What would it take?

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:39 pm

There has been topic after topic of talk about hockey only being one class. There is good reason for it to not happen, but overall it seems that most would prefer hockey were a one class sport. I'm sure people will give them, but I'm curious what it would take for the sport to actually become one class, what would have to happen? Many people post on here, and that's great, but just posting your opinion on here doesn't change anything.

So, for those of you who know the process and how the MSHSL works, what would have to happen for the change to occur?

Pioneerprideguy · Post by **Pioneerprideguy** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:57 pm

Knowing the high school league, they would add another class before they opted to go back to 1 class.

finance_gal · Post by **finance_gal** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:03 pm

It would take someone in power (governor, state senator, congressperson) to care enough about bringing back 1 class that they would stand up to the MSHL and make them take another look at it. Right now the MSHL just dosn't want to deal with a controversial subject if they don't have to (and who can blame them).

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:27 pm

Well last time we dicussed this

it was 8 days 47 posts a move to the cafe and then a lock up and we still have 2 classes.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:45 pm

No, Can't Never Tried, you're a huge part of the reason that happens. The reason it got moved is because I wanted it to not be about hockey.

All I'm curious about is what it would take. It's obviously a money issue, as going to one class would take away a lot of revenue. But if it were to happen, would it take coaches wanting it, would people have to write letters, or what would need to happen?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:03 pm

The only way it is going to one class if the number of participating teams drops below the requisite magic number, something like 120 participating schools.

Govs93 · Post by **Govs93** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:23 pm

HShockeywatcher wrote: It's obviously a money issue, as going to one class would take away a lot of revenue.

How do you figure it's money? The MSHSL signs broadcast contracts for several sports at one time regardless of class (basketball, hockey, football), not exclusively hockey, so that's not it. If you roll to one class, you expand the sections to 16+ teams and a similar number of games are being played, so the gate receipts will be comparable, so I don't think that's it. Beyond that, the class A tournament is played in front of a half-full arena which is costing quite a bit of money to rent (although I'm aware they're not paying as much as other events at the X) - so I don't believe they're making a bundle there either. Where exactly is the "lot of revenue" they'd lose? Honestly, I would imagine that if they rolled the hockey tournament back to one class, they'd probably stand to make a sizable increase when the next broadcast negotiation comes up in '10.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:45 pm

Well, I know you're right, as I commented on in my analysis of why one class could be good for football. But that brings it down from one state tournament to two. The money made isn't just from ticket sales. How many people don't buy concessions? Most places make a great deal of their money off food. The X isn't different. That all being said, one class would be awesome, from the hockey and financial standpoint. Section finals would be that much bigger.

elliott70, why would that need to happen? Why do we need a certain number of teams in a class?

finance_gal · Post by **finance_gal** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:57 pm

If they were to ever go back to one class in hockey they could go with a 16 team tournament , probly make more money that they would with 2 classes and it would bring back the glamour of having 1 state champion. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick of all these classes (in all the sports) it makes it hard to follow and at the end know one even knows who was the best that year.

theref · Post by **theref** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:25 pm

haha, I know who was best.............THE NORTH! Sorry, that wasn't any important info to the subject.

Some things would really have to change with the systems. I agree that the coaches would have to agree and that many letters would need to be written. Of course there are those pesky transfer rules that I think would really come up as well. In the end, I'd really like to see our state champs compete in a national tournament with other high school programs. Of course, for that we would probably have to send two teams just so we actually create a good tournament as I don't think there are too many states with good programs. Sorry, off subject again.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:37 pm

The number of classes in a sport is based on numbers participating (schools or co-op).
Girls hockey just went through the decision to go to two classes.

The idea is to give opportunity to more student-athletes to show-case their abilities and compete for the top prize. That is the basis for what they do (in terms of play-offs). Money generated just makes it easier to offer opportunities (especially to those that have higher costs or generate no revenue).

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:54 pm

wow, elliot70 is saying what I've been trying to point out for a while. It's great.

That being said elliot70, I know what you're saying is true, but if they let section finals play at the X, would that qualify for the "equal opportunity" thing? As much as people don't think, going to less classes, if all teams get to play in playoffs, make more games.

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:06 pm

HShockeywatcher wrote:wow, elliot70 is saying what I've been trying to point out for a while. It's great.

theref · Post by **theref** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:34 pm

Watcher, talk about somebody with a chip on their shoulder. I've read a few of your posts of the last few days and the only thing you seem to try to accomplish is antagonizing other members. Why don't you take a seat on the couch for a while and watch some fishing or something.

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:03 pm

theref wrote:Watcher, talk about somebody with a chip on their shoulder. I've read a few of your posts of the last few days and the only thing you seem to try to accomplish is antagonizing other members.

Last few DAYS?

Months/years is more accurate.

Ignore him if you can.
Reply curtly if you must.
Keep your sense of humor regardless.

HShockeywatcher · Post by **HShockeywatcher** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:52 pm

Yeah, keep your seat and watch people rip on me for no reason. If that's your thing. But I don't care.

Bub · Post by **Bub** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:47 pm

In order to make the change, the MSHSL would have to be shown that 1 class would generate more revenue for non-revenue sports. They have absolutely zero interest in what's good for hockey or the players. Any pitch to go back to one class would fall on deaf ears because their primary goal is to use hockey to generate money.

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:43 am

theref wrote:Watcher, talk about somebody with a chip on their shoulder. I've read a few of your posts of the last few days and the only thing you seem to try to accomplish is antagonizing other members. Why don't you take a seat on the couch for a while and watch some fishing or something.

Brillant!!

http://www.fishingtalks.com/forums/

Sorry to all those anglers out there....oh and BTW I called the MSHL yesterday and posed the ? After I pressed 1 for English this is all I got

HOFam'r · Post by **HOFam'r** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:02 am

Can't Never Tried wrote:
theref wrote:Watcher, talk about somebody with a chip on their shoulder. I've read a few of your posts of the last few days and the only thing you seem to try to accomplish is antagonizing other members. Why don't you take a seat on the couch for a while and watch some fishing or something.

Brillant!!

http://www.fishingtalks.com/forums/

Sorry to all those anglers out there....oh and BTW I called the MSHL yesterday and posed the ? After I pressed 1 for English this is all I got

geez CNT...you should have known to push #2 for pompous and arrogant...now that's a language you can understand

theref · Post by **theref** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:15 am

Well at least it wasn't like some places in the U.S. where you have to push 1 for spanish and 2 for english. I live in the United States, I shouln't have to push anything for english.

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:50 am

HOFam'r wrote
geez CNT...you should have known to push #2 for pompous and arrogant...now that's a language you can understand

It appears after a long summer remission my hemorrhoid has returned

AngusYoung · Post by **AngusYoung** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:51 am

Can't Never Tried wrote:
theref wrote:Watcher, talk about somebody with a chip on their shoulder. I've read a few of your posts of the last few days and the only thing you seem to try to accomplish is antagonizing other members. Why don't you take a seat on the couch for a while and watch some fishing or something.

Brillant!!

http://www.fishingtalks.com/forums/

Sorry to all those anglers out there....oh and BTW I called the MSHL yesterday and posed the ? After I pressed 1 for English this is all I got

What the hell is "Brillant?

AY

Can't Never Tried · Post by **Can't Never Tried** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:52 am

Thanks AY

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:52 am

Ted Brill's mother's sister.

Puckguy19 · Post by **Puckguy19** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:59 am

elliott70 wrote:Ted Brill's mother's sister.

. . . or father's sister.