Cdale wrote:
So the boys are in highschool and his daughter will be in JR High next year. Why does he care about a OMGHA/MGHA split so bad? His daugher has maybe 2 years of youth hockey left.
Must have had her rightful spot on the A team snatched by one of those heathen Osseo kids.
How do we place our bets?
Please, his rink is better than anything they have in Osseo. If you can't build a rink that grand with an entire city's resources ... you sir ... are not welcome in Maple Grove.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Can't this breakup be seen as a good thing? OMGHA has to develop players to feed two high school programs. By breaking up into seperate entities won't that force both to work harder to grow the sport in their school districts, grow and develop both youth programs, and ultimately be a positive for both high school programs?
Bluewhitefan wrote:
Must have had her rightful spot on the A team snatched by one of those heathen Osseo kids.
How do we place our bets?
Please, his rink is better than anything they have in Osseo. If you can't build a rink that grand with an entire city's resources ... you sir ... are not welcome in Maple Grove.
WE ARE THE 1%!!!
Always selfish motivation with these types of situations.
observer wrote:I think youth associations make a mistake when they consider themselves part of the high school organization. There is no connection between community based youth hockey associations and high schools. Entirely separate entities.
A youth hockey associations role is to develop youth players irregardless of where they play HS hockey. Focus on developing as many strong youth players as you can and keep your hands off the wheel as responsibilities beyond that aren't yours.
Where is this role written in stone? How can youth associations not want to develop players to how the high school coach wants them developed? After all most of the kids in each youth association will be trying out for their respective high schools. If I'm a high school coach, what better way to have kids developed to your style than to develop them from day one.
observer wrote:I think youth associations make a mistake when they consider themselves part of the high school organization. There is no connection between community based youth hockey associations and high schools. Entirely separate entities.
A youth hockey associations role is to develop youth players irregardless of where they play HS hockey. Focus on developing as many strong youth players as you can and keep your hands off the wheel as responsibilities beyond that aren't yours.
Where is this role written in stone? How can youth associations not want to develop players to how the high school coach wants them developed? After all most of the kids in each youth association will be trying out for their respective high schools. If I'm a high school coach, what better way to have kids developed to your style than to develop them from day one.
It may be different in smaller associations, but I suspect that "most of kids" in OMGHA will never try out for the high school team.
Observer - obviously they are separate entities but I disagree that the youth shouldn't care about the hs.
Girls hs, boys hs, and youth should all work together. Utilize everyone's knowledge towards a similar goal. Each group should work together in certain things like a mentor group, skills clinics, goalie training, etc etc.
observer wrote:I think youth associations make a mistake when they consider themselves part of the high school organization. There is no connection between community based youth hockey associations and high schools. Entirely separate entities.
A youth hockey associations role is to develop youth players irregardless of where they play HS hockey. Focus on developing as many strong youth players as you can and keep your hands off the wheel as responsibilities beyond that aren't yours.
Where is this role written in stone? How can youth associations not want to develop players to how the high school coach wants them developed? After all most of the kids in each youth association will be trying out for their respective high schools. If I'm a high school coach, what better way to have kids developed to your style than to develop them from day one.
Would make for a "white folks only fountain" type situation for kids they know are leaving for private schools...
I think it is fantastic when a good high school coach gives of his time and energy to aid in the development of the youth in his or her community. It is a slippery slope, however, to go from a youth hockey organization to a varsity feeder program. Peewees and bantams getting a taste of the modified umbrella the high school coach wants, is one thing; the association deciding that they are now the scouts for the high school, is quite another. A group of 10 year olds gets tapped to be the next great chance for a state title - first, it isn't fair to those 10 year olds; second, it isn't fair to the 10 year olds that don't "make the cut"; third, it isn't fair to any of the parents who feel like their kids are on a 6 year tryout. I know this sounds like the Kumbaya crap that I usually abhor, but youth sports needs first to be about youth.
InigoMontoya wrote:I think it is fantastic when a good high school coach gives of his time and energy to aid in the development of the youth in his or her community. It is a slippery slope, however, to go from a youth hockey organization to a varsity feeder program. Peewees and bantams getting a taste of the modified umbrella the high school coach wants, is one thing; the association deciding that they are now the scouts for the high school, is quite another. A group of 10 year olds gets tapped to be the next great chance for a state title - first, it isn't fair to those 10 year olds; second, it isn't fair to the 10 year olds that don't "make the cut"; third, it isn't fair to any of the parents who feel like their kids are on a 6 year tryout. I know this sounds like the Kumbaya crap that I usually abhor, but youth sports needs first to be about youth.
Agree. Connection and colaboration is one thing. However, the youth association needs to have the good of all players/families at stake. In large associations, only a handful of players at each grade will ever get to play for the HS.
My name is Pat Ross and thought I'd fill in the gaps to some of your questions regarding the proposal for reallignment with OMGHA.
First, Association bondaries are governed by an Affiliate Agreement with MN Hockey. Those boundaries are not established by city limits, they are established by, "Natural High School Boundary." MN Hockey has specific board of director positions representing boys and girls High School Hockey.
Second, two years ago Park Center shut down their high school hockey program. All of those kids now play their high school hockey at Osseo (excluding those kids who choose private school). Osseo would be one of the only public high schools in the state, where kids come to it through two different youth programs.
Third, OMGHA had seperate MG and Osseo traveling programs for 11 of its 15 year existance. This is just as much about bringing together a disconnected Osseo program as it is creating a distintive Maple Grove program. Wayzata are Trojans, Edina are Hornets, we want Maple Grove to be Crimson and Osseo to be Orioles.
Lastly, keep my family out of it. Especially if you don't have the courage to identify yourselves. "My wife looks like a person of Controversy..." Are you kidding me? My daughter is a first year, marginal at best U12, nice try.
If you really want to have something to sink your teeth into regarding OMGHA, ask about the $40K and counting spent on attorneys fees the last two years as well as probations and sanctions they have earned over that time period. The most intriguing part of this situation is why OMGHA leadership has resisted having an open and honest discussion about it and what they have done to keep it from their membership.
What is being proposed, Reallignment Via a Merge with North Metro, makes sense for our community. I will post the proposal and my opening remarks that were presented at the OMGHA annual meeting on Monday the 20th.
We are reaching out in an attempt to convey what we believe to be a viable option for our hockey programs going forward. As many of you may know there has been a lot of discussion regarding a realignment solution over the last number of months that would impact OMGHA and North Metro. With Park Center shutting down their HS hockey program 2 years ago, it created a situation where the North Metro kids would be playing their high school hockey at Osseo. Osseo is one of the only public schools in the state where their kids come out of two different youth programs. We believe both programs should have what every other association in the state of Minnesota has which is boundaries that are in alignment with their corresponding High School boundaries. Experiencing everything we have over the last year, we believe a merger of the two programs is the most beneficial method of realignment.
PROPOSAL TO MERGE AND CREATE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN OMGHA AND NORTH METRO YOUTH HOCKEY
There would be 2 distinct traveling youth programs that align with their corresponding high schools. The new organization would operate in a similar fashion to the way OMGHA had ran for 11 of the last 15 years. Maple Grove and Osseo traveling hockey would co-exist under one overlay program. The overlay organization would be OMGHA, and if deemed appropriate change its name to something like NWYHA (Northwest Youth Hockey Association). Each side would have autonomy to run their traveling programs as they see fit and also receive a number of benefits that a large association would bring to the table.
The instability and changing demographic make it more and more difficult for the North Metro program to stay viable. Any person who is forming an opinion out of concern for the Osseo players has to consider the 250 players in the north metro program as well. If we go forward as is, we do nothing to address the challenges faced by the North Metro program or the Osseo boys and girls high school programs. Merging presents opportunities of growth and expansion where it would otherwise cease to exist. At present, Merging OHGHA and North Metro would be the most effective approach to stabilize hockey for all those who reside in the District 279 boundary.
DETAILS/BENEFITS
• One combined Youth Association (North Metro, Osseo, Maple Grove)
• 2 separate Programs within 1 Association (Maple Grove Program, Osseo Program)
• OMGHA (or whatever appropriate name) would still be the Umbrella Association/Entity
• House programs (Mini-Mite/Mite/Supermite) would all be combined as desired. Teams are formed based on your elementary school/neighborhood.
• Maple Grove and Osseo would each have their own separate traveling teams and traveling boards.
• The MG/Osseo separation occurs when traveling begins (First Year Squirt).
• Transition considerations for older kids
• Based on current numbers, 2 teams added to NM-Osseo side at Squirt and PeeWee
• Approximately 1 additional team at Bantam
• Provides internal Girls solutions versus outside co-ops such as Armstrong
• Creates instant brand identity with community based program.
• Maximum ice utilization. Specifically, North Metro is turning back ice based on not having a need for it. This increased ice would be available for the larger organization.
• Puts us in level playing field with our peer group communities
• Creates growth potential and participation expansion in what would normally be considered a semi challenging demographic. The financial strength of OMGHA can be put to use by providing a targeted, systematic scholarship programs that provides an opportunity for kids to play that otherwise wouldn’t. There isn’t much logic behind stating that kids aren’t playing because it’s too expensive when the association is sitting with over $700K in the bank.
• All of the HS coaches want to be more involved with the youth and the development of the kids. In the current environment, it’s extremely difficult. District Restrictions make it very difficult for the boys/girls high school coaches to engage with a blended youth program for fear of recruiting accusations.
• We live in a world where private schools can recruit and public schools cannot. If we want to compete, we need to create the proper culture from the start; one that gives kids a reason to stay where they’re supposed to.
Essentially, once you reach first year Squirt, you would play for either MG or Osseo, based on which high school boundary you fall under. Both the MG and Osseo travel program would have its own Traveling Board and Governing body, and run itself completely separate from the other. Each Traveling board could decide where it wants to field each of its teams on a year-to-year basis. Ex: ‘AA’, ‘A’, ‘B1’, ‘B2’ based their numbers and where they feel they’d be most competitive.
House programs for Mini-mite/Mite/Supermite would/could all be combined. This has the potential for being an outstanding introduction to hockey. We’d have 6 rinks to utilize for ice time. With that amount of kids and teams, the possibilities of creating fun intra-association games/tournaments/activities for the kids would be endless. Teams would continue to be formed by elementary school or area. Consideration would be given to insure kids are skating at the rinks nearest their home.
CONCERNS, CHALLENGES AND QUESTIONS How are the kids east River affected by a merge
In a perfect world, it would be great that all of the kids in the NM-Osseo program would be given the opportunity to play HS hockey for Osseo. We are not current on how this looks going forward. As we understand, one of the concerns is the Fridley and Col Hts kids having to drive farther west to practice. If it was so desired, in the event of a merger the house programs could run exactly the same without any changes. What kind of voice would the Osseo-NM members have after the merge
First off, the Osseo-NM board members would assume the traveling VP as well as level director voting positions on the board. The other voting positions would be given proportionate consideration as needed. Said in English, it will be essential that the Osseo-NM board members be guaranteed voting positions as needed. There will be some pushback initially but we are confident membership support of this should make this easy to accomplish. What does District 3 think about this
While we cannot speak for them we do know they are aware of the challenges both programs are experiencing. We have brought it up to them in generality and they seem supportive of any alternative that would stabilize both programs. They have made it clear that they would be much more supportive of a merger than they would be to an alternative that would require changing boundary definitions in two separate affiliate agreements. Other questions or concerns and Next Steps
We are fully aware that in no way have we addressed all of the concerns or considerations all of you may have. We know with your help and input we can come to a workable situation that is a win-win for everyone. If we have missed something please ask. We are completely confident that when our membership is educated on the benefits of this proposal, it will be easy to confirm it is worth pursuing.
The next steps would be to establish a feasibility task force. The task force would include a few members from each association that can gather the necessary facts and tactical information to formulate a preliminary action plan. The mission of this task force is to come up with a proposal that answers, “If this were to happen, what would it look like? The proposal should answer, what are the benefits, what are the challenges, who is impacted and at what level, what will it take to execute etc etc.” It would be my recommendation that someone like Todd Elmer, a past OMGHA President who presided at a time when there were two distinct traveling programs operating under one operational umbrella, chair the task force.
One thing I am certain of at this point is that doing nothing will not do anything to help the MG members get what they want. I also know that doing nothing will not do anything to help Osseo-NM get their numbers where they need to be and stabilize their program.
We are reaching out in an attempt to convey what we believe to be a viable option for our hockey programs going forward. As many of you may know there has been a lot of discussion regarding a realignment solution over the last number of months that would impact OMGHA and North Metro. With Park Center shutting down their HS hockey program 2 years ago, it created a situation where the North Metro kids would be playing their high school hockey at Osseo. Osseo is one of the only public schools in the state where their kids come out of two different youth programs. We believe both programs should have what every other association in the state of Minnesota has which is boundaries that are in alignment with their corresponding High School boundaries. Experiencing everything we have over the last year, we believe a merger of the two programs is the most beneficial method of realignment.
PROPOSAL TO MERGE AND CREATE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN OMGHA AND NORTH METRO YOUTH HOCKEY
There would be 2 distinct traveling youth programs that align with their corresponding high schools. The new organization would operate in a similar fashion to the way OMGHA had ran for 11 of the last 15 years. Maple Grove and Osseo traveling hockey would co-exist under one overlay program. The overlay organization would be OMGHA, and if deemed appropriate change its name to something like NWYHA (Northwest Youth Hockey Association). Each side would have autonomy to run their traveling programs as they see fit and also receive a number of benefits that a large association would bring to the table.
The instability and changing demographic make it more and more difficult for the North Metro program to stay viable. Any person who is forming an opinion out of concern for the Osseo players has to consider the 250 players in the north metro program as well. If we go forward as is, we do nothing to address the challenges faced by the North Metro program or the Osseo boys and girls high school programs. Merging presents opportunities of growth and expansion where it would otherwise cease to exist. At present, Merging OHGHA and North Metro would be the most effective approach to stabilize hockey for all those who reside in the District 279 boundary.
DETAILS/BENEFITS
• One combined Youth Association (North Metro, Osseo, Maple Grove)
• 2 separate Programs within 1 Association (Maple Grove Program, Osseo Program)
• OMGHA (or whatever appropriate name) would still be the Umbrella Association/Entity
• House programs (Mini-Mite/Mite/Supermite) would all be combined as desired. Teams are formed based on your elementary school/neighborhood.
• Maple Grove and Osseo would each have their own separate traveling teams and traveling boards.
• The MG/Osseo separation occurs when traveling begins (First Year Squirt).
• Transition considerations for older kids
• Based on current numbers, 2 teams added to NM-Osseo side at Squirt and PeeWee
• Approximately 1 additional team at Bantam
• Provides internal Girls solutions versus outside co-ops such as Armstrong
• Creates instant brand identity with community based program.
• Maximum ice utilization. Specifically, North Metro is turning back ice based on not having a need for it. This increased ice would be available for the larger organization.
• Puts us in level playing field with our peer group communities
• Creates growth potential and participation expansion in what would normally be considered a semi challenging demographic. The financial strength of OMGHA can be put to use by providing a targeted, systematic scholarship programs that provides an opportunity for kids to play that otherwise wouldn’t. There isn’t much logic behind stating that kids aren’t playing because it’s too expensive when the association is sitting with over $700K in the bank.
• All of the HS coaches want to be more involved with the youth and the development of the kids. In the current environment, it’s extremely difficult. District Restrictions make it very difficult for the boys/girls high school coaches to engage with a blended youth program for fear of recruiting accusations.
• We live in a world where private schools can recruit and public schools cannot. If we want to compete, we need to create the proper culture from the start; one that gives kids a reason to stay where they’re supposed to.
Essentially, once you reach first year Squirt, you would play for either MG or Osseo, based on which high school boundary you fall under. Both the MG and Osseo travel program would have its own Traveling Board and Governing body, and run itself completely separate from the other. Each Traveling board could decide where it wants to field each of its teams on a year-to-year basis. Ex: ‘AA’, ‘A’, ‘B1’, ‘B2’ based their numbers and where they feel they’d be most competitive.
House programs for Mini-mite/Mite/Supermite would/could all be combined. This has the potential for being an outstanding introduction to hockey. We’d have 6 rinks to utilize for ice time. With that amount of kids and teams, the possibilities of creating fun intra-association games/tournaments/activities for the kids would be endless. Teams would continue to be formed by elementary school or area. Consideration would be given to insure kids are skating at the rinks nearest their home.
CONCERNS, CHALLENGES AND QUESTIONS How are the kids east River affected by a merge
In a perfect world, it would be great that all of the kids in the NM-Osseo program would be given the opportunity to play HS hockey for Osseo. We are not current on how this looks going forward. As we understand, one of the concerns is the Fridley and Col Hts kids having to drive farther west to practice. If it was so desired, in the event of a merger the house programs could run exactly the same without any changes. What kind of voice would the Osseo-NM members have after the merge
First off, the Osseo-NM board members would assume the traveling VP as well as level director voting positions on the board. The other voting positions would be given proportionate consideration as needed. Said in English, it will be essential that the Osseo-NM board members be guaranteed voting positions as needed. There will be some pushback initially but we are confident membership support of this should make this easy to accomplish. What does District 3 think about this
While we cannot speak for them we do know they are aware of the challenges both programs are experiencing. We have brought it up to them in generality and they seem supportive of any alternative that would stabilize both programs. They have made it clear that they would be much more supportive of a merger than they would be to an alternative that would require changing boundary definitions in two separate affiliate agreements. Other questions or concerns and Next Steps
We are fully aware that in no way have we addressed all of the concerns or considerations all of you may have. We know with your help and input we can come to a workable situation that is a win-win for everyone. If we have missed something please ask. We are completely confident that when our membership is educated on the benefits of this proposal, it will be easy to confirm it is worth pursuing.
The next steps would be to establish a feasibility task force. The task force would include a few members from each association that can gather the necessary facts and tactical information to formulate a preliminary action plan. The mission of this task force is to come up with a proposal that answers, “If this were to happen, what would it look like? The proposal should answer, what are the benefits, what are the challenges, who is impacted and at what level, what will it take to execute etc etc.” It would be my recommendation that someone like Todd Elmer, a past OMGHA President who presided at a time when there were two distinct traveling programs operating under one operational umbrella, chair the task force.
One thing I am certain of at this point is that doing nothing will not do anything to help the MG members get what they want. I also know that doing nothing will not do anything to help Osseo-NM get their numbers where they need to be and stabilize their program.
Amen brother! That is the most logic I've heard coming from OMGHA. The only reason not to do this is to protect the win loss records of the existing organizations. Heaven forbid dividing up all that Squirt A talent, saying that without any knowledge of where those kids would fall in a new organization. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the other D3 associations fully support this move.
I'm pretty sure zero of the squirt A kids and almost every squirt B1 kid would fall under the MG boundaries. It would affect their record none and osseo and due to the small numbers I doubt any of the kids would want to play for osseo.
omghockey wrote:I'm pretty sure zero of the squirt A kids and almost every squirt B1 kid would fall under the MG boundaries. It would affect their record none and osseo and due to the small numbers I doubt any of the kids would want to play for osseo.
Assuming your info is spot on, that would seem to be even more reason to do it. It makes North Metro stronger without impacting OMGHA. And his proposal does say something about consideration for older kids. I tend to disagree with that part but it is likely a compromise that would need to be made to push it through. However, I am a realist, the likelihood of this actually happening probably isn't high.
Only got a minute here while heading outta town.....but a couple of quick points.
The new AD at Park Center stated upon his hiring that priority would be boys hockey renewal/startup. If that is the case.....why would NM support this idea?
North Metro board came out awhile ago and said this a no-go for them as it fails to support the Fridley skaters (who play at Cooper for high school) and Columbia Heights/Brooklyn Center skaters. Totino Grace skaters are pretty much against it also.
Ice time is not an issue at BP....no such thing as "turning back ice based on not having a need". Don't know where the hell that came from.....heck, CPYHA took to the BP City Council a year ago attempting to force North Metro and the city to give UP ice so the could have it based on the premise that their association had a majority of BP residents. It was shot down quite easily per the NM charter with the city going back to the early 70s.
VicKevlar wrote:Only got a minute here while heading outta town.....but a couple of quick points.
The new AD at Park Center stated upon his hiring that priority would be boys hockey renewal/startup. If that is the case.....why would NM support this idea?
North Metro board came out awhile ago and said this a no-go for them as it fails to support the Fridley skaters (who play at Cooper for high school) and Columbia Heights/Brooklyn Center skaters. Totino Grace skaters are pretty much against it also.
Ice time is not an issue at BP....no such thing as "turning back ice based on not having a need". Don't know where the hell that came from.....heck, CPYHA took to the BP City Council a year ago attempting to force North Metro and the city to give UP ice so the could have it based on the premise that their association had a majority of BP residents. It was shot down quite easily per the NM charter with the city going back to the early 70s.
Interesting and educational. The only thing I would question is the North Metro charter with the city. What year was that arena built? And I do not believe the North Metro association existed in the 70's did it? Please clarify.
VicKevlar wrote:Only got a minute here while heading outta town.....but a couple of quick points.
The new AD at Park Center stated upon his hiring that priority would be boys hockey renewal/startup. If that is the case.....why would NM support this idea?
North Metro board came out awhile ago and said this a no-go for them as it fails to support the Fridley skaters (who play at Cooper for high school) and Columbia Heights/Brooklyn Center skaters. Totino Grace skaters are pretty much against it also.
Ice time is not an issue at BP....no such thing as "turning back ice based on not having a need". Don't know where the hell that came from.....heck, CPYHA took to the BP City Council a year ago attempting to force North Metro and the city to give UP ice so the could have it based on the premise that their association had a majority of BP residents. It was shot down quite easily per the NM charter with the city going back to the early 70s.
Interesting and educational. The only thing I would question is the North Metro charter with the city. What year was that arena built? And I do not believe the North Metro association existed in the 70's did it? Please clarify.
First indoor area was like in 1986. Before it was named North Metro Youth Hockey Association.....it was Brooklyn Park Youth Hockey Association. Name didn't change until after Fridley was added like 4 years ago.
Funny thing about that charter as the original was dragged out at that city council meeting.......it stated that if BPYHA ceased to exist....all monies, equipment, etc; would goto the city of Brooklyn Park. I heard that the association and the city would work on changing that stipulation....don't know if they ever did.
