HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:49 pm**

[quote="Goldfishdude"]

All I am trying to suggest, because of the financial costs/risks involved per student-athlete in attending a private school is that the private schools have a fair advanatge and not an unfair advantage, and because they don't have feeder systems, the private schools have no real choice but to operate in the manner that the MSHSL governs.
[quote]

That's flat out false. Studies have shown over and over income levels and student participation in athletics go hand in hand. Kids who come from families on the federal free/reduced lunch program are far less likely to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities as those that are not on such programs. As athletic fees go up participation goes down but public schools are often required to raise participation fees in order to make their budget while in many private schools money isn't really a factor as either it's already figured into the tution or because of the income of the family it's a non issue.

Take a look at just about any MSHSL sport and there is a clear advantage to private schools, some states figure that into enrollment when basing classification on enrollment, Minnesota does not. Here are just a few states that use a multiplier when counting private school students for classification: Arkansas 1.75, Illinois 1.65, Georgia 1.5, Missouri 1.35. The Alabama Athletic Association proposed eliminating private schools from their association when it found athletic participation rates 35% higher in private schools than public schools, it settled, at least temporarily, on a 1.35% multiplier.

In Missouri 5 student from 2 different Catholic high schools went to court to overturn their multiplier, the state countered with 10 advantages private schools hold including 1-Higher percentage of participation, 2-no attendance area, 3-selective admittance, 4-low drop out rates. The court upheld the MSHSAA multiplier. In Illinois the same thing happened and again the court upheld the athletic association. Minnesota went to counting free/reduced lunch students as less than 1 student, a plan that tabled the multiplier for private schools for the time being. Wisconsin, which is also an open enrollment state, proposed that every private school be required to play 1 class up from it's assigned class and in basketball that went into effect for the 2008-2009 season.

Take a look at just about any sport in the MSHSL and you'll find a clear advantage the private schools hold: In AAAA football 3 sections contain private schools, 2 were represented by private schools, the 3rd lost in the section finals, in boys swimming two of the top 3 were private schools, in 3A girls basketball 3 of the 4 seeds are private schools. It goes on and on.

Many states have decided it's an unfair advantage and the courts have upheld that private schools do hold an unfair advantage over their public counterparts. Minnesota along with many other states agree to let that advantage be.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:03 pm**

goldy313 wrote:
Goldfishdude wrote:
All I am trying to suggest, because of the financial costs/risks involved per student-athlete in attending a private school is that the private schools have a fair advanatge and not an unfair advantage, and because they don't have feeder systems, the private schools have no real choice but to operate in the manner that the MSHSL governs.

That's flat out false. Studies have shown over and over income levels and student participation in athletics go hand in hand. Kids who come from families on the federal free/reduced lunch program are far less likely to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities as those that are not on such programs. As athletic fees go up participation goes down but public schools are often required to raise participation fees in order to make their budget while in many private schools money isn't really a factor as either it's already figured into the tution or because of the income of the family it's a non issue.

Take a look at just about any MSHSL sport and there is a clear advantage to private schools, some states figure that into enrollment when basing classification on enrollment, Minnesota does not. Here are just a few states that use a multiplier when counting private school students for classification: Arkansas 1.75, Illinois 1.65, Georgia 1.5, Missouri 1.35. The Alabama Athletic Association proposed eliminating private schools from their association when it found athletic participation rates 35% higher in private schools than public schools, it settled, at least temporarily, on a 1.35% multiplier.

In Missouri 5 student from 2 different Catholic high schools went to court to overturn their multiplier, the state countered with 10 advantages private schools hold including 1-Higher percentage of participation, 2-no attendance area, 3-selective admittance, 4-low drop out rates. The court upheld the MSHSAA multiplier. In Illinois the same thing happened and again the court upheld the athletic association. Minnesota went to counting free/reduced lunch students as less than 1 student, a plan that tabled the multiplier for private schools for the time being. Wisconsin, which is also an open enrollment state, proposed that every private school be required to play 1 class up from it's assigned class and in basketball that went into effect for the 2008-2009 season.

Take a look at just about any sport in the MSHSL and you'll find a clear advantage the private schools hold: In AAAA football 3 sections contain private schools, 2 were represented by private schools, the 3rd lost in the section finals, in boys swimming two of the top 3 were private schools, in 3A girls basketball 3 of the 4 seeds are private schools. It goes on and on.

Many states have decided it's an unfair advantage and the courts have upheld that private schools do hold an unfair advantage over their public counterparts. Minnesota along with many other states agree to let that advantage be.
Goldy, you're right. I remember after my junior year my athletic director told us returning football players that we should apply for free lunches because the MSHSL takes that into account when they assign what class sports play in. We wanted to move down for football and were only a few kids away from doing it so he wanted a handful of kids to be on the free lunch program so they would move us down. I'm sure if this applies for all sports, but it does for football which may be different because there are many more classes

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:42 pm**

From one Goldy to the other Goldy, these are tremendous statistical FACTS. These can't be argued, and although I agree with studies pertaining to free lunches, lack of participations, etc, we can't be naive and overlook there are demographic and financial variances every where.

For examples, do the studies show how many of these kids are even athletic to begin with? Do the studies take in consideration the large amount of immigration the United States has had over the past decade, and the popularity of those sports in other lands?. Do the studies show that 50% of the enrollment is financially challenged, or is it only 5% of that enrollment that is on lunch funding, and 90% of those don't play sports!! Studies can be manipulated to show whatever numbers the group is presenting? So, if the study shows that 90% of all students on free lunches don't play sports, that's alarming, but maybe it's only 50 students out of 1,000.

There is zero doubt that private schools have an advantage. However, the interpretation is left up to being subjective as to the terms fair versus unfair. If the courts in other states deem the term "unfair", then it's up to the Minnesota public schools to petition, or file a class action to have the MSHSL mandate changes.

Is it unfair that a parent is smarter than me, has a better paying job, and can send their children to a private school? NO. It's not unfair, it's reality. Is it unfair to the private school student, who might have to get a ride to school from a parent or take an MTC bus to school 15 miles away, versus the student who has school district transportation, or might live across the street?? No, because that's a general presumption of expectations of going to a private school. Although these are lame examples, it's just a suggestion to show there are trade offs.

The fact that private schools require tuition for admission should negate/offset the terms unfair and fair. The fallacy on some levels correlate to schools like I mentioned in St. Bernard's, St. Agnes and St. Anthony that have to combine schools to make a team. Yet, because they have a co-op, they have to play in 4AA. The St. Paul Saints were 4-21. Where is their advantage?

As with anything that is subjective in nature, there will be opinions, neither right nor wrong. And, the people involved with the private school sectors will argue, biasedly, that there is not an unfair advantage, and the public school sector will argue there is.

However, since the MSHSL does not mandate schools such as Breck and St. Thomas to play at a Class AA level, the presumption is that the schools do not have an UNFAIR advantage, regardless of what other states do.

The rates of participation as you mentioned Goldy MAY be misleading. Hear me out.

According to the MSHSL site, Breck has enrollment of 408 students. If they field a team for every sport, OF COURSE the rate of participation will be in the 1.75 range (or whatever). Let's compare that to St. Louis Park, who Breck played in sections. SLP has an enrollment of 1,184.

A quick check showed that Breck has a combined 60 students playing varsity hockey and basketball. That's 60 of 408...That's 15%, not including JV players. If I am conservative and guess that 40 JV players are there, now you have 100 of 408 = 24%. So, like I said, OF COURSE the rate of participation will be greater. Does that mean that every athlete is Division 1 material?

Assuming SLP also has 60 players, that's 5% of the school enrollment.

Breck's boys basketball team was like 7-18, yet SLP was like 13-11..

Tonka has 2,777 enrollment AND they have alot of money out there, but not every student lives on the lake. There are students that are below the median income levels, but, don't these numbers suggest with the enrollment and income levels that they have an unfair advantage?

Again, like any study, the numbers can be construed to what you like. In my opinion, I could argue that SLP has an advantage of having 3X the amount of kids potential to play sports. My opinion is neither right or wrong. It's my subjective interpretation.

Goldy? I love ya, man. We just have interpretations that differ. Mine coincides with the 24 people that are listed as MSHSL staff, and your interpretation coincides with the 4,236,786 Minnesotans who hate private schools...

So, in conclusion, since it's 4,236,786 to 25, you have the upper hand in your argument, and I concede you are right, and I am wrong.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:47 pm**

sickflow22 wrote:
moose27 wrote:
sickflow22 wrote:Class A is a JV tournament

Go work on your hair buddy!! The Final Four teams in the A tournament were as a good as the final four in the AA tournament.
ya right not even close..Hill murrays, edinas, AV's, and Minnetonka 4th line JV players would dominate class A if they made up a team

You are a disgrace to humans...

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:56 pm**

It doesn't matter what class you're in. Who cares who you played the whole year either. Breck was just as good if not better than Edina and Tonka. If a team wants to play Single A cuz they go to the tourney every year and win it, then someone beat 'em!

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:03 pm**

Someone always posts a rankings regardless of class and I believe it went:
#1 Minnetonka
#2 Breck
-
-
#5. STA

Class has nothing to with skill, it's all concerned with enrollment numbers.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:31 pm**

Let's just assume athletic talent and family income aren't related because they're not. I really hope you're not equating the two and I don't think you are. Also as a country we've had immigration for ever, and I also don't think you're trying to tell me Somali's or Irish are any less athletically inclined than Norweigens. Granted this is a hockey board but athletic rates in comparison to free/reduced lunch programs are athletic wide and not hockey centric. In fact I'd be far more inclined to say there's even a larger gap in hockey than in athletics in general.

There are sports where enrollment makes all the difference in the world and there are others where it does not. Football is a numbers game, there is no way Breck should compete with Eden Prairie on the football field or is there any reason for the MSHSL to make them. Baseball is not a numbers game, 1 pitcher can be the deciding factor. Hockey is not a numbers game, it's an economic game in most of the state.

I don't hate the private schools and in fact don't have a problem with them other than when they pull the "whoa is me" out of their backsides when saying why they play in A.

And your numbers are wrong and very misleading, there are a bunch of high to medium to small public schools with low participation, you're cherry picking three way above average economic schools to base your numbers off of, the Dept. of Ed uses every school regardless of size or economic status to base their numbers on. For the 60 kids at Breck there is a school with 1500 at a Minneapolis school that can't field a hockey team, has no wrestling team and 24 kids out for football grades 9-12. (85% free/reduced lunch rate) My guess is if you took all schools of similar size to Breck and graphed their extracurricular participation rates Breck would be an outlier, that's what the multiplier tries to equate.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:49 pm**

Blackberry wrote:It doesn't matter what class you're in. Who cares who you played the whole year either. Breck was just as good if not better than Edina and Tonka. If a team wants to play Single A cuz they go to the tourney every year and win it, then someone beat 'em!

I agree...

If teams dont like it....stop em

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:07 am**

slapshot445 wrote:
saucepass wrote:I think they may be better teams...but they don't have the team speed to keep up with them.

You can coach the teams to do what Hermantown did to slow them down. But if you play breck straight up, they have too much speed.

I believe that the top 6 teams in the state can beat each other on any given night.
too bad breck isn't in the top 6, not even top 10.

slapdick, your showing your ignorance again. Your hatred of private schools, is clouding your judgement. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the rest of the private haters will agree that even if Breck isn't the best team in the State, they certainly are a top ten team!

Now get back to watching Jersey Shore!

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:11 am**

MNSportsRube wrote:
Blackberry wrote:It doesn't matter what class you're in. Who cares who you played the whole year either. Breck was just as good if not better than Edina and Tonka. If a team wants to play Single A cuz they go to the tourney every year and win it, then someone beat 'em!
I agree...
If teams dont like it....stop em

Why does the mshsl force coop schools like River Lakes, Dodge County and Becker Big Lake count every kid in each tiny town as a potential hockey player and slide them into Class AA?
Breck and STA and other public schools pull kids from large and small suburbs and for whatever unknown reason the same rules doesn't.
If Breck pulls all of their kids from Golden Valley and Kenwood, they can play A. If their first line is from Champlin, second line from BPark and third line is from Wayzata; they get to play the big guys.

Or how about the defending Class A champ bumps up to AA for the next year like beer league softball?
I think Warroad might suprise themselves and beat Roseau or Moorhead when it really matters.

I guess we shouldn't expect too much common sense from an organization that a few years ago, mandated all high school baseball players had to wear a mouthguard.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:13 am**

Interesting discussion of the multiplier; personally I'm rather ambivalent to applying one, but I can see it happening and don't have any great objections to doing it.

It would have to be one huge multiplier to have any effect on Breck, though. STA would be a different story. Bottom line--Breck is a real outlier. I agree with the earlier poster who says this probably has to do with Breck being located in the hockey mecca of the West Metro. Not sure how a state high school league can possibly control for such an advantage, though. And though they have won back-to-back tourneys and 2 more in the past 11 years, they've missed state every other year and are expected to be significantly down next year, so it's not as if they're in some untouchable category.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:23 am**

EVERYBODY in the State of Hockey loved the system until it went to two classes...arguments?

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:03 am**

goldy313 wrote:Let's just assume athletic talent and family income aren't related because they're not. I really hope you're not equating the two and I don't think you are. Also as a country we've had immigration for ever, and I also don't think you're trying to tell me Somali's or Irish are any less athletically inclined than Norweigens. Granted this is a hockey board but athletic rates in comparison to free/reduced lunch programs are athletic wide and not hockey centric. In fact I'd be far more inclined to say there's even a larger gap in hockey than in athletics in general.

There are sports where enrollment makes all the difference in the world and there are others where it does not. Football is a numbers game, there is no way Breck should compete with Eden Prairie on the football field or is there any reason for the MSHSL to make them. Baseball is not a numbers game, 1 pitcher can be the deciding factor. Hockey is not a numbers game, it's an economic game in most of the state.

I don't hate the private schools and in fact don't have a problem with them other than when they pull the "whoa is me" out of their backsides when saying why they play in A.

And your numbers are wrong and very misleading, there are a bunch of high to medium to small public schools with low participation, you're cherry picking three way above average economic schools to base your numbers off of, the Dept. of Ed uses every school regardless of size or economic status to base their numbers on. For the 60 kids at Breck there is a school with 1500 at a Minneapolis school that can't field a hockey team, has no wrestling team and 24 kids out for football grades 9-12. (85% free/reduced lunch rate) My guess is if you took all schools of similar size to Breck and graphed their extracurricular participation rates Breck would be an outlier, that's what the multiplier tries to equate.

Goldbud, you are correct in your statement that I was neither trying to imply income = athletic ability, and that immigration makes someone less athletic.

In relations to immigration, Minnesota population grew 600,000 people from 1990 to 2000, nearly double the normal rate, and has increased another 300,000+ from 2000 to current. That's a pretty normal rate of growth, but our population has grown 1 million people in 20 years, and I was trying to suggest or imply that I think it's safe to presume that the vast majority of the immigration is coming from cultures that do not play basketball, football or hockey.

It's also safe to presume that the demographic and immigration numbers has a pretty direct correlation to inner city public schools, the decline in success or total elimination of some athletic teams, and the rise in schools with 85% reduced lunches. It also can reflect upon the suburban growth as Woodbury now has two high schools, as does Lakeville. I don't think anyone can dispute that.

There are about 15 Mpls and St. Paul public HS. Is it safe to assume that the studies or numbers that you present in the 85% range and the effect it has on extracurricular activities/fees and lack of participation relate primarily to inner city schools? Because Mpls and St. Paul are by far our two largest cities in population. However, 15 schools make up a small percentage of schools, so are the numbers tabulated on a school-by-school basis? I don't have a clue... If there are 10,000 students in these schools and 85% get reduced lunches, how are these numbers represented in the mass scope, because that's alot of students.

In my example earlier, I was thinking more non-inner city schools. For example, New Ulm has 677 students. If I make up a number that 67 kids get reduced lunches, and 6 of those are athletes, it's safe to say that 10% of the students get reduced lunches, and 90% of those do not participate in extra curriculars as a component for lack of income to do so. Or, does that mean we presume that 85% of New Ulm students get reduced lunches?? You can explain better than me.. I don't know..

My comparison of Breck with St. Louis Park was a fairly good sampling, because the economics are maybe considered above average for both, but also because they are in the same hockey section. Yes, I am not oblivious to the fact that Breck will have significant more economic value than St. Agnes in St. Paul ( a school of about 600 when I attended from 78-81) or SLP vs Mpls Washburn.

Now, since we are both rational and thoughtful people, we both understand and acknowledge that there should not be a correlation between income and athletic ability.

However, we cannot dismiss that this is what many people on this forum are complaining about. There are so many people that think the wealthy people that send their kids to private schools have better access to AAA teams, unlimited camps, better equipment and so forth, so it's those people who make that argument that there IS a direct correlation that more income = better athletes, thus the "unfair advantage" when enrolling into a hockey hotbed private school whether enrollment at a Class A size Breck of 408, or a Hill-Murray enrollment of 804 that opts to play AA.

There is no question, as you suggest, that the socio-economic disparity between hockey and other sports exist, probably by a wide enough margin that it greater than all the other sports combined.

However, as hockey purists, whether it is right or wrong, fair or unfair, hockey gets singled out. After all, I showed that Breck's basketball team has less success that SLP's. Chances are, maybe the baseball and soccer teams are also inferior. As you pointed out, because of sheer numbers, Breck should not compete with Eden Prairie in football.

So, this is where I get confused - and not by you - just in general terms. I mean... we will rip Breck as hockey purists, because they happen to have 20 good hockey players out of their 408 students, and could possibly compete with EP. But who gives a rip that they can't compete in basketball, baseball or football with EP?

That doesn't negate the fact that the MHSL has not felt the need to reach out to the Class A private schools and mandate each one gets classified as a AA competitor. Therefore, we have to presume the MSHSL does not deem Breck as having an "unfair" advantage. And until the MSHSL decides that is definitely the case, it has to be understood as such.

Goldy, that also doesn't negate or dismiss the concept that your offer that we don't have to be accepting or forgiving of these schools, or that they be immune from the criticsm and attacks hockey purists lament about when the privates cry "woah is me!" when they are Class A, or when they get on their diamond-studded podium and claim they are "the best team in the state." They better expect that there will be many vocal protests, by those who feel they have an unfair advantage in hockey.

For me, as a high school hockey fan, having two classes not only allows for more school participants, but if Breck were in Class AA, the chances are I would not have had the chance to see Fulton play again. Maybe not had the chance to see Brock Nelson or Adam Krause, and for that, I am thankful. Maybe if Benilde was in Class A or AHA was in A, we could have seen Besse, Meyer and the Reilly's..

I am sure I am way off base in my thought process, and if so, I am an apologist to the Nth degree, but atleast I am rational enough to understand both sides of the issues and am able to have an ability to accept opinions and facts that don't necessarily 100% coincide with my own.

The beauty of this discussion, Goldy, is that you have always been pretty thoughtful, rationalize extremely well, and create good point/counterpoint discussions with facts to support your opinions and ideas. I cannot extend anything but the greatest respect for your position and the information you provide, because all I have to do is look over this thread and see some unsubstantiated jibberish by others.

Me?? I post youtube.com videos of Adam Sandler in a bathtub talking to shampoo bottles, and pretend it's Tonka Coach Brian Urick.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:23 am**

wblhockeyfan8 wrote:Someone always posts a rankings regardless of class and I believe it went:
#1 Minnetonka
#2 Breck
-
-
#5. STA

Class has nothing to with skill, it's all concerned with enrollment numbers.

Minnetonka as number 1? Did you watch the game on Saturday night?

It's also quite ludicrous to rank this year's STA team as number 5, seeing as they didn't even make it out of Section playoffs...

Saying that Breck could compete with the likes of Edina and Minnetonka in hockey is like saying that Totino-Grace could take on Cretin-Derham Hall or Eden Prairie in football...

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:37 am**

wblhockeyfan8 wrote:Someone always posts a rankings regardless of class and I believe it went:
#1 Minnetonka
#2 Breck
-
-
#5. STA

Class has nothing to with skill, it's all concerned with enrollment numbers.

Is your point then why have two classes?

I agree if the top class A teams are as good as the top class AA teams then there is zero reason to have two classes.

If you want two classes so that the "have nots" will get a chance to participate in a state tourney then fine but when the "have nots" get beat 10+ to zip in sections, quarters, and semi's of the lower class then we have made a joke of the system. Let Blake, Breck, STA, and Warroad have their own end of year tourney and we are back in business.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:49 am**

Lee, please limit the essays to 100 words or less. My brain is hurting like it did back in college.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:29 am**

wblhockeyfan8 wrote:Someone always posts a rankings regardless of class and I believe it went:
#1 Minnetonka
#2 Breck
-
-
#5. STA

Class has nothing to with skill, it's all concerned with enrollment numbers.

#1 Edina
#2 Minnetonka
#3 Hill Murray
#4 Hermantown
#5 Breck

Hermantown over Breck is no mistake.... let the bashing begin

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:34 am**

BodyShots wrote:Lee, please limit the essays to 100 words or less. My brain is hurting like it did back in college.

I have that same problem. It's an attention span thing.

Lee

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:40 am**

Top 10 teams
1 Edina
2 Tonka
3 HM
4 EP
5 Wayzata
6 East
7 Jefferson
8 Roseau
9 Blaine
10 Cenntenial

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:02 am**

BodyShots wrote:Lee, please limit the essays to 100 words or less. My brain is hurting like it did back in college.

It's hard to believe that we share the same school district, eh, Body??

Well, then let me share something with you that you can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJn0kL9an5c&NR=1

Besides.... I haven't gone back to work yet... I am bored...

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:46 am**

Where hockey is concerned;
wealth does not equal athletic ability.
wealth does inhance athletic opportunity.

Pretty hard to dispute this.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:53 am**

keepyourheadup wrote:Where hockey is concerned;
wealth does not equal athletic ability.
wealth does inhance athletic opportunity.

Pretty hard to dispute this.

Exactly, keeper...

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:31 pm**

keepyourheadup wrote:Where hockey is concerned;
wealth does not equal athletic ability.
wealth does inhance athletic opportunity.

Pretty hard to dispute this.

I think more make it on opportunity than ability.

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:27 pm**

[quote="royals dad"][quote="keepyourheadup"]Where hockey is concerned;
wealth does not equal athletic ability.
wealth does inhance athletic opportunity.

Pretty hard to dispute this.[/quote]

I think more make it on opportunity than ability.[/quote]

Wealth inhances athletic opportunity? Of course it does if you want to do camps, private school and AAA stuff. Money goes a long way but the bottom line is you still have to be good enough to get to the next level. If you are good enough people will find you regardless of your wealth status!! A hockey player can be created out of your garage and the outdoor rink right down the street!! For some reason a lot of people have forgotten this!!

Posted: **Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:24 pm**

moose27 wrote:
royals dad wrote:
keepyourheadup wrote:Where hockey is concerned;
wealth does not equal athletic ability.
wealth does inhance athletic opportunity.

Pretty hard to dispute this.
I think more make it on opportunity than ability.
Wealth inhances athletic opportunity? Of course it does if you want to do camps, private school and AAA stuff. Money goes a long way but the bottom line is you still have to be good enough to get to the next level. If you are good enough people will find you regardless of your wealth status!! A hockey player can be created out of your garage and the outdoor rink right down the street!! For some reason a lot of people have forgotten this!!

Yes, but access to superior training and coaching can help a pretty good player turn into a really good player.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Is Breck the best team in the state?