HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

When will the board be taking up the issue of realigning districts? Will it be in effect for 0607? <p></p><i></i>

I don't think 06 - 07 is possible. <p></p><i></i>

If I can set it up for April 22 or 23 in St Cloud or Rogers, would people be willing to atend?<br><br>Especially coaches but assn reps and other interested people to discuss<br><br>Redistricting / Restructuring<br>(including regional and state formats).<br><br>Let me know by email on this site but preferably at my address<br>elliottm@paulbunyan.net<br><br>I need to have some idea by April 12 (Wednesday).<br><br>And if we have good ideas that can be put together in a package (that most agree on) maybe we can get it accomplished for 2006-2007 season.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Elliot: any morre info on this. Please post. <br><br>thanks again for taking the lead and listening to the membership.<br> <p></p><i></i>

I have some real concerns with the general public getting into a meeting to decide in their minds how each district should be divided. Not that their input isnt needed, important or unwanted but each district has been set up for a number of years based on a lot of history of what works best for them. If you are speaking about the inner city districts, I understand the need for peoples input to save and improve that district. Not every association is going to have "A" teams. It isnt up to Mn Hockey to find a way for a few players to play A hockey. Its up to the associations to find ways to improve and grow so they can field A teams. Yes, Mn Hockey must offer their help and support to those associations, but my oppinion is that just because a few kids dont have an A program that we need to change all the rules. Parents, get involved and help your association grow. Help find other associations to merge with, whatever it takes to make it better. Just remember not all NHL players came from large associations with A hockey. <p></p><i></i>

2Apro<br><br>I don't understand what your concern is - some type of forced merger of tiny inner city associations by the general public at a meeting? <br><br>I thought redistricting was simply putting associations into districts based upon travel or competitive considerations. I would think that the state tournament stuff referenced by Elliott would be determined after you figure out who is in what district. I wouldn't think redistricting would be to force associations that do not want to combine to combine.<br><br>From what I am hearing on this board, there are some concerns about travel (lots of this in district <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> and concerns about disparities in association sizes (primarily resulting from a few mega associations in the metro) and how that might/should impact districting. There is also talk about allowing some smaller first ring associations to play in the same district with smaller city teams.<br><br>Maybe I have it wrong, but that is what I thought was going on. <p></p><i></i>

i think you summarized it very nicely SEmetro. Those are the main issues that most have posted on this thread. <p></p><i></i>

Elliott:<br><br>I think it is possible to cut the task down by identifying areas where there is no problem - where associations will not want to redistrict. I do not recall hearing much about redistricting in the North. Rather, I am hearing issues about Roch and metro with travel and association size issues.<br><br>For example, outside of the state play-off issues, you see any need to redistrict the Northern areas?<br><br>Based upon the comments here, I think it may come down to mostly giving thought to reconfiguring DTC (playing other smaller first ring teams), D6 (problems with 2-3 megas) D8 (travel/Roch) and D3 (Wayzata mega problems) and perhaps neighboring associations that border theses districts that want in or out of the same. There was also talk of creating a new Dakota County or "south of the river" district.<br><br>If this is the task at hand, I don't think it is that big of an issue. I think play-off implications go last.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

whats up with this meeting, does not Mn hockey have a committee already looking at this, and have not the directors already voted to go ahead with this, and all it needs is a vote from the general board.Sounds to me this is a feel good type of a thing,,, nobody of importance will be around and what will you hear that that you have not heard over the last 3 to 15 years that Mn Hockey has talked about this,,,,,, just get the d--- thing done . Its been to long, and Mn hockey wastes to much time on this,,,,, or will the new districts have to play with a blue puck so we know they are new.... GOT THE POINT YET.......... <p></p><i></i>

tjhd - apparently you do not get the point and are vastly uninformed.<br><br>Wayyyy too busy at the moment...<br>but can fill you in, say in a week from now. <p></p><i></i>

Well not exactly the same problems in the north as the metro area, but there are problems.<br><br>And the idea is to find a solution that can be used every 2 - 4 years to redesignate.<br>Also, one of the driving forces is to equalize and reduce the amount of work each Director. For one DD to have the area of D8 with that number of teams does not make sense. But when you redesign D8 that dominos to D4 tehn D5 and D15 & D10. That effects D16. And DIR has size issues (too small) (as well as D11 at the A level.)<br><br>So the idea is to get more people on the front end of it then the back end of it (more ideas, easier to accept).<br><br>But I have been so dog gone busy at work that it is not on the front burner for me until about the 18th (if then) (April is a tough month personally).<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

I stated I dont have a problem if we're talking about the inner city districts, but I do have a problem with districts that are in good shape. Run properly and dont have travel or other issues. As noted, directors have discussed this and have or will vote again to correct things that are out of whack. There are more good directors than many think, yes a few dont have a clue about their district let alone whats in the best interest of youth hockey. However, Elliot and a few others know who they are and I think are working on that problem. Biggest problem with Mn Hockey is too many protect their fellow members, not all are directors. Look at the other positions involved to see where they cause the most problems. <p></p><i></i>

Meeting will be in Detroit Lakes - Friday, April; 28 at either 4:00pm or 9:00 pm at the Holiday Inn.<br><br>If you can attend great.<br><br>If you have a point, an idea, a message that has not been posted please email it to me at elliottm@paulbunyan.net<br><br>OR if you want to reinforce soemthing stated on here email it to me. <p></p><i></i>

was anything decided at the meeting that just took place? <p></p><i></i>

Yes, an initial change ahs been settled on (not voted on until June meeting).<br><br>There are a couple of associations that need to be contacted still regarding the final change. Once this has been done, the change will be posted onteh MN hockey web page.<br><br>This initial change takes care of the administrative burden. Other factors are still on the table and will continue to be discussed (along with other concerns). <br><br>Once the local assns have been notified and their opinions taken into consideration I will post (or link) what will be voted on in June (effective for 07). <p></p><i></i>

Could you be more specific?<br><br>Are we talking about whole districts being moved?<br><br>The numbers of teams being changed?<br><br>Travel or distances FINALLY made shorter?<br><br> <p>"Coach'n ain't easy" </p><i></i>

Tyrell,<br>Don't be a "Timmy" Elliott said he would say more at a later date. (Timmy) <p></p><i></i>

Elliott:<br><br>Suggestion: MN Hockey may want to get the information on the proposal(s) out to all asap if everyone is supposed to vote on it in June - monthly association board meetings and district board meetings in May may be the only time to discuss before the June summer meeting for many. <br><br>Also, for those not in the know (like me), do you know who votes to approve this? DD's, all members of Mn Hockey, executive committee, etc.? <p></p><i></i>

All 27 MN Hockey Board members vote (#27 is MH preident who votes on a tie.).<br><br>Essentially, this is a D8 & D4 thing.<br><br>I would post it here but that would be unfair to the people doing the final tweaking. It should be posted on the MN Hockey web page soon. <p></p><i></i>

Rochester is the problem, sounds like we get one more year in district 8 before heading back where we belong in district 4. If that's the case I'm glad Minnesota hockey stood up to our shortsighted board. <p></p><i></i>

did they discuss how to deal with the mega associations in the metro. <p></p><i></i>

There will be a new District - #13. With parts of 4 and parts of 8. Final vote will be in June for a change in 2007.<br><br>Mega associations ina mega league, AA vs A, and other such topics are still ongoing. <p></p><i></i>

Probably not, puckboy. <br><br>My personal opinion is that there needs to be some limits on the travel time some of these teams have to spend on the road. <br><br>I've coached where we could be on the road longer than the time to play the game. I'm sure there are going to be teams that don't have a choice in the far out reaches of the state, but we need to start making districts based on major areas. We do it with all other forms of sports at all other levels. <br><br>I live in a district that plays teams 40 miles away, but not the teams that are 5 miles away. Doesn't make sense. <p>"Coach'n ain't easy" </p><i></i>

I agree travel time can be an issue but most of these "mega" associations are in the metro so travel should not be a huge issue. <p></p><i></i>

For travel, I hope the new D8 is mostly the metro teams with D13 and D4 the southern teams. <p></p><i></i>