HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

This post is unrelated to everything else that has been said, but it is relavant to the main purpose of this thread.

I HATE HILL-MURRAY!

That is all.

I have a strong dislike for STA.

it is so exciting to have STA and Breck back in the Class A tourney!

I HATE HILL-MURRAY!

But why???
They accomplish so much year in and year out. No other school can come close to touching what Hill does to successfully compete on a level playing field with its public school counterparts.(ok, well maybe STA). Their students, players, coaches and fans must be so proud.

Terry Thompson III wrote:it is so exciting to have STA and Breck back in the Class A tourney!

^I swear this is not me posting under a new account. Although I agree wholeheartedly.

rainier wrote:

Terry Thompson III wrote:it is so exciting to have STA and Breck back in the Class A tourney!

^I swear this is not me posting under a new account. Although I agree wholeheartedly.

rofl. It is sarcasm at it's finest.

thorhockey wrote:Their students, players, coaches and fans must be so proud.

We are. Thank you.

In regards to a "level playing field" - with open enrollment, a campus arena and taxpayer paid tuition - what exactly is Tartan's disadvantage? (Or North, WBL, Stllwater, etc.)

In regards to a "level playing field" - with open enrollment, a campus arena and taxpayer paid tuition - what exactly is Tartan's disadvantage? (Or North, WBL, Stllwater, etc.)

Oh please

Hill is going to win this year..... Private school domination

elliott70 wrote:I have a strong dislike for STA.

So in other words you have a strong dislike for excellence?

Lazy Scout wrote:

elliott70 wrote:I have a strong dislike for STA.

So in other words you have a strong dislike for excellence?

No, I have a strong like for Hill (and Duluth East and Edina and Totino).
I just don't like the people from STA I have met, so I have extrapolated it to the whole FN group.

thorhockey wrote:

In regards to a "level playing field" - with open enrollment, a campus arena and taxpayer paid tuition - what exactly is Tartan's disadvantage? (Or North, WBL, Stllwater, etc.)

Oh please

Instead of saying "oh please" why not answer the question and engage in the discussion?

[Almost] every school has some sort of disadvantage due to their demographics, facilities, geographic location, etc. Life is all about how you deal with your disadvantages.
What I have seen in many areas is private schools take the disadvantage they have (needing to attract people to stay in business) and use it to shape those who attend their school.
Many public schools do this as well, with things like facility upgrades and excellent coaches to advanced academic approaches to community outreach.
Other public school communities say, "poor me" and complain about the accomplishments of others.

Many of the people attending private schools are doing so because of a need (or want) of theirs not being met in their community. There are a good number of people at private schools for the stereotypical reasons (religion, tradition, or other) but there are a large number as well who had no intention of leaving their community but did so because of some deficiency.
What always strikes me as so odd is that instead of ask the community to address many of the deficiencies we know about that cause this, so many just blame the school the people end up going to.

HSW so funny how you keep defending the indefensible.
A public school can only get so much funding for programs to keep them running, let alone improve them. What programs would be cut first in a failed referendum? Obviously Hill does well at attracting students and athletes, all about the money. I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.
Public schools are deficient in many areas, Government unions don't help and actually hurt the education of students IMO.
You cant possibly defend the fairness of having a team made up of select talented players and a team made up of home grown players. Then to top it off losing some of those home growns to the very team that you are trying to beat and have a chance to go to the big show.

Good luck at state . Something has to change. I am all for privates having there own section. Problem solved, fairness restored, many people happy. One private at State is plenty. You don't belong in MSHSL no one likes you.

thorhockey wrote:HSW so funny how you keep defending the indefensible.
A public school can only get so much funding for programs to keep them running, let alone improve them. What programs would be cut first in a failed referendum? Obviously Hill does well at attracting students and athletes, all about the money. I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.
Public schools are deficient in many areas, Government unions don't help and actually hurt the education of students IMO.
You cant possibly defend the fairness of having a team made up of select talented players and a team made up of home grown players. Then to top it off losing some of those home growns to the very team that you are trying to beat and have a chance to go to the big show.

Good luck at state . Something has to change. I am all for privates having there own section. Problem solved, fairness restored, many people happy. One private at State is plenty. You don't belong in MSHSL no one likes you.

You want to allow the running of your school(s) with an early 20th century model that doesn't work so hot anymore, that's not the fault of those who do things differently.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

thorhockey wrote:

In regards to a "level playing field" - with open enrollment, a campus arena and taxpayer paid tuition - what exactly is Tartan's disadvantage? (Or North, WBL, Stllwater, etc.)

Oh please

Instead of saying "oh please" why not answer the question and engage in the discussion?

[Almost] every school has some sort of disadvantage due to their demographics, facilities, geographic location, etc. Life is all about how you deal with your disadvantages.
What I have seen in many areas is private schools take the disadvantage they have (needing to attract people to stay in business) and use it to shape those who attend their school.
Many public schools do this as well, with things like facility upgrades and excellent coaches to advanced academic approaches to community outreach.
Other public school communities say, "poor me" and complain about the accomplishments of others.

Many of the people attending private schools are doing so because of a need (or want) of theirs not being met in their community. There are a good number of people at private schools for the stereotypical reasons (religion, tradition, or other) but there are a large number as well who had no intention of leaving their community but did so because of some deficiency.
What always strikes me as so odd is that instead of ask the community to address many of the deficiencies we know about that cause this, so many just blame the school the people end up going to.

^^^
Ditto.

"One private at State is plenty". Isn't that what we have this year? Why so bitter Thor? Wasn't it another, lower seed, public school that ended Tartan's season in the first round? Should the MSHSL ban Roseville?

You are upset that Tartan's basketball program is better at attracting players to the school than the hockey program is. I think it's time for you to spend more time at the gym then the rink. This way you may see how the ball bounces in favor of Tartan High School.

OK OK tough guys you win.

For now send over the good dope from the Hill team, and a suggestion from the Back Pages for a good time from the coaches, then we can talk

thorhockey wrote:I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.

You would be wrong. The most recent budgets available are from 2011-2012. District 622's budget was $156,500,000 for 11,300 students. That's an average of $13,850 per student. Hill-Murray's budget was $10,514,000 for 770 students for an average of $13,664. Let's call it even. I have no idea how much Bill Lechner is paid, but Hill-Murray does have a teacher's union with a salary structure based on 90% of public school teachers salaries.

Fair enough. thanks for the info stpaul. PPG did make a good point about the BBall program. Much like public powerhouse Hopkins. Do any of you agree with a private section to make it more fair for public schools (who for the most part have no control on improving their programs to attract top end talent)?.

thorhockey wrote:HSW so funny how you keep defending the indefensible.
A public school can only get so much funding for programs to keep them running, let alone improve them. What programs would be cut first in a failed referendum? Obviously Hill does well at attracting students and athletes, all about the money. I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.
Public schools are deficient in many areas, Government unions don't help and actually hurt the education of students IMO.
You cant possibly defend the fairness of having a team made up of select talented players and a team made up of home grown players. Then to top it off losing some of those home growns to the very team that you are trying to beat and have a chance to go to the big show.

Good luck at state . Something has to change. I am all for privates having there own section. Problem solved, fairness restored, many people happy. One private at State is plenty. You don't belong in MSHSL no one likes you.

I'm curious if you actually read my posts. You and I agree on many points, although there is at least one you are incorrect about.

1a. Are you actually suggesting that communities cannot raise funds on their own? Many facility upgrades at private schools are separate from their tuition and able to happen with funding from donars; generally alumni and relatives of current students.

To suggest this is impossible at a community school seems silly to me. Especially when you consider that with this sort of donation, one knows exactly where their dollars are going, instead of blindly donating to a pool.

1b. Speaking of your school specifically in comparison to the schools you are mentioning; I don't know what the graduation rate is, but Tartan's enrollment is double HM's and triple STA's (the HS). There are also 9 elementary schools and 3 middle schools feeding the district's two schools. Are you really going to claim that the community, parents and many more graduates couldn't raise similar funds if they tried?

2. Unions are an interesting thing. I agree that they definitely hurt more than they help, but they do some good things as well, which is the crux of the situation.
But I doubt unions are to blame for much of the reasons students leave.

3. So you admit the community school is losing the students? Not that they were maliciously taken, or hand picked, or similar? Good, we agree.
Ultimately, students [generally] "leave" their community hockey program for one of two reasons:
a. They weren't planning on going their in the first place.
b. The "community school" was lacking in some way.

Ultimately, the kids in group (a) are more than "community school supporters" want to admit. Most sub-high school hockey is community based. So, why isn't it the responsibility of the school/community to lower group (b)?

4. I agree with you; many things should be changing. I, however, see much change that should be taking place within the communities. Change that makes the communities better makes everyone a winner. Change that hinders private schools helps no one.

As for change in the MSHSL; that happens when coaches/ADs ask for it. This year we added a new class in football because coaches wanted it, for example. Change with the MSHSL happens when enough people push for it. Over 80% of the hockey programs in MN are at public schools. If it was true that "no one likes you" and they were vocal about it, my guess is there would be change next season.

What I see is that people like to complain when the private schools do well, but it's awesome to beat them. Similar to the "Yankees effect." With the top seeds in both classes this year being private schools, I'm guessing we will hear one of two story lines in a week; "public school beats private school" or "private schools should have a league of their own." It's fun to beat them, but when they're good, let's complain.

stpaul wrote:

thorhockey wrote:I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.

You would be wrong. The most recent budgets available are from 2011-2012. District 622's budget was $156,500,000 for 11,300 students. That's an average of $13,850 per student. Hill-Murray's budget was $10,514,000 for 770 students for an average of $13,664. Let's call it even. I have no idea how much Bill Lechner is paid, but Hill-Murray does have a teacher's union with a salary structure based on 90% of public school teachers salaries.

When it comes to public school spending, what things in the school are paid for outside of the districts budget? Is there anything, or is every penny spent inside the building from the district budget?

thorhockey wrote:Fair enough. thanks for the info stpaul. PPG did make a good point about the BBall program. Much like public powerhouse Hopkins. Do any of you agree with a private section to make it more fair for public schools (who for the most part have no control on improving their programs to attract top end talent)?.

Life is not fair. Is fair, in your opinion, allowing Tartan to go to state every year? Would it be fair to break up the section of Wayzata, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and Benilde St. Margarets? Your hate is based off of jealousy and a misunderstanding comprised of ignorance.

thorhockey wrote:Fair enough. thanks for the info stpaul. PPG did make a good point about the BBall program. Much like public powerhouse Hopkins. Do any of you agree with a private section to make it more fair for public schools (who for the most part have no control on improving their programs to attract top end talent)?.

This is the view that continues to confuse me. There are some amazing public schools out there doing great things and views like this lump them all together and bring a lot of them down.

Choosing to not take control and not having the ability are two totally different things.

Ogie wrote:

thorhockey wrote:HSW so funny how you keep defending the indefensible.
A public school can only get so much funding for programs to keep them running, let alone improve them. What programs would be cut first in a failed referendum? Obviously Hill does well at attracting students and athletes, all about the money. I would guess that per pupil spending is greater for students of Hill than any other Section 4 team. And i would bet salary and benefits for Lech is higher than any other coach in section 4.
Public schools are deficient in many areas, Government unions don't help and actually hurt the education of students IMO.
You cant possibly defend the fairness of having a team made up of select talented players and a team made up of home grown players. Then to top it off losing some of those home growns to the very team that you are trying to beat and have a chance to go to the big show.

Good luck at state . Something has to change. I am all for privates having there own section. Problem solved, fairness restored, many people happy. One private at State is plenty. You don't belong in MSHSL no one likes you.

You want to allow the running of your school(s) with an early 20th century model that doesn't work so hot anymore, that's not the fault of those who do things differently.

We're talking athletics only, guy.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

thorhockey wrote:Fair enough. thanks for the info stpaul. PPG did make a good point about the BBall program. Much like public powerhouse Hopkins. Do any of you agree with a private section to make it more fair for public schools (who for the most part have no control on improving their programs to attract top end talent)?.

This is the view that continues to confuse me. There are some amazing public schools out there doing great things and views like this lump them all together and bring a lot of them down.

Choosing to not take control and not having the ability are two totally different things.

I've been to busy munching on popcorn to weigh in on this thread, but now that I've got some extra time on my hands ( )...

The idea that public school sports programs are limited by the funds made available to them by the school district is flat-out wrong in many (most?) cases. And I'm not talking about foundations or alumni support, here, but rather the time, talent and money that flows into a public high school hockey program from its parent-supported booster club. The booster club fees and/or fund-raising mandates can be several times higher than the participation fees that the school itself charges. The money can be spent on everything from coaches salaries, to equipment, to extra hotel rooms if the team goes to state (The stingy b@st#rds at MSHSL only provide lodging based on 4 players/room).

How much the booster club fees are for public school booster clubs is entirely up to its membership. There are certain to be large disparities in fees from one program to another, linked to the relative wealth of a school district (and the hockey families that live within it). And on that sole point, public schools like Wayzata, Edina, Eastview and Eagan are far closer to privates like BSM or HM than they are to their public school neighbors.

Appreciate all of your feedback and I have learned something. Thanks. I will tone it down

UntouchableFlow? your just a jerk. go away