Question on school classification?

[HShockeywatcher]

No matter what publics can lose and gain. It goes BOTH ways for them. Privates ONLY take from other programs

In a dollars sense, students leaving public schools for private schools gives them more money. That must suck.

You say they take, I say the public didn't do what it had to to keep them, which is the bigger issue. And one that I would agree needs fixing. But yeah, blame the issue, not the cause.

I'm out. Anyone know if the MSHSL publishes a list of students from each school in a co-op participating in certain sports?

[goldy313]

As hockeydad pointed out their were extenuating circumstances here. The MSHSL addressed this and starting with next school year there is a set timetable for renewing co-ops or not so kids know up front whether they can play or not instead of waiting until days before the season or the first week of the season only to be told "sorry, we won't play AA". LeSeuer could have said no to the kids but from what I understand they made a deal with the MSHSL to accept them if they could stay in A. In 2009 when they took the M/L co-op from New Prague they were bumped up mid cycle.

[MNHockeyFan]

No matter what publics can lose and gain. It goes BOTH ways for them. Privates ONLY take from other programs

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

[HShockeywatcher]

Nice post MNHockeyFan.

As hockeydad pointed out their were extenuating circumstances here. The MSHSL addressed this and starting with next school year there is a set timetable for renewing co-ops or not so kids know up front whether they can play or not instead of waiting until days before the season or the first week of the season only to be told "sorry, we won't play AA". LeSeuer could have said no to the kids but from what I understand they made a deal with the MSHSL to accept them if they could stay in A. In 2009 when they took the M/L co-op from New Prague they were bumped up mid cycle.

I agree, that sucks. And for certain teams around the state, that would be a huge deal; many have a chance to compete for a title in A but not AA. That being said, these teams we're talking about really do not. Obviously as a coach, you want to give your kids the best chance you can to win, but you also have to be realistic about your talent.

[The X]

No matter what publics can lose and gain. It goes BOTH ways for them. Privates ONLY take from other programs

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

[Django]

Mshockeywatcher - you said ' If you are implying "unqualified" hockey players are taking spots from "qualified" non-hockey player'....
At a private school that gets more applicants than they have space for, all applicants are 'qualified', an exceptional athlete gets accepted, the other doesn't.  

[karl(east)]

No matter what publics can lose and gain. It goes BOTH ways for them. Privates ONLY take from other programs

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

While I have for the most part exhausted the private school arguments in my time on here, I will throw this out there.

I do have to ask, though...if private schools are forced to play AA, are we okay with forcing up the following schools, which are all either private or are part of a co-op including a private and can therefore enjoy the alleged "recruiting" benefits of being a private school:

66 Providence Academy
68 Holy Family Catholic
87 New Ulm
100 St. Paul Academy
106 Faribault
122 River Lakes
131 Winona
137 St. Paul Saints
138 Minnehaha Academy
141 Legacy Christian Academy
150 Sleepy Eye
153 Fairmont
155 Mankato East

[The X]

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

While I have for the most part exhausted the private school arguments in my time on here, I will throw this out there.

I do have to ask, though...if private schools are forced to play AA, are we okay with forcing up the following schools, which are all either private or are part of a co-op including a private and can therefore enjoy the alleged "recruiting" benefits of being a private school:

66 Providence Academy
68 Holy Family Catholic
87 New Ulm
100 St. Paul Academy
106 Faribault
122 River Lakes
131 Winona
137 St. Paul Saints
138 Minnehaha Academy
141 Legacy Christian Academy
150 Sleepy Eye
153 Fairmont
155 Mankato East

I say yes Karl. The schedule these teams play during the season is up to them until sections. If you reside in a large population to draw from you have no choice in the matter. Twin City Metro, Duluth, Rochester, Mankato have these numbers. If the Sleepy eyes and the rest want to try to stay "A", then send in a waiver similar to what Le sour/Henderson did this year with the MSHL. At that point the MSHL will send a memo to all "A" teams in that section and the coaches can vote on it. If the coaches deem that the requested team is in fact worthy of an "A" rating then the approval takes place. The rating lasts for two years and then is voted on again. This will eliminate the domination of the privates at the "A" level which is undeniable.

[karl(east)]

I say yes Karl. The schedule these teams play during the season is up to them until sections. If you reside in a large population to draw from you have no choice in the matter. Twin City Metro, Duluth, Rochester, Mankato have these numbers. If the Sleepy eyes and the rest want to try to stay "A", then send in a waiver similar to what Le sour/Henderson did this year with the MSHL. At that point the MSHL will send a memo to all "A" teams in that section and the coaches can vote on it. If the coaches deem that the requested team is in fact worthy of an "A" rating then the approval takes place. The rating lasts for two years and then is voted on again. This will eliminate the domination of the privates at the "A" level which is undeniable.

It's not a bad idea. I do see a problem, though. Take New Ulm, or Faribault...decent programs that we probably all agree should be class A; NU is good enough to be a consistent contender, and Faribault may not be quite that good, but they can at least compete with the better teams in 1A. Now, when they ask to be put back in A, what incentive to the other coaches in their section have to accept them back? If I'm the coach at Litchfield or Hutchinson or New Prague or Albert Lea, I'd be happy to get this team out of my section, even if it sucks for them--that's one less team I have to worry about come sections.

Your solution is a good one for forcing the stronger A private schoool/private co-ops into AA, and good for the terrible ones that should stay in A. But I think it hurts the mid-level ones who probably should stay in A.

[The X]

I say yes Karl. The schedule these teams play during the season is up to them until sections. If you reside in a large population to draw from you have no choice in the matter. Twin City Metro, Duluth, Rochester, Mankato have these numbers. If the Sleepy eyes and the rest want to try to stay "A", then send in a waiver similar to what Le sour/Henderson did this year with the MSHL. At that point the MSHL will send a memo to all "A" teams in that section and the coaches can vote on it. If the coaches deem that the requested team is in fact worthy of an "A" rating then the approval takes place. The rating lasts for two years and then is voted on again. This will eliminate the domination of the privates at the "A" level which is undeniable.

It's not a bad idea. I do see a problem, though. Take New Ulm, or Faribault...decent programs that we probably all agree should be class A; NU is good enough to be a consistent contender, and Faribault may not be quite that good, but they can at least compete with the better teams in 1A. Now, when they ask to be put back in A, what incentive to the other coaches in their section have to accept them back? If I'm the coach at Litchfield or Hutchinson or New Prague or Albert Lea, I'd be happy to get this team out of my section, even if it sucks for them--that's one less team I have to worry about come sections.

Your solution is a good one for forcing the stronger A private schoool/private co-ops into AA, and good for the terrible ones that should stay in A. But I think it hurts the mid-level ones who probably should stay in A.

That is a great point Karl and I agree that the coaches would have to be on the honor system. But I think if its a 2 yr. commitment that should eliminate some of the fear factor. St. Cloud would be another that falls within the larger drawing areas.

[MHGr8ness]

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

While I have for the most part exhausted the private school arguments in my time on here, I will throw this out there.

I do have to ask, though...if private schools are forced to play AA, are we okay with forcing up the following schools, which are all either private or are part of a co-op including a private and can therefore enjoy the alleged "recruiting" benefits of being a private school:

66 Providence Academy
68 Holy Family Catholic
87 New Ulm
100 St. Paul Academy
106 Faribault
122 River Lakes
131 Winona
137 St. Paul Saints
138 Minnehaha Academy
141 Legacy Christian Academy
150 Sleepy Eye
153 Fairmont
155 Mankato East

I say yes, although schools like New Ulm Cathedral with New Ulm and Loyola with East are difficult. They obviously aren't setting up power teams, at least not for hockey if they have to combine with a larger program just to get their kids to play hockey. So the if the privates are "additions" then it adds to their enrollment, but doesn't force them into AA based soley on having a privates school in the co-op.

[MHGr8ness]

No matter what publics can lose and gain. It goes BOTH ways for them. Privates ONLY take from other programs

If a public "loses" a hockey player (or any other student) it's because they weren't the most attractive alternative to the individual. If this happens more often than not, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Competition is good and it makes everyone better, and individuals benefit when there is choice. When there's a monopoly and kids/parents have no choice, there is stagnation. This applies to both academics and athletics.

The other part of your post "Privates ONLY take from other programs" IS true, in a sense. Private high schools do not "develop" their own youth players. BUT NEITHER DO PUBLIC SCHOOLS! Our youth programs are COMMUNITY based, and it's the COMMUNITY PROGRAMS that develop the players, NOT the high schools! It just so happens that for youth hockey in Minnesota the boundaries are drawn to follow public school district boundaries. And of course there are no district boundaries set aside for private schools! Therefore, when you say, "Privates ONLY take from other programs", well, that HAS to be true! Otherwise it would be impossible for any private school to field a hockey team!

Also note that the school boundary thing for youth teams does not apply to all sports. The best example I can think of is soccer, where club teams "recruit" the best players wherever they can get them. For this reason I'm sure the parochial public/private thing is not nearly the issue that it is with hockey.

The last point I want to make is that when kids are approaching high school age, they and their parents have a decision to make: which school will be best for me/my kid? Is it the nearest public, or a different public nearby that is supposed to be better academically and/or has a better hockey program/coach? Or should I consider a private school that might offer these and other advantages?

I've been through the whole process, and have come to realize that it's totally up to each individual. Confronted with the same facts, different people will come to different decisions. The important thing is that each kid (and their parents) should have the choice to do what they believe is best for them. If you look at it this way, from the point of view of the individual, then you realize there is no "taking" from one school to the other going on. The important thing is to make sure that all options for each individual are there for the choosing. If this leads to one or another school or two winning more than what some think is fair, that's tough! It will only make those other schools do what's needed to become more competitive.

I agree that people need to do what's best for them, but It was the public school's student/athlete when it was playing in their youth programs, though. Fact is the same to me... they can recruit from anywhere so they should be forced up to AA. And do you really wanna compare hockey with soccer???????

[HShockeywatcher]

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

So if a parent makes the choice that a private school is what is right for them the school needs to be AA, but if a parent makes the choice to open enroll their student in another district, that school can stay A because it's public? I'm missing the logic here...

The following was a post made by a Warroad fan referencing Alex Lyon and playing for LOW:

If he would have done what most good players from Baudette do and open enrolled at Warroad than he could very well have two state championship rings working on his third right now.

I was surprised to read something like this. But it happens. And probably not just there.

I agree that people need to do what's best for them, but It was the public school's student/athlete when it was playing in their youth programs, though. Fact is the same to me... they can recruit from anywhere so they should be forced up to AA. And do you really wanna compare hockey with soccer???????

There are zero students in private elementary/middle schools playing in youth programs? Is that really what you are saying?

[The X]

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

So if a parent makes the choice that a private school is what is right for them the school needs to be AA, but if a parent makes the choice to open enroll their student in another district, that school can stay A because it's public? I'm missing the logic here...

The following was a post made by a Warroad fan referencing Alex Lyon and playing for LOW:

If he would have done what most good players from Baudette do and open enrolled at Warroad than he could very well have two state championship rings working on his third right now.

I was surprised to read something like this. But it happens. And probably not just there.

I agree that people need to do what's best for them, but It was the public school's student/athlete when it was playing in their youth programs, though. Fact is the same to me... they can recruit from anywhere so they should be forced up to AA. And do you really wanna compare hockey with soccer???????

There are zero students in private elementary/middle schools playing in youth programs? Is that really what you are saying?

The solution is about 4 posts back on this subject. There is no doubt there is some open enrolling going on but its not apples to apples, we both know that. If said school has a large population to choose from then yes you go "AA". Or, we could do what the mshl did prior to 1980, which to me was the right thing to do and you are seeing exactly why they went that route.

[crickett75]

With open enrollment so can the publics!

Not the same. Public has to except all. Private can recruit and choose.

Anyone can join a private school as well; you just need to fork over the money/be on financial aid.

Puck - You don't enroll at a private school, you apply. At most, many are rejected.

Your athletic prowness, along with other extra curriculars, is a consideration. It's good business for privates to accept good athletes.

Good athletes are first in line for financial aid.

[crickett75]

With open enrollment so can the publics!

Not the same. Public has to except all. Private can recruit and choose.

Not true. They do not have to accept any from outside their district. Many do not.

Name one.

No, really. Name ONE.

[PuckU126]

Puck - You don't enroll at a private school, you apply. At most, many are rejected.

Some private schools allow enrollment and some you must apply. It all comes down to the $$.

We're both correct here.

[MHGr8ness]

This is by far the best post I have seen as far as explaining this public vs. private debate. HShockeywatcher, great job! I totally agree with the facts you have laid out. The privates have no boundrys for which they can get players. The parents have a decision to make regarding which school they choose, agreed. And, last but not least, if the privates win more because of these factors, "thats tough", agreed. The only thing I would ask is that these schools play "AA" for all the reasons you just explained. If the parents/player decides to make this "decision" to play for a better program/sport, then know you will be playing at the "AA" level because of your decision. Seriously, your post was the best explanation I have ever seen regarding this subject and adds clarity to this subject. I do agree that people should have choices, no problem with that from me whatsoever.

So if a parent makes the choice that a private school is what is right for them the school needs to be AA, but if a parent makes the choice to open enroll their student in another district, that school can stay A because it's public? I'm missing the logic here...

The following was a post made by a Warroad fan referencing Alex Lyon and playing for LOW:

If he would have done what most good players from Baudette do and open enrolled at Warroad than he could very well have two state championship rings working on his third right now.

I was surprised to read something like this. But it happens. And probably not just there.

I agree that people need to do what's best for them, but It was the public school's student/athlete when it was playing in their youth programs, though. Fact is the same to me... they can recruit from anywhere so they should be forced up to AA. And do you really wanna compare hockey with soccer???????

There are zero students in private elementary/middle schools playing in youth programs? Is that really what you are saying?

I'm talking about squirts, peewees, bantams, etc. I just don't like forming all-star teams. Even if they're formed in publics. I think it's wrong to leave your school and friends. Don't be a sellout.

[crickett75]

Puck - You don't enroll at a private school, you apply. At most, many are rejected.

Some private schools allow enrollment and some you must apply. It all comes down to the $$.

We're both correct here.

Lets keep it relative to the conversation.

At any private school good at hockey, you must apply.

Better?

You need money at all of them. But at some, money isn't enough.

[crickett75]

I'm talking about squirts, peewees, bantams, etc. I just don't like forming all-star teams. Even if they're formed in publics. I think it's wrong to leave your school and friends. Don't be a sellout.

That all sounds great except if your Dad and his Dad and his Dad went to Cretin or St. Thomas. Little Mario might just be expected to also. Privates aren't allowed by Minnesota Hockey to have A level youth programs, so they can't "build their own". Kids enroll, and the schools make their choices. What would you have them do?

[HShockeywatcher]

If you live in MPLS Southwest's district and are good at basketball, but want to apply for MPLS Washburn's (or North or Henry) magnet program, you can do so. You can also play basketball for them, if you make the team. The program doesn't need to move up a class, in fact, because of free/reduced lunch they may move down even though you were "drawn" to their program.

If you live in MPLS Southwest's district and are good at hockey, but want to apply for admission to The Blake School, you can do so. You can also play hockey for them, if you make the team. This program for some reason under these new "guidelines" needs to move up a class because you were "drawn" to them.

Not the same. Public has to except all. Private can recruit and choose.

Not true. They do not have to accept any from outside their district. Many do not.

Name one.

No, really. Name ONE.

Hermantown.

I'm talking about squirts, peewees, bantams, etc. I just don't like forming all-star teams. Even if they're formed in publics. I think it's wrong to leave your school and friends. Don't be a sellout.

As am I. You can attend a private kindergarten, elementary school, middle school and all the while play on the squirt, peewee and bantam teams for the CITY you live in. Just like your teammates, when you go to high school (and no longer playing bantams) you are then playing for your high school's team.

[PuckU126]

Puck - You don't enroll at a private school, you apply. At most, many are rejected.

Some private schools allow enrollment and some you must apply. It all comes down to the $$.

We're both correct here.

Lets keep it relative to the conversation.

At any private school good at hockey, you must apply.

Better?

You need money at all of them. But at some, money isn't enough.

I'll roll with that.

[BadgerBob82]

When a special co-op is established to let "orphaned" players into a program, I would think the number of players involved could decide the percentage of the co-op school enrollment counted. Example, if 1 player comes from a school co-op that player represents 5% of a hockey team. Couldn't they work a formulat to count 5% of the enrollment? I know this would change year to year, but a co-op to accept one player is different than a co-op with 50-50 division from each school?

I would like the MSHSL to require home address to be a part of the equation. A certain percentage of players must reside in the district boundary, or maybe use a bussing boundary or something appropriate. Using Hill-Murray as an example. They clearly lay out their bussing boundary. If X% of players live outsite that area, they are moved to AA. When the team's program roster needs to list player's hometown, then Class A doesn't apply.

[hockeydad]

I read somwheere that one state (maybe Illinois, not sure) has a rule for what they call "Schools without borders" (private schools, charter schools, etc.)

When making classifications, they multiply the enrollment by some formula (1.5?) So for example, a school with an enrollmnet of 800 would be placed as if it is a school of 1200.

It wouldn't bump up all of the schools, but it would some of the bigger ones.

[goldy313]

When a special co-op is established to let "orphaned" players into a program, I would think the number of players involved could decide the percentage of the co-op school enrollment counted. Example, if 1 player comes from a school co-op that player represents 5% of a hockey team. Couldn't they work a formulat to count 5% of the enrollment? I know this would change year to year, but a co-op to accept one player is different than a co-op with 50-50 division from each school?

I would like the MSHSL to require home address to be a part of the equation. A certain percentage of players must reside in the district boundary, or maybe use a bussing boundary or something appropriate. Using Hill-Murray as an example. They clearly lay out their bussing boundary. If X% of players live outsite that area, they are moved to AA. When the team's program roster needs to list player's hometown, then Class A doesn't apply.

I like your idea but it gives outstate teams like Lourdes and Duluth Marshall and advantage because their "boundries" include 100,000+ people. Unless schools like that are also made AA all you're doing is weakening the A field by taking out the metro privates.

The percentage based enrollment system was tried and it was abused in wrestling, the recommendation was then changed to count every kid in the co-op schools as if they were 1 school. Essentially in wrestling you teams forming a co-op to beat someone else, get to state, and win without having to move up in class and compete against Apple Valley. The end result was a reduction in the number of programs which could have stood alone. Iin my area Southland forfiets about 7 of 14 weights yet sent 2 individuals to state meaning they're a good program, say they fromed a co-op with KMA, then you'd have an even better team at Kasson in AA while Southland lost their program.