Jerry wrote: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
#15 is a good player... that kid brings a smile to the rink everyday. Yuro is a fraud
i see on the IGH website that they posted that there will be no co-op at ANY LEVEL for the 09-10 season. Does this include Bantams? Is River Heights over?
1) IGH and SSP never had an agreement at pee wees. IGH offered to host a pee wee A team and allow SSP kids to go over and play at the A level. SSP insisted that it would be in SSP as it was "their turn". IGH has some money issues and can not afford to waiver out kids to play at another association.
2) IGH has 44 kids at the pee wee level. This is a good number for them to have 3 teams, 15, 15, and 14. They offered to accept SSP players that wanted to tryout for their A team and SSP said NO!
3)SSP stated that if IGH did not send over their A pee wees they were not going to co-op at the girls U12.
IGH did not end the co-op. SSP did. IGH even had some board members and parents go to SSP's board meeting to explain their situation to the SSP board and SSP did not budge. SSP stated that this will teach IGH a lesson and they will come back next year with a better attitude.
SSP voted to have A teams at their pee wee level (34 kids) and at the U12 (13 girls). They did this knowing that IGH would have to waiver out their A players and SSP would get what they wanted in the end. IGH had a meeting on Tuesday and IGH is having A teams at the pee wee level (44 kids) and at the U12 (23 girls). Good for you IGH!!!
Bantams River Heights Rebels is to remain a co-op.
Some Insight,
I appreciate the comments, but would like to add some additional information. Last year, with the SSP kids skating at the A level, IGH had four teams, A, B1, B2 and C. Only the A team competed in the upper half of their level. The other teams had difficulty in competing.
What surprises me is that the IGH board held this most recent meeting (now July) and has decided to field their own A teams instead of B teams. It would be interesting to know if the change was precipitated by the new Minnesota Hockey ruling. With SSP fielding an A team and with the new rule based on school rather then residency, any of the IGH peewees can designate SSP as their school of choice and play in SSP. The IGH association has no say in the matter. The time distance between Wakota arena and IGH arena is less then 10 minutes. And to complicate things, Simley High School sports are experiencing all sorts of trouble this year in part because of the debacle that ended their hockey season last year.
In addition, the Spartans ended the year with a 3-23 record. The Packers are upbeat, coming off a 18-6-3 record and opening a newly remodeled high school. It will be interesting to see if IGH can keep their top kids in face of all this. But even with their top kids, they will be pushed to compete with the Woodburys, Lakevilles and Eagans. I would love to see them compete as they did last year, but fear they will be overmatched at each level.
As to the agreements with SSP, my understanding is that there are no written agreements at the Bantam A or Peewee A level between the two associations and that SSP was expecting to field the co-op Peewee A team this year. They asked IGH to make a decision by roughly middle of May so they could make their own plans. IGH told the SSP board in May that they would co-op only if IGH could field the team. SSP rejected that because in part it violated the co-operative nature of switching every year between SSP and IGH. Under IGH terms, IGH would field the team for the second year in a row. So SSP decided to field their own A team.
What makes this situation interesting is the potential effect on an association that the new ruling may have. It appears IGH “re-thought” their approach at the peewee level as a result of the new ruling. I wonder now if SSP is “re-thinking” it’s commitment at the Bantam A level and thinking of fielding a bantam A team. After all, they have a strong combination of a “new” high school, a high school team that looks to be a winner, available ice at Wakota, and a ruling this year that allows the association to build their program with kids from other programs.
I will make it simple for you. IGH wants there own Identity and wants to pay for the rinks they have in town.
Funny Who runs District 8? Same guy that runs Wakota arena. Which job do you think he makes more money at? Which means he wants to keep his rink full and the way to do that is bring kids from IGH over to SSP. And who really cares if SSP has redone the school, Didn't Simley just have a big addition put on also? And the coop is at the peewee level a lot can happen before they get to high school.
Not that this really has anything to do with this co-op, but u said it. The gentleman that runs Wakota, happens to be a IGH resident, and his kids attend SSP schools. The person u a refering to, i beleive is retiring this fall, i dont think he cares. Now as far as the hockey, what has happend with their coaches? did they not have some non-parent coaches at the co-op teams?
5. District 5 associations, like D4, works well under the current system. They have 11 associations and should have St. Cloud as a twelfth. A split St. Cloud association fielding two peewee A teams and moving Sauk Rapids out of D10 would really be a boon for the area and really take advantage of the available arenas. Having gone to tourneys in Sauk Rapids and in St. Cloud the last two years, one could sense there is a lot of interest in youth hockey.
Currently D5 is dominated by Buffalo at the peewee level. Mound/Westonka is usually their nearest rival, but the Winhawks had an off year last year. St. Michael/Albertville and Monticello-Annandale-Maple Lake joined the Bison in the South Regional, so D5 could continue to change and improve overall. Crow River and Sartell played well at times. River Lakes (Cold Spring), Hutchinson, and Willmar all had some good tourneys. D5 looks stable this year.
Fred,
Any confirmation regarding St Cloud moving to D5?
Any truth to rumors about Buffalo and Mound petitioning to leave D5?
IM,
If you want information about associations moving contact the District's Director. St Cloud ill either be part of a new District along with others or will remain in D10. It is my understanding St Cloud will remain in 10 and only field 1 A team at the top levels. If you are looking for them to split, the group in charge is against a split. If you ask, I have a few relatives that live in St Cloud.