Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
That's the TRUTHwtbearlk1111 wrote:All you south metro people quit whining get in your Lexus, BMW or Mercedes and Enjoy a talk with your kid on the way down to Rochester. You don't hear Lakeville
whining about getting out of Section one in High School. Rochester
always puts good quality team on the ice. Get rid of Hudson and River Falls both long drives for poor quality team.
wtbearlk1111 wrote:All you south metro people quit whining get in your Lexus, BMW or Mercedes and Enjoy a talk with your kid on the way down to Rochester. You don't hear Lakeville
whining about getting out of Section one in High School. Rochester
always puts good quality team on the ice. Get rid of Hudson and River Falls both long drives for poor quality team.
This was just my thoughts to see what others think would work. I tried to even out some of the districts and move some competition around D6 and D2 are so strong yet they only have 9 and 12 associations in them yet D8 has 19. Move some of the stronger teams out of 6 and put them in 8 was just a way for strenghtening 1 and leveling out the other. There is a way for this to work and have even competition in these districts. If Rochester is threatening to sue let them try. It would be a huge waste of their money, they are having enough trouble with the new arena funding and attracting new blood in the program. Maybe they should work on that.Pucknutz69 wrote:This idea stinks also. RF and Hudson suck and SSP will be lucky to have a team at each level.freighttrain wrote:Got this off stickstats.com what are peoples thoughts on this
On January 10th, 2007, District Director Rich Rakness put forward a proposal to form a new InterDistrict league format with District 4. The proposal is a starting point for discussions and has been received and discussed in District 4, as well.
The proposal would form three geographical leagues for the two districts. The North, South, and West leagues could be applied to any appropriate level of play. The main idea is to help curb the extensive travel times that are found in these two large districts.
There is also a discussion that would divide District 8 into three geographic league areas. As example we could form an East (Cottage Grove, Hastings, Hudson, River Falls, South St Paul, Woodbury), a West (Eagan, Lakeville North, Lakeville South, Farmington, Rosemount, West St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights), and a South (Dodge County, La Crescent, Northfield, Red Wing, Rochester, Winona). Based on number of teams at each level, teams would play the other teams in their division twice and fill in their schedule with games from the other two divisions. Once again, the main idea is to help curb the travel times.
Rich has asked that the District 8 Associations discuss these proposals and get any feedback to him by February 1, 2007. He would like to arrange a meeting with the folks from District 4 for sometime in February, 2007. The meeting would include the two District Directors, members of the two District Boards, and representatives of the various District Associations.
Once again, please forward any questions/feedback to Rich by February 1, 2007.
Why do teams in D8 drive through and around teams in D6 to get to one another? IE; Lakeville to Woodbury you drive through AV, Burnsville and Eastview. I think CG and Woodbury should be put in D2.
How does this look?
D6
Bloom Jeff
Bloom Ken
Chaska
EP
Edina
Minnetonka
PL
Shakopee
Waconia
ADD
Eagan, WSP and River Heights (IGH/SSP)
D8
Dodge County
Farmington
Lacresent - make them join with Winona
Lakeville North and South
Northfield
Red Wing
Rochester
Rosemount
Winona - see Lacresent
ADD
Burnsville, Eastview and Apple Valley
D2
Forest Lake
Mahtomedi
Mounds View
North St Paul
Roseville
Stillwater
Tartan
White Bear Lake
ADD
Cottage Grove, Hastings and Woodbury
It would even the Districts out 2 with 12 teams and 1 with 11, it would also spread the top teams around instead of D6 being so strong, D8 only having 4 to 5 top teams and D2 adding some of each ( Woodbury Strong , CG middle and Hastings middle. ) It would also spread some of the travel around a little. All these teams see each other in tournaments so you wouldn't get sick of playing the same teams all the time.
What do you think?
The school will be 60% Woodbury and 40% CG. This would weaken CG but right now Woodbury has the numbers at the younger levels to where it would just be a couple of adjustment years. Look at the numbers in NSP and MV they aren't going up and have the same look as to what is happpening in SSP. The communities are getting older and not much new development is happening and the families moving in are not "hockey families" This will eventually lead to joining with Tartan or surrounding communities. The CottageBury situation will be a good thing. It will just have some growing pains. I think Woodbury and CG should just join together anyways, they share the same school district.SEMetro wrote:Woodbury and Cottage Grove will be weakened in a couple years when the new high school in between them takes 40% of the players from each program when it is created.
You are wrapping 2 different ideas into 1 response. I never said to make the whole southern mn into D4. Make D4 teams west of hwy 35.goldy313 wrote:A leveling of the playing field isn't going to happen, it can't happen.
District 4 is weak, spreading from the South Dakota border to the Wisconsin border just to make it competitive is stupid, the travel involved is prohibitive and will kill some of the programs who can only field 1 or 2 teams per level. Drop the 6 Southern teams from district 8 leaving 10 teams, move Eastview from 6 to 8, equalling their numbers. Move Albert Lea, Austin, Owatonna, and Faribault in with the 6 teams from district 8 and call them 7 or 9. Leave the 13 farther West teams in 4. Yes it does weaken 4 considerably but also cuts down on their travel, in fact it cuts down on nearly everyones travel.
Or do away with districts all together and put teams into their respective MSHSL administartive sections (1-8A or 1-8AA)and give teams the option to petition MN Hockey up or down depending on a number of conditions such as numbers of players and teams.