HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:21 pm**

BadgerBob82 wrote:Can anybody tell me another association besides LAKEVILLE that fields two or more A teams? (I understand Moorhead has a PW A2 team?) Also excluding the Squirt level as I believe Duluth has 6-8 A teams?

To my knowledge there is none.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:26 pm**

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:
My example of Edina was pointing out the absurd...
Well why not acknowledge that there may be times when MN hockey, because of geography and lack of competition, might want to allow MN hockey teams to stay within the governance of MN hockey and play an independent schedule. As my earlier posts point out, Rochester and SE MN are a unique pair that consistently results in an A team playing against B1 players. I think that all districts outside of the cities should have a means to allow a team that is leaps and bounds better than the rest of its district to play an independent schedule and avoid the 10-0 blowouts on a regular basis. Those games help non one.

THE tem can play who they want in scrimmages. If you go there Grand Rapids should not have to play half of their schedule. If you ask Greenway no matter if they get beat by 10 they will always think they have a shot against their rival. come up and play the Farmington while playing your district schedule.

dogeatdog1 wrote: If you really are not being selfish and thinking about development you would do one of two things. Make two equal peewee A teams and play in the district. (Your association would reap the benes when you have twice as many top end kids to pick from at bantams) or Play your independent schedule and step down at the end of the season and let the teams that fought it out all year in districts fight it out to go to regions.
Whew... ok, where to start. First, how does making two equal PeeWee A teams aid in the development of kids 1-10 and kids 25 - 30? If this is a novel question to you, see prior posts that entirely talk about the subject. (The theory supporting why we have A/B1 teams and why most associations CHOOSE to have one A team rather than two.)
I or one give credit to the coaches that develop two teams. As i said Morehead will reap the benefits. I just hope your kid isn't #15 on the team and you, an "A" dad says #16 doesn't belong on the ice with my kid "B" kid people that you scare me. Development is about just that.

Second, why is playing an Independent Schedule BAD??? Can someone answer this please? All of D9 got on board and agreed! It allowed Rochester to have two A2 teams that didn't have to play their A1 team. This is the best of both worlds! Why do you want regular beatings of 10+ -0? Ughhh its so frustrating thinking that their may be hockey board members or coaches who think like you do Dog!

The schedule isn't bad .. jumping back into the playoff picture... bad..canthave cake and eat it.

DogeatDog1 wrote: It would be like inviting the fire to a distrit tourney after they went out and played a AAA schedule all year long would it not?
Only if a MN District approved it, and MN hockey allowed it. You know that MN hockey rules and D9 ALLOWED what you're protesting right?
Tey might have ALLOWED it but the way it has been posed on this boardtherer was something fishy about it agree?
DogeatDog1 wrote: Again Selfish parents that want to say Hey My kid went to state when he was a peewee!!! Nice pin to put on your chest? cmon..
Yeah, doing what's best for the development of your son or daughter sure is selfish... and then wanting your kid to play at the State tourney (IF they can beat Rosemount/Farmington/Woodbury etc) is soooo selfish. Wow... the hypocrisy is self evident with you. You hate Edina too don't you because they are good! Hate MN made too? Sure you do.

Don't hate edina.. aspire to beat them yes. MM total separate issue won't go there.

DogeatDog1 wrote: Next thing I will see out of your post after state will be we are the 8th best team in the state! When in all reality you are about 40 th (acording to my hockey rankings) even with your superstar independent schedule you can't crack the top 20?. Might want to retink your development strategy. It appears that your team hasn't been developing after all ?
I am a PeeWee A hockey coach in the Cities... what are you talking about??? Way to lash out personally at a bunch of 12 and 13 year olds you poor person... Pathetic.

not lashing out at the kids just the parent that brewed up the scheme.. if that wasn't you I apologize. Good luck.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:27 pm**

And all knowing Fred. D9 has a specific rule regarding what Moorhead did. Any attempt to forfeit a game results in a $300 fine per game and elimination from post season play. That would be a total of $1,200 fine to D9 and none of the teams could be in the play-offs?

So you still think the Rochester situation was not discussed at the inagural D9 meeting?

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:33 pm**

frederick61 wrote:Unlike Rochester, Moorhead followed the rules (or lost their argument with the D15 District Director).

What rule did they not follow? Please cite it to MN hockey website... or is this a "Rule of His Highness Frederick61"?

Frederick61 wrote: Finally, I get angry when people say that a conference like D9 is a B1. That is an arrogant view. The D9 associations designate their teams and most chose to go the A level. That is great. The same rational that the Rochester Red is based on is what these associations are seeking to achieve.

It's only meant to describe the level of play in comparison to the average B1 team in MN. Of course those kids are "A" level players for their associations - BUT only because those associations chose to have an A team. If most of the kids on said team would only have made the B2 team at Edina, then they are B2 Edina level players.

THEN, Ladies and Gentlemen, FREDERICK61, said this in justifying why D9 teams chose to have an "A" team:

Frederick61 wrote: Playing tougher competition aids in the development of their kids.

Now you're boxed your highness, explain why its ok for the D9 teams, other than Rochester Red, to make decisions about who they play during the course of a season, BUT Rochester Red should be demonized for it? Why can't Rochester Red do what's best for its "development" and seek to play the "tougher competition" that you cite "aids in the development of their kids"? Did you grow up in Winona or Mankato??? Is there some deep anti-Rochester bone in your body? Can you honestly post anything in your blog now about the South region without displaying your bias?

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:39 pm**

BadgerBob82 wrote:Fredrick: I will wager you a nickel that Rochester will only field 1 A team next year. They will play a D9 league schedule. They will field 2 B teams that will be comparable in ability to the D9 A teams. They will likely dominate D9 league play. Hopefully, all Rochester teams will advance to the Regional and State Tournaments and you can feel good about having shared the ice with a Rochester team 2 times.

Hey, the score of every game is tied for a while, right?

That is solution is like a little kid taking his marbles home. Why doesn't Rochester consider what Moorhead did and play all their games including games with their other A level teams. Then there is no problem.

Or better yet, why doesn't the association to the right thing and have three equal A teams. That would elevate the interest down south and provide opportunities for all.

The association could even group them by school the kids would be going to and that might raise interest at the high school level. Instead of the bland names of Red, Black and Gold, you could have John Marshall, Century, and Mayo or you could have Rockets, Panthers and Spartans.

Who knows, but in a few years the Rochester High School teams might actually beat Albert Lea for the Big 9 title and make it to the state tourney.

But I don't know what sharing the ice twice a year means.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:00 pm**

frederick61 wrote: That is solution is like a little kid taking his marbles home. Why doesn't Rochester consider what Moorhead did and play all their games including games with their other A level teams. Then there is no problem.

Who are YOU Frederick61, your highness, to decide what Rochester should do for its teams? Do you think that its fun or productive for any association's hockey team to have its A1 team beat on its A2 team if that can be avoided?

Frederick61 wrote: Or better yet, why doesn't the association to the right thing and have three equal A teams. That would elevate the interest down south and provide opportunities for all.

Under your theory, why even have any separation by talent? Just have all associations divide their total number of players by 15 and that's how many teams you have.

But most importantly, who do you think you are to claim that you know what's best for an association's player development?????

THEN he shows his true colors ladies and gents:

Frederick61 wrote: Who knows, but in a few years the Rochester High School teams might actually beat Albert Lea for the Big 9 title and make it to the state tourney.

Why the hatred for Rochester? Where does it come from? What did they do to you your highness?

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:16 pm**

Frederick61,

I want to apologize to you for perhaps coming across as zealous in my last few posts. I get really fired up about the overall issue of player development and people who believe that players 15-30 in an organization should be skating with players 1-10. In my years coaching, nothing has proven a larger barrier to player development than unequal talent.

The elite players are always going to be fine... perhaps having to skate with players who are worse off hold them back for a few seconds, but they will continue to get the opportunities to shine. I don't worry about them. It's the bubble players who get hurt playing with the top kids when they are not in the same league with them. They don't get the puck very often, they defer to them in every situation, and they do not acquire the confidence that each and every player should be striving for at the PeeWee level.

The Edina's of the world get better and better each year because its players are surrounded by players of their same talent pool. Let a player play B1 talent, have the puck on his/her stick and obtain confidence and make plays... then watch that player pass up the prior A level kids who missed out on that chance.

By taking an organization and splitting up the talent equally, you will have the exact UNEQUAL talent disbursement that breeds mediocrity.

My two cents. I'm out!

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:30 pm**

Perhaps some people forgot that Frederick is THE MOST respected contributor to this forum. His columns are informational and fairly stated for the best of most MH, not just one team or one association. When some people broke down Fred's quotes into piece to attack, still would not get the same credential. Saying Fred have a leg this Roch Red, is a lame and you can believe not too many people believe you.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:31 am**

Mnhockeys wrote:Perhaps some people forgot that Frederick is THE MOST respected contributor to this forum. His columns are informational and fairly stated for the best of most MH, not just one team or one association. When some people broke down Fred's quotes into piece to attack, still would not get the same credential. Saying Fred have a leg this Roch Red, is a lame and you can believe not too many people believe you.

Bullship!

Debating how big associations should organize their teams is an old and complex topic. Reasonable minds can disagree. When the discussion is constructive and mature, it's a healthy thing to do.

But that's not what has gone on here.

Fred has repeatedly stated that rules have been broken. Even though he hasn't cited any actual rules.

He has attacked a MH official. If you believe his allegations, you must also believe that the Director of D9 is either corrupt or incompetent. Fred: at any point during your tirade, did you actually contact Tom Christenson and get his side of the story? That would be the adult thing to do.

Have you found any D9 rep from any of the 15 D9 member associations that did not know before the season started that Rochester Red would be in the D9 playoffs?

Fred says that Rochester needs to contribute 3 equal A teams to D9, but ignores the fact that Mankato has one A and one B for their two high schools. (footnote: their PWB team finished 2nd in D9. Four of the other top 6 places in the PWB league went to programs that don't field an A team).

The tone of the thread has not been a healthy, open minded discussion about the challenges that all of D9 faces. It's been more about a character attack against Rochester. Led by someone who pretends to be a journalist. But hasn't actually applied any journalistic principals here.

Do we want to talk conspiracy theory. Or hockey?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:53 am**

Mnhockeys wrote:Perhaps some people forgot that Frederick is THE MOST respected contributor to this forum. His columns are informational and fairly stated for the best of most MH, not just one team or one association.

MNGUY - I agree that he WAS the most respected in my opinion. His failure to cite facts and rules alongside his accusations makes him just a biased fan spouting allegations.

BUT, I will agree that his clear bias has yet to seep into his blog. IF he cites Rochester Red as breaking rules or doesn't include them in his blog OR if he doesn't have them as the first seed now in his blog, well I know I won't bother reading them after that.

I'll hold out and give him that chance.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:15 am**

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
Mnhockeys wrote:Perhaps some people forgot that Frederick is THE MOST respected contributor to this forum. His columns are informational and fairly stated for the best of most MH, not just one team or one association.
MNGUY - I agree that he WAS the most respected in my opinion. His failure to cite facts and rules alongside his accusations makes him just a biased fan spouting allegations.

BUT, I will agree that his clear bias has yet to seep into his blog. IF he cites Rochester Red as breaking rules or doesn't include them in his blog OR if he doesn't have them as the first seed now in his blog, well I know I won't bother reading them after that.

I'll hold out and give him that chance.

I thought you were out ? "My two cents. I'm out!"

Considering you don't have a dog in this fight ("I am a PeeWee A hockey coach in the Cities") you sure are fired up about this ... guess you are a Concerned Hockey Coach

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:18 am**

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
Mnhockeys wrote:Perhaps some people forgot that Frederick is THE MOST respected contributor to this forum. His columns are informational and fairly stated for the best of most MH, not just one team or one association.
MNGUY - I agree that he WAS the most respected in my opinion. His failure to cite facts and rules alongside his accusations makes him just a biased fan spouting allegations.

BUT, I will agree that his clear bias has yet to seep into his blog. IF he cites Rochester Red as breaking rules or doesn't include them in his blog OR if he doesn't have them as the first seed now in his blog, well I know I won't bother reading them after that.

I'll hold out and give him that chance.

Hey coach if you think all is on the up and up then answer Freds ?'s

Why was the tourney switched from the 8 to twelve team at the last minute?

Why didn't Red have the tourney on their schedule until the last minute?

And most important do you think that it is fair to have an independent team come into the tourney after getting special treatment allowing them to play an independent schedule while all of the other teams followed the district policy?

You can clear up a lot of back door speculation and quiet a lot of nay sayers on this board with cool hard facts.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:21 am**

I agree fred, why wouldn,t Roch have three teams at each level, divided by the high school the kids would go to. Kids that will go to FL don't play for WBL,CENT, Blaine. I would think the coaches [varsity] would want it that way. Duluth has a similar situation not sure what they do up there.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:33 am**

why wouldn,t Roch have three teams at each level, divided by the high school the kids would go to.

Because youth hockey associations have nothing to do with high school hockey. Youth associations are community based organizations to develop all the hockey players that live in the community with no connection to what high school a child may go to. That is not their role or their responsibility. Focus on developing youth players and then they go to high school wherever they want.

Also, skip the equal team discussion. There are district, regional and state tournaments for PeeWee and Bantam A and B. The goal of youth associations is for their single A team and their top B team to advance through the District Tournament to regional and then the State tournament.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:39 am**

Maybe instead of the large associations having multiple "A" teams, the smaller associations should think harder about not having any "A" teams and playing B1 instead.....besides, the whole premise of B1 was for the smaller associations who didn't have the numbers to compete at the "A" level, correct?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:44 am**

dogeatdog1 wrote:
Why was the tourney switched from the 8 to twelve team at the last minute?

I don't know. Fred claims that its corruption BUT cites no one who disagreed or didn't know about it prior to the season's start - other than him. I guess the simple answer is, its a WEBPAGE!

dogeatdog1 wrote:Why didn't Red have the tourney on their schedule until the last minute?

I don't know... again, shouldn't the presumption be that everyone has been on board with this UNTIL actual evidence is presented to the contrary? If you look at my first post I said I agree that IF Rochester Red broke rules then I'd be 100% in agreement with Fred.

dogeatdog1 wrote:And most important do you think that it is fair to have an independent team come into the tourney after getting special treatment allowing them to play an independent schedule while all of the other teams followed the district policy?

Yes if everyone is on board with it. I don't think "fairness" has anything to do with it. Do you know of ONE person or association that spoke against this or didn't know that this was the plan in the beginning? Have you read the minutes from the most recent meeting? I'm guessing "no" is your answer... [/quote]

dogeatdog1 wrote:You can clear up a lot of back door speculation and quiet a lot of nay sayers on this board with cool hard facts.

Gosh I hope so.... Let me know if this did that! Oh and cite facts supporting your view that D9 did not ok this please!

Lastly, I answered your question, how about you answer mine and address the following while you do it!

Panther wrote the following... care to speculate why Fred didn't do his journalistic due diligence on this???

Fred: at any point during your tirade, did you actually contact Tom Christenson and get his side of the story? That would be the adult thing to do.

Have you found any D9 rep from any of the 15 D9 member associations that did not know before the season started that Rochester Red would be in the D9 playoffs?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:52 am**

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:
Why was the tourney switched from the 8 to twelve team at the last minute?
I don't know. Fred claims that its corruption BUT cites no one who disagreed or didn't know about it prior to the season's start - other than him. I guess the simple answer is, its a WEBPAGE!

dogeatdog1 wrote:Why didn't Red have the tourney on their schedule until the last minute?
I don't know... again, shouldn't the presumption be that everyone has been on board with this UNTIL actual evidence is presented to the contrary? If you look at my first post I said I agree that IF Rochester Red broke rules then I'd be 100% in agreement with Fred.

dogeatdog1 wrote:And most important do you think that it is fair to have an independent team come into the tourney after getting special treatment allowing them to play an independent schedule while all of the other teams followed the district policy?
Yes if everyone is on board with it. I don't think "fairness" has anything to do with it. Do you know of ONE person or association that spoke against this or didn't know that this was the plan in the beginning? Have you read the minutes from the most recent meeting? I'm guessing "no" is your answer...

dogeatdog1 wrote:You can clear up a lot of back door speculation and quiet a lot of nay sayers on this board with cool hard facts.

Gosh I hope so.... Let me know if this did that! Oh and cite facts supporting your view that D9 did not ok this please!

Lastly, I answered your question, how about you answer mine and address the following while you do it!

Panther wrote the following... care to speculate why Fred didn't do his journalistic due diligence on this???

Fred: at any point during your tirade, did you actually contact Tom Christenson and get his side of the story? That would be the adult thing to do.

Have you found any D9 rep from any of the 15 D9 member associations that did not know before the season started that Rochester Red would be in the D9 playoffs?[/quote]

Frankly no you didn't clear anything up except make excuses for the Red. Website issue? didn't update their schedule? And everybody must not been on board or it wouldn't have spawned this discussion. I have no idea wheather it was a back door last minute deal and frankly don't care. I just find it funny when some one (Fred) calls a team on the carpet with legitimate questions and gets answes like it must be a website issue.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:57 am**

Observer- No offence, Never said anything about equal, Just thought it might be a simple and productive way to separate the kids. I give Roch kodos for having three A teams.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:26 am**

dogeatdog1 wrote:
Frankly no you didn't clear anything up except make excuses for the Red. Website issue? didn't update their schedule? And everybody must not been on board or it wouldn't have spawned this discussion. I have no idea wheather it was a back door last minute deal and frankly don't care. I just find it funny when some one (Fred) calls a team on the carpet with legitimate questions and gets answes like it must be a website issue.

What a lazy and dishonest post. I admitted that I don't know and pointed out that your argument (and Fred's) rested on what was on a webpage. I'm not blaming the webpage or making any excuses, I'm just calling on you, and Fred, to provide any rule that was broken, or cite any specific knowledge (other than a webpage) to support your contention that Rochester Red cheated the other D9 teams.

Do you acknowledge the following facts: 1) The most recent minutes from late January recognized that Rochester Red was in the playoffs, 2) There have been posts on this website from people claiming to be in the know and that everyone was on board with this in the beginning, and 3) There has been no citation to any rule that has been broken by Rochester or D9?

And if you do, why are you supporting Fred's contention that "something is fishy" and that "Rochester Red has done something wrong" and that MN hockey should stop Rochester Red from playing in the District and overstep the authority of D9's decision?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:56 am**

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:
Frankly no you didn't clear anything up except make excuses for the Red. Website issue? didn't update their schedule? And everybody must not been on board or it wouldn't have spawned this discussion. I have no idea wheather it was a back door last minute deal and frankly don't care. I just find it funny when some one (Fred) calls a team on the carpet with legitimate questions and gets answes like it must be a website issue.
What a lazy and dishonest post. I admitted that I don't know and pointed out that your argument (and Fred's) rested on what was on a webpage. I'm not blaming the webpage or making any excuses, I'm just calling on you, and Fred, to provide any rule that was broken, or cite any specific knowledge (other than a webpage) to support your contention that Rochester Red cheated the other D9 teams.

Do you acknowledge the following facts: 1) The most recent minutes from late January recognized that Rochester Red was in the playoffs, 2) There have been posts on this website from people claiming to be in the know and that everyone was on board with this in the beginning, and 3) There has been no citation to any rule that has been broken by Rochester or D9?

And if you do, why are you supporting Fred's contention that "something is fishy" and that "Rochester Red has done something wrong" and that MN hockey should stop Rochester Red from playing in the District and overstep the authority of D9's decision?

So you discount the validity of webpages but hold up an anonymous poster " claiming to be in the know and that everyone was on board with this in the beginning" as proof there are no issues ? interesting.

If the minutes are so definitive was the decision to allow red to play in districts in the minutes way back at beginning of the year when all of this was decided as posters have stated?

I guess I don't have a problem with Fred raising questions on this forum and looking for answers ... after all this is just a webpage.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:02 am**

silentbutdeadly3139 wrote: So you discount the validity of webpages but hold up an anonymous poster " claiming to be in the know and that everyone was on board with this in the beginning" as proof there are no issues ? interesting.

If the minutes are so definitive was the decision to allow red to play in districts in the minutes way back at beginning of the year when all of this was decided as posters have stated?

I guess I don't have a problem with Fred raising questions on this forum and looking for answers ... after all this is just a webpage.

The website wasn't proof of anything in my mind, so I'm not saying the website should be considered or not considered. Have you ever been a coach charged with your team's website??? The absence of information or inclusion of faulty information is a regular basis.

And yes, I'm going to trust people citing facts in their posts until proven otherwise and not assume they are lying. Call me naive, but if you can't at least make that assumption why even come here?

Lastly, what you said Fred did is not accurate. He was not just raising questions... go look at his prior posts.

I wish he would have. He was pointed in the direction of the minutes from January yet still, after being pointed in that direction, argued that Rochester had changed the rules in the past two weeks - citing a webpage.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:20 am**

BadgerBob82 wrote:And all knowing Fred. D9 has a specific rule regarding what Moorhead did. Any attempt to forfeit a game results in a $300 fine per game and elimination from post season play. That would be a total of $1,200 fine to D9 and none of the teams could be in the play-offs?

So you still think the Rochester situation was not discussed at the inagural D9 meeting?

This is interesting. BadgeBob82 is saying that what Moorhead did D15 (have their A2 team forfeit) may have come up in the inaugural D9 meeting. But the D9 rules forbid forfeits. That left Rochester two choices, to go independent or to play their A2 teams along with the other D9 peewee A teams (or B1 teams as they describe them) in a D9 schedule.

They chose to go independent rather then play their A2 teams. But now, based on the D9 draw, #1 seeded Rochester Red could have to play their A2 team the Rochester Gold to get to the South Regional. Evidently that is okay.

Concerned Hockey Coach, thank you for the apology. Even if it was good only for a few hours.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:22 am**

Just read this whole topic.

I'm a conflicted wreck.

On the one hand it just seems like a slimey and cheap way to get into the playoffs, and on the other hand I can't help but feel a little pride that I live in a country where people of imagination and means can say "Screw you, we're going to look out for our own best interests AND we're going to play in your little tournament! How do ya like them apples?"

I'm actually shivering.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:28 am**

HockeyDad41 wrote:Just read this whole topic.

I'm a conflicted wreck.

On the one hand it just seems like a slimey and cheap way to get into the playoffs, and on the other hand I can't help but feel a little pride that I live in a country where people of imagination and means can say "Screw you, we're going to look out for our own best interests AND we're going to play in your little tournament! How do ya like them apples?"

I'm actually shivering.

You have got it right. Now question to the the Districts and to Minnesota Hockey is "how do ya like them apples?"

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:28 am**

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... eeting.pdf

Above is a link to the meeting minutes from the January meeting.

I see no conspiracy. Looks like all but a couple associations were present.

To my knowledge we have had no complaints from a coach/manager/parent from D9 that got bumped by this. Maybe they have been paid off?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Is Rochester Red the 12th team in the D9 Peewee A playoffs?