'product', it risks losing higher level players to the Fire, Choice Leagues, or at the Bantam levels - JV or Varsity - thus further weakening their program's competitiveness. In this case, by Osseo being with MG, the two associations can provide STP, 3 on 3 sessions, and other programming that increase the development while reducing costs (instead of running parallel programming, they now work together).
Appropriate Placement of Players - Does a third line "A" player in a small association develop more playing on a weak "A" team where he rarely touches the puck, has a +/- in the -50's, is the team pariah because everytime he hits the ice something goes wrong....or is that player better on a "B1" team where he can touch a puck, learn to be a leader, get powerplay/penalty killing time and practice, score goals, and develop confidence? I am sure that there will be a lot of former "A" player's parents upset at tryouts with this merger when their kid makes "B1", but it will be the best thing for the kid's development for him/her to skate at their appropriate skill level. By adding numbers, kids get placed at their appropriate skill level where they can develop and succeed in the future.
Preparing kids for high school no matter where the kids choose to go to school - Way too often we hear of high school coaches controlling the local associations or influencing tryouts so that they can make sure that kids that will be attending the public high school get the positions on the top teams rather than the kids that may be going to a private or attending school outside of the district. The main role of youth hockey should be to develop hockey players NO MATTER where they will attend high school. A merger like the Osseo/MG merger will require that high school politics get thrown out and kids make teams based on skills and merits. Isn't this the way it should be anyways?
This is my two cents on why it makes sense for Osseo to join Maple Grove. It is the best thing for the kids and their development long term. The kids will have more fun and will enjoy the game whether they are an "A", "B", or a "C". It will be a hassle for the first year as parents from both associations learn to 'trust' each other and the processes, but long term all will be better.
My main suggestion....rebrand your program as a joint program - new uniforms, new look, new logo. Kids will buy into it faster and the parents will follow once they see that their kids have pride in their team and the new 'brand'.
For instance, Parent Power...in the case of Osseo, with their numbers down it gets harder and harder to run an association. Parents get caught up in the administration in smaller associations and tend to miss the hockey development boat because they are spending most of their time administering. District responsibilities, tournament volunteering, running the program, concessions, etc. with limited volunteers burns out everyone.
Player Development - Smaller associations need to provide competitive product in the marketplace. When an association is not providing 'product', it risks losing higher level players to the Fire, Choice Leagues, or at the Bantam levels - JV or Varsity - thus further weakening their program's competitiveness. In this case, by Osseo being with MG, the two associations can provide STP, 3 on 3 sessions, and other programming that increase the development while reducing costs (instead of running parallel programming, they now work together).
Appropriate Placement of Players - Does a third line "A" player in a small association develop more playing on a weak "A" team where he rarely touches the puck, has a +/- in the -50's, is the team pariah because everytime he hits the ice something goes wrong....or is that player better on a "B1" team where he can touch a puck, learn to be a leader, get powerplay/penalty killing time and practice, score goals, and develop confidence? I am sure that there will be a lot of former "A" player's parents upset at tryouts with this merger when their kid makes "B1", but it will be the best thing for the kid's development for him/her to skate at their appropriate skill level. By adding numbers, kids get placed at their appropriate skill level where they can develop and succeed in the future.
Preparing kids for high school no matter where the kids choose to go to school - Way too often we hear of high school coaches controlling the local associations or influencing tryouts so that they can make sure that kids that will be attending the public high school get the positions on the top teams rather than the kids that may be going to a private or attending school outside of the district. The main role of youth hockey should be to develop hockey players NO MATTER where they will attend high school. A merger like the Osseo/MG merger will require that high school politics get thrown out and kids make teams based on skills and merits. Isn't this the way it should be anyways?
This is my two cents on why it makes sense for Osseo to join Maple Grove. It is the best thing for the kids and their development long term. The kids will have more fun and will enjoy the game whether they are an "A", "B", or a "C". It will be a hassle for the first year as parents from both associations learn to 'trust' each other and the processes, but long term all will be better.
My main suggestion....rebrand your program as a joint program - new uniforms, new look, new logo. Kids will buy into it faster and the parents will follow once they see that their kids have pride in their team and the new 'brand'.
-
whockeyguy
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:56 pm
so can anybody tell me the numbers, seems everybody has an opinion but what are the facts of the numbers, SW prez, with all due respect, the numbers are the main thing here, mant assocaitions outside the metrocan not combine associations unless the numbers are dropping, do you think Elk River and Rogers should rejoin to one because they havent got to the state lately, if the parents of any assocaition dont want to put in the time , then i guess the get what they put in to it
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
The numbers I found are on the MSHSL web site.
Grades 9-12 for the 2007-08 school year
Maple Grove 2444 - average per grade 611
Osseo 2104 - average per grade 526
Here are some of the high schools around the same size.
White Bear Lake--2476
Woodbury High----2475
Hopkins ----------- 2470
Maple Grove------ 2444
Chaska ----------- 2426
Anoka------------- 2375
Eagan--------------2351
Forest Lake ------ 2299
Edina-------------- 2232
Park -------------- -2226
Eastview -----------2211
Apple Valley------ -2180
Centennial ---------2162
Osseo High-------- 2104
Armstrong ---------2087
Roseville Area------2007
Rosemount -------- 1978
Grades 9-12 for the 2007-08 school year
Maple Grove 2444 - average per grade 611
Osseo 2104 - average per grade 526
Here are some of the high schools around the same size.
White Bear Lake--2476
Woodbury High----2475
Hopkins ----------- 2470
Maple Grove------ 2444
Chaska ----------- 2426
Anoka------------- 2375
Eagan--------------2351
Forest Lake ------ 2299
Edina-------------- 2232
Park -------------- -2226
Eastview -----------2211
Apple Valley------ -2180
Centennial ---------2162
Osseo High-------- 2104
Armstrong ---------2087
Roseville Area------2007
Rosemount -------- 1978
do you think Elk River and Rogers should rejoin to one because they havent got to the state lately, if the parents of any assocaition dont want to put in the time , then i guess the get what they put in to it
Combined, OMGHA will still be smaller in player numbers than Wayzata, Edina and White Bear Lake. These associations only field one A team and dominate surrounding associations.
If associations combined are still smaller then neighboring associations, why aren't people asking to split the larger associations instead of arguing against the combo?