New Region Format

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:06 pm

If you have ideas/suggestions now would be the time to send them to your DD and the tournament committee members.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:05 pm

elliott70,
Are we just talking about the regional format with no change in districts (leaving the twelve districts as is)? Has anybody stated what problems the format change should solve (player costs, host costs, travel)? Is there any agreement on the length of time the new regional alignment would be in effect (another four years)?

What levels will be addressed (the old format covered Bantam A/B and Peewee A/B mostly)? Does the new format have to fit these four levels as a single solution? Is there any limit to the time it has to be completed (currently on the weekend after districts are completed)?

Chuck Norris Fan · Post by **Chuck Norris Fan** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:24 pm

If we want to make this a true and great state tourney lets make sure the best teams (or the ones that beat them) get there every year. Here is how you do it.
Teams are seeded coming from their district tourneys as a 1, 2, and 3. At that point they are divided up and play in different regional tournaments with winners and runners going to the state tourney. Regions would rotate between Cities and out state every other year. There is already travel involved for regional tourneys (all out state teams) this just makes the cities teams travel as well (for eg. Dist 10 to Roseau this year). Each regional tourney is a double elim.

For example:

Region 1
D1 – #1
D5 – #3
D11 – #2
D12 - #3
D16 - #2
D10 – #2
D2 – #1
D6 – #1

Region 2
D1 – #2
D5 – #2
D3 – #1
D10 – #3
D15 – #1
D2 - #3
D4 – #1
D6 – #2

Region 3
D1 – #3
D12 – #2
D16 – #1
D3 – #2
D15 – #2
D8 – #1
D8 – #3
D5 - #1

Region 4
D4 - #2
D11 – #1
D16 - #3
D10 – #1
D15 – #3
D2 – #2
D8 – #2
D12 - #1

off year #1
D4 - #3
D11 - #3
D3 - #3
D6 - #3

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:21 pm

I'll give this some thought but something has to be done about assigning metro districts to non-metro "regions". This year the West Region is D15, D16 and D10? If I cut Minnesota in half top to bottom, what D10 team would fall on the "west" half? Two years ago the "West" Region was D15, D16 and D5. When you think of western Minnesota, what towns come to mind? Anoka, Blaine, Spring Lake Park? Last year the "North" Region was D11, D12, and D16, now THAT is a region based on a regional part of the state

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:11 am

The argument is that the out-state kids can't play hockey. Of the 20 or so teams that deserve to be in the state tournament, 18 are in the metro (12 of them are in D6). Therefore, for those kids in D4, D5, D10, D12, and D15 (and all but a team in D8, D11, and D16) in order to save the embarassment of a state tournament birth, kids from D1, D2, D3, and D6 (but really only D3 and D6) will be periodically distributed throughout the state - again, for the well-being of the kids.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:21 am

InigoMontoya wrote:The argument is that the out-state kids can't play hockey. Of the 20 or so teams that deserve to be in the state tournament, 18 are in the metro (12 of them are in D6). Therefore, for those kids in D4, D5, D10, D12, and D15 (and all but a team in D8, D11, and D16) in order to save the embarassment of a state tournament birth, kids from D1, D2, D3, and D6 (but really only D3 and D6) will be periodically distributed throughout the state - again, for the well-being of the kids.

The well being of the kids? Unless you are in D3 or D6 it is in the best interest of the kids to be spared the embarassment of playing in the state tournament? Facts are facts and D3 and D6 have some REALLY good programs, BUT this thinking is SOOOO metrocentric and flawed.

Teams that deserve to be in the state tournament? There is not a birthright to be in the state tournament based on ZIP code. If certain teams were to miss a state tournament once in a while, LIFE WILL GO ON! Teams that deserve to be in the regional and state tournaments are the ones that win the games against the competition that also qualifies by winning their games.

What I wish for is I wish there was an exchange program where these metrocentric thinkers would have to spend at least one season in a outstate program to get an understanding of what being in those associations/district is like, where entire programs are smaller then some levels within their program.

I have so much more respect for outstate programs as they make the best of the kids they have and get way more out of them than the powerhouse metro programs. A couple of years ago, a northern Pee Wee B team was 7 players and a goalie, not the best 8 kids in that town's Pee Wee program, the WHOLE Pee Wee program. They dominated their way through the season, breezed through the region and made it to state. They were two and done at state but the games were competitive and they were NOT blown out of the rink. Did they deserve to be there? Sounds to me like they did. What team was it?

By your definition, the Pee Wee A, Bantam B, and 12UB State Champions would not have been in your state tourament field because I'm sure to you, they did not deserve to be there.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:57 am

The argument is that Edina White and Edina Green may keep Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Burnsville, etc. from the regional tournament, but we can't let them also eliminate Wayzata and OMG at regionals, allowing the team from Hickory in there. Even though we save money at the banquet (only 24 meals), the W and OMG programs have more kids in the association than the whole population of that town; how would that be fair?

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:36 am

InigoMontoya wrote:The argument is that Edina White and Edina Green may keep Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Burnsville, etc. from the regional tournament, but we can't let them also eliminate Wayzata and OMG at regionals, allowing the team from Hickory in there. Even though we save money at the banquet (only 24 meals), the W and OMG programs have more kids in the association than the whole population of that town; how would that be fair?

So it is fair that just because an association has more kids then the town population of many outstate associations, they "deserve" to be in a region or state tournament? I am a pretty naive outstate hockey parent but I though the objective was to play the game, put the puck in the net more than the opponent does, and the teams that win advance and the teams that don't go home. Settle in on the ice. I have never heard that Association X "deserves" to win because they have better numbers in their association, that's a new one to me. I believe those teams are called "paper champions".

Like I said, I have more appreciation for the outstate associations that develop and make the best of the kids they have and consider regions and state tournaments priviledges when they earn their right to go, they play as hard as they can, and return home proud regardless of the outcome.

Last I heard, it was still called the "State" tournament, not the "Western Metro" tournament.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:20 am

The argument is that even if they don't deserve it, they are entitled to it.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:31 am

frederick61 wrote:elliott70,
Are we just talking about the regional format with no change in districts (leaving the twelve districts as is)? Has anybody stated what problems the format change should solve (player costs, host costs, travel)? Is there any agreement on the length of time the new regional alignment would be in effect (another four years)?

What levels will be addressed (the old format covered Bantam A/B and Peewee A/B mostly)? Does the new format have to fit these four levels as a single solution? Is there any limit to the time it has to be completed (currently on the weekend after districts are completed)?

The whole concept of regions/state is open fopr discussion.
Any constraints/arguments should be built into the proposal.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:36 am

InigoMontoya wrote:The argument is that Edina White and Edina Green may keep Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Burnsville, etc. from the regional tournament, but we can't let them also eliminate Wayzata and OMG at regionals, allowing the team from Hickory in there. Even though we save money at the banquet (only 24 meals), the W and OMG programs have more kids in the association than the whole population of that town; how would that be fair?

Hickory does not have a hockey program.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:39 am

The argument to use Lets Play Hockey Top Ten and exclude non-metro teams will not be accepted.

Air Force One - dont worry, I would not let that happen.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:39 am

I don't understand how associations hold tournaments during the season as fundraisers and make a chunk of money, yet Region tournaments are money-losers. I know the team fees for regions aren't as high as for-profit tournaments, but the gate fees definitely are, so you'd think they'd at least be able to break even.

The LPH top tens are jokes and should be dressed in rubber noses and big floppy shoes. The eight teams that advance to state will never be the best eight, whatever that means, at any level, youth or HS. It just doesn't happen. Different teams each year get their hearts broken at districts and regions. Other different teams get to experience a big win and the thrill of moving on to the next level. It's OK and it's not broke.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:02 am

I'm gonna throw an idea out there for redistricting and regionalization.

According to www.mnhockeyrankings.com, for 2008-09 there were 98 Pee Wee A teams and 95 Bantam A teams in Minnesota Hockey. For the sake of the discussion, let's call it 100 in each level.

Back when I was in high school, there were 32 MSHSL districts for boys and girls basketball and volleyball. Each district had a district tournament and the winners advanced to 8 regional tournaments, 4 district champions to a regional, just the champions.

OK, now for today's youth hockey. Redistrict the state into 16 districts, each district having 6 or 7 associations. Each district will have a district tournament of the same format, full double elimination. Champion and Runner-Up each advance to the region tournament

Regions will still be North, East, South, and West but will have a set participation list of member districts (if you are in a district that falls in the East Region, you will ALWAYS be in the East Region) Format for Region Tourneys will still be 8 team, round robin but now only includes #1 and #2 seeds from the four member districts. One change will be the winners from the state qualifier games will play each other in a "Region Championship" game to determine #1 and #2 seeds from each region.

Now, state will be the same format as it is now but the head coaches of the qualifing teams will seed the teams #1-#8 instead of predesignating what region/seed plays now. The field will then be set #1/#8, #2/#7, #3/#6, #4/#5 and a 7th/8th place game will be played on Sunday as well.

I am not advocating that all the metro teams will be in the same region but I do see those teams falling in the East and West and at worst, some southern suburbs my have to go in the South. I have no problem with metro teams making up up to half the state field, but when region manipulation gets 6 or, god forbid, 8 metro teams in, that's a foul.

State tourney locations will alternate between outstate locations and metro locations, if the "A" tournament is in the metro, the "B" tournament is outstate, If Pee Wee A is metro, Bantam A is outstate. A nod will also be given to location of limited participation levels such as 19U, if all the teams are from one area, that tournament will be held in that area or a ratio of participation to host like Jr Gold A, 6 seeds to metro teams, 2 to outstate, every fouth year the Jr Gold A is hosted by an outstate Jr Gold A program.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:08 am

elliott70 wrote:The argument to use Lets Play Hockey Top Ten and exclude non-metro teams will not be accepted.

Air Force One - dont worry, I would not let that happen.

Thanks Elliott! I consider the rankings page of Lets Play Hockey as the comics section of that publication; usually entertaining, sometimes downright hillarious!

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:47 am

Looking at the number of associations in each district, it seems a little haphazard. Some have 8, some 16, 17, 19. Of course redistricting would cause big turmoil - loss of some rivalries, power struggles for ref schedules, and board members scrambling to smooch strange buttocks.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Inigo, you ARE the best! My highest regards in your hunt for the six-fingered man...

DumpandChase1 · Post by **DumpandChase1** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:22 pm

If I were king of MN hockey for a day here is what I would do.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 send teams to 2, 8 team regionals. They play a double elimination tournament, just like the good old days. The 2 winners go to state, the 2 winners of the looser bracket go to state. Here is the kicker, the 2 loosing teams in the looser bracket game playoff for the last spot in state. This region will send 5 teams.

Districts 11, 12, 15, 16 play in the north region and the top 2 teams go to state. The 3rd place team will playoff with the winner of the West region which will be districts 4 and 5, with the winner going to state.

With this format you will always get 2 northern teams and the years that they have stronger teams they will get 3. The years that D4 and D5 have strong teams, they will get to state.

This will give you better teams with good representation from throughout the state.

Fire and Ice · Post by **Fire and Ice** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:46 pm

Chuck Norris is on top of his game again.

By the way D3 and D6 have not "dominated" state championships there are more than 2 sides to the cities.

Who said northern kids couldn't play hockey? It is where the game was invented AY!

Set the regions how you wish the best seem to still get there...unless of course we do something ridiculous...like this years' south regional other than that it is just fine.

And by the sounds of all this lets just throw rose petals and call it a wrap.

Remember Gaylord Focker...nice 9th place medal son.

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:28 am

How can you attempt to fix the Regionals when the District levels are so screwed up? What is really at stake here? Are we doing this for the experience for the kids or in the end does it really mean just another tournament medal on the peg board?

Divide teams to a competitive level (AA, A, B and Recreation) only large associations MOVE-UP to the AA level or associations that have a strong hockey history or they have a special group of kids come thruogh can apply to be moved up. It would be more competitive top to bottom instead of watching Highland score 1 goal in the Bantam State tourney, but move them and Mpls Park down to A lvl and move in an Edina or Woodbury and you had teams on even levels. Ironic the teams playing for 1st and 2nd Rochester and Wayzata are 2 of the largest, how about consolation side Apple Valley and Osseo/MG boy no size there huh? How about the 3rd place game, yeap you guessed it 2 teams with strong hockey roots Duluth East and Bemidji. You could do that at every level.

Now don't even get me started on the District playoffs such as District 8 with 14 A peewee teams vs District 1 that had 4 peewee A teams yet gets to send 2 teams to Regionals that the 14th team in D8 would have had a good game with.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:28 am

By the way D3 and D6 have not "dominated" state championships there are more than 2 sides to the cities.

Who said northern kids couldn't play hockey? It is where the game was invented AY!

Set the regions how you wish the best seem to still get there...unless of course we do something ridiculous...like this years' south regional other than that it is just fine.

My apologies for not correctly understanding the argument. It looks like I misinterpreted the out-state situation. The northern kids can play a little (apparently a little known gene that is only activated below -40F), so they can have a play-in tournament for a spot at state.

I also underestimated the contingent from Woodbury, Whitebear, Stillwater, et. al. The east metro should get 2 spots at state to the west metro's 4 spots.

The south regional is getting trashed again, so we'll just assume that nobody plays hockey south of 494-94 (St. Michael will have to pick up their arena and move it across the street). If they want to give undeserved medals to their kids, we'll let them play against the Iowa and Souix Falls teams. There is one more spot left, and Rochester is a big association, so we'll give them an exemption to the Mason-Dixon rule and a spot at state.

All set:
Rochester is in.
The north has a play-in.
The metro will make automatic qualifiers out of First Test of the Best, Cake Eater Classic, Edina Invitational, Bloomington Midwest Regional, etc. (Other than Roseau and Duluth, there aren't any out-state teams invited to those anyway.) Woodbury and Whitebear could qualify the east.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:35 am

Can somebody point out to me where it states that we have to have X number of teams from N/S/E/W in the state tournament each year?

I see people talk about why are this district teams more represented than that one and why are there more metro than outstate?

If I am correct, you have to beat the teams that is on the other bench if you want the title, no matter who they are. It comes down to who's better that day! Play the games your given in the tournament and win to move on!

Upsets happen so when Highland was good enough to win and get there, good for them.

northwoods oldtimer · Post by **northwoods oldtimer** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:54 am

I think that IM is just trying to be tongue and cheek with the commentary...not 100% certain though. If his views are for real they are absurd. Chuck Norris has a good format for regional play as it mixes the competition from cross sections of that state and is fair and equitable. Maybe some of you glory seekers in the metro and outstate (St Cloud and Rochester)need to pull an osseo maple grove and merge to get better, if all you are after is a trophy. My due respect to the programs in the metro and outstate as well that still focus on development and fully realize that is paramount to who plays who in district, regional or state. There are still a lot of great associations around the state that have their priorities in the right place. The challenge is giving your best effort whether it is against Wayzata or Roseau. Mn Hockey is set up to serve the entire state whether you are in Edina or Ely, it's focus is to serve the youth of that state not simply the western suburbs. The development of hockey players in this state is amazing and we collectivley have our local associations to thank for that, no need to micro manage if some pencil pusher in a western suburb feels wronged by the system.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:03 am

The development of hockey players in this state is amazing and we collectivley have our local associations to thank for that, no need to micro manage if some pencil pusher in a western suburb feels wronged by the system.

If I read this post (and others) correct, much of the complaining is that outstate teams are getting the shaft by the big metro associations.............

You choose to live where you do for many reasons other than the size of the association and their chance to win a state title so why bash them just because they live in Wayzata, Rochester, OMG, Edina, Roseau, Bemidji, Duluth or Woodbury?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:22 am

I disagree.

I see many more metro posts complaining about how their studs don't all go to state becuase the hacks from out-state undeservedly take their place. District and Region are defined geographically. The metro, though very populous and chocked-full-o-culture, is very tiny geographically compared to the remainder of the state. I don't see Little League baseball shipping teams from FL, LA, TX, and CA to the Northwest and Midwest regionals because there are lots of good teams in those states - region is geographic.

In addition, most of the posts I've read regarding creating AA for big and traditional programs, or moving all the rest down to B, come from folks from those bigger associations. I can't recall ever seeing a post from Pequot bemoaning the fact that they played a bigger, better program. I think they, and almost every other smaller association enjoy the challenge and the experience. Those that don't want to play those teams can find plenty of tournaments in southern and western MN that get snubbed by the metro.