HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

hockeydog64 wrote:St. Thomas plays a wild card game against Farmington tonight at 8 p.m. in Farmington. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Farmington is eliminated from the play-offs by a team that District 8 membership strongly voted against joining the district.

My 2Cents,

Some District or someone in a District registered this team, who? Was it District 1? I doubt it. Someone or some District or Districts made a deal to allow this team to play a District 1 schedule. Was District 1 involved, sure they were, but it takes two to make a deal. Who was the second party?

Now its playoff time and this team (St Thomas) wants to be involved in the playoffs but they can't in District 1 because they are not registered in District 1. They are inserted into District 8 Playoffs, why? Because they are probably registered in District 8!!. Again who stepped up to the plate made a deal,registered this team but did not anticipate that St Thomas would exercise their "playoff" right that comes with being a registered team!

HockeyDog64....I think your focus on this issue should be to look within your own District for answers! Yes, Mn Hockey can help but, the problem is inside your District.

Its not the kids fault, whats done is done. Win or lose, bottom line its just kids playing hockey!


"If it smells like crap its probably crap"

STA 4, Farmington 0.

boardmember wrote:. . . bottom line its just kids playing hockey!

No matter how many times someone repeats that, it doesn't change the fact that MN Hockey AND the district 1 and 8 officers involved messed up. The Fire, MN made teams, all-star AAA, they are all "just kids playing hockey" but you don't see them in any district playoffs. But with this new precedent that Mn Hockey set (that anyone can play in Mn Hockey if they find an association that needs financial asisstance), I'm guessing that next year you will. But that's no problem, right? It'll just be kids playing hockey.

Does anyone believe me now about the things that happen in District1?
They even moved the Washburn "B" bantams to "C" batams after the season was almost over. I bet the two "A" pee wee teams at the bottom of this great district should have been sent to the "B" playoffs and the lowly Johnson "B" pee Wee team should have been sent to "C". I heard they have only scored two goals all season.

packerpuck19 wrote:To be quite honest I have just joined the forum so that I could put my two cents in on this subject.

We all have to understand that these are kids that we are dealing with here, and I am sure that all the kids on this STA B Bantam team are all great kids, but where the problem falls is in the parents. Its the parents EGO that gets in the way here. Why were they allowed to play in MN Hockey? My guess is that they had enough wealthy/"important" people saying the right things to the right people. Everyone else that doesnt make there private school hockey team goes back to there association and play where they have all these years already. What has happened here is that there was enough parents in this group of kids that got sick of going to there kid's games and sitting with blue collar workers, and they thought how much more beutiful the world would be if they were able to go sip on there tea in the stands with all there friends from the country club instead.

My thoughts personally are that this had nothing to do with the kids, because they would have had just as much fun, if not more fun playing with the kids that they grew up with this year. It was the parents that decided to put themselves as well as there child at a higher class than the rest of the world. Whats new? And again we have just let them form this class thing at an earlier age than High school now. There used to be a time that Private High Schools were all in a league of there own and couldnt even make it to state. Private schools were designed for education, and not hockey. Hockey is a blue collar sport and it will always be that way. Now look what we have become.

"blue collar sport" You're killing me!

hockeydog64 wrote:Can someone explain how this one makes any sense? Correct me if any of these facts are wrong, but as I understand it St. Thomas Academy tried to join District 8 to field a Bantam B team for the 07-08 season, and was rejected. (See the District 8 stickstat site board minutes from June '07.) STA couldn't get an affiliation agreement with Minnesota Hockey, so they did an end-run by tagging onto Richfield's affiliation agreement, and playing as a District 1 team all season this year. Now, suddenly, they are being thrown into District 8 for district play-off purposes -- the very district that rejected them earlier in the year. District 8 has 17 teams in district playoffs at the Bantam B level this year, and only get to send 2 teams to Regions. District 1 has 9 teams, and gets to send 3 teams to Regions. WHAT IN THE SAM HILL IS GOING ON HERE? If District 1 let STA in, why wouldn't they play in the D1 playoffs???? Also, I thought there was a rule against associations with no "A" team playing in the "B" playoffs? Not to mention a rule requiring that you play in the association where you are a resident (regardless of where you go to school)! How is this possibly good for MN Hockey? Lakeville’s program certainly suffered this year due to the option kids apparently had to join STA! If District 1 let them in, they should be playing in District 1’s playoffs. District 1 certainly seems to be benefiting from their participation (see http://www.cadets.com/news?module=news&showitem=231). Someone please enlighten me as to how this is fair to District 8, and how it is good for Minnesota Hockey.

First off it's a B team not an A team--they pulled up 3 former C peewees and 1 C Bantam to fill out the roster.

Secondly--they would have played D1 but D1 voted 5/4 against them in the playoffs.

Third--They were a bonus to D1--D1 needs the competition

Fourth--MN Hockey/D8 should have given them the agreement from the beginning.

5holesniper wrote:Fourth--MN Hockey/D8 should have given them the agreement from the beginning.

Whether MN Hockey/D8 should have let them is or not is not the issue -- the whole point here is that they didn't give them the agreement. D8 voted against letting them in. Which leads to the original, still unanswered question: How did they get into D8's playoffs? You seem to be connected with the team, hopefully you can provide an answer.

hockeydog64 wrote:

5holesniper wrote:Fourth--MN Hockey/D8 should have given them the agreement from the beginning.

Whether MN Hockey/D8 should have let them is or not is not the issue -- the whole point here is that they didn't give them the agreement. D8 voted against letting them in. Which leads to the original, still unanswered question: How did they get into D8's playoffs? You seem to be connected with the team, hopefully you can provide an answer.

It all has to do with where the team was started. STA was voted down by the D8 members. Upon notice an appeal was filed. The District Director can approve or deny the appeal. The appeal was approved, however no association in D8 would grant an affiliate agreement, even though the team had been approved by D8. The natural geographic community is Sibley Youth Hockey, however they wanted nothing to do with STA.
It all has to do with where the team was started. STA's team was approved by the D8 director to register in D8 and play a D1 Schedule. From there an affiliate agreement was needed to play in D1.

Playoffs are a different matter. The first choice was to play in District 1, however it was voted 5/4 against (top 3 teams make the next level STA currently 4th).

This left D8--which was obligated to allow STA a knock off game.

5holesniper wrote:

hockeydog64 wrote:

5holesniper wrote:Fourth--MN Hockey/D8 should have given them the agreement from the beginning.

Whether MN Hockey/D8 should have let them is or not is not the issue -- the whole point here is that they didn't give them the agreement. D8 voted against letting them in. Which leads to the original, still unanswered question: How did they get into D8's playoffs? You seem to be connected with the team, hopefully you can provide an answer.

It all has to do with where the team was started. STA was voted down by the D8 members. Upon notice an appeal was filed. The District Director can approve or deny the appeal. The appeal was approved, however no association in D8 would grant an affiliate agreement, even though the team had been approved by D8. The natural geographic community is Sibley Youth Hockey, however they wanted nothing to do with STA.
It all has to do with where the team was started. STA's team was approved by the D8 director to register in D8 and play a D1 Schedule. From there an affiliate agreement was needed to play in D1.

Playoffs are a different matter. The first choice was to play in District 1, however it was voted 5/4 against (top 3 teams make the next level STA currently 4th).

This left D8--which was obligated to allow STA a knock off game.

Thanks for providing some clarity as to what happened. So this all came about as the result of an independent decision by the D8 director, acting contrary to the vote of the D8 members. Interesting.

elliott70 wrote:I will not learn more until April meeting.
I would have enjoyed knowing this before our last meeting.

St. Thomas is out, not going on to regions, having been eliminated in close games by losses to Woodbury Black and Cottage Grove. But hopefully this issue will not just go away until next season. Elliot, will anything be done at MN Hockey's April meeting to address this issue specifically, and the private school issue generally (Blake, Minnehaha, others?) at the next meeting?

I understand that District Directors were supposed to tell all private schools that their affiliation agreements are terminated after this 2007-2008 season. Did the notices actually go out from the directors as had been agreed to in the September 2007 minutes? What about the "2/3 vote with advanced notice" that is referred to below? Has MN Hockey done what it needs to do there? Here is what the Fall '07 minutes said:

PRIVATE SCHOOL AFFILIATE –
Private schools, who have received affiliates from a MH District, may not be set up consistently. Blake, in District 3, became affiliated many years ago with certain stipulations; Holy Family in District 6 may have certain stipulations, now in District 8, a request from St. Thomas Acadamy.
These agreements were negotiated with the Districts where the schools are located and carry certain limitations with restrictive involvement with playing at the “B” level only. There is also a waiver requirement with some of them. Originally, we (MH) intended these arrangements to be on a trial basis but like a lot of these matters, we (MH) were not kept current with the monitoring of their activities. Before Minnesota Hockey renews these affiliate agreements for 2008-2009 season, we will take the opportunity to revisit their programs to make sure that said programs are consistent with our current philosophy. In other words, private school affiliate agreements operating currently today need to be put on notice that their affiliate agreement is expiring at the end of this coming year until such time that we (MH) review their affiliate agreement and set them up consistently. We (MH) are giving 60 days notice at this point. Each District Director that has one of these schools in place needs to notify the affiliate, in writing, of this decision. All Limited Affiliate Agreements will be notified as well. David Margenau stated that for Minnesota Hockey to be consistent, he suggests that he and Vice President Jerry DeMeo should draft the letter, making it available to the Directors. Jerry DeMeo stated that it should be emphasized that it is the sole prerogative of this Body to approve affiliate agreements. Minnesota Hockey can do this several ways. We can ratify it with the approval of the Directors. We have done that in the past. We can consider one, as was asked of this group today. We have not delegated that responsibility to anyone. Mark Jorgenson added that not only is that a responsibility of this Board but any changes needs a 2/3 vote with advanced notice. Any amendment to an affiliate agreement is an amendment to a governing document.

The agenda is out for Minnesota Hockey's Spring meeting, and STA has it's own spot on the agenda. Any predictions as to how that's going to turn out? My guess is that MN Hockey caves to whoever makes the most noise. Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to allow private school teams to form and participate in MN Hockey at the bantam level (or any other level). I'd be curious to hear the rationale for allowing it, other than the rationale that "you've let other teams do it, and if you don't let us, we'll sue."

I don't agree. I don't know why St. Thomas would have an agenda slot as the discussion isn't specific to them. STA violated several MN Hockey rules in the formation of their bantam team and weren't compliant during the season so that's probably enough for MN Hockey to say no. Up to this point MN Hockey has left the decisions to the Districts so it would be unusual for them to take the decision making from their Districts. District 8 membership has voted not to allow a St. Thomas bantam B team to join District 8 as an affiliate. Sibley, the youth hockey association that would host the St. Thomas Bantam B team, has denied their request to host. District 1 has said STAs one year experiment has concluded and will not be renewed. I'm guessing because of rule violations and that the formation caused problems for several youth hockey associations. It solved no problems for youth associations. Hey, there weren't any problems in the structure that has worked well from the beginning.

I don't see them approving STA to become a youth association on their own as why would you have a youth association smack dab in the middle of another. Some bantam teams already have difficulty filling rosters so there's certainly no need for additional ones. Each STA student has the opportunity to play with their community based youth hockey association until they're high school eligible so why would we need additional bantam b teams. That's the way it's done by 99% of the kids. Frankly, my opinion is that the kids would just as soon finish their youth hockey years with their buds they've skated with since mites. I honestly believe this is an extremely selfish ploy by 8 or 10 dads and nobody else.

Additionally, I believe MN Hockey will end approval of the only current school hosted Bantam B program in the state, Blake. Remember, no schools other than Blake host Bantam B teams. Currently St. Thomas doesn't have a Bantam B program as both District 1 and District 8 have voted no. Why should they be allowed another experiment and nobody else. It was tried, it failed. They scammed several people just to make it happen this past season. Wouldn't every school, and I'm not just talking privates, want to host a bantam B team if allowed?

I think Blake's Bantam B team will end too. They won the Bantam B State Championship so obviously had some players that would have been better served playing A level Bantam hockey with their community youth hockey association. Additionally, they used a player, or two, that didn't even attend Blake. That's weird and I would think not in the spirit of what MN Hockey envisioned when they granted Blake status to act as an independent youth hockey association even though they're a school and not a community based youth association.

Anyways, 1000s of families work hard to make their community based youth hockey associations great places to develop talent and prepare for high school hockey. Youth hockey associations host Mite, Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam teams and of course the corresponding girls teams. High schools host high school teams. Why change the model that works well for the thousands of MN Hockey families for a selfish 8-10 dads. So, it isn't going to happen. MN Hockey isn't going to be embarrassed on this decision any longer so the squeaky wheel definitely won't get the grease again. MN Hockey already has egg on their face for letting it happen in the first place.

Get over it and get on with it. Everyone back to their community based youth hockey association to work hard and support their neighborhood hockey programs. Get involved and help improve the program if you think there's room for improvement. Let your child play with their friends until they try out for the high school team. Any high school team. Remember, youth associations develop players for wherever they decide to take their next step. There are single associations that develop kids for over 8 different high schools and are doing a good job of it. Should each of the 8 high schools that that youth association feeds have a bantam b team. Of course not.

There's no way MN Hockey will go against solid logic, common sense, and their faithful hundred year old member youth associations, and start to allow schools to host youth hockey teams.

While well worded , your arguement reminds me of the quote my mom used when asking about my decision making skills as a youth: "if your friends all jumped off a bridge, does that mean you should too?"

What worked or didn't work in the past has nothing to do with what is best for the kids. (the most important part is kids, not the community assoc)

What is best for the kids will be based on personal decisions, as was the choice to leave "home" association to play B hockey. Why would they do that ? What was lacking? How would they have been better served to play A? Those are all valid questions worthy of answers.

Ending a private school bantam team is not the biggest issue or main problem facing MN Hockey.

Hey selfish dad,

Now that you've identified yourself, good point. The question is, what's the best structure for all the thousands of youth hockey players in the state? Your right, it is for the kids, all the kids. Plus, as I said, it's 6-8 fussing dads which you've proved. Did you ask your son if he'd prefer playing with his life long buds for his final years of youth hockey? Or, you'll decide to take that from him? Let him have fun with his buds, high school will come soon enough.

There are hundreds of Bantam B programs hosted by community youth hockey associations. That's the structure. There are no Bantam B programs hosted by schools. Make sense yet? Wait, you're selfish.

observer wrote:Hey selfish dad,

Now that you've identified yourself, good point. The question is, what's the best structure for all the thousands of youth hockey players in the state? Your right, it is for the kids, all the kids. Plus, as I said, it's 6-8 fussing dads which you've proved. Did you ask your son if he'd prefer playing with his life long buds for his final years of youth hockey? Or, you'll decide to take that from him? Let him have fun with his buds, high school will come soon enough.

There are hundreds of Bantam B programs hosted by community youth hockey associations. That's the structure. There are no Bantam B programs hosted by schools. Make sense yet? Wait, you're selfish.

Hmmm. What if his life long friends classmates were all on the Bantam B team?

Not a dad, don't have a son or daughter but do have a dog. And everyone is selfish at one time or another. So quit pointing fingers, no one called you names.

[/quote]

A decision will be made regarding all teams/associations not coming under what we currently refer to as 'community based'.

This (private school assn) has been an ongoing discussion since last November.

And there are strong opponents/supporters. /very few of us with an undecided - open mind looking for some type of solution.

Our meeting will be enjoyable.

If you like confrontation, debate, hair pulling and all that stuff.

[quote="observer"]

I think Blake's Bantam B team will end too. They won the Bantam B State Championship so obviously had some players that would have been better served playing A level Bantam hockey with their community youth hockey association. Additionally, they used a player, or two, that didn't even attend Blake. That's weird and I would think not in the spirit of what MN Hockey envisioned when they granted Blake status to act as an independent youth hockey association even though they're a school and not a community based youth association.
[/quote]

Observer, I brought this up on another thread. Though I do not care regarding the outcome of MN Hockey's decision on privates, I find it problematic that Blake used at least one non-student skater on their team (a nonstudent goalie is a different situation if they didn't have a goalie and I could understand an exception).

My understanding is that private school bantam programs have always been sold as programs that give "B" and "C" level players that attend the school an opportunity to play with their school friends. When a private brings in skaters from outside of their "school community", we open up a can of worms to load up teams and circumvent Minnesota Hockey. What's to prevent a private like Providence or Breck to start a Bantam B1 program and load up half of the team with non-student Wayzata kids because they don't have the bodies to fill out a team within their own school.

Thus, in Blake's case they weren't providing a school program for their "B" and "C" level kids, as at least half the team were solid "A" caliber players that could play on most "A" teams in the state. In bringing in at least one "A" caliber non-student player, I believe that the premise of providing a "school program" for the kids doesn't wash anymore.

Seems to me Minnesota Hockey needs to decide whether they want the private school teams or not, and if it is OK, they need to have rules in place to prevent loading up with 'non-students' as a precedent was set this year.

This is not a District by District decision but should be across the board. If Blake can have a team, how can Districts 1 and 8 tell STA that they can't have one? Who can tell Providence, Breck, Minnehaha, SPA, Holy Angels, Hill Murray, etc. that they can't have a team...but Blake can? Talk about a situation where attorneys would get involved! You can't grant a MN Hockey affiliate agreement to one and then refuse a MN Hockey affiliate agreement to another.

A few of you seem to have zero thought for the kids. Oh, that's right, youth hockey is mostly about the parents, the coaches and those who seek power, purpose, self esteem and control.

Let the kids finish the season. Then and only then, MN Hockey needs to take responsibility for its lack of control/policy which allowed this to happen. Fix the problems w/o hurting the kids.

Shiloh, funny you should say that. I agree, all 30,000 registered youth hockey players in the state, not 8.

Elliott mentioned there's strong supporters. Could that be kids? Unlikely. Could it be dads and adult school administrators and coaches? I've heard it's not school administrators, or coaches, as they'd prefer, and recruit A level players. Could it be 8 selfish dads? Bingo.

Let me consider before I make a decision. 8 dads vs. 30,000 MN youth hockey association players. Easy. All youth hockey stays with youth hockey associations. All high school teams stay with high schools. Youth hockey associations don't offer high school teams and high schools don't offer youth hockey teams. Done.

Taken from the discussion regarding sole site A level Championships.

Much of what we discuss is Minnesota Youth Hockey. An important distinction, that Elliot is commenting on, is that our governing body is called Minnesota Hockey, not Minnesota Youth Hockey. That means they're involved in all Minnesota hockey decisions, not just those that relate to youth. For me, youth hockey should often be a separate discussion with separate decisions and decision makers. After youth hockey (Mite, Squirt, PeeWee, Bantam, U8, U10, U12 & U14) comes high school hockey, then adult hockey, which they also oversee. So I believe decisions can be made that aren't necessarily in the best interests of "youth hockey." Minnesota Hockey doesn't necessarily protect youth hockey interests as that isn't their charge. Does Minnesota Youth Hockey need an organization that protects our interests? Minnesota Hockey has multiple responsibilities and don't always make decisions that protect Minnesota Youth Hockey. Does the schools hosting bantam teams question come to mind. If there was a Minnesota Youth Hockey organization in place, or a Minnesota Hockey division that only oversaw what benefits Youth Hockey organizations, then there wouldn't be split decisions on what's best for Minnesota Youth Hockey. They try and balance the interests of all hockey in Minnesota instead of protecting only what most of us are interested in, what's best for Youth Hockey in Minnesota.

No Youth Hockey organization/association would ever favor starting more bantam teams not hosted by youth hockey associations. Why would they suggest adding more bantam teams when there are plenty and several already combat declining numbers. But, an organization that has to answer to it's high school members too, Minnesota Hockey, might consider an idea to benefit that portion of membership, high schools, not favored by another part of membership, youth hockey associations.

I honestly believe that Minnesota Hockey is planning to end the idea of any schools hosting bantam teams. They've already killed Blake's but have a decision on St. Thomas coming to vote in June. I believe they'll protect their youth hockey association members and end the St. Thomas bantam experiment as well. It harms to many member youth hockey associations and benefits only a selfish few. Also, one single school bantam program has caused headaches for a lot of people. If there were 8-10 of them it would be a huge nightmare for several youth hockey associations.

Does there need to be a specific division in Minnesota Hockey that protects the interests of Minnesota Youth Hockey Associations? Or, does there need to be an entirely new organization whose only interest is what's best for youth hockey and doesn't need to balance decisions to please other member organizations?

the only people worried about extra teams "hurting" associations are the adults who are concerned about the record their local team will have should some kids choose to play else where. there is no other reason to worry about who leaves, when or why. it's about adult egos.

kids are smart. they stick together. if some choose to leave, they will not whine about who is leaving, they will bond together and try to prove they do not need them.

FYI, blake's team is not dead. but good luck leading the charge to kill YOUTH teams, don't worry about the kids on those teams, they must all be selfish too.

I bet if community based, youth hockey programs did not discriminate against private school players for A team spots, we would have never seen this problem even emerge. Hard to fault kids for wanting to play with their friends but it appears this thread is all parents and their opinions.

If a kid attends a private school out of his community, he has little opportunity to get to know the kids in his town since his school becomes his community. I would bet those kids would prefer to play with their friends. This one year you have successful private teams like Blake's Bantam B team and everyone is suddenly in an uproar since their association got beat and didn't win the championship. I bet if the private school teams were bad, no one would care. I don't have a private school kid but I think this issue is driven by more selfish parents than the ones who's kids attend private school.

Two things,

Blake was given a 2 year extension and will be terminated following the 2009-2010 season. Blake will only have a bantam team if kids get waivers out of their existing associations which they may not receive. Many Associations, and Districts, are taking a tougher stance on waivers and free agency. Hard to have a team with 8 kids.

And, selfish one, no youth hockey player came up with the idea to have schools host bantam teams. Don't suggest they did. It was selfish parents and, from what I've heard, not even school administrators. Entirely parent based. All kids would rather play with their community based friends through their bantam years. Could they be convinced otherwise by a parent? Maybe. Come up with the idea to leave their friends for their final years together? No way. And you know what, let them play with their buds. High School comes soon enough.

Everyone plays by the same rules. Youth hockey through bantam and then school hockey for high school. Honestly, other than being selfish why would anyone think they need a special arrangement for their child different from the other 30,000 youth hockey players in Minnesota.

Be supportive of your community based association. They've done a lot for you. Strengthen them with your involvement. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.

"All kids would rather play with their community based friends through their bantam years."

Really? The best test taking advice for T/F questions is if you ever see the word 'always' it is false.

Where do you suppose their friends come from? School maybe. So what if they go to school with the same group of friends since 1st grade, but because of the school they go to are not allowed to play with their friends?

Since I have no doubt you will miss the logic in that, I will leave it alone. And how do you know what community based hockey has done for me, or what I have done for it? I have only a dog to raise.