The Wisconsin Hockey Coaches Association held their annual spring meeting last March during the state hockey tournament. Twenty-two years I have attended as a coach, several other years as the publisher/editor of Wisconsin Hockey Report, a publication as unfamiliar to most of today’s coaches as the typewriter I used to compose it.

The meeting is a chance for coaches to trade war stories from their seasons and is often highlighted by an appearance by the WIAA’s current hockey liaison. Tom Shafranski has drawn the short straw for the last decade. Like an IRS auditor, Tom is generally a nice guy, but almost always brings with him an unwanted message. Answering questions from emotionally charged coaches is akin to being sheriff at a lynch mob. To his credit he maintains his professionalism and takes the heat.

Part of the unsettling news he delivered this year revolved around the possible move to a two division state tournament. The statistics bear out that the state hockey tournament has become an event exclusive to big schools—by my definition those with enrollments over 1,000, excluding private schools. In the last fourteen years only six programs out of the one hundred and twelve state participants, have had an enrollment under 1,000.

The WHCA, for obvious reasons, would like to see a two division tournament but not at the expense of eliminating four big schools. After decades of assuring us that the magic number of 96 was as rock solid as Stonehenge the WIAA suddenly switched gears last spring and opened the door for a two division state tournament. The bad news as Tom delivered it, “the board (WIAA Board of Control) will only consider two four team tournaments.” A proposal that will likely elicit mixed emotions from the state’s eighty-eight boy’s hockey programs.

On the surface it would appear that this proposal would open the door for more true small schools to get a state tournament opportunity.

This is where the math gets complicated. At what enrollment figure will the two tiers be split? Teams will be allowed to move from the lower division to the upper, and small private schools like USM, Notre Dame & Edgewood, all considered top tier hockey programs could remain in the lower tier keeping the door closed on true small schools.

The math got even more confusing when Shafranski tried to convince us that the new eight team tournament would “perhaps provide state opportunities for more teams” than the old eight team tournament. I have never been great at math, but going from eight teams to eight teams seems like the same number of opportunities.

Projecting where the division one and two cut off will be is purely speculative at this point, but in a two division four team scenario the dividing line falls in the middle of the eighty-eight schools. That split would keep too many big schools in the lower tier to open the door much more than a crack for the truly small schools.

In the meantime, small schools continue to look for coop opportunities in an effort to build competitive programs. The original intent of coop programs, which was to grow new programs, simply has not happened. I cannot even think of a handful of coop programs that have actually split apart. After reaching a state high of 93 programs in 2010, the numbers are now declining. Many schools now see the co-op opportunity as their only chance to reach the tournament.

The solution to grow hockey would seem to revolve around a two division tournament that continued to bring eight big schools and added four small schools. Excluding the private schools, there are 23 programs under 1,000. If you took the bottom 32 teams for division two it would allow nine “big” schools into the mix. Of those potential nine schools only Beaver Dam (2002), Black River Falls (1996) and Stoughton (2000, 2010) have ever been to the state tournament.

That is math I can understand. It truly provides opportunity for the small schools.

The goal in expanding the state tournament should be about growing the sport of hockey and providing a more realistic opportunity for small schools to be a part of that experience. The current big school eight team format is competitive and exciting. It should not be changed.

I already know what the WIAA response will be. Shafranski echoed it at the meeting, “we must stay with the model that is consistent with all sports.” If that is truly the case, then how has anything changed since the WIAA set up shop in 1896?

The truth is the WIAA sports models are not consistent. Wrestling has a consolation round, the girls’ basketball state tournament was suddenly moved to Green Bay, soccer can have a ridiculous number of players receive game disqualifications without penalty to the team and not all WIAA sports are allowed unlimited summer contact.

Boy’s hockey has been a one division sport for forty-three years.

I watched Hayward’s Steve Kirley win 365 games in his twenty-nine years as head coach. His over-achieving small town Hurricanes played in too many sectional finals against the Superior Spartans to recall. Not once could they find a way to make up the difference that a thousand extra students can make. He never made it to the state tournament.

It is time for the WIAA to release hockey from its one division exile. Time to give those small schools the same opportunity every other sport enjoys, without destroying the big school tournament that exists.