redistricting

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:24 pm

Boy JOHNSONPREZ, I hit a nerve without even trying, I wasn't getting on you or your program. I coached rink hockey teams in Rochester for many years, starting in the mid "80's, usually the Goose Egg park neighborhood, some times the Slatterly Park area. (Think what you want about Rochester, but even though parts are very well off, much of it isn't) I picked up half my team in a pick up truck took them to Mayo high school where we practiced outside, this was back when hockey cost maybe $100 and we had no inside ice except for games. Some of my kids didn't even speak much english or know how to skate, their parents signed them because of a flyer that came home from school with them. I never saw their parents except before or after practice when I was at their house to pick them up otr drop them off. Some years we didn't win a game, I judged success on how many of my kids signed up again the next year, 5 was a very good year. I plugged away at coaching until in all their stupidity the RYHA decided to basically double their prices and for all intents and purposes do away with rink hockey and go to a nearly all traveling program. Rochester and for that matter Minnesota has a sizable minority population, but how many play hockey? Why? start with expense then you can go to, elitism, nepotism, and underlining current of racism. All not only tolerated but encouraged by the powers that be. They see no problem sending millions of dollars to help the very well off in Michigan, but we can't get the cost down low enough in Minnesota so we can try to get the lower income kids to at least try hockey. We're throwing away entire generations of potential hockey players and fans, because we are so narrow minded to assume that only the rich white kids can or even want to play hockey. If you go to the Humbolt or Edison areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis there are some very good athletes, the problem is that they never have even tried hockey. Somehow we need to get organizations like the Boys club, PAL, and others that work in those communities to help reach these kids, but no, USA Hockey gets it and uses it to help doctors kids get $40,000 per year to train and play. As a post script; I am a single father of 4, my youngest 2 kids never even started playing hockey because of cost, my second kid had to quit PeeWee taveling when I couldn't come up with the $1100 they wanted in sign up, traveling and team fees. I just don't have an extra $1100 laying around. To most hockey families $1100 is nothing, to far to many families in Minnesota it's one hell of a lot of money.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:25 am

From the Minnesota Dept. of Education: (enrollment) %minority,%low income, %english second language Lakeville North (2270) 5%, 4%, 1% Wayzata (3112) 14%, 9%, 1% Minnetonka (2457) 8%, 3%, 1% Blaine (2923) 14%, 20%, 6% Eagan (2286) 15%, 7%, 2% Eden Prairie (3299) 14%, 8%, 3% Centennial (2123) 7%, 9%, 0% Edina (1658 ) 11%, 6%, 2% Others: St. Paul Johnson (1638 ) 68%, 71%, 38% John Marshall (1602) 27%, 28%, 12% South St. Paul (1568 ) 17%, 26%, 1% Grand Rapids (1231) 8%, 23%, 0% Roseau (NA) 2%, 19%, 0% Duluth East (1388 ) 6%, 11%, 0% Austin (1158 ) 12%, 29%, 13% Southwest (1618 ) 44%, 37%, 20% It doesn't take a genius to see where the hockey powers rate in these categories, only Blaine and Grand Rapids are maintaining hockey success with a low income rate over 20%. Of the 16 teams that made AA section finals only those 2 had low income rates over 20%. If you want to redistrict and have some sort of competitive balance I urge MAHA to take a look at numbers like these. Once you hit the 20% mark you're not going back down, it only will keep going up. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... oldy313</A> at: 3/8/06 2:28 am

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:32 am

The nerve you hit is if you are from Rochester you don't have any idea what we do here to encourage young men and women to play hockey. Our program is one of if not the cheapest at $400 for bantams, $375 for Pee Wee and $350 for Squirts and that includes a jacket, bag, gloves socks,jerseys, jersey bag, helmet, brezzers and three tournaments in town and one out of town and ice at least with games about six nights a week. Who in Minnesota gives you this much. Like I said you may have hit a nerve but I guess you can do better.

Barado32 · Post by **Barado32** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:44 am

These are some of the same problems that I faced coaching in Hibbing with my brother Joe. We have a lot of mine workers there who can't afford to pay for hockey, so we made due outside, but things changed and now the only way you can play real hockey is if you have the money. Thank you for posting the info on % goldy, we all need to look at that.

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:40 pm

By what Goldy's numbers show It looks like whatever we do we are distined to not have hockey in our area. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... SONPREZ</A> at: 3/8/06 12:42 pm

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:31 pm

I am not getting on your program, hockey is expensive period. Just out of curiosity what's it cost in the Johnson area to play basketball or wrestle? That's what you're competeing with, especially if there's no hockey tradition in that family. I just wish the powers that be in MAHA and USA Hockey would look at the numbers and help places like Johnson and Edison get their cost down to a competitive level with other winter sports. If you look at places like not only Edina, but Lakeville, Eagan, even Duluth theres enough money in those areas to sustain hockey, other places in MInnesota need some help.

str1pes · Post by **str1pes** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:14 pm

Two ideas for redistricting since you ask about thinking outside the box. 1) Rather than district by association, district by level. If there are 120 Bantam A teams in the state, make 12-10 team districts. At B1, there may be 180 teams with 12-15 team districts. At the A level, St. Cloud may be in the same district as Brooklyn Park. At the B1, there may be enough teams around St. Cloud that for Brooklyn Park to stay closer to home. 2) This was mentioned by someone earlier. At the end of the year, demote the bottom four teams for each class and promote the top four teams of the lower classes. If you have an A team and your B1 team finishes at the top of its class, the following year your association will have two A teams. (This is similar to the Italian Soccer league.) ------ Bottom line is the objective for each association to be successful should be for the kids to be excited about playing. If you are slaughtered each game, that excitement tends to wane. Likewise, if each game is a cakewalk is a kid really being challenged.

TyrellFashizo · Post by **TyrellFashizo** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:24 pm

With all the low housing cost out there, we need to get more families to live in the same house. I have room in my house for Hockeymom6-9, gildan2036,barado23 and 32. Hope one of you has a goalie, cause there won't be any next year in our peewee level. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> "Pimp'n ain't easy"

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:05 am

Here are some registration numbers for some of the larger associations in each of their districts: Wayzata: 1,280 skaters Lakeville: 922 skaters White Bear: 888 skaters Duluth: 739 skaters Rochester: 556 skaters St Cloud: 512 skaters I'm hoping to learn about EP, Edina, Centennial, Minnetonka...any others that might be in the "mega" category? Just trying to get some facts, to maybe help define what a "mega" association is, and what a league might look like.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:09 am

good work on the numbers wayzataabc, . I would also recommend mentioning if these associations feed more than one set of teams, like St Cloud, Lakevile, Maple Grove/Osseo, Rochester and I'm sure there are others.

JOHNSONPREZ · Post by **JOHNSONPREZ** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:52 am

Man you look at those numbers and now we know why all the mega associations want the TC district either gone or reduced to one regional spot. At Johnson are numbers are at 120 and we still were very competitive in the Maroon Reginals for both "A" Pee Wee & "B" Bantam. Yes we only had a "B" Bantam team this year but wiith only 15 Bantam age players that is all we could do. With a number of people trying to eliminate the TC district you are taking any chance at all of one of there teams even thinking of being a Cinderella team and I thought that is why we do this and that is for every oppurtunity and just because we live in the cities we are being singled out.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:20 am

Great idea to get the ##'s of registrants out there. Careful on Lakeville - they have two A teams on the boys side and divide by geography (N Panthers and S Cougars). Also, careful on Edina, they have a separate association for their mites.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:22 am

As to your question, the megas I have come accross in the youth ranks may include Woodbury (10 squirt teams). I defined "mega" earlier as putting out 9-10 or more teams at a given boys level. Don't know if that works or not. Just a starting point.

yaw aloki · Post by **yaw aloki** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:54 am

Good numbers Wayzata. Does the Wayzata number also include termites and supermites (that is a huge number) or are all of these numbers Squirt through Bantam (Junior Gold??) It would be nice for MAHA!!!!!! to hop on this thread and give us the details as they surely must have them easily available. Go Chiefs!!

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:16 pm

Numbers from the prior post are totals, including mites. Here's the breakdown of Boys Travel only, for the associations we've got stats on: Wayzata: 153 SQ; 170 PW; 120 BA; 85 Jr G/U16 =528 boys travel Lakeville: 142 SQ; 130 PW; 93 BA; 17 Jr G =382 boys travel White Bear: 146 SQ; 119PW; 111 BA; 76 Jr G = 452 boys travel Duluth: 132 SQ; 158 PW; 111 BA; 12 Jr G = 413 boys travel St Cloud: 74 SQ; 97 PW; 84 BA; 1 Jr G = 256 boys travel Rochester: 138 SQ; 152 PW; 114 BA; 25 Jr G = 429 boys travel Also, we've done some research on multiple A teams in the state. It's not comprehensive, but here's what we've found (Note that the list includes three of the above associations): Albert Lea: 2 Squirt As Mankato: 2 Squirt As, 2 PeeWee As, 2 Bantam As Lakeville: 2 Squirt As, 2 PeeWee As, 2 Bantam A's Rochester: 2 Squirt As*, 2 PeeWee As*, 2 Bantam As St Cloud: 2 Squirt As; 2 PeeWee As, 2 Bantam As *Rochester's published rosters indicate two teams at each level; records are NA except for BA level, so I can't verify it. Anyone know if they run doubles at SQ A and PW A? Hope this helps the discussion...

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:05 am

Rochester has 2 A Squirts, 5 B Squirts and I don't know how many house squirts that don't travel. 2 A PeeWee, 2 B PeeWee, 1 C PeeWee that travel and 4 C PeeWee that don't travel. 2 A Bantam, 2 B Bantam, 3 C Bantam that travel, no house league bantams. Only your PeeWee #'s are off because of the 4 house teams that don't travel except to 1 tournament a year. In Squirts and PeeWees Rochester has 2 teams at the A level, but only 1 in the district; the other just plays an independant schedule.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:39 am

Thanks for clarifying, Goldy. There's a debate in our association right now--and every year--about one A vs. two As. It's the "afraid of watering down" argument vs. the "give Jimmy a chance" argument. How long has Rochester been doing two? Any words of wisdom you could share? Right now I'm on the side of two As, because our #s can sustain it, our talent usually can support it, and it gives kids the same chance of being on an A team that kids had 10 years ago when our association was half the size it is today. But I'm open to other opinions...especially from people who have experienced it (Rochester, St Cloud, etc.). It's not really the topic of this thread, though. Just one of the many sidebar issues we all care a lot about...

exYooper · Post by **exYooper** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:47 am

Wayzata - I've got some numbers at the PeeWee level (that I would think would extrapolate to the other levels fairly well): 1) Wayzata - 174 players => 10 teams:A(1),B1(2),B2(2),C(5) 2) Edina - 150 players => 9 teams:A(1),B1(2),B2(2),C(4) 3) Rochester - 149 players => 9 teams: *A(2),*B(2),C(5) 4) Eden Prairie - 118 players => 7 teams:A(1),B1(2),B2(1),C(3) 5) White Bear - 114 players => 7 teams:A(1),B1(2),B2(1),C(3) 6) **Woodbury - 113 players => 7 teams:A(1),B1(2),B2(2),C(2) 7) Minnetonka - 108 players => 7 teams:A(1),B1(1),B2(2),C(3) <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Burnsville - 104 players => 6 teams:A(1),B1(1),B2(2),C(2) 9) St. Cloud - 98 players => 6 teams:A(2),B1(2),B2(2) 10) Centennial - 97 players => 6 teams:A(1),*B1(2),*B2(2),C(1) 11) Eagan - 94 players => 6 teams:A(1),B2(1),B2(2),C(2) * Rochester and Centennial do not do "even" teams when they have 2 teams at a given A/B level, e.g. they are a B1-1 and B1-2, etc. ** Woodbury skater # is a guess, team # is accurate After that you drop in to the five team associations: Blaine, Roseville, Stillwater, Highland, Moundsview, Hastings, Champlin Park, Chaska, Tartan, and Prior Lake, roughly in that order of # of players (Blaine at 85 to Prior Lake at 71). I counted Lakeville as separate assoc.'s. What is interesting about the association #'s you gave per level is that all but White Bear's drop from PW to Squirt level. Not sure what to make of that. As to two A teams, with the numbers you guys have it seems to be a no-brainer. Both your PWB1s were consistently rated in the top four all year, you can't tell me you guys couldn't have fielded a strong second A team. Do egos get involved in that decision process?

Icypalms · Post by **Icypalms** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:54 pm

With all those teams see why they want to take regional spots from poor defenseless TC District and all the big shots like Elliot70 and Rich Rankness will get the glory from them. I use names because it is time to show your faces.

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:49 pm

Great analysis of the PeeWee #s, eXYooper! Thanks...I'm glad to see someone else digging into the data. I hope MH is too! And please don't put all of us in the "ganging up on the TC district" camp, Icy. I'm not part of any conspiracy... and I could care less about Regional & State tournaments, and who gets how many spots. My point of view and concerns have been about the quality and fairness of regular season play...not post season.

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:43 pm

WayzataABC, do you think there is really much objection within your association to fielding 2 equal A teams even at the squirt level - especially since teams are not even supposed to keep standings much less compete in post-season play at squirts? I ask because due to the big numbers drop from Sq to PW, there are more "mega" associations in the metro in the Sq division. I understand that it would be a bigger fight at the PW level where some would want to win state championship even if that meant 90% non-competitive league games, but at the squirt level I wonder if metro people still have problems. I would rather see 2 equal A teams (not A+/A-) when you have 9+ teams as both teams would then get 2-3 "horses" typical of your average sized assoiations (3-5 teams).

SEMetro · Post by **SEMetro** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:52 pm

Also Wayzata, you gave travel numbers - do you have total numbers for all squirts since C teams travel as much as B teams?

WayzataABC · Post by **WayzataABC** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:09 pm

Yes, there is a lot of objection in Wayzata against two A teams...obviously, since it comes up every year and every year we end up fielding one A team at each level. I've never personally listened to both sides of the argument...my significant other has, as a board member. I'd love to be able to give them a more data-driven argument that includes "in market" evidence from associations that have successfully fielded double As. oh, and the numbers I gave included C league...it was late, and I incorrectly called them "boys travel". But in truth, our boys C travels just as much as the Bs do...I'm told many associations are similar. Sorry for the confusion.

egoalie33 · Post by **egoalie33** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:23 pm

1116 edina There are 1,116 kids participating in the Edina Hockey Association! 631 Traveling Teams Boys and Girls 389 Mites - 293 Boys and 96 Girls!

puckheadx2 · Post by **puckheadx2** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:58 am

The guys that are complaining about the TC District this for you. First of all no one is trying to take your two seeds away. secondly it is a fact that the TC teams are weaker than D 8,2,10,6,3. So if we are talking about regionals why not send the top 2 out to the silver region. that way the metro get 2 more to regions and the tc teams will be more competitive with 4 and 5. by the way this will be the last season you see a 4 and 5 team at state.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x">

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Re: redistricting

Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

numbers

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

Re: Redistricting

tc dist