coop teams

[SEhockeyDAD]

There is no JV team in Rochester. They've used the little-played girls from all 4 schools to play a few JV games, but they have to fill holes in that roster with regular varsity players.

[ghshockeyfan]

There is no JV team in Rochester. They've used the little-played girls from all 4 schools to play a few JV games, but they have to fill holes in that roster with regular varsity players.

I remember a few years back that there was talk of a "Rochester United" JV??? That maybe didn't work out though except for a few games...

THis being said, maybe we should instead recognize how well the non-Roch teams are doing at fielding decent numbers even w/o the population base of Roch.

I think my only point in all of this is that maybe someone needs to reevaluate if there is some sort of more natural breaking point in the near future based on the participation data vs. forcing this abruptly immediately. If some sort of advanced notice was given to Roch and they didn't act or resisted a multi-year transition plan proposal historically, that is a different story, but either way I just don't agree with breaking up a co-op and forcing kids to play HS when better options exist.

Obvioulsy the luxury of these better options is more the issue than anything. Other Big 9 teams/communities/schools don't have them.

[ghshockeyfan]

Are the numbers available for the specific kids from each school in each grade for next year in the Roch co-ops?

I assume the schools have done interest surveys and investigated youth participation #'s down into the 6th grade currently?

Is there specific knowledge of how those middle school kids will feed the HS's or HS teams? There never really is as they have so many options entering HS, but at least you can do a best guess...

At-a-glance, when I see those 11 RM/L Jr's that are seniors to be, it woudl seem to me that after that class grads next year woudl be the time to break things up and reevaluate, but how many of those 11 are at one school in the co-op?

[falcons88]

Rochester is a perfect example of how not to manage girls hockey.
It is a sad state of girls hockey that a city of that size has reached this point. The greatest game on earth has not been introduced to many young ladies. They need to reevaluate their system.
Other communities in the big nine were at this point 2-3 years ago and grew out of it. Faribault, Albert Lea, Austin, Mankato west, all consisted of 7th and 8th graders then, but now have built the programs up to primarily 10th , 11th , & 12 th graders that are now starting to compete with the city teams. The goal is to create a community that reloads teams not rebuilds them.

[goldy313]

The Lourdes comment deals with the opening of this topic where a Lourdes player is upset about possibly having to change teams. My point is the Lourdes kids should have no say in where they play, the fact that they are allowed to play is enough. If they had their way and stayed at Mayo then there would only be 1 HS program in Rochester and that's probably the least desireable solution.

On the second page of this thread SE hockey dad has the numbers projections through 2011 from the Rochester school district, and those numbers assume every girl currently playing continues to play and no new girls show up, so they aren't set in stone by any means. Using those numbers for girls in grades 9-12 alone neither Century or JM would be able to field a team without using 7th and 8th graders in the forseeable future.

[SEMetro]

I don't know if just counting 7th and 8th graders is that valuable, since some may be far better than upperclassmen.

As a completely uninformed person I have the following question: Is Roch's problem traced to its refusal to split its hockey association?

Unlike 99% of the hockey associations in the state, I believe Roch rainbows its hockey association rather than creating 3 associations each looking to grow for its own public high school. Instead, (I think) it rainbows all the boys and girls together to create as strong of an A team (particularly for some of the boys levels that can compete at a state tournament). (I think) the girls are similarly rainbowed.

I would think this structure would perpetually bite the Roch high school programs in the keister because: (1) less boys and girls are getting developed at the A level; (2) you have attrition (and less interest to join) by those who know they can't play A level hockey in a combined association; and (3) you don't have dedicated associations looking to grow, recruit and otherwise help the interests of the particular high school.


I may have all my facts wrong and please correct me if I am wrong.

But even if I have it right I agree that all girls should have the right to play high school hockey somewhere - not necessariliy on a winning team - but somewhere.

[Woody14]

It was announced today that Rochester Century High School will not have a girls hockey team in this coming season.

Very unfortunate for the girls that came up through the youth programs only to have there legs cut out from under them.

I'm only aware of one girl in the 7 years that my daughter has been playing hockey in Rochester (both youth and H.S.) that didn't "make" the team she came out to play for. All this talk about Rochester building "all-star" teams is ignorance of our situation.

[SEhockeyDAD]

Positives:
A few thousand dollars will be saved in activities fees.
Some Big 9 team will finish 7th in conference instead of 8th.
Some Section 1 team will be ranked 6th in section instead of 7th.
They won't be using 7th & 8th graders on the Century team.

The outcome of this issue seriously stinks. Girls who've played hockey for many years were told they can't play anymore. And why? Because the other Big 9 schools were tired of losing to Rochester teams? Here's what the new alignment will probably mean to the Big 9; Mayo will still almost certainly dominate conference, and the JM/Lourdes team will be better than a JM/Century team would have been. Now will Rochester teams be forced to use 7th-9th graders on the HS team just like the smaller schools in the Big 9? No. A couple may move up for the JM/Lourdes team.

What the Big 9 accomplished was to make some girls cry and parents very mad. Is this what they were hoping for?

[Woody14]

SE Dad, I think your right. A by-product of the Big Nine AD's disallowing the AA co-op's is that the remaining two Rochester teams (Mayo and JM/Lourdes) will be as strong this coming season compared to last and maybe for seasons to come as families that have girls that are serious about continuing their hockey careers into high school will now make a move into the school boundaries that will guarantee them a chance to play. A second option is to send their kids to Lourdes. By doing away with the AA co-ops, they have removed one variable that was outside Rochester's control. We don't have to look to the Big 9 for the annual variance any longer. Unfortunately, our H.S coaches may have to actually make cuts for girls coming out to play varsity in a couple of years now that we have only two H.S. teams to feed into.

The biggest losers in this are the 7 or so Century players that just had their H.S. hockey careers ended.

I'm curious if the girls that don't have a hockey team at their school are subject to any waiting period if they switch schools.

[mama05]

It is my understanding that atheletes who OE in Rochester are subject to a 1 year waiting period. However, I don't believe that holds true if they transfer into Lourdes.
Does anybody know how the numbers actually came out in regards to the May survey?

[mrslasher]

SEMetro yes you have it right, I never heard it termed that way but it is a good one, Rochester is 'rainbowed' unfortunately. The board has repeatedly said the organization is not a funnel for the HS programs, and based on the current board makeup you are exactly correct. It is so the coaches (many of which are board members) can have the (now) single A program for their son to play on. HS coaches have expressed interest in helping where it makes sense and have been pushed away. Hopefully times will change for the better, can't get any worse anyway...

Just heard about the Century program, I really feel for the girls being left out this year, it's a very bad situation or them...

[ghshockeyfan]

OK - so start a transition to eventual stand-alone top-to-bottom youth programs for each HS by breaking apart at the B & C levels but offer joint A teams for a couple years. As numbers build, break apart entirely.

An example of this was the Eastview/Apple Valley situation. Eastview knew the need to have it's own youth to some degree was important and I think they did pursue this immediately after the HS was proposed or opened?

[ghshockeyfan]

The biggest losers in this are the 7 or so Century players that just had their H.S. hockey careers ended.

I'm curious if the girls that don't have a hockey team at their school are subject to any waiting period if they switch schools.

Lawsuit waiting to happen if a parent of a kid shut-out of haockey is told they can't transfer w/o penalty. Interestingly, this is the same sort of challenge that a new tougher MSHSL transfer rule would face as well - only diference is that the defendant is the Roch schools vs. MSHSL.

Best thing woudl be for a dangerous precedent to be sent granting a special provision of waiving the 1 yr deal due to these circumstances.

If challenged/becomes a legal issue, this could come back to bite Big 9 schools that forced this, but more likely will fall on those that picked this option, even though I don't know if the selection wasn't the best uder the circumstances (being forced to do "something").

[goldy313]

The OE allows transfer between school districts, it has no bearing on transfers within a school district, that's left up to each school district. Should some Century players somehow appear at JM next year and be on the team, that would be akin to giving the Big Nine the finger. I doubt that has any chance of happening.

As for the lawsuit, it probably will happen because somebody can afford to bring it, though Rochester has set up it's transfer rules well within the law. The people who run the school district and the AD's are not stupid and after lawsuits and threats of lawsuits filed by people like Gus Chafolius, George Restovich, and Don Gilbertson the likelyhood of any merit in a lawsuit is pretty small. Gilbertson tried this already about girls hockey and the only thing that ended up happening was that the boys couldn't turn on the lights during a basesball game.

Also playing hockey is not a right, tougher transfer rules than Minnesota's have withstood court challenges in other states; usually they're thrown out as meritless because by definition sports are "extracurricular".

[ghshockeyfan]

This is a touchy subject.

OE applies to schools within the same district. I know as I did, unless it has changed since the 90's - which it may have, that's 10-15 years ago now.

There is a metro district that has similar transfer rules to those of Roch. Interestingly though, in that case, chances are that kids desiring to transfer within the district wouldn't be shut out of a sport if not allowed as it is offered at their home-area school.

Playing sports is not a right, but nondiscrimination based on anything typically is in this day and age. If there is even a hint of something not equal, watch those fight it legally that care enough to fight.

[mrslasher]

Of course transferring to Lourdes to do the equivalent of playing for JM is an option as well...

[goldy313]

"Open Enrollment allows any student to apply for enrollment in any district outside the district in which the reside" That is the exact quote from the Open Enrollment law from 1985 which is still in effect. So your district may have allowed you to transfer but it was not because of the open enrollment law.

This lawsuit was tried already once in Rochester. The problem was you can't mandate that kids play a sport, if there isn't sufficient interest. It stands to reason that there can not be a sport. This isn't new, it happens in boys sports all the time as well. Sometimes it forces teams into co-op situations other times it ends the sport completely. The lawsuit tried to force Rochester into 3 teams because of Title IX, but because of lack of interest it failed. The lawsuit did however bring an investigation into the equality of Rochesters sports programs, in which certain changes were made, none to hockey. You're not discrimanating against anyone if a school with approx. 800 girls plus a middle school with and additional 400 girls can't come up with 15 whom want to play hockey.

This has already been gone through here once ending last year. It's not like this is a new problem that just cropped up, the schools have tried unsuccessfully for years to get three programs running. They are met at every turn with trouble; as mentioned earlier the RYHA has done nothing to help as they have no interest in helping the high schools. For whatever reasons girls hockey just hasn't taken hold in Rochester as of yet and the High schools are suffering.


Lastly girls hockey is offered at Century, there just isn't enough interest to warrant a team for the upcoming season. It will be reevaluated again next year and I hope the results are different. For what it's worth the same thing happened to the boys team at Harding a couple of years ago, they we're forced to drop the program until the next season when a co-op was offered.

[ghshockeyfan]

What the exact wording of the 85 law implies is that someone can OE outside, but not transfer within, their district - if I'm understanding your interpretation correctly, meaning that a district is essentially giving preferential treatment to kids outside their district vs. those within? (if allowing inter vs intra district movement). Something doesn't sound right there, but I'll take your interpretation as the accepted interpretation. I wonder if there isn't additional language that clairifies this distinction further somewhere. One HS districts it makes sense, but not in multi-HS districts... (but districts/schools can decline acceptance based on being full) And, I believe that MSHSL regulations apply no matter what (intra or inter).

That aside, my concerns are the same, and Harding is a great example again of a different situation. There was at least the opportunity to play the sport - granted at the JV level from what I recall. Now, that (playing at all) is being blocked entirely for these Centruty kids unless they technically (according to the above interpretation) OE outside Rochester vs transfer within.

I think the bottom line for me is that the Big 9 has decided through imposing its will that the Century kids should NOT have the opportunity to play hockey any longer based on the Roch Schools reaction/solution.

That, to me, makes little sense - and, as many have pointed out, likely does nothing to address their (the Big 9's) real concerns, as the Roch teams now have after realignment are likely just as strong as ever.

Nice job in forcing kids out of athletics. Brilliant in fact.

I don't blame the Roch schools for their reaction/solution. I instead blame the Big 9 for not finding a better alternative or phasing in process.

I do howver think it is unfair that such kids would not be granted a special waiver of the 1-year transfer participation ban - as the Roch schools could step in and waive that if hockey meant enough to one of those affected players that they would up and transfer to play. The MSHSL in fact might even consider waiving their ban/penalty under such circumstances!

Also - if a kid wants to play that bad, I don't think they should be looked at in the same light as some are for OE'ing/transfering when they actually have the opportunity to play a sport somewhere else (i.e their home-area school). These kids can't even play hockey anymore! Can you imagine being told in HS that you have no option to play a sport? Amazing...

By the way, it is discrimination when one school gets a co-op opportunity, and another doesn't - especially if they are within the same school district. Why one vs. the other? And, lastly, what about the boys? Are any being blocked entirely for at least one year from participating in the sport? Maybe I'm missing something here, and that is entirely possible...

[goldy313]

Harding ended up dropping their JV program as well during the season due to lack of numbers and difficulty scheduling games. Rochester Century could go to a "JV" format but they would likely run into the same troubles Harding did so that isn't really a viable option.

All the Big Nine has said is that they would no longer accept a John Marshall/Century co-op, which they said at least 3 years ago so this isn't new. They hold the same policy for all sports so they're just being consistant, anything else could be taken as discrimination (Mankato was forced to split). I'm not sure they can be blamed for any of this, after all they didn't tell Century that they couldn't field a team. They just said a JM/Century team could not play in the Big Nine, it's also doubtful that section 1AA would have allowed this co-op either after this season.

Century did have every opportunity to field a team, they just couldn't find more than 9 girls interested. That's all, according to the Post Bulletin, that signed up, even with the 4 Lourdes girls they still didn't have enough.

The problem lies within the hockey community in Rochester, whom through their arrogence thought that they were above it all. They have done nothing to recruit girls in nor have they come up with any solution to end this problem as of yet. There is no right to have a hockey team, or is there a right to play hockey. Again, the sport was offered, no one is being forced out of athletics for any reason other than lack of interest.

These girls should have gone out and found friends, enemies, whomever to join up and play. They didn't, the interest just isn't there and nobody can mandate it.

As for OE, Rochester went out of its way to make sure that wasn't an option, it would set a very bad precedent.

Maybe some comprimise can be made, but at the same time is it right for JM girls to be told that they can't play because a Century player is transeferring in or a co-op is going to take place? JM had 14 sign up add the 9 Century girls and some kids will be left out and that's, to me, worse.

[ghshockeyfan]

Did not know about harding folding later on in year. Sad to hear that as I played a year in that youth program many years ago and am from an East side family.

JV option likely not possible in S MN as many programs don't have JV's - unless they could play weaker V teams and count them as JV games? Someone should look into if co-op JV only is even legal, as I believe it is NOT, but I'm on a roll today for being ignorant. I know that other schools have done co-op JV only hockey (seperate V's) but I don't know if that is really allowed by MSHSL. If it is, maybe some of the weaker players from other teams could play JV too against other JV's or weak V's in the area...

I hate to see kids forced out of the sport. Seems everyone wants to say they didn't have anything to do with this and everyone is a victim. I suppose if MSHSL was to say that they wouldn't allow said team in AA in a few years, then... inevitable.

One question that was answered was the Big 9 saying 3 years ago that they wouldn't allow this co-op to exist. A transition plan should have been implemented then, and wasn't - so I have less sympathy for the admin than before, but more sympathy for the kids.

I think co-ops are a solution, not a problem, and yes #'s need to grow, but sad to see 9 young girls have the greatest game taken from them due to this situation.

As to what is worse, it depends who your kid is I guess. Part of me says that a better life lesson is getting cut as a player vs. your team and opportunity getting cut! But, either way, I guess kids learn valuable lessons.

Sad, very sad. Must have been a tough choice for admin as to whose playing careers they were going to end under the mandate from the Big 9 and possible MSHSL issues long term.

[MNhockeyfan09]

An example of this was the Eastview/Apple Valley situation. Eastview knew the need to have it's own youth to some degree was important and I think they did pursue this immediately after the HS was proposed or opened?

Just a little history lesson, Eastview Hockey Assc. started with kids from
Apple Valley, Rosemount & Eagan right at the same time as the High School. You had to skate where you lived, based on the HS boundaries.
That was ten years ago and today Eastview is bigger than AV and Rosemount.

[birdielane]

Lots of things need to be fixed in Roch. Big 9 is not really to blame.

But they should give the Century girls a grace period to get 13 or so names to play. If they can do that by a certain date, they should announce the reinstatement of the program and start hiring a coach, etc.

The cruelity to the Century girls was that Century had more girls returning than JM...and the 'secret' ballot approach, then announcement of program termination did not allow girls enough time or facts to make an informed decision. It would be far fairer to tell them, give me your roster of 13 players by X date or we must drop...not "Suprise! Lourdes will be used to save JM program and you can't play next year"

[ghshockeyfan]

Lots of things need to be fixed in Roch. Big 9 is not really to blame.

But they should give the Century girls a grace period to get 13 or so names to play. If they can do that by a certain date, they should announce the reinstatement of the program and start hiring a coach, etc.

The cruelity to the Century girls was that Century had more girls returning than JM...and the 'secret' ballot approach, then announcement of program termination did not allow girls enough time or facts to make an informed decision. It would be far fairer to tell them, give me your roster of 13 players by X date or we must drop...not "Suprise! Lourdes will be used to save JM program and you can't play next year"

Amen.

I don't blame Big 9 as much anymore as I hear they told the Roch schools long ago they had to break up. That being said, a transition period should have been started then (3 years ago?) and then we wouldn't be having this discussion today I would bet.

[ghshockeyfan]

An example of this was the Eastview/Apple Valley situation. Eastview knew the need to have it's own youth to some degree was important and I think they did pursue this immediately after the HS was proposed or opened?

Just a little history lesson, Eastview Hockey Assc. started with kids from
Apple Valley, Rosemount & Eagan right at the same time as the High School. You had to skate where you lived, based on the HS boundaries.
That was ten years ago and today Eastview is bigger than AV and Rosemount.

Bottom line - EV did it right!

[birdielane]

The other tough thing about Rochester is that the players are split between 4 HS. When you look at a population of 90K, thats like four towns with a population of around 25K...not really that 'big' when you look at it that way compared to the Austins, Owatonnas, etc...

Separate Associations by HS is a thought but LHS complicates that.