Park Center, Osseo, & TriCity became 1 team now

[Purehockey]

Is this true?

[ghshockeyfan]

Is this true?

Yes - a possibility.

I would like to know which team's schedule they will follow - I assume Tri-City's.
St. Paul Pioneer Press 6/20/06


http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 856656.htm

Posted on Tue, Jun. 20, 2006
Area Report

.
.
.

TWIN CITIES

Park Center

Hockey: It is expected that Park Center will take part in cooperative boys and girls hockey programs next season with the three schools that used to make up the Tri-City teams: Fridley, Columbia Heights and Brooklyn Center.

Osseo also could be part of the cooperative agreement.

The teams would play in the Northwest Suburban Conference and could go by the name North Metro Stars.

.
.
.

— Mike Fermoyle

[SEMetro]

Wow, huge co-op, but drawing from many parts where demographics are not ideal for a sport as expensive as hockey.

[ghshockeyfan]

Wow, huge co-op, but drawing from many parts where demographics are not ideal for a sport as expensive as hockey.

In my humble opinion, there are times when a co-op is best as an interim or long-term solution if participation numbers of non-youth age can't be maintained/raised to field a true competitive Varsity HS program. In economically challenging or non-traditional hockey demographics this can be important to maintain solid footing and not allowing a sport to slip away entirely. I believe we've seen evidence of this in some of the St. Paul & Mpls boys & girls co-ops over the last 10-15 years. In St. Paul, they actually had a very unique approach to this. They started with one G HS team, had a wave of large numbers come through, split that one G HS team in two for 4 years, and after that wave of girls moved through they went back to one team (as the numbers couldn't sustain two teams long term).

[hockeywild7]

Why is Park Center cooping? Look at their roster, they only lose one player on a team that went 12-12-2.

[ghshockeyfan]

Why is Park Center cooping? Look at their roster, they only lose one player on a team that went 12-12-2.

Lots of things are considered. MSHSL & others rarely consider competitive factors - i.e. they don't care about winning/losing, just number of participants. So - if case can be made that there aren't enough players in these communities to have teams, then they can go for co-op application.

The one thing that I think needs to be more well defined is the notion of who gets counted. I don't believe that U12, or even U14 eligible players, below grade 9 should be counted. Often they will count down to 7th grade and that isn't an accurate picture always of who is ready to play HS hockey.

Also, I think some language should be included stating certain initiatives at the Mite/U8 levels must be done recruiting wise by the individual members of the co-op. This would be in addition to stipulating some sort of multi-year "Plan" to move to independent teams again if the recruiting/plan can be successful - but that might be a 10+ year plan if you're starting with 4-5 year olds at the youngest levels and building from the base up vs. top-down.

Also, as part of that plan, I would look at trying to FORCE those same communities that co-op HS wise to co-op U14 wise - and maybe even U12 wise too - so that there is stability in their youth program while the young recruited players move up the ranks from the bottom. A co-op at the top does no good if it continues to suck U12 players out of depleted youth ranks early to make HS teams viable long term. Periodic dips in numbers or a group of stellar younger players comes along one-in-a-while that could crack the HS ranks at a young age, but this shouldn't be the long term plan to continue to be moving such young players in to make HS team viable year-after-year.

And, no HS program wants to become a private/OE school feeder (i.e. go play HS in 7th/8th/9th and then move to private/OE) - so this is another reason why co-ops may be best in some situations - it just may keep those players from leaving if their concerns are "hockey only" - but this is rarely the case.

Bottom line - co-ops shouldn't be viewed as "giving-up" and always a "long-term" solution, but instead they should be a restructuring that will be part of a long-term plan to attempt to address the problem - lack of participation - with a suitable plan.

[hockeywild7]

I hear what your saying, but i have to wonder where the high school league thinks all the players who will be cut or quit because they dont have a place to play on the high school team will go. Park Center is only losing one senior so where are all the tri city girls going to play? JV? Its funny how the High School League adds numerous classes to each sport to provide more opportunities to participate and yet this would seem to counter that in some ways. I will say i have no idea on the youth numbers in any of these programs which must be the obvious problem.

[ghshockeyfan]

I agree on this being opposite the MSHSL "participation" based mission in some respects, but there is another side to this as well...

If co-ops are waited on (or not done at all) until the last minute, they can't be done then once the season has started and the kids at that school that didn't co-op that doesn't have enough players will then be stuck with no place to play that year.

And, it may be that with some of these programs that a restructuring under co-op will actually move some young players back to the U14 or even U12 youth ranks?

A co-op creates some stability as well - and that is important too in that there will be a place to play one day for kids in a community - vs. uncertainty, etc. Hard to get parents to invest in a sport this expensive to begin with, but then to add the drama of not knowing if HS admin. will do what's best to sustain the sport long term? Doesn't help... So, I see this as a proactive move in the best interests of G Hockey (as long as some effort is made to recruit young players in and not let the sport "die" in the community).

[ghshockeyfan]

Sounds like it is Tri City & Park Center potentially pending MSHSL approval. Will follow Park Center schedule if approved.

[SEMetro]

I have to disagree with the problem of having to cut a few girls/send girls to JV via co-oping. There are places for recreational girls to play (U19's and womens), and improving the overall skill level of girls high school hockey is needed for many teams. In comparison with boys, the number of girls that get cut off a high school team is minute.

Plus, does anyone think large coops from older/first ring suburbs will suddenly crush the private schools or the public school OE abusers?

[Purehockey]

What about the other teams with small numbers? Will Coon Rapids be added in the next couple years they cant even get a U-14 team.

[ghshockeyfan]

It was brought to my atention recently that these three programs all had Varsity teams last year (obvioulsy), and that they may have had JV's too...

Does anyone know the numbers for these programs? Meaning, how many returning JV &/or V players per team?

[ghshockeyfan]

This co-op is a go. It was passed by the MSHSL recently. Jack Gravel is the head coach. Jack was at BSM last year. I think this team will do very well this season.

[SEhockeyDAD]

A couple ironies:

This new co-op will be integrating players into a viable team which lost only 1 player. Meanwhile, the Rochester co-op was forced to split despite low numbers, so much so that there will be no Rochester U14 team this year and Century is rostering girls with no hockey experience.

Also, Mayo HS will not only play the formerly co-oped JM & Century teams, they also already had Park Center on their schedule, now the newly co-oped North Metro Stars

Also, I'm wondering:

There are places for recreational girls to play (U19's and womens), and improving the overall skill level of girls high school hockey is needed for many teams.

Plus, does anyone think large coops from older/first ring suburbs will suddenly crush the private schools or the public school OE abusers?

Why do girls need to be removed from HS hockey in order for the overall skill level of GHS hockey to improve? IMO, its more important for girls to be able to play for their high schools than for there to be fewer, more skilled teams for the better players.

As for recreational opportunities, the cost of playing on those teams might be too high for the consolation of being cut from the HS team. In my perfect world, if a co-op forces girls out of the HS team, it should cost less money for the cut girls who still want to play hockey than for the girls who are privileged to play on the higher skilled team.

As for competing with the private schools or the public school OE abusers, look to Roseville for the right way to do it. They took a really good team to state last year with no OE players.

[SEMetro]

No doubt you can go one of two ways: (1) look to have girls high school hockey be geared more for recreational and new players - and have the dedicated players look outside high school for competition (AAA/Club hockey); or (2) strive to have high school hockey constantly increasing the skill level to the point where you have teams of dedicated players - and if an area can't field competitive teams - look to combine high school numbers until a modest level of talent exists.

I personally don't understand the notion that no one should be cut from girls hockey teams. Should we make the Edina boys high school team field 6-7 varsity hockey teams so no boy ever gets cut and has to play junior gold or U16s?

[SEhockeyDAD]

- and if an area can't field competitive teams - look to combine high school numbers until a modest level of talent exists.

I'd prefer to think that a co-op is created to keep a sport available for those who want to participate. The danger of combining programs in order to field a "competitive" team is that someone eventually interprets that to mean competitive at the state tournament. While the MSHLA probably wouldn't allow a Wayzata-Hopkins co-op in order to compete with EP, I doubt that they want to decide where the line should be drawn at all. Instead of trying to decide what competitive means, maybe co-op or not to co-op should just be based on keeping the sport available wherever possible.

I guess thats why I feel its a shame if some girls get cut from the North Metro Stars. Sure, cuts happen, its been that way for a long time and there'll be cuts for a long time. Maybe its just me, but it seems like a bitter situation when players are cut after teams are combined. Imagine yourself as the parent of a cut player and this is what you're left with; because of low participation, the team needed to remain viable, so its now a bigger team and your daughter's been cut.
Low participation = cutting players? Thats tough to take.

[Rinkrat95]

I don't think anyone involved in this decision looked at it as being more competitive for a title. They might start out doing well, but I think the entire state has seen the peak of girls/womens hockey. There is only so much one can do if there isn't enough money to go around. I know here in woodbury, there are thriving teams for girls to play on, but in the future, we too might have to look to co oping just to keep a team full.

[SEMetro]

Competitive simply means that you can give a decent game to teams in your geography.

No serious hockey player or hockey team want to play against a team of inexperienced players or a U12 aged team and run up the score. Presently - way too many 7+ goal games - way too many 7th graders - way too many teams that can't field a JV or U14 - all of the things that are always discussed here.

Rather see MSHSL reasonably allow coops and strengthen girls high school hockey than lower the level of play and have even more of the better players flock to T-Breds and/or develop other AAA teams. Realistically, I see zero likelihood that stronger, established programs will combo just to beat EP at state. But could a couple of struggling teams without numbers at JV and U14 combine to get competitive with surrounding communities? Makes sense to me.

And - there is a home for those that get cut -

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/news/news.asp?ID=85

[hockeywild7]

This coop is very odd if you ask me. Look at the number of players each team had and is returning.
Park Center returns 24 of 25 varsity players
Osseo returns 14 of 22 varsity players
Tri City returns 20 of 24 varsity players

That is 58 returning varsity players not counting the new players who are coming up and JV players.

This has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with winning.

[SportsMa]

Wow, those numbers certainly support your theory. Interesting!

[SEMetro]

I don't know too much about what happened and can't speak on the details, or even whether what happened was fair or not, but a quick review of sportshuddle shows:

Park Center was about .500 last year.

Tri-City 3-21 (0-11 in conf) and losing about 8 times by 7 or more goals - including two 15 goal losses to conference opponents BSM and Irondale.

Osseo: 4-22 (2-16 in conf) losing about 10 times by 7 or more goals- including getting 10-runned by conf. foes Anoka (twice), Coon Rapids, Elk River and Centenial. A St. Cloud team also posted double digits on the Orioles.

I think it is fair to say that someone may have at least considered helping the other two teams. I don't know any of the programs particulars (if there was a JV or U14) or how many U14 kids were pulled up, what the numbers look like in the future, etc.

[sammy8033]

25 varsity players???? Come on. Park Center only dressed about 15 skaters for the varsity games. The numbers are down. Osseo is only bringing over 6 to 10 players.

This is a much needed Co-op for this area. It sucks that these schools (Park Center, Fridley, Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Osseo) don't have enough hockey players at their schools to field their own program, but that's the way it is.

There won't be any more players trying out for this team than most of the other schools in the conference (Centennial, Maple Grove, Blaine, Anoka, etc.).

[ghshockeyfan]

Parity is not a concern of the MSHSL. Participation is. That being said, I understand the need to be proactive in some situations, but some will question the participation in this new co-op for obvious reasons.

The bottom line is that there are different problems and solutions everywhere. One approach won't work for all. For some, it's elevating younger players for a period of time to get through low points in participation. For other programs, they will look to co-op. Others will look at dropping JV's and fielding high level youth teams instead, etc. All of these are reasonable solutions depending on what best serves the most players in a specific situation.

My track record on youth players and co-ops, etc. is well documented, but I have to say that sometimes you have to make difficult choices as a HS coach/administrator/etc. to get by or survive long term. I will have one of the youngest teams ever in HS hockey this year as a result of similar considerations.

Program viability is key if you can see the need for a program long term. If long-term need isn't evident, and instead you're starting a long-term down trend, then things are different. It may be that some administrators are proactive and may co-op for a period of low participation and then split again, etc. Others may not. Sometimes this depends on if they have their finger on the pulse of the program enough to realize these things. This isn't always the case, and sometimes the perception at the top can be deceiving relative to what's going on below. And, other times, administrators can make decisions that become self-fulfilling prophecies. It's just not as simple & obvious as it may appear.

I guess what needs to be looked at is what is best for ALL the kids in these programs. I don't believe that winning is what should drive the co-op idea, but instead the notion of best development of all the kids. It may be that the administrators in this setting decided that a situation with emphasis on true HS players at the HS level and youth teams at the highest youth levels was best vs. young kids at the HS level. What drives this decision again should be about what the short, but also long, term looks like. If you see hope on the horizon, you may just try to get by, but if not, a co-op may be the answer...

The only way to really know what you're dealing with is to do a head count top-to-bottom in all the programs at the youth & HS levels and look at the projections based on this info.

By the way, in a somewhat related point, if parity is not a concern of the MSHSL and participation is... This is why we have tourneys of different classes. The problem though is that size of school doesn't dictate quality of team, and subsequently this correlation is flawed. This is why "Tiers" based on team quality vs. school population is better if the true goal is to get more participation of weaker teams in a state tourney vs. make two equal tourneys. The problem is that we perceive the goal of two equal tourneys, but that isn't the goal from what I can tell. The goal is participation in one tourney where it wouldn't otherwise happen and the AA being the real "quality" tourney.

[Butch Horner]

This coop is very odd if you ask me. Look at the number of players each team had and is returning.
Park Center returns 24 of 25 varsity players
Osseo returns 14 of 22 varsity players
Tri City returns 20 of 24 varsity players

That is 58 returning varsity players not counting the new players who are coming up and JV players.

This has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with winning.

Hi,
I'm Butch Horner and my daughter, Katie, has been a captain on the Park Center girls hockey team since she was a sophomore. I believe I can give you a little backround on this topic.
There co-captain goalie, Brittany Field left for Maple Grove. They will now have to rely on a girl with three Varsity games to her credit. She is a sophomore.
Park Center only skated 10 players regularly on varsity.
Of their "24" returners, seven have quit or moved. They only have 2 division III or higher players on their roster.
There coaching has lost more games than it's won, and I don't mean that from a wins and loses standpoint.
Tri-city's youth program has merged with Brooklyn Park Youth Hockey Association. They have a combined 6 U-14's who are all first years and totally not prepared for the pace of high school hockey. The athletic director at Park Center is only allowing 9-12 graders to play and no one, I repeat, one will be cut. The total girls represented at our first booster meeting was 33 with 20 of them being JV caliber.
This has nothing to do with winning.
It has everything to do with competing.
If it was about winning, my daughter would have fled the program and it's ghetto enviornment long ago. But she has school pride and wants to make the best of a bad situation because she is neither a quiter or a ship jumper.
I can't speak much for Osseo but I know their numbers are about 5-7 players. Without a co-op, they would have had to play outside of the high school structure.
I have to go but would be willing to answer any ?'s directly at a later time.
I tried very hard not to accuse anyone of being under informed but sometimes it's better to say nothing than to spew unsubstantiated opinions.

[SportsMa]

Thanks for the additional information regarding the cooperative. It is nice to read about an athlete that has school pride and loyalty and from the other thread has earned a great college opportunity. Hope the season goes well.