Today's MSHSL meeting about cutting games

[rudy]

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/pre ... /#comments

[karl(east)]

11:57 / A motion has been made to make no changes in game limits. That motion passes. So we will see no changes in the number of games … at least not at this meeting.

Good news, at least for now.

[hockeyblitz]

This is good news for now. I think if the League was going to limit games they would have to do it now during this meeting and not wait until april or this summer. However, the scrimmages/jamborees issue was tabled which I believe something will be reduced here at one of the next meetings. This will not have a major impact with time frames with scheduling which allowed them to table it. The only other issue that I didn't hear anything about during this meeting is the no contact week during christmas break. This is another scheduling issue that I thought should have been presented and voted on during this meeting. I know this issue could be deemed mute as a result of the vote to leave the amount of games played alone but it wasn't addressed. Teams could still play 25 games and not play during the break. This could cause scheduling issues and tournament planning problems as well if teams could not play during this time period. Anybody know if this issue was addressed at the meeting?

[stxnpux]

This is great news. However with quotes like this:

RECAP: The MSHSL board of directors took no action this morning. This was a special meeting, called to make decisions on ways to cut costs and save some of the ever-shrinking dollars for school districts. But decisions were put off at least until the board meets again on April 9.

It does sound like no final decisions will be made until April 9. We need to be diligent. Keep the phone calls and emails going. I would like to think that it has made a difference!

[Educator29]

this would not be a good thing. My local High School team only played 27 games this year.. say it isn't possible !

[buzzerbeater]

just cut the basketball games in half. nobody goes. add hockey games, they actually make money.

[wbmd]

just cut the basketball games in half. nobody goes. add hockey games, they actually make money.

[HShockeywatcher]

I know this is a hockey forum, so I will receive comments back for this. I'm guessing there is little cost for basketball games compared to hockey games, which is the issue here, probably why hockey is being discussed and not basketball.

Curious if anyone knows why the idea "if playing so many games is affecting your school financially, play less games" isn't being brought up.

[goldy313]

I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to answer it.

1-hockey isn't the only sport where the number of games being reduced is being considered, it's just the one we talk about here.

2-The major cost is travel, maybe not for most metro area teams but outstate it's quite a bit. A school bus gets in the neighborhood of 10 mpg empty, considerably less filled, for arguments sake lets say 5 mpg. What do you think it costs Winona or Warroad to take a trip? Winona's nearest conference opponent is 45 miles away the farthest 130 miles away. Again for arguments sake let's put Deisel at $3 a gallon That's $54 - $156 just in fuel not counting the driver, insurance, or the fact that usually in winter the bus needs to idle the whole time between dropping the kids off and leaving for home. For most schools it's cheaper to practice than travel.

3-Can you allow a team to play 25 games while others, citing finacial distress, can only play 15? While most attention gets focused on the Edina's and Jefferson's of the hockey world, it's not fair to ignore the Ely's and John Marshall's.

If you're playing high school hockey you're probably not to concerned about the costs, after all it's usually far cheaper than youth hockey was. That's not the case with football or baseball or wrestling or track.

The fact is that kids on the free and reduced lunch program are far less likely to play any sport due to costs. That is a problem that we should all be concerned about and the MSHSL is looking at that, our hockey-centric view of the high school sports scene is myopic. I really dislike the idea of cutting the number of games but I like that idea a heck of a lot more than the continuing raising of fees and further limiting of participants that seems to be happening, and far better than the cutting of all sports as Brainard and Chisolm tried to pass.

[starmvp]

This may be a silly question, but will reducing the amount of games each year result in more players leaving to USHL earlier.

[TooManyEagles]

Goldy, teams already play less than 25 games. I don't lose sleep over the fact that Sleepy Eye plays like a 13 game schedule.

And Star, that would seem to be the logical conclusion.

[HShockeywatcher]

TooManyEagles makes a great point. This is already happening. And it doesn't only happen with hockey. Teams do what they can. Hockey is an expensive sport, if you cannot afford it, they shouldn't play.

We got into this discussion in another thread, so I doubt there's reason to go over it again. All I'm going to say on this is that when Sauk Rapids and Cathedral, two school located less than 30 miles apart with many arenas around, both have to travel two hours north to play a section semi-final game, we know there are other ways to cut costs than simply playing less games.
This issue is just like the one with our country's economy, we simply need to spend wiser.

I have never been in the situation to choose to play in the USHL, but I doubt that will change much. What I'm guessing would happen (with the except of Edina and a handful of others) if this passed teams would probably discuss more seriously playing half as many conference games, or something to that effect. If you're a good team you'll still play 24+ games.

In choosing to play in the USHL v MSHSL you are making a life style choice and a hockey choice. In the USHL you are playing 50+ games against bigger men with a handful of years more experience. In the MSHSL you are playing 26-31, change to 23-28, against boys with less hockey experience. It may be the deciding factor for a select few, but I doubt this will play a huge role in many players' decisions.

[hockeyblitz]

In regards to the question whether kids would elect to jump over to the ushl it gets a little more complicated here in the future for this question. The new development within USA hockey which I hear is on hold right now would definitely put a twist on this question whether kids look for better options. I am sure most have heard that the NHL gave USA hockey 8 million to develop 36 super teams in 6 regions in which you can bet that Minnesota would be subject to a least three of these teams. I believe if High School hockey goes backwards and limits games and such these kids will look for better options such as the USHL and these super teams. We need to keep High School hockey very attractible to these kids if we want to ensure this state remains the "State of Hockey"

[Sioux Fan]

I hope they have one for the So MN boys we could develop and move more of them forward. We used to have many more playing in the USHL than currently. I know that if we got the very good players from this area we would be able to compete with Shattuck and other Super teams in Minnesota. I hope that they would be considered. That would be great for our area.

May be a way to get more of our area players into USHL and college hockey.

[nickel slots]

This may be a silly question, but will reducing the amount of games each year result in more players leaving to USHL earlier.

I think there is a disconnect here. MN kids (or any kid for that matter), don't just decide to go play in the USHL and that's that. It's not like a family can make the decision that "well, little Johnny, your high school is only going to play 23 games this year, and you could play 60 in the USHL. I guess we'll just go play in the USHL instead." It just doesn't work that way. To be honest, there just aren't enough spots available in the USHL (13 teams, 25 roster spots per team, 325 spots total), and there are plenty of other qualified players out there than just Minnesota high school kids. Sometimes I think Minnesotans are a little arrogant and ignorant when it comes to playing at the Junior levels... it's not just a choice... it's a difficult process to get through if you're not one of the super elite high school prospects.

[O-townClown]

In regards to the question whether kids would elect to jump over to the ushl it gets a little more complicated here in the future for this question. The new development within USA hockey which I hear is on hold right now would definitely put a twist on this question whether kids look for better options. I am sure most have heard that the NHL gave USA hockey 8 million to develop 36 super teams in 6 regions in which you can bet that Minnesota would be subject to a least three of these teams.

High Performance Clubs seem to be on hold for now.

[Sioux Fan]

That is too bad.

[WayOutWest]

3-Can you allow a team to play 25 games while others, citing finacial distress, can only play 15? While most attention gets focused on the Edina's and Jefferson's of the hockey world, it's not fair to ignore the Ely's and John Marshall's.

YES!!!! You CAN!!!
Look, the playing field is already unbalanced. Kids in the EP football program get the benefit of facilities that are unmatched by any other.
Hopkins is apparently recruiting kids to play basketball. And private schools are offering perks to kids to come and play in their hockey programs. (There are more examples, but that ought to suffice.)
The point is that the playing field will never be fair.

So, if a hockey program can turn a profit, why not let them play?
I can understand capping the number of games, for safety and academic reasons, and 25 is a fine cap, in such regard.
If a school can only afford to play 12, let them play 12. If they can afford to put 25 games on the schedule, let them do so. Why deny players, across the state, from an opportunity to play a full schedule, if there is no financial loss to their school?
Why deny the school income, if they can turn a profit on such games?
Limiting games will not create fairness and will only be a negative.
LET THEM PLAY.

[goldy313]

I'm glad you're so happy to spend everyone else's money. My school district didn't give funding when the MSHSL allowed teams to go to 25 games, the parents got together and decided to fund it to the tune of an additional $200-$275 per player per year payable to the Goal line club. To many people that's not much money to others it is quite a bit, and there is no choice, you have to pay it. This is on top of the $275 you have to pay the school to play. We are not the only school that does this and to make matters worse there is the slippery slope that the school district could say (and tried) that we could cut more games with no harm because the parents will pick up the tab.

Also if you have no problem with teams playing less games than other due to financial issues tha you have no right to complain when 3A sends a weaker team to the state tournament, only 3 of the 11 teams in 3A played 25 games this season.

You're right, there will never be a level playing field. However there also has to be some sort of balance, Ken Pauley and his money is no object point of view is not the one that should be getting the most attention.

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not in favor of cutting games, but thinking about solutions.

What about upping the periods to 20 minutes, just like college & the pros? That gives you 9 more minutes of hockey per game. Once you get to the 6 game mark, that's like an additional game under current time.

You could possibly lower the number of games by 3-4, but with 20 minute periods, you're getting the same amount of game time. This would save a little money in regards to travel costs while not sacrificing game time.

Of course, the negative would be less non-conference games and the ability to schedule games against those that you usually don't get to play against.

Just trying to be proactive and think of solutions if the MSHSL is strongly in favor of reducing the number of games.

[hockeyblitz]

Hey nickel slots. I am pretty sure that most people that are posting in regards to kids choosing to enter the ushl realize what you said. Nobody on this topic has said every kid has this option. The kids that everybody is referring to is the one's that are givin the opportunity by these hockey clubs. Your post is assuming we are talking about any given kid just wanting to go play juniors. We all know this can't happen. It is the more talented kids electing to leave due to having opportunities presented to them. This is what everybody is referring to if High School hockey starts to put limits on various areas of the programs. High School hockey just might not be as attractive or advantagous as to ushl for some kids. Alot of kids who currently have other options on the table elect to stay with their teams in hopes to making it to the Excel. [/url]