Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Understand the Edina bitterness - almost EVERYONE has that!Lazy Scout wrote:I can't leave Edina out of it because they beat HM (who wants to succeed). Holy Family, Benilde, Holy Angeles, and Cretin ALL got beat and didn't even make it to State.
Not every hockey player that chooses to attend a private school is some phenom talented player. I am not going to agree that private schools have an unfair advantage......then why was the AA state tournament all privates?
Tell me how a school such as Hibbing can rise to the level of STA. Just list for me the steps that don't involve relocating the school to the middle of a major metropolitan area and then we'll all know that you are right and that there is no insane advantage enjoyed by metro privates in A.Lazy Scout wrote:And all 8 class A teams did compete, they just didn't all succeed. Just as the MSHSL states...
Thats 20%! Pretty good odds when you consider none of them have AA enrollment. Obfuscation.Lazy Scout wrote:First you didn't answer my question then....why was the AA tournament not filled with mostly metro private schools? Only one out of eight.
Kids are much more competative in all sports these days, at all schools, big, small, public and private. I don't wonder how these tiny private schools are any more stronger or competative than large metro suburban schools like EP, Wayzata, and yes Edina. Why does Edina dominate in high school hockey for the last 40 plus years? What is their unfair advantage say over a large metro school like Stillwater? Schools that have proven to have great coaches and a winning program attract players and that is why the same schools are always good!
p.s. since the tournament spllit into two classes , private schools have only won 5 titles in AA while public schools have won 17. Just a little fyi.
My argument is that metro private school should all be in A. Why don't privates dominate AA? Because the privates in AA are playing against other schools that draw from AA sized talent pools. This is exactly my point. Has Edina really dominated? Did they win 12 of the last 15 in AA? Try more like 2 of the last 15. Private schools have only won 5 of those 15 and those 15 titles have been won by 11 different teams. Do you know what this is called? Competitive balance.Lazy Scout wrote:First you didn't answer my question then....why was the AA tournament not filled with mostly metro private schools? Only one out of eight.
Kids are much more competative in all sports these days, at all schools, big, small, public and private. I don't wonder how these tiny private schools are any more stronger or competative than large metro suburban schools like EP, Wayzata, and yes Edina. Why does Edina dominate in high school hockey for the last 40 plus years? What is their unfair advantage say over a large metro school like Stillwater? Schools that have proven to have great coaches and a winning program attract players and that is why the same schools are always good!
p.s. since the tournament spllit into two classes , private schools have only won 5 titles in AA while public schools have won 17. Just a little fyi.
By the way, that 20% AA win percentage was for 5 teams!! Even with STA moving up that's 6 teams against the field.Bonehead wrote:Thats 20%! Pretty good odds when you consider none of them have AA enrollment. Obfuscation.Lazy Scout wrote:First you didn't answer my question then....why was the AA tournament not filled with mostly metro private schools? Only one out of eight.
Kids are much more competative in all sports these days, at all schools, big, small, public and private. I don't wonder how these tiny private schools are any more stronger or competative than large metro suburban schools like EP, Wayzata, and yes Edina. Why does Edina dominate in high school hockey for the last 40 plus years? What is their unfair advantage say over a large metro school like Stillwater? Schools that have proven to have great coaches and a winning program attract players and that is why the same schools are always good!
p.s. since the tournament spllit into two classes , private schools have only won 5 titles in AA while public schools have won 17. Just a little fyi.
Wanna post the single A stats?
No one ever says Breck has a down year because they don't ever have a down year - AWKWARD!Lazy Scout wrote:The last I checked Hibbing's population is greater than Hermantowns. How did Hermantown rise to the level of STA for 4 straight years and almost beat them? So if Hermantown can do it, can't Hibbing? What advantage does Hermantown have over Hibbing? Oh yea, they can attract players from the greater Duluth area, that must be it.
As far as Breck, noone ever said they had a down year. #2 ranked private team in the state kept small EGF to a one goal game. I would say that is a pretty good 3rd place state game. According to you bashing the privates as an unfair advantage, I would say than that was quite a huge accomplishment to lose to Breck by only one goal.
Lazy Scout wrote:The last I checked Hibbing's population is greater than Hermantowns. That's great, did you happen to check the two schools enrollments? There not that different, given you can subtract Chisholm's numbers because they are a basketball town and contribute very little to the hockey program. How did Hermantown rise to the level of STA for 4 straight years and almost beat them? Hermantown didn't rise to the level of STA. STA has 5 titles in 8 years. Hermantown has 1. Did you see last year's game where a Hermantown team that was better than this year's team got smoked by STA? So if Hermantown can do it, can't Hibbing? Hermantown hasn't done it. They have 1 title, STA has 5, Breck has 4. BSM hasn't been in A for 7 years and even they have more A titles than Hermantown. What advantage does Hermantown have over Hibbing? Not much. The enrollment numbers are close, but there is more wealth in Hermantown so more kids play hockey. Hibbing plays them tough every year. Oh yea, they can attract players from the greater Duluth area, that must be it. Hermantown doesn't allow open enrollment anymore. Their players live in the actual city of Hermantown. Keep trying this angle, it's really working for you. Have you thought of a public school in A other than Hermantown to use as an example of being able to compete with STA or Breck? I'm still waiting.
As far as Breck, noone ever said they had a down year. You have your opinion, but I'd say that a team that lost the Iverson brothers, Anderle, Opperman, Rudnick, and Kenney had nowhere to go but down. #2 ranked private team in the state kept small EGF to a one goal game. I would say that is a pretty good 3rd place state game. According to you bashing the privates as an unfair advantage, I would say than that was quite a huge accomplishment to lose to Breck by only one goal. I agree, it was a huge accomplishment. Staying that close to a team that draws from a huge metro area is surprising.
So, it's a metro thing, not a private thing? Or simply a private thing? Oh, no, wait, it's a "metro private school having success" thing.rainier wrote:Metro private schools have won 12 of the last 15 Class A titles. Can you honestly say that being located in the Twin Cities isn't a huge advantage? How is it that a team can pull top players from several AA sized areas and then call themselves a legitmate A team? How is this not hiding behind the enrollment number to dominate smaller schools that have no access to this insane amount of talent?
Why have other states implemented multipliers or separated public and private into different tourneys? Read the article I posted a link to in a few posts prior to this. Private schools enjoy advantages, and these are magnified greatly in Class A. Did I mention metro private schools have won 12 of the last 15 Class A titles? Did you know it's the same domination in girls hockey?
Hermantown has a great program. Their players are from Hermantown, a town of 9,000, not an amalgamation of all stars from a metro area of 2.5 million, plus other states. Opting up because you are successful and opting up because you are located in huge metro area are very different things. If private schools had been placed in AA, as they should be, then Hermantown would have a few more titles and the pressure would absolutely have been on them to opt up, and I'm sure they would have.
If you see no difference between Hermantown and STA then I don't know what to tell you.
What are these advantages you speak of? People throw around the term "advantages" often but don't actually specify what it means.Bonehead wrote:Agreed! And you can take out the metro part as far as I'm concerned. The advantages available to privates are obvious to me. MSHSL guarantees the opportunity to compete - not succeed.Lazy Scout wrote:So now if you are a metro private school that doesn't "focus" on hockey you can stay in A? You can't have it both ways.....
Good article, and the talk about scholarship money brings up an interesting point. In Nevada, one of the proposed solutions to restore competitive balance is by capping the amount of financial aid a private school can direct towards one sport or athlete. Of course the private schools there were not jumping at the chance to show everyone where their resources were going.
Great article.
I'm thinking that a private school is a business. It needs to attract students to survive. A private school also needs to differentiate itself from other private schools to survive. Hockey is an expensive sport so it makes sense that people who can afford hockey would also be willing to spend money to get Jimmy a great education in a safe, nurturing environment and still get his hockey fix.HShockeywatcher wrote:So, it's a metro thing, not a private thing? Or simply a private thing? Oh, no, wait, it's a "metro private school having success" thing.rainier wrote:Metro private schools have won 12 of the last 15 Class A titles. Can you honestly say that being located in the Twin Cities isn't a huge advantage? How is it that a team can pull top players from several AA sized areas and then call themselves a legitmate A team? How is this not hiding behind the enrollment number to dominate smaller schools that have no access to this insane amount of talent?
Why have other states implemented multipliers or separated public and private into different tourneys? Read the article I posted a link to in a few posts prior to this. Private schools enjoy advantages, and these are magnified greatly in Class A. Did I mention metro private schools have won 12 of the last 15 Class A titles? Did you know it's the same domination in girls hockey?
Hermantown has a great program. Their players are from Hermantown, a town of 9,000, not an amalgamation of all stars from a metro area of 2.5 million, plus other states. Opting up because you are successful and opting up because you are located in huge metro area are very different things. If private schools had been placed in AA, as they should be, then Hermantown would have a few more titles and the pressure would absolutely have been on them to opt up, and I'm sure they would have.
If you see no difference between Hermantown and STA then I don't know what to tell you.
It's okay for all of the other public over private successes, but when when Hermantown blows multiple goal leads in 3 of the 4 games they have played at state with St Thomas that is because St Thomas is private and Hermantown is public?
They have instituted a multiplier because of the likelihood of students to participate in a sport/extracurricular activity, much like the likelihood of a poor student to participate. Most private schools have close to 100% of students participate in some activity and
Enrollment is probably the best number you can easily get from every school, but in reality is far from the best number you can use to see the number of kids participating in sports. What is the best way? I don't know, but a multiplier makes it more "fair."
Personally, I think the number of activities at the school should be factored in as well. If you compare two schools of similar size and one has half as many sports in a season as the other, they are more likely to have more kids come out. Nothing is a perfect way to do it.
You are right, they are two very different things, however one of them is a reason that makes sense to opt up based on the current system, while the other does not. By your definition, all metro area schools should be AA because they're from the metro (I know, you just try to craft something to single out one school).
You have been saying for pages that "they are different" although I haven't seen anyone claiming these two communities are not different. They are very different. Different doesn't mean better.
Good luck on wasting your time with change.org. However, a petition to the MSHSL on using specific genders, sport options, and multipliers for classifications is one I would sign. They all make more sense than the current method. Anything to try to capture the actually number of people participating in a sport at a school would be great.
What are these advantages you speak of? People throw around the term "advantages" often but don't actually specify what it means.Bonehead wrote:Agreed! And you can take out the metro part as far as I'm concerned. The advantages available to privates are obvious to me. MSHSL guarantees the opportunity to compete - not succeed.Lazy Scout wrote:So now if you are a metro private school that doesn't "focus" on hockey you can stay in A? You can't have it both ways.....
Not in every situation, but in general, I see the private schools having inherent disadvantages and the results being what we call an advantage.
Think of whatever analogy you want, but I see it as better results or better reaction to disadvantages.
Lazy Scout wrote:Rainier- you tell me.... How did Hermantown build a competative program? They built a great single A program and all single A teams should look to them as an example. TRF and Hibbing are roughly the same size. Hermantown must have the secret formula all non privates are looking for. They do, but unfortunately schools drawing from a huge, AA-sized area take forever to opt up or don't opt up, so even though Hermantown has maximized their talent pool, they have only 1 title while those schools that draw from huge areas have a combined 12 of the last 15. Hermantown is the anomaly of all anomalies in Class A, yet they can't get by the metro privates. You still don't see the real issue here? I guess if the price of acknowledging the truth was having to admit my team's last three titles were meaningless, I'd make desperate, illogical arguments too. At STA, do they send out the invites for the state hockey title party in September when school starts? Or do they wait to see how good Breck is first?
Isn't this a disadvantage? Needing to attract others to survive is a disadvantage?Bonehead wrote:I'm thinking that a private school is a business. It needs to attract students to survive. A private school also needs to differentiate itself from other private schools to survive. Hockey is an expensive sport so it makes sense that people who can afford hockey would also be willing to spend money to get Jimmy a great education in a safe, nurturing environment and still get his hockey fix.HShockeywatcher wrote:What are these advantages you speak of? People throw around the term "advantages" often but don't actually specify what it means.Bonehead wrote: Agreed! And you can take out the metro part as far as I'm concerned. The advantages available to privates are obvious to me. MSHSL guarantees the opportunity to compete - not succeed.
Not in every situation, but in general, I see the private schools having inherent disadvantages and the results being what we call an advantage.
Think of whatever analogy you want, but I see it as better results or better reaction to disadvantages.
It's a marketing advantage. It's business vs. government. It's a model that's working TOO well for the business side of the equation.
At it's root the money is important, but you really can't buy good hockey players if there are no good hockey players where you shop.HShockeywatcher wrote:Isn't this a disadvantage? Needing to attract others to survive is a disadvantage?Bonehead wrote:I'm thinking that a private school is a business. It needs to attract students to survive. A private school also needs to differentiate itself from other private schools to survive. Hockey is an expensive sport so it makes sense that people who can afford hockey would also be willing to spend money to get Jimmy a great education in a safe, nurturing environment and still get his hockey fix.HShockeywatcher wrote: What are these advantages you speak of? People throw around the term "advantages" often but don't actually specify what it means.
Not in every situation, but in general, I see the private schools having inherent disadvantages and the results being what we call an advantage.
Think of whatever analogy you want, but I see it as better results or better reaction to disadvantages.
It's a marketing advantage. It's business vs. government. It's a model that's working TOO well for the business side of the equation.
I understand what you're saying, but how do you apply that to all broadly? Some have some competitive teams, some have a lot and others have very few. It's very hard, imo, to say "you're private, so you are placed here" is more what I'm getting at.
A small private school can be just as unsuccessful at getting students for a specific sport as a small public community. It has to do with where resources are put. My point exactly! Resource allocation at a private school is dictated by the market segment they are trying to attract. They have the option of giving it the full go (Hill/BSM/STA/Breck, etc.) by simply deciding to attract hockey families. No messy relocation required. If you build it they will come, but they have to come from somewhere. That somewhere often has to sit and watch TV every March.
The devil's advocate to this, which is my question; if specific private schools are making this work, why aren't specific public schools doing it as well. While they are publicly funded and will not be shut down if they were to operate at a loss, they are also a business in the sense that they take in money and choose where money is spent. You know the answer to this one. Most ARE operating at a loss in both dollars and students. Some schools do excel over time in spite of this (Edina joke here), but they have what seems like to the rest of us unlimited resources to allocate. Mega schools can also sustain this for as long as they can keep their demographics relatively young and engaged.
If it is seen that putting the money in certain places works best, why not try to do that? For example. Many do it and have success with it.
Should the public schools be trying to attract the same students?Bonehead wrote:At it's root the money is important, but you really can't buy good hockey players if there are no good hockey players where you shop.HShockeywatcher wrote:Isn't this a disadvantage? Needing to attract others to survive is a disadvantage?Bonehead wrote: I'm thinking that a private school is a business. It needs to attract students to survive. A private school also needs to differentiate itself from other private schools to survive. Hockey is an expensive sport so it makes sense that people who can afford hockey would also be willing to spend money to get Jimmy a great education in a safe, nurturing environment and still get his hockey fix.
It's a marketing advantage. It's business vs. government. It's a model that's working TOO well for the business side of the equation.
I understand what you're saying, but how do you apply that to all broadly? Some have some competitive teams, some have a lot and others have very few. It's very hard, imo, to say "you're private, so you are placed here" is more what I'm getting at.
A small private school can be just as unsuccessful at getting students for a specific sport as a small public community. It has to do with where resources are put. My point exactly! Resource allocation at a private school is dictated by the market segment they are trying to attract. They have the option of giving it the full go (Hill/BSM/STA/Breck, etc.) by simply deciding to attract hockey families. No messy relocation required. If you build it they will come, but they have to come from somewhere. That somewhere often has to sit and watch TV every March.
The devil's advocate to this, which is my question; if specific private schools are making this work, why aren't specific public schools doing it as well. While they are publicly funded and will not be shut down if they were to operate at a loss, they are also a business in the sense that they take in money and choose where money is spent. You know the answer to this one. Most ARE operating at a loss in both dollars and students. Some schools do excel over time in spite of this (Edina joke here), but they have what seems like to the rest of us unlimited resources to allocate. Mega schools can also sustain this for as long as they can keep their demographics relatively young and engaged.
If it is seen that putting the money in certain places works best, why not try to do that? For example. Many do it and have success with it.
BTW, nice to actually discuss this stuff!HShockeywatcher wrote:
Should the public schools be trying to attract the same students?
There is this community "attitude" that is supposed to go one way, where the families are loyal to the community, but not the other way around.
No, I don't know the answer to that one. The gains from doing the same things private schools do could be exponential compared to what the private schools get out of them. Private schools get a specific student and a small community gain. Public schools get immediate gain at the community level.
Take what St Thomas did with hockey for example. They built a facility and hired quality coaches. What have they gained? You be the judge.
Now, do similar at a public community with a struggling hockey program. You have the ability to increase youth involvement, help students out academically, raise more money for programs at every level, etc, etc.
I asked this question earlier about the alumni associations that private schools have which fund virtually all of what they do; why aren't parents on the phone with alumni raising money for facilities and community outreach etc constantly?
It's money, but ultimately it's also the parent/family involvement that comes along with having the money.
The money is there, often not being used properly and the response is simply to blame the people who are using it correctly. It makes little sense to me. That's what continues to get me.
There are public communities around the country that build amazing facilities, get the community involved, have great academics, and do all the right things, urban and suburban, while others do not.
You're right, you can't "buy good hockey players" but you can get more people playing hockey at a younger age. Personally, I would say more involvement is much more important than success at the higher levels.
I was hoping I'd put down the message board and get on with my life by now!!