"It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enrollment

Big Red · Post by **Big Red** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:06 pm

In the Mpls. Trib. today there is an article regarding OE entitled: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enrollment". Link: <a href="http://www.startribune.com/122/story/30 ...  The closing 4 paragraphs: "The MSHSL appears to be serious about tightening up open-enrollment regulations. In a few weeks MSHSL officials will make their annual tour of the state, holding area meetings with school representatives. One of the hot topics will be open enrollment. Open enrollment was instituted by legislative action in 1988, and the MSHSL knows that any changes to the current system are likely to prompt legal challenges. But there are strong feelings that the time has come to do what's best for high school athletics. This is what we could see in a couple years: no more penalty-free open-enrollment transfers. Kids will have to pick a school -- public or private, no difference -- before they begin ninth grade. Because once the bell rings to begin the first day of ninth grade, any open-enrollment transfers will result in one full school year of athletic ineligibility. Maybe our prayers will be answered."

Parents Keep Away · Post by **Parents Keep Away** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:42 pm

It is about time!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:01 pm

One legal challenge and this will be thrown out. In fact, one legal challenge and all MSHSL penalties could be voided - including the 2nd transfer rule not being acceptible as well, same being true for transfering after the start of the season, etc. The end result of making the rules more strict now could result in having none at all in the future... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/12/06 11:19 pm

slapshooter · Post by **slapshooter** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:37 am

Interesting point! S<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> S

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:45 am

Time will tell.

2hkyIgo · Post by **2hkyIgo** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:56 am

Open Enrollment is supposed to be about academic choice and not about extracurriculars. Open Enrollment is abused when the choice is about extracurriculars and not driven by academics. Let us remember that there are states that do not have Open enrollment. This is not a right but a law in Minnesota and broken laws can be fixed....

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:08 pm

I spoke to how this can be addressed from a correct/proper channels standpoint if people feel OE is wrong. I'll copy that below from its thread. <a href="http://p100.ezboard.com/fmnhsfrm7.showM ...  What could happen instead now is that the wording to the OE law could be amended to state that the reason/point is not the issue of an OE. Remember, thre is no standard but a parent's own jusgement as to what is a "better" option. I think the OE option was to give poor kids the same options as the rich with private schools. Kind of like a "school voucher" system that has been discussed but you can't pick privates... and you have to provide your own transportation... If a parent is stupid enough to move their kid to another worse academic school (how do you really measure this?) for good athletic teams, then so be it. We can't sop them! There has to be a reality check to everyone here. Have you ever heard of parents moving their kids to worse academic schools to play hockey? I didn't think so. No parent in their right mind would do so I can't imagine, and until which time we prove that cases such as that are an issue, we will have a hard time proving that transfers are athleticaly motivated alone. Remember that if even any academic reason exists, in my book then a transfer is legit. Also... may it be that a kid of slightly above average academics could get a D1 scholarship (and/or admittance) to a top notch school as a result of being an above average hockey player that is in need of additional recognition that strong teammates/teams/coaches/programs/training can bring? In some ways, isn't this sort of situation too an "academic" OE as it is to better a kids chances of future academic opportunity based on above average athletic talent that if cultivated correctly could bring furure academic oppportunity to a child? Just a different viewpoint. ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4703 (3/6/06 4:22 pm) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am now wondering if years ago I HAD to go "interview" with the school I was going to OE to, or if this was something that I initiated. I distinctly recall sitting down with principals of more than a few schools. Many schools filled quickly (as early as Dec or Jan) for the next year. I remember looking at WBL, Stillwater, Tartan, etc. at that time. Times have changed now I'm sure, but it seems to me that this stuff was watched closer years ago when it first started. What we should really do is open all the boundaries up and just let kids go anywhere they want - isn't this what we're already doing with OE??? This would/does force competition and accountability on the public schools as far as attracting students from other areas. Essentially this is what SSP does education wise already. They've raised the bar as far as what they have to offer, and they see many transfers in as a result. I would think that similar efforts by multiple public schools would be a good thing. We've seen the benifit of this in the Mpls/St. Paul Public schools over the last 10-20 years. St. Paul Central for example has become an outstanding academic institution, and this is far different from the way it was not so long ago from what I hear??? I also believe that St. Paul allows kids to "pick" their school now or essentially can open enroll within the district with transportation provided??? How we handle the athletic part is more tricky. What we have is a sport that is community based all the way up, and then when we get to HS that all changes due to privates, OE, etc. So, we have a group that believes that kids should play at their home area school (like youth). We have another group that believes that kids should be able to play wherever they want as long as they go to school there (like AAA/HS). What's really happening is that there is no way to make both sides happy. I proposed a "home area" and "HS/AAA" tourney as a "modest proposal" of sorts. It will never happen. What I guess I would really like to see is teams that are huge OE or private hockey powers opt out to AAA/MWEHL play like SSM has done. That's where those kids belong anyway in many respects competition wise. They could get more games, etc. and leave the MSHSL. It would be just like the old private school tourney situations that weren't MSHSL sanctioned events I don't believe years ago??? I'd even still allow these teams that leave the chance to play MSHSL teams. It woudl be the best of both worlds. They could compete for AAA State, Nationals, etc. too with their current teams. They could start in Sept when school starts, and play through the end of school if they wanted. They could put on their own MN state tourney at the end of the year, or just let the U19 State that WHAM & MN Hockey conduct be the State. They would compete against T-Breds and SSM there too. Then, the rest of the teams that don't choose to do this could play MSHSL A or AA, or even tiers, as maybe that's really what is more fair, to have the best/top half teams in AA no matter their size, and the bottom half teams in A. Edited by: ghshockeyfan at: 3/6/06 4:38 pm xk1 Registered Member Posts: 179 (3/6/06 4:48 pm) Reply Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's important todo due diligence on any school your child attends, including you resident school district. Some do, some don't. My original point was that there is no "academic" only requirement in the law. The point he was trying to make is that OE players lie on their form and that's what is bad. My guess is the kids don't even read the form, the parents just ask them to sign it. In any case, in my limited sample of OEers, I believe sports were at least mentioned although certainly not as the most important reason. ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4704 (3/6/06 8:16 pm) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The #1 reason that my suggestion won't happen is that private and OE teams would prefer to chase the mytical "state" tourney - the MSHSL tourney - that's played in one of the greatest venues in N America for hockey. But, they'd alos probably like to chase a national and AAA championship too and play almost year round (they legitimately could as the rules wouldn't prohibit them from doing so...)... Tough choice, eh? Edited by: ghshockeyfan at: 3/6/06 8:17 pm ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4706 (3/6/06 8:22 pm) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I should add that the first school to make this leap - to AAA - will likely get many transfers as the kids could play year round, play AAA level hockey, still get the HS experience, compete for the U19 State and National title, etc. It would seem logical that the first school to do so would be another private like SSM. I can't see a public school doing so, but, you never know... Nostalgic Nerd Registered Member Posts: 202 (3/6/06 11:50 pm) Reply Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Paul Central for example has become an outstanding academic institution, and this is far different from the way it was not so long ago from what I hear??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Academically I'm not sure. They were a huge power in basketball at one time. "Dream as if you'll live forever; Live as if you'll die today." --James Dean ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4710 (3/7/06 10:05 am) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Central's academics are very stellar in the IB program I believe. This was one of the schools that had kids in part of a co-op team I coached, and I had a sister that went there, etc. Very good school. Betweenthepipes66 Registered Member Posts: 14 (3/7/06 10:37 am) Reply Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't belive in OE but I really think the reasons are all selfish when it is done. What about the kids it hurts in the program they OE to? The spot or position it takes away from an up and coming player weather that child would be a super star or not how would anyone know because the attention is all focused on the OE'er. Age seems to be a huge factor in putting these players first, so the kid who is younger that works hard and really there for there team as a true team player gets shoved in the back!! I think its very wrong. I don't belive you should get a freebe, all OE's (because lets face it for academics whatever) should have to sit or be put on JV for the year!!! I'll bet you it wouldn't happen as much or often if super star Susie or Sam would have to think about that! JMO right or wrong :O) ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4711 (3/7/06 11:34 am) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is something to be said about paying dues, the impact that transfers have on both the program they are leaving and going to, etc. One thing that I think is tough esp. re: G HS Hockey is that in the best/deepest programs ONLY is it like the boys. Meaning, player depth wise, you will see a ton of kids competing for a spot, less & less stellar young kids being the V caliber players, etc. When an OE player comes in, it creates a more boys HS like environment in the program. There are more kids at the top to compete, and it does have a domino effect on the rest of the program, HS to mites. For every spot taken at the top, there coresponds a shocl wave that resonates to the JV/U19/U16-U14-U12-U10-U8 levels possibly. Maybe what could happen is that a HS could choose to field an AAA team and a HS team. Let the AAA team be made up of all the OE kids, best players, etc. The HS team could be the homegrown players. Let the AAA play in the MWEHL, let the HS play in the MSHSL. But, then, if it is a true AAA, it really wouldn't need to be based at one HS, or have participation tied to any specific school. The problem is that if an AAA team isn't affiliated with a school, then it would have a hard case to be made as far as playing MSHSL teams too - as SSM could/can/does allow for. This is why I assume we don't see the TB team playing MSHSL teams, but that may be for the fact that they don't feel the competition warrants it either - although I would say that some of the top HS teams can play with the SSM & TB teams. hockeyfinatic Registered Member Posts: 111 (3/7/06 11:56 am) Reply Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everybody should stop trying to find a resolution - there isn't one. What we need to do is continue to call out the teams that have OE players and then give all the credit to the teams that don't. Believe me it would effect the coaches/players when they win the state championship if nobody congratulated them or gave them the time of day. Just my toughts! Edited by: hockeyfinatic at: 3/7/06 12:30 pm ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4714 (3/7/06 12:36 pm) Reply | Edit Re: OE Solved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When you consider the options, the best one may be the one that is already in place. No agreement is ever likely perfect for all parties involved, but it could be a lot worse! All it will take is one school/association to choose to field an AAA like HS team. Once this happens, it will greatly hurt the MSHSL true HS teams in that such an AAA team will attract the best players. I think that this is the fear for many that understand what the fallout would be from this sort of move. It would signify the move from MSHSL "community" based athletics that compete for a school championship, to an "AAA" based setup where you compete for U19 State with the TB & SSM teams for a shot at nationals. If one or more of these AAA teams started to compete against the TB & SSM teams, it woudl destroy MSHSL HS hockey as we know it. The MSHSL game would become what HS Soccer, Gymnastics, etc. is like - but worse I believe. hockeyparent1 Registered Member Posts: 17 (3/9/06 11:11 pm) Reply Good Solution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is a perfect solution, in a perfect world, in a perect hockey state. But we are not. Wishfull thinking, something has to be done. ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4725 (3/10/06 12:20 am) Reply | Edit Re: Good Solution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's my solution: Anyone that has recruiting evidence that is factual and not just misperceived and/or fabricated, take it straight to the MSHSL immediately. As of right now, that is the only part of OE that is against the rules - when it is initiated by recruitment. If people feel that additional rules need to be passed to further restrict OE'ers that play athletics, then I would think that this too has to be taken up with the MSHSL as well, or, better yet, your state rep. They are the only ones that can address this properly. My guess though is that a few things will happen: #1 - The MSHSL will point to the recently passed stronger OE rules as being sufficient and the steps in the right direction. #2 - No state rep in their right mind will launch a bill to curtail any part of OE. They would get crucified, especially when OE helps drive the notion of accountability in our schools for the product they offer, which seems to be something that the state is pushing as a key initiative right now with the possibility of increased compensation for teachers/schools that outperform the norm. The notion of accountability could be somewhat extended from an athletic perspective in that kids leave both teams and schools as a result of better offering elsewhere. Typically I believe both are better at the new destination of an OE? #3 - Both the MSHSL & State will point to the fact that children in sports do better than those that aren't - so any measure beyond what the MSHSL has already done is likely not good from this perspective. Lastly, if any coach denies an OE kid a spot due to them being OE, there are grounds for a lawsuit due to discrimination and the lack of equal opportunity (which, by the way, is what the purpose of OE was in the beginning I believe?). All this being said, I think I go back to my original point. When you consider the options, the best one may be the one that is already in place. No agreement is ever likely perfect for all parties involved, but it could be a lot worse! All it will take is one school/association to choose to field an AAA like HS team. Once this happens, it will greatly hurt the MSHSL true HS teams in that such an AAA team will attract the best players. I think that this is the fear for many that understand what the fallout would be from this sort of move. It would signify the move from MSHSL "community" based athletics that compete for a school championship, to an "AAA" based setup where you compete for U19 State with the TB & SSM teams for a shot at nationals. If one or more of these AAA teams started to compete against the TB & SSM teams, it would destroy MSHSL HS hockey as we know it. The MSHSL game would become what HS Soccer, Gymnastics, etc. is like - but worse I believe. Edited by: ghshockeyfan at: 3/10/06 12:24 am xk1 Registered Member Posts: 183 (3/10/06 9:14 am) Reply Re: Good Solution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I have to wonder, is it OE that enrages people or the presumtion that OE is a result of recruiting? That is, it seems more acceptable that a parent may wish to OE for whatever reason but unacceptable when the so called recruiting exists. Perhaps the recruiting rules are what should really what need to be addressed. ghshockeyfan Registered Member Posts: 4726 (3/10/06 11:01 am) Reply | Edit Re: Good Solution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the issue is that everyone that sees OE as a threat sees it as a violation, when it isn't BY THE RULES. So, then immediately the assumption becomes that OE was induced by recruiting as surely the same coaches that are playing the more talented OE kid in front of less talented homegrown kids must be behind a huge conspiracy against said homegrown kid. The truth, as we all know, is that any coach will always play and take the best kids on their team unless they are "bought off" but who can really buy off people (coaches) that work for nothing? It may seem like they would be the easiest to "buy off" but the truth is that it's counterintuitive in that instead they don't NEED the $$$ usually if they work for so little and give so much in return... Also, remember that it is ILLEGAL for them to discriminate and not take an OE just on that fact... This aside, I think we also see a lot of problems with the teams with the most OE's at State time as this just illustrates how much this actually happens and also how successful such teams can be. I go back to what I think the real issue is at the root level: ================== What we have is a sport that is community based all the way up, and then when we get to HS that all changes due to privates, OE, etc. So, we have a group that believes that kids should play at their home area school (like youth). We have another group that believes that kids should be able to play wherever they want as long as they go to school there (like AAA/HS). What's really happening is that there is no way to make both sides happy. I proposed a "home area" and "HS/AAA" tourney as a "modest proposal" of sorts. It will never happen. What I guess I would really like to see is teams that are huge OE or private hockey powers opt out to AAA/MWEHL play like SSM has done. That's where those kids belong anyway in many respects competition wise. They could get more games, etc. and leave the MSHSL. It would be just like the old private school tourney situations that weren't MSHSL sanctioned events I don't believe years ago??? I'd even still allow these teams that leave the chance to play MSHSL teams. It would be the best of both worlds. They could compete for AAA State, Nationals, etc. too with their current teams. They could start in Sept when school starts, and play through the end of school if they wanted. They could put on their own MN state tourney at the end of the year, or just let the U19 State that WHAM & MN Hockey conduct be the State. They would compete against T-Breds and SSM there too. Then, the rest of the teams that don't choose to do this could play MSHSL A or AA, or even tiers, as maybe that's really what is more fair, to have the best/top half teams in AA no matter their size, and the bottom half teams in A. ================== BUT - keep this in mind - If one or more of these AAA teams started to compete against the TB & SSM teams, it would destroy MSHSL HS hockey as we know it. The MSHSL game would become what HS Soccer, Gymnastics, etc. is like - but worse I believe. AND - this would eventually likely destroy all our community based youth hockey in MN for girls. This woudl be a shame, and likely only make this elitist sport more so like it is in the majority of the rest of the country in non-community based setups. SO - All this being said, I think I go back to my original point. When you consider the options, the best one may be the one that is already in place. No agreement is ever likely perfect for all parties involved, but it could be a lot worse! THE ONLY REASON THAT A MSHSL TEAM HASN'T DONE THE AAA ALREADY IS THAT MOST COACHES CONSIDERING THIS REALIZE THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE VERY POPULAR WITH THEIR PEERS IF THEY DID (they'd get all the best kids, kill other programs, start the above explained sequence, etc.) - AND THEY MAY HAVE SOME OTHER BUSINESS, ETC. THAT COULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF SUCH A MOVE... Edited by: ghshockeyfan at: 3/10/06 11:06 am

hubbaa · Post by **hubbaa** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:53 pm

if it comes down to a one year ban i guess i would suggest to opt out of high school sports all together. given all the other options the high schools can't provide what the parents/students want anyhow. it would be very interesting to see many of the better players not playing high school anymore. i wonder how the anti-open enrollment people would react then? i suppose they wouldn't mind because their kids would now get a chance to play in a very watered down league. but at least they would play...

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:34 pm

You're right hubba. People will complain because OE's A) Left their team B) Went to a team that their team can't beat If OE's left MSHSL, and went AAA, we'd see people complain b/c they maybe wouldn't have that opportunity too. And, if it comes to a more strict rule, and it's not fought, we will likely see the start of more T-breds teams. All it would take is for the top kids to opt on to a few teams in the metro, and the MSHSL G Hockey becomes what Gymnastics, Soccer, etc. is for MSHSL - not the primary place/season to play for the best players. I have to imagine that many of the top players would consider playing year round with the kids they play Summer with. What they will lose is the shot to play in the "State Tourney" being the one that the MSHSL offers at the "X." What they will gain is nationals, T-breds/SSM MWEHL like league, etc. at least at the 19U level. 16 Level isn't being allowed to play state/nationals at this point. It's far easier to create something like this than I think most realize, and we are on the brink of this potentially really changing the landscape of G HS Hockey in the MSHSL as we know it. I could see a N/S/E/W metro setup happening with 4 teams. You add in SSM & T-breds and you have 6 in the area. I'm guessing that the AAA teams that we know now would just take over. Walser, Mission IceCats, etc. Trouble would be for more true N & S MN kids. This is why a B&A Girls Elite League might be best, as it could in theory at least try to create a boys juniors like setup for girls to keep them in MSHSL G HS Hockey (even if not at their home HS - as even OE/private participation of the best girls in MSHSL is better than none at all I think)...

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:23 pm

Question: What was the logic in determining only U19's can do before and after and not U16? I thought that MAHA felt forced to allow U19's because the T-Breds and SSM had U19 teams - but SSM has a U16 team. Is anyone pushing to allow U16 girls the right to do before and afters?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:30 pm

Yes. There is a push. The guy doing so is a well known development oriented coach that wants to see this become a development based situation. Keep in mind that there aren't the same rules in place for B&A teams at the 19 level as there are for SSM & TB. B&A can only use 87 & 88 bdays this year for U19, SSM & TB can use anything they want.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:37 pm

The TBs tried to get a U16 team but were turned down, SSM will send a U16 team to Nationals, go figure. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 3/13/06 4:04 pm

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:28 pm

GHS - thanks for the information as always. 1. Is the person pushing the U16 B&A have any sway within MAHA or is this more a long shot? 2. GHS would this be preferred over your elite league plan? 3. I have heard changes might be coming down on the U14 side for MAHA. Anyone know anything about this?

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:32 pm

1) MN H - no response to the initial inquiry I understand. The individual that made this is very highly respected I believe in the girls youth & specifically the development circles. I can be certain that his goal would be development, not just games. Hopefully some progress can be made. 2) I would much prefer to see an elite league run using NDP than to have the teams be eligible to play State/Nationals. I don't really care about the State/Nationals as that does nothing for development - but it's a key component/attraction for many. What needs to be added is a development component, and this is where I think tying this to NDP becomes valuable too. NDP, in my mind, isn't development. It's about recognizing the top talent. Yes, the kids that make it out to Lake Placid get some development work, but what's truly needed is a development component that could only really be useful through prolonged contact and practice/off-ice AND games through an B&A Elite League. I strongly believe in two tiers, and I wouldn't even object to the 2nd tier teams getting some crossover games against the top tiers (and other AAA teams from outside MN that we could attract here with this in place...). I guess the bottom line is that this would be part of the Elite League plan if allowed, else not. 3) I know nothing of these changes @ U14.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:21 am

Possible flattening of the A and B levels at 14U was considered last summer and may come up again. It is designed to allow some crossover between the levels, particularly for outstate teams who had difficulty finding opponents nearby. The thought was to allow teams to declare whether they are "upper" or "lower" but retain greater scheduling flexibility and tournament scheduling, essentially opening up for play between the levels. I heard the proposal was late to the table and ran into some resistance from the metro teams. While a reasonable idea on the surface, I don't know if they ever addressed how playoffs would be resolved, for one thing. Also, it was quickly misconstrued this was to be the end of A-level hockey at 14U, causing some panic that "A" and "B" players would be forced together onto equalized teams in larger associations. "Summer surprises" coming out of MN Hockey like this will have families defecting to the HS JV program (or OE!) in large numbers if this proposal were to be enacted without careful thought and ample communication in advance. With many 14U-eligible girls having the option of playing HS/JV, 14U or even Bantam, pulling these teams together is a challenge. One proposal that seems to make sense is a late start to 14U after HS cuts-- much like junior gold does now for the boys. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... pitreal</A> at: 3/14/06 2:44 am

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:31 am

Thanks for the information. Somebody needs to take a look at how to improve the experiences for the 8th and 9th graders who are not ready for varsity. I don't know how to do it, but IMO I think they should consider a U13 - U16 -U19. Keep 6-8 grades together. Keep 9-12 with the high schools. Too many U14 rainbow teams are thrown together at the last minute after mass defections to the high school after try-outs.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:36 am

What we really need to do is to figure out how JV & U14/U16/U19 can coexist indefinitely. This may be the single biggest issue in G Hockey right now! JV teams are valuable for the cost savings, guranteed ice time, equipment/transportaiton/pd coaching they provide - so it would be hard to do away with them. Similarly, U14/U16/U19 has many positives as well. It would seem that crossover play as desired between these groups would be best. I believe we already have seen some of that between U19/U16 & JV, but it should be extended to U14 so that any U14 or older MN H teams could be considered as HS JV opponent, etc. Obviously only U14/U16/U19 teams woudl be eligible for their MN H playoffs, etc. JV's would not be part of that...

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:16 pm

Agree! Although it's a very dynamic situation from year to year unless you're a large association that can support both a JV and 1-2 14U teams. As long as the MSHSL has opened the door to 7-8th graders playing JV or even varsity, there are too many options for these players which dilutes the overall numbers and makes it very tough to plan for and accommodate teams until after HS tryouts. Currently ice and league scheduling is a nightmare because you never know if you have a team in many cases. There has to be more cooperation between the HS and the association to create an optimal situation EACH season. Letting 14U play against JV teams would go a long way toward solving the problem I think. Maybe JV and 14A and 16U become equalized in this manner and 14B exists as developmental for those programs with the numbers? Each program must decide where they lie in terms of strength and schedule their games accordingly. Back on topic, working together to provide a high quality playing and development environment at grade 7-9 will help stem the O/E tide! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... pitreal</A> at: 3/14/06 1:20 pm

norconboy · Post by **norconboy** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:37 pm

Regarding ghs's statement that one lawsuit would or could change any new rules to OE that would restrict movement for athletic reasons. At least 4 other states and the city of new york have very restrictve rules (one year of no sports) for OE'rs and no one seems to have been able to find a good challange to that rule. Also regarding the effects of a true OE for acadamics only, I find it hard to believe that one can say it would water down the sport. If OE'rs can't play sports they will stay at there respective school and maybe would have to be the big shoulders that carry a team to the state tourney. The is no less talant just spread out. This years winner sure had help form the oe'rs and may have made it without them but in development how does winning many games very handily help players develop to handle clutch situations? Look at canadas juniors program, if all the best players went to a few teams I bet the deveopment of pro players would decrease. Instead they spread the talent out on many teams which results in tight games night after night and may possibly be the reason so many quality players are developed.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:17 pm

I assume that those 4 other states & NY are not community based hockey situations like the MSHSL is? Meaning, those kids have AAA like elite team opportunities outside of HS teams? Another viewpoint on this too that I've heard/seen: The impact of concentrated talent vs. other setups has long been disputed. Spread out talent develops the worse to average player more at the expense of the best talent, which is in the benifit of the whole sport/game, but not the best players typically (they don't get help nor challenged as much?). When you concentrate top talent in a development or game atmosphere it elevates the talent of the best players more. The result of a player having far weaker teammates forces a style of hockey that is often looked at as selfish and not true to "how the game should be played" in many peoples' eyes. It's tough to compare Canadian Juniors to MSHSL G HS Hockey. I understand the thought, but are the variables really the same? I'm just not certain. It may be that the level of average talent is elevated greatly (not as far off the top players as it is in MSHSL G Hockey?) in Canadian Juniors. There may be more team-to-team parity due to even distribution of top talent, but to get there even as a player I assume you have to have met a ton of criteria first to get that chance. The MSHSL doesn't have the same qualifying criteria player ability/experience/talent from what I know unless I'm missing something. (meaning top to bottom talent disparity is far greater in MSHSL G Hockey vs. Canadian Juniors?) The #1 thing that OE kids (or any players on a top team, public, private, OE, or otherwise) will speak to as a value isn't blowout wins. Instead, it's the quality of practice, style of hockey that is played, intensity/desire/determination and common approach to the game with a purpose vs. just an opportunity to pass time. I think this is somewhat counterintuitive, but we all know that in practice is where players develop, not from game play as much. Similarly, I didn't understand how goalies ever wanted to play for good temas that saw few shots in games - and how could they get better, be any good, etc.? I forgot to look at the practice/development aspect of things. That's where the true value comes in with a strong team, you get pushed at practice every day by your teammates. So.... In the end it may be that we could develop better average players, but would lose the development (or participation) of our best players in the MSHSL G Hockey ranks through an increased penalty... And... We seem to have a possibility for a legal challenge that would nullify all OE rules as a result of the attempt at a more strict OE policy.... Or... If the legal challenge fails, that could open the door to more T-breds like teams and we'd lose many of the best players from the MSHSL... Not sure if there is really anything good that can come out of a change from where we're at now. Time will tell... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/14/06 2:51 pm

norconboy · Post by **norconboy** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:00 pm

ghs, The four states are Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri and Florida. In Illinois the principals of both schools must sign transfer papers and in Seattle the principal of the former school must attest that the transfer is not for athletic reasons. It seems this problem is not new and other groups have dealt with it. I'm all for kids having opputunities outside the school (AAA) but I do not feel that public education and the development of super teams at tax payer expense in public schools should be allowed. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... rconboy</A> at: 3/14/06 3:01 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:19 pm

I should ask - how are the HS sports associations run in those states? Similar to the MSHSL? Just curious - I'm ignorant in that respect! We agree about outside opportunities. This is why I support a B&A (before & After) GEL (Girls Elite League) as it would give us the best shot at keeping the best talent in the MSHSL and still give good opportunities to kids to develop with top talent bookending the HS season like Boys' Juniors allow for. This has kept some of the top Boys' talent in their HS vs playing Juniors. This would allow for HS players to have season lengths similar to U19 teams like SSM & T-breds too, and give them the same shot at state/nationals as those players get for additional recognition purposes potentially I would imagine. I don't believe that our current AAA off-season setup is best for this due to politics. Do you disagree with open enrollment for education purposes? And, I don't understand how all the funding works at all the levels, but, in theory, woulnd't an OE bring in more $ from the state to off-set taxpayer costs at a school? Might induce more cost too I suppose... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 3/14/06 3:22 pm

norconboy · Post by **norconboy** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:26 pm

I'll do some more research on other states..

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:36 pm

My big question about the other states is if it's in their OE law (meaning from state legislature) vs. from the sports assn. governing body. Obvioulsy, being from the gov't vs. sports assn. carries more weight and is harder to challenge legally.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

"It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enrollment

"It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enrollment

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

That right?

Re: That right?

Re: That right?

Re: That right?

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

Re: "It's time to close gaping loopholes in open enroll

more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

U14

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions

Re: more questions