Mpls dissolves Partnership with St Louis Park

[WreckCenter]

South West approached StLP about adding Washburn. SLP Members and Board voted "No". South West has decided they will Coop with their new best friend anyway and Park is scrambling to find a partner (aka Hopkins)

Look for SLP to say "maybe" as the deadline handed down by the new Mpls Richfield STORM looms

[council member retired]

Have any coops in the metro area been around long enough to see what happens when kids get to high school age? When one kid from the "line" is residing in a different high school, do they split? Or do they all three stay together? How do high school coaches at these youth programs feel about co-ops? Perhap associations have had coops all along and go to three- four different public schools. What is North Metro?

Recently we have had Osseo/Maple Grove merge. What was Osseo's numbers? Did MG want them because they may have a rink? ( i don't know if osseo has a rink) Maple Grove probaby could survive numbers wise without them. Other recent ones Washburn/Richfield, SLP/SW, possibly Cooper/Armstrong?

In the next two years what do you predict?
Kennedy / Jefferson?
Apple Valley / Eastview?

Any inner ring suburbs possible candidates?
Roseville, Moundsview?

[muckandgrind]

Have any coops in the metro area been around long enough to see what happens when kids get to high school age? When one kid from the "line" is residing in a different high school, do they split? Or do they all three stay together? How do high school coaches at these youth programs feel about co-ops? Perhap associations have had coops all along and go to three- four different public schools. What is North Metro?

Recently we have had Osseo/Maple Grove merge. What was Osseo's numbers? Did MG want them because they may have a rink? ( i don't know if osseo has a rink) Maple Grove probaby could survive numbers wise without them. Other recent ones Washburn/Richfield, SLP/SW, possibly Cooper/Armstrong?

In the next two years what do you predict?
Kennedy / Jefferson?
Apple Valley / Eastview?

Any inner ring suburbs possible candidates?
Roseville, Moundsview?

I would say that Mounds View with Irondale makes more sense than Roseville and Mounds View. I don't recall how long ago it was, but weren't they a single association? I know that they share a tournament together as well as all their gambling proceeds. The way things are looking for both those programs, I would think a merge would be the way to go.

How about Roseville/Como?
Johnson/Como?
Tartan/Mahtomedi?

[seek & destroy]

In the next two years what do you predict?
Kennedy / Jefferson?
Apple Valley / Eastview?

Any inner ring suburbs possible candidates?
Roseville, Moundsview?

The bigger issue with all of this is how sad it is that hockey in Minnesota is becoming too expensive for families to survive which causes programs to contract and eventually need to join other programs. What we need to do is find a way to make hockey more affordable. The cost of indoor ice has gotten way out of hand. Many cities do not help their local programs by offering discounted ice but they offer youth baseball, lacrosse, soccer etc. free access to their park fields. The cost of maintaining the land, building the fields and giving up marketable land are not passed on to those teams but the cost of indoor ice keeps going up with no end in sight. Why can't cities offer a largely discounted fee off the cost of their ice for youth hockey?

Equipment costs have gone through the roof as companies bank the $$$ made by marketing expensive stuff to young kids using professional sports figures and slick marketing. They tell kids that their equipment will give you the edge you need for only $200 per stick or $600 for skates. Parents get sucked in too and find themselves spending $1000 just to outfit their player in the best top of the line equipment. Nothing wrong with that but it is now becoming the 'norm'. All the parents of young kids who are thinking about trying hockey hear about is how much it costs.

Hockey camps and off season training has become a mega million dollar business with people making all sorts of promises about how their program can take your peewee player and get him a free college education as a D1 player. If you don't train with them year round from age 12 you will be depriving your kid of the chance for full success according to them. The newest trend are programs that charge $1500-2200 and that's for the "off season". Because of their cost, these programs virtually eliminate the possibility for kids to play multiple sports. Many people believe that, by taking a break and having some downtime, multiple sport athletes have better overall development.

The end result is that people are afraid to have their 4 year old even touch a hockey stick because they don't want them to get hooked on a sport that costs so much. All of us who write on this board love the game of hockey and understand how fun, exciting and addicting it can be but if families are afraid to even introduce the sport into their kids lives, we are doomed. We, as hockey people, need to find a way to make the game more affordable and work hard to allow more people the chance to play. Lobbying cities for cheaper ice time, encouraging manufacturers to offer a low cost option to keep the game alive and spreading the word that you don't have to do expensive hockey camps in order to ENJOY hockey would be a good start.

That way we can slow down the need for cities to combine programs. If the current trend continues hockey will become a sport for only the very rich and that would be a shame.

[InigoMontoya]

Outdoor ice is a great starting point. If there was a pond in every neighborhood, hand-me-down skates and sticks would allow an army of kids to get hooked with no cost at all. Unfortunately many communities have blocked recreational outdoor ice. Why?

[muckandgrind]

In the next two years what do you predict?
Kennedy / Jefferson?
Apple Valley / Eastview?

Any inner ring suburbs possible candidates?
Roseville, Moundsview?

The bigger issue with all of this is how sad it is that hockey in Minnesota is becoming too expensive for families to survive which causes programs to contract and eventually need to join other programs. What we need to do is find a way to make hockey more affordable. The cost of indoor ice has gotten way out of hand. Many cities do not help their local programs by offering discounted ice but they offer youth baseball, lacrosse, soccer etc. free access to their park fields. The cost of maintaining the land, building the fields and giving up marketable land are not passed on to those teams but the cost of indoor ice keeps going up with no end in sight. Why can't cities offer a largely discounted fee off the cost of their ice for youth hockey?

Equipment costs have gone through the roof as companies bank the $$$ made by marketing expensive stuff to young kids using professional sports figures and slick marketing. They tell kids that their equipment will give you the edge you need for only $200 per stick or $600 for skates. Parents get sucked in too and find themselves spending $1000 just to outfit their player in the best top of the line equipment. Nothing wrong with that but it is now becoming the 'norm'. All the parents of young kids who are thinking about trying hockey hear about is how much it costs.

Hockey camps and off season training has become a mega million dollar business with people making all sorts of promises about how their program can take your peewee player and get him a free college education as a D1 player. If you don't train with them year round from age 12 you will be depriving your kid of the chance for full success according to them. The newest trend are programs that charge $1500-2200 and that's for the "off season". Because of their cost, these programs virtually eliminate the possibility for kids to play multiple sports. Many people believe that, by taking a break and having some downtime, multiple sport athletes have better overall development.

The end result is that people are afraid to have their 4 year old even touch a hockey stick because they don't want them to get hooked on a sport that costs so much. All of us who write on this board love the game of hockey and understand how fun, exciting and addicting it can be but if families are afraid to even introduce the sport into their kids lives, we are doomed. We, as hockey people, need to find a way to make the game more affordable and work hard to allow more people the chance to play. Lobbying cities for cheaper ice time, encouraging manufacturers to offer a low cost option to keep the game alive and spreading the word that you don't have to do expensive hockey camps in order to ENJOY hockey would be a good start.

That way we can slow down the need for cities to combine programs. If the current trend continues hockey will become a sport for only the very rich and that would be a shame.

What does that mean? Of course, you don't HAVE to do an "expensive hockey camp" to enjoy hockey, but kids DO ENJOY those camps or summer hockey, nonetheless.

I agree that we should do everything in our power to try and lower the cost of the game, but I'll stop short of trying to persuade parents that "summer hockey is bad", because it's not. In many, many cases it's great for the development of the player.

[conditioningsucks]

How about this for a few:

USA Hockey Mandates wood sticks for Peewees and below.

USA Hockey 'direct sources' skates and equipment from the same China manufacturers that are making a pair of skates for $40 that you pay $299 for due to marketing budgets. USA Hockey sets up a USA hockey store in major hockey areas and sells the skates for $50. They also direct source other equipment. At cost, with no marketing budgets/ad campaigns, I would be willing to bet you could fully outfit a youth hockey player for under $90.

USA/Minnesota hockey drops the registration fee for neighborhood pond hockey run by local associations. Kids can sign up for the association, be insured under USA Hockey's program, but play for fun at the park. Giving kids the membership in USA Hockey allows them to get the USA Hockey magazine as well as pipeline them into organized hockey.

USA develops a hockey association 'equipment recycling' concept. Every association could try to figure this out, however most don't have the volunteer power to get it figured out. There is tons of free equipment sitting in basements all across Minnesota. Developing a concept that gets it turned in and used by other kids would save a ton of money. A turn-key program would help.

Finally - its the parents. What have we done to the game of hockey. Kids show up in the locker room with $500 skates, $200 stick (not one, but two). They flash their bling around. Now Johnny comes home and demands $500 skates and $200 sticks (yep because the peewee says the 'kickpoint' is proven to increase my slapshot) --- and Johnny gets it.

To make the point on equipment costs - everyone should first say "no" to their kids. You don't care if Crosby, Kovalov, Alex the Great, or Luongo play with space age materials --- your going to buy Mission hockey gear because it is the same stuff, made by the same factories in China, for 40% less.

Our kids live in the guilded age and it is our fault. Time to go back to rolling up magazines and using them as shin guards.

Fire up the Christian Brothers factory up north and start firing out sticks for Peewees and below!

[muckandgrind]

How about this for a few:

USA develops a hockey association 'equipment recycling' concept. Every association could try to figure this out, however most don't have the volunteer power to get it figured out. There is tons of free equipment sitting in basements all across Minnesota. Developing a concept that gets it turned in and used by other kids would save a ton of money. A turn-key program would help.

Our association does this right now, great program.

[hokeyhockeyguy]

Lots of good stuff in here... hockey is too expensive, however, human nature is as human nature does... Econ 101 stuff... there's no going back from expensive summer hockey options and $$$ skates and sticks, not to mention the materialistic nature of society right now... why? Because right now TV's, computers, deoderant, and food all cost soo little when you think about it... Discretionary income is discretionary and right now hockey is an attractive place for folks to spend it... and those who would normally get the $2000 TV that now costs $1000 - well they have extra money to spend on hockey sticks for their kids.

This all is too bad of course, but if people are going to say "let's go back to the old days" I'm not sure what that means cause I'm guessing the top end stuff in hockey equipment always cost alot (I'm thinking how much Gretzky aluminums were in the late 80's early 90's...)

One suggestion is to take advantage of the fact that you can get "under hockeywear"... shoulders, shins, cups etc... for alot cheaper now than you could.. not to mention Jerseys... save money on that end buying used and spend it on the sticks and skates.

Whew... lots to think about...

[seek & destroy]

What does that mean? Of course, you don't HAVE to do an "expensive hockey camp" to enjoy hockey, but kids DO ENJOY those camps or summer hockey, nonetheless.

I agree that we should do everything in our power to try and lower the cost of the game, but I'll stop short of trying to persuade parents that "summer hockey is bad", because it's not. In many, many cases it's great for the development of the player.

I'm not saying summer hockey is 'bad' but I do think that we have a PR problem in that people outside the sport think that ALL these things are part of hockey and must be done to play. That thought process causes many of them to just blow off the sport and discourage their kid before they can get interested in it. As the number of little kids trying the sport drops, associations are forced to join together to even have enough players to participate. This increases drive time for practices etc. and can take away the 'community' spirit of the sport. None of that is good for hockey.

We need to do a better job of making sure that 5 year old kids and their parents understand that you don't have to spend $600 for skates, $200 for a stick or $2000 for off season training in order to play hockey. Some of the greatest players played at the local pond and developed their skills without high priced camps or equipment and still had fun and exceled.

The ideas expressed regarding having USA hockey help out may be a good start. Maybe if we work harder as a group we could push local cities to offer discounted ice rates for community hockey programs, equipment manufacturers to promote lower priced equipment and other options to keep costs down. That doesn't stop people from spending the money who want to do it but it would be nice to encourage people that it doesn't have to cost that much. The main thing is that if we don't start thinking about these things soon, community hockey as we know it could end.

We need to figure out a way to get more people to at least try it. The biggest thing stopping people is the fear of the high cost which drives them away before they even start. They go buy little johnny a basketball and keep him away from the local outdoor rinks during the winter so he doesn't even think about getting interested.

[LesHabs]

very well stated Seek and Destroy !!!

[muckandgrind]

Back to the topic.....If the big associations like Wayzata, Woodbury and others won't field multiple "A" teams, than smaller associations have to partner together if they want to compete. I see nothing wrong with it, whatsoever.

Smaller associations simply can't serve the best interests of ALL players when the gap in talent on a single team is too big. Either the top-end players don't develop because the coach gears his practices towards developing the bottom-end players, or the bottom-end players don't develop because they can't keep up with the top-end players.

It's a sad fact, but it's the truth. I applaud associations like Mpls Park, Armstrong-Cooper and others for recognizing this and not being afraid to act in the best interests of their players.

[goldy313]

Outdoor ice is a great starting point. If there was a pond in every neighborhood, hand-me-down skates and sticks would allow an army of kids to get hooked with no cost at all. Unfortunately many communities have blocked recreational outdoor ice. Why?

In my community the local youth hockey association made a deal with the devil and persuaded the city another sheet of indoor ice was needed, so by guarenteeing to rent more ice costs associated with hockey went up as well. When I first started coacing rink teams were about $100 and only used indoor ice for games while practicing outside at least once a week. By 2003 (?) my last year of coaching we, as a rink team went from no indoor ice to 3 hours a week of indoor ice, split among two teams, the costs also went from $100 to nearly $400. More often than not this was at 9:00 or 10:00. In talking with the kids and parents we decided to go outside at 6 or 7 and practice for 90 minutes alone instead. The local board was upset, not only were we not using our ice (which we paid for) but we were using free ice. I was called in front of the board and told either to repay the board for the unused half sheet of ice which wasn't unused or costing them any money or stop using outdoor ice, further if we needed extra ice than what was scheduled we needed to rent ice with our own money before we were allowed to go outside and skate for free.

I know from talking with others that we aren't the only community with this situation. Ice rinks can only make it if they rent their ice and in most places youth hockey rents the most ice, losing those hours, even a small fraction of total hours would cause a trickledown effect. As is is it's a viscious circle; to pay for the ice you need to charge more money, by charging more money you lose kids playing hockey, by losing kids playing hockey you need to rent more ice to fewer teams which raises costs. It's a downwards spiral that was offset by girls hockey in some places but my feeling is that's only temporary.

[DMom]

Outdoor ice is a great starting point. If there was a pond in every neighborhood, hand-me-down skates and sticks would allow an army of kids to get hooked with no cost at all. Unfortunately many communities have blocked recreational outdoor ice. Why?

In my community the local youth hockey association made a deal with the devil and persuaded the city another sheet of indoor ice was needed, so by guarenteeing to rent more ice costs associated with hockey went up as well. When I first started coacing rink teams were about $100 and only used indoor ice for games while practicing outside at least once a week. By 2003 (?) my last year of coaching we, as a rink team went from no indoor ice to 3 hours a week of indoor ice, split among two teams, the costs also went from $100 to nearly $400. More often than not this was at 9:00 or 10:00. In talking with the kids and parents we decided to go outside at 6 or 7 and practice for 90 minutes alone instead. The local board was upset, not only were we not using our ice (which we paid for) but we were using free ice. I was called in front of the board and told either to repay the board for the unused half sheet of ice which wasn't unused or costing them any money or stop using outdoor ice, further if we needed extra ice than what was scheduled we needed to rent ice with our own money before we were allowed to go outside and skate for free.

I know from talking with others that we aren't the only community with this situation. Ice rinks can only make it if they rent their ice and in most places youth hockey rents the most ice, losing those hours, even a small fraction of total hours would cause a trickledown effect. As is is it's a viscious circle; to pay for the ice you need to charge more money, by charging more money you lose kids playing hockey, by losing kids playing hockey you need to rent more ice to fewer teams which raises costs. It's a downwards spiral that was offset by girls hockey in some places but my feeling is that's only temporary.

In season, there aren't too many associations with ice to spare in the metro area. Most ice could have four teams on it and still have associations clamoring for more. That being said, our association had a team that preferred outside ice and was scheduled accordingly.

I do love the idea of the pond hockey and insurance via USA hockey. Every year we have a bunch of parents who call up and want to know about the 'community ed' version of hockey, and, of course, it doesn't exist.

Outdoor ice is hard to maintain and takes a lot of volunteer hours or paid city parks workers to maintain it, how do you overcome this obstacle?

[council member retired]

[quote="DMom"][quote="goldy313"][quote="InigoMontoya"]Outdoor ice is a great starting point. If there was a pond in every neighborhood, hand-me-down skates and sticks would allow an army of kids to get hooked with no cost at all. Unfortunately many communities have blocked recreational outdoor ice. Why?[/quote]

In my community the local youth hockey association made a deal with the devil and persuaded the city another sheet of indoor ice was needed, so by guarenteeing to rent more ice costs associated with hockey went up as well. When I first started coacing rink teams were about $100 and only used indoor ice for games while practicing outside at least once a week. By 2003 (?) my last year of coaching we, as a rink team went from no indoor ice to 3 hours a week of indoor ice, split among two teams, the costs also went from $100 to nearly $400. More often than not this was at 9:00 or 10:00. In talking with the kids and parents we decided to go outside at 6 or 7 and practice for 90 minutes alone instead. The local board was upset, not only were we not using our ice (which we paid for) but we were using free ice. I was called in front of the board and told either to repay the board for the unused half sheet of ice which wasn't unused or costing them any money or stop using outdoor ice, further if we needed extra ice than what was scheduled we needed to rent ice with our own money before we were allowed to go outside and skate for free.

I know from talking with others that we aren't the only community with this situation. Ice rinks can only make it if they rent their ice and in most places youth hockey rents the most ice, losing those hours, even a small fraction of total hours would cause a trickledown effect. As is is it's a viscious circle; to pay for the ice you need to charge more money, by charging more money you lose kids playing hockey, by losing kids playing hockey you need to rent more ice to fewer teams which raises costs. It's a downwards spiral that was offset by girls hockey in some places but my feeling is that's only temporary.[/quote]

In season, there aren't too many associations with ice to spare in the metro area. Most ice could have four teams on it and still have associations clamoring for more. That being said, our association had a team that preferred outside ice and was scheduled accordingly.

I do love the idea of the pond hockey and insurance via USA hockey. Every year we have a bunch of parents who call up and want to know about the 'community ed' version of hockey, and, of course, it doesn't exist.

Outdoor ice is hard to maintain and takes a lot of volunteer hours or paid city parks workers to maintain it, how do you overcome this obstacle?[/quote]

I believe MN Hockey is beginning a REC program this upcoming season. This would be for younger age players, not just the XL League.

[goldy313]

Outdoor ice in my community is maintained by the city, warming houses are opened and a kid sits in there and keeps a the fire going and shovels the rink if needed. Sometimes we had to help him shovel but that's alright bantam kids could always use the work. The ice isn't great, they flood it once a week but it's ice and it's free and you can get a lot of work done on outdoor ice. One big obstacle is kids now have a stigma attached to outdoor ice which is a mistake, so you have use a little more muscle passing the puck and maybe the puck takes a bad bounce, same things happen on indoor ice.

A Rec league would be great, too bad the powers that be in MH and local associations decided to do away with Rec leagues years ago. Gettting and keeping kids involved should be a top priority not just developing a very small number of very good kids. The Pioneer Press had a great series written on the cost of high school sports both in economic and other terms and one thing really stood out to me and that's the number of 20+ year olds in adult hockey and basketball leagues is declining fast. I notice this in my adult league, years ago there was a mix of 20-50 year olds now the number of under 30 players is really small compared to what it used to be.

[hockeyover40]

Sunday night St. Louis Park held a board meeting, and they do not want to continue with the co-op as it stands today. Can someone from their board confirm or deny this?

[WreckCenter]

Our Board is trying to negotiate a deal where some teams would play as a coop and some would be SLP - Only, But the Axis says Surrender is unconditional - give us everything including prime ice time at our rink.

Stay tuned.

[hockeyover40]

Our Board is trying to negotiate a deal where some teams would play as a coop and some would be SLP - Only, But the Axis says Surrender is unconditional - give us everything including prime ice time at our rink.

Stay tuned.

Weren't your co-op teams more successful this year than in years past? Why would you want to limit the co-op to some teams. It seems that would be taking a step backwards.

Didn't both the SLP and SW kids benefit by forming the co-op. Both SLP and SW struggled by themselves, that's why they got together in the first place. Now SLP wants to break off and go it alone. It doesn't make sense. Something more is going on here.

[muckandgrind]

Our Board is trying to negotiate a deal where some teams would play as a coop and some would be SLP - Only, But the Axis says Surrender is unconditional - give us everything including prime ice time at our rink.

Stay tuned.

Weren't your co-op teams more successful this year than in years past? Why would you want to limit the co-op to some teams. It seems that would be taking a step backwards.

Didn't both the SLP and SW kids benefit by forming the co-op. Both SLP and SW struggled by themselves, that's why they got together in the first place. Now SLP wants to break off and go it alone. It doesn't make sense. Something more is going on here.

My bet is that one or a few parents got upset that their little Johnnie didn't make the A team and figured the best way to remedy that was to back out of the co-op. They may claim it's for some other reason, but that's probably what would be at the heart of it all. I hope I'm wrong and these parents realize that they have a good thing going. That Mpls Park A Bantam team was pretty solid, IMO.

[pwdad]

As I understand it the SLP board wanted to move forward with the alliance only under their terms.

Here is the post from the website:

The SLPHA board voted on the follwoing motions regarding the Southwest / Washburn / Richfield Coop.

The board voted to reject the Southwest Board's March 23, 2009 written proposal to coop with Washburn and Richfield at the Bantam, Pee Wee and Squirt A and B1 levels. Washburn would have representation on the hockey commitee regarding these teams.

The board passed a motion to agree to waive Washburn and Richfield players into the tryout process at the A and B1 teams at the Bantam and Pee Wee levels. The hockey comitee would remain the same with Southwest and SLP having 50% partnership.

In short, they didn't want to give up any control on the "hockey committee" to the Washburn and Richfield folks. Sounds like a clear example of cutting off their noses.

[hockeyover40]

As I understand it the SLP board wanted to move forward with the alliance only under their terms.

Here is the post from the website:

The SLPHA board voted on the follwoing motions regarding the Southwest / Washburn / Richfield Coop.

The board voted to reject the Southwest Board's March 23, 2009 written proposal to coop with Washburn and Richfield at the Bantam, Pee Wee and Squirt A and B1 levels. Washburn would have representation on the hockey commitee regarding these teams.

The board passed a motion to agree to waive Washburn and Richfield players into the tryout process at the A and B1 teams at the Bantam and Pee Wee levels. The hockey comitee would remain the same with Southwest and SLP having 50% partnership.

In short, they didn't want to give up any control on the "hockey committee" to the Washburn and Richfield folks. Sounds like a clear example of cutting off their noses.

Sounds like your typical power struggle. More about the parents than doing whats best for the kids.

What about the tryout process for the A and B1 teams at the squirt level. They don't matter??? Why not do it at all levels? What's the thinking behind that?

Wreck Center, you allude to the axis calling for a full surrender. Please tell us what is wrong with the proposal of the Storm just adding Washburn & Richfield to the co-op. How is this bad for the kids. Adding their A and B1 level kids to Storm teams will only make the teams stronger and better able to compete within D3.

Sure sounds like egos, and personality conflicts getting in the way. Can you come with some reasoning why this isn't true? A lot of questions here, please enlighten us.

[mngopherfan]

As I understand it the SLP board wanted to move forward with the alliance only under their terms.

Here is the post from the website:

The SLPHA board voted on the follwoing motions regarding the Southwest / Washburn / Richfield Coop.

The board voted to reject the Southwest Board's March 23, 2009 written proposal to coop with Washburn and Richfield at the Bantam, Pee Wee and Squirt A and B1 levels. Washburn would have representation on the hockey commitee regarding these teams.

The board passed a motion to agree to waive Washburn and Richfield players into the tryout process at the A and B1 teams at the Bantam and Pee Wee levels. The hockey comitee would remain the same with Southwest and SLP having 50% partnership.

In short, they didn't want to give up any control on the "hockey committee" to the Washburn and Richfield folks. Sounds like a clear example of cutting off their noses.

Sounds like your typical power struggle. More about the parents than doing whats best for the kids.

What about the tryout process for the A and B1 teams at the squirt level. They don't matter??? Why not do it at all levels? What's the thinking behind that?

Wreck Center, you allude to the axis calling for a full surrender. Please tell us what is wrong with the proposal of the Storm just adding Washburn & Richfield to the co-op. How is this bad for the kids. Adding their A and B1 level kids to Storm teams will only make the teams stronger and better able to compete within D3.

Sure sounds like egos, and personality conflicts getting in the way. Can you come with some reasoning why this isn't true? A lot of questions here, please enlighten us.

I dissagree. I think the SLP Parents are doing whats best for thier kids...they arent trying to have the best youth hockey co-op, the purpose of youth hockey is to develop talent for HS. With 4 assn's in one the development for the SLP kids would be greatly reduced. MPLS park was a large enough co-op (4 Bantam teams/5 PW teams) that adding Washburn and Richfield would be overkill. What would SLP get out of that?

Just by $.02...

[muckandgrind]

As I understand it the SLP board wanted to move forward with the alliance only under their terms.

Here is the post from the website:

The SLPHA board voted on the follwoing motions regarding the Southwest / Washburn / Richfield Coop.

The board voted to reject the Southwest Board's March 23, 2009 written proposal to coop with Washburn and Richfield at the Bantam, Pee Wee and Squirt A and B1 levels. Washburn would have representation on the hockey commitee regarding these teams.

The board passed a motion to agree to waive Washburn and Richfield players into the tryout process at the A and B1 teams at the Bantam and Pee Wee levels. The hockey comitee would remain the same with Southwest and SLP having 50% partnership.

In short, they didn't want to give up any control on the "hockey committee" to the Washburn and Richfield folks. Sounds like a clear example of cutting off their noses.

Sounds like your typical power struggle. More about the parents than doing whats best for the kids.

What about the tryout process for the A and B1 teams at the squirt level. They don't matter??? Why not do it at all levels? What's the thinking behind that?

Wreck Center, you allude to the axis calling for a full surrender. Please tell us what is wrong with the proposal of the Storm just adding Washburn & Richfield to the co-op. How is this bad for the kids. Adding their A and B1 level kids to Storm teams will only make the teams stronger and better able to compete within D3.

Sure sounds like egos, and personality conflicts getting in the way. Can you come with some reasoning why this isn't true? A lot of questions here, please enlighten us.

I dissagree. I think the SLP Parents are doing whats best for thier kids...they arent trying to have the best youth hockey co-op, the purpose of youth hockey is to develop talent for HS. With 4 assn's in one the development for the SLP kids would be greatly reduced. MPLS park was a large enough co-op (4 Bantam teams/5 PW teams) that adding Washburn and Richfield would be overkill. What would SLP get out of that?

Just by $.02...

Who says? I thought the purpose of youth hockey was for the kids to have an opportunity to play the game and have fun? The majority of kids who play youth hockey will never play at the HS level, anyways.

I think it's more important (for development purposes) that young kids play with other players of a similar skill-set.

[mngopherfan]

Sounds like your typical power struggle. More about the parents than doing whats best for the kids.

What about the tryout process for the A and B1 teams at the squirt level. They don't matter??? Why not do it at all levels? What's the thinking behind that?

Wreck Center, you allude to the axis calling for a full surrender. Please tell us what is wrong with the proposal of the Storm just adding Washburn & Richfield to the co-op. How is this bad for the kids. Adding their A and B1 level kids to Storm teams will only make the teams stronger and better able to compete within D3.

Sure sounds like egos, and personality conflicts getting in the way. Can you come with some reasoning why this isn't true? A lot of questions here, please enlighten us.

I dissagree. I think the SLP Parents are doing whats best for thier kids...they arent trying to have the best youth hockey co-op, the purpose of youth hockey is to develop talent for HS. With 4 assn's in one the development for the SLP kids would be greatly reduced. MPLS park was a large enough co-op (4 Bantam teams/5 PW teams) that adding Washburn and Richfield would be overkill. What would SLP get out of that?

Just by $.02...

Who says? I thought the purpose of youth hockey was for the kids to have an opportunity to play the game and have fun? The majority of kids who play youth hockey will never play at the HS level, anyways.

I think it's more important (for development purposes) that young kids play with other players of a similar skill-set.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're kidding yourself if you think Bantam A's play stictly for fun, coaches dont preach fun as the only objective at that age...they are playing to get better so they can play HS, yes not every Bantam aged kid will play HS but you better believe that is their goal...