St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Elliot, What do you see wicked pushing if not a split? How can you explain his groups action which represented an extremely small group that is in the minority! I don't get it, what do you think he was doing if he wasn't advocating a split that the TECH HS COACH stated was to be used to benefit Tech HS Hockey! Having a group that is in the minority do something to shake up an entire association that is to benefit a HS program is wrong, especially since the majority according to the survey did not want this...shouldn't this process have entirely went through SCYHA? Isn't that why there is a board and leaders of that association? To make these type of decisions?
-
wickedshot
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm
First, neither reason. He had his choice between CHS and Tech. I don't believe in mod scheduling, having put two children through a school with it. I gave him the choice between the two schools. Apollo was not an option. He made it.
Perhaps someone should study history. Movements or causes or change almost always start with a small group or groups of people. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Right or wrong. Left or right. Up or down. Let me be clear. Are you saying groups have no right to form and come forward and majority (which in this case still hasn't responded) always rules?
Again, look at the record. Backtracking? This is what I asked for last March and April -- the issue to be addressed and hopefully worked out.
Perhaps someone should study history. Movements or causes or change almost always start with a small group or groups of people. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Right or wrong. Left or right. Up or down. Let me be clear. Are you saying groups have no right to form and come forward and majority (which in this case still hasn't responded) always rules?
Again, look at the record. Backtracking? This is what I asked for last March and April -- the issue to be addressed and hopefully worked out.
-
George Blanda
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 pm
- Location: St. Schmo
wickedshot wrote:Wrong, Brian. Look at the posts I've made in the past hour. Read carefully. I think you'll see my preference stated quite clearly. Read what Mr. Elliott has endorsed -- the two groups getting together to talk about a split under one assocation. Did I not say it would be a great thing to consider. Do you think it would be easy to start an assocation with zero money (outside of some sponsors who have stepped up)?
In answer to the above post, the debts would stay with the current assocation. But so would all the assets, which I would advise you to look at the numbers. Yes, I do have who was on the board in past minutes. Want em?
I like that and I would stand behind you 100% if there was a split made just for teams (not separate associations). But, as the Tech youth hockey website remains up, I'll have to assume that there is still a push being made for a new association.
As for the minutes...I would just like to know who was on the executive board when the North/South split was eliminated and when the one "A" team was implemented...just to see some of the names...
"they are LAME" -darkdemon on SJU hockey
wicked...that is why you have a democracy in being a member of the SCYHA....That is why the board is there and people are elected to positions. If the way you went about things is passed, say for example I have a child playing in Brainerd who only has 1 A team and they only take 12 kids when there are 40 kids try out...well I'm pissed off and I'm going to start my own association because my kid got screwed and say it should be called North Brainerd and now we have our own association. That is the precedent this case could set! There is a RIGHT way to do this and a WRONG way...don't use your history example, are you trying to compare this to the civil rights movement or something of that nature where a group who is being oppressed rises up and pushes for change? C'mon
-
wickedshot
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm
Got office time all afternoon so I have to run and probably won't be back on the board for a day or so. I will look back, Brian, through all those minutes and newsletters. I'm sure I have it. Anyone who wants to talk, my cell is posted above and e mail is mikek@mainstreetcom.com.
Observer, I'm not talking civil rights or any specific movement. I'm talking a movement in general. Again, you may not like it. We do live in a democracy and funny thing about that, it affords people the ability to seek out change in any way they wish short of being violent. You don't like it. That's your right. We have a right of free association and competition. We can associate with existing boards or bodies or businesses or start our own.
Just what do you think Minnesota Made and others are doing or AAA teams. Competition. You don't like a certain business, start your own, a concept called freedom.
Observer, I'm not talking civil rights or any specific movement. I'm talking a movement in general. Again, you may not like it. We do live in a democracy and funny thing about that, it affords people the ability to seek out change in any way they wish short of being violent. You don't like it. That's your right. We have a right of free association and competition. We can associate with existing boards or bodies or businesses or start our own.
Just what do you think Minnesota Made and others are doing or AAA teams. Competition. You don't like a certain business, start your own, a concept called freedom.
-
wickedshot
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm
Minnesota Made is completely different, they are not a member of Minnesota Hockey. Start your own triple AAA program then! That is not a valid example to use. Your actions effect an entire group of people, many who oppose, who had no voice! It should have been done differently, that is my point. Your bullying and jamming this down people's approach is not the correct way to seek change.
-
wickedshot
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm
Sometimes to get an issue out there and really considered, someone has to do something radical or different.
As Oscar Wilde once said: "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all."
I pushed for a discussion and debate on this more than a year ago. And it looks as if we are going to have discussions. We're moving ahead. Once again, you're entitled to your opinion and to speak it and I'll defend you're right to do so.
As Oscar Wilde once said: "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all."
I pushed for a discussion and debate on this more than a year ago. And it looks as if we are going to have discussions. We're moving ahead. Once again, you're entitled to your opinion and to speak it and I'll defend you're right to do so.
-
Can't Never Tried
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 pm
Not my argument...but having been involved in the split between Elk River and Rogers it effected my family greatly, as well as what could have been a spectacular ER team for quite a few years, at the time I didn't like it at all, because it would have been a benefit to my kids to stay together.brokenbat wrote:Minnesota Made is completely different, they are not a member of Minnesota Hockey. Start your own triple AAA program then! That is not a valid example to use. Your actions effect an entire group of people, many who oppose, who had no voice! It should have been done differently, that is my point. Your bullying and jamming this down people's approach is not the correct way to seek change.
To the bolded part above...
The change happened for us just like your seeing, and in fact it's really the only way it will happen is if someone takes those 1st difficult steps, and we had just as many people kicking and screaming to leave things alone...but in a few short years there is a community pride that has developed, a HS , and a beautiful arena to go with it all.
It's not always bad to change!
But if the people really don't want it...they can more easily organize to stop it then this guy will have building it.
Maybe should take a closer look at why a person would go to the effort of starting this change process, and fix that?? Happy people don't usually change the situation, but people feeling they're treated unfairly will.
Per MH handbook a group has the right to ask to establish an association.brokenbat wrote:Elliot, What do you see wicked pushing if not a split? How can you explain his groups action which represented an extremely small group that is in the minority! I don't get it, what do you think he was doing if he wasn't advocating a split that the TECH HS COACH stated was to be used to benefit Tech HS Hockey! Having a group that is in the minority do something to shake up an entire association that is to benefit a HS program is wrong, especially since the majority according to the survey did not want this...shouldn't this process have entirely went through SCYHA? Isn't that why there is a board and leaders of that association? To make these type of decisions?
This group met that requirement.
There have been people on here arguing both sides of this... they have the right, they do not have the right.
Well, they have the right and they did what they needed to do...
MH Board had the responsibiltiy to look at the issue, again it is one of the simpliest section to read...
Do they automatically get the affiliation, No, teh board reviews it...
Now, wicked clearly indicated that he was willing to work with the existing board, the existing board was willing to work with his group...
D10 will be working with tehm, I offered to help...
Hopefully, everyone will get somethign out of this.
We have a few weeks to find out.
Until then I remain with an open mind...
I wish all MN H board members felt the same or at least would state their current position instead of dancing around it...
Yes, wicked wanted a split, he ahs indicated that he will try and so have the other side...
Isn't that what we want...
people trying to work together.
Sorry, you are wrong.brokenbat wrote:wicked...that is why you have a democracy in being a member of the SCYHA....That is why the board is there and people are elected to positions. If the way you went about things is passed, say for example I have a child playing in Brainerd who only has 1 A team and they only take 12 kids when there are 40 kids try out...well I'm pissed off and I'm going to start my own association because my kid got screwed and say it should be called North Brainerd and now we have our own association. That is the precedent this case could set! There is a RIGHT way to do this and a WRONG way...don't use your history example, are you trying to compare this to the civil rights movement or something of that nature where a group who is being oppressed rises up and pushes for change? C'mon
This is NOT setting a precedent. Even if it were, MH is not bound by precedent. This is not a court of law.
This is following the rules that are in place.
Again, are you going to put time and money into this because you're upset with the way a team was picked? Okay, let's say you are that upset and have the resources...
Are you going to have the support of others in the community?
Okay, let's say you have that.
Do you have a split based on a natural hockey community?
OK, you have that.
Then the MNH board has a responsibility to review your request.
Its not difficult to follow 1,2,3; but it is difficult to accomplish 1,2,3; it is difficult to analyze and determine what is the best road to follow. But that is what the MH board is charged to do.
And DD do things of a similar nature on a regular basis.
We get complaints about teams, associations...
if it falls under the categoies that we have to/should review, we do.
We drive to Warroad, to Bagley, to Crookston, to where ever, we meet with both sides and hopefully do a good job of listening, analyzing and coming up with the the proper result.
Are some of these things off the wall, sure
But if people cannot be heard when they think they were wronged or want to do something that is a little different, then what are we left with.
I already hear too many stories about people unwilling to step forward because they fear retaliation to their child.
That is one reason this board is good, a person can speak freely without worry of being identified. That is why I don't ask for people to ID themselves in this setting, fine if you wish, but not mandatory.
Sorry for being so long, but these are things I believe in, in hockey and everywhere else.
I rue the day we stop listening.
-
Blue&Gold
I've been talking with Mike over the past two days. Let me say that he's willing to listen, and he really feels in his heart that some things should change. What he has started with some other folks had generated some VERY STRONG feelings, and I think that is with a purpose. It has forced some folks to stop and look around, realizing that if they do nothing, then their little world may crumble up and blow away. If all the local folks on this board would take the time to attend the next meeting, and listen to what is being said, and offer some opinions and suggestions (in an adult,,, wait.. in a constructive way (too many hockey parents still bring nightmares)) then perhaps one association could actually be viable to do the necessary things to grow our program. And THAT is what we need to do, grow the program!!
I've offered to help in any way I can. I'm against the split, and Mike knows that.. but that doesn't mean I can't help to make sure that the kids are protected, NOT the schools... (that's MY opinion) GB, you should be involved, and everyone else can be a positive here instead of just getting all POed about bolding and such.
OK, my point? Getting everyone excited and mad isn't necessarily a bad thing if something good comes out of it. Anarchy for anarchy's sake isn't a good thing... but to make the ship change course for a better shore isn't a bad thing.. And what needs to be fixed?
I've offered to help in any way I can. I'm against the split, and Mike knows that.. but that doesn't mean I can't help to make sure that the kids are protected, NOT the schools... (that's MY opinion) GB, you should be involved, and everyone else can be a positive here instead of just getting all POed about bolding and such.
OK, my point? Getting everyone excited and mad isn't necessarily a bad thing if something good comes out of it. Anarchy for anarchy's sake isn't a good thing... but to make the ship change course for a better shore isn't a bad thing.. And what needs to be fixed?
Last edited by Blue&Gold on Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It would be interesting hear from some oldtimers from Bloomington. They have BAA, Jefferson and Kennedy. They used to have a Lincoln program. When they closed the Lincoln school those players were shifted to BJ or BK. Bloomington seems to run their programs separately with the exception of cooping girls and I think Jr Gold. The 'C' players fall into the BAA program. Do you suppose the separation of their youth programs was do to the desire to funnel kids to their own separate high schools. There is more money at Jefferson than there is at Kennedy.
The Armstrong and Cooper programs were common at one time but split to separate associations except where numbers are lower they are combined. Armstrong is more affluent than Cooper.
I know that Duluth is a unique system with neighborhood based recreational hockey and 2 or more "traveling" programs. I don't know the details of how they are split.
Woodbury and Cottage Grove are in the same school district but are separate cities. They will be building a new school and kids from both cities will attend. Presumably there will be a third youth hockey association or else they will be facing the same issue of determining the makeup of kids on the CG and Wbry traveling teams to be fair to the high schools involved.
St Cloud is going to be a model for a lot of programs in the near future whether they stay under an umbrella and supply players to all schools or whether they split.
The Armstrong and Cooper programs were common at one time but split to separate associations except where numbers are lower they are combined. Armstrong is more affluent than Cooper.
I know that Duluth is a unique system with neighborhood based recreational hockey and 2 or more "traveling" programs. I don't know the details of how they are split.
Woodbury and Cottage Grove are in the same school district but are separate cities. They will be building a new school and kids from both cities will attend. Presumably there will be a third youth hockey association or else they will be facing the same issue of determining the makeup of kids on the CG and Wbry traveling teams to be fair to the high schools involved.
St Cloud is going to be a model for a lot of programs in the near future whether they stay under an umbrella and supply players to all schools or whether they split.
Elliott – This tread was not started because “anyone was wronged”
This thread has to do with a handful of people that maneuvered themselves within the SCYHA and for the last 5 or six years have tried to manipulate SCYHA with the sole purpose of benefiting St Cloud Tech High School.
Last year the members of the SCYHA voted the previous president out (who was there for 6 or more years) by a 3 to 1 margin because they were tiered of the manipulation and the “my way or the highway” attitude toward anyone who would appose her and her board members that she hand picked.
When the past president was voted out the majority of her board members also left SCHYA and now are trying to rise up and cause destruction to the existing SCYHA by starting their own association.
That is what is going on. And that is not the bases to start a new association in St Cloud. And that is why MN Hockey should not allow this small group to move forward.
I believe the appropriate response to this group from MN Hockey would be to suggest they start a “AAA” teams and then they can hand pick the South side kids and do what they want. They get their “Tech Team” at the Bantam and Peewee levels and SCYHA can continue to serve the community and play in D10.
This thread has to do with a handful of people that maneuvered themselves within the SCYHA and for the last 5 or six years have tried to manipulate SCYHA with the sole purpose of benefiting St Cloud Tech High School.
Last year the members of the SCYHA voted the previous president out (who was there for 6 or more years) by a 3 to 1 margin because they were tiered of the manipulation and the “my way or the highway” attitude toward anyone who would appose her and her board members that she hand picked.
When the past president was voted out the majority of her board members also left SCHYA and now are trying to rise up and cause destruction to the existing SCYHA by starting their own association.
That is what is going on. And that is not the bases to start a new association in St Cloud. And that is why MN Hockey should not allow this small group to move forward.
I believe the appropriate response to this group from MN Hockey would be to suggest they start a “AAA” teams and then they can hand pick the South side kids and do what they want. They get their “Tech Team” at the Bantam and Peewee levels and SCYHA can continue to serve the community and play in D10.
2pipes,
I can't believe that the SCYHA bylaws would allow a president to serve a term longer than 1-2 years. Maybe that is a place for SCYHA to start looking inward at their existing organization.
Most of the programs that my kids have been involved with (multiple cities and multiple sports) have much shorter term limits. Rochester elects a president-elect who spends a year learning and then goes pres-elect to president to past-president on a 3 year roll. There was a stretch where they couldn't get anyone to run and the past-president became the next year's pres-elect so that 3 people were in those spots for 3-5 years. We have broken out of that with the 3 latest BODs. All of their board positions have a 2 year term. Some positions are elected by the members and others are appointed by the board. Looking back I don't think too many people have stayed on the board for longer than 4 years except for the charitable gambling guy. The only downside I can see is that RYHA doesn't seem to keep a plan (team structuring) in place for longer than a few years and you can't really see the longterm affects.
I can't believe that the SCYHA bylaws would allow a president to serve a term longer than 1-2 years. Maybe that is a place for SCYHA to start looking inward at their existing organization.
Most of the programs that my kids have been involved with (multiple cities and multiple sports) have much shorter term limits. Rochester elects a president-elect who spends a year learning and then goes pres-elect to president to past-president on a 3 year roll. There was a stretch where they couldn't get anyone to run and the past-president became the next year's pres-elect so that 3 people were in those spots for 3-5 years. We have broken out of that with the 3 latest BODs. All of their board positions have a 2 year term. Some positions are elected by the members and others are appointed by the board. Looking back I don't think too many people have stayed on the board for longer than 4 years except for the charitable gambling guy. The only downside I can see is that RYHA doesn't seem to keep a plan (team structuring) in place for longer than a few years and you can't really see the longterm affects.
-
Can't Never Tried
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 pm
-
BlueGoose5
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:06 pm
2pipesnin wrote:Elliott – This tread was not started because “anyone was wronged”
This thread has to do with a handful of people that maneuvered themselves within the SCYHA and for the last 5 or six years have tried to manipulate SCYHA with the sole purpose of benefiting St Cloud Tech High School.
Last year the members of the SCYHA voted the previous president out (who was there for 6 or more years) by a 3 to 1 margin because they were tiered of the manipulation and the “my way or the highway” attitude toward anyone who would appose her and her board members that she hand picked.
When the past president was voted out the majority of her board members also left SCHYA and now are trying to rise up and cause destruction to the existing SCYHA by starting their own association.
That is what is going on. And that is not the bases to start a new association in St Cloud. And that is why MN Hockey should not allow this small group to move forward.
I believe the appropriate response to this group from MN Hockey would be to suggest they start a “AAA” teams and then they can hand pick the South side kids and do what they want. They get their “Tech Team” at the Bantam and Peewee levels and SCYHA can continue to serve the community and play in D10.
There is an awlful lot of truth to this statement and this is what is clearly being felt and perceived in the local community.
Can't Never Tried - If you folks only knew half of what has gone on In SCYHA during her reign.
And yes she changed many Bi-laws including "term of service" so she could continue her two year term 3 terms in a row. She made many changes under the rug with her hand picked board members.
Again of you only knew what really went on!
And yes she changed many Bi-laws including "term of service" so she could continue her two year term 3 terms in a row. She made many changes under the rug with her hand picked board members.
Again of you only knew what really went on!
-
Blue&Gold
This is a true statement. When folks from outside the St. Cloud area pipe up and throw their opinions out there, they may be in the realm of good intentions, but without the background of the past 8 years or so they really have no clue. I could tell STORIES that would have most of you just shaking your heads and saying that there is no way.. And there are others who know even more.. Oh, and Colleen has had D10 folks buying into her form of control for so long that nobody would believe what was happening.2pipesnin wrote:Can't Never Tried - If you folks only knew half of what has gone on In SCYHA during her reign.
And yes she changed many Bi-laws including "term of service" so she could continue her two year term 3 terms in a row. She made many changes under the rug with her hand picked board members.
Again of you only knew what really went on!
I'm offering to get back involved to try to help out. If the Tech group does get their program going and Chad/Colleen get their claws in, then the Cathedral kids, as well as the entire north side, will suffer greatly. However, if we can work as a group to keep the association under one umbrella and try to solve many issues rather than putting our heads in the sand, then good times will be ahead.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
Gentle men,
lets remember that bringing out a specific name whether first or last is in very bad taste. I personally feel if you want to get personal then identify your self by your real name also if not then find a different way to levy your innuendo. I would believe that there is enough dirty laundry for all to catch a bit no matter which side a person is on and by the way 2pipes I have a cousin that lives in Clearwater and for a while a few years ago was involved in hockey and knowing my passion for the sport would let me know what was going on from time to time. All I will say there is enough to go around that for the good of all is drop the past and make sure that a City of 67,000 can have some respectful numbers in the future, instead of the numbers you have now.
lets remember that bringing out a specific name whether first or last is in very bad taste. I personally feel if you want to get personal then identify your self by your real name also if not then find a different way to levy your innuendo. I would believe that there is enough dirty laundry for all to catch a bit no matter which side a person is on and by the way 2pipes I have a cousin that lives in Clearwater and for a while a few years ago was involved in hockey and knowing my passion for the sport would let me know what was going on from time to time. All I will say there is enough to go around that for the good of all is drop the past and make sure that a City of 67,000 can have some respectful numbers in the future, instead of the numbers you have now.
Apparently you have not taken the time to read the last few posts from people that are directly involved.2pipesnin wrote:Elliott – This tread was not started because “anyone was wronged”
I did not say someone was wronged.
I said if we did not give people the opportunity to presnet themselves they would be.
You are confusing listening to people with supporting their ideas.
As I told both parties on Sunday, I am not supporting either side at this time. I wanted tehm to try and work it out. They thought they coudl so that is where it is at.
If they cannot, then I will decide in June how I would vote on the issue, after listening to whatever else woudl be presented.
This thread has to do with a handful of people that maneuvered themselves within the SCYHA and for the last 5 or six years have tried to manipulate SCYHA with the sole purpose of benefiting St Cloud Tech High School.
This is your opinion and it may be true, but if you think I am not smart enough to listen and read and analyze and decide on mine own; you are greatly mistaken. I am more than capable of doing that. And, if necessary, that is waht I will do. Based on what the parties involved ahve presented to us. Not on your opinion on this site or those of wickeds or anyone else psoting here. What is posted here is merely a lead to what may or may not be true.
Last year the members of the SCYHA voted the previous president out (who was there for 6 or more years) by a 3 to 1 margin because they were tiered of the manipulation and the “my way or the highway” attitude toward anyone who would appose her and her board members that she hand picked.
When the past president was voted out the majority of her board members also left SCHYA and now are trying to rise up and cause destruction to the existing SCYHA by starting their own association.
That is what is going on. And that is not the bases to start a new association in St Cloud. And that is why MN Hockey should not allow this small group to move forward.
I believe the appropriate response to this group from MN Hockey would be to suggest they start a “AAA” teams and then they can hand pick the South side kids and do what they want. They get their “Tech Team” at the Bantam and Peewee levels and SCYHA can continue to serve the community and play in D10.
-
George Blanda
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 pm
- Location: St. Schmo
I thought about getting involved in coaching over the past couple of years to help get some of these parent coaches out of there (which many feel to be a problem). I just didn't feel that I would be accepted in to the program in the past couple of years with the Donovan regime in power.Blue&Gold wrote:
I've offered to help in any way I can. I'm against the split, and Mike knows that.. but that doesn't mean I can't help to make sure that the kids are protected, NOT the schools... (that's MY opinion) GB, you should be involved, and everyone else can be a positive here instead of just getting all POed about bolding and such.
As for getting involved in this issue, who knows? Seems like more of a crap shoot than anything to me. Don't know if I want to get too involved being so young.
I, for one, am pro two 'A' teams, pro north/south team split, and extremely against two separate associations. I, too, would like to see the players protected...
I do feel that Chad Hommerding should be let go, IMHO. I feel he was a horrible person to initially lead this group. It was stupid decision for him to be the public face of the group and as I read more and more of what Mike has to say I feel he was a stupid person to pick to be the spokesperson of the group.
"they are LAME" -darkdemon on SJU hockey
Let’s look at this another way?
Wickedshot , you tell me if I’m wrong? This looked strange?
For the last four years that I can pull up it seems like the following group of youth hockey has had a strategic position with SCYHA?
2007/2008 this last winter season, Wickedshot, your kid is high school? you said so!
NO YOUTH PROGRAM for the SCYTHA presidents kid of Tech youth program!
SCYHA this last year.
2007 / 2008 SCYHA has only ONE Bantam, A team this last year.
2006 / 2007 SCYHA has TWO Bantam A teams
2005 / 2006 SCYAH has ONE Pee Wee A team
2004 / 2005 Has TWO Pee Wee A teams?
Don’t know about Squirts?
This to me presents itself that the group (that your child is NOT apart of) has a goal to have their child make the “A” team?
If my child is a First year at a certain level, have TWO A teams so my kid makes it and get ‘s “A” experience.
When my child is a Second year player and we only need ONE “A” team and we are a solid ranked team?
Have two teams when their child is a first year and only ONE team when their child is a second year is wishy washy?
First, why does SCYHA keep flip flopping back and forth? Or am I wrong in the info I found?
Where they blind to what was going on? (I hope I’m right?)
Wicked, your kid was not in this suspicious formula? But is this part of the problem with SCYHA not being consistent. Do other associations parents of those associations get ticked off being SCYHA is so variable in the process of declaring their teams?
Just have TWO “A” teams going forward at each level and if it is a north /south split based on public boundaries, so be it?
The privates feed off this and will survive.
Wickedshot , you tell me if I’m wrong? This looked strange?
For the last four years that I can pull up it seems like the following group of youth hockey has had a strategic position with SCYHA?
2007/2008 this last winter season, Wickedshot, your kid is high school? you said so!
NO YOUTH PROGRAM for the SCYTHA presidents kid of Tech youth program!
SCYHA this last year.
2007 / 2008 SCYHA has only ONE Bantam, A team this last year.
2006 / 2007 SCYHA has TWO Bantam A teams
2005 / 2006 SCYAH has ONE Pee Wee A team
2004 / 2005 Has TWO Pee Wee A teams?
Don’t know about Squirts?
This to me presents itself that the group (that your child is NOT apart of) has a goal to have their child make the “A” team?
If my child is a First year at a certain level, have TWO A teams so my kid makes it and get ‘s “A” experience.
When my child is a Second year player and we only need ONE “A” team and we are a solid ranked team?
Have two teams when their child is a first year and only ONE team when their child is a second year is wishy washy?
First, why does SCYHA keep flip flopping back and forth? Or am I wrong in the info I found?
Where they blind to what was going on? (I hope I’m right?)
Wicked, your kid was not in this suspicious formula? But is this part of the problem with SCYHA not being consistent. Do other associations parents of those associations get ticked off being SCYHA is so variable in the process of declaring their teams?
Just have TWO “A” teams going forward at each level and if it is a north /south split based on public boundaries, so be it?
The privates feed off this and will survive.
-
Blue&Gold
A north/south split, run by the association and not the high school coaches, is a very positive solution. Create a good group of evaluators and let it go. I'm even OK if they want to have B1 teams split. Down below that , they may want to have combined teams, but it's too early in the process to spin wheels on details.
I think that in years past, some folks didn't feel that there was enough talent to have have two A teams, blah blah blah. If they would do a North/South, it becomes a moot point and just move on from there. Sometimes it seems that they inmates were running the asylum, and other times it seemed to be a dictatorship.. I'm hoping that this whole mess forces the association to get back to running a hockey program full of volunteers. It's been a while since that has been the case.
I think that in years past, some folks didn't feel that there was enough talent to have have two A teams, blah blah blah. If they would do a North/South, it becomes a moot point and just move on from there. Sometimes it seems that they inmates were running the asylum, and other times it seemed to be a dictatorship.. I'm hoping that this whole mess forces the association to get back to running a hockey program full of volunteers. It's been a while since that has been the case.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
Stealth,
2005-06 St Cloud had 2 Peewee A teams,2 Peewee B1 teams and 2 Peewee B2 teams, 2 A Squirt teams, 2 A Bantam,2 B1 Bantam 1 B2 Bantam. This was the year Both A Peewee teams made it to the regionals.
There were 6 Peewee level( not sure on the C level) and according to the standings on the District 10 web site this group now 2 years later only had 4 teams, where did the others 2 teams disappear to?
Also if you want but it will take longer I might be able to get the standings (if my friend still has them) for the 2005-06 season,unless someone posting here from St Cloud has them.
2005-06 St Cloud had 2 Peewee A teams,2 Peewee B1 teams and 2 Peewee B2 teams, 2 A Squirt teams, 2 A Bantam,2 B1 Bantam 1 B2 Bantam. This was the year Both A Peewee teams made it to the regionals.
There were 6 Peewee level( not sure on the C level) and according to the standings on the District 10 web site this group now 2 years later only had 4 teams, where did the others 2 teams disappear to?
Also if you want but it will take longer I might be able to get the standings (if my friend still has them) for the 2005-06 season,unless someone posting here from St Cloud has them.