HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Thunderbird77 wrote:observer wrote:

Approved and fair are two different things. Potentially they're approved but it isn't fair.

1. MSHSL publishes the rules.
2. Players conform to the rules and change schools.
3. Players are approved to play.

Sounds fair to me.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything underhanded here, but.....TBird is making it sound alot simpler than it is. No one disagrees that the MSHSL publishes the rules, and most agree that the players do in fact change schools, but the residency part is certainly the muddy part. The MSHSL requires that the entire family pull up and move (some extreme exceptions are allowed, i.e. legal separation). The receiving AD must approve the eligibility but I ask, is it his/her job to verify that a player and their family has made a MSHSL qualifying move? I think so. Someone has to be held accountable, I doubt the MSHSL gets involved until someone complains.

Thunderbird77 wrote:observer wrote:

Approved and fair are two different things. Potentially they're approved but it isn't fair.

1. MSHSL publishes the rules.
2. Players conform to the rules and change schools.
3. Players are approved to play.

Sounds fair to me.

Sounds fair enough to me. I can believe that all of the girls have good reasons. The only question I have is not related to the girls reasons. I'm just curious as to why are all of these transfers going to Hopkins? Not many girls' transfer anymore. Its seems strange to me that so many from different places would go to one school. There must be a good reason but it makes you wonder.

To play with the Hopkins goalie, Billadeau

The same assistant coach is now at Hopkins who was at Eden Prairie when they had a number of transfers. A trend???

pepperpot1 wrote:To play with the Hopkins goalie, Billadeau

Good humor but if that is the reason then the transfer rule isn't working. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) the transfer rule was put into place to try to stop parents from shopping for the right sports program for their kid. If this is correct then any reason related to hockey would violate the spirit of the rule. IMO if the rule doesn't work they should get rid of it and let people move around as much as they want.

I am glad you found the humor in my previous post, however, there is some tounge in cheek here....IMHO Billadaue is the best player in the state (don't worry, I get the positional argument) and K. Calder went there to play in the state tournament and playing with Billadeau will be her best chance to accomplish that plus all she had to do was to get an apartment (or actually move which a segment of MN hockey parents are willing to do) into the school district...that is how the rule works and we shouldn't gripe too much....if we don't like it, then work to change the rule. This is coming from an Armstrong parent who has no problem with Calder playing for Hopkins. The rules allow it, period. I, for one, wish her well, except when they play AHS. Same goes for the other transfers that are new to Hopkins.

Buffalo had 26 skaters show up for tryouts which is actually way up from previous years.

How about some other communities...what was the turn-out like?

pepperpot1 wrote:...plus all she had to do was to get an apartment...

Doesn't satisfy the transfer eligibility rule.

FYI: 2009-10 MSHSL Eligibility Info (PDF)

Sure it does..........the bottom line is that you satisfy 19.B.2 by simply renting an apartment in what ever school district you want your daughter to play in and claiming the apartment as your primary residence. Of course you are supposed to make that the primary residence for the school year. I am not going to wait outside somebody's apartment to see if they are leaving there in the morning to go to school and coming there after school or practice, are you? It is quite unbelievable that parents actually do this, but what do i know. I guess what I am saying is that 19.B.2 is the problem....if there was language to the effect....the penalty for not making this your primary residence upon which the transfer is based is suspension of the athletic program you are transferring into for one season... that might do the job. I think AD's would pay attention to that.

keepitreal wrote:

pepperpot1 wrote:...plus all she had to do was to get an apartment...

Doesn't satisfy the transfer eligibility rule.

FYI: 2009-10 MSHSL Eligibility Info (PDF)

Interesting stuff but I'm wondering about all of the supposed exceptions that I am hearing about that are not listed in this document. Maybe people don't know what they are talking about but I have heard that there are exceptions for: (1) financial hardship; (2) not playing a varsity sport for a year prior to transferring; and (3) others that I don't want to mention. Are these exceptions figments of peoples' imaginations or are they exceptions that have been allowed on appeal?

OntheEdge wrote:

keepitreal wrote:

pepperpot1 wrote:...plus all she had to do was to get an apartment...

Doesn't satisfy the transfer eligibility rule.

FYI: 2009-10 MSHSL Eligibility Info (PDF)

Interesting stuff but I'm wondering about all of the supposed exceptions that I am hearing about that are not listed in this document. Maybe people don't know what they are talking about but I have heard that there are exceptions for: (1) financial hardship; (2) not playing a varsity sport for a year prior to transferring; and (3) others that I don't want to mention. Are these exceptions figments of peoples' imaginations or are they exceptions that have been allowed on appeal?

Here's a real world example: I was going to move with my two daughters into a neighboring school district (I was buying a foreclosed townhome in the new district - my wife and son were to stay in our current home) and the AD of new district would not approve the transfer. He said the entire family has to move (he provided MSHSL documentation that supported that position). Keep in mind we were going to live there, get mail, vote, etc. He was adamant that the entire family unit resided there. We gave up on the move idea as I wasn't interested in fighting the AD who was the decision maker. Technically he couldn't stop the transfer but he could make the players sit out.

Looks like I was stupid for telling the truth or the AD's in some districts interpret the rules differently.

Silent But Deadly wrote:

OntheEdge wrote:

keepitreal wrote: Doesn't satisfy the transfer eligibility rule.

FYI: 2009-10 MSHSL Eligibility Info (PDF)

Interesting stuff but I'm wondering about all of the supposed exceptions that I am hearing about that are not listed in this document. Maybe people don't know what they are talking about but I have heard that there are exceptions for: (1) financial hardship; (2) not playing a varsity sport for a year prior to transferring; and (3) others that I don't want to mention. Are these exceptions figments of peoples' imaginations or are they exceptions that have been allowed on appeal?

Here's a real world example: I was going to move with my two daughters into a neighboring school district (I was buying a foreclosed townhome in the new district - my wife and son were to stay in our current home) and the AD of new district would not approve the transfer. He said the entire family has to move (he provided MSHSL documentation that supported that position). Keep in mind we were going to live there, get mail, vote, etc. He was adamant that the entire family unit resided there. We gave up on the move idea as I wasn't interested in fighting the AD who was the decision maker. Technically he couldn't stop the transfer but he could make the players sit out.

Looks like I was stupid for telling the truth or the AD's in some districts interpret the rules differently.

Ok so the AD makes the initial decision and your AD was overly cautious. There is probably a lot of pressure on ADs in light of the Edina instance last year where the transfer played the entire season but was determined to be ineligible by MSHSL after the season.

I still wonder about these "exceptions". Are they real or imaginary?

My only thoughts are why are they transferring. Parents who put entire students worth on athletics? coaching issues? Issues with the school in general? There are alot of legitimate reasons as well as many not so legitimate. Parents need to remember at some point your daughters will be off to college and after 4 years of that they will be on their own to succeed based on their educational merits, not athletic in almost every case.

Two things going on here: First, Hopkins has a bad reputation with this issue earned by their shenanigans in basketball since the 1960's. Let's just admit it. The culture is already in place there. Is girls hockey now borrowing a shenanigan or two from this culture? Second, is the MSHSL a paper tiger, or do they have some cahones to enforce their own rules.

The most amusing thing looking on from the outside (even all the way over from the great wasteland 'east of the river') is the indignation shown by the Hopkins' boosters that anybody would question how 4 apparently Varsity level players just magically fell into their lap thru transfer. One of them even (with a straight face, mind you) played the poor-little-15-year-old-girl card.
Look, if these girls are all at Hopkins now because of the world-class fantastic academic reputation, then they probably don't care if they play JV instead of V hockey this season and it won't be an issue. If there is shenaniganism involved, then let's see some proof or we just have to shut up. If the MSHSL grants exemptions just for enduring a 20-minute sit-down with a bureaucrat at MSHSL headquarters, then we have a problem.

Has anyone contacted the coaches or AD at Hopkins. I would think that the AD at Hopkins would make sure to do the proper thing and check all the bases for these kids moving in. Especially since there is no love loss between the High School league and Hopkins. Rumors are just that, rumors. I have heard that the coach is a stand up guy, and does anyone feel he did anything wrong.

If not, and the kids have gone through all the proper channels, then let it rest with that.
We are talking about young athletes here, let them play, all eyes will be on them anyways and how fair is that.

Before the puck even drops on the first scrimmage there are two threads devoted to whining about this. It's one thing to name seniors on where they are going to college. It is another to name players and accuse them of something or to call out there poor play. That has been how the girls high school forum has been for the last couple years and how it should stay.

BM - I moved to Hopkins from your neck of the woods on the wrong side of the river two years ago. It was for the schools and not for the Hockey. Chose to spend money on a house rather than Hill Murray and liked the Hopkins principal more than Edina or Tonka (no offense to either). Couldn't be happier with the decision. Lucky my daughter was young enough that the cross hairs of a forum like this and people like you did not fall on my family.

I am proud of our kids, what they have done on the ice and in the classroom, I think it was a 3.8 GPA and 100% of seniors went on the be college athletes last year. I guess I would rather talk hockey but if you cant get over it I will keep posting about what a great school, coaching staff, facilities, kids, ... we have. I could go on about it all season.

rd--believe it or not I'm on your side. I was having a little fun with the bad reputation of the basketball program, which deserves abuse.

My beef has always been with the MSHSL--if it's going to create a bad rule (along with lots of other bad rules) then it better be serious about it and enforce it stringently and evenly. Think about all the kids out there who have absolutely legitimate and life-changing reasons to transfer who won't even attempt it now because of this rule. And then on the other hand, kids with shaky reasons for transferring will do so knowing that if they have the audacity to challenge the MSHSL with loud parents or lawyers they'll get their way and the HS League will back down.

Remember this is the first year of the rule--last year was a grandfathering year. We're all watching closely to see if the MSHSL is going to do the right thing.

Nobody want to cast aspersions on kids. But sorry, the Hopkins athletic department deserves to get ripped a little, even if in jest. And the MSHSL deserves all it gets in my opinion.

I know for a fact that this issue is not over yet. Stay tuned.

Silent But Deadly wrote:Buffalo had 26 skaters show up for tryouts which is actually way up from previous years.

How about some other communities...what was the turn-out like?

Minnetonka had to cut 5 girls this year. 6 freshman made the cut, 4 on varsity.

Ouch, sounds like that weakens their 14UA team. Although, I also know some of the players are worthy. Interesting decisions.

Since the MSHSL green stamps transfers to Hopkins…I suggest that all public schools decline to play Hopkins for the next two years. The Royals can play their conference teams and other private schools in their area. How many transfers will stay if their stuck playing a sub-par schedule.

stagefright wrote:Since the MSHSL green stamps transfers to Hopkins…I suggest that all public schools decline to play Hopkins for the next two years. The Royals can play their conference teams and other private schools in their area. How many transfers will stay if their stuck playing a sub-par schedule.

Hopk. up 2-1 over centen. end of 2

Stagefright wrote:

Since the MSHSL green stamps transfers to Hopkins…I suggest that all public schools decline to play Hopkins for the next two years. The Royals can play their conference teams and other private schools in their area. How many transfers will stay if their stuck playing a sub-par schedule.

Not that anyone is counting, but doesn't Minnetonka have three transfers -- Friend (from Hopkins) Raoila (from Chaska) and Blankenship (from Holy Angels).?

Perhaps Stagefright is right, those schools that have the transfers should only play each other... Unfortunately, it looks like the teams that don't have transfers may be the ones playing the "sub-par" schedule.

Thunderbird77 wrote:Stagefright wrote:

Since the MSHSL green stamps transfers to Hopkins…I suggest that all public schools decline to play Hopkins for the next two years. The Royals can play their conference teams and other private schools in their area. How many transfers will stay if their stuck playing a sub-par schedule.

Not that anyone is counting, but doesn't Minnetonka have three transfers -- Friend (from Hopkins) Raoila (from Chaska) and Blankenship (from Holy Angels).?

Perhaps Stagefright is right, those schools that have the transfers should only play each other... Unfortunately, it looks like the teams that don't have transfers may be the ones playing the "sub-par" schedule.

I guess it depends on how you define transfer. I think most of those kids changed schools before their freshman year but if you define transfer as just someone who changed schools then you are probably right. If you consider those three to be transfers then its four since another girl that's not on your list transferred from Holy Angels this year.

I see Maple Grove defeated Moundsview 3-2 in overtime, does anyone know anything about the game?