Is Rochester Red the 12th team in the D9 Peewee A playoffs?

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:01 pm

Expressor16 wrote:Fred.

I am Dave Swenson. Someone told me this discussion was happening on here so I thought I would set the record straight.

As we are coming to an end to another hockey season, I think District 9, the board, Tom and all the volunteers have done a very good job.

Can we make improvements in the future, you bet. Will we make changes for next year? I think so. All the associations have representation on the board and a voice. I think the Rochester issue will continue to be a discussion point for the next several years as we work to help every association and hockey in southern Minnesota improve the overall hockey experience for kids. Let's all continue to support the achievements that our teams are earning and encourage them to do their best in districts and regions.

See you at the rink,

Dave Swenson

Quick question and no disrespect but did Red pay league fees for districts this year when they played their independent schedule? Did they hire district refs for their independent games? If not I think this opens up a whole new issue.

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:03 pm

Fred,

There are many duties of a district such as registering players and making sure that Minnesota Hockey and USA Hockey rules and regulations are followed. However, when we started the process of creating the district, Minnesota Hockey made it very clear that, ultimately, our district had to provide a process for seeding teams into the regional tournaments. That can include any method that the board decides. The size of Rochester's program creates a situation that requires continual discussion. For example, they brought up what would have been their B1 teams up to the A level to compete. Those on those teams could be yelling foul for putting their boys into a situation that would otherwise get them to a regional tournament as B teams. I don't think it is my place, district nine's place or anyone's place to dictate to an association how they structure their teams. My teams will get better by getting beat by their best 15 players everytime.

Yes, there is no requirement for leagues. However, when the district sets up it's district rules, it sets forth the requirements for eligibility for league playoffs. I would think that if too many associations were to not want to play in a league the board may set requirements that would encourage league play. Last year, we worked with Rochester to try this method for their top teams. I think it worked out OK. I would prefer to play the best teams in the district on a regular basis. I think the better teams help the less developed teams get better when they play. I want to play the best team in the state. If we get beat bad, my players know where the bar is set. That is real life. North Dakota hosted Robert Morris this year. Hakstol said something to the effect that North Dakota owes to the college hockey community to schedule the lesser-established programs to help the game and college hockey. I like that example, then again, I like everything North Dakota does. LOL.

About the seeding process. I don't thing anyone can say that the seeding is out of line. The executive committee talked with Tom at length about the relative strength of the Rochester Red teams and we felt that they, first, belong in the East and, second, are the best teams in the East. Our oversight was that when LuVerne goes back to D4, we had lopsided numbers. So, we seeded both sides of the league together, by league points, and had to bring someone over to the west side of the playoffs. We feel we came up with the fairest matchups for 12 teams going into districts. You may disagree and I respect that. But, after talking with many coaches we feel we got the seeding correct.

Finally, it is true that we have to manage the needs of each association with the needs of the district. Remember, the district only has to provide for the sanctioning of the seeding process up to the regional tournaments. My bigger vision, and this is not the responsibility of the district per se, is that we all work together to grow this great sport in District 9, including every association in it. It might be a pipe dream, but, I do believe that there will be a time in the future when we create some of the best players in the state. I will always hope that every association will compete in the league that the district administers.

I don't usually type this much. I would rather have my skates on and a stick in my hands, as I'm sure you would. I see you played Rochester Black yesterday. How did that come out?

See you at the rink.

Dave

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:08 pm

DED1

Yes and Yes. Rochester, by far, provided the most funding to District 9 because they have the most teams. The Red teams are District 9 registered teams and paid the same fees as the others.

See you at the rink.

Dave

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:10 pm

In the future, I will only reply to a poster who provides their identity. I find it very troubling reading some of the posts from those who fear to reveal themselves. Own your words. If you can't own em they don't mean anything.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:12 pm

dog: Yes, the Rochester association paid District fees for all of its teams and all teams were rostered with USA Hockey and approved with D9 Registrar.

D9 does not have it's own pool of referees, so to speak. Meaning games are not scheduled for refs with a D9 referee scheduler. The refs are Rochester area men/women that are approved and sign up for games via Arbiter adminstered by the Rochester Referee Coordinator.

Unsure if the D9 Ref Coordinator gets a spiff for games or not, but would assume worked like the D8 arrangement where the D8 guy got a buck or two per district game?

Post by **east hockey** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:30 pm

Expressor16 wrote:In the future, I will only reply to a poster who provides their identity. I find it very troubling reading some of the posts from those who fear to reveal themselves. Own your words. If you can't own em they don't mean anything.

So, you'll only be replying to 0.000001% of the registered users. That should be fun.

Lee

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:33 pm

Lee,

Yes, that would probably be the case. I have participated in these in the past. I find it very troubling that many thoughts are shared without ownership. I believe if I want to share my opinions, I should own up to them. So, because of the nature of these things, I may not be back. I have plenty to do.

Dave Swenson

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:36 pm

One other point. I love to talk about hockey...in person! If you see me at the rink...that's where I am, usually...I would love to talk about how we grow the sport.

Good luck to all teams in the post season.

I hope to see you all at the rink. Remember, pat your player on the back. Build them up and see how much better they get.

Post by **east hockey** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:38 pm

Expressor16 wrote:east hockey,

Yes, that would probably be the case. I have participated in these in the past. I find it very troubling that many thoughts are shared without ownership. I believe if I want to share my opinions, I should own up to them. So, because of the nature of these things, I may not be back. I have plenty to do.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but the idea of requiring real names on posts lead to a simple question: How exactly do we know that someone is who they say they are? Phone call? Faxed copy of their social security card? To say this would be difficult to enforce is an understatement. Believe me, Mitch and I have had this conversation in the past.

Besides, all these people with multiple usernames would miss out on the biggest part of their fun...agreeing with themselves!

Lee

Expressor16 · Post by **Expressor16** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:39 pm

I understand. The funnest thing would be to see the same person arguing with themselves. I understand that if one is thinking something that many are very likely thinking it as well and will not speak out. But the very nature of being without identity makes these blogs very unproductive. I would much rather be in a room, face-to-face, having these discussions and creating resolution and making hockey better for the kids.

Post by **east hockey** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:40 pm

Expressor16 wrote:I understand. The funnest thing would be to see the same person arguing with themselves.

This has also happened! It was an attempt to make people think they were not the same. I mean, who would argue with themselves?

Lee

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:37 am

Dave,
You must know that you and I don’t agree. Let me explain why.

But first, understand that I am not a coach from Northfield. I have been involved one way or another with sport since the mid-1950’s. It would help if you read my blog to get a feel for the passion I feel for the way Minnesota Hockey has developed. To me, Minnesota Hockey is a treasure to be cherished because it has found a formula that is a balance between community, players, coaches, and parents over the years. It is one that USA Hockey wishes it could clone.

I lived through that development and understood what it meant as the sport’s venue evolved from outdoor ice the whole winter, to single sheet arenas, to multi-sheet arenas, to today’s arena complexes.

Owatonna has two nice sheets of ice for the hockey season. The sheets exist because community interest in the sport. That interest provides the funding to keep the arena open. And (this is key), the community can only justify the expense if the Owatonna Association maintains fairness in their hockey program. It has to be open to all kids in the community.

If the parents and their kids participating feel that are not being treated fairly they will not spend the time and money. I can point out at least three arenas within an hours drive of Owatonna where they are out of business or just hanging in.

Your philosophy has resulted in the following situation in D9 this year. The Rochester Red, though they were given the opportunity to play a D9 schedule, declined for competition reasons and went out and played an independent schedule. They did that to improve 17 kids.

D9 then invited or had reserved an entrance into their tourney even though the Red played no D9 games. Further D9 thought so well of what Rochester Red did, that they gave them the #1 seed solely based on how strong they looked on paper. The #1 seed is the easiest path to a regional seed that is why they call it #1.

I explained this situation in two minutes to my 12 year old granddaughter this afternoon as we were walking into an ice arena. She said “that’s not fair”. It took her two minutes to understand that.
You seem rational and smart and you don’t get it. You think it is fair.

And that scares me.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:38 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:HockeyDad41:

I have followed your postings regarding your mite age player. I find your posting on this topic humorous given your position on topics impacting metro associations, including your own and Bernard McBain. You have chosen the development path for your "future NHL'er" that many, including myself find troubling. I know you are saying the MM shine is dulling a bit, but I think you will admit that you will do whatever you think is right for your son's development.

I know what you mean. My position is and always has been fluid. I support choice yet I also support a strong association model. I may be the one guy that thinks you can have both in some fashion.

I got a little fired up because as I understood the situation - thanks for clearing that up Expressor16 - I thought kids were getting screwed. I'm pretty sure my emotional reaction will be the same next time I think that too. I have learned though. I'll probably just fume silently instead of jumping in and sounding off.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:54 am

Fred I know this is not comparing apples to apples, but, if D2 did this for WB, or Stillwater, we [the rest of D2] would be pissed. In my opinion if it was agreed upon it's not Roch's fault. The whole #1 seed thing is a complete joke though. Didn't play in the district, and still got the 1 seed. No way should have been the low seed, with the longest road to regions. We [the FL pee-wee dads] like your game beak-downs. thanks.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:13 am

HD41: Thanks for the reply! I do enjoy reading what you have to say!

hocmom · Post by **hocmom** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:15 am

I explained this situation in two minutes to my 12 year old granddaughter this afternoon as we were walking into an ice arena. She said “that’s not fair”. It took her two minutes to understand that.
You seem rational and smart and you don’t get it. You think it is fair.

Now it all makes sense. You are using pre-teen definitions of fair. I assume there are times that the 12 year old, using her understanding of what is fair, has disagreements with her parents.

I suppose using the purest sense of the word, it is not fair. It is reasonable and prudent.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:30 am

Fred:

I can get my 12 year old to agree with my point of view also by giving him half-truths and leading him to my conclusions.

Here's my suggestion if you don't want a repeat of the Rochester Red situation next year. Get your association and all of the other D9 associations to stop fielding PW A level teams. Mankato and likely Owatonna would continue to field A teams, as would Rochester Red. The other 9 associations would field B1 and B2 PW teams. Rochester Black and Gold would play at the B1 and B2 levels also. Associations that understand their playing level, Winona, LaCrescent, St. Peter, Waseca, to name a few, would continue to field B1 teams. That would result in a 12-14 team league having good competive games throughout league play, would have no trouble competing in metro area B1 tournaments and scrimmage games, and when leaving Districts for Regional tournaments would have a legitimate chance to advance to play at the State tournament. This isn't about winning games, it's about competing at the appropriate level for player development. Don't get hung up on the letter!

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:30 am

We have a person, who has an active role in D9 board activities, whose opinion is that their players need to compete with their skaters who can skate with them.

As a result of D9 policy decisions, it has resulted in a team, Rochester Red, consciously rejecting regular D9 play, playing an independent schedule, then coming back in the D9 playoffs for the sole reason to compete for the state title, and finally being seeded #1. The play of the other 11 teams over the regular course of the season was rendered invalid in that single decision.

And in the opinion of the D9 board member, that is fair because big organizations with more numbers need better competition to develop 12-14 year old kids.

But through all this, the adults ignore the fact that within the Rochester association with its large numbers, they are developing just 17 kids.

And D9 justifies their actions by saying all of the other 11 D9 peewee A teams knew of and agreed to the process because it was best for D9.

hot wheels · Post by **hot wheels** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:49 am

Frederick I love reading your break downs but now after reading what you have been writing on this topic and the way you have gone about it. I have LOST respect for you and you opinion.

hocmom · Post by **hocmom** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:57 am

I am beginning to think that anything but the most simple thought is lost on Fred.

Fred assumes that had he been in the room during the multiple meetings that D9 had regarding this issue, that he would have been the sole hold out for all that is holy and good. He would have held his ground against this bunch of ignorant board members. BS.

When he does not like a decision, he assumes ill will.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:15 am

Fred:

So you think only "A" level players are being developed? What ignorant and arrogant thinking. You have slapped the face of every B1, B2 and C player and coach that come to the rink each day to get better hockey and life skills.

Your team is a B1 team. Swallow your personal pride and play your kids at the appropriate level. If all of D9 "A" teams did the same, it would be all the same teams, same level of competition, but will be at the appropriate level compared to the rest of the world. Then Rochester RED and Mankato can go about their season at the "A" level!

observer · Post by **observer** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:21 am

they are developing just 17 kids.

This is something that caught my attention as well. It turns out that the B1 coach and team may be more important than the A team in almost all associations. Every team will need 3-4-5 players off the B1 team to step up and become A players next season. Could be first year players on B1 this season but also 2nd year players. When A teams have more ice, or better coaching (really shouldn't happen in an association with a good hockey development coordinator because every team should be running the best practice plans in the organization) the divide between A and B1 grows which is a problem when next season's teams are selected in the fall. Some won't agree because they're obsessed with developing just a few but the problem is they don't know who the few are at the PeeWee B1 level that they'll need to step up for next season's PeeWee or Bantam A. Frankly, this time of year it's not uncommon for 2-3 players on PeeWee B1 to show that they're likely better players than the bottom 1-2 on the PeeWee A team. The goal is to shrink that divide and that's why the coaching and practice plans of the B1 team may be more important than the A team. The A level team may already be getting extra development opportunities during the off season that some of the B1 teams aren't.

Focus on B1 as that's where 4-6-8 of your future A players will come from.

PanthersIn2011 · Post by **PanthersIn2011** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:31 am

old goalie85 wrote:Fred I know this is not comparing apples to apples, but, if D2 did this for WB, or Stillwater, we [the rest of D2] would be pissed. In my opinion if it was agreed upon it's not Roch's fault. The whole #1 seed thing is a complete joke though. Didn't play in the district, and still got the 1 seed. No way should have been the low seed, with the longest road to regions. We [the FL pee-wee dads] like your game beak-downs. thanks.

If you are only considering from the perspective of Rochester Red, seeding them last seems appropriate.

But. That puts them on a path to play one play-in game and run smack into a #1 seed in the fist round of double-elim. If they survive the single-elim situation, it throws the double-elim portion of the tournament into a tizzy.

If you look at it from the perspective of the field, the proper place to put them precisely where you think they belong. If you think they are a 2 seed, put them there. If you think they are a 9 seed put them there.

And this appears to what the D9 tournament committee has done.

Another indication that the members of the district have discussed the issue and are on top of it.

P.S. Check your PMs.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:40 am

How many on this board have heard the phrase "ad hominem abuse". Some should look it up. Wikipedia is a good source.

I don't agree with the actions taken by D9 nor the philosophy of indulging a large organization because they are large. I believe that D9 is wrong and that Minnesota Hockey should and needs to clarify the situation. My experience is, if Minnesota Hockey does not act, then it will be worse next year.

I believe that other hockey associations in viewing the actions D9 has taken could force on Minnesota Hockey the establishment of a "super league" of large associations. I further believe that such a "super league" can only be established with prime winter access to community resources. I believe if an association involved provides such access they will lose their communities' support.

Losing such support for association hockey in Minnesota in the midst of a toubled economy will only reduce participation in the sport.

PanthersIn2011 · Post by **PanthersIn2011** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:52 am

Fred:

You seem to continue to tilt at the authority and autonomy of the D9 director to do what he thought was right. And I think that is a slippery slope.

I completely get that some think it is wrong for a team to play an independent schedule. That is a very specific issue and you clearly have a different view of it the Mr. Christenson and his members.

But I would hate to see the DD's handcuffed. I have worked with several of them through the years and have exchanged pleasantries with a few others. They are the "hockey guys" of Minnesota Hockey. Take away their power, and you are going to put it in the hands of the beareaucrats of MH. The ones who don't have to answer to any of the members.

Bring a "no independent schedule" agenda in front of MH if you feel this is such a big issue. But stop piddling on the heads of the good people of D9 who did what they thought was right.