Chaska/Chan

HockeyMN1 · Post by **HockeyMN1** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:06 am

With a combined enrollment of 3,908, this program represents the largest number of students in the state. Unfortunatly for them, an 0-2 start forshadows another long year for the program. This begs the question...Why are they so bad with such a large student body? EP and Wayzata are the next largest and both are obviously very competitive in the highest level of Minnesota hockey, but CC is in the dumps. What happened there?

SEMNHOCKEYFAN · Post by **SEMNHOCKEYFAN** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:54 pm

Could be muiltpal things......Youth programs......The players......The coaching...

buddish4mrhockey · Post by **buddish4mrhockey** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:08 pm

most likely because every good player that has came through the youth program has left..look at the team they could have

3 Reillys-AHA
Daly-BSM
Burke-AHA
Hesketh-Resides in Chan- MTKA- never played at chaska
Mattson- team USA- USHL
Green- Holy Family
Erickson- AHA
Mork- AHA

a hole bunch of others not named.

blueblood · Post by **blueblood** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:29 pm

hesketh lives in the mtka school district.

shakey · Post by **shakey** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:14 pm

buddish4mrhockey wrote:most likely because every good player that has came through the youth program has left..look at the team they could have

3 Reillys-AHA
Daly-BSM
Burke-AHA
Hesketh-Resides in Chan- MTKA- never played at chaska
Mattson- team USA- USHL
Green- Holy Family
Erickson- AHA
Mork- AHA

a hole bunch of others not named.

Not the answer....Wayzata and EP could put together lists to equal this one.

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:21 pm

Not the question

heresaymatters · Post by **heresaymatters** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:30 pm

I can't point to any simple list of factors, but I agree that this program could have been a powerhouse. Now it appears to be all downhill for the Chaska/Chan high school programs. They have this season and next as a combined program and then go their separate ways. With the continued loss of players to the privates (Holy Family in particular seems to be a prime beneficiary, given its location) this is going to get way worse before it gets better.

mn man · Post by **mn man** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:34 am

Seems like the single criteria for a "successful program" always seems to be a 23-2 team or a state championship. By this definition 99% of the programs in the state are unsuccessful each year.

How about the following as criteria:
They have fun playing the game, they develop a sense of teamwork and loyalty by playing for their community and with their buddies win or lose, they develop into young men who value competition, sportsmanship, and a love of the game of hockey that they can pass on to the next generation.

By these definitions, I am guessing (or hoping anyway) that those hockey players playing for CC this year will say they have a successful program.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:03 am

1. They play in the Lake conference. The teams that finish near the bottom in most sports are generally not bad teams, just in the best conference in most sports.

2. It is possible to have that base of students not as interested in hockey or plays as much as others. Just a possibility.

Faceguard79 · Post by **Faceguard79** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:33 am

brandy38 · Post by **brandy38** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:52 am

I've never really heard of Chaska being a big hockey town either, despite the quality hockey players that have grown up there. They seem to be into baseball more. Maybe the association does need to do more to promote hockey in the city so that more kids will stay with the HS program.

shakey · Post by **shakey** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:53 am

starmvp wrote:Not the question

What is the question?

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:20 am

shakey wrote:
starmvp wrote:Not the question
What is the question?

The question is not about Wayzata and EP coming up with similar lists of players

countrygentleman · Post by **countrygentleman** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:11 am

starmvp wrote:
shakey wrote:
starmvp wrote:Not the question
What is the question?
The question is not about Wayzata and EP coming up with similar lists of players

But only on Sunday evenings and Monday mornings.

AverageHockeyJoe · Post by **AverageHockeyJoe** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:14 am

Shakey's comment is valid.... Both EP and Wayzata have lost even more impressive lists of HS players to USNTDP, USHL, Shattuck Prep, et al, and yet they are able to reload and compete. The Chaska/Chan youth program should be able to bring more kids along to field a quality HS program. Something is definitely wrong there.

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:44 am

I completely agree with shakey, I was just clarifying that it is not the question.

gamemisconduct · Post by **gamemisconduct** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:48 am

while it is true that Hockey is the subject - the same can be said across a host of HS sports at Chaska Chan. I'd offer the fundamental issue here is relative de-emphasis placed on athletics in District 112. The youth programs have generally held their own against stiff competition - it all seems to unravel at the HS level.

starmvp · Post by **starmvp** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:59 am

Yes, because of kids leaving. It will not be pretty when Chanhassen and Chaska split.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:17 pm

Kids leaving? The poster said there is a de-emphasis on sports. Maybe that is true. I know for a fact that Chaska quiz bowl team is dominant every year and competes at the state level. I don't know if it says anything about the rest of their programs, like drama, speech, debate, etc, but maybe academics are better priorities solely.

Not at all saying that athletes are dumb, which is the opposite of true, but it's all relative.

gamemisconduct · Post by **gamemisconduct** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:56 pm

Indeed - all I am suggesting is rather than vilify the hockey coach or the hockey program - pause and see if there is a larger athletics question. To the previous post - the actvities comment is right on. And the emphasis there has been placed on Activities and not Athletics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, there has to be an understanding of the the consequences of this approach. The best athletics coaches will gravitate towards a district/school where there is great support for the program. Great coaches, that are well supported by the school and community/youth programs tend to retain the best talent. And great coaching plus great talent tend to translate to winning programs. A shorter version of this is "The fish rots from the head" and perhaps the guns are pointing at the wrong "head" on this one...

Let's not forget the players role in this either - the hockey program there has a history that precedes the incumbent coach with off ice discipline. That doesn't help winning either...

shakey · Post by **shakey** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 pm

gamemisconduct wrote:Indeed - all I am suggesting is rather than vilify the hockey coach or the hockey program - pause and see if there is a larger athletics question. To the previous post - the actvities comment is right on. And the emphasis there has been placed on Activities and not Athletics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, there has to be an understanding of the the consequences of this approach. The best athletics coaches will gravitate towards a district/school where there is great support for the program. Great coaches, that are well supported by the school and community/youth programs tend to retain the best talent. And great coaching plus great talent tend to translate to winning programs. A shorter version of this is "The fish rots from the head" and perhaps the guns are pointing at the wrong "head" on this one...

Let's not forget the players role in this either - the hockey program there has a history that precedes the incumbent coach with off ice discipline. That doesn't help winning either...

Unfortunately, it seems that that the off ice issues at the HS level have not abated.

flatontheice · Post by **flatontheice** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:09 pm

shakey wrote:
gamemisconduct wrote:Indeed - all I am suggesting is rather than vilify the hockey coach or the hockey program - pause and see if there is a larger athletics question. To the previous post - the actvities comment is right on. And the emphasis there has been placed on Activities and not Athletics. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, there has to be an understanding of the the consequences of this approach. The best athletics coaches will gravitate towards a district/school where there is great support for the program. Great coaches, that are well supported by the school and community/youth programs tend to retain the best talent. And great coaching plus great talent tend to translate to winning programs. A shorter version of this is "The fish rots from the head" and perhaps the guns are pointing at the wrong "head" on this one...

Let's not forget the players role in this either - the hockey program there has a history that precedes the incumbent coach with off ice discipline. That doesn't help winning either...
Unfortunately, it seems that that the off ice issues at the HS level have not abated.

The Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, and Volleyball Teams have all won state championships recently. Not sure what all the complaining is about. No success in hockey has alot more to do with not hiring a coach who is a teacher in the school and getting kids to stay and form a new tradition. Not saying the current coaches or past coaches were bad but they clearly were not able to keep alot of good talents there.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:54 pm

The enrollment number listed on MSHSL website for Chaska is wrong. That is what the enrollment would have been had Chanhassen not opened this year. So subtract 1,000 from that "combined enrollment" figure in the post on the top of the page. Next year, when the split is complete and Chanhassen has seniors, each school will have about 1200 to 1300 students - which makes them a good fit for the Missota.

HockeyMN1 · Post by **HockeyMN1** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:18 pm

hockeydad wrote:The enrollment number listed on MSHSL website for Chaska is wrong. That is what the enrollment would have been had Chanhassen not opened this year. So subtract 1,000 from that "combined enrollment" figure in the post on the top of the page. Next year, when the split is complete and Chanhassen has seniors, each school will have about 1200 to 1300 students - which makes them a good fit for the Missota.

That post is completly illogical since even though Chan hasno seniors, Chaska has all the seniors that would have went to Chan, therefore not skewing the numbers. Plus, subtracting 1,000 because there are no seniors is extremely off. And you say next year they will each have 1200 and 1300, which only adds up to 2500, not the 3908 you say will be the combined next year. Check your math next time.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:49 pm

HockeyMN1 wrote:
hockeydad wrote:The enrollment number listed on MSHSL website for Chaska is wrong. That is what the enrollment would have been had Chanhassen not opened this year. So subtract 1,000 from that "combined enrollment" figure in the post on the top of the page. Next year, when the split is complete and Chanhassen has seniors, each school will have about 1200 to 1300 students - which makes them a good fit for the Missota.
That post is completly illogical since even though Chan hasno seniors, Chaska has all the seniors that would have went to Chan, therefore not skewing the numbers. Plus, subtracting 1,000 because there are no seniors is extremely off. And you say next year they will each have 1200 and 1300, which only adds up to 2500, not the 3908 you say will be the combined next year. Check your math next time.

You're right. I didn't clarify the numbers. Here are the facts.

last year's Chaska MSHSL enrollment numbers 2426, according to MSHSL Directory

This year's Chaska MSHSL enrollment 2446, according to MSHSL directory

This year' Chanhassen MSHSL enrollment 1,000, according to MSHSL directory.

The 1,000 Chanhassen students did not just appear in the district this year. The league did the same thing several years ago when Lakeville South opened, They listed Lakeville North's enrollment based on what Lakeville High School would have had without the split, then they estimated South's enrollment at 1,000.

Let's assume that enrollment goes up about 1 percent in the district next year, (about the same as what it was this year) That's 2470 high school students. If the two schools were split evenly, that would be 1235 for each school. I chose to go on the assumption that there was an attempt to make the schools somewhat, but not exactly, even, which is where I got the number of 1,200 to 1,300 students in each school.

I don't know where the combined 3,908 number in your first post came from.

I hope that clarifies it.

Regardless of the numbers, the premise of the thread is that Chaska should have better results team-wise based on its enrollment and the success in the youth program. I agree entirely. I've got relatives and friends in that district, and I know, at least for hockey, they lose a lot to the private schools, and the in the case of one family I now that opted for private school did so for two reasons: 1-the poor state of the Chaska HS hockey program and 2-a family tradition at the private school/hockey power in question. In talking to the dad, I got the impression that the hockey was a much bigger factor than the family tradition in making their choice.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Chaska/Chan

Chaska/Chan

chaska/chan