Districts and associations alignments at peewee A this fall

[conditioningsucks]

[quote="Air Force 1"][quote="conditioningsucks"]

Hopefully you are getting my drift. If you like the banquets so much, come up with some ideas on how to pay for them and run them![/quote]

Yeah, I get your drift, cut out anything that doesn't have to do with the game on the ice.

Pick your rink, tell the teams and refs where to report, maybe the players could dress at home so they can get right on the ice when they get there and then nobody would have to clean locker rooms, the refs could either come dressed or change in the utility closet, bring in a vending machine for snacks and drinks. And lets cut out the trophies too, those are just unecessary ego strokes too, and what do the teams do with them anyway, just bring them home and put them in a trophy case which is nothing more than a closet with glass doors and walls, nobody cares about them anyway. Does the tournament really matter anyway, except for a couple of associations, nobody agrees that the champion is the champion anyway because the whole process to get to the tourament and win it is flawed.

Seriously, between asscociation and summer hockey with two players, I have been to better tournaments. No matter what you say, I still think the banquet is an essential part of the "State" tournament, playing for a "State" title. I think a closer look needs to be made of the off ice administration of the respective tournament requirements, level, and location, and sponsorship oppurtunities. I think many cost reductions could be made before the experience is diminished for the kids.

[quote="conditioningsucks"]You and hockeyman view this from a 'What's in it for me' kids' perspective rather than the harsh realities that someone is losing money and their volunteers are fried after busting their butts working as managers, concession stand workers, clock workers, book, association fundraisers, tournament volunteering.[/quote]

And what is this quote about?! Honestly, I don't know how to better myself because my kids enjoy hockey, it's never gotten me a pay raise or a promotion, reduced my taxes, got me a better deal on car insurance. The only personal well being I get our of it is I take a lot of joy of seeing the smiles on my kid's and their teammates faces they get from hockey. As far as what perspective I view this from, I have two kids that play, my wife and I working concession stand shifts, stat book, penalty box and clock, I sell my butt off during fundraisers and when it comes to tournaments, I love to work (we hosted a regular season tourney and a regional and I missed parts of two games). I am also a board member so my comittment doesn't end when the season does and there are plenty of things that don't deal with what goes on on the ice that need year round attention. Don't begin to lecture me about not understanding what an associtation deals with regarding budgeting and volunteerism! I can tell you this though, IF we were fortunate enough to be awarded a state tournament location here, we would EXHAUST ourselves to put on a first class show from the banquet to the trophy presentation.

And isn't that what is about, THE KIDS![/quote]

And so your recommendations for either cutting costs or raising revenues are?

Your answer was a long answer with no true meat on the bone. High on emotion, but 'where's the beef'? Where do you cut costs to pay for the banquet, or where do you raise revenue?

[boardmember]

[quote="frederick61"]BarTender,
The minutes you referenced expressed concerns from D2 that they lost about $6,000 on the tourneys they hosted.
quote]


The "Blue Print" to this solution is all over the news

1) Minnesota Hockey "bails out" District 2 for their loses, make them whole.

2) Minnesota Hockey raises the registration fees (Taxes) that goes to Mn Hockey on the wealthy Associations $10 per player to cover the loses and cover costs any future Regional and State tournaments.

Edina, Wayzata, Eden Praire, Minnetonka, Orono, Chaska, Apply Valley, Woodbury, Maple Grove, Prior Lake, Eastview, White Bear Lake, Centenial
All Non-metro Associations exempt from the tax.

3) Have hosting Districts spend equal or more money than the previous District , knowing MN hockey will bail them out and re-coup their monies via that new "Tournament Tax".....

[Air Force 1]

And so your recommendations for either cutting costs or raising revenues are?

Your answer was a long answer with no true meat on the bone. High on emotion, but 'where's the beef'? Where do you cut costs to pay for the banquet, or where do you raise revenue?

And how could I give you the answer without seeing their budget, plan, quotes and actual expenses?

I can give you a plan to make an 8 team tournament work in my town, but that plan will not work for a U19 tourney 300 miles away.

The comment from earlier was D2 commented about a $6,000 loss between a two team U19A and a six team U19B. Where was most of the loss, the A or B? The U19B was held in a district that did not have a team in the event, not a prerequisite but I cannot find any reference to a U19B region so I ASSUME that the six teams were the only six in existence, in this case, why hold it in a district with no dog in the fight?

In these cases where there are less than an 8 team field, Minnesota Hockey is going to have to get more involved on a case by case basis to monitarily to subsidise the district or association efforts and consider placing the tournament site in districts with teams at that level.

Yes, the revenue stream will have to be addressed, BUT I never look at the incoming until after I have looked at what I am doing with what I already have coming in. There is fat to be cut before we start raising team fees, gate fees, or banquet ticket fees. If the revenue producing oppurtunity is limited at the Super Rink, then why have it there? Bid out the apparrel sales to the lowest bidder instead of the sole vendor to Minnesota Hockey and they get ALL the apparrel for ALL the state tournaments, maybe local vendors all over the state can do it cheaper. What type of menu is being served at all these venues? When my son went to state the theme was a picinic and the menu was burgers and dogs. I just planned a banquet for work and for 200 people I was able to get a three meat buffet for $18.95 per plate and the room and setup with a stage was no cost, I only had to pay for food and tax. Instead of a banquet the evening before, maybe a breakfast or brunch on Friday and start the games at 12:00 noon. How about how the Pee Wee and Bantam B tournaments have been the last couple years, at the same venue, the same volunteers can pull off two tournaments at the same time. And the Minnesota Hockey sponsors, what part of that sponsorship money comes back to the local association? We have to read their advertisements during the games.

One district with two short field tournaments lost money and made a comment about it and now we have to totally revamp the state tournament agenda and cut out a major tournament event because some feel it has no value? I don't buy it and will not buy it.

What was the profit/loss for St Cloud, Thief River Falls, Grand Rapids, Buffalo, Breezy Point, Rochester, Richfield, Marshall, New Hope, or Burnsville?

[greybeard58]

Has anyone offering suggestions ever been actually involved in planning a regional or state tournament?
To make a state tournament close to break even you need good advertising, and a great gate. Let's be honest with all, there are some age groups that just will not draw. As an example, the 14B, Jr Gold 16U, 19B.These are probably the ones that draw the fewest. The other tournaments it depends on who is in the tournament. You hope for a real good gate on Sunday but if certain team do not make it to the finals,their fans will not show for a 3rd place game.
Right now Mn Hockey has a rotation for quite a few years.By the way not all Districts run the state tournament the same, in some local associations bid to host and run all and there are some Districts that assume that responsibility. Also state teams do not pay an entry fee, but there is some money available if reports are turned in with in 30 days. From what I have been led to under stand the the B Tournaments in St Cloud lost money even after the money from the state.

[goldy313]

In Rochesters case the Rochester Amateur Sports Commission (RASC) bid for the tournament not the RYHA, the RASC is in with the hotels in town and gets money from them, when you book your room you enter a code that gives you a discount for the room, then the hotels give some money to the RASC. The RASC then gets people to volunteer to run the tournament often with the help of RYHA. From what I gathered the RYHA wasn't very happy about having the tournament here, the RASC is pretty good about getting events here then pawning off the work while taking the credit.

If this tournament ran anything like the ACHA tournaments, the Park and Rec dept loses money while the city makes money due to taxes -hotel, food and beverage, and the .5% additional sales tax charged in Rochester.

[nerve]

From what i understand of the IGH/SSP deal is that the IGH board decided that since IGH has 50 plus players at the PeeWee level that they are going to field an A team themselves.

But what are the IGH squirt numbers in the following two years? My understanding is that they are low.

Dont know the numbers. probably in the 30-40 range.

Got this from SSPYHA meeting minutes:

Dennis Viner and President Lick attended meetings in IGH about where the two associations may cooperate. IGH proposed that they should host the A Peewee team this coming season even though they had it last season. IGH also proposed they host the 12A team this coming season as SSP had it last year.

By Darin Pederson Seconded by Dennis Viner
That the SSPYHA give IGH until June 2nd to accept the A Peewee in SSP and the 12A in IGH rather than what IGH has proposed and that if IGH comes back with anything less than yes, that we dissolve the working relationship between both associations at all levels with the exception of the Bantam for the next two years.
Motion carried (8 yeas – 1 nay)


There are other things that may factor into some of this from what I hear but I dont think it should be said on a open forum.

Well its offical SSP and IGH are NOT co-oping at the Peewee or Girls level due to the inability of IGH to figure anything out. Nice job IGH (stupid)

[freighttrain]

But what are the IGH squirt numbers in the following two years? My understanding is that they are low.

Dont know the numbers. probably in the 30-40 range.

Got this from SSPYHA meeting minutes:

Dennis Viner and President Lick attended meetings in IGH about where the two associations may cooperate. IGH proposed that they should host the A Peewee team this coming season even though they had it last season. IGH also proposed they host the 12A team this coming season as SSP had it last year.

By Darin Pederson Seconded by Dennis Viner
That the SSPYHA give IGH until June 2nd to accept the A Peewee in SSP and the 12A in IGH rather than what IGH has proposed and that if IGH comes back with anything less than yes, that we dissolve the working relationship between both associations at all levels with the exception of the Bantam for the next two years.
Motion carried (8 yeas – 1 nay)


There are other things that may factor into some of this from what I hear but I dont think it should be said on a open forum.

Well its offical SSP and IGH are NOT co-oping at the Peewee or Girls level due to the inability of IGH to figure anything out. Nice job IGH (stupid)

They are co-oping at the U12 girls level. IGH will host the A and then both will host there own B team. If not enough kids for own B teams SSP will host the B team.

[nerve]

Dont know the numbers. probably in the 30-40 range.

Got this from SSPYHA meeting minutes:

Dennis Viner and President Lick attended meetings in IGH about where the two associations may cooperate. IGH proposed that they should host the A Peewee team this coming season even though they had it last season. IGH also proposed they host the 12A team this coming season as SSP had it last year.

By Darin Pederson Seconded by Dennis Viner
That the SSPYHA give IGH until June 2nd to accept the A Peewee in SSP and the 12A in IGH rather than what IGH has proposed and that if IGH comes back with anything less than yes, that we dissolve the working relationship between both associations at all levels with the exception of the Bantam for the next two years.
Motion carried (8 yeas – 1 nay)


There are other things that may factor into some of this from what I hear but I dont think it should be said on a open forum.

Well its offical SSP and IGH are NOT co-oping at the Peewee or Girls level due to the inability of IGH to figure anything out. Nice job IGH (stupid)

They are co-oping at the U12 girls level. IGH will host the A and then both will host there own B team. If not enough kids for own B teams SSP will host the B team.

NOT TRUE! SSP will not co-op U12 unless IGH conceeds the PWA team. IGH is trying to back track and its to late.

[freighttrain]

Well its offical SSP and IGH are NOT co-oping at the Peewee or Girls level due to the inability of IGH to figure anything out. Nice job IGH (stupid)

They are co-oping at the U12 girls level. IGH will host the A and then both will host there own B team. If not enough kids for own B teams SSP will host the B team.

NOT TRUE! SSP will not co-op U12 unless IGH conceeds the PWA team. IGH is trying to back track and its to late.

I was told wrong about the U12s. I just read the minutes on IGH website.

why should IGH concede the PWA team? There was no agreement that it would be in SSP next year. The Co-ops between IGH and SSP outside of the Bantam level are on a year to year basis People in this thread seem to be hypocritical. They dont like to when some associations play down a level and do well and complain they should play at the A level. Now IGH decides we should field A team of IGH kids and people say that its stupid and they should stick to B/C hockey.

[ilike2score]

I realize this is a pipe dream...but here goes... I would like to see every high school that offers varsity hockey have its very own feeder system of peewee and bantam level players. And they undoubtedly should be A teams. I do believe that the private high schools need to pony up and create their own youth programs at the peewee and bantam level that feed their high school teams. I am not in favor of community based but rather wholeheartedly approve of school based hockey associations.

[observer]

And you'd like to break the current system to benefit who?

PeeWees are primarily 6th and 7th graders and some private schools don't start until 9th grade. PeeWees don't go to the school you'd like to have host their team yet. Some private schools don't have their own arena. Oh, you mean just the private schools that start at earlier grades?

Community based youth hockey takes the players through their Bantam years and then comes school hockey. It's a really swell system that works for the vast majority. The new idea being floated at the state meeting about making school your community is a total joke written by someone with about 3% backing. They're trying the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" fussing philosophy. That's a lot of work, confusion, and frankly a mess for such a few selfish people. Sure to be defeated.

Here's the way it should be written to prevent confusion. Use the fewest words possible for the greatest understanding as opposed to the most words for the greatest confusion.

Kids play where they live until they attend high school.

[northwoods oldtimer]

great post observer. There is no room for confusion with regards to your quote.

Kids play where they live until they attend high school.

That is as clear as it needs to be. If you do not like it, move. Association hockey has indeed served Minnesota quite well in development of it hockey youth.

[greybeard58]

Maybe it is time for the silent majority who like the current set up voice their opinions to the entire Mn Hockey board, either by letter or e-mail or better yet attend the state meeting in St Cloud the following weekend.

[council member retired]

[quote="greybeard58"]Maybe it is time for the silent majority who like the current set up voice their opinions to the entire Mn Hockey board, either by letter or e-mail or better yet attend the state meeting in St Cloud the following weekend.[/quote]

It would be to late to get on the agenda, and they don't have a open microphone. You could however attend the cocktail sessions, where you may have the most success.

[greybeard58]

I haven't seen the agenda yet but if enough show up on both saturday and sunday that are for keeping association membership by residence they will notice. I seem to remember another issue a year ago that got their attention when the silent majority spoke and spoke loudly. If you do nothing and the changes pass do not complain. If you believe in something fight for it as the others are doing to get it changed.

[Ron Hextall]

freighttrain,

You seem to be in the know with IGH/SSP, what are the reasons for fielding a peewee A team without SSP players or board support?

Why is it good at the bantam level to combine but to not at the lower levels?

[Jerry]

As of right now only the Bantams will be a co-op, If no peewee A's then now Girls at any level thats what is was told today

[Reg7]

freighttrain,

You seem to be in the know with IGH/SSP, what are the reasons for fielding a peewee A team without SSP players or board support?

Why is it good at the bantam level to combine but to not at the lower levels?

I'll tell you Ron plain and simple, a number of (IGH) board members have peewee aged kids...and on top of that, I heard Parkos (IGH peewee A coach) and his staff are leaving IGH and going to Woodbury to coach peewees because of the IGH board...IGH peewee A went to the regionals for the first time in a number of years for 2 reasons...the coaches and combining with SSP...good luck to IGH...lost good coaches and a great opportunity to help ALL kids play at levels they need to be at...nice job...

[freighttrain]

freighttrain,

You seem to be in the know with IGH/SSP, what are the reasons for fielding a peewee A team without SSP players or board support?

Why is it good at the bantam level to combine but to not at the lower levels?

I'll tell you Ron plain and simple, a number of (IGH) board members have peewee aged kids...and on top of that, I heard Parkos (IGH peewee A coach) and his staff are leaving IGH and going to Woodbury to coach peewees because of the IGH board...IGH peewee A went to the regionals for the first time in a number of years for 2 reasons...the coaches and combining with SSP...good luck to IGH...lost good coaches and a great opportunity to help ALL kids play at levels they need to be at...nice job...

IGH and SSP combined at the PWA level in 2007-2008 and finished 2-12-2 in D8 play. So I dont think SSP is that big of a reason why they went to regionals. The reason is because of coaching. Parkos may have rubbed some people the wrong way with how he ran the team but what he did was the best thing. He worked those kids hard and got the most out of them.

[Reg7]

freighttrain,

You seem to be in the know with IGH/SSP, what are the reasons for fielding a peewee A team without SSP players or board support?

Why is it good at the bantam level to combine but to not at the lower levels?

I'll tell you Ron plain and simple, a number of (IGH) board members have peewee aged kids...and on top of that, I heard Parkos (IGH peewee A coach) and his staff are leaving IGH and going to Woodbury to coach peewees because of the IGH board...IGH peewee A went to the regionals for the first time in a number of years for 2 reasons...the coaches and combining with SSP...good luck to IGH...lost good coaches and a great opportunity to help ALL kids play at levels they need to be at...nice job...

IGH and SSP combined at the PWA level in 2007-2008 and finished 2-12-2 in D8 play. So I dont think SSP is that big of a reason why they went to regionals. The reason is because of coaching. Parkos may have rubbed some people the wrong way with how he ran the team but what he did was the best thing. He worked those kids hard and got the most out of them.

I agree with you 100% on the coaching part but if they (IGH and SSP) do not combine this past year IGH does NOT make it out of district playoffs... (not even Parkos could have pulled that off)...so yes, combining was also a big reason why IGH did better then most expected...

[Jerry]

We will see if it is coaching soon enough, Tim or Ron Hextall had 3 very very talented kids this year that carrieed them all season, 15 SSP, 16 IGH and 17 SSP so Let's see how Tim and his coaching staff does here in woodbury. IGH let Yuro go due to finacial reasons from what I was told. But like I said we will see how he does this year here in WB.

[council member retired]

Tim or Ron Hextall had 3 very very talented kids this year that carrieed them all season, breakaway/whogivesaratsa/edge

i always loved that one

[oldtimer64]

We will see if it is coaching soon enough, Tim or Ron Hextall had 3 very very talented kids this year that carrieed them all season, 15 SSP, 16 IGH and 17 SSP so Let's see how Tim and his coaching staff does here in woodbury. IGH let Yuro go due to finacial reasons from what I was told. But like I said we will see how he does this year here in WB.

Jerry- your a little off with your assessment of the talent. #17 & #15 were no doubt there best players #16 has talent but really fell off at the end. #12,#10 & #14 came on at the end of the year(really improved). IGH in my opinion really played hard as a TEAM and that's why they reached their goals.

[Jerry]

Yes 16 fell off at the end due to player and coach having a issue with each other, It is no different then the player here in WB that quit at Districts due to the coach and him not getting along, However they did play well as a team but, according to one of my best freinds in SSP 16 lead the team in goals even after falling off and only skating half the time 15 and 17 skated. he also figured into all there goals in both overtime wins at districts, But like I said I will give you updates as the season goes along here in WB as Coach Parkos has to work with Yuro which he refused to last year.

[oldtimer64]

Yes 16 fell off at the end due to player and coach having a issue with each other, It is no different then the player here in WB that quit at Districts due to the coach and him not getting along, However they did play well as a team but, according to one of my best freinds in SSP 16 lead the team in goals even after falling off and only skating half the time 15 and 17 skated. he also figured into all there goals in both overtime wins at districts, But like I said I will give you updates as the season goes along here in WB as Coach Parkos has to work with Yuro which he refused to last year.

Jerry- #16 did NOT lead the team in goals and got plenty of ice time. I'm not saying #16 is not talented because he is. FYI Yuro is NOT involved in the winter season in Woodbury. peace out MO