redistricting

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:20 pm

you're right...wayzata has 10 PeeWee teams in total. I was referring to the travel level, because that's where we've experienced the mega-size advantage most dramatically. but our C-league is quite large as well. to be thorough, Wayzata has 7 Bantam teams A-C (5 travel, 2C), 10 PeeWee teams A-C (6 travel, 4 C), and 9 Squirt teams A-C (5 travel, 4C).

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:25 pm

Here at Johnson we have 3 Pee Wee teams 1 A, 1 B, 1 C. I think we could have a little more success with your numbers. This is why re-districting is so tuff.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:34 pm

I played youth hockey in the metro way back when but can't answer this question -- has there ever been these sized associations in the past (70s, 80's or even 90's) -- like that described by Wayzata? How big were the larger associations in the past with respect to # of teams? Other than co-ops, did a huge association field multiple A teams?

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:43 pm

I dont believe there were any Mega associations. From what I remember there were far less travleing teams, typically 1A and 1 B- and then house teams. Seems that many associations have basically elimated the true "house" programs for whatever reason. I would not classify C hockey as house since they travel just like an A/B team.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:33 pm

Elliot: Was was the feeling of the DD last time it was suggested to create a district of the Mega Assocations like, Wayzata, EP, Edina WBL and such.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:10 pm

The question was how do you determine who fits. And it was more a discussion of a league and not a district in itself. For example, would Moorhead be tossed in with WBL, Edina etc.. And if Moorhead goes woudl Roseau be invited. NOt mega but certainly do compete. But I think there is some merit in trying to do something on this line. I am giving it thought as to what the different possiblities could be.

tjhd5 · Post by **tjhd5** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:54 pm

it long overdue to do this. Mn hockey has been debating this for close to 15 years but ech year they belly up to a handfull of so called experts... we the people wnat the travel time and costs reduced.. Quit holding the associations hostage and do it. Ya you will have some bell aching but after 3 years nobody will realize it... JUST "GITTER DONE" we have waited long enough and dont put this topic into overtime another year

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:12 am

I agree stop the b-llsh-t and make a decision Minnesota Hockey. I thought Minnesota was suppose to be a leader, leaders don't stall.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... cypalms</A> at: 2/28/06 1:27 pm

Duluthhockeyfan · Post by **Duluthhockeyfan** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:54 pm

get the state down to Eight districts, use whatever geographic equation you want to. Eliminate the Regional play, and send the winner of each district to the State Tournament. You would help cut the cost to parents by eliminating that extra weekend of travel. You would make the district tournaments more meaningful because everyone would be included, instead of having a District like D11 where there is only four teams playing off, and a District like D10 where not everyone is even eligible for the District tournament because there are too many teams. Everyone would have a chance to make a run at a state tournament. You would be able to continue having the entire state represented instead of the new format that starts next year, where certain years you may only have one and possibly no teams from the north qualify? You could also than save a weekend at the end of the year to host a District all-star tournament. That way you could get the best bantams and peewee's together for one more great weekend of hockey. It would be different from the Select 15 teams for USA hockey, and you could include all second year bantams regardless of birth year. If it was promoted correctly, Something like this could help kids decide to stay for that second year of bantams instead of year in and year out jumping to play JV. I think there needs to be a complete overhaul of what is done with the districts and the MH board has to recognize it soon. Minnesota hockey is deteriorating and so far nothing is being done to save it. It is a reality and if those involved continue to take offense to that notion and not look outside the box at correcting the problem it will be gone as we know it.

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:37 pm

Maybe only have four district have four playoffs and the four teams play for the state tournament. Roseau Eden Prairie White Bear( oh yeah they can't make it like there high school) Edina Moorehead How does an area as big as White Bear have 1 Pee Wee team in the regionals and it's not there "A" Team or first "B" Team? COACHING????? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... cypalms</A> at: 2/28/06 1:41 pm

Gildan2036 · Post by **Gildan2036** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:01 pm

As a former player Current Parent of a player in WBL and Current coach of one of those teams you think should be so good - You need a different hobby Icypalms. Stop being a hater. This is about the kids. You were the first one to respond when that kid from Edina was put in the hospital. You need to think before you just jump off the deep end about how things need to be. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:">

hangumhigh · Post by **hangumhigh** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:03 pm

White Bear cannot keep up with the other top programs I think things are starting to go South.

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:19 pm

I think White Bear is turning into a Johnson north team.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:27 pm

PEOPLE This is not a White Bear discussion thread. Lee allowed it to be a sticky topic so people would not hunt for it and I (and share with the MH Board) would be able to use it to gather information to make changes. Your comments (posts) will be deleted. I appreciate all the posts that are relative. Regardless if I agree with you ropinion or not, I like to read them. Sometimes seeing other ideas help you create others of your own. But even better, take the ideas suggested as they are. If an idea can be made to work, I do not care where it comes from. But NO BASHING - STAY ON TOPIC.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:20 pm

Thanks for reeling us back in. I was worried that this thread would deteriorate into team-bashing. It's an important topic to lots of people...most of who are the silent majority. As one of the only people from a "mega association" weighing in here, I have to say I'm still a advocate of establishing districts--or leagues--based on association size, as well as geography. Here's an approach: Put the "mega associations" in the metro area in two leagues--West/East or North/South. Mega-associations already identified by previous threads = WBL, Edina, EP, Maple Grove, Wayzata, Chaska, Burnsville, Lakeville, Woodbury, maybe also Centennial?, Stillwater?...others? this would even the playing field for the remaining teams in the metro area. Would additional re-districting be needed in the metro area? Maybe a little, to balance out the team load... this could definitely solve some of the problems in the metro with regular season play. I know it has implications for regions/state as well...but I'm sure that could be figured out. Again, sorry for the focus on the cities...I just don't know enough about the North/South districts in the state to have a worthwhile opinion. And thanks again for asking.

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:57 pm

I still think people are missing the point, just because you have big numbers doesnt mean you have success. Wayzata, Edina, White Bear, Eden Prairie, Centennial, Blaine, Lakeville, Woodbury, Maple Grove these are the largest hockey associations in the state. Maple Grove, Woodbury,Rochester, and Lakeville have not been among the elite programs on a every year basis. The successful programs work there butts off at all levels. Run summer programs within there program so the few elite players arent playing for the super dad who coaches the blades from another. Numbers + Commitment + Hard work + Talent= Success. For the successful Northern Programs Moorhead same as above Roseau take away numbers add tradition Duluth E numbers are larger than there northern competition; plus tradition. "Success breads success" see Edina, Roseau, Moorhead, Jefferson, White Bear and in the past decade Wayzata, Ep, Centennial. It has not been a token trip for any of these programs. They all care about the end of result of there young players. It seems that people are equating all the success to someones numbers. They still have to be quality players dont they?? How about good coaches that stay a while, not a couple of dads that stick around for there kid?? If you put in the time and the energy you probably will get results. All these programs play each other as much as they like right now so redistricting means nothing. The answer is no one has one because the intent is not to help the upper 20% it is to help the lower 80%. enough said.

Pregameskate · Post by **Pregameskate** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:00 pm

I like the idea of going to 8 districts because it makes it so everyone has a chance to play for a trip to the state tourney in the end. Granted some districts would be large and still require some driving, but thats kind of the way it is when you live up north isn't it? I don't like the fact either that in some districts not all the teams make the playoffs. I think this is youth hockey, every team should have a chance to go on that "miracle run". For crying out loud district ten only allows eight of their sixteen teams in the playoffs. I'm not sure if that is the right number but I know there is quite a bit of teams that don't even get a chance at the playoffs. Thats really sad. Eight districts also reduces the amount of people required to be district directors, which reduces the amount of people on the board, which makes it easier to get things done. (no that wasn't a shot at any particular DD.) You can tweak who's in which district all you want to even them out. My problem with a super district is that now you have all these great programs in one spot, you wouldn't get the best teams representing the best in the state. Every year just about that team would win the tournament and than people would say...."these programs should just have their own state tournament". And than you get what has done high school hockey a lot of good...Two Class system. Can't put the big programs in on district, it wouldn't be fair.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Good posts, thank you.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:56 pm

Quick reply to puckhead-- I get your point. You missed mine. Bigger associations have deeper pools of skaters to draw from...and that has usually resulted in an advantage vs. smaller associations. It probably also results in a deeper pool of coaching talent, too...now that I think of it. Yes, committed coaches and quality training also matter--a lot. They can make the difference for any program, for sure. I'm only relaying the input I've heard over the past few seasons, while our large association teams have been competing against many, many smaller ones. Frustration has been high at times. Oh, and by the way, our teams don't get a chance to play vs. Edina, Minnetonka, Centennial, etc, unless we luck out and see them in tournaments. Redistrict using common sense, please: geographically, and taking size into account. enough said.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:00 am

puckhead: what are some of the smaller metro associations that consistenly have success?

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:50 am

I am sorry for getting off track. Please can we just decide the fate of small programs and get it over with. Oh look South St Paul girls moved to Class A because there numbers are starting to dwindle. That is happening all over and it is time for Minnesota hockey to make a stsement and help small associations. Please redistrict in the April meeting so all of small associtions can adjust our programs.

Duluthhockeyfan · Post by **Duluthhockeyfan** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:48 am

What is the standard for a "small association"... Take the 2 Duluth teams for example, they each only had 40 skaters try out for their 3 bantams teams. Is that a big association? Would that make Duluth a small association? I wouldn't say 40 bantam eligible kids to be placed on three teams is a lot of kids...So would Duluth East get to compete in the A tournament? The fact is there are only a handlful of big teams out there, to split them would be ridiculous. Try to even things out a bit by going down to 8 districts. Then you could adjust SOME teams.

ShootnScore22 · Post by **ShootnScore22** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:31 pm

I've looked at this thread and wonder to myself what the big deal is with travel? In the north the teams travel 2 hours just to play a district game. That usally involves 120 miles. Not like in the city where it involves sitting in traffic. I have a son playing and think it is great to travel but at times it does get expensive. But why do we feel the need to stay in the most expensive hotels all the time. When the cheaper ones are just as nice without a pool most of the time. As far as redistricting I think the so called Mega assosiations should look at Splitting in half like the Duluth association does and making 2 A teams at each level. As far as playing the mega association I'd like to see them start to go play in out state tournaments just for the exposure.

1goallead · Post by **1goallead** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:10 pm

Move Wayzata to district 6 and give D6 4 seeds to regions. Two seeds in two different regions. That takes care of the majority of mega districts. I'd love to see Wayzata in league play, but wouldn't want to have another strong team without an extra region seed. Question, Why can't B2 and C have a state tournament?

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:14 pm

IMO Lucia's suggestion to field two A teams is better than districting the top 4-5 teams in one district. I don't care too much about state championships - I am more interested in getting even competition in the metro from October to February. What could help is if MAHA gave "target percentages" - informal guidelines as to what %'s of kids should be playing A, B and C hockey - for example, is it recommended that the A level should be the top 15-20% of kids in your association? A simple guideline may be enough for the megas to decide to go with two A teams on their own. Picking the best 13 athletes from a pool of 35 and regularly competing at the A and B levels with an association picking the top 13 from 150 athletes - I haven't seen it work down here. Maybe you can do it as suggested by someone by getting all 35 kids to play hockey all year round and hiring Herb Brooks to coach them. But getting back to reality, one association is putting the top 37% of their kids on an A team, one is putting out the top 8.6%. This just doesn't lead to good match ups. Most associations in the metro if not the state have 3-4 teams per level -- structure your team rostering/districting requirements with this reality in mind. In the next few years I would not be surprised to see 12-14 teams at one level in growing communities -- no matter what districting won't be a permanent solution.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

redistricting

size matters

Re: size matters

Re: size matters

Re: size matters

redistricting

Re: redistricting

redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistristering

Re: redistristering

redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting