coop teams

gainazone · Post by **gainazone** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:07 am

It sounds to me that hockey people in Rochester need to step up and start getting kids in Rochester to play the game. For a city with 100,000 people to only be able to field one 14U team is a disgrace. If you have number problems in a city that size co-opping is not the long term answer. People need to step up and get more kids to come out and play. Set up programs where kids can get equipment cheap, and find other ways to keep costs down. You need to build from the bottom up. From the sound of it everyone is so worried about getting the Varsity Program set up they forgot about the youth program.

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:56 pm

I couldn't agree more, on the building youth hockey aspect, anyway. In fact, the numbers at the U10 level are very much improved. However, the HS co-op has a significant effect on the success of the youth program, as has been mentioned on this board before. By co-oping HS, the U14 team remains viable, which in turn means less stealing from the U12's and so on down the line. By the time the current U10's reach HS, there will hopefully be enough numbers for 3 teams and a viable U14 team. I, personally, am very concerned about the youth program in Rochester. A niece, inspired by the success of the Mayo/Lourdes team, is going to start hockey at a relatively late age. She needs a U14 team where she can develop and play before joining the HS program. Because the Big 9 is attempting to eliminate the co-op situation, Rochester's U14 program may disappear. That's counter-productive to the growth of girls youth hockey. BTW, I agree with your assessment of the U14 numbers; it is a disgrace. There need to be many changes, starting with the elimination of the politics of Youth Hockey prevalent in the board of RYHA. But thats for another forum...

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:05 pm

I wouldn't think it was a disgrace - plenty (most?) of suburbs with 70K can't field a Varsity and JV and U14 team. For many communities, if you are talking about playing U14 in 9th grade instead of JV- you are never going to get serious varsity time.

gainazone · Post by **gainazone** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:54 pm

So why can small towns outside the metro field Varsity, J.V., 14U, and have plenty of numbers to do it. I understand that the cost is higher to play in the cities, but so is income, and the number of kids who can afford to play. The only reason I called it a disgrace is because I'm getting frustrated with the problems communities are having and it doesn't seem like people get that when you have a new sport like girls hockey you have to go out and work to get kids to come out. It's not like "Field of Dreams" Just because you build it doesn't mean that they will come. You have to find reasons for them to come out. I come from a city of less than 10,000 people. There are less than 500 kids in the local high school and we were able to get over 30 kids grades 9-12 to participate in hockey. There are teams around us that have larger schools, and have girls hockey longer than we have that don't have half that number. We were blessed that at the younger ages we had parents who were willing to coach, pick kids up for practices, and help other kids buy equipment. But we continue to always try to get new kids in the program. We take pride in our youth program and do things to make it entertaining for them. Our high school team is literally looked upon as heros and role-models by the younger kids. And our Varsity players take that responsibility seriously and has ended up creating better people and players at the Varsity level and more excitement for our youth where the numbers continue to go up. There is no magic formula to create numbers. But people, if you want a decent high school team it starts by getting kids into hockey at an early age. It takes work to get them, with girls hockey being new there are a lot of kids, and I've found more parents who think that hockey is to rough, or that hockey wasn't meant to be played by girls. You have to fight through all the misconceptions and find whats right in your community to convince kids to participate. Sorry I rambled a little.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:29 pm

I am sure there are a handful, but I don't think that many small towns in MN can field all three teams on their own. Growing girls hockey in any metro town without serious affluence is extremely difficult. Hockey is a sport for the affluent - unless the whole town devotes serious infrastructure to subsidize ice time (e.g. Rosseau) which will not happen too often in the metro with all the competing interests.

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:01 am

I'm of the opinion that success breeds interest. In smaller towns, the success of a team sport is huge in creating a young base of players for the future. A team going to state is front page news in a smaller community. Its not the same impact for bigger cities. The Rochester Mayo/Lourdes girls hockey articles of their games while at state were page 5 of the sports section. So many teams from the area (small towns outlying Rochester included,) go to state so that the impact isn't that noticeable anymore. Success breeding interest may work against Rochester girls hockey in a different way. Girls basketball in Rochester has a recent history of producing state championships, mainly for Lourdes HS, but also for Mayo HS. There is a pretty big girls youth basketball program here, including summer AAU teams. There have been no Rochester AAA girls hockey teams. There has also been a extremely successful figure skating association here for many, many years. Each year, there's a spring figure skating show which has 3 shows at the Rec Center, each attended by thousands. Girls compete at national competitions and even go on to work for Disney on Ice, etc. I'm pretty certain that basketball attracts more girls, especially for the less affluent, while the more affluent traditionally have daughters in figure skating. (A bigger money pit than hockey, IMO!) As for making girls hockey more affordable, its mainly a perception and priority thing. Whats more important, an investment in a life-long lesson in athletics, teamwork and positive passion? Or upgrading from a car to an SUV? Going to Disneyworld for the 3rd time? Hey, if thats your desire, who am I to say? But I don't like to hear complaints about the cost of hockey when poeple make other expensive decisions with less concern. (For the truly low income families who desire to have their kids play hockey, there are avenues. Associations make allowances for the low income player, businesses can donate or sponsor, etc.) Small towns can have an advantage in helping with costs. Used equipment gets passed along instead of getting sold by Play It Again Sports. Ice time costs less. Everyone knows each other so carpools are automatic. It all adds up over the years. Sorry for the book, I had too much time.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:20 pm

I think the Big 9 AD's agree - success breeds interest. Parity within the conference gives all teams the shot at success, and my guess is that this is why they have now decided to do away with a perennial co-op champion? Please note, I'm all for co-ops/strong youth hockey/etc., and I think the Rochester situaiton is a difficult one, but my guess is that the AD's just want to see all the teams have an equal opportunity to compete in the conference. This sort of move is not unusual as many conferences have rules against co-ops no matter the rationale. It may make the most sense for the girls to play out one last year as an independent for those few girls that otherwise would get bounced around again, and then realign at the end of this year?

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:18 pm

That seems to be the leading solution. Let the JM/Century team co-op again, this year as an independent. This allows each team an adequate number of players, the U14 team can still exist and the 2 seniors from Lourdes can play their last year with the same team as the last two years. I can understand the parity rationale. I've also heard the statement, "if other schools need to use 9th and 8th graders for varsity, why shouldn't Rochester?" Depends on your perspective, I guess.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:43 pm

I think the problem is that the perception/reality of jealousy re: Rochester's success is making this process difficult relative to the Conference decision. It may be "good enough" or a compromise to have teams step out of "official" conference play but maybe those same conference opponents would still honor the games (just not let them count as conference games - so the team couldn't be "conf. champ" etc.). That may be the "punishment" for going against the wishes of the conference and keeping the co-op together for one more season for the sake of those seniors and to give the youth one more year to prepare for the break-up next season. I don't believe in needing to force 7th, 8th, & 9th graders (or any kid) to the HS level, and this is why I struggle so much with many of the situations (no win) that you get put in when you are forced to do this. I will be in the same situation as soon as this fall potentially, and having been through it in St. Paul, and then Bloomington, I can tell you that it isn't easy. Coaches that are dedicated and understanding of the needs of such a situation (and the kids thrust into these situations) can help, but it is never easy. A few rule changes that would help: 1) Do away with U14/U16/U19 designations for top youth level. Allow for kids too old for 12's that aren't ready/wanting to play HS to play together on U19 teams. This would make it less traumatic of a decision and more feasible due to likelihood that aging out of friends & long drive co-ops wouldn't be as problematic. (many kids run to JV as much for friends a year ahead needing to do so, or the convenience of the situation vs. a co-op youth team). 2) Make HS's able to co-op JV's only - so that two HS's can co-op just JV when the two don't each have enough for a JV but nowhere for kids to go (unless the option above in #1 would be done...). Currently, it is AGAINST MSHSL RULES for two schools to co-op @ JV level only as far as I know. I checked on this as recently as a little over a year ago, so I assume that this hasn't changed, and I'm not certain as to how some schools have been doing it if they have. 3) Make HS JV's able to play U19 teams legally, and not just by "looking the other way" as we may do now. There are HUGE insurance issues with this currently... If these things would be done we would see less kids playing JV in grades 7, 8, & 9 and more top level youth teams. I also believe we'd see a decrease in JV teams potentially. AND maybe even more HS Varsity co-ops... None of these things are necessarily bad things!

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Tue May 23, 2006 5:05 pm

There's been lots of discussion in Rochester, little resolved. What we do know is this; there won't be a JM/Century co-op, even as an independent team. The Rochester powers-that-be have eliminated that route. (It would never have been approved by the other teams in section 1 anyway.) That also means that there will almost certainly be no Mayo/Lourdes co-op, either, as Lourdes will go with whichever team needs their players. All we really know at this point is that the Mayo girls will have a team, probably on their own.

The Dover/Eyota player(s) fate has also been decided, but its not at all a good outcome. Rochester schools has decided that out of town players will be grouped geographically with a Rochester school. Then those players will be able to play with that school, but only if that Rochester team needs the player(s) to field a team. Since Dover-Eyota falls into Mayo's jurisdiction, its unlikely any girls will be able to play HS hockey, as Mayo has enough girls. IMO, thats just stupid, even mean-spirited to eliminate the only avenue a girl from Dover-Eyota has to play HS hockey. Hopefully, this can change.

sghfan · Post by **sghfan** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:09 pm

The way you describe the Dover-Eyota situation it seems like an occasion when legal action might be appropriate.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:30 pm

SEhockeyDAD wrote:(It would never have been approved by the other teams in section 1 anyway.)

I don't believe a section can block a co-op? - only the mSHSL can? (mshsl actually makes up the sections), but conferences can make up their own rules, which then sometimes the MSHSL can step in and force acceptance of teams by placing them in certain conferences? CDH had a similar situation in cities before last year... Of course, I'm guessing that no one wants to take on the conference that's already dealing with countless other sports teams in the conference as an AD... Kind of like conference alegiance in a different way. No conf. AD would likely approach the MSHSL for intervention with G Hockey in that same Conf. I can't imagine... That's even if I understand all of this, which I likely don't...

SEhockeyDAD wrote:The Dover/Eyota player(s) fate has also been decided, but its not at all a good outcome. Rochester schools has decided that out of town players will be grouped geographically with a Rochester school. Then those players will be able to play with that school, but only if that Rochester team needs the player(s) to field a team. Since Dover-Eyota falls into Mayo's jurisdiction, its unlikely any girls will be able to play HS hockey, as Mayo has enough girls. IMO, thats just stupid, even mean-spirited to eliminate the only avenue a girl from Dover-Eyota has to play HS hockey. Hopefully, this can change.

My understanding is that if a school is not affiliated with another co-op program, that then they can find another program to co-op with. Also, there is a differnce between certain agreements that are had. If two schools have an affiliate agreement (or something liek that - not sure exactly what it's called) then the school can only work together in all sports, and not with any other school in any one sport. However, if they just have a couple co-ops without the "all sports agreement" then this is a different story. Also, what could get even more interesting in this situation is if they have the affiliate/"all sports agreement" and then try to deny those kids. That sort of thing - if it is the situation - could make this bad situaiton even worse...

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:19 pm

ghshockeyfan wrote:I don't believe a section can block a co-op? - only the mSHSL can?

One of the AD's was quoted in the paper down here that an independent team needs to be approved by the other teams in the section. (Maybe thats in order to be able to play in the section tournament?) Since Big 9 schools are in the section, they believe that a JM/Century wouldn't be approved there either.

One other option that was brought up months ago, but not mentioned lately; forego the JM/Century HS team and form a U19 team. That might be a last resort, but the way things are going, they're running out of options. So much depends on how many 7th, 8th and 9th grade girls want to continue in youth hockey.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:58 pm

SEhockeyDAD wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:I don't believe a section can block a co-op? - only the mSHSL can?
One of the AD's was quoted in the paper down here that an independent team needs to be approved by the other teams in the section. (Maybe thats in order to be able to play in the section tournament?) Since Big 9 schools are in the section, they believe that a JM/Century wouldn't be approved there either.

One other option that was brought up months ago, but not mentioned lately; forego the JM/Century HS team and form a U19 team. That might be a last resort, but the way things are going, they're running out of options. So much depends on how many 7th, 8th and 9th grade girls want to continue in youth hockey.

Stunned on the section block. I don't think that's right, but I also don't know the rules as well as an AD should obviously... I've never heard of an independent team needing approval...

U19 interesting option. No HS playoffs though for such a team, but they could play Shattuck, Tbreds, and B&A teams for a shot at nationals!

mama05 · Post by **mama05** » Wed May 24, 2006 11:28 am

Word has it that Century had 11 girls sign up as of Mon. Will this be the end of u14 in Rochester? If JM numbers come in close to Century numbers, where will the Lourdes girls & who will no longer have a team? It's a mess to say the least.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:40 pm

mama05 wrote:Word has it that Century had 11 girls sign up as of Mon. Will this be the end of u14 in Rochester? If JM numbers come in close to Century numbers, where will the Lourdes girls & who will no longer have a team? It's a mess to say the least.

Has there been any attempt to identify the conf. parties that are forcing the co-op changes and propose some compromise?

If there is a natural break/realignment point in the forseeable future vs. a force one abruptly now, that would obviously be best...

wrestlelaw3 · Post by **wrestlelaw3** » Wed May 24, 2006 3:56 pm

It seems difficult to feel sorry for Rochester because they can't get over 30 girls to play varsity hockey. There are at more 4000 students in the 4 Rochester schools. Rochester needs to build a program and provide opportunities for kids, not just build a power. Schools in Southwest Minnesota are playing varsity hockey with student populations of less than 1000 in entire counties. Recruit, build a program and make it fun. Rochester and many of the coops in the cities should have been working at this for years, rather than trying to build all star teams within the city or a number of cities. There is more to girls' hockey than winning games.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Wed May 24, 2006 4:14 pm

wrestlelaw3 wrote:It seems difficult to feel sorry for Rochester because they can't get over 30 girls to play varsity hockey. There are at more 4000 students in the 4 Rochester schools. Rochester needs to build a program and provide opportunities for kids, not just build a power. Schools in Southwest Minnesota are playing varsity hockey with student populations of less than 1000 in entire counties. Recruit, build a program and make it fun. Rochester and many of the coops in the cities should have been working at this for years, rather than trying to build all star teams within the city or a number of cities. There is more to girls' hockey than winning games.

Not quite that easy. I wish, but it's simply not in the city. Trust me, I know as I tried to help in these situations for a few years.

I can't speak for So. MN, but what are the issues there with building programs? I woudl think that it would be harder simply with less student-athletes in general, but also the geographic proximity of cities being challenging as well? I suppose that makes it a situaiton of having to find the numbers to go it alone as the co-op opportunities are limited due to geography.

I coached a G HS St. Paul Public Co-op for 3 years, and it is VERY had to overcome the economic issues as well as the stereotype of who plays hockey in the eyes of the community. We took way too many youth eligible kids to make this team viable towards the end. We also took on whole JV teams of kids that never played or skated before, but those days are past almost everywhere now. Even when we did it it was about 5 years past when that was acceptible.

I also coached in Bloomington, and I have to say that the East differs greatly from the West there. We did a lot of work just to keep the Kennedy program viable when it likely should have been co-oped with West Bloomington. HS V teams of 15 8th & 9th graders point to this sort of thing I believe. There are some decent youth numbers now I hear due to great efforts at the very youngest levels. I had nothing to do with that as I was gone as they started that initiative.

Bottom line for me re: Rochester is that NO KID should have to suffer. That doesn't matter if they've won 10 championships or never skated before on the worst team in the state.

I think some people in that conference should reevaluate their hatred for Rochester and not turn it on the kids who of no fault of their own are being punished for where they live and long-time bad feelings?

Maybe the conf. could say that they need a 1-2-3 year transition plan - but not just abruptly force this. Maybe though this was asked for before and nothing done?

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:09 pm

wrestlelaw3 wrote:It seems difficult to feel sorry for Rochester because they can't get over 30 girls to play varsity hockey. Rochester needs to build a program and provide opportunities for kids, not just build a power. Rochester and many of the coops in the cities should have been working at this for years, rather than trying to build all star teams within the city or a number of cities. There is more to girls' hockey than winning games.

I agree with you wrestlelaw, that building an all-star power is the wrong goal. This reputation is something that the Rochester boys youth hockey association has brought upon us, and the majority of parents in Rochester absolutely hate what RYHA has become. Some have tried to unseat the entrenched heads of state in RYHA, some have even tried to break off into a seperate youth hockey association. The power remains in the traveling commission, not the president, so they just continue to work toward one bantam A team for all of Rochester. Now...all that being said, you're wrong about Rochester's desire to build a girls hockey power by co-oping.

The success of the Rochester Mayo/Lourdes girls team is due to good fortune. Once in a while, a core group of good players comes through a school for a few years, and thats what's happening at Mayo. The Lourdes girls were added so that the number of players was even (about 20 for each) for both Rochester teams.

The intent is to give an opportunity to the girls to play hockey while maintaining the youth program, not stack one team with talent.

mrslasher · Post by **mrslasher** » Thu May 25, 2006 12:07 pm

SEhockeyDAD couldn't have said it better regarding Rochester, at least where the boys are concerned there are very serious agenda problems with many on the board that one could talk hours about. I've been encouraged the past year or two however with the effort from many folks in trying to recruit more girls into the program, the number of players seem to be rising, slowly at least. Even with that it will take a long time to get to where we have 3-4 viable HS programs, perhaps another decade even. There are many reasons for this, having the national figure skating association in town siphons off many girls, having a RYHA board only committed to A level boys programs (even that is a joke...), etc

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu May 25, 2006 3:04 pm

Some valid points that haven't been brought up regarding the Rochester situation:

Nearly all the rest of the Big Nine teams need to use 7th -9th graders to field their teams, the John Marshall and Century co-op gave these schools a potential unfair advantage because they didn't have too. The ease with which Rochester can co-op with each other can't be replicated in Austin or Winona. Giving two of the biggest schools an advantage like this isn't sportsmanship in any way shape or form. While participation is importnat it shouldn't be at the expense of fairness.

The ending of the Dover-Eyota co-op has more to do with the fear that kids will leave, say, JM because they aren't fielding a team and open enroll to Dover-Eyota (there is no open enrollment within the district) so they can play at Century or Mayo. This is exactly what opponenets of the OE system trumpet when trying to end it. The one DE girl can open enroll to Rochester if she chooses, so it's not all bad for her.

The fact that the Rochester public schools allow co-ops with Lourdes is gracious enough, they shouldn't have to bend to the will of the Lourdes people. If they want to play hockey bad enough and it's that importnat to them then they can go to the public schools.

Playing an independant schedule as a JM/Century co-op would be thumbing your nose at the Big Nine; not a good idea because the Rochester schools need the Big Nine more than the Big Nine needs them.

Most of the problems in Rochester girls hockey can be traced back to a couple of overzealous families that have turned the program on its knees. Given time I think girls hockey will grow in Rochester, but it's an agonizingly slow process. On the bright side, maybe the killing of one or two high school programs in the short term may just be the force needed to increase participation.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm

9% of the conf. is 7th & 8th. No team has more than 3 7th & 8th graders. 15% of the league is 9th graders. Rochester uses more 9th graders than all but Albert Lea & Mankato E/W. 10th-12th, there are two other teams with greater % team composition numbers than Rochester. Another is about the same as Rochester (Austin) based on % of team composition.

Varsity Roster Albert Seat
# Name Pos Grade
1 Kelli Hanson G 9
3 Jacqui Jepson D 9
5 Jenna Christensen C 9
6 Sarah Jensen** D 11
8 Brittany Osmundson W 9
9 Laura Hillman** C 12
11 Allison Stewart W 12
12 Madi Passingham W 8
13 Marissa Cottrell D 11
14 Abby Leach D 10
15 Lauren Klick W 8
16 Heather Bagley W 12
18 Ashton Larson W 10
21 Faren Culp D 11
22 Morgan Walton C 10
25 Haley Habana W 8
26 Katie Nelson D 9
30 Natasha Weigel G 12
31 Kendra Olchefske G 11

Team Roster for Austin
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
9 Shauna Bates D - - 11
21 Natalie Baudler F - - 11
20 Brenna Corbin D - - 11
7 Kyli Ellingson D - - 9
C 15 Kristin Faber C - - 11
C 5 Grace Heimsness F - - 11
10 Ally Hicks D - - 11
16 Ashley Hoffman F - - 11
12 Taylor Jenkins F - - 10
2 Kelsey Klapperick D - - 10
A 22 Jenna Knudtson F - - 11
11 Betty Moline D - - 10
30 Jessica Nemitz G - - 10
35 Amy Snyder G - - 11
27 Rebekah Swancutt C - - 8
6 Catherine Wagner C - - 9

Team Roster for Faribault
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
5 Kailen Aspelund D - - 10
10 Krista Bjoraker C - - 10
12 Abby Bloomquist W - - 11
15 Serena Elthon D - - 10
7 Ally Foley W - - 10
16 Brooke Hetletvedt W - - 10
14 Jackie Johnson C - - 8
1 Stephanie Kappes G - - 12
11 Erin Kastner W - - 10
17 Mackenzie Knack W - - 8
2 Anne LaRoche D - - 11
3 Julia Martin W - - 10
9 Alli Miller C - - 11
30 Kelsey Myos G - - 11
8 Melissa Rappe D - - 11
18 Justine Ross W - - 11

Team Roster for Mankato East
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
2 Stephanie Anderson F - - 10
14 Karrissa Davis F - - 11
19 Gina Ferraro F - - 11
9 Olivia Ferraro F - - 10
11 Sarah Hagberg F - - 11
13 Ann Hartman D - - 12
3 Carey Hoffman F - - 10
27 Courtney Holmes F - - 9
16 Ashley Jensen G - - 8
7 Heather Jensen D - - 11
6 larissa Jones D - - 10
10 Melanie Klimpel F - - 10
21 Kelsey Nielsen F - - 7
15 Klarissa Saiki F - - 9
4 Kaylee Sommer F - - 9
24 Martha Sorenson F - - 11
30 Ann Wheeler G - - 10
4 Katie Wiese F - - 12

Team Roster for Mankato West
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
16 Alyssa Black F - - Freshman
6 Katie Christensen D - - Junior
14 Alyssa Coughlin D - - Sophomore
12 Amie Ernst F - - Sophomore
4 Amy Fox F - - 9
A 31 Jenny Gorny G - - Senior
18 Katy Kvasnicka F - - Seventh
15 Vanessa Lioyd F - - Seventh
A 22 Kayley Lyons F - - Senior
1 Jennie Maes G - - Freshman
5 Emily McCarger F - - Junior
9 Amber Ostoff D - - Freshman
24 Amanda Probach F - - Eighth
13 Beth Schmitz D - - Sophomore
C 17 Emily Schmitz D - - Senior
C 7 Amanda Umhoefer F - - Junior
11 Tara Wegner F - - Sophomore

Varsity Roster Owatonna
# Name Pos Grade
1 Amy Madson G 11
3 Lindsay Sawatzky F 11
5 Nikki Oakes F 12
6 Kristi DeCoux D 12
7 Jessica Kniefel F 11
8 Jordie Braget D 10
10 Elizabeth Kern F 12
11 Madeline Hammer D 11
13 Alex Paffrath F 12
14 Maggie Jenkins D 12
15 Katie Wagoner D 11
16 Lauren Johnson D 11
18 Abbi Miller F 12
23 Steph Hale F 9
25 Katie Baldwin F 12
26 Lauren McKenzie F 10
27 Jenny Sittig F 10
28 Megan Kramer F 10
30 Emily Belmore G 12

Team Roster for Roch. John Marshall/Century
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
7 Elizabeth Christensen F - - 11
24 Morgan Dickson F - - 11
15 Katie Frischmann D - - 9
20 Kelsey Grinhaug F - - 9
17 Jodi Holland C - - 12
19 Katie Hurtis D - - 12
18 Kathy Keller D - - 12
23 Taylor Knapp F - - 9
4 Aleasha Kreinbring C - - 11
30 Elizabeth Maide G - - 9
3 Amanda McCoy C - - 12
2 Sammi McNaughton F - - 11
14 Courtney Messmer F - - 10
21 Alicia Mogen F - - 10
1 Kelly Nordine G - - 12
13 Tiffany Pirius D - - 12
9 Brittany Raddatz D - - 10
8 Miranda Shubert F - - 11
11 Michelle Steege F - - 10
6 Angela Stilwell F - - 12
5 Erika Strom D - - 12
16 Alexa Turner F - - 10

Team Roster for Roch. Mayo
# PLAYER NAME POS HT WT GRADE
8 Kristin Anderson F - - 12
12 Nicole Anderson D - - 11
17 Aubrey Austin F - - 11
15 Brittany Erickson F - - 11
19 Stevie Fiek F - - 10
2 Nikki Galanits F - - 11
16 Melissa Grinde F - - 11
C 14 Allie Harwood F - - 11
24 Nara Higano D - - 10
11 Karah Jones F - - 10
C 5 Gretchen Leyendecker F - - 11
22 Stephanie Mathiowetz D - - 11
20 Sara Miller D - - 11
1 Sinead Murphy G - - 10
9 Clara Nellans D - - 9
3 Melena Nelson F - - 9
C 10 Katie Psimos F - - 11
4 Alyssa Weise F - - 9
30 Kayla Weise G - - 11

Varsity Roster Winona
# Name Pos Grade
1 Molly Rader G 11
2 Taylor Yess D 8
3 Justine Lueck(C) C 12
4 Rachel Sanvik D 10
5 Lauren Borkowski(St. Charles) D 8
7 Stephanie Lewis F 10
8 Gretchen Theis(C) C 9
9 Briahna Miner F 11
10 Annie Mahoney D 11
11 Gretchen Larson F 8
12 Emily Wychgram C 10
13 Victoria Ferden C 10
14 Faryn Cooper D 9
15 Jamie Burt C 12
16 Sam Gale(C) D 11
17 Gina Culp D 11
19 Anna Ferris(C) F 11
21 Katie Florin(C) F 11
33 Alexa Gibbs G 11[/img]

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Thu May 25, 2006 10:59 pm

Ok, still only 3 teams didn't have any 7th and 8th graders (U14) including both Rochester co-op teams, boys teams in Rochester routinely have 9th gradres on their JV's so 9th graders is a bad example. Given the fact that most would agree you need 14 girls to field a team, at least that's the cutoff Rochester is using for next year, without 7th and 8th graders Austin would be out, Fariabult and West would be on the edge last year. JM/C and West will be close this year with most of the rest aside from Mayo and Owatonna,which seem to have the youth numbers, perilously close again this year.

Your stats only show that basically 1 in 10 players in the Big Nine are 7th or 8th graders and if JM and Century were to continue and have their own seperate programs that number would go up significantly. My point still is and your stats really only back it up, that to keep a co-op like JM/Century is an advantage over the rest of the teams whom are struggling to feild enough girls.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri May 26, 2006 12:01 am

I was just looking at the numbers for the first time. Just some observations. Honestly, I expected Roch. to be far worse from a numerical/statistical standpoint. That's probably the reason that the "voice" of the last message was a little surprised at the lack of total overwhelming statistical data to show drastic advantages/problems with Roch.

What skews these numbers too is that we don't know the JV composition (if one exists) and there are other factors as well I'm sure.

Plus, assuming a JV team or two in Roch collectively, that means that numbers alone are much greater in Roch vs. elsewhere where all the numbers we see listed are all they have.

I don't believe that breaking up co-ops is good though unless you can field teams w/out many, many kids being 7th-8th-9th HS players. When you have no choice, like many Big 9 teams, that's one thing, but when you have a choice, and your Conf. says you don't? That's like saying you must suffer like we do even though you don't have to. Which, to me, makes little sense as far as what's best for kids or the development of girls hockey in general.

FWIW - my conf. says you can't co-op, no matter how bad things get. So, one of our Conf. teams went JV only last year vs. being able to co-op with their sister school in the same district. It was too bad, but it was what was best for them and the only option by conf. rules. So, I can understand this sort of thing, and the rule in our conf. is likely on the books for the same reason that the Big 9 schools want Roch broken up - so that no co-op team dominates the conf.

The danger for any co-op is if it becomes too good. If it is average to worse, no one cares, it' sonly when it becomes successful that the drama begins...

SEhockeyDAD · Post by **SEhockeyDAD** » Fri May 26, 2006 8:44 am

goldy313 wrote:Nearly all the rest of the Big Nine teams need to use 7th -9th graders to field their teams, the John Marshall and Century co-op gave these schools a potential unfair advantage because they didn't have too. The ease with which Rochester can co-op with each other can't be replicated in Austin or Winona. Giving two of the biggest schools an advantage like this isn't sportsmanship in any way shape or form. While participation is importnat it shouldn't be at the expense of fairness.

If this were truly an issue about potential unfairness, then by this logic, U14 hockey should be abolished and every HS team in the state should have to roster 7th-9th graders. This argument doesn't sit well with me because it would deny any team the right to create solutions because the smaller communities don't have the same resources. In other words, "since we can't do that, then you can't either."

As I said before, Rochester isn't even trying to build a power. The JM/Century team is losing 8 seniors to graduation, with fewer, younger and almost certainly less talented young players replacing them. There's no need to worry about potential unfairness in this situation. And when the time comes for each Rochester school to have its own team, it'll happen immediately. Rochester parents themselves tried to force that issue 3 years ago, but at the last minute the schools realized that it couldn't be done.

One last point about 7th-9th graders. In the end, its entirely up to the parents of those young players whether or not they play HS hockey. Most of the time, that decision is made because they perceive that its a better situation for their daughter to play at a higher level, or because its less costly than youth hockey. I've never heard that someone's young daughter was required to play HS hockey so that the HS team wouldn't collapse from lack of players.

goldy313 wrote:The fact that the Rochester public schools allow co-ops with Lourdes is gracious enough, they shouldn't have to bend to the will of the Lourdes people. If they want to play hockey bad enough and it's that importnat to them then they can go to the public schools.

This is probably unfair to say about the Lourdes families. Rochester schools don't "bend to the will" of Lourdes, they simply open an avenue of participation to 4 girls who want to play hockey.

goldy313 wrote:Most of the problems in Rochester girls hockey can be traced back to a couple of overzealous families that have turned the program on its knees.

I have no idea how to respond to this, because I have no knowledge of anything like this occuring. If a couple of families have caused girls to stay away from playing hockey in Rochester, then I've totally missed it.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

coop teams

Re: Rochester's Co-op Changing

Rochester

disgrace?

Re: disgrace?

How many

Building Girls Hockey

Re: Building Girls Hockey

Rochester co-op

Re: Rochester co-op

Rochester co-op

Good decisions

Re: Rochester co-op

Re: Rochester co-op

Re: Rochester co-op

compromise?

Inner City Co-ops

Rochester co-ops

SEhockeyDAD

Big 9 Rosters

just stats