HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I am very curious and have some questions and would like some opinions.

Was this not seen as a problem a couple years ago? You would think there would have been a way to see this coming!

My alma mater saw it coming four years before it happend and saved the program by knocking on doors, flyers, open hockey and skating for free. Now it seems to have revived the program altogether.

Isn't the Mshsl partially to blame for crap like this?
Pull your heads outta each other's rear and look at the state and other programs, not just where you send your lil rich kids and what works for you.

If kids want to open enroll fine! School lines are put in place for a reason. If you don't like living within those school lines/district - move but it's a year of not getting to play.

Puckstper wrote:I am very curious and have some questions and would like some opinions.

Was this not seen as a problem a couple years ago? You would think there would have been a way to see this coming!

My alma mater saw it coming four years before it happend and saved the program by knocking on doors, flyers, open hockey and skating for free. Now it seems to have revived the program altogether.

Isn't the Mshsl partially to blame for crap like this?
Pull your heads outta each other's rear and look at the state and other programs, not just where you send your lil rich kids and what works for you.

If kids want to open enroll fine! School lines are put in place for a reason. If you don't like living within those school lines/district - move but it's a year of not getting to play.

Is this about the upperclassman from a public now at BSM?

No

This about schools having to shutdown programs/sports cause of failure due to numbers.

If your a public/private school kid and wanna transfer more power to you. You just show that your not loyal and there should be a penalty for transferring. Even if it's two weeks or a month. I do think a whole year is a lil ridiculous.

Puckstper wrote:No

This about schools having to shutdown programs/sports cause of failure due to numbers.

If your a public/private school kid and wanna transfer more power to you. You just show that your not loyal and there should be a penalty for transferring. Even if it's two weeks or a month. I do think a whole year is a lil ridiculous.

Wow. Just wow.

The elimination of programs based on low numbers is the result of waaaayyy more issues than player transfers.

And claiming a transfer/open enrollment/relocating family is not "loyal" is a damn far reach. There are so many reasons to change schools and believe it or not most are not sport based.

Personally, we moved my son from a school with 40-45 in a classroom, huge teacher turnover, and little to no college prep or AP class availability to a private more suited to his college and career ambitions. Not his hockey ambitions. When he/we decided to change schools, believe it or not we didn't consider where the hockey and football team were ranked. That was just a bonus.

So do what you think is best for your kids, by all means. But don't call us disloyal because our former public high school didn't/doesn't have the monetary support for programs and faculty that is essential to a hockey or non-hockey future.

Good for you and your family! Yea it is also based on teaching, student to teacher ratio and what electives and programs are offered!

Nevertoomuchhockey

Whatever. You're the problem.

Yea I know, since I have dealt with know it all parents/adults like you coaching!

Why don't you know it alls tell me why programs shut down due to lack of numbers then?

Puckstper wrote:Why don't you know it alls tell me why programs shut down due to lack of numbers then?

1. Cost/Economy
2. "Demographics"
3. Aging population/fewer parents of child-bearing age in some areas

So, a quick question. I'd assume Richfield probably had 50-60 kids trying out for HS back in 80's and early 90's when they went to state. Now they have 12-13 kids total. If it's not demographics, etc like you claim it is, is there 40 kids that open enroll/go to private schools? No, it isn't.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

Puckstper wrote:Why don't you know it alls tell me why programs shut down due to lack of numbers then?

1. Cost/Economy
2. "Demographics"
3. Aging population/fewer parents of child-bearing age in some areas

Great post. This is why there isn't a program. And not the right people running it and coming up with creative ways to get kids to play hockey at a young age. It was only a matter of time. It's surprising not lasted this long. That being said, teams folding is a VERY bad thing. 15 kids won't be able to experience playing HS Hockey. Feel for this kids.

I know they have talked to other teams about co-opping (Kennedy, Armstrong Cooper, St Louis Park, Mpls, and Highland). Hope they can come up with a plan somewhere.

Why don't you know it alls tell me why programs shut down due to lack of numbers then?

Often the appropriate level of importance isn't placed on recruiting youth players. It's the absolute most important function in a youth hockey organization yet rarely do associations give it the time and energy necessary to grow an organization. It's 1st and 2nd graders needed every year to grow the association.

I've suggested smaller associations need 20 new mite age girl players each year and will need at least the same number if not more boys. If numbers are currently declining crank up the pro-active recruiting effort ASAP. Associations that work really really hard on recruiting are growing.

You can't be an association president without lawn signs in your trunk. It's the most important role at your association!

Why don't you look at this from another perspective? Loosen the transfer rules, or at least work to get them changed so that players can transfer to a school that has been determined to be in danger of losing its program. That would allow those schools who have dying programs to recruit players from numbers rich areas to come to their high school and play varsity hockey. You think kids who have played hockey since the age of 5 want to give up the sport when they get to high school because the school they are at is logjammed with talent? Heck no, they are hockey players and they just want to play. So go recruit them. Maybe then the withering high school program can have some success which can be used to galvanize interest in the community and help spark a rebirth at the youth levels.

Got lemons, make lemonade.

ETA: And what observer said. Got to recruit when they are young. I put the number at a minimum of 30 new mites per grade level each year. Actually the goal is to have a pull through rate of 30 players heading into 1st year squirts each season, so it takes more than 30 new mites per grade each season.

I hesitate to respond to an initiall post that may have been a bit trollish and was definitely posted in frustration but I'm gonna anyways.

The Richfield situation has so much to do with the demographics. It is correct that you need to recruit hard in any community to keep up and build your feeder program but it is especially important in a community with the changing demographics that Richfield has. Believe me, some very good people tried very hard some years back but the climb was too steep. One of the things that they tried 8-10 years ago was that they approached a large Hispanic organization sponsored by a local church and put together several mite teams at reasonable intro prices (in the $50 range) with great volunteer coaches and donated and used equipment. All the kids had a blast and it was a huge success. Then the Squirt sticker shock hit and several hundred dollars was more than many families could either afford or the cost certainly wasn't worth it to the parents where hockey was not something they grew up with. Soccer and baseball seem like a lot more bang for the buck if you put yourselves in their shoes. There were other ways that they recruited and again there were many hours spent addressing the problem. When the only alternative was to co-op the youth program Kennedy the writing was on the wall.

As far as co-oping the HS program, that is a whole different set of challenges. You need to find another program on the edge. If you don't and you co-op with another program where it may strengthen the teams but displace kids, good luck. If your kid is a top six forward for example, he now comes into a program where he then knocks a kid to the third line, another to the fourth, then the trickle down through JV until a kid gets cut altogether. Then explain that to all the families involved and see their reaction. And that's just one kid. Try the half dozen or so that might have a shot to make a JV or varsity roster that Richfield has and it's a pretty tough sell.

On the surface it would seem that the Richfield - Kennedy HS co-op makes the most sense since their youth programs are already combined. In this case it was obviously too late. If you want to see parents freak out, suggest a merger after tryouts are already done and little Johnny is already on the HS team and is in danger of now getting the rug pulled out. Both of these communities have a lot of pride and at least at this point Kennedy doesn't need it. I heard at one point that this was explored a few years back just to see if it would have been an option at all for the future and at that time rumor has it that the MSHSL response was akin to if there was a merger with Kennedy it would have to be Jefferson - same district and city, already share facilities, etc. Since the natural, deep seeded rivalry exists there was no way this was gonna happen.

The Richfield girls started a co-op with Holy Angels in the 2011-2012 season but at that time the number of Richfield girls was low and HA was having a drop off with the girls so it was mutually beneficial. There is nothing in it for the HA boys to absorb the Richfield kids. Minneapolis could work in the future but they are keeping many more kids than they have in recent years and not losing as many to private schools as they have in the past. They are getting much more competitive and actually cut around 15 kids to Jr Gold.

Good analysis OC63. I hate to see these things happen. I'm all about solutions. There had to have been a hundred or more players who didn't make the cut at their high school program this fall. Yet here we havve a high school that wants a team but doesn't have the bodies.

I think there should be a rule made where at-risk programs are identified (given a certain set of criteria) and where open enrollment with no applicable transfer rules are applied to players who want to transfer into there to go to school so they can continue playing hockey. I would bet there would be at least 10 players in the entire metro area who might be interested in something like that and it could save the program. Instead of using co-ops use the power of an open market to save some of these programs.

SCBL: That's maybe the best suggestion I've heard in a long time.

Thanks.

The more I think about it the more I am positive it could be done. Something simple like at X date, say August 15, there is a sign-up where every player expected to try out for a school team signs up signifying their intent to try out. At that point schools can be identified that have low tryout numbers and become classified as "at-risk". They can then be put on an open transfer list with the amount of open transfers they are allowed to take in. After official an tryout date at all schools, players who are cut can access the list to see where there are openings and then can weigh their options of whether they want to transfer to an at-risk program or not. This way parents and students can take into account school, program, distance, etc, etc.

The details can be ironed out but that's the overall framework.

SCBlueLiner wrote:Thanks.

The more I think about it the more I am positive it could be done. Something simple like at X date, say August 15, there is a sign-up where every player expected to try out for a school team signs up signifying their intent to try out. At that point schools can be identified that have low tryout numbers and become classified as "at-risk". They can then be put on an open transfer list with the amount of open transfers they are allowed to take in. After official an tryout date at all schools, players who are cut can access the list to see where there are openings and then can weigh their options of whether they want to transfer to an at-risk program or not. This way parents and students can take into account school, program, distance, etc, etc.

The details can be ironed out but that's the overall framework.

Great idea, I really like it! I would have been pretty interested in the idea when I was in high school

SCBlueLiner wrote:Good analysis OC63. I hate to see these things happen. I'm all about solutions. There had to have been a hundred or more players who didn't make the cut at their high school program this fall. Yet here we havve a high school that wants a team but doesn't have the bodies.

I think there should be a rule made where at-risk programs are identified (given a certain set of criteria) and where open enrollment with no applicable transfer rules are applied to players who want to transfer into there to go to school so they can continue playing hockey. I would bet there would be at least 10 players in the entire metro area who might be interested in something like that and it could save the program. Instead of using co-ops use the power of an open market to save some of these programs.

Are you talking about just playing hockey there? or actually transferring schools and taking classes there?

Open transfer policy to at risk schools. Yes, the student would need to transfer but would be eligible to play Varsity immediately.