Doing away with regions?

EPIC97 · Post by **EPIC97** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:30 am

Read below and comment.

IMO regions create the single biggest hurdle to state and reward those teams that have improved over the course of the season. To win your district and go straight to state would again IMO leave the door open for debate about who the top 8-12 teams really are.
We could always go the way of College football and let LPH pick them.

Taken from the Minnesota Hockey minutes.

Tournaments/Awards
April 25, 2009
Crowne Plaza
Minneapolis, MN
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 by Tim Sweezo.
Tim thanked everyone on behalf of himself and Bill Gable for all the gifts and well wishes while they were
hospitalized.
Late fees are another big problem this year. The associations seem to have a lot of money when they can
spend in on late fees.
Regions and state tournaments lost a lot of money this year. District 6 lost close to $6,000 on the region and
state tournaments they hosted this year. One idea is to not have regions and go straight to state. How about
no goal judges due to their expense? Greg Nagan asked the tournament committee to take a second look at
the state tournament site selection for the coming years. The in-state districts are now hosting a state
tournament 19 out of 20 years. District 2 lost close to $11,000 hosting the region and state tournaments.
District 2 will not host a tournament next year if they are going to lose money. Jim Bullard stated that they can
ask for a reimbursement of up to $1,500. Copies of the financials will be given to Jim Bullard so that he can
analyze where the losses are coming from. The gates from the tournaments hosted by District 2 did not even
cover the cost of the ice. It was expressed that some of these losses can be blamed on the economy in
general.
Dennis Green asked the Tournament Committee to get a contingency plan in place if we continue to see these
types of losses continue. We also need to look at what our numbers will be for next season and what impact
that will have on the program. One solution that was talked about was to eliminate the region tournaments and
have the 12 district winner move directly to state. They also discussed moving from the 3-man system in
referees to the 2-man system, especially at the lower levels of play.
Bill Gable suggested that the games could be cut from 2 hours to 1.5 hours to save costs. He has received
emails requesting that this be done. Another suggestion was to resurface the ice every 2 periods rather than
every period.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:18 pm

I like the current format of regions and state, not sure that it is right to say that the districts loose money on them. Isn't this why associations pay fees to districts? If the fees are not high enough then they should be raised but these tourneys should not need to operate to raise funds or even break even. Every year there are teams who make a run that didn't necessarily win their district but there is still a huge benefit to having a good regular season. Would be a shame to loose that.

blondegirlsdad · Post by **blondegirlsdad** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:41 am

Wow, just went to Minnesota Hockey site and this looks like it very well could happen. I'd rather see them find a less expensive way to do regions. Did every regional tournament lose money? I just don't think this is the way to get the best teams to state every year.

hemiman · Post by **hemiman** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:03 pm

I am bot sure about regions, but my daughters team went 1-2 at the district level and moved on to regions. To me that doesn't make much sense. They won at the right time in the bracket.

Community Based · Post by **Community Based** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

It would be absolutely crazy to do away with Regions. That's why teams play and compete hard at their District Tournament is to make Regions and have a shot at State. I think some Districts asked if they could drop the regional and state banquets as that's where they're losing money. I can't imagine any hockey family with active kids (that's the membership) requested no Regions. Did they poll families at Regionals regarding the experience? How about the teams that made Regionals but not State. Did they say it was worthwhile? Who comes up with these goofy ideas? No regional playoffs? Work on ways to resolve the issues, and ways to improve, not lazy short cuts to a bad solution.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:49 pm

I think we need to look at the district seeding into the regions as a way to create some interest. I look at the seeding last year at the 12A level and I think we can do a better job of equalizing the regions.

Why do we send the district representative all to the same region. Why does the National region get populated with Lakeville Cottage Grove & Woodbury and join them with all the D10 teams of Anover, Anoka, NWC, Champlin Park & Buffalo.

Same with American Region. All D6 team get lumped together. (Edina, Mtka, Burnsville,& Eden Prairie. Then add all the D2 teams of Moundsview, Highland Wayzata & OMG.

The MNH just lumps everyone else north of the Blue Goose into the Olympic region. Roseau, EGF, Brinerd, Warroad, TRF, Moorehead, Grand Rapids & Bemidji.

Why would not split the districts and send 2 district 6 teams up to the Olympic region along with a couple D8 teams. Why have teams that compete against each other all year play again to advance to State.

Wouldn't it create some interest if Northern teams came down and metro teams went north? Last year in the regions the only team we hadn't played at least twice in the last three weeks was Highland. We had played Minnetonka 3 times, Edina 4 times and Burnsville twice.

We can add some parity if we don't just lump districts together. Even the Olypic region needed some changes to get the games more competitive. Of the first eight games the closest game was within four goals. We need to spice up the regions again by mixing it up.