Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:01 pm

I can't believe you are blaming BB on this - it is all sports where kids (or their parents) have to play on winning programs - Football, Basketball, Wrestling ....you name it even soccer. Although getting notice by colleges in soccer is done by what club team you play for and what tournaments one goes to during the spring and summer

People who are against the new O/E policy are putting sports ahead of academics. If you need to be on a certain HS sports team then move to that community.

This affects more than just HS girls hockey but most of these suggestions are to keep the status quo based on what people feel should happen in their hockey world.

As far as private schools - they may need a special conference or section because private schools are just that....private and you can't limit their enrollment based on geographic location.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:15 pm

I don't like disproportionate hockey-talent private/NDP-heavy OE public domination, but I hate the idea of taking away a year of athletics from many kids. I wonder how many kids really move for athletics when so many move for academics and want to play athletics too...

If the MSHSL is set on doing something, I'm far more in support then of moving top-talent privates & OE NDP-heavy publics into one section as this is the big complaint by all - Post Season considerations.

Don't take away athletics from kids in their first year of OE or Private School as that may well be what makes or breaks their experience and helps them acclimate and also introduces them to other likely good kids that are student-athletes.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:36 pm

ghshockeyfan wrote:If the MSHSL is set on doing something, I'm far more in support then of moving top-talent privates & OE NDP-heavy publics into one section as this is the big complaint by all - Post Season considerations.

I don't think this is a practical solution either because the "top-talent privates & OE NDP-heavy publics" will change a lot from year to year. If continual equity is the goal, wouldn't this require constant realignment of the sections and a lot of meddling, depending on which privates are doing well and how many NDP-level players are on the various public schools?

Don't take away athletics from kids in their first year of OE or Private School as that may well be what makes or breaks their experience and helps them acclimate and also introduces them to other likely good kids that are student-athletes. [/quote]

This I agree with 100%. If the MSHSL is set on doing something I hope it wouldn't affect any kid that starts at a school at the beginning of 10th grade or earlier.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 am

MNHockeyFan wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:If the MSHSL is set on doing something, I'm far more in support then of moving top-talent privates & OE NDP-heavy publics into one section as this is the big complaint by all - Post Season considerations.
I don't think this is a practical solution either because the "top-talent privates & OE NDP-heavy publics" will change a lot from year to year. If continual equity is the goal, wouldn't this require constant realignment of the sections and a lot of meddling, depending on which privates are doing well and how many NDP-level players are on the various public schools?

I think it's far more practical that we want to realize. How hard is it to wait until even now in a season to determine which privates and publics need to be in such a section? I mean, all that has to happen is that a section needs to be dedicated to this type of setup and all teams then assigned to the other 7 as they do currently by geography/size. Then, by this point in the year, the top privates & OE publics will be well-defined and they could be designated for that section. The other sections remain the same minus those teams. We have to remember that ice is booked, etc. no matter what as there are 8 sections, etc. - it's always just a matter of which teams are playing where & when - not if...

As I've said all along though I'd like to see something even different from this as I think we're not accomplishing the goals of classes right now. We have some A teams that belong in AA and vice-versa based on OE/Private domination or lack of talent. Tiers are the solution, and under such a setup it would be easy to do an OE/Private section.

Note that such a section under any set-up would essentially be the equivalent of section 6AA now anyway, but 3x worse as all the top teams in the state would likely fall into that OE/Private section which is not good in many ways as that section would be the true state tourney...

Remember too that people said tiers didn't work for boys initially, but in actuality they accomplished exactly what the MSHSL set out to do! The problem was that no matter what they had it would be "bad" as many were upset with the move to a multi-tourney setup of any kind. Classes are great, but the problem is that some think that the goal of Class A is to be equal to AA which of course is an absurd idea. The goal of A is to get more non-traditional hockey communities involved in a state tourney to help promote the sport in new areas - and also to give smaller school homegrown teams a chance to compete for a title when they never would with talent-attracting privates or huge publics. The flaw of course in this is that there is no mechanism to force privates/OE A schools up to AA and also it isn't always true that size dictates talent, although it typically does... I would think though that a homegrown small-school team when having the best ever group would prefer to challenge for a true top tourney state title vs. winning a 2nd rate Class A? Tiers would enable this and remove the 4-year opt-up commitment that is keeping teams in A that should be in AA... But this is a matter of opinion I suppose...

If MSHSL did Tiers and it worked 10 years ago (note I didn't say it was popular), they could do a top-private/OE-public section - or even do tiers again but better with an explanation of what it is that a multi-tourney setup is supposed to really accomplish as it's obvious that many don't understand this concept.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:09 am

So what happened to the comrade of playing with the kids you grew up with and played with back when.
And that feeling at your pep rally when you feel like you belong,
How about being the hometown hero or a roll model.

News flash! It's 2007

ice29 · Post by **ice29** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:22 am

[ghshockeyfan]quote:
- I would think though that a homegrown small-school team when having the best ever group would prefer to challenge for a true top tourney state title vs. winning a 2nd rate Class A? -

I have read alot of your posts and respect and agree with most. I think you have alot idea's that are solid and progressive when it comes to Girls Hockey. But, it seems that you continually make statements about A size schools.
Re: quote-(I would think though that a homegrown small-school team when having the best ever group would prefer to challenge for a true top tourney state title vs. winning a 2nd rate Class A?)

I think a responsible AA High School coach would not ASSUME what a A Coach or more important an "A Athlete would prefer". And to state that there is a True Top State Title is Ingorant. Competition at any level in regards to School Size what the present and future is about in hockey.

Let us not quote Past Idea's from old pre-Girls Hockey State Tournaments days. A STATE TITLE IS A STATE TITLE - THE ATHLETE'S EARN THE RESPECT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMNET TO GET THERE AND PARTICIPATE. NOT THE COACHES OR THEIR SCHOOLS, A OR AA.

I can't see the difference in an alphebetical letter in regards to talent.

[/quote]

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:58 am

Hey xk1,

Did you watch FSN coverage on Saturday's hockey day in MN ???

Several of the MN HS stars of the past were interviewed about their HS hockey experience - IE winning the HS State Tourney etc etc. These guys had all gone on to very successful NHL careers, and one of them even played on the 1980 Olympic Gold Medal Team. To a man, they all said that playing in the HS hockey tourney WITH THEIR BUDDIES THEY HAD PLAYED WITH ALL THEY WAY UP IN YOUTH HOCKEY was their biggest thrill in their entire career. You didn't hear them say - wow - a few of us top players all decided to O/E to the best program in our area, and team up for a run at State with a bunch of players we only know from AAA hockey in the summers !!!!

Food for thought from an old fashioned hockey guy

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:36 am

I have to respectfully disagree about a tier-based state tournament.

If you go to tiers, based upon some kind of computer model like KRACH (aka, the "BCS" for girls hockey), wouldn't you likely change the dynamics of how coaches schedule their non-conference games? Will coaches tend to take fewer risks, especially early, as now (as in college football) EVERY game becomes critical? Will coaches tend to play their younger players less because of the potential for mistakes? And not all coaches are pure when it comes to competing in their proper class size. There would definately be a degree of sandbagging and a TON of disputes about rankings and the computer model. I bet you'd see predominantely large class AA schools win the "Tier II" championship year after year, and they would take it every time. And a great class 1A school might never get the title they deserve because when it's "their year" they are suddenly moved up to Tier I in mid-season.

I still like the class system the way it is. Nothing lasts forever, and some small changes will significantly impact the OE problem. If late (Junior and Senior) transfers were made impractical for both school and athlete, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would be a lot more parity. Take EP out of the picture right now (or leave them in, I think they are vulnerable this year) and there are several teams who can make a run for the 2A title. In 1A, there hasn't been a true dynasty team yet, so what is the problem? This year's powerhouse might be next year's bottom-feeder-- as we know, a few graduating superstars, or a solid class of maturing youngsters can drmatically change a team's fortunes.

For instance when a very good young 1A team like Simley

has a great chance to mature and win state 1A in say, 2010, what happens when they are suddenly thrust into tier I and forced to go through schools that are twice their size? One could argue they are being punished for their success. While a coach like GHS might embrace the competition for the development of his players, not all coaches, few in fact, will take their lumps against the best competition when winning is what keeps them employed and makes players and parents happy.

Making large, sweeping changes to solve what is a short-term problem is a mistake IMO. Tinker with the HS system too much and you may inadvertently create a rise to more club teams and damage the HS structure. Instead make a number of incremental changes over a few years and try to leave intact what is already the finest high school hockey tradition in the country.

(edited for spelling)

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:38 am

Rube,

Yes I did, I wish things were like you and guys that played HS hockey 20 years ago remembered. In those days kids spent every moment they could at the rink or on outdoor ice. Sadly this just doesn't describe the way life is in much of the Metro today and no you can't blame that on OE or privates. I envy those metro girls programs that have the numbers to produce a set of kids that work hard, care about hockey and go through mites to HS, they definitely exist in places like Edina, Wayzeta, Roseville and others but this is not the norm and won't be until the numbers go way up from where they are now. Numbers are something that takes years to fix and I believe is the main reason girls transfer from a sports persepective.

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:49 am

XK1,

True enough - all of our opinions are somewhat tainted by the situaton we find ourselves in. I just thought it was kind of neat to see those interviews. As you can tell in my posts, I am one of the people that opposes the current O/E, and believe that it needs to have some sort of control/restraint to help prevent the next EP from forming.

I choose to celebrate those kids that choose to stick with their hometown program regardless of their chance at going to State, or getting exposure, or listening to their AAA buddies talk about how cool it was to go to State and suggest to our hometown kid that they simply O/E in order to join in the fun. I respect these kids for their character, and their loyalty to their hometown buddies - kids like Laura May from Mahtomedi, and many, many, many more just like her.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:52 am

xk1 wrote:Rube,

Yes I did, I wish things were like you and guys that played HS hockey 20 years ago remembered. In those days kids spent every moment they could at the rink or on outdoor ice. Sadly this just doesn't describe the way life is in much of the Metro today and no you can't blame that on OE or privates. I envy those metro girls programs that have the numbers to produce a set of kids that work hard, care about hockey and go through mites to HS, they definitely exist in places like Edina, Wayzeta, Roseville and others but this is not the norm and won't be until the numbers go way up from where they are now. Numbers are something that takes years to fix and I believe is the main reason girls transfer from a sports persepective.

Good post. The low numbers in girls HS hockey (vs. boys) is a substantial contributor to the issues being discussed.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:03 am

Rube,

I think (and I don't really know if what I think is truye) Laura May stayed with her team because there are like 10 juniors and seniors, that is, she stayed with her friends. I suspect players that transfer don't have that core group of friends to be loyal to.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:26 am

I should clarify for all that I only propose tiers vs. classes if we're going to push all the top private & public OE teams in to one section (else I say leave all as is). I see this solution as the best of two bad options that may appease those upset. I don't agree in taking away HS athletics from kids. And I say this being the coach of a true homegrown class A small school team that had regularly lost its best players to a neighboring community that used those kids in its road to building a perennial powerhouse (along with some great internal kids too might I add).

I also look at the philosophy of the MSHSL in having multi-level tourneys and understand the rationale. To say the 2nd level tourney is equal to the first though isn't really true I don't think - nor is it the intention of the MSHSL. And, I must add, that if we went to a tiered system my truly homegrown small-school class A team would have been the last team sucked up by this into the 64th slot last year - would be one of the last few in the top tourney this year, etc. I would hope that most coaches/teams would think that this was an honor, a sign of a program moving in the right direction, and welcome the challenge, but I can understand that some may not.

In that same thought, the KRACH (or BCS in some respects) has shown that you need to play top teams to be considered a top team. Of course, you have to win too against these top teams, but the point is that you likely won't have a situation where a team makes it into the top 64 for the top tourney w/o really belonging there. I will agree that there are some teams with weak SOS but nearly unbeaten records high still on the overall list, but the point is that they would still be included in the top 64 no matter what I think most would agree.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:30 am

keepitreal wrote:I have to respectfully disagree about a tier-based state tournament.

If you go to tiers, based upon some kind of computer model like KRACH (aka, the "BCS" for girls hockey), wouldn't you likely change the dynamics of how coaches schedule their non-conference games? Will coaches tend to take fewer risks, especially early, as now (as in college football) EVERY game becomes critical? Will coaches tend to play their younger players less because of the potential for mistakes? And not all coaches are pure when it comes to competing in their proper class size. There would definately be a degree of sandbagging and a TON of disputes about rankings and the computer model. I bet you'd see predominantely large class AA schools win the "Tier II" championship year after year, and they would take it every time. And a great class 1A school might never get the title they deserve because when it's "their year" they are suddenly moved up to Tier I in mid-season.

I still like the class system the way it is. Nothing lasts forever, and some small changes will significantly impact the OE problem. If late (Junior and Senior) transfers were made impractical for both school and athlete, we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would be a lot more parity. Take EP out of the picture right now (or leave them in, I think they are vulnerable this year) and there are several teams who can make a run for the 2A title. In 1A, there hasn't been a true dynasty team yet, so what is the problem? This year's powerhouse might be next year's bottom-feeder-- as we know, a few graduating superstars, or a solid class of maturing youngsters can drmatically change a team's fortunes.

For instance when a very good young 1A team like Simley has a great chance to mature and win state 1A in say, 2010, what happens when they are suddenly thrust into tier I and forced to go through schools that are twice their size? One could argue they are being punished for their success. While a coach like GHS might embrace the competition for the development of his players, not all coaches, few in fact, will take their lumps against the best competition when winning is what keeps them employed and makes players and parents happy.

Making large, sweeping changes to solve what is a short-term problem is a mistake IMO. Tinker with the HS system too much and you may inadvertently create a rise to more club teams and damage the HS structure. Instead make a number of incremental changes over a few years and try to leave intact what is already the finest high school hockey tradition in the country.

(edited for spelling)

I agree with most of this, but see my prior post for clairification. ANd, it appears that Simley will be AA by 2010 so I guess it's probably not fair for me to make the tiers argument in that my team will be in the top tourney playoffs anyway by then, but 2010 is a long way off too - so who knows...

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:35 am

ice29 wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:I would think though that a homegrown small-school team when having the best ever group would prefer to challenge for a true top tourney state title vs. winning a 2nd rate Class A?
I have read alot of your posts and respect and agree with most. I think you have alot idea's that are solid and progressive when it comes to Girls Hockey. But, it seems that you continually make statements about A size schools.

ghshockeyfan wrote:I would think though that a homegrown small-school team when having the best ever group would prefer to challenge for a true top tourney state title vs. winning a 2nd rate Class A?
I think a responsible AA High School coach would not ASSUME what a A Coach or more important an "A Athlete would prefer". And to state that there is a True Top State Title is Ingorant. Competition at any level in regards to School Size what the present and future is about in hockey.

Let us not quote Past Idea's from old pre-Girls Hockey State Tournaments days. A STATE TITLE IS A STATE TITLE - THE ATHLETE'S EARN THE RESPECT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMNET TO GET THERE AND PARTICIPATE. NOT THE COACHES OR THEIR SCHOOLS, A OR AA.

I can't see the difference in an alphebetical letter in regards to talent.

I think I hit a nerve with some on this thought - the philosophy of classes or a multi-level state tourney. I believe the philosphy of the MSHSL is all about participation. Hence the reason for having classes so that multiple levels or groups of less established teams/players get the chance to experience a tourney and help a sport grow in smaller less-developed communities that may not be traditional powers in specific sports or even in general athletics.

If we put a poll together on which tourney is the top tourney I think most would agree that the AA is it. Also, this is why the best private & even some public school teams are optiong for AA vs A.

As to this:

ice29 wrote:I think a responsible AA High School coach would not ASSUME what a A Coach or more important an "A Athlete would prefer". And to state that there is a True Top State Title is Ingorant. Competition at any level in regards to School Size what the present and future is about in hockey.

FYI - I say this being the coach of a true homegrown class A small school team...

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:17 pm

ghshockeyfan wrote:I would hope that most coaches/teams would think that this was an honor, a sign of a program moving in the right direction, and welcome the challenge, but I can understand that some may not.

Coach, I would expect nothing less from a development-oriented person with a long-term view like you. However I still maintain there are coaches and certainly many more parents who would work against this high mindedness, and you would have unapologetic class AA schools winning the tier II championship most years than not. Even if some see it as the NIT of girls high school hockey, trust me, they will gladly take the hardware. I predict that tiers would effectively choke out many/most 1A schools from ever winning, or perhaps even participating, in a state tournament --not that this is the end-all, be-all objective of girls hockey. I'm quite sure this is not what the MSHSL has in mind and going to the two class system in hockey years ago is the evidence.

The largest programs will always be strong. Smaller programs inhale and exhale. Some will never be competitive. However, the class and sectional system as we know it maintains traditional rivalries, promotes participation, and, although it might not always provide a true illustration of strength in a 1-8 manner for the state tournaments (as predicted by the flawless computer model), it does give the outstate teams assurance their region will be represented in each class and thus a reason to invest their efforts for the entire season.

Because you never know what might happen on a given day in February. Not even computers do.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:23 pm

keepitreal wrote:
ghshockeyfan wrote:I would hope that most coaches/teams would think that this was an honor, a sign of a program moving in the right direction, and welcome the challenge, but I can understand that some may not.
Coach, I would expect nothing less from a development-oriented person with a long-term view like you. However I still maintain there are coaches and certainly many more parents who would work against this high mindedness, and you would have unapologetic class AA schools winning the tier II championship most years than not. Even if some see it as the NIT of girls high school hockey, trust me, they will gladly take the hardware. I predict that tiers would effectively choke out many/most 1A schools from ever winning, or perhaps even participating, in a state tournament --not that this is the end-all, be-all objective of girls hockey. I'm quite sure this is not what the MSHSL has in mind and going to the two class system in hockey years ago is the evidence.

The largest programs will always be strong. Smaller programs inhale and exhale. Some will never be competitive. However, the class and sectional system as we know it maintains traditional rivalries, promotes participation, and, although it might not always provide a true illustration of strength in a 1-8 manner for the state tournaments (as predicted by the flawless computer model), it does give the outstate teams assurance their region will be represented in each class and thus a reason to invest their efforts for the entire season.

Because you never know what might happen on a given day in February. Not even computers do.

I can see the point in Classes, although I do think they are flawed in that they have no mechanism for moving up teams that belong in AA. I will say that I don't like the 4-year opt-up rule. If they did it 2-years even that would be sufficient I think (when sections are realigned every 2 years anyway).

Really though, I don't want the OE/Private rule to change nor do I believe that we should change the tourney. What we have now may be best as a change from it could be very bad if things start to get challenged from a legal standpoint. And, I don't agree with making kids sit out unless they've done something wrong. It's so comical to think that a kid can drink, do drugs, etc. and sit out 2 weeks and for OE'ing or going to a private school we want to take away a year?!?!? Now THAT's absurd!!! We need to get our priorities in line if you ask me...

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:46 pm

ghs,

You wrote.. "Really though, I don't want the OE/Private rule to change nor do I believe that we should change the tourney. What we have now may be best as a change from it could be very bad if things start to get challenged from a legal standpoint. And, I don't agree with making kids sit out unless they've done something wrong. It's so comical to think that a kid can drink, do drugs, etc. and sit out 2 weeks and for OE'ing or going to a private school we want to take away a year?!?!? Now THAT's absurd!!! We need to get our priorities in line if you ask me..."

I think your support of O/E is admirable considering you coach at a smaller homegrown program. However, the comparison you are trying to draw like comparing an apple/orange.
Apple-
With respect to the PENALTIES for drinking/drug violations - I could not agree more with you - IMO they should be more severe. The act is illegal, the kids know the rules, and if they choose to disobey the rules, they must accept the penalty.

Orange-
A 1 yr. waiting period for O/E is not a punishment at all. The kids will know that if they want O/E to a better school/environment for academic or other reasons, they will have to sit out a year of Varsity (can still practice with the team/play JV/play AAA/etcetc) athletics. Priorities you say.... we live in a state that if a kid doesn't like their school (for any reason it seems), allows that kid to O/E to any school of their choice for a better academic situation. Now that's freedom !! And if they do so prior to 9th grade, the 1 yr wait wouldn't even apply. Our priorities should be academics 1st, everything else 2nd. With all these choices, I have a hard time sympathizing with someone feeling that they have been penalized when this state bends over backwards for it's students.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:33 pm

I didn't know that a kid could still play hockey but just not V under the OE rule. I thought it was one year sit-out entirely. I guess I'd back-off my stance a bit that a sit-out rule would be bad for kids if they can play JV or even practice V, etc.

That aside, I guess a 1-year sit-out teaches that there are sacrifices to be made for seeking out better opportunities.

Also - I'm biased in that 1) I OE'd, 2) I watched a stacked private team win the section year-after-year in HS & at least once my HS team was runner-up...

hockeyrube · Post by **hockeyrube** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:11 pm

I am baised on the subject as well I guess. My HS team went to the Section Finals each yr, only to lose to the same private powerhouse. Never got to play in a State Tourney, but we sure had fun taking a run at the mighty private squad !!!

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:29 pm

hockeyrube wrote:ghs,

You wrote.. "Really though, I don't want the OE/Private rule to change nor do I believe that we should change the tourney. What we have now may be best as a change from it could be very bad if things start to get challenged from a legal standpoint. And, I don't agree with making kids sit out unless they've done something wrong. It's so comical to think that a kid can drink, do drugs, etc. and sit out 2 weeks and for OE'ing or going to a private school we want to take away a year?!?!? Now THAT's absurd!!! We need to get our priorities in line if you ask me..."

I think your support of O/E is admirable considering you coach at a smaller homegrown program. However, the comparison you are trying to draw like comparing an apple/orange.
Apple-
With respect to the PENALTIES for drinking/drug violations - I could not agree more with you - IMO they should be more severe. The act is illegal, the kids know the rules, and if they choose to disobey the rules, they must accept the penalty.

Orange-
A 1 yr. waiting period for O/E is not a punishment at all. The kids will know that if they want O/E to a better school/environment for academic or other reasons, they will have to sit out a year of Varsity (can still practice with the team/play JV/play AAA/etcetc) athletics. Priorities you say.... we live in a state that if a kid doesn't like their school (for any reason it seems), allows that kid to O/E to any school of their choice for a better academic situation. Now that's freedom !! And if they do so prior to 9th grade, the 1 yr wait wouldn't even apply. Our priorities should be academics 1st, everything else 2nd. With all these choices, I have a hard time sympathizing with someone feeling that they have been penalized when this state bends over backwards for it's students.

SPOT ON (soccer talk) BOOYAH! THANK YOU
Absolutely brilliant and well stated

ice29 · Post by **ice29** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:26 am

**** The largest programs will always be strong. Smaller programs inhale and exhale. Some will never be competitive. However, the class and sectional system as we know it maintains traditional rivalries, promotes participation, and, although it might not always provide a true illustration of strength in a 1-8 manner for the state tournaments (as predicted by the flawless computer model), it does give the outstate teams assurance their region will be represented in each class and thus a reason to invest their efforts for the entire season.

Keepitreal - Exactly correct!! I have been waiting for someone to make a true statement about the 2-class system vs. tier system.

Maybe the State Tournament should be re-named to a State Sports Festival. It brings in the best representation of all Regions (in feb.) to participate in a sports showcase for the Fans of Hockey to see what the whole State of Minnesota offers in hockey Talent. Large school by enrollment and small school, not by computer generated rankings. The idealogy about who is the best should be left to personal opinions, not who is standing at Center Ice on one Weekend in Febuary.

The true Hockey Rivalry in at the Regional Level not the State level. It should be something that is never forgotten or taken away. The more who get to participate, the more memories are generated. That is what High School sports are about.

( quote from ghshockeyfan : If we put a poll together on which tourney is the top tourney I think most would agree that the AA is it. Also, this is why the best private & even some public school teams are optiong for AA vs A.)

I thought the Billboard Says : Minnesota State High School Girls Tournament. I'll be waiting for the Minnesota State Girls AA Tournament Billboard to appear somewhere, but will probably appear in some POLL before the end of the season.

TheGame · Post by **TheGame** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:13 am

Let us not forget. If the OE rule that player must sit for a year is enacted those players who still want to play hockey have a couple of options: they can play Thoroughbreds or they can join one of the U19 teams that are now in existence. After one year they can then go to the H.S. varsity that they OEd to.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:20 am

TheGame wrote:Let us not forget. If the OE rule that player must sit for a year is enacted those players who still want to play hockey have a couple of options: they can play Thoroughbreds or they can join one of the U19 teams that are now in existence. After one year they can then go to the H.S. varsity that they OEd to.

If they have the money.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:32 am

ghshockeyfan wrote:
TheGame wrote:Let us not forget. If the OE rule that player must sit for a year is enacted those players who still want to play hockey have a couple of options: they can play Thoroughbreds or they can join one of the U19 teams that are now in existence. After one year they can then go to the H.S. varsity that they OEd to.
If they have the money.

They are still allowed to practice and play JV

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Solving the Transfer Policy Issue

tiers

Re: tiers