redistricting

THGoalieguy · Post by **THGoalieguy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:52 pm

It would be nice if the larger assoc. would field more equitable teams..i.e. instead of 1 A 2B and 4C teams make it 2,2 & 3. Everyone knows that after the top 3-5 players the balance of 10-12 "A" level players are very close to the next 10-12 top "B" players. Same scnario for bottom B guys and top C players. I know the argument (from some AAA Blades type parents) will be that good players need and deserve to play with like ability players....whatever... I think given the opportunity, kids rise up especially when given the leadership of other good players. This would also help level the playing field in some dist. where you have large and small assoc. competing. We struggled with this on the board in Lakeville last season and I am proud to say that we stuck to it and it worked. We did end up losing 6 top "A" players to St. Thomas as freshman, but in the end it was there loss. Most of our teams ended up well above .500 and are doing as well and better this year. It was a tough pill to swallow for some but the remedy worked. If you require the equitable teams by # scenario, that eliminates most of the call for re-districting. Then you simply look at drive time issues and adjust accordingly. In Lakeville we drive up to 2.5hrs (1 way )for games against LaCrescent and Winona. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. I know they need someone to play but there has to be a better solution than throwing them in a district with LKVL EAGAN WOODBURY IGH etc..

lakerscoach · Post by **lakerscoach** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:06 am

to a certain extent i agree with Semetro but on the whole i have to disagree. walk into the wayzata rink and you see they field 8-10 pee wee teams, many other associations are in the same boat, ie white bear, ep... that's a lot of kids, 17*8 or 10. that makes close to 170 kids registered in those associations. more than 17 out of 170 probably deserve to play at the 'a' level. BUT, the rule that if an association fields more than 1 team in a given bracket( a, b1, b2) the association must make every effort to field these teams to be equal in strength is not fair. it is this rule that keeps these large associations from fielding more than 1 'a' team. should an association have 1 great 'a' team or 2 good 'a' teams. it really does make a difference if you are aiming to win the state championship. i come from a small association, and i have coached against the wayzatas of the world and gotten my kids pounded, was it good for either team? i can honestly say "no!!!!" our kids were demoralized even before the drop of the puck and their kids had a game that they probably didn't take too seriously, which is a very dangerous position to be in. from both sides.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:30 am

stop whining and get better, how does Roseau with about 45 players do it year after year. Stop trying to water it down. State titles is for the best team. I will wait for your response. It will sound something like they have good hockey players and are coached by great hockey players and they care about there hockey. 'A' hockey is not for everyone and it certainly is a joke if people think the big programs should have another A team to water them down. If you cant compete make more rules. Maybe we can give out 9th and 10th place ribbons.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:47 am

puckhead: What is your solution for the smaller associations that may have only 25-35 kids trying out at each level. There are LOTS of these type of associations in the metro. As for Roseau they are very succesful with the number of skaters they have, the are very unique in their success. Much of it is due to their strong tradition, great coaching and the abundance of cheap ice.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:52 pm

The HOPE of thei thread is to let everyone is express an idea or opinion that may (or may not) have value to making changes within MN Hockey. I would like to let everyone make positive comments without feeling their ideas will be BASHED. As Lee mentioned whne making this a sticky topic - NO BASHING! Some feel that large associations should be forced into a 2 A program. To be honest, that could happen - without a change in rules. A DD is the person responsible for classifyng teams - NOT the associations. So if I feel that Bemdiji should field 2 Bantam A teams 2 years from now becasue their #1 B team is beating up on everybody, I (or the DD at that time) can make that decision. So PLEASE. Let people express their opinion. If your opinion is that the associaiton should make that decision becasue - lay it , winning the state championship is important. I want my kid to play wiht the best kids in out area. Or whatever else it amy be. Again thank you - but again - lets allow for free exchange of ideas in a POSITIVE way.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:08 pm

really, I dont think the Dist Directors have all the say since it is the associations that classify their teams. With that being said AAA hockey is all that much closer. the 80-20 rule. 20% of the programs are successful and by that I mean regional and state tourney type success the other 80% whine and cry and actually you helped my argument Roseau has success because they WORK at it. All the successful programs WORK at it. They care about their hockey. Does economics play at part sure it does raise more money. Most associations dont want to WORK at it anymore. So bring everyone else down to your level. Exactly why 14 Bantam A level kids from St CLoud went to high school this year.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:08 pm

For clarification; Mn Hockey handbook page 26 VII. Levels of Play C.Classification bt District Director-It shall be the responsibility of the District Director to review and finalize the classification of all teams. Each association shall submit the proposed classification for each team to the District Director prior to November 15th. The next section describes the appeal to a higher level.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:14 pm

x2 First, you do not know the rules, obviously. Second, we are not looking for your input I guess, because you have only one soulution - which in itself is NOT a solution but an ignorant response to something with which you do not agree. Third, we are not trying to find ways to level the playing field but rather answers to solve some of the dilemas within the current hockey setup. And trying to do so in a manner that improves the total hockey experience for ALL. My hope is that you do NOT stop posting, but post in a method that will provide insight on your perspective. It is important to have different views and ideas.

lakerscoach · Post by **lakerscoach** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:31 pm

puckhead, you obviously don't read as closely as you should. my post was a small association coach arguing for the larger associations. if i was coaching in a larger association i would not want to play my team. the possibility that the kids will come in underestamating the opponent and lose, especially in a district playoff game is scary. as the smaller association coach i relish the opportunity to come with the kids geeked up and pull of the upset. i feel that the equal teams at the same level rule should go. an association like wayzata, ep et al definitely have more than 17 kids that can play at the 'a' level. an a1 team, and an a2 team would be the fairest solution of all. this way these associations can field an 'a' team they feel should win the state and have another 'a' that can compete.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:32 pm

It's an idea I almost hate to even bring up, but has MAHA ever thought of going to a 2 tiered system? I really liked American Legion baseball when it was a one team take all tournament, but times changed it it was killing off smaller programs where kids couldn't, for many reasons, play on a somewhat level playing field. When for all intents and purposes a vast majority of the teams in the state have no chance every year to even play competitively with most teams it takes away from trying to develop hockey. I'd look at things like availability of year around ice, numerical stability (if you're programs growing continually or losing significant numbers), and economic factors like % of kids on reduced lunch programs. Instead of just looking at what's best for the kid from White Bear Lake, Moorhead, or Rochester, balance them equally with the kids from Luverne, Ely, and Harding. I don't believe in the everybody should be a winner so we all feel good theory, but rather you don't bring a sling shot to a gun fight. A, B, and C is fine but when your associations best kids can barely compete with larger associations worst teams i.e. LaCrescent vs. Rochester whats the point?

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:26 pm

alright you want some solutions...have 2 A teams that support one high school might be stretching it. The reality is only about 6-7 players a class typically play for the Varsity a year sometimes a few more. So if letting what I would call upper B1 teams move to the A level for better competition in lieu of losing more games thats fine. But to water down and make equal teams is not the right either. The upper A players will move to HS a year early. I truly believe your program is set in motion when the kids are in initiation and squirts. By peewees and bantams if they havent been taught the proper skill sets they will not be as successful as the elite programs. Do numbers help sure just more internal competition but more doesnt mean more quality. If you want better teams you have to get to work when they are young.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:31 am

Anyone new, that have been redirected from the Minnesota Hockey sight, please be awware of this Forum's rules. Please feel welcome to add your input, but please be positive.

Blade Side Down · Post by **Blade Side Down** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:06 am

Mr Elliott, Are there set abjectives here, who is trying to win what with the shuffle? Retention for kids should be high on the list. The starting point should be where the NUMBERS are in MAHA. This is also a business that need to survive for our kids/kids. My guess is the Initiation program (mites) and it decreases from there getting older today alot? This is the core of MAHA and what ever ajustment tool MAHA comes down with going forward will be judged by this. The little ones are one you will base it on going forward for succes or failure. So focus on them, there the future. Time and Travel It must contribute to the players parents dislike about the sport. I know allot of people that love the game, but could not play it going forward in age. As it say's below "best possiable experience for all participants" This includeds the grandparents wishing to come see. People this is important and every one needs to get behind what ever the decision is. We are the sport, show support. O - YA, not everyone wins in this one too. YOUTH HOCKEY USA Hockey, Inc., is the national governing body for the sport of hockey in the United States. As such, its mission is to promote the growth of hockey in America and to provide the best possible experience for all participants by encouraging, developing, advancing and administering the sport. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... mnhs>Blade Side Down</A> at: 2/20/06 11:08 am

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:40 am

The initital objective was primarily administrative. Reshuffle the number of teams to ease teh handling of each district. Of course, part of it was who is playing who, the district team setup. Well, with that the idea of the whole structure of MN Hockey was discussed so the focus was broadened to see if ideas could be generated and incorporated in what we do now, or alternatively, what else we could do. Retention and recruitment are high priorities. So the 12 directors strated on thet idea, but it is a big assignment. And the directors do not pretend to know all possible problems and allpossible solutions. Other input is invaluable. Whether it is a statewide concept or just things that pertain to a ceratin district or certain associations.

stickboy56 · Post by **stickboy56** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:12 pm

"S of River" district makes too much sense Shakopee, Prior Lake, Burnsville, AV, EV, Lakeville, Eagan, Rosemount, Farmington.

slapshot 69 · Post by **slapshot 69** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:25 pm

I am going out on a limb here. I have read thru almost all posts on this thread. And one item comes up again and again. A TEAMS! I agree not everyone should be on an A team. But there are instances when players have the ability and or talent and deserve to play at that level. Larger associations are better due to numbers PERIOD. They also dont give everyone a chance to develope. Any given association has an explanation of what every level encompasses. I.E. peewee a strong basic skills tema concepts on and on. There are alot of kids that fit into those groups but are not allowed to play there. These kids deserve the right to play. On the other side of the coin the smaller association do a terrific job in my opinion. Alot of these smaller clubs compete and do well against some big clubs. And at the same time those A players deserve to play against and with kids that have comparable skills. Here is my question ????? Why don't they allow kids to waiver to other associations. or districts. The rules are in place to allow for this. It was intended to let those kids have a chance to play at the level they deserve. If Centenial has 23 kids that are A caliber and 2 really want to play A let them go to Moundsview or Forest Lake. Or Johnson. If all these smaller associations are tired of getting beat maybe a few more A level players would help. Everyond does it anyway. I am sure almost everyone has a few stories of the like. Well I am gettig down. My spelling is Bad SORRY Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... s>slapshot 69</A> at: 2/20/06 3:28 pm

cclavin · Post by **cclavin** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:36 pm

Elliot: Is 12 the magic number or do you foresee more/less districts in the future? I guess another way to ask the question is this: Is the entire structure of MN hockey up for change or are the directors only looking for change within the current structure? Just curious and thanks, I very much enjoy your input on this board. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... cclavin</A> at: 2/20/06 4:37 pm

1goallead · Post by **1goallead** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:52 pm

I also have read the threads and agree that the problem seems to be "A" teams and smaller associations. I also think the underlying problem is parent egos. Parents want to be able to say their kid is an "A" player. On average, take your third line "A" player from a small association with a sub .500 record and ability wise he is a second line "C" player in Wayzata, EP, Edina etc. I think the reason why a lot of smaller associations don't/won't merge is purely political. Who is going to be in charge of the new organization. My kid might not be an "A" player on the merged team. I think what SLP/SW did is great. Playing up is a fine line. If you have an "A" team and you get crushed all season, those kids don't get better, they are usually defeated before the game even starts. Kids get better in close tight games not constant 7 goal whippings. But hey, my kid is on an "A" team. I also think the state tournament is for the best teams in the state. Maybe there should be a two tier system (AAA/AA) in the state, but the two teams in the "AA" final have to play "AAA" the next year. That way there won't be small powerhouses and other associations will get a chance at state. As an example, Warroad, Breck, Blake in class A high school is a joke. What if the regular season is longer(1st week of March instead of Mid-February) so that all the kids can play more and the State tournament is the top 16 teams in "Let's Play Hockey" in a double elimination tournament. Why not have state tournaments at the B2 and C levels? Maybe that would take the pressure off smaller associations have an "A" team. The B2 and C players are just as deserving as the A and B1 players. This also gives more kids a chance to have a longer season. Why should a large association dilute their teams when the better you are the longer you play. There are no entitlements to the State tournament. Maybe MAHA sould embrace AAA teams. I think there will be more of this in the future. If you want to make a TC-west how about putting Edina in there. Edina is inside the 494 loop. If I'm in Richfield I wouldn't want St. Michael in TC-west. It seems like what most people want without saying it is to get Wayzata out of D3, i.e. Cooper, Armstrong, BP, etc. It also seems like a lot of the suggestions on this board are more beneficial at a personal level than at a level to benefit Minnesota Hockey as a whole. First year PWC player in D6.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:23 pm

Lakeville post was solid. Didn't mean to tick off the Rosseau guy, maybe his teams regularly play and throttle the Edinas. If they have figured out how to beat the sheer numbers more power to them. I am not aware of any small association dominating the metro with regularity like the huge associations but I could be wrong. Anyway, the problem in D6 for smaller associations got worse this year with the advent of mandatory large A team sizes coupled with running time after a 5 goal differential. Parents are getting ticked off because: (1) not only do their kids get hammered by the mega-association all too often; (2) all A teams now have to field 17 players even the small associations, so we are less competitive than before. ((How well you develop on one hour with 17 skaters is another matter)); and (3) the game ends after 48 minutes under the mercy rule with empty ice sitting there. All this, plus good times in the locker room afterwards. I doubt the problem will get fixed at the district level anytime soon since I think (don't know for sure) the larger associations control the voting by number of registered teams. Why Minnesota Hockey doesn't step in and implement ratios -- the top 20% (or whatever) kids/teams should play A level, etc. -- I don't know. Maybe someone can answer that question. There are only a handful of associations this would impact. I would think the larger associations would benefit -- especially since a number of them feed so many kids into private high schools. In the east metro, some of our kids are finding homes with the Western WI AAA teams. I don't know if the Roseau kids leave to go play AAA hockey but it happens down here. Hard to sell parents on a lose more but at least you can play less basis.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:28 pm

There is NO MAGIC NUMBER, 12 or otherwise. We have talked 8 and 16. Of course, at one time there were 16 districts. And it does not have to stay as is, restructuring. We may redistrcit, we restructure. What we are looking at all the possibilities. Think outside the box, is what we ahve been told. I am not sure how to do that, bu then I ma not sure I know how to think inside the box either.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> This thread is just to capture all possible ideas. And to allow everyone to have input with very little cost. And to allow people to anonymously make suggestions. So give us anything you have. Inside or outside the box.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:14 pm

All right a little more HELP, Please. Would someone go through a Dsitrict (one that you know something about) and clasify the teams as follows: AA - typically fields A level teams and has plenty of kids (a Whie Bear Lake for an example). A - typically fields an A team but may only have 2, 3 or 4 teams at one class (such as peewees, A B1 & C). B - typically only fields a B (or B and below teams). Would not have nough kids to have more than 3 teams. S - typically only fields squirt or mite programs (older kids register elsewhere). I will do District 16 on a post. Any help is appreciated.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:16 pm

District 16 Bagley - B Bemidji - A Blackduck - S Crookston - A East Grand Forks - A Hallock - B Lake of the Woods - A Red Lake Falls - B Roseau - A Thief River Falls - B Warroad - A

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:56 pm

elliot I do know the rules and I know just about everyone of District Directors and MN Hockey board on a personal level. It is so easy to be sarcastic because I believe that the district directors arent consciously thinking things through. You are trying make it easier for the weaker programs to get in. unless that is the spirit of our state championship. If it is tell everyone it is that way. We will all adapt as we have years. The old saying cream rises poop sinks. You want a suggestion to help fix things you have to figure what you are trying to fix so lets start with the State Tourney For a number of years the North has sent 3 representatives Most people in the state would have no problem with this because generally at least 2 of them are viable opponents. The Metro sends 4 I dont think many metro teams have a problem with that either. And the Silver or west region sent one as a North 4 seed...now that is a problem I cant remember the last time anyone from that dist 4 and 5 won an opening game most of the time it is an embarrassment. How do you fix that Solution: Keep the regions the way they are and send Rochester and St Cloud over to the Silver to challenge for that 1 spot. Not to the metro. I would believe if you took a poll that would fly with most associations except 4 and 5 but again is the state tournament an invitational toruney our are we trying to find the 8 best teams?? That is big question. Next run of business: Problem: Some districts are geopgraphically and numerically out of whack. Solution: Do you think District 10 in the North side like Mora, Hinckley, Pine City, Princeton, St Cloud etc....they could probably become part of 11. Remember 11 is pretty small. Our is there enough there to make another district out of them. Lets look at District 8 Starting at Woodbury and finishing in Winona. How would like to travel on a weeknight to play a 1 hour game is that the spirit of MN Hockey?? I didnt take the time to count the number of teams in the 2 districts but I believe they each have more than 20?? How about making the districts line up like the High School Conferences and maybe even the regional tournaments like the HS sections. Now that probably will get some resistance but at least every team has a chance. No more district tourneys. And the Minn purists get the One tourney back and I know the North teams that have so much pride would love that opportunity. Just make sure you dont send Elk River, Andover, St Francis, and Forest Lake. Because the North deserves at least 2 teams. The west metro would have the possibilty of 2. The Northwest and East metro would have 2 and the south metro 1 and southern minn . and you could tinker with that. Or just have the coaching staffs have seeding meeting at the end of everyones league play. The 2007 regional tournament pairings my understanding are this: 11,10,2 WBL, Roseville, Stillwater, Blaine, Centennial, Elk River, Duluth East, Cloquet OHH only 6 teams per region 2 to state. You are in jeopardy of losing your third seed to state?? I guess by state high school that is fine. 15,16, IR- Coincidence Moorhead and Roseau.The iron range and Dist 11 could combine to make a district there is a thought. 8, TC, 4- I can tell you right now Roch and Woodbury, Lakeville (Metro team) 4 and TC is the same region. God I wish they would prove me wrong 6, 3, 5- Edina, Ep, and Chaska and I havent even given Maple Grove, Osseo a fair shake not trying to offend the other d3 teams but I think I make the point. And Jefferson. I hope this is more helpful. I just wish all the Hierarchy would consult the coaches when they discuss these things I think you would be presently surprised. Most associations are run by non-hockey people god bless them they do an awful lot of stuff behind the scenes. But the game is still the game.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:31 pm

Thank you. Good information and ideas.

lakerscoach · Post by **lakerscoach** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm

puckhead, my only problem with what you say is that you are putting such an emphasis on the youth teams being a feeder for the high schools. i am genuinely sorry when i say this...but that is the completely wrong approach. that idea feeds the mentality that there are only a few good players in each association. i can almost guarantee you that the kid that leads the team in scoring at the peewee 'a' level won't do it again at the high school level...not to mention that youth hockey is supposed to be YOUTH hockey. not a development program for the high school. as a coach, i am proud to see the the junior playing on the varsity team, that i coached a few years ago. but the life building principals that i taught this child like perserverance, hard work, determination, never give up attitude. these are more important than the fact that he might have a chance to play hockey at the "next" level. sorry about my little rant. but the purpose of minnesota hockey and the different districts as well as the individual associations really is to foster the competitive nature of these children not to mention the development of these children as people. some associations strive to win the state championships at the bantam and peewee level. this is a VERY good thing. but there is only going to be 1 team that wins it and rest have to strive to be better. if we can give more kids the chance to play at the 'a' level that would be a good thing...you didn't think i was going to get to the point did you?? more kids playing at the 'a' level, really what it is, is more kids playing at the level that they can handle. some associations should not field an 'a' team. they should waive out the 2 or 3 kids that can play at that level, and other associations should be more willing to accept those kids. someone earlier referenced the sw/slp merger, and i will agree wholeheartedly with you that it was a great thing. kids got to play at the level they could handle and develop properly. and really, when we cut to the chase that's all it is about. right??

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

redistricting

Agree with SEmetro

Re: Agree with SEmetro

Re: Agree with SEmetro

redistricting

Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re: Opinions and ideas

Re:

Re: Opinions and ideas

Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas

Re: Opinions and Ideas