HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

jackstraw · Post by **jackstraw** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:48 pm

New district in South Central and SE corner, District 9 is getting under way with a few meetings under their belt. Any thoughts?

hockeydawg · Post by **hockeydawg** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:10 pm

Get a gas efficient vehicle!!!

jackstraw · Post by **jackstraw** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:11 pm

The teams coming from D4 won't see much of a difference, Luverne and Marshall are way out West. I just wish there was some pheasants by LaCrescent.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:05 am

The formation of D-9 is a disaster for the Rochester program. Few programs with legitimate A teams. No B2 levels. Few girl programs. Increased travel.

Mac15 · Post by **Mac15** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:49 pm

I won't comment on SQ, PW, BT but I can add something the girls part of the equation. When a district does not have enough girls at a particular level, Minnesota Hockey moves teams into a "league" rather than a district.

In 2009-2010:
Rochester 14UA played in league 8 - This consisted of teams from Districts 1,2,3 and 8. Composed of 12 teams.
Rochester 14UB played in the Southern League hosted by D6. 11 teams.

In the 2010-2011 season I would expect 10UA, 12UA and 14UA to play in League 8 but that is determined at a state meeting. 14UB will probably play in the southern league again. 12UB will most likely stay with the new District 9 since most of the programs have fielded 12UB teams. 10UB is hard to guess but I would bet on League 8 or just play independent.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:07 am

mac15: It sounds like MN Hockey has is right to make the girls league work. All we heard on redistricting was to make things right for D1, etc on the levels of competition and declining association sizes. Moving the Winonas, LaCrescents, Kassons, etc. into a district comprised of similar sized associations makes sense. Rochester is the Goliath of D9. Only half the associations have A levels. There are no B2 or C levels. The former D8 associations that had B as the highest level will move to A level. And they will want Rochester to have more A teams to bring the competition down to their level. The bigger problem is at the B, B2 and C levels. No consideration was given to the lower levels in this decision. MN Hockey has done a major disservice to Rochester. And all to save the D8 associations one 60 minute drive to Rochester per year.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:24 am

Maybe Rochester should consider the Duluth model.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:38 am

I have heard Duluth and Moorhead do different things. Can you explain what they do? Not that concerned with the A level as they will be fine. It is the B, B2 and C levels that are of concern. As Mac15 stated, it seems the girls programs have a good system in place.

Mac15 · Post by **Mac15** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:43 am

B-Bob, I thought you might be curious to know there was only 1 NO vote at the D8 meeting regarding the redistricting issue. Also, New Ulm and St Pete were not on that proposal but were added at the state meeting. I'm not sure why NP went D6 and Montgomery is D9 since they are neighbors. The challenge now is to make it work.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:54 am

mac15: You have me on the edge of my chair. 1 NO vote in D8? Who would that lone no vote have been? Also, why would New Prague ask for D6 and Montgomery/Londale ask for D9? Any thoughts on that? And why would New Ulm and St. Peter have been added at the last minute? Was any consideration given to association size and teams at the various levels?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:06 pm

I'm not sure I understand New Prague's decision to join D6 any more than Delano's decision to join D3.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:28 pm

Montoya: The reason is likely to play better competition.

Mac15 · Post by **Mac15** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:41 pm

Sit back in your chair. Meeting minutes are on the website.

Associations did not get to choose their district. A commitee proposed the new alignment and MNH sent the proposal to the 12 districts to be voted on. Each DD then went to the state meeting for a general vote. What I don't know is who made the changes at the state meeting.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:01 pm

Montoya: The reason is likely to play better competition.

I guess I hadn't noticed Crow River finishing many of their D5 games with the clock running.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:28 pm

mac15: The suspense is killing me. Which association in D8 would have voted no to redistricting? Here's what the minutes provide "Motion: At the Minnesota Hockey state meeting, District 8 will vote Yes on the new Redistricting plan. Passed on a roll call vote."

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:35 pm

I don't know Montoya, maybe Litchfield/Dassel/Cokato and Hutchinson isn't quite the same as Wayzata and Osseo/Maple Grove? And not sure why New Prague would want to play Eden Prairie, Edina, Burnsville or Jefferson for their league games either.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:33 am

Hopefully they won't find themselves fielding only B teams, which you seem so irritated by there in D9.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:27 am

D3 will love to get CR. I see that the PW level they have 3B teams, nothing like having to play 3 teams with 11 kids that many times per year.......at least the goalies will get a chance to skate out

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:39 am

Montoya: What are you talking about? I never said anything about associations fielding B teams. I was saying D9 is a terrible fit for Rochester due to the difference in association sizes and the lack of teams playing a the correct levels of A-B-B2 & C.

You mentioned the Duluth model and I asked for you to explain it, could you do that please?

hockeydawg · Post by **hockeydawg** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:25 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
Montoya: The reason is likely to play better competition.

I guess I hadn't noticed Crow River finishing many of their D5 games with the clock running.

The D6 boys are going to love going to NP and watching the clock run at the end of games. I hear that happens alot at the PW and Bant. levels with only one rink. I see trouble!