All Metro Team 2007

[lovhockey]

There are alot of girls out there that didn't make the all metro team but are deserving as well. Remember there are only so many spots available and we all have our own opinions and favorites. Congrats to all the girls that made the list!

[Bensonmum]

Hey Butch, do you always have to resort to name-calling? Would you please try to discuss an issue intelligently without immediately flying off the handle? I think I asked a perfectly reasonable question. Why would a very large high school with a rich girl's hockey tradition (the richest, if you judge by the best player to have ever come out of Minnesota) have to resort to pooling their resources with 3 other schools? If the answer is demographics, then say so. But without all the kicking and screaming like a little kid. We don't respect you extra because you use your real name, either. Most of us have kids in hockey who we don't want to expose. Personally, I don't give a crap if you know my name.

[MNHOCKEY1]

If you know Butch, this is his way of responding. I have seen him kicked out of his daughters games and also out of a high school game working as a scorekeeper.

[AAFC]

Let's remember that hockey is an EXPENSIVE sport - why do you think soccer (football to the rest that little non-USA part of the world) is the number one sport in the world? All you need is a ball and a little open land.

The Brooklyn Park/Center area of the Twin Cities is not the *most affluent* section of town, at least the last time I looked down my Edina nose. Maybe that affluence part explains some of the whining about Section 6AA being so over-loaded with "good teams"...the kids have all the summer camps, etc that some other kids don't get....

[Bensonmum]

MNHOCKEY1 wrote:

...kicked out of his daughters games and also out of a high school game working as a scorekeeper.

Yikes!

AAFC wrote:

.....hockey is an EXPENSIVE sport..... Brooklyn Park/Center area of the Twin Cities is not the *most affluent* section of town....

Hey, I hear ya. We live in the heart of St. Paul where there's more flatulence than affluence. Plus, our youth hockey associations supply players to 4 varsity programs--the Blades, Saints, St. Paul United, and Cretin, plus the odd transfer to suburban schools both private and public. It's a unique situation where the kids scatter after they're done with youth hockey and it presents all kinds of problems. We might have a great group at U14 and then find that the next year the 7 or 8 kids who move up are going to 6 different high schools. I think the programs suffer from top to bottom. It's not like in a suburban situation where the same kids skate together from U10 until senior year.

[MNHockeyFan]

It's not like in a suburban situation where the same kids skate together from U10 until senior year.

Although this may be the general rule in the suburbs, many from the more affluent communties do go to privates, and up until now at least there have been a number of well publicized transfers...

One good example that I'm familiar with is Wayzata - look at their good U12 teams from a few years ago, and the girls have scattered to several different high schools, both public and private.

[SEMetro]

I don't understand why anyone would want to break up this co-op. North Metro was certainly not a super power during the regular season (10 losses or ties). Mostly 1 or 2 goal games against conference and suburban teams. Nice to see some girls from struggling programs (Osseo, Tri-City) get a chance to play competitive hockey. We should be looking for more ways to co-op struggling schools to improve girls hockey.

[Thunderbird77]

[quote="MNHockeyFan"][quote="Bensonmum"]It's not like in a suburban situation where the same kids skate together from U10 until senior year.[/quote]

Although this may be the general rule in the suburbs, many from the more affluent communties do go to privates, and up until now at least there have been a number of well publicized transfers...

One good example that I'm familiar with is Wayzata - look at their good U12 teams from a few years ago, and the girls have scattered to several different high schools, both public and private.[/quote]

The purpose of youth hockey associations is to give children an opportunity to learn the sport of ice hockey. They are not feeder programs for their local public high school. It is discouraging to see the number of negative remarks made about girls who don't attend their local public high schools. Let's focus on the individual's ability and accomplishments, not their address.

[hockeya1a]

It's not like in a suburban situation where the same kids skate together from U10 until senior year.

Although this may be the general rule in the suburbs, many from the more affluent communties do go to privates, and up until now at least there have been a number of well publicized transfers...

One good example that I'm familiar with is Wayzata - look at their good U12 teams from a few years ago, and the girls have scattered to several different high schools, both public and private.

The purpose of youth hockey associations is to give children an opportunity to learn the sport of ice hockey. They are not feeder programs for their local public high school. It is discouraging to see the number of negative remarks made about girls who don't attend their local public high schools. Let's focus on the individual's ability and accomplishments, not their address.

While this might be true to a point, there are plenty of HS coaches that work hard in their communities at the youth level to make the program a success.
I would guess that most of the girls that have transferred in the past most likely were on select or AAA teams with some of the girls from another community, and that is why they chose to go where they did.

[keepitreal]

While this might be true to a point, there are plenty of HS coaches that work hard in their communities at the youth level to make the program a success.

I would guess that most of the girls that have transferred in the past most likely were on select or AAA teams with some of the girls from another community, and that is why they chose to go where they did.

As well they should because most of the kids will be coming their way in the future.

I guess I give our HS coaches far more credit than that. I don't know a single coach that wouldn't be proud of seeing a player out of his/her local youth program succeed regardless of where she ends up going to high school. Doesn't mean the coach will not miss having the player and the opportunity to further her development, but when you work with kids you quickly understand it's not all about hockey and far often other considerations that come into play.

Girls high school hockey is just a brief moment in time for the vast majority of players and their families, and continual characterization of the majority of transfers as being the result of AAA locker room conversations is, at least in my opinion, far off the mark.

It's safe to say all programs, whether urban or suburban, public or private, have some degree of splintering for a variety of reasons, many having little or nothing to do with hockey.

And by the way, congratulations to the very deserving All-Metro team!

[Goalie35]

I don't understand why anyone would want to break up this co-op. North Metro was certainly not a super power during the regular season (10 losses or ties). Mostly 1 or 2 goal games against conference and suburban teams. Nice to see some girls from struggling programs (Osseo, Tri-City) get a chance to play competitive hockey. We should be looking for more ways to co-op struggling schools to improve girls hockey.

They were not dominant during the regular season but what would happen if anoka and coon rapids co-oped next year? Co-oping schools wasnt meant to help teams that can't develop girls, it's meant to combine schools that dont have the numbers, why does there need to be 5 schools combined in this co-op?

[hockeya1a]

[quote="Butch Horner"]
No girls were cut from this program. If you showed up for tryouts, you were on either JV or Var.

As for Park Center being able to field thier own team? You are correct. They could have but would have had no JV.

There are many other teams with no JV team and they make it go,
there are many teams with girls that are on both JV and V
PL, NP, NF, RW just to name a few have no JV.

[lovhockey]

You really need to let the whole North Metro thing go. It really should be about the kids - unless something has changed the kids and parents have nothing to do with co-oping teams together - it's atheletic directors and MSHL that decide.

Now - what was the topic of the post? Oh yeah - All Metro Team.

Congrats to all the individual girls that were chosen - well deserved.

[ghshockeyfan]

No girls were cut from this program. If you showed up for tryouts, you were on either JV or Var.

As for Park Center being able to field thier own team? You are correct. They could have but would have had no JV.

There are many other teams with no JV team and they make it go,
there are many teams with girls that are on both JV and V
PL, NP, NF, RW just to name a few have no JV.

What I think it getting missed is that there needs to be some discussion about what the goal is of co-ops. Sometimes, co-ops appear to be too good at first if proactive. What I always ask is how will this be evaluated each year and also how will next year, year after, etc. look. In NMS situation, what does 2007-8 look like? Maybe some would argue that this NMS co-op happened one year too soon. But, sometimes the fear is that if you wait too long, and aren't proactive in your co-op decisions, that then you can ENTIRELY lose a sport in a community or communities that could otherwise sustain a team if something is done sooner rather than later.

Now, if we start co-oping due to only a desire to create a better HS team, that's not the goal, however, the goal - IMHO - is to make certain that a sport doesn't disappear from an area that could support a team if a co-op is done in a sense that is proactive enough. This may mean a year or two of better teams when a co-op is first done, but in the 3-5 year future it may mean weaker teams but at least #'s to sustain a team. The ultimate hope of any co-op is that it is a temporary solution, but, let's be honest. Often a co-op is more long term as the demographics just aren't those that will rebound to sustain individual hockey teams at each HS. The Mpls & StP co-ops are an example of this. In fact, StP & Mpls both were forced to evaluate their programs to see if they had too many kids and at one time StP had two teams as a large group of kids moved through. After they moved through, they went back to one team, as they have now. I was the coach of the 2nd team, so I have a little background in the "co-op" considerations, and also may have some insight as to when it looks like a co-op is made to be competitive, but in actuality is proactive in hopes of preserving a sport in an area vs. losing it altogether and forcing an even larger co-op in the future...

What hard task the MSHSL has is deciphering when a co-op proposal is truly warranted due to long-term program viability concerns in a community vs a desire to become a powerhouse team. Often these criteria need to be weighed and evaluated over multiple seasons and also the projections are supposed to show how this will go (and usually are pretty accurate)...

[MNHockeyFan]

Bottom line is, coops are a good idea until they become successful, then lots of people will complain.

[ghshockeyfan]

Bottom line is, coops are a good idea until they become successful, then lots of people will complain.

And, so too is OE until it's a good player! Then it's a problem it seems unfortunately.

[Goalie35]

Bottom line is, coops are a good idea until they become successful, then lots of people will complain.

Is this true about private schools too? They're good for students until a year that they recruit well?

[hockeygod]

I really don't agree with the whole co-op Idea, If there are girls interested in playing hockey and their are only say 5 kids interested, let them try out for a program closest to their school, but the whole idea of putting togeather 3, 4 or 5 schools to make a co-op team reeks to much of building an all star team and if that's what they need to do so that they can play hockey then they can play against shattuck and the thouroughbreds because in essance those programs are just co-ops from a larger area.

[ghshockeyfan]

I really don't agree with the whole co-op Idea, If there are girls interested in playing hockey and their are only say 5 kids interested, let them try out for a program closest to their school, but the whole idea of putting togeather 3, 4 or 5 schools to make a co-op team reeks to much of building an all star team and if that's what they need to do so that they can play hockey then they can play against shattuck and the thouroughbreds because in essance those programs are just co-ops from a larger area.

I think that we're now debating how it's best to insure that kids have a place to play. A co-op is a way of making certain that kids have a place to play. When you go it alone and wait until the last minute then kids may well be left without a place to play. That's why a co-op, and being proactive about it, is important. The AD I worked for in St. Paul always made us look at what the grim reality would be if we waited too long to address the issue. In that case, we'd have 4-5-6-7-8 kids that come out for hockey day 1 of the season and then have no team. Those kids have no option to play with the team next to them at the last minute. Co-ops usually need to be set up months in advance. Also, co-ops are what happens when 4-5 kids go play with another team. A co-op needs to be formed to make this legal. You can't do this at the last minute.

I want everyone to think too about what 4-5 kids at the last minute may bring on from another school as far as mindset. Would this not in theory knock 4-5 kids from within that other school down/off the team at the very last minute? I highly doubt that the admin. and others would welcome this last minute move. I think that's part of the reason why these things need to be worked out far in advance of the last minute (tryout time) and also this is why there are rules about when students must move schools for OE/Private eligibility too.

I think the bottom line is that with volatile (unstable) sports like G Hockey, the admin and HS coaches must have their "finger on the pulse" year-to-year if there is any chance that a program may not be viable due to participation. In these situations, you must look at a multi-year projection and make the best decisions. Where you see numbers never improving and questionable viability, you have no choice but to consider a co-op. If you don't consider the co-op soon enough, you may well lose your best players to OE or privates as they may not feel that there are enough players to even continue to field a poor team. This is why being proactive is critical. That aside, there are exceptions to when poor participation numbers may necessitate co-op. This is when you see a dip in numbers for a short period with strong youth coming in in the short term future (2-3 years). In these cases, you could consider co-op for those 2-3 years until the youth get there, or, if the youth is highly talented you may be able to allow some of the better younger players to move up earlier than they may otherwise to ensure that the program is viable and also to keep building for the future. This is a unique situation at best, but I have seen it a couple times personally.

Whatever any program does, NEVER play the "wait-and-see" game for too long as that will leave kids with no options and may well create a situation where a sport can't be viable ever again. Once something's gone, it's VERY hard to get it back - so I'd strongly suggest that teams consider co-ops sooner rather than later unless they have unique short-term numbers along with stellar youth in the near future coming to the HS ranks... What you sacrifice is a single-school team identity for the long-term viability of a program. This isn't always easy, but if you wait to long and you lose the sport due to lack of co-op, I don't know if the sport will ever rebound even in the co-op sense in a community where it once was lost entirely...

[ghshockeyfan]

Bottom line is, coops are a good idea until they become successful, then lots of people will complain.

Is this true about private schools too? They're good for students until a year that they recruit well?

Yes. Nothing is a problem until someone feels cheated. It's all about perception vs. reality. The reality is that w/o a co-op we don't know that some kids woudl be ABLE TO PLAY HOCKEY and so when a co-op gets created to insure this, or when a kid OE's/goes private to seek out a better education, etc. we get upset.

[hockeygod]

Your absolutly right about long range planning, I guess I was a little short sighted, but I don't see how a school with 2000 students can't come upe with 20 to 30 girls to play hockey

[MNHockeyFan]

Your absolutly right about long range planning, I guess I was a little short sighted, but I don't see how a school with 2000 students can't come upe with 20 to 30 girls to play hockey

It's the demographics, very similar to what you see in the cities of Mpls and St. Paul. Two years ago Brooklyn Park had to combine with Armstrong to field a U14A team, and combined there were only 10 players plus a goalie.

[ghshockeyfan]

Your absolutly right about long range planning, I guess I was a little short sighted, but I don't see how a school with 2000 students can't come upe with 20 to 30 girls to play hockey

I thought the same way. We had 5 HS & almost 2x that # of jr highs, etc. in StP (10th-12th enrollment was nearly 3k in HS's alone, and probably another 3k in 7th-9th in Jr's - or about 6k total...) with one team and we could hardly get 20 experienced kids some years. Also, should such a team be an AA team??? Hmm... I guess the "assisted lunch" rule addresses this to some degree? I think there is an easier way to do it, and that is to look at team ranking/success...

This is the issue that I have with using enrollment to determine classes for state tourney too... We all know that hockey talent isn't directly correlated nor proportional to enrollment numbers... So, I would argue for a tourney system that uses team success to determine placement in top (AA) vs. 2nd (A) tourney...

[ghshockeyfan]

Your absolutly right about long range planning, I guess I was a little short sighted, but I don't see how a school with 2000 students can't come upe with 20 to 30 girls to play hockey

It's the demographics, very similar to what you see in the cities of Mpls and St. Paul. Two years ago Brooklyn Park had to combine with Armstrong to field a U14A team, and combined there were only 10 players plus a goalie.

There are other areas in Metro that may be better served to consider a co-op due to participation numbers as well as the other goal that comes with a co-op - stabilizing a community or area G Hockey program top-to-bottom so there is a more natural development process of U8, U10, U12, U14, JV, & V progression vs. 2+ communities trying to field their own youth/HS teams and constantly having to pull 7th/8th/9th U14 (and even U12) kids up to HS each year to keep Hs teams viable.

The truth is that we need more co-ops as this would create a more natural progression and also have communities working jointly to have age and ability appropriate youth teams. The other stipulation that should come with any HS co-op is some sort of yoth recruitment piece to help build the base/youngest youth levels. If kids can be recruited at young ages for mites/U8 that will help schools that are co-oping now potentially be able to go it alone in the future - but that's a 10+ year process to get U8's to HS - but it has to start somewhere. I also think it's important for HS co-op teams to work together on youth offerings down to U12's and even U10's where needed, but I'd try to go it alone and recruit hard at U8/mites so there isn't the need for a co-op forever.

The biggest problem is that the sport is so expensive. We'll likely never change that, but we need to find ways to make it affordable at the youngest levels to at least get more kids started. This isn't just a girls issue alone either - it's the case in boys too, and many programs are doing great things to address this - but more can be done.

Also - and I hate to come back to this - but we need more stability in the coaching ranks so that there is an incentive for coaches to dig in and implement the things that I speak of above. What incentive dones a HS coach have to build a program when parents can run her/him out any time they want? This is one of the biggest issues I see in G Hockey - is HS coach turnover, which impacts things far more than I think we even realize. Then, the other HUGE problem we have is JV/U16/U14 issues...

[hockeygod]

I still don't like the idea of the co-ops because when there successful, as all involved would hope they would be, then it smells to much of an all star team. Maybe coops should only be allowed when installed with a no cut rule...I just think co-ops open a can of worms that the MSHL is not prepared to deal with.

As for coaching stability, coaches need support, but in the past 4 years of watching girls hockey I have seen some aweful bad coaches that really do more harm to a team than good and I have seen some incredable coaches. I think it is just going to take time to weed out the bad ones and find proper fits for some of the good ones....