BRECK CLASS A CHAMPIONS

[Mite-dad]

If academics is the backbone of the institution, why are they even recruiting hockey players. They should focus on nerds with IQs of 150. Obviously athletic dominance is also a very important, although denied, priority of these institutions. Probably because it increases the amount of money they can charge students to come. Money talks.

1. Define "recruiting." That's a very vague charge. What circumstances constitue recruiting, and why exactly are these ones bad?
2. Irrelevant, but IQ tests are among the dumbest things ever invented by anyone.
3. (Related to #2) It takes more than a bunch of smart kids to make a good community.
4. (Just looking for clarification) How does athletic performance of a school drive tuition? I'm not sure that I see the correlation.

With the recent success of private schools recently in both classes, I see the problem getting worse.

IF you look at it that way (saying that this is a "problem"), I guess I agree...so long as private schools continue to offer better environments than public schools. But that's getting into a policy debate that we should probably avoid.

Even if we buy that premise, though, and we're out to prevent privates from gaining even more players, we have to ask, how can we best do that? Honestly, it's probably the system we have right now. Giving them their own exclusive class or forcing them up to AA will only increase exposure. Actually, the only thing that might work to decrease their "recruiting potential" would be ending the opt-out clause and forcing all of them but CDH to play single-A. But if you do that, you lose Roseau, GR, DE, Cloquet, and Bemidji from AA too, and suddenly the A tournament is looking just as strong as the AA one, which might just defeat the whole purpose.

1. Define "recruiting." That's a very vague charge. What circumstances constitue recruiting, and why exactly are these ones bad?

I don't know what to call it. If it isn't recruiting I guess it would be "drawing" talent????

2. Irrelevant, but IQ tests are among the dumbest things ever invented by anyone.
3. (Related to #2) It takes more than a bunch of smart kids to make a good community.

It also takes more than a bunch of elite athletes to make a good community. I understand that athletics is an important extracurriculur activity at a school and is important for providing a well-rounded experience for students. However, you can provide that w/o garnering all the best talent from around the area. I see much more motivation by the school than to just provide a well-rounded education. I would be interested in seeing the goals of the athletic programs of these institutions.

4. (Just looking for clarification) How does athletic performance of a school drive tuition? I'm not sure that I see the correlation.

I assume that a great hockey (or other sports) program is very desireable for a lot of parents. They are willing to pay a lot of money to get their child in a great program for exposure and for the experience. If the demand is there, I suspect the school could increase their tuition to take advantage of parents that desire this for their kids. Does that make sense? I would be very surprised if the average socio-economic status of private school hockey families wasn't significantly higher than the average status of public school hockey families.

[DotaDangler]

If academics is the backbone of the institution, why are they even recruiting hockey players. They should focus on nerds with IQs of 150. Obviously athletic dominance is also a very important, although denied, priority of these institutions. Probably because it increases the amount of money they can charge students to come. Money talks.

1. Define "recruiting." That's a very vague charge. What circumstances constitue recruiting, and why exactly are these ones bad?
2. Irrelevant, but IQ tests are among the dumbest things ever invented by anyone.
3. (Related to #2) It takes more than a bunch of smart kids to make a good community.
4. (Just looking for clarification) How does athletic performance of a school drive tuition? I'm not sure that I see the correlation.

With the recent success of private schools recently in both classes, I see the problem getting worse.

IF you look at it that way (saying that this is a "problem"), I guess I agree...so long as private schools continue to offer better environments than public schools. But that's getting into a policy debate that we should probably avoid.

Even if we buy that premise, though, and we're out to prevent privates from gaining even more players, we have to ask, how can we best do that? Honestly, it's probably the system we have right now. Giving them their own exclusive class or forcing them up to AA will only increase exposure. Actually, the only thing that might work to decrease their "recruiting potential" would be ending the opt-out clause and forcing all of them but CDH to play single-A. But if you do that, you lose Roseau, GR, DE, Cloquet, and Bemidji from AA too, and suddenly the A tournament is looking just as strong as the AA one, which might just defeat the whole purpose.

1. Define "recruiting." That's a very vague charge. What circumstances constitue recruiting, and why exactly are these ones bad?

I don't know what to call it. If it isn't recruiting I guess it would be "drawing" talent????

2. Irrelevant, but IQ tests are among the dumbest things ever invented by anyone.
3. (Related to #2) It takes more than a bunch of smart kids to make a good community.

It also takes more than a bunch of elite athletes to make a good community. I understand that athletics is an important extracurriculur activity at a school and is important for providing a well-rounded experience for students. However, you can provide that w/o garnering all the best talent from around the area. I see much more motivation by the school than to just provide a well-rounded education. I would be interested in seeing the goals of the athletic programs of these institutions.

4. (Just looking for clarification) How does athletic performance of a school drive tuition? I'm not sure that I see the correlation.

I assume that a great hockey (or other sports) program is very desireable for a lot of parents. They are willing to pay a lot of money to get their child in a great program for exposure and for the experience. If the demand is there, I suspect the school could increase their tuition to take advantage of parents that desire this for their kids. Does that make sense? I would be very surprised if the average socio-economic status of private school hockey families wasn't significantly higher than the average status of public school hockey families.

I see where you are coming from, but schools like SPA and Minnehaha have horrible hockey teams and their tuition is more than STA or Cretin. And I think there are plenty of hockey families from Jefferson, Minnetonka, Edina, Eden Prairie, Woodbury, etc... who have just as high of an economic status. Hockey is a very expensive and time consuming sport.

[karl(east)]

I don't know what to call it. If it isn't recruiting I guess it would be "drawing" talent????

I think this is the heart of the problem. A lot of people are complaining about recruiting when we don't even have a clear concept of what recruiting is.

Is it coaches going into public schools to get kids? If so, is this bad, and why? Can you provide any evidence that it happens?
Is it offering money to student-athletes? If so, is this bad, and why?
Can it have anything to do with facilities, or quality of coaching, or the school itself? If so, are these bad, and why?

These are the sort of questions that need to be answered for the argument against private schools to make any sense.

It also takes more than a bunch of elite athletes to make a good community. I understand that athletics is an important extracurriculur activity at a school and is important for providing a well-rounded experience for students. However, you can provide that w/o garnering all the best talent from around the area. I see much more motivation by the school than to just provide a well-rounded education. I would be interested in seeing the goals of the athletic programs of these institutions.

Perhaps...but then why are most of them content to play single-A?
Also, I don't think any privates are garnering "all" the best talent in an area. Most of the good ones are in areas with very deep hockey programs, and the public schools in these areas are still very competitive. EP lots a bunch of people to privates but still won a state title. Breck, Blake, AHA, and BSM are all in that west metro area, there are some good programs around STA and CDH, WBL is still pretty good despite being close enough to share a rink with Hill, and Duluth East is still better than Marshall in most years despite essentially sharing a feeder program. Private schools only seem to be good at hockey in places where there's a demand for more oppportunities for high school hockey.

I assume that a great hockey (or other sports) program is very desireable for a lot of parents. They are willing to pay a lot of money to get their child in a great program for exposure and for the experience. If the demand is there, I suspect the school could increase their tuition to take advantage of parents that desire this for their kids. Does that make sense?

It makes some sense the way you're describing it, but I'm not buying it. Why? Size is one thing. Let's say a private school really is reeling a bunch of hockey players...say they've pulled in as many as 10 kids whose sole motivation for attending this school is hockey-related, which is quite a lot when you think about it. But that's ten out of an enrollment somewhere between 400 (Breck) and 1300 (CDH). Even on the lower end, 10/400 is not enough to drive tuition prices.

I would be very surprised if the average socio-economic status of private school hockey families wasn't significantly higher than the average status of public school hockey families.

The problem with the last line is that, again, the same criticisms can be leveled against public schools. Look at where the deepest and best hockey programs are in the metro area, or even in Duluth, and then take a look at the incomes in those areas compared to the others.

The exceptions to this are the small towns across the state where hockey is so ingrained in the culture that socioeconomics don't matter that much. But there are no private schools in these areas "competing" for these hockey players. We need to realize that the public-private dynamic is VERY different in the metro area from the rest of the state.

[WayOutWest]

Is it coaches going into public schools to get kids? If so, is this bad, and why? Can you provide any evidence that it happens?
Is it offering money to student-athletes? If so, is this bad, and why?
Can it have anything to do with facilities, or quality of coaching, or the school itself? If so, are these bad, and why?

Evidence? Yep. Breck!!!! Take a look at where their hockey kids have come from.
Is providing money/perks to these kids bad? No, but it provides a competitive advantage that most high schools do not have at their disposal.
Facilities? Coaching? School itself? YES!! But then I believe you previously tried to argue that the schools are no different. Please make up your mind.

Private schools only seem to be good at hockey in places where there's a demand for more oppportunities for high school hockey.

Pfffftttttt...........complete misnomer. Almost all private schools which place a premium on athletics are in the metro. That's just where the money is.
It has nothing to do with a "demand for more hockey opportunities."

It makes some sense the way you're describing it, but I'm not buying it. Why? Size is one thing. Let's say a private school really is reeling a bunch of hockey players...say they've pulled in as many as 10 kids whose sole motivation for attending this school is hockey-related, which is quite a lot when you think about it. But that's ten out of an enrollment somewhere between 400 (Breck) and 1300 (CDH). Even on the lower end, 10/400 is not enough to drive tuition prices.

Ten good hockey players bringing home a state title gets a LOT of attention in this state. Getting the school name out there, and with some notoriety is invaluable!!!!

We need to realize that the public-private dynamic is VERY different in the metro area from the rest of the state.

Yep, you got one right. Private schools, outstate, rarely make hockey a priority. Many, in the metro do.

[WayOutWest]

Giving them their own exclusive class or forcing them up to AA will only increase exposure. Actually, the only thing that might work to decrease their "recruiting potential" would be ending the opt-out clause and forcing all of them but CDH to play single-A. But if you do that, you lose Roseau, GR, DE, Cloquet, and Bemidji from AA too, and suddenly the A tournament is looking just as strong as the AA one, which might just defeat the whole purpose.

There are WAY too many assumptions, in this statement.
There is ZERO evidence that creation of a private school class will have ANY affect on "recruiting potential" at all.
Do you really think there are enough private schools that make hockey a priority to make a private school class preferable to kids than AA in this state?
The MSHSL has given private schools the opportunity to gain some notoriety, through hockey. They can easily take it away, too.
This state cares WAY too much about their public high school hockey to ever see a network of Shattuck's prosper.

[DotaDangler]

Giving them their own exclusive class or forcing them up to AA will only increase exposure. Actually, the only thing that might work to decrease their "recruiting potential" would be ending the opt-out clause and forcing all of them but CDH to play single-A. But if you do that, you lose Roseau, GR, DE, Cloquet, and Bemidji from AA too, and suddenly the A tournament is looking just as strong as the AA one, which might just defeat the whole purpose.

There are WAY too many assumptions, in this statement.
There is ZERO evidence that creation of a private school class will have ANY affect on "recruiting potential" at all.
Do you really think there are enough private schools that make hockey a priority to make a private school class preferable to kids than AA in this state?
The MSHSL has given private schools the opportunity to gain some notoriety, through hockey. They can easily take it away, too.
This state cares WAY too much about their public high school hockey to ever see a network of Shattuck's prosper.

YES. People complain about top talent being taken away by class A private schools like Breck and STA, why would this change if all the privates played in the same league?

[WayOutWest]

YES. People complain about top talent being taken away by class A private schools like Breck and STA, why would this change if all the privates played in the same league?

It might not. But that was not my complaint.
Personally, I was merely pushing for a level playing field. Privates mixed with publics will never produce such.
Karl was supposing that if a private school class were implemented, that MORE kids would migrate to private schools. I see mostly a Breck/Hill/STA/CDH/Benilde class. I don't see that many more privates investing as much effort into their hockey programs as these schools, making such a class actually not as attractive as playing in Class A or AA, today, against the public schools.

[karl(east)]

Oh dear. Where to start?

Evidence? Yep. Breck!!!! Take a look at where their hockey kids have come from.

1. By "evidence," I was asking for direct evidence that coaches are going into schools and recruiting kids. Saying "people came from a bunch of different places" does not do this. You also did not answer whether this is good or bad.

providing money/perks to these kids bad? No, but it provides a competitive advantage that most high schools do not have at their disposal.

Um, public schools are free, so I don't see exactly where they a competitive advantage in this regard vs. schools that make people pay to attend them.

Facilities? Coaching? School itself? YES!! But then I believe you previously tried to argue that the schools are no different. Please make up your mind.

I wasn't arguing that they're no different, I was arguing that the playing field was more level than it was being made out to be by some people (can't remember if that included you or not). And again, this is something publics can do well just as well too.

Ten good hockey players bringing home a state title gets a LOT of attention in this state. Getting the school name out there, and with some notoriety is invaluable!!!!

I think this is overestimating the role of high school hockey quite a bit. There are a heck of a lot of people out there, even in Minnesota, who couldn't care less about hockey, and a lot of these are probably parents of the kids who constitute the vast majority of the student body at private schools. No one out there is going to raise tuition because the hockey team is good.

Pfffftttttt...........complete misnomer. Almost all private schools which place a premium on athletics are in the metro. That's just where the money is.
It has nothing to do with a "demand for more hockey opportunities."

Yep, you got one right. Private schools, outstate, rarely make hockey a priority. Many, in the metro do.

As I've shown in previous posts "where the money is" and "where the best hockey schools are" happen to be the same places, and this is really not a coincidence.

A lot of outstate privates simply aren't big enough to manage a good hockey program, or much of any major athletic department...it has to do with numbers, not a priority issue. There are 3 exceptions: SCC, Duluth Marshall, and Rochester Lourdes. As I've shown with Marshall, it is where both the money and the demand are. I don't know enough about SCC's situation, or Lourdes's, but there are a lot of messed-up things with Rochester hockey, so I wouldn't use them as an example.


A private school class would include:
1. Breck
2. STA
3. Holy Angels
4. Cretin
5. SCC
6. Hill-Murray
7. Benilde
8. Lourdes
(That would be your state tournament, this year at least. It's stronger than the A field, and not all that far behind the AA one).
9. Marshall
10. Totino-Grace
11. Blake
12. SPA
13. Providence
14. Holy Family Catholic
15. Minnehaha
16. Meadow Creek Christian

That's it. Questions this prompts:
1. How on earth would you work section tournaments with a field of 16? Eight sections of 2? 4 sections of 4, with a back-door for the 2nd place finisher? We also lucked into an incredibly round number...what happens if another private adds a hockey program, or one of the above folds?
2. (Relating to the earlier charge that an all-private class wouldn't make private schools more appealing) You've got a system where there are 11 teams that could realistically go to a state tournament. That means 8 out of 11 make it. Some of them are going to make it every single year. If you're a high-school hockey player, wouldn't you jump at the opportunity to make state every single year? I know I would. The odds of playing at the X jump so much higher under this setup. Again, more exposure, and more kids coming to privates.

I suppose you could say in response to 1 and 2, "make it a 4-team tournament" or something like that. But still, sections would be a joke and logistically unfair to the 3 outstate privates. And something tells me the privates wouldn't be all too happy with this setup.

3. Also, by a quick count, there are at least 13 high school programs that are co-ops that include both publics and privates. None of these are any good; they co-op to just form a team. What on earth do we do with them under your system? Force them into the private tourney to get killed, thereby "punishing" the public parts of the co-ops? Allow them into the public tourneys, thereby saying only some private schools are to be forced into separate classes? That might seem like the best option, but what about Lourdes, which co-ops with a couple of places named Stewartville and Chatfield? Do we say they have to break up, and deny kids opportunities to play?

4. And, of course, the most pressing question...who would all of us public school supporters have left to root against?

If you can come up with a format that makes more sense than that, I'd love to see it. We'd also need to see what this does to AA and A, to judge if it's really any good.

[Mite-dad]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

[karl(east)]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

The thing is, I am pretty convinced that the system we have right now holds down privates more than any other available option. Forcing them up to AA would increase their recruiting potential, forcing them down to A would make A even more private-dominated than it is, and with their own class, well, a private would win the state tourney 10/10 years, along with the concerns raised above.

Also, I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to why the private situation is any different from the public schools that have more resources at their disposal. All I'm getting is this vague, "well, they recruit," without any description of what this recruiting is like and why specifically this sort of case is bad.

[MNHockeyFan]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

When you say "even the playing field" what does this mean exactly? The implication you make is that something (like a rule change of some sort) must be done to make some of the private schools' teams not as good as they've become. This in effect would "lower the bar" so that public schools have a better chance to win. But when you lower the bar in an attempt to make it easier to have success (in any endeavor) you end up not raising overall quality. On the other hand when you raise the bar all competitors must work harder and make changes for the better when necessary in order to come out on top. As a result the overall quality of play is made better and everyone benefits. And remember that no matter what you do you'll still only have one overall winner in each class every year.

P.S. I don't recall hearing the private schools complain that the MSHSL should "level the playing field" in the 20 years before 2000! These things go in cycles, and if the top private school programs don't continue to do all the things that make them attractive to prospective athletes the "problem" as you see it will take care of itself.

[bigcarl]

what do u know, daddy pays a lil money and you win a state tourny. must be nice ya cake eaters

[Mite-dad]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

The thing is, I am pretty convinced that the system we have right now holds down privates more than any other available option. Forcing them up to AA would increase their recruiting potential, forcing them down to A would make A even more private-dominated than it is, and with their own class, well, a private would win the state tourney 10/10 years, along with the concerns raised above.

Also, I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation as to why the private situation is any different from the public schools that have more resources at their disposal. All I'm getting is this vague, "well, they recruit," without any description of what this recruiting is like and why specifically this sort of case is bad.

I kind of disagree with you. If that were true, they'd opt up already. Perhaps some sort of distance limitation where hockey players could come from would be effective. Then, if the reason for moving to the school is for academics, allow the kid to attend school there, but make him play hockey in his resident school district. Or make them develop their own youth programs.

[Mite-dad]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

When you say "even the playing field" what does this mean exactly? The implication you make is that something (like a rule change of some sort) must be done to make some of the private schools' teams not as good as they've become. This in effect would "lower the bar" so that public schools have a better chance to win. But when you lower the bar in an attempt to make it easier to have success (in any endeavor) you end up not raising overall quality. On the other hand when you raise the bar all competitors must work harder and make changes for the better when necessary in order to come out on top. As a result the overall quality of play is made better and everyone benefits. And remember that no matter what you do you'll still only have one overall winner in each class every year.

P.S. I don't recall hearing the private schools complain that the MSHSL should "level the playing field" in the 20 years before 2000! These things go in cycles, and if the top private school programs don't continue to do all the things that make them attractive to prospective athletes the "problem" as you see it will take care of itself.

The problem is that if the talent is unevenly distributed, you can't rise up to compete.

[DotaDangler]

Something needs to be dreamed up by the MSHSL to even the playing field. Privates have won 11 of 20 state titles in both classes combined since 2000. In A, it's 7/10. Does that sound like an even playing field? It doesn't to me.

When you say "even the playing field" what does this mean exactly? The implication you make is that something (like a rule change of some sort) must be done to make some of the private schools' teams not as good as they've become. This in effect would "lower the bar" so that public schools have a better chance to win. But when you lower the bar in an attempt to make it easier to have success (in any endeavor) you end up not raising overall quality. On the other hand when you raise the bar all competitors must work harder and make changes for the better when necessary in order to come out on top. As a result the overall quality of play is made better and everyone benefits. And remember that no matter what you do you'll still only have one overall winner in each class every year.

P.S. I don't recall hearing the private schools complain that the MSHSL should "level the playing field" in the 20 years before 2000! These things go in cycles, and if the top private school programs don't continue to do all the things that make them attractive to prospective athletes the "problem" as you see it will take care of itself.

The problem is that if the talent is unevenly distributed, you can't rise up to compete.

You make it sound like all public schools have the same amount of talent and resources, which is completely false. Schools like Edina and Minnetonka have five times as much money as other public schools because of enormous property taxes in their areas. Just like private schools they have more money and more reasons to attract good players. Talent is always unevenly distributed, its called life, deal with it.

[Mite-dad]

When you say "even the playing field" what does this mean exactly? The implication you make is that something (like a rule change of some sort) must be done to make some of the private schools' teams not as good as they've become. This in effect would "lower the bar" so that public schools have a better chance to win. But when you lower the bar in an attempt to make it easier to have success (in any endeavor) you end up not raising overall quality. On the other hand when you raise the bar all competitors must work harder and make changes for the better when necessary in order to come out on top. As a result the overall quality of play is made better and everyone benefits. And remember that no matter what you do you'll still only have one overall winner in each class every year.

P.S. I don't recall hearing the private schools complain that the MSHSL should "level the playing field" in the 20 years before 2000! These things go in cycles, and if the top private school programs don't continue to do all the things that make them attractive to prospective athletes the "problem" as you see it will take care of itself.

The problem is that if the talent is unevenly distributed, you can't rise up to compete.

You make it sound like all public schools have the same amount of talent and resources, which is completely false. Schools like Edina and Minnetonka have five times as much money as other public schools because of enormous property taxes in their areas. Just like private schools they have more money and more reasons to attract good players. Talent is always unevenly distributed, its called life, deal with it.

I agree, but how many of their players come from outside of their jurisdiction? And when was the last time either of these teams won a championship? Face it, private schools can further concentrate the talent even above the best public programs.

[flatontheice]

The problem is that if the talent is unevenly distributed, you can't rise up to compete.

You make it sound like all public schools have the same amount of talent and resources, which is completely false. Schools like Edina and Minnetonka have five times as much money as other public schools because of enormous property taxes in their areas. Just like private schools they have more money and more reasons to attract good players. Talent is always unevenly distributed, its called life, deal with it.

I agree, but how many of their players come from outside of their jurisdiction? And when was the last time either of these teams won a championship? Face it, private schools can further concentrate the talent even above the best public programs.

Where is Grant Besse going next year?

[deacon]

what do u know, daddy pays a lil money and you win a state tourny. must be nice ya cake eaters

Boy, it's so easy isn't it?

[karl(east)]

I agree, but how many of their players come from outside of their jurisdiction? And when was the last time either of these teams won a championship? Face it, private schools can further concentrate the talent even above the best public programs.

Eden Prairie is in this category too. They just won a state championship, despite having something like 4 very good players playing in other places. Sounds like an embarrassment of riches to me.

I kind of disagree with you. If that were true, they'd opt up already. Perhaps some sort of distance limitation where hockey players could come from would be effective. Then, if the reason for moving to the school is for academics, allow the kid to attend school there, but make him play hockey in his resident school district. Or make them develop their own youth programs.

On the first point, perhaps it's because these schools have priorities other than hockey, as several of us have been saying all along.

A distance limitation...maaaybe. But how do you do that? The size of a city? There are also transportation issues here...say, traveling to school at Benilde in St. Louis Park, going to hockey practice in Brooklyn Park for the North Metro team, and going back to one's home community of Columbia Heights. What happens in the case of the player whose family has some disagreement with the head coach at school X and thus sends their kid to school Y because they want nothing to do with him? (Yes, this has happened)

That debate would end up at the following question: Which is more important, competitive balance or allowing individuals to go to the school and/or play for the hockey program that they want to?

[karl(east)]

Here's another little game to play.

I'm thinking of a school. By any measure, it has been the most successful single-A program since we went to 2 classes. Its track record on the state level was decent, but not all that impressive prior to the 2-class split. This program is noted for having players come from incredibly far places to play hockey for it. It has its own new, gorgeous facility that it does not have to share with any other high school. It's had some pretty good coaches come through there too.

1. What is this school?
2. Is there anything wrong with the way this school has operated its hockey program?

[Goldy Gopher]

Here's another little game to play.

I'm thinking of a school. By any measure, it has been the most successful single-A program since we went to 2 classes. Its track record on the state level was decent, but not all that impressive prior to the 2-class split. This program is noted for having players come from incredibly far places to play hockey for it. It has its own new, gorgeous facility that it does not have to share with any other high school. It's had some pretty good coaches come through there too.

1. What is this school?
2. Is there anything wrong with the way this school has operated its hockey program?

Warroad?

[karl(east)]

Here's another little game to play.

I'm thinking of a school. By any measure, it has been the most successful single-A program since we went to 2 classes. Its track record on the state level was decent, but not all that impressive prior to the 2-class split. This program is noted for having players come from incredibly far places to play hockey for it. It has its own new, gorgeous facility that it does not have to share with any other high school. It's had some pretty good coaches come through there too.

1. What is this school?
2. Is there anything wrong with the way this school has operated its hockey program?

Warroad?

Yep.
Any of those criticizing the current system care to tackle #2?

[Goldy Gopher]

Here's another little game to play.

I'm thinking of a school. By any measure, it has been the most successful single-A program since we went to 2 classes. Its track record on the state level was decent, but not all that impressive prior to the 2-class split. This program is noted for having players come from incredibly far places to play hockey for it. It has its own new, gorgeous facility that it does not have to share with any other high school. It's had some pretty good coaches come through there too.

1. What is this school?
2. Is there anything wrong with the way this school has operated its hockey program?

Warroad?

Yep.
Any of those criticizing the current system care to tackle #2?

I'm not criticizing but I'll give it a shot.

No. There isn't anything wrong with the way it has been operated.

[karl(east)]

Warroad?

Yep.
Any of those criticizing the current system care to tackle #2?

I'm not criticizing but I'll give it a shot.

No. There isn't anything wrong with the way it has been operated.

I'd agree. It'll be interesting to see what they think, though.

[Goldy Gopher]

Yep.
Any of those criticizing the current system care to tackle #2?

I'm not criticizing but I'll give it a shot.

No. There isn't anything wrong with the way it has been operated.

I'd agree. It'll be interesting to see what they think, though.

Maybe they'll realize they're over-matched.