BRECK CLASS A CHAMPIONS

[WayOutWest]

i have a question....
what is so bad about recruiting?
Is it that these schools are recruiting or is that they are winning that is bothering all of you?
Is it the "fairness" of the issue, or is it that you all feel cheated when a kid plays in your youth league but then leaves for a private school?
i guess it was a few questions.....

It's just an "unlevel playing field" thing for me, Chief.
More power to the kids for garnering a better educational experience, but we should acknowledge that certain schools can, and do take full advantage of this tool that no public school has, to field better hockey teams.

[karl(east)]

Second, I would have to say that private schools, or at least Breck, is worse. I say this because I was talking to a Warroad player who happened to attend a camp with someone who played for Breck. The Breck player told him that he did not have to pay the tuition, like most players on the team don't(or at least on a lower scale), because someone pays it for him and his family. They said it was the person who helped pay for their arena.
Third, if someone honestly believes that the level of education is equal between a public and private school they are delusional. Use common sense, people don't pay up to $26,000 for something they could get for their property taxes.
Finally, I just want to be clear. I have no problem with kids who are attracted to play at a certain program because they are succcessful, whether the school is public or private. That is the players decsion and I find it hard to be mad at the school for that. I do have a problem when kids are recruited and are given special insentives to play there.

Eggs-ZACK-ed-lee !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But this just highlights the "unlevel playing field" argument. When kids and their parents can be attracted to receiving a 26K yearly perk, and a better educational experience, that is one heck of a weapon that no public school has in its arsenal.
I don't blame kids for taking the offer either. It just isn't fair to then place teams made up of such kids in the same class as public school kids.

This is missing the point, though.

I brought up Warroad because I wanted to point out that there are plenty of public schools that have way more resources at their disposal for fielding quality hockey programs than others (and no, I hadn't even heard of these scholarships). I find it a bit odd that the advantages private schools may have are immediately seen as problems that need addressing, but advantages within the public system are never mentioned.

[karl(east)]

1) Private School Class - 16 teams sounds fine. There's nothing difficult, here. And perhaps 4 go to state. Who cares? Is that an added incentive for kids to migrate to private schools, because they have a great chance to appear in state? Doubtful. It's a 16 team class. Big deal.
Would it be a "joke?" Would the privates not be happy? Private schools are all about better educational opportunities, or a parochial education, right? We're only talking about hockey, here.

2) Co-ops - Private school class. As long as your co-op still owns the benefits of a private school, even for only half or a third of your team, you have advantages over and above public schools. Co-op with another public instead, if you like.

3) Who would the public school supporters root against? Unless you live in the city limits of Edina, I can think of one particular school that might be a popular option. Other than that, I am sure you'll think of something.

4) What would this do to A or AA? Are you going to try and argue that all good hockey talent would then migrate to private schools? You're not serious, are you?

1. In your #1, you say "16 teams is fine," then in point 2 you say you need to add over ten more programs to the private class. Okay.

Considering the MSHSL adopted a new transfer rule very recently to prevent kids from "shopping around for a state championship," I think it is a very real concern that kids would transfer to a private for a shot at State. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say that the opportunity of playing in a state tourney is the #1 thing driving most of the kids who play hockey in MN. If an easier route comes along, why not take it?

"Private schools are only about education"--you're contradicting yourself here. No one is naive enough to believe that some privates don't care more about hockey than others, just as some public schools care about hockey more than others.

"We're only talking about hockey here"--this is very wrong, and a key point. Your argument is that, by virtue of being private schools, private schools have advantages that publics do not. If that is the case, it applies to every sport, not just hockey. Yep, that private school 1-Act Play Tournament should be thrilling, seeing as they have the advantages in bringing in actors no one else has. I'm also trying to picture a state tourney football game between Cretin and Duluth Marshall. That could be flat-out dangerous.

2. "Co-op with another public, if you like"--well, then what's the private supposed to do if it can't field a team on its own?

These are the teams you have just added to the original private field of 17:

-Becker-Big Lake (includes Rivers Christian Academy)
-Faribault (includes Bethlehem Academy)
-Farmington (includes Christian Life School, MN Academy for the Deaf)
-Fairmont (includes Martin Luther School)
-Greenway (includes Cloverdale Christian School)
-Mankato East (includes Mankato Loyola)
-New Ulm (includes New Ulm Cathedral, Minnesota Valley Lutheran)
-Osseo (includes Heritage Christian Academy)...my bad, there is one decent program that co-ops with a private
-River Lakes (includes St. John's Prep)
-Rogers (includes Maranatha Christian Academy)
-Sleepy Eye (includes St. Mary's of Sleepy Eye)
-Winona (includes Hope Lutheran)

If some of these schools are really publics hiding behind private-sounding names, or if there are more privates out there hiding behind public-sounding names, let me know. Also, I don't know what you think of charter schools, which can have some advantages in drawing students too. That would add a few more.

We're up to 29 schools now. So it'd be 4 sections of 8-9, or 8 sections of 4. Workable, I guess. But there's a rather large gap between the top tier of schools this tournament is designed for and the much larger group of worse teams. There's little to no middle ground.

3. I hope you realize this was not a serious question.

4. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you're taking 30 teams out of the A/AA system, which is probably cause for a massive realignment. I'd want to see how that works out.

And related to that, a warning...if there are less than 128 teams in a sport, there will only be 1 class. We'd be almost exactly on the line for that with the privates taken out.

These are the difficult questions that have to be asked when wholesale changes are proposed to the system.

[WayOutWest]

1) Private School Class - 16 teams sounds fine. There's nothing difficult, here. And perhaps 4 go to state. Who cares? Is that an added incentive for kids to migrate to private schools, because they have a great chance to appear in state...............(content clipped for brevity.)........

1) I didn't say I "need" to add ten more programs. But if we do, so what?
2) "Private schools are only about education" was a tongue-in-cheek statement, Karl. Obviously, at SOME private schools, hockey is a BIG priority.
3) "We're only talking about hockey" was in reference to your thought that private schools would be ticked off if put into a different class. It's only hockey, for crying out loud. Would it ruin their schools?
4) "What is a private school supposed to do if it cannot field a team on it's own?" - Continue to co-op, but be placed in the private school class. No big deal.
5) "If there are less than 128 teams in a sport, there will be only one class?" - What? Why? Are there > 128 schools in each basketball class? However does H.S. basketball manage with SO many classes?

[karl(east)]

Obviously, at SOME private schools, hockey is a BIG priority.

It's only hockey, for crying out loud. Would it ruin their schools?

There is a rather large contradiction between those two statements.

4) "What is a private school supposed to do if it cannot field a team on it's own?" - Continue to co-op, but be placed in the private school class. No big deal.

When I asked earlier about if this would penalize publics that can't form teams on their own by forcing them to play against privates, your response was "co-op with another public if you like." So if neither can form teams on their own, the public is stuck in the private class, right? And they can't leave to co-op with someone else, because then the private would have no one left to co-op with, and we'd be denying kids the opportunity to play.

5) "If there are less than 128 teams in a sport, there will be only one class?" - What? Why? Are there > 128 schools in each basketball class? However does H.S. basketball manage with SO many classes?

This is how it works.
Until there are 128 teams in a sport, there is one class.
Once there are 128, the largest 64 (by enrollment) are placed in AA, and the remainder go into A.
Once it reaches 192 (the next multiple of 64), the largest 64 are placed in AAA, the next 64 are placed in AA, and the remainder in A.
And so on, by multiples of 64.
Teams can opt up after the creation of the first 64, which is why we don't see 64 teams in each class.

[WayOutWest]

Obviously, at SOME private schools, hockey is a BIG priority.

It's only hockey, for crying out loud. Would it ruin their schools?

There is a rather large contradiction between those two statements.

Not at all. "I" am saying it is "only hockey." I am also saying that for "some private schools" hockey is a big priority. I believe that to be very misguided.

Consistent.

4) "What is a private school supposed to do if it cannot field a team on it's own?" - Continue to co-op, but be placed in the private school class. No big deal.

When I asked earlier about if this would penalize publics that can't form teams on their own by forcing them to play against privates, your response was "co-op with another public if you like." So if neither can form teams on their own, the public is stuck in the private class, right? And they can't leave to co-op with someone else, because then the private would have no one left to co-op with, and we'd be denying kids the opportunity to play.

No one would be "denying kids the opportunity to play." A school may not wind up in a class that they preferred, but play could go on, anyway.
What's the big deal? Suit up......and play in your class. We are only talking about hockey, right?

5) "If there are less than 128 teams in a sport, there will be only one class?" - What? Why? Are there > 128 schools in each basketball class? However does H.S. basketball manage with SO many classes?

This is how it works.
Until there are 128 teams in a sport, there is one class.
Once there are 128, the largest 64 (by enrollment) are placed in AA, and the remainder go into A.
Once it reaches 192 (the next multiple of 64), the largest 64 are placed in AAA, the next 64 are placed in AA, and the remainder in A.
And so on, by multiples of 64.
Teams can opt up after the creation of the first 64, which is why we don't see 64 teams in each class.

Yawn.
Okay. So you are not flexible enough to figure out a different way to make it "work?" Are multiples of 64 all that magical? I think not. Think outside the box, Karl. This is no big deal.

[karl(east)]

Not at all. "I" am saying it is "only hockey." I am also saying that for "some private schools" hockey is a big priority. I believe that to be very misguided.

Consistent.

I'd agree with you that it's "only hockey." But as you say, the private schools that have made hockey a priority sure don't seem to think that way. In fact, as you say, they've made it so much of a priority that the system we have now is "unfair." Because of that, can you see why I (and others) might think that several private schools wouldn't be too happy when you say they can't play for the same championship the public schools do?

I'm not saying I like it, or that it's right, but it is the way it is.

No one would be "denying kids the opportunity to play." A school may not wind up in a class that they preferred, but play could go on, anyway.
What's the big deal? Suit up......and play in your class. We are only talking about hockey, right?

If that's the case, then why are you suggesting making changes to the system again?

Yawn.
Okay. So you are not flexible enough to figure out a different way to make it "work?" Are multiples of 64 all that magical? I think not. Think outside the box, Karl. This is no big deal.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
"Magical multiples of 64"--what? It appeared that you were unsure how the current MSHSL classification system worked, so I gave an explanation of it. There was no attempt to tilt anything in favor of or against the current system in that part of the post; I was just presenting the facts as they are.

That only came up in the first place when I pointed out that taking out the privates might turn the publics back into a 1-class system, operating within the current MSHSL framework. It was merely an observation that it would take a lot of realignment. I am ambivalent about this...I was just saying that I'd like to see the scenario before buying into what you're selling, and pointing out what it might do.

If you want to suggest that we should keep 2 public classes even if the total number dips below 128 and change the system, that's a perfectly valid idea. Just say so.
---
As for "thinking outside the box," I'd like to point out that, even though I am wary of what you are suggesting, I went through the trouble of designing what a private school system might look like and in doing so ventured into having the debate on your terms. As I said when I first made the thing, if you can make a better one, do it.

You're suggesting a rather large change to what is arguably the most successful high school sports tournament in the country. Can you understand why I might want to ask a lot of questions about it, to see if it's actually a good idea?

[WayOutWest]

Why do you suppose certain private schools make hockey such a priority?
It's not just a chosen passion, right? There has to be an underlying benefit. And, there is. Would Holy Angels, Hill-Murray, or STA be the household names they are today, without notoriety in hockey? That's highly doubtful. These schools know that hockey prominence is good advertising for the school, itself. Interest is generated, which converts to tuition dollars from non-hockey kids.
That being the case, what incentive does the MSHSL have to continue to promote private school's ability to use H.S. hockey as a tool, given that they possess incentives that public schools do not? Should it not be the MSHSL's duty to promote athletics in each school in the state, on an equal basis? By ensuring that the private schools are "happy" with their competitive arrangement, are they not subsequently making public schools less "happy?"
There has to be a workable alternative, here. I don't know what it is, but I do know that 64 teams in a class is not a magic number, and it should not be difficult to reconfigure classes and tournament qualification rules. Classes built on equality is a great concept. (We're already partially there with enrollment size.) All I am promoting is putting each school in a particular class on equal footing. This is not a difficult thing. I'm confounded as to why some folks think it is.

And there is very little danger that "arguably the best high school sports tournament in the country" would be negatively affected by classification changes. This is Minnesota, the state of hockey. You truly cannot mess H.S. hockey up, in this state, UNLESS you build a competition that is slanted toward a small number of schools who own a competitive advantage that others do not.

[karl(east)]

Why do you suppose certain private schools make hockey such a priority?
It's not just a chosen passion, right? There has to be an underlying benefit. And, there is. Would Holy Angels, Hill-Murray, or STA be the household names they are today, without notoriety in hockey? That's highly doubtful. These schools know that hockey prominence is good advertising for the school, itself. Interest is generated, which converts to tuition dollars from non-hockey kids.

Really, though?
If one lives in a community with a private school, one is going to have heard of it whether it has a good hockey program or not.
Going to private schools isn't something people do on whims. They're going to carefully examine the benefits of the private, vis-a-vis the public or other local privates, across the board.
I have never, ever heard of someone going to a private school because it's good at a sport the person does not play.

Should it not be the MSHSL's duty to promote athletics in each school in the state, on an equal basis?

Maybe it should be. But here is the MSHSL's mission statement:
http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/aboutmshsl.asp?page=1

I can't find anything about competitive balance in there. Maybe you can. And even if there isn't, maybe you think there should be. I'd be very curious to hear your reasoning why.

By ensuring that the private schools are "happy" with their competitive arrangement, are they not subsequently making public schools less "happy?"

That's in the eye of the beholder, though. I, and a number of other public school graduates/supporters on here, seem to be perfectly happy with the current system.

There has to be a workable alternative, here. I don't know what it is, but I do know that 64 teams in a class is not a magic number, and it should not be difficult to reconfigure classes and tournament qualification rules. Classes built on equality is a great concept. (We're already partially there with enrollment size.) All I am promoting is putting each school in a particular class on equal footing. This is not a difficult thing. I'm confounded as to why some folks think it is.

A little advice, then. Next time you want to suggest large-scale changes to something, explain how it's going to be done, instead of just stating the problem and letting other people such as myself come along and essentially put words in your mouth and ask leading questions about how it's going to be done.

And, out of curiosity, are you advocating a return to some sort of tier system? Because, I'm sorry to say, there is no way Warroad and Sleepy Eye will ever be on "equal footing," even though Sleepy Eye has a larger enrollment (and even has a private in its co-op...)

And there is very little danger that "arguably the best high school sports tournament in the country" would be negatively affected by classification changes. This is Minnesota, the state of hockey. You truly cannot mess H.S. hockey up, in this state, UNLESS you build a competition that is slanted toward a small number of schools who own a competitive advantage that others do not.

Eh, I could think of plenty of ways to organize teams that would screw up MN hockey pretty badly. Not that your way would for sure; I'd just like to look at it before I jump.

[Papa Bergundy]

I know this may have been said ages ago, but someone needs to break up this little cat fight going on here .

Anyway, people who use Breck's enrollment as a reason for them being "equal" with other class A teams is ignorant. Do you honestly think that people don't go to Breck to play hockey? Look at the roster someone posted. Brooklyn Park, Champlain Park, Armstrong and so on. Poor hockey programs. Not by any means am I saying Breck school recruited these players, but it wouldn't take too much intelligent thinking to find that some of these players came to Breck to play for a better hockey team.

Furthermore, why wouldn't they play AA? It is blatantly obvious that they belong. They beat two state tournament teams (East and CDH) and lost in OT to another near top ten team (Wayzata). They paved a trail of gold through the tourney. And finally, again look at their roster. You'll see they have the top players from various Class AA schools. And a lot of them at that.

Class A was created for schools with enrollment numbers that couldn't dream of competing with the bigger schools. I have no problem with tradition in the Class A system, but when teams made up of GOOD hockey players from CLASS AA schools dominate the tournament year in and year out *coughSTA*cough*BRECK*cough*, clearly, they need to make the jump up to AA.

Enjoy ladies...

[MNHockeyFan]

Papa Bergundy, you can argue until you're blue in the face that they SHOULD move up, but there is nothing in the rules saying they HAVE to move up. The decision is entirely up to them.

[karl(east)]

I know this may have been said ages ago, but someone needs to break up this little cat fight going on here .

Anyway, people who use Breck's enrollment as a reason for them being "equal" with other class A teams is ignorant. Do you honestly think that people don't go to Breck to play hockey? Look at the roster someone posted. Brooklyn Park, Champlain Park, Armstrong and so on. Poor hockey programs. Not by any means am I saying Breck school recruited these players, but it wouldn't take too much intelligent thinking to find that some of these players came to Breck to play for a better hockey team.

Furthermore, why wouldn't they play AA? It is blatantly obvious that they belong. They beat two state tournament teams (East and CDH) and lost in OT to another near top ten team (Wayzata). They paved a trail of gold through the tourney. And finally, again look at their roster. You'll see they have the top players from various Class AA schools. And a lot of them at that.

Class A was created for schools with enrollment numbers that couldn't dream of competing with the bigger schools. I have no problem with tradition in the Class A system, but when teams made up of GOOD hockey players from CLASS AA schools dominate the tournament year in and year out *coughSTA*cough*BRECK*cough*, clearly, they need to make the jump up to AA.

Enjoy ladies...

Who, me?

Before I get started, I should say that this debate is only marginally related to the one I am having with WayOutWest, which regards creating a new class for private schools.

No one's going to deny the first bit, that a few kids might have gone to Breck to play hockey.

As for why Breck specifically plays A and does not opt up, no one who knows that for sure has voiced their thoughts on here. I certainly understand the argument that they might want to and are probably capbable of playing AA. They did win 3 state tourneys this past decade and are the only program in the state that can claim that, but on the flip side those are also the only 3 times they have gone to state. As a program, they are not quite where STA is yet, I don't think.

The reasons why STA doesn't opt up were given a few pages ago. I understood where they were coming from, though again, I can see where others might be doubtful too. But at least they have a thoughtful argument.

And with that, I'd add a warning that compulsing these schools to opt up might just increase their "recruiting potential," or whatever you might want to call it.

I don't really like the argument that they should be forced up because their players come from AA schools, though. I'd think you'd find that to be the case with most any private school, good at hockey or not. Also, I'm not sure if by "players who would have gone to AA schools," you mean "people who live in Town X and thus would have gone to X Public High" or "people who played for Town X's youth program."

If it's the former, I don't like it because I don't think schools should just assume that they are entitled to hockey players born within the district. With open enrollment, they could also just as easily bolt for another public. Also, some kids go to private schools all their lives, so saying they would have gone to X Public High is probably misguided.

If it's the latter, I don't like it because youth programs have no official association with public high schools. It's true that most of them have de facto relationships with the high school, and the ones that do tend to be a lot more functional than the ones who don't (ie. Rochester), but again, public schools are even less entitled to kids coming out of a youth program than they are to ones within the school district. And also, privates don't have youth programs.

[WayOutWest]

I know this may have been said ages ago, but someone needs to break up this little cat fight going on here .

Anyway, people who use Breck's enrollment as a reason for them being "equal" with other class A teams is ignorant. Do you honestly think that people don't go to Breck to play hockey? Look at the roster someone posted. Brooklyn Park, Champlain Park, Armstrong and so on. Poor hockey programs. Not by any means am I saying Breck school recruited these players, but it wouldn't take too much intelligent thinking to find that some of these players came to Breck to play for a better hockey team.

Furthermore, why wouldn't they play AA? It is blatantly obvious that they belong. They beat two state tournament teams (East and CDH) and lost in OT to another near top ten team (Wayzata). They paved a trail of gold through the tourney. And finally, again look at their roster. You'll see they have the top players from various Class AA schools. And a lot of them at that.

Class A was created for schools with enrollment numbers that couldn't dream of competing with the bigger schools. I have no problem with tradition in the Class A system, but when teams made up of GOOD hockey players from CLASS AA schools dominate the tournament year in and year out *coughSTA*cough*BRECK*cough*, clearly, they need to make the jump up to AA.

Enjoy ladies...

Thanks for the logic,...........................Gramps.

[bluelineenvy]

I know this may have been said ages ago, but someone needs to break up this little cat fight going on here .

Anyway, people who use Breck's enrollment as a reason for them being "equal" with other class A teams is ignorant. Do you honestly think that people don't go to Breck to play hockey? Look at the roster someone posted. Brooklyn Park, Champlain Park, Armstrong and so on. Poor hockey programs. Not by any means am I saying Breck school recruited these players, but it wouldn't take too much intelligent thinking to find that some of these players came to Breck to play for a better hockey team.

Furthermore, why wouldn't they play AA? It is blatantly obvious that they belong. They beat two state tournament teams (East and CDH) and lost in OT to another near top ten team (Wayzata). They paved a trail of gold through the tourney. And finally, again look at their roster. You'll see they have the top players from various Class AA schools. And a lot of them at that.

Class A was created for schools with enrollment numbers that couldn't dream of competing with the bigger schools. I have no problem with tradition in the Class A system, but when teams made up of GOOD hockey players from CLASS AA schools dominate the tournament year in and year out *coughSTA*cough*BRECK*cough*, clearly, they need to make the jump up to AA.

Enjoy ladies...

Who, me?

Before I get started, I should say that this debate is only marginally related to the one I am having with WayOutWest, which regards creating a new class for private schools.

No one's going to deny the first bit, that a few kids might have gone to Breck to play hockey.

As for why Breck specifically plays A and does not opt up, no one who knows that for sure has voiced their thoughts on here. I certainly understand the argument that they might want to and are probably capbable of playing AA. They did win 3 state tourneys this past decade and are the only program in the state that can claim that, but on the flip side those are also the only 3 times they have gone to state. As a program, they are not quite where STA is yet, I don't think.

The reasons why STA doesn't opt up were given a few pages ago. I understood where they were coming from, though again, I can see where others might be doubtful too. But at least they have a thoughtful argument.

And with that, I'd add a warning that compulsing these schools to opt up might just increase their "recruiting potential," or whatever you might want to call it.
I don't really like the argument that they should be forced up because their players come from AA schools, though. I'd think you'd find that to be the case with most any private school, good at hockey or not. Also, I'm not sure if by "players who would have gone to AA schools," you mean "people who live in Town X and thus would have gone to X Public High" or "people who played for Town X's youth program."

If it's the former, I don't like it because I don't think schools should just assume that they are entitled to hockey players born within the district. With open enrollment, they could also just as easily bolt for another public. Also, some kids go to private schools all their lives, so saying they would have gone to X Public High is probably misguided.

If it's the latter, I don't like it because youth programs have no official association with public high schools. It's true that most of them have de facto relationships with the high school, and the ones that do tend to be a lot more functional than the ones who don't (ie. Rochester), but again, public schools are even less entitled to kids coming out of a youth program than they are to ones within the school district. And also, privates don't have youth programs.

Now I get it. Recruiting is really only a problem if the privates all move to AA. Then good AA programs like East would have even a smaller chance of ever winning state. I have no problem with open enrollment and kids playing where they want to, just put them up with the big boys.....

[karl(east)]

Now I get it. Recruiting is really only a problem if the privates all move to AA. Then good AA programs like East would have even a smaller chance of ever winning state. I have no problem with open enrollment and kids playing where they want to, just put them up with the big boys.....

Very wrong.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Duluth East. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I want to see East beat the very best competition, and fully deserve whatever they win. Strictly as an East fan, I'd love to see all the privates in AA. We'd finally resolve the stupid East-Marshall argument, for one thing.

But as a more objective observer of hockey in Minnesota, I support the current system. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than any alternative that has been proposed so far? Yes.

[WayOutWest]

Is it perfect? No. Is it better than any alternative that has been proposed so far? Yes.

Do you often have conversations with yourself?
I guess you may as well, since you're impervious to other's logic.
One has to wonder, then, why you bother to post on a public board.
Could you not just e-mail yourself?

[MNHockeyFan]

But as a more objective observer of hockey in Minnesota, I support the current system. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than any alternative that has been proposed so far? Yes.

Hard to argue with this....splitting the two classes based on enrollment, coupled with the option to move up, is about as fair and objective as you're going to get. Too many people want to try to force some schools to move up, just because they've been successful. It's a good thing having some very talented teams in Class A because it will only push other small schools to try that much harder. When you start forcing certain teams to move up it becomes political and if carried to the extreme you'd eventually be left with a very poor field that nobody would want to watch.

Like Karl says, it may not be perfect but it's better than any other alternative that's been proposed so far.

[Mite-dad]

If you think privates winning 7 out of 10 state class A titles since 2000 is close to perfect, then I guess you are right. The best place for them to be is AA. Maybe move them up after they win two state titles for at least 5-10 years. Then they can opt back down if they can't swing with the big boys.

[karl(east)]

I guess you may as well, since you're impervious to other's logic.

-Over the second half of the season on here, I posted rankings each week because I found the discussion and input of other people more valuable and interesting than just getting a list of numbered teams from Let's Play Hockey or somewhere like that.
-Some parts of the arguments I have used against other systems (especially in the early portions of this thread, and the parts on the definition of recruiting) I am taking from a PM debate I had with another poster on here, who was defending the private school vantage point. His logic made plenty of sense, and I've used it.
-The reason I'm defending the system so much is because I actually have taken the time to go through and look at other options. Take this example, from last year, which I did with no real prompting and completely unsure of which option I'd like better:
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic. ... tournament

I am open to convincing. You haven't done so very effectively yet; rather than answer my last post, you've degenerated into silly little insults of writing style. This does not need to be personal; I have nothing against you. Just either answer the questions I raise in a satisfactory way, or run along about your business if you're sick of this.

[Goldy Gopher]

If you think privates winning 7 out of 10 state class A titles since 2000 is close to perfect, then I guess you are right. The best place for them to be is AA. Maybe move them up after they win two state titles for at least 5-10 years. Then they can opt back down if they can't swing with the big boys.

We're all sorry that LF was bounced from the tourney, once again, by a better team. Just because you're rattled doesn't mean anything is wrong with the system. If the number was 9 of 10 or 10 of 10 you might have a point. In the last 20 class A tourneys publics are 12 of 20. Based on your logic all public class A teams should be in AA. We just can't have them dominating the tourney like this.

[Papa Bergundy]

If you think privates winning 7 out of 10 state class A titles since 2000 is close to perfect, then I guess you are right. The best place for them to be is AA. Maybe move them up after they win two state titles for at least 5-10 years. Then they can opt back down if they can't swing with the big boys.

We're all sorry that LF was bounced from the tourney, once again, by a better team. Just because you're rattled doesn't mean anything is wrong with the system. If the number was 9 of 10 or 10 of 10 you might have a point. In the last 20 class A tourneys publics are 12 of 20. Based on your logic all public class A teams should be in AA. We just can't have them dominating the tourney like this.

To you sir, I roll my eyes.

It's not all private's heads people are after. Its about 4 of the last 6 being won by Breck or St Thomas. The 12 of 20 publics argument is irrelavant, it has been a different public school 9 of those times. Different teams were winning the class A title every year. When Benilde won a couple in a few years, they opted up. Now look, they are a perennial contender in class AA. Karl conveiniently pointed out that moving up would "enhance there recruiting power". Maybe so, or maybe it's just that more kids want to play AA hockey. Then, by slim chance, Breck and STA could be perennial contenders in AA, the league they belong in.

As for your Little Falls comments, maybe people argue this issue because they hate seeing Goliath beat David, again.

[Goldy Gopher]

If you think privates winning 7 out of 10 state class A titles since 2000 is close to perfect, then I guess you are right. The best place for them to be is AA. Maybe move them up after they win two state titles for at least 5-10 years. Then they can opt back down if they can't swing with the big boys.

We're all sorry that LF was bounced from the tourney, once again, by a better team. Just because you're rattled doesn't mean anything is wrong with the system. If the number was 9 of 10 or 10 of 10 you might have a point. In the last 20 class A tourneys publics are 12 of 20. Based on your logic all public class A teams should be in AA. We just can't have them dominating the tourney like this.

To you sir, I roll my eyes.

It's not all private's heads people are after. Its about 4 of the last 6 being won by Breck or St Thomas. The 12 of 20 publics argument is irrelavant, it has been a different public school 9 of those times. Different teams were winning the class A title every year. When Benilde won a couple in a few years, they opted up. Now look, they are a perennial contender in class AA. Karl conveiniently pointed out that moving up would "enhance there recruiting power". Maybe so, or maybe it's just that more kids want to play AA hockey. Then, by slim chance, Breck and STA could be perennial contenders in AA, the league they belong in.

As for your Little Falls comments, maybe people argue this issue because they hate seeing Goliath beat David, again.

Mite-dad said nothing about having a problem with only STA and Breck and I was simply responding to his comment.

If Goliath is better than David I would want to see Goliath win to give the crown to the best team in the state. Isn't that the whole point of the tourney? To find out who the best team is?

[WayOutWest]

Just either answer the questions I raise in a satisfactory way, or run along about your business if you're sick of this.

LOL.
Uh......yeah, let me know when you become director of the board, and then you might have a shot at laying down ultimatums.
Your questions were answered, by more than just I. I cannot help it if you deem them "unsatisfactory."
Frankly, I find your answers "unsatisfactory" as well, but I recognize your privilege to be here and state them anyway.

Come on, man.

[karl(east)]

Just either answer the questions I raise in a satisfactory way, or run along about your business if you're sick of this.

LOL.
Uh......yeah, let me know when you become director of the board, and then you might have a shot at laying down ultimatums.
Your questions were answered, by more than just I. I cannot help it if you deem them "unsatisfactory."
Frankly, I find your answers "unsatisfactory" as well, but I recognize your privilege to be here and state them anyway.

Come on, man.

I'm not saying your answers aren't "satisfactory." I don't waste my time arguing with people who I think might have something worthwhile to say. I am also talking about this semi-massive post that no one ever responded to:

Why do you suppose certain private schools make hockey such a priority?
It's not just a chosen passion, right? There has to be an underlying benefit. And, there is. Would Holy Angels, Hill-Murray, or STA be the household names they are today, without notoriety in hockey? That's highly doubtful. These schools know that hockey prominence is good advertising for the school, itself. Interest is generated, which converts to tuition dollars from non-hockey kids.

Really, though?
If one lives in a community with a private school, one is going to have heard of it whether it has a good hockey program or not.
Going to private schools isn't something people do on whims. They're going to carefully examine the benefits of the private, vis-a-vis the public or other local privates, across the board.
I have never, ever heard of someone going to a private school because it's good at a sport the person does not play.

Should it not be the MSHSL's duty to promote athletics in each school in the state, on an equal basis?

Maybe it should be. But here is the MSHSL's mission statement:
http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/aboutmshsl.asp?page=1

I can't find anything about competitive balance in there. Maybe you can. And even if there isn't, maybe you think there should be. I'd be very curious to hear your reasoning why.

By ensuring that the private schools are "happy" with their competitive arrangement, are they not subsequently making public schools less "happy?"

That's in the eye of the beholder, though. I, and a number of other public school graduates/supporters on here, seem to be perfectly happy with the current system.

There has to be a workable alternative, here. I don't know what it is, but I do know that 64 teams in a class is not a magic number, and it should not be difficult to reconfigure classes and tournament qualification rules. Classes built on equality is a great concept. (We're already partially there with enrollment size.) All I am promoting is putting each school in a particular class on equal footing. This is not a difficult thing. I'm confounded as to why some folks think it is.

A little advice, then. Next time you want to suggest large-scale changes to something, explain how it's going to be done, instead of just stating the problem and letting other people such as myself come along and essentially put words in your mouth and ask leading questions about how it's going to be done.

And, out of curiosity, are you advocating a return to some sort of tier system? Because, I'm sorry to say, there is no way Warroad and Sleepy Eye will ever be on "equal footing," even though Sleepy Eye has a larger enrollment (and even has a private in its co-op...)

And there is very little danger that "arguably the best high school sports tournament in the country" would be negatively affected by classification changes. This is Minnesota, the state of hockey. You truly cannot mess H.S. hockey up, in this state, UNLESS you build a competition that is slanted toward a small number of schools who own a competitive advantage that others do not.

Eh, I could think of plenty of ways to organize teams that would screw up MN hockey pretty badly. Not that your way would for sure; I'd just like to look at it before I jump.

[goldy313]

As privates continue to win and pile up championships you'll see a concerted effort to change the way schools are assigned by class. In the past couple of years:

Football, in 3A 3 of the 8 state tournament enterants were private schools. Of the other 5 sections only 1 contained a private school. In 4A in 2007 3 of the 4A enterents were privates, all of the sections with a private were represented by a private school.

Swimming, the top 2 teams last year in A were both priavtes, STA has won at least the last 4 titles with Breck being in the top 5 at least twice as well.

Tennis, each of the last 2 years privates have finished 1-2-3, no public school kid has won or finished any higher than 4th in the individual or doubles portion of the state meet.

Soccer, in 2008 6 of the 8 state enterants were privates, in 2007 4 of the 8 were privates.

Basketball, the previous 2 years private schools met for the 3A title

Hockey, we all know the dominance of privates there.

Baseball, Track, CC, and Wrestling are still pretty much controlled by public schools at the lower levels.

I have no issue with schools like Cretin who choose to play at the highest levels in every sport and have success, they are no different than the Eden Prairie's of the high school sports scene. But if year after year smaller public schools continue to have little shot at state let alone section success while Metro/Rochester/St. Cloud area privates continue rack up success after success playing against these smaller communities you'll see a mounting pressure for the MSHSL to do something, not to level the playing field but make it somewhat more equitable - much like they did with the free/reduced lunch numbers 2 years ago. I'd think that the change in transfer rule will do a lot to slow that trend, because this was essentially it's first year of its exsistance, we'll have to wait and see.