HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

correct me if im wrong, but arent Blake and Breck in the same section for boys? I think it is ridiculous that they both had a chance to participate in state. They should both be in section 4, plain and simple. Have the private schools face off against one another in order to get to state.

GOCARDS1 wrote:correct me if im wrong, but arent Blake and Breck in the same section for boys? I think it is ridiculous that they both had a chance to participate in state. They should both be in section 4, plain and simple. Have the private schools face off against one another in order to get to state.

For the same reason Jefferson & Kennedy aren't, or SSP & Simley, and a while back even the two St. Paul teams were in different sections, or many other teams that may be in close geographic proximity, yet are pulled different directions by the section alignment algorithm (yes, done by a computer I believe and then approved by humans?)...

What we had was a wide/short section across the bottom of the metro (2A) and then a similar setup across the top of the metro (4A) I believe? Then, 5A had the remaining metro A teams from the W/NW? So, 3 "metro" and 5 "outstate" A sections, kind of the opposite of AA with 5 metro and 3 outstate (2N & 1 S).

ya.. i was mostly talking about the similarity to the boy's sections and why blake and breck girl's teams shouldn't be in that section too. My overall conclusion is that I don't, along with many others, like private schools, and if they are to be in class A, then they should all be grouped into one section.

I think the reason that most don't like privates is that they feel that when they are successful that then they should be playing AA. I guess I agree, but I also want to note that not all private schools should be forced to go AA. Not all attract the top hockey talent at a disproportionate amount relative to that of other public & private Class A schools. Also, if we had OE heavy A schools one could argue that they too should go AA although I don't believe that we'll see that anytime soon - especially with the new regulations in place for OE/etc.

I also DO NOT believe in asking Class A teams to opt up for 4 years to AA. I think that is WAY too long of a period/commitment. 2 would be far better, but I think that there is an even better solution... Seed the sections/tourneys based on end-of-regular-season ranking so that the top 64 go to AA and the remaining teams go A...

ghs - you make some good points, and it will be interesting to see if the new O/E rule will cause any private schools not to opt up to AA.

JJhockeySS wrote:ghs - you make some good points, and it will be interesting to see if the new O/E rule will cause any private schools not to opt up to AA.

I never thought of that potential outcome, but a great point... Do we know which A teams have opted to AA historically? I know AHA led the way as well as BSM then too, but I forget the others... Maybe some can help me with this list of those that opted-up... SSP did for many years obvioulsy... Others???

Not sure but here are a couple possibilities:

CEC
Hill-Murray

Not sure if they do, but looking at the sections these were the two that may be opting up.

Is there any others?

Good call on HM. Krey told me they opt-up, and I never realized this. What is the enrolment threshold for A/AA? I knew this at one point in time (2 years ago at last realignment)... Not sure if that quoted # at that time changed due to some A's going up... does that then mean that some initial AA's can go down??? That I don't know...

GOCARDS1 wrote: I think it is ridiculous that they both had a chance to participate in state. They should both be in section 4, plain and simple. Have the private schools face off against one another in order to get to state.

Why does it make you so angry, it would seem that you should be happy your squad is in a very winnable section, and you have the chance to make it to state every year.

It's my understanding that the first step is the opt up step, they then use that to define the top 64 teams enrollment wise, and that is where the line is drawn.

I believe Cretin-Derham Hall has the largest enrollment amongst the private schools, but I'm not sure what it is, or what the boy/girl ratio is (if this matters), or even if they have the option to play in A.

Also you have at least one coop from outside the metro that conceivably could break up and play A some day. Proctor/Hermantown/Marshall is one - Marshall has been a Class A powerhouse in boys' for several years.

How about GRG - I believe they have players from several surrounding small towns (Walker and ??) but I'm not sure if they would ordinarily play for their own town's school if they had enough players to form their own girls' hockey team.

Good call on CDH, I'm guessing they opt up. I believe the rule is when you have a co-op the enrollment from all schools is counted. I don't think it matters boy/girl ratio, just total enrollment #'s.

allhock11,
ya, our section is in central Minnesota, not in the metro, obviously its going to be less competitive. They could easily put them (blake and breck) in the same section. I am also speaking for teams like Mound-westonka and Shakopee, both state-quality teams from section 5 that didn't go to state because of Breck. I am also just venting on private schools in general for all sports, not just girl's hockey.

breck and blake were in the same section previously (when the tournament was 4 teams) and this year they were split up because of the realignments. i am guessing that they will be put in the same section again next year assuming the sections are reorganized again.

ghshockeyfan wrote:Seed the sections/tourneys based on end-of-regular-season ranking so that the top 64 go to AA and the remaining teams go A...

So now Crookston with there 320 enrollment and Roseau with there 370 enrollment, we'll leave Warroad out of this argument have to go play with the big schools because they have built there programs to a point where they are competitive. How fair is that to them? where is the incentive to continue to get better? When come the end of the year they are going to have to go up against the Eden Prairies and there thousands of kids. Or Benilde and there "tradition" of attracting kids.

The boys tried it with Tier 1 and Tier 2. Having Tiers does nothing to get teams to get better, Is it better to lose in the Tier 1 Quarterfinals, or try to get down to Tier 2 and be the best team there and go to state?

As much as I hate to agree with someone from Crookston, IMHO the Tier option is half-baked. It was a disaster for the boys. It sets up a scenario where it's radically better to be the 65th best team (large or small school) and get treated like a king, than the 64th best team (large or small) and get treated like a dog.

Disagreed - it that's the word...

A coupel thoughts...

When kids get out in the real world will they aspire to be the best of a predetermined group? Or the best of the best?

I think it's crazy to equate what you should strive for to your enrollment. This is why private school powers opt up year-after-year, to play in the best tourney.

I'm biased as I'd rather be the 64th team to qualify for the top tourney than dominate a second level event. If I have the best team in my school's history, why wouldn't I want to make a run at the big teams? Should I have to make a 4-year commitment to do so? NO.

What are we teaching our kids? What should they aspire to?

I also wish we had only one tourney like the boys did for decades. I wish the boys had that still too. Maybe this is part of my bias.

In a tier setup, the best teams advance to the best tourney. The second tourney rewards teams that were close, but not quite, that with that extra reward might continue to push towards the top - it would help build hockey throughout the state and accomplish exactly what the MSHSL apparently set out to do initially in boys.

It's absurd to me to think that any coach wouldn't want to strive for their team to be the best, not the best of just the small schools.

is it fair for a team that enrolls 400 in its entire high school to play a team that enrolls 3000?

i play hockey wrote:is it fair for a team that enrolls 400 in its entire high school to play a team that enrolls 3000?

Is life fair?

That aside, I've seen a HS of 400 beat a co-op of 4000+. It's not about quantity, but quality.

Some would argue that we haven't crowned a true state champ for many years in boys for this reason... or girls since we went to two classes...

There just might be some "life lessons" in only one tourney, but I will agree that getting more participants in a second level event would help grow the sport, and so I accept classes for this reason, although I don't know that classes have achieved their intended goal due to the long opt-up rule duration/commitment...

I for one, don't want anyone on this forum, the MSHSL or the Legislature making any decisions based on what they think are appropriate life lessons to teach.

xk1 wrote:I for one, don't want anyone on this forum, the MSHSL or the Legislature making any decisions based on what they think are appropriate life lessons to teach.

Right. Just my opinion. Obvioulsy I'm in the minority on this one!

well it looks like they changed it up!..
Blake and Breck are in section 5A now!

GOCARDS1 wrote:well it looks like they changed it up!..
Blake and Breck are in section 5A now!

Well ain't that super GOCARDS? Now if we can just find maybe one more team in 6A with a record better than .500 you might be a little better prepared and not go two-and-done again next year? Looks like your chances just got a little better after you sleepwalk through sections and maybe you won't have to cancel those hotel reservations on Friday night