Girls HS Hockey in Major Decline

[easthockeydad]

At a private school they're taught to spell their name there, not there taught to spell they're name their.

Perhaps that is why some parents send their child (hockey player) to a private school. It also happens to be much easier to get a roster spot at a DI or DIII school with good academics than it is with an ACT score of 18. An education is far more important than a trophy for the people who choose to spend their money on a private education; it’s called a return on investment.

The next thing I expect to hear from you morons is that the MSHSL should start busing hockey players up north to make it more fair... or it is fare

I think you meant, "is it fare?"

Kids who go to privates would turn out the same if they went to publics. If education is a priority and they are driven they will do well anywhere. It's a status thing. Very little to do with education.

There are qualified and unqualified opinions. Education isn't just about grades. Unless you have personal experience, your comments are merely speculation and/or maybe sour grapes-based. In our area, I had one kid attend the public high school and another kid attend a local private. "It's a status thing?" You appear to be the owner of another unqualified opinion. When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! But it certainly isn't about status LOL. Oh by the way, I went to public school.

[RailingWizardofOZ]

At a private school they're taught to spell their name there, not there taught to spell they're name their.

Perhaps that is why some parents send their child (hockey player) to a private school. It also happens to be much easier to get a roster spot at a DI or DIII school with good academics than it is with an ACT score of 18. An education is far more important than a trophy for the people who choose to spend their money on a private education; it’s called a return on investment.

The next thing I expect to hear from you morons is that the MSHSL should start busing hockey players up north to make it more fair... or it is fare

I think you meant, "is it fare?"

Kids who go to privates would turn out the same if they went to publics. If education is a priority and they are driven they will do well anywhere. It's a status thing. Very little to do with education.

There are qualified and unqualified opinions. Education isn't just about grades. Unless you have personal experience, your comments are merely speculation and/or maybe sour grapes-based. In our area, I had one kid attend the public high school and another kid attend a local private. "It's a status thing?" You appear to be the owner of another unqualified opinion. When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! But it certainly isn't about status LOL. Oh by the way, I went to public school.

Good thing you're qualified enough to throw all those people and groups under the bus. Can't imagine why anyone would feel another is arrogant?! I wonder if it's arrogance that makes one blind to the perceived status, or the status one feels that creates the arrogance. Different subject I guess

[thegreatone99]

If this really is about education as so many have stated, then it should not matter you have played hockey year around, are on all the top teams or get selected for Selects based on political connections and OS Teams and training to your hearts delight, why not just go to a private school that is not in the top tier for hockey, because it is about the education right? Is this why so many of these girls who play for Breck and Blake show up on these politically connected summer teams?

We can all agree to disagree Breck and Blake do not recruit, why don't they both grow a pair....... and leave the Class A tourney for the schools where it means something like the New Prague or Hibbing. Why should these teams be subjected after the excitement of making a state tournament be subjected to playing a team like Breck or Blake who clearly are not Class A except for tournament time. Sorry B&B you are wrecking the game with your checkbooks and resources.

[Jeffy95]

At a private school they're taught to spell their name there, not there taught to spell they're name their.

Perhaps that is why some parents send their child (hockey player) to a private school. It also happens to be much easier to get a roster spot at a DI or DIII school with good academics than it is with an ACT score of 18. An education is far more important than a trophy for the people who choose to spend their money on a private education; it’s called a return on investment.

The next thing I expect to hear from you morons is that the MSHSL should start busing hockey players up north to make it more fair... or it is fare

I think you meant, "is it fare?"

Kids who go to privates would turn out the same if they went to publics. If education is a priority and they are driven they will do well anywhere. It's a status thing. Very little to do with education.

When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! .

I guess if you rely on a school to teach your kids all of those things then maybe you have a point. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still believe it's the parent's job to raise their kids. But that's just my "unqualified" opinion.

[Hansonbrother]

I think you meant, "is it fare?"

Kids who go to privates would turn out the same if they went to publics. If education is a priority and they are driven they will do well anywhere. It's a status thing. Very little to do with education.

When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! .

I guess if you rely on a school to teach your kids all of those things then maybe you have a point. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still believe it's the parent's job to raise their kids. But that's just my "unqualified" opinion.

Well then, o' ye who knows all...what happens when your kid who went to public school, but struggled in a large school environment, opts to go to private school with smaller class sizes...is it wrong to find a school that is
1. affordable, 2. has small class sizes 3. promotes a healthy learning environment 4. offers a quality athletic program??

The public school we left offered none of those for my kid with the exception of affordability... Fights in the hallway between classes, open enrollment for all those thrown out from other nearby city public schools, a dwindling hockey program with a locker room full of drama. I don't know, would you honestly send your kid to that? Especially knowing they won't thrive in that environment?? Not survive, but THRIVE!

[Jeffy95]

When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! .

I guess if you rely on a school to teach your kids all of those things then maybe you have a point. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still believe it's the parent's job to raise their kids. But that's just my "unqualified" opinion.

Well then, o' ye who knows all......

Pretty sure I said I was unqualified.

[easthockeydad]

I think you meant, "is it fare?"

Kids who go to privates would turn out the same if they went to publics. If education is a priority and they are driven they will do well anywhere. It's a status thing. Very little to do with education.

There are qualified and unqualified opinions. Education isn't just about grades. Unless you have personal experience, your comments are merely speculation and/or maybe sour grapes-based. In our area, I had one kid attend the public high school and another kid attend a local private. "It's a status thing?" You appear to be the owner of another unqualified opinion. When it comes to raising the bar, high expectations, overall culture, instructors, leadership, athletics, team and student spirit, college prep, coaching, community giving, parents, discipline, etc., there is no comparison between my local public and private school. $$$s well spent! But it certainly isn't about status LOL. Oh by the way, I went to public school.

Good thing you're qualified enough to throw all those people and groups under the bus. Can't imagine why anyone would feel another is arrogant?! I wonder if it's arrogance that makes one blind to the perceived status, or the status one feels that creates the arrogance. Different subject I guess

Qualified in the area (our area) in which I live....which I was specific about. Certainly, there are good public schools...just not in my area in my opinion. However, 95 generalizes the status thing. I wouldn't say arrogance - I'd say personal experience or knowledge from apples to apples comparison (Public vs. Private IN MY AREA). The only elevated status I feel is generated from this response. Let's get back to hockey....

[itsfoilcoach]

If this really is about education as so many have stated, then it should not matter you have played hockey year around, are on all the top teams or get selected for Selects based on political connections and OS Teams and training to your hearts delight, why not just go to a private school that is not in the top tier for hockey, because it is about the education right? Is this why so many of these girls who play for Breck and Blake show up on these politically connected summer teams?

We can all agree to disagree Breck and Blake do not recruit, why don't they both grow a pair....... and leave the Class A tourney for the schools where it means something like the New Prague or Hibbing. Why should these teams be subjected after the excitement of making a state tournament be subjected to playing a team like Breck or Blake who clearly are not Class A except for tournament time. Sorry B&B you are wrecking the game with your checkbooks and resources.

Spot on. At the end of the day, the problem is MSHSL for not acting approperatly. It's hurting hockey peroid. Regardless of why private school parents justify sending their kids to a " better " environment....or they happen to live in the "neighbor hood", and by hapenstance they are a good hockey players to boot. I guess luck has fallen on them, and it's not an opertunity that others can afford, or logistically do. I'm sure we all would like to take advantage of a poorly run high school league, well maybe not. I respect Hill for moving up years ago. The others like the attention, and the money it brings in if (when) they make it to state. Who would look towards a private school for 20k if they never went to state...wait it's for a better locker room environment. Not very Christian like in my book from the schools perspective. Money grabbing at the expense of kids by taking advantage of a broke system. But who's to judge here, surly not me. I'm sure they have better reasons for not opting up that I'm not aware of. Is it the parents fault for taking advantage of the situation, and at the same time getting quality education until it's fixed. If a Cristian based school can turn a blind eye for money and opertunity, why can't parents as well for their own reasons. It's about hockey, and teaching life skills remember.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

My son and daughter are almost 7 years apart. When he enrolled at Hill in 9th grade she was barely making it around the pond with a folding chair to hold her up. He was (to be fair) in the middle of a top bantam team talent wise. He was also a pretty smart and ambitious kid who had 35-45 kids in nearly every class as an 8th grader. He was excellent in most subjects, struggled in math, and generally content day to day in school and hockey. He came to us about changing schools when a close friend was pursuing it. With a lot of thought and consideration, opinions on both sides, an evaluation of our own financial resources, and the $ resources available from the school, he and we made the decision for the transfer. He was still a maybe slightly about average player on a great hockey team, but he was also known by face and name by the entire faculty, friendly if not friends with most of his grade, challenged in the right honors programs and offered help to catch up in math, and took part in student council, band, I could go on.
We decided that the sacrifices were worth it for him, and our daughter after him, to go to a private school. He had more options for college and felt a hundred times more prepared for higher education than some of his childhood friends.
This was right for OUR family. We are economically the definition of middle class and can't carelessly "write checks" for whatever privileges some of you are bellowing about. Was hockey a consideration when choosing a school for my youngest? Of course - as was her anticipated financial aid, class size, course offerings, graduation rates and college placements, faculty to student ratios, non-athletic extra curriculars, her brother's experience there, and a thousand other things. When we moved to this first ring suburb with our very young kids, the school system was a draw. We could debate forever about what has gone wrong or how to fix it, but my own kids can't wait.

So say what you want about private schools. We aren't ruining the game of hockey or anything else for public schools. I hope for my grand children's sake that the public school system gets better and I can feel good about keeping them in their neighborhood schools without feeling they are sacrificing their education and future.
This thread has become unnecessarily adversarial and that's not helping anyone. Should Breck and Blake move up? How about the Hermantown boys? Probably.
But they don't have to. You can't change that. So why don't we teach our kids that "success" can be measured in a million different ways that have nothing to do with the state tournament. And while we are at it, let's make sure they know that the "rich privates" can't ruin the life experience and/or futures of the "downtrodden publics." I don't imagine many players are sitting at their computers contemplating the inherent unfairness of the MSHSL. Hopefully, they just love to play hockey. My kids never looked "down" at your kids - honestly you are the only ones belaboring the "elitism" you are so bothered with.

And, oh yeah, it's a GAME.

[itsfoilcoach]

My son and daughter are almost 7 years apart. When he enrolled at Hill in 9th grade she was barely making it around the pond with a folding chair to hold her up. He was (to be fair) in the middle of a top bantam team talent wise. He was also a pretty smart and ambitious kid who had 35-45 kids in nearly every class as an 8th grader. He was excellent in most subjects, struggled in math, and generally content day to day in school and hockey. He came to us about changing schools when a close friend was pursuing it. With a lot of thought and consideration, opinions on both sides, an evaluation of our own financial resources, and the $ resources available from the school, he and we made the decision for the transfer. He was still a maybe slightly about average player on a great hockey team, but he was also known by face and name by the entire faculty, friendly if not friends with most of his grade, challenged in the right honors programs and offered help to catch up in math, and took part in student council, band, I could go on.
We decided that the sacrifices were worth it for him, and our daughter after him, to go to a private school. He had more options for college and felt a hundred times more prepared for higher education than some of his childhood friends.
This was right for OUR family. We are economically the definition of middle class and can't carelessly "write checks" for whatever privileges some of you are bellowing about. Was hockey a consideration when choosing a school for my youngest? Of course - as was her anticipated financial aid, class size, course offerings, graduation rates and college placements, faculty to student ratios, non-athletic extra curriculars, her brother's experience there, and a thousand other things. When we moved to this first ring suburb with our very young kids, the school system was a draw. We could debate forever about what has gone wrong or how to fix it, but my own kids can't wait.

So say what you want about private schools. We aren't ruining the game of hockey or anything else for public schools. I hope for my grand children's sake that the public school system gets better and I can feel good about keeping them in their neighborhood schools without feeling they are sacrificing their education and future.
This thread has become unnecessarily adversarial and that's not helping anyone. Should Breck and Blake move up? How about the Hermantown boys? Probably.
But they don't have to. You can't change that. So why don't we teach our kids that "success" can be measured in a million different ways that have nothing to do with the state tournament. And while we are at it, let's make sure they know that the "rich privates" can't ruin the life experience and/or futures of the "downtrodden publics." I don't imagine many players are sitting at their computers contemplating the inherent unfairness of the MSHSL. Hopefully, they just love to play hockey. My kids never looked "down" at your kids - honestly you are the only ones belaboring the "elitism" you are so bothered with.

And, oh yeah, it's a GAME.

No ones questioning the quality of education here. Or the parents decision to go to the private based on that. The issue is that the schools/high school league is directly responsible for these issues in the state of hockey. Is the Breck top goal scorer improving her game playing Minnehaha at a 10-0 game? Maybe she is improving her skill set playing Red Wing to a 9-3 game?... nope. How about looking at all those goalies at the privates getting around 200 shots in twenty games. I'm sure they have a harder time staying awake than stopping pucks. Other goalies are seeing 5-600 shots by this time. Who's this good for... not the kids. I have no doubt you made the right choice based on education. But let's not confuse the issue here. Your rational sounds like you did it for all the right reasons. But it's not you, or your kids that caused this, or what its about. Benefiting from great education, what a great opportunity for your kids. But when it comes to hockey, the privates feel it's okay not to move up rather than have their student athletes challenged, unlike their philosophy in their educational programs. Again, who wants to spend 20k on a school that loses. But they do get increased tuition by padding stats, season records, and having state appearances. This all increases the bottom line. Which ultimately is their goal, and very misguided. Just tonight (1/23) SPU @ Chisago Lakes 10-1. Not much more you can say on that one. With the decline of girls hockey numbers, and frankly this topic being one of the reasons for it. I think we can say that the disparity will only widen if something isn't done...and soon.

[thegreatone99]

Breck 8 - Holy Angels 0
St. Paul United 10 - Chisago Lakes 1
Blake 3 - Centennial 1

[goaline]

Breck 8 - Holy Angels 0
St. Paul United 10 - Chisago Lakes 1
Blake 3 - Centennial 1

The state of girls HS hockey in MN is not about education -- some privates undoubtedly offer a more inclusive experience than a public counterpart, but not in most cases in this state. Girls hockey is becoming a game of have and have-nots based on money, summer hockey (8 months outside the season) and because of the unwillingness or absence of leadership in girls hockey to grow the game, and sustain the growth. Girls hockey has to outwork its boys programs to catch and retain female athletes -- just this year Coon Rapids and Spring Lake combine programs with HS enrollments that defy being in that position and any suggestions of "demographic" changes... Take a look at the many outstate programs that work tirelessly to sustain their programs and who are challenged by small enrollments and socioeconomic realities. While this has led to the decline in numbers and teams around the state, money and off-season programming have used open-enrollment to widen the divide between those who can and will and those who maintain the loyalty to community and friendship of their youth program. This years state champions, miss goalie and miss hockey may very well be players and teams who don't play for their hometown -- this has always been the strength of girls and boys HS hockey in Minnesota, and what set it apart from all the rest

[jg2112]

Breck 8 - Holy Angels 0
St. Paul United 10 - Chisago Lakes 1
Blake 3 - Centennial 1

It's worth noting here that Holy Angels is a private school.

Not all the privates are in dispute here. Blake and Breck and SPU should move up to AA. That is NOT in dispute.

[MNHockeyFan]

This years state champions, miss goalie and miss hockey may very well be players and teams who don't play for their hometown -- this has always been the strength of girls and boys HS hockey in Minnesota, and what set it apart from all the rest

At least the best girls in the State stay here and play high school hockey, as opposed to many of the top boys who leave their schools (public or private) early to go play juniors, or join the U18 program in Ann Arbor. And the same applies once they're playing college hockey - with girls you get to see the "best of the best" for four years in college, where again many of the most talented young men leave school early for the pros. To me this is a big advantage for girl's/women's hockey at both levels - you get to see the best talent the game has to offer at each level.

For me as a fan that advantage outweighs the public/private school debate playing out in this thread. But more importantly, in general I like when people have options available to them so they can follow whatever path they believe is best for them, given their own set of circumstances. Whether that's open enrollment at a different public school or a private option, that's up to each individual. For me having those options available (whether driven by academics, athletics, friendships, or religious preference) outweighs all other considerations.

[thegreatone99]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a good education and the deciding factor for choosing a certain school. More power to those families who are able to send their daughters to these very good educational opportunities.

All I am stating is the numbers for girls at the youth level are clearly declining due to cost and other factors. And when you have loaded schools with players who have the means and economies to participate in year round training maybe they should move up instead of wrecking the State Tournament at the lower level for all of us true community based teams. How many girls after seeing their HS Teams get throttled by a loaded Class A team really want to pursue this great game? Why does Breck and Blake go and play as many AA schools as possible throughout the year if it was not about hockey? Just play your typical A schedule like the Hibbings of the world do.

I am not saying the big schools don't do it either. Some of them are just as bad as Breck and Blake The top three ranked AA schools all have top end players who did not grow up in their youth program and are no better than Breck and Blake when it comes to recruiting. These girls decide (parents) during the Summer season they wish to play together and find ways to make it happen. All of these teams should just be considered a co-op like Coon Rapids/Spring Lake Park or Hopkins/St.Louis Park. All of these five teams are littered with political connected girls who just happen to always be the same ones selected for OS. It is considered a badge of honor to play OS more than your high school. So stop pretending it's all for education or these same girls (parents) would not be politically wrangling for a summer spot since U12.

In five years the game everyone loved will clearly consist of the haves and have-nots. There will be five teams consistently at the top every year. Let's put them all together in one class and let them have their fun eating each other's young and leave the smaller tournament to the have nots for the experience and the love of the game.

[ghshockeyfan]

Girls' Hockey exploded for a good decade plus and there was bound to be correction at some point.

As the initial low cost options for girls to "try hockey" faded (mostly) and the initial/early push wasn't on in nearly every community to find enough girls for a youth & HS program, something had to happen.

What that something is, or was, is what we are now seeing. In communities where expensive sports like hockey aren't easily supported, the co-ops come - just as they have with the boys game in many instances.

The west metro has more money it seems and they are less impacted by the cost factor.

Other areas haven't been so fortunate.

Many hypothesized that parents saw girls' hockey as an easy ticket to a full ride scholarship when the sport was in its infancy, maybe more worth the investment, or perceived that way at least.

Maybe, just maybe, as we have more young women that played the game having children, we'll see it stabilize at some point in the near future - but the cost/time commitment/etc. is still a consideration. I hope that in the interim, as things fluctuate, we're able to stay above 100 HS teams including some consolidation with co-ops. Similarly, we need the many community/youth programs to stay viable.

As to the much debated "Team X should opt up" discussion, that changes every year, or few years. I remember when people were screaming about Holy Angels and BSM playing class A, and eventually they both opted up, but I would argue they aren't what they once were. Also, SPU wasn't such a "powerhouse" and even Breck had their challenges the first half-dozen years of the game. Blake has always been better than average but not sure that's enough to say they should opt up indefinitely.

Opting up was quite a commitment years back, not sure if it still is now. Teams would have to do so for at least two years and not all teams can predict if they'll be competitive for that long at the next level with low enrollments. SSP took a lot of heat years back when their administration finally chose not to opt up again and there was the brief couple hour period where they were the current/defending champions in both classes (after winning the Class A, and the Class AA game hadn't yet been played that year).

I favor a different system that was very unpopular when they tried it on the boys side about 20 years ago with Tiers - top half of the teams go into big tourney, remaining teams in the other). People forget that the mission of the MSHSL isn't anything but participation, and this approach proves it.

Anyway, as to the opting for private school, open enrollment, etc. - I find it hard to fault a family for trying to find what they feel is best for their child and his or her student-athlete experience. If there were people flocking to some clearly substandard academic school to play hockey, then we may question motives but that is still their choice and thank goodness we live in a country that allows for such freedoms, no matter if they are what anyone deems as "right" for the individual. It took me a long time to get to this thought about the situation, including a good two plus decades of coaching HS hockey, but some time away from the game (and having a child of my own) gave me a little more/different perspective, I guess.

Feel free to attack this post, but I'm just telling it like I see it - no motive here, not trying to pick a fight, and no horse in the race.

[maristar]

You can say all you want that it is not about education, or that the entitled kids have an advantage, but ask the college coaches who they want to have playing college hockey. I know the first question college coaches ask players and their coach is "What is your ACT score and how are your grades"? College coaches know which athletes have the best chance of success in college. It doesn't mean that a public school player isn't going to make it, but the risk is mitigated.

Go ahead and put all of the Private schools in AA- it is not going to change the parents decision on where they are going to send their kid to school. The picture is much bigger than how many high school games they win.

(The Table did not format very well, sorry.)

Number of Schools/ DI 2016 Commits/ DI 2017 Commits

Private Schools/ 11/ 22/11
Public Schools/ 105/ 20/ 15
% of Private Schools/ 9%/ 52%/ 42%
% of Public Schools/ 91%/ 48%/ 58%

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

Girls' Hockey exploded for a good decade plus and there was bound to be correction at some point.

As the initial low cost options for girls to "try hockey" faded (mostly) and the initial/early push wasn't on in nearly every community to find enough girls for a youth & HS program, something had to happen.

What that something is, or was, is what we are now seeing. In communities where expensive sports like hockey aren't easily supported, the co-ops come - just as they have with the boys game in many instances.

The west metro has more money it seems and they are less impacted by the cost factor.

Other areas haven't been so fortunate.

Many hypothesized that parents saw girls' hockey as an easy ticket to a full ride scholarship when the sport was in its infancy, maybe more worth the investment, or perceived that way at least.

Maybe, just maybe, as we have more young women that played the game having children, we'll see it stabilize at some point in the near future - but the cost/time commitment/etc. is still a consideration. I hope that in the interim, as things fluctuate, we're able to stay above 100 HS teams including some consolidation with co-ops. Similarly, we need the many community/youth programs to stay viable.

As to the much debated "Team X should opt up" discussion, that changes every year, or few years. I remember when people were screaming about Holy Angels and BSM playing class A, and eventually they both opted up, but I would argue they aren't what they once were. Also, SPU wasn't such a "powerhouse" and even Breck had their challenges the first half-dozen years of the game. Blake has always been better than average but not sure that's enough to say they should opt up indefinitely.

Opting up was quite a commitment years back, not sure if it still is now. Teams would have to do so for at least two years and not all teams can predict if they'll be competitive for that long at the next level with low enrollments. SSP took a lot of heat years back when their administration finally chose not to opt up again and there was the brief couple hour period where they were the current/defending champions in both classes (after winning the Class A, and the Class AA game hadn't yet been played that year).

I favor a different system that was very unpopular when they tried it on the boys side about 20 years ago with Tiers - top half of the teams go into big tourney, remaining teams in the other). People forget that the mission of the MSHSL isn't anything but participation, and this approach proves it.

Anyway, as to the opting for private school, open enrollment, etc. - I find it hard to fault a family for trying to find what they feel is best for their child and his or her student-athlete experience. If there were people flocking to some clearly substandard academic school to play hockey, then we may question motives but that is still their choice and thank goodness we live in a country that allows for such freedoms, no matter if they are what anyone deems as "right" for the individual. It took me a long time to get to this thought about the situation, including a good two plus decades of coaching HS hockey, but some time away from the game (and having a child of my own) gave me a little more/different perspective, I guess.

Feel free to attack this post, but I'm just telling it like I see it - no motive here, not trying to pick a fight, and no horse in the race.

Who are you and how dare you undermine this debate with factual analysis???

In all seriousness, great post.

I would like the original poster to specify the exact criteria he would like for mandatory move-ups:

1) score discrepancies? (Warroad is putting up some of the highest differentials and is PUBLIC)
2) won a title? (TRF beat Blake last year and almost lost to EGF the previous year - both PUBLIC)
3) St. Paul Academy has only been in the tourney one time ever - and lost to 2 PUBLICS in that single appearance, and to a PUBLIC in the section final last year)

You get my point.

Your argument is that hockey is dictating private enrollment? But if Blake and Breck opt up won't other Class A privates get those kids who entered B and B years ago or planned to enroll in the future "only for hockey"???

In all honesty, the section format gets some teams to St. Paul who would never get past A LARGE NUMBER of metro teams who will also never get there because their sections are loaded, in both classes. Not unique to girls hockey or even hockey.

This private vs public debate then becomes a north/south vs metro debate, or a north metro vs south metro debate, or a first ring suburb vs lake suburb debate. What's "fair" this year will probably be "unfair" and "unbalanced" next year. IMO the MSHSL tries to balance the sections so the entire state has a chance to send a team to the tourneys. But in doing so the better teams (oftentimes some of the BEST teams) don't always get to the tourneys.

Bottom line, unless my team or your team gets to play at Excel, we can argue forever about the system and its inherent flaws. If my team and your team make it, well then the MSHSL model and systems seem to be working just fine...

[pepperpot]

I will offer my criteria nevertoomuch. If they are private play AA. Simple enough. Privates recruit more than publics and all you silver spooners know it. Your whole school is recruits! It offers them a advantage over everyone. Because Thief or EGF makes it one year or Warroad scores a bunch of goals it doesn't change that. I know why you are defending it so much. If you all go AA, you all won't go. Too bad. Either change the system or continue to ruin girls hockey.

[maristar]

Pepper, quit your complaining on the forum and do something about it with the MSHSL. Create a petition or lobby, but stop your incessant complaining and take some action. Gather the serfs and the peasants and revolt against the fiefdom!

[thegreatone99]

I will offer my criteria nevertoomuch. If they are private play AA. Simple enough. Privates recruit more than publics and all you silver spooners know it. Your whole school is recruits! It offers them a advantage over everyone. Because Thief or EGF makes it one year or Warroad scores a bunch of goals it doesn't change that. I know why you are defending it so much. If you all go AA, you all won't go. Too bad. Either change the system or continue to ruin girls hockey.

Agree, keep it simple and move them up

[Hansonbrother]

I will offer my criteria nevertoomuch. If they are private play AA. Simple enough. Privates recruit more than publics and all you silver spooners know it. Your whole school is recruits! It offers them a advantage over everyone. Because Thief or EGF makes it one year or Warroad scores a bunch of goals it doesn't change that. I know why you are defending it so much. If you all go AA, you all won't go. Too bad. Either change the system or continue to ruin girls hockey.

Pepper, I have one better for you...How about this instead of making the privates play AA, how about if the privates opt to play class A, their schedule must be only against Class A teams...including tournaments. Right now, I feel they get the best of both worlds by getting to play the best competition the state has to offer, but then get to hide from it when it comes to tourney time. If you make them play Class A teams all year, with a steady diet of 7-0 games during the regular season, don't you think they will start to beg for real competition?

[thegreatone99]

Very interesting and makes sense. Blake and Breck have more Div I commits than most big schools, but yet stay in Class A for State Tourney. We do they both try to fill their schedules with Class AA schools all season? Why not just opt up? If schools were smart they would not schedule them and force them to move up.

Was my suggestion from the start.

[36Guy]

One solution is to do what Ej at Minnetonka has done. He has removed all private schools from his schedule and will not play them in the future. I have mixed emotions because my daughter has to miss the opportunity to play some great teams. I have not yet decided how I feel about it, but, I do appreciate the fact that he took a stance and acted on it.

Yes, a few unexpected players have crossed his door step, but it pales in comparison to what he has lost over the years. Dozens of players to privates and even girls on team USA. A lot of Blakes roster is from Edina..UGH would they be good.

Wayzata has lost several Miss Hockey's such as Chute and Camoranesi and dozens more. EP has been decimated losing Bullock, Lund, Burke, etc..etc just in the past 2 years. Without a doubt these schools would have more banners if they did not lose these kids to privates.

HOWEVER...is the solution to stockpile 5 great public schools, and bury the remaining publics and privates? I don't think so. As silly as it sounds, I think the privates are actually balancing the competition in the cities not hurting it. Yes the privates are hot right now, but as with everything there is eb and flow and times will change. And last, if we banned these private demons from our (public) home grown country club, where do you think these kids would start showing up? Edina, Tonka, Stillwater, Blaine, etc.

Good for Ej for not whining and acting out what he feels is right! HM has cost my daughter a State Championship and possibly two if we're blessed. But I for one would like to hop in the ring and take a swing rather than have the belt handed to me! The Championship last year was a great game and HM was deserving!

With all that said, the privates are fine...but yes they all should be AA with the option to petition to play down to A.

[thegreatone99]

One solution is to do what Ej at Minnetonka has done. He has removed all private schools from his schedule and will not play them in the future. I have mixed emotions because my daughter has to miss the opportunity to play some great teams. I have not yet decided how I feel about it, but, I do appreciate the fact that he took a stance and acted on it.

Yes, a few unexpected players have crossed his door step, but it pales in comparison to what he has lost over the years. Dozens of players to privates and even girls on team USA. A lot of Blakes roster is from Edina..UGH would they be good.

Wayzata has lost several Miss Hockey's such as Chute and Camoranesi and dozens more. EP has been decimated losing Bullock, Lund, Burke, etc..etc just in the past 2 years. Without a doubt these schools would have more banners if they did not lose these kids to privates.

HOWEVER...is the solution to stockpile 5 great public schools, and bury the remaining publics and privates? I don't think so. As silly as it sounds, I think the privates are actually balancing the competition in the cities not hurting it. Yes the privates are hot right now, but as with everything there is eb and flow and times will change. And last, if we banned these private demons from our (public) home grown country club, where do you think these kids would start showing up? Edina, Tonka, Stillwater, Blaine, etc.

Good for Ej for not whining and acting out what he feels is right! HM has cost my daughter a State Championship and possibly two if we're blessed. But I for one would like to hop in the ring and take a swing rather than have the belt handed to me! The Championship last year was a great game and HM was deserving!

With all that said, the privates are fine...but yes they all should be AA with the option to petition to play down to A.

Hats off to tonka taking a stance if they truly have. Personally I think all these teams are afraid to lose to a class A team versus trying to penalize them. I would prefer to see these privates all play up like Hill does. Instead of trying to dominate the Class A tourney like what is happening now. Their rosters and results show they can compete very easily. Remember there is zero checking in the girls game, so this makes it very easy to compete with the bigger schools, especially when you have a couple of ringers who will just take the puck coast to coast and score. That would never happen on the boys side. Or be able to have the success with one - half lines and three D.

The same issue that plagued St Thomas for years is the same issue plaguing the girls side now with Breck and Blake. If you have rosters with players who recently participated in USA hockey tourney's, why the heck are you playing single A? If Breck and Blake moved up the big five can compete for the metro wide bragging rights which I am sure if you asked the girls, they would prefer. Otherwise they would not have schedules dominated with AA opponents so they can have the best of both worlds. But at the end of the year still call themselves Champions by winning the Class A tourney.

As I stated in a earlier post, we all know recruiting just doesn't happen at Blake or Breck with generous financial aid packages for those skilled enough to command one... Recruiting and move-ins happen at the big 5 too. Is this a by-product from all the political summer teams girls play on together and then decide to play at certain schools? Even with tonka, I think he has only lost one player that currently plays at Breck and your mention to USA hockey. But he captured two move-ins (without knowing the stats - could be wrong) who score 95% of their team's goals this year. If these two were not on his team, I do not think they would be having the same success. So the cupboard is not bare for him either or their program. He should just go ahead and play them unless he is afraid of losing to a stocked Class A team. I appreciate his stance, but this appears to be "calling the kettle black" when he has received the same benefits of coaching at a school/program where kids come to play hockey, recruited or not.

Leave the Class A tourney for the Hibbings or TRFs of the world, where it actually means something to the community.

These are some of the key reasons why in five years you will have a major decline except for the five metro programs who will always be the haves. Is the girl's game even part of Hockey Day MN this year? That says a lot where the game is headed and by the time MSHSL reacts, it will be too late.