Mpls dissolves Partnership with St Louis Park

[muckandgrind]

I know all about A Bantams, as I've been through that already. The point of the matter is that the association's primary responsibility is not to just one team. They have to look out for everyone. Even still, many A Bantam teams are developing players that go to other public high schools (if you haven't forgotten, there IS such a thing as open enrollment), and private schools, alike.

If you're kid is truly an "A" player, he will make that "A" team irregardless of who you co-op with. And if he doesn't, it still doesn't mean he can't play high school hockey. If he is playing on a strong and competitive "B-1" team, he will develop just fine.

[hokeyhockeyguy]

I've heard that SLP is approaching Hopkins about Cooping at the Squirt level... why are they leaving Mpls to go to Hopkins? I know they have to do something since they have 6 second year squirts returning who played at the B2 - A level, at least that's what an email I've seen says. Perhaps a year from now they would feel justified in returning to just SLP since they will then have a good amount of squirts, but to do this now seems crazy given the numbers, and given SLP's recognition of that by needing to go to Hopkins. This must be a personal thing between SLP peeps and SW peeps, or just an incredible fear that Washburn's addition will destroy SLP hockey.

It's all sad because as everyone knows, Mpls Park took some real strides this year and introduced their program to what it feels like to compete and win at the top levels in the State. Adding Washburn will only ensure that success continues and the kids play in their appropriate levels.

Just my two cents.

[mngopherfan]

I know all about A Bantams, as I've been through that already. The point of the matter is that the association's primary responsibility is not to just one team. They have to look out for everyone. Even still, many A Bantam teams are developing players that go to other public high schools (if you haven't forgotten, there IS such a think as open enrollment), and private schools, alike.

If you're kid is truly an "A" player, he will make that "A" team irregardless of who you co-op with. And if he doesn't, it still doesn't mean he can't play high school hockey. If he is playing on a strong and competitive "B-1" team, he will develop just fine.

I agree, i just think having a co-op program with 7 bantam teams like OMG or like MPLS/Park/Washburn/Richfield would be, is a little absurd...There would be kids on B1 teams who could make a ton of A teams, will they develop at the B level, yes, but with Co-Op's that big it takes away opportunities...

SLP should co-op with Hopkins or someother sw metro team that is struggling with numbers if they desire being more competitive. I know hopkins only had 2 teams at Bantams and Peewee's, lord knows they dont have the numbers either...

[hokeyhockeyguy]

MN Gopher guy... Mpls SW and Mpls Washburn have expressed their desire to be one ass'n for all practical purposes and have one Mpls Hockey Ass'n within a year or so.

Richfield has 30 TOTAL kids in the Ass'n. The Storm would only change in that the Washburn and Richfield kids would play in it. It would still be 50% control by SLP and 50% by the one Mpls Ass'n. I've seen nothing about giving Richfield control... am I wrong?

[mngopherfan]

MN Gopher guy... Mpls SW and Mpls Washburn have expressed their desire to be one ass'n for all practical purposes and have one Mpls Hockey Ass'n within a year or so.

Richfield has 30 TOTAL kids in the Ass'n. The Storm would only change in that the Washburn and Richfield kids would play in it. It would still be 50% control by SLP and 50% by the one Mpls Ass'n. I've seen nothing about giving Richfield control... am I wrong?

No i think it makes complete sense for the MPLS teams, 100% agree with you. I just dont see how it would benifit SLP... I think the MPLS teams should join as i believe they play together in HS (could be wrong).

[hokeyhockeyguy]

[quote="mngopherfan"][quote="hokeyhockeyguy"]MN Gopher guy... Mpls SW and Mpls Washburn have expressed their desire to be one ass'n for all practical purposes and have one Mpls Hockey Ass'n within a year or so.

Richfield has 30 TOTAL kids in the Ass'n. The Storm would only change in that the Washburn and Richfield kids would play in it. It would still be 50% control by SLP and 50% by the one Mpls Ass'n. I've seen nothing about giving Richfield control... am I wrong?[/quote]

No i think it makes complete sense for the MPLS teams, 100% agree with you. I just dont see how it would benifit SLP... I think the MPLS teams should join as i believe they play together in HS (could be wrong).[/quote]

Well I'm not sure about the high school argument since joining with Hopkins has the same problems... I'm just talking about youth hockey development. The goal should be to have A, B1 and B2 teams filled out with appropriate players. The Storm this past year were 1 line short and next year's Storm teams without Washburn have no returning first years (1 PeeWee A and 1/2 Bantam A)... Washburn will only make everyone better next year. For years after that, I'm not sure. People look at us in Edina as the enemy of community hockey, but seems like Edina people love playing for Edina and enjoy winning... for reasons that are beyond anyone's control right now, Mpls's and SLP need eachother to field top quality teams that can compete.

So rather than try to tell you how the Storm will benefit SLP, can you tell me how going it alone, which likley means waiving your PeeWee A and Bantam A players to North Metro or somewhere else in D3 helps? Or merging with Hopkins which has a rival High School team if high school hockey is all you think about?

[mngopherfan]

MN Gopher guy... Mpls SW and Mpls Washburn have expressed their desire to be one ass'n for all practical purposes and have one Mpls Hockey Ass'n within a year or so.

Richfield has 30 TOTAL kids in the Ass'n. The Storm would only change in that the Washburn and Richfield kids would play in it. It would still be 50% control by SLP and 50% by the one Mpls Ass'n. I've seen nothing about giving Richfield control... am I wrong?

No i think it makes complete sense for the MPLS teams, 100% agree with you. I just dont see how it would benifit SLP... I think the MPLS teams should join as i believe they play together in HS (could be wrong).

Well I'm not sure about the high school argument since joining with Hopkins has the same problems... I'm just talking about youth hockey development. The goal should be to have A, B1 and B2 teams filled out with appropriate players. The Storm this past year were 1 line short and next year's Storm teams without Washburn have no returning first years (1 PeeWee A and 1/2 Bantam A)... Washburn will only make everyone better next year. For years after that, I'm not sure. People look at us in Edina as the enemy of community hockey, but seems like Edina people love playing for Edina and enjoy winning... for reasons that are beyond anyone's control right now, Mpls's and SLP need eachother to field top quality teams that can compete.

So rather than try to tell you how the Storm will benefit SLP, can you tell me how going it alone, which likley means waiving your PeeWee A and Bantam A players to North Metro or somewhere else in D3 helps? Or merging with Hopkins which has a rival High School team if high school hockey is all you think about?

They love playing for Edina and winning becasue their association is comprised of kids from EDINA you knob...not 4 associations who 3 years ago were all playing A bantam hockey. If the reason the co-op started was to be successful at the youth levels (go to state) then its too bad, i sincerely hope it was to save two struggling associations...

[hokeyhockeyguy]

Exactly MN Gopher guy... but you took my Edina point out of context.... I only meant that SLP views becoming as large as Edina (with Mpls) would be a bad thing as opposed to recognizing that if SLP wants to be a part of a program that has SLP kids playing hockey with SLP kids (instead of MN Made/Machine/Fire etc... - something that has already started to happen) then cooping with Mpls kids provides their kids a means to develop and play hockey in the community.

Edina kids wouldn't love playing in Edina so much if they couldn't field winning teams... and that would spiral their numbers down and that hurts hockey. SLP seems to think that the reason their squirt and mite levels are up is because there's some long term trend or because the Board is making better decisions... I think its because of the Storm's success and how much fun it is to play hockey in SLP again because they show up at the rink against the Wayzata's and say, "We can win" rather than "how bad are we going to lose."

[mngopherfan]

Exactly MN Gopher guy... but you took my Edina point out of context.... I only meant that SLP views becoming as large as Edina (with Mpls) would be a bad thing as opposed to recognizing that if SLP wants to be a part of a program that has SLP kids playing hockey with SLP kids (instead of MN Made/Machine/Fire etc... - something that has already started to happen) then cooping with Mpls kids provides their kids a means to develop and play hockey in the community.

Edina kids wouldn't love playing in Edina so much if they couldn't field winning teams... and that would spiral their numbers down and that hurts hockey. SLP seems to think that the reason their squirt and mite levels are up is because there's some long term trend or because the Board is making better decisions... I think its because of the Storm's success and how much fun it is to play hockey in SLP again because they show up at the rink against the Wayzata's and say, "We can win" rather than "how bad are we going to lose."

So instead of toughing through lean times you join to be successful. Its a shame that teams across the metro have morals and community pride or else we could have a pretty solid 20 team league in the cities of all the Co-Op's. Lots of teams cant compete with Edina and Wayzata...deal with it. There are teams with 13 kids at a level playing as A's across the state. Its a shame you ( i assume a parent) thinks more about winning than development. You sir are a reason the teams in MPLS park behaved soo poorly, attitude reflects leadership...

[hokeyhockeyguy]

MN Gopher Guy:

Sir, if you don't think that players develop best by being able to compete in the levels they play on then you sir are developmentally challenged.

Mpls Park will never be a Wayzata or an Edina... the demographics won't allow it. What the Storm attempted to do was bring to ass'n's that were stuck in mediocrity together for the benefit of all the kids.

They did so and it was successful. I would like nothing better than SLP be on its own and competing at all levels and when its possible then I would be the first one to say go... but we're not there yet and Mpls isn't either. Thus the only thing pulling the plug on the Storm now would accomplish is to force kids who have played with eachother the last four years to be split apart and be less successful on the ice - oh but you think that has nothing to do with hockey development so there's little point in going on from here.

[HockeySLP]

My kid will be a first year Bantam next year skating out of SLP. I only know a couple of things. First of all, my kid will play hockey next season somewhere, and he will have fun doing it while also improving. He skated PeeWee A last season and had a great experience. He will be a bubble Bantam A, but most likely will be a B1 level skater for 2009-2010. To me the only difference if Washburn Richfield comes into the Co-op is that we add Richfield to the multiple arena's that we now travel to for both practices and games. (SLP, Parade, Breck, Edison, Minnehaha) The numbers for SLP at the PeeWee and Bantam levels are most likely at an all time low, and our attrition level is much higher than most associations. The SLP Varsity coach seems to think he can change the attrition in SLP for the better, but there is no way to prove this. And without some sort of Co-op the PeeWees and Bantams will be looking at a very difficult year ahead. The best SLP could do is field B1 teams at both levels if on our own, leaving the "A" level skaters trying to waive into another D3 program (most likely Hopkins). I know how hard all of these decisions are, and I am trusting cooler heads will prevail, and the MPLS/Park Storm can still work something out, it would be a shame to throw the progress and success of the last 4 seasons out the window for the Storm.

[hockeyover40]

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

Here is the post from the website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just by $.02...

How would adding Washburn and Richfield reduce development for the SLP kids? Look at the Storm PWA team. The team wasn't made up of A players. They were carried all year by Iverson, Jablonski, and Hale. They had a number of B1 players on that team. Add a few Washburn A players to that team, which would move the B1 players down to B1 where they belong. And they develop by playing against kids of the same skill level. They can be successful at that level.

Another example. The squirt A team. Made up of A players and B1 players, which trickled down to the B1 team having a number of B2 players. They had a very very tough season. Adding Washburn, Richfield A players to the A team, the B1 players move to the B1 team, and the B1 team is more successful. And they also develop because they are playing against kids of the same skill level.

That, to me doesn't sound like reducing the development of SLP kids. That sounds like increasing their development.

That's what SLP would get out of adding Washburn - Richfield.

[spin-o-rama]

How would adding Washburn and Richfield reduce development for the SLP kids? Look at the Storm PWA team. The team wasn't made up of A players. They were carried all year by Iverson, Jablonski, and Hale. They had a number of B1 players on that team. Add a few Washburn A players to that team, which would move the B1 players down to B1 where they belong. And they develop by playing against kids of the same skill level. They can be successful at that level.

Another example. The squirt A team. Made up of A players and B1 players, which trickled down to the B1 team having a number of B2 players. They had a very very tough season. Adding Washburn, Richfield A players to the A team, the B1 players move to the B1 team, and the B1 team is more successful. And they also develop because they are playing against kids of the same skill level.

That, to me doesn't sound like reducing the development of SLP kids. That sounds like increasing their development.

That's what SLP would get out of adding Washburn - Richfield.

Wah, Wah, WAh.
How is 10-7-7 a "very very tough season"? Maybe Washburn and Richfield A players should be injected into the mpls-park opponent's teams. They had a rougher season of 7-10-7.

If you want examples of "very very tough seasons," there are plenty of teams that won less than 5 games on a 35 game schedule.

I don't buy the PWA sob story either. 30-15-4, made state. Most teams are carried by their first line. Balanced scoring through 3 lines is non-existent in mh.

If mpls-park continually double and triple shifted their top lines to achieve their records then they are guilty of overemphasis on winning over development.

[hockeyover40]

How would adding Washburn and Richfield reduce development for the SLP kids? Look at the Storm PWA team. The team wasn't made up of A players. They were carried all year by Iverson, Jablonski, and Hale. They had a number of B1 players on that team. Add a few Washburn A players to that team, which would move the B1 players down to B1 where they belong. And they develop by playing against kids of the same skill level. They can be successful at that level.

Another example. The squirt A team. Made up of A players and B1 players, which trickled down to the B1 team having a number of B2 players. They had a very very tough season. Adding Washburn, Richfield A players to the A team, the B1 players move to the B1 team, and the B1 team is more successful. And they also develop because they are playing against kids of the same skill level.

That, to me doesn't sound like reducing the development of SLP kids. That sounds like increasing their development.

That's what SLP would get out of adding Washburn - Richfield.

Wah, Wah, WAh.
How is 10-7-7 a "very very tough season"? Maybe Washburn and Richfield A players should be injected into the mpls-park opponent's teams. They had a rougher season of 7-10-7.

If you want examples of "very very tough seasons," there are plenty of teams that won less than 5 games on a 35 game schedule.

I don't buy the PWA sob story either. 30-15-4, made state. Most teams are carried by their first line. Balanced scoring through 3 lines is non-existent in mh.

If mpls-park continually double and triple shifted their top lines to achieve their records then they are guilty of overemphasis on winning over development.

Spin, My bad, I didn't word that the way I should have. The squirt B1 team was the one that had a very tough season, not the squirt A. The B1 team was 2-15 in league games, and I think (not sure) won like 2 games in four tournaments. One reason for this was the top B1 players were playing on the A team. The The influx of 3-5 A players from Washburn - Richfield, on the A team would allow the B1 players to play where they belonged.

Mngopherfan stated that adding Washburn - Richfield would reduce the development of SLP players. He also added "how would this help SLP". I was trying to point out that adding the players from Washburn and Richfield would help kids in the Storm play at their correct skill level, which in turn would help their development. That's what SLP would get out of it.

I'm aware of A teams top line carrying most teams. But, when that's the case, the other two lines are not developing. Their not playing on the PP, or the PK. If they were on the B1 team, they would be playing on those units, and developing at a better pace.

[hokeyhockeyguy]

Spin: If there are teams that are winning 5 games all year, then they're not at the right level. Period. Youth hockey isn't about winning or losing, its about developing kids and having fun... but to think you can achieve both without taking into consideration wins and losses -- that's a naive statement.

Bottomline is that a Myth has been thrown out there that if the 30 TOTAL Richfield kids and the Washburn kids come over to the Storm that there is automatically some hockey powerhouse that will keep SLP kids off A teams. Folks talk about a 50/50 split between Mpls and SLP... if some at SLP interprets that to require a 50/50 split between SLP and Mpls kids at the A and B1 teams, then those folks are not in favor of kids playing at the right levels. A Mpls-Park (wish Washburn) will consistently field teams that can compete with the best teams, but no one should operate as thinking a new Wayzata has been created. Nonsense. The only thing that will be created is an Coop that fields competitive teams at all levels and which develop their kids better than they could alone.

[conditioningsucks]

Got a suggestion.

Why doesn't this get packaged up as a 'girl's co-op' that boys can play in?

You see, when girls co-op, the parents from the various communities get together and say 'how do we create something fun for ALL of the girls while also developing them as hockey players'. Amazingly, the girls all have a blast and become BFFs (best friends forever) and the parents realize that they have become good friends. Why does boy's hockey have to be different?

In fact, girls co-ops go virtually ignored by their boards. The parents seem to come together and get things done for the greater good. It really is a weird thing when you look at all of the stuff that goes on when boys try to co-op.

Everything I see from the posts on this board (wreck center, mngopherfan, etc.) as well as the statement from the Saint Louis Park's President regarding Saint Louis Park's board vote is that this isn't about ALL of the boys having fun while also developing them as hockey players, but rather a petty political power struggle based on emotions. I mean come on --- you want someone to participate in your co-op but then you don't want any input on your 'hockey committee' from these same folks who are helping your program? Hello??? What am I missing here?

So, package this up as a 'girl's co-op' and then maybe people will relax a little and board members/parents can step aside and watch their kids make new friends, have fun, and maybe a few of the parents will become friends too!

Shame, I thought Minneapolis Park put out some nice teams this year and it was good to see a 'new face' out there competing.

[hockeyover40]

I was hoping to see some replies from the powers to be at SLP. Maybe some of the comments on this board have them rethinking their stand on adding Washburn - Richfield t the co-op.

[hockeyover40]

I heard the Storm came back with a counter proposal to SLP. Can anybody enlighten us?

[HockeySLP]

PeeWee and Bantams Co-op is in tact adding Washburn and Richfield. The Squirts are SLP on their own and SW, Washburn, and Richfield together.

Happy with the outcome, the cooler heads did prevail.

[D6Rocks]

That makes a lot of sense.
Either have a co-op or don't.

[hockeyover40]

PeeWee and Bantams Co-op is in tact adding Washburn and Richfield. The Squirts are SLP on their own and SW, Washburn, and Richfield together.

Happy with the outcome, the cooler heads did prevail.

SLP, why not at the squirt level? What's the thinking behind that?

[GoldenBear]

Make all of the squirt teams B1 or B and you have cooler heads making the right the decision.

[HockeySLP]

PeeWee and Bantams Co-op is in tact adding Washburn and Richfield. The Squirts are SLP on their own and SW, Washburn, and Richfield together.

Happy with the outcome, the cooler heads did prevail.

SLP, why not at the squirt level? What's the thinking behind that?

I am not a board member, my understanding is the numbers are good enough for 5 teams at the Squirt level in SLP for next season, and there is a groundswell at the younger ages to go it alone, but I was not in the meetings.

[vikes40for60]

Don't forget the SLP HS Coach will have a Squirt next year as well.

[hockeyover40]

Don't forget the SLP HS Coach will have a Squirt next year as well.

Heard he was a big part of the problem.