skip navigation

A Closer Examination

By Dan Bauer, 11/25/15, 9:30PM CST

Share

Are the 'mega co-ops' harming girls hockey?

Last spring there was a lot of heated debate sparked by an article critical of the current state of affairs of WIAA girl’s hockey.  I would like to take exception to many of the undocumented claims and in general to the premise that the article had taken “a close examination” of this issue.

The center argument focused on what was termed as “mega co-ops” and their dominance of the girl’s game.  The Bay Area program (11 schools/13,200 enrollment) was chastised and questioned as to why they needed so many schools to participate.  Void of any significant research the baseless accusations about the Ice Bears looked foolish after the truth surfaced and we discovered that the players totally fund their own program and pay nearly $1,500 each to participate.  It suddenly wasn’t quite so “unconceivable” that their team had only twenty-four players.

In Wausau, the Central Wisconsin Storm (4 /4,910) was painted as the bad girls of the sectional they have dominated.  Yet last year the Storm had only twenty-two players.  The Cap City co-op (5 /7,515) fielded twenty-five players and Onalaska (5/5,272) had a roster of twenty-three.  In fact only sixteen of the 146 schools involved in girl’s hockey last year had potential stand-alone numbers of more than fifteen players.  Without investigating their feeder programs it can’t be determined if those numbers can be sustained.  The co-op solution seems to the rule in girls hockey where this year there will only be five non-co-op teams; Hudson, Superior, Medford, Northland Pines & Tomahawk.

The article in question was clearly not a close examination of the facts, only gaudy enrollment numbers thrown out to stir people up.  Demonizing successful teams should be reserved for the Yankees and the Patriots, not innocent high school girls.

I do believe that on the girls side the bulk of the co-ops have truly been created to provide opportunities for girls without a place to play.  On the boys side it is being used to try and create a more competitive balance for small schools in a one class system.  Established in 1982, the co-op concept has not accomplished one of its original goals, to build more programs and grow individual sports.

The solution was offered that if you want more girls to have the opportunity to play hockey you simply need to put an end to “mega co-ops.”  In reality, ending co-ops in today’s climate of Ebenezer Scrooge school budgets would put more girls out of hockey than into hockey.  It is only because of the co-ops that many girls are afforded the opportunity to play.  These combined programs have allowed schools to offer more athletic experiences at less cost.

The idea that more schools would start their own programs and recruit girls from their own high school hallways to fill out teams is backward thinking.  You don’t grow a sport from the top down.  That type of solution is short sighted, ineffective and produces an inferior product on the ice.  Unlike many other sports, hockey cannot be mastered quickly.  Skating is a skill that takes many years to reach a level of proficiency that will allow you to play competitively in a WIAA game. 

Successful growth must come from the trenches of youth hockey.

Looking at the growth of girl’s WIAA hockey, there is no evidence to support that it isn’t growing.  Participation numbers have increased every year, reaching 839 in 2010-11.   After a slight dip the next two years, they were back up near the 10-11 totals last year.  That minimal decline is most likely just the national trend affecting hockey.  A comparison to the number of boy’s program at year fourteen demonstrates a similar trajectory, 34 boy’s teams in 1984, and 33 girl’s team in 2015.

The constant cry for fairness is perhaps the notion that irritates me the most.  Thankfully Herb Brooks wasn’t concerned with “fairness” back in 1980.  Hockey would likely look quite a bit different today if he had elected to concede to the greatness of the Russians.  Learning to fight and persevere as an underdog is a valuable lesson for life’s future challenges.

As a former coach of a small school program in Spooner we were faced with having Superior, the state’s most decorated boys program, in our sectional.  The road to Madison truly went through Superior every year.  Even after we became a “mega co-op”, (4 schools) we only managed one win over the state’s perennial powerhouse.  And while we did not reach Madison in my tenure there, I wouldn’t trade any of those journey’s we embarked on as a team.  We wore our small school moniker as a badge of courage not a plea for legislative equality.

In Miracle, Herb Brooks proclaims, “That is why I want to pursue it” when his vision to defeat the Russians is perceived as a “pretty lofty goal.”  There were only a few “fair fights” when we met the Spartans, but it didn’t dilute our desire to meet that challenge.

I hear the “It’s not fair” cry in my elementary physical education classes every day.  I don’t expect to hear that from those adults who choose to enter the athletic battleground.  Finding a solution that creates absolute fairness is impossible.  It is an infinite illusion because each of us has a different vision of what constitutes fairness.

Success, like the issue of fairness has many different definitions.  Unfortunately, there is a growing belief that the only successful season is one that ends up in Madison at the state tournament.  Winning at the prep level has been elevated to an unhealthy importance. It is a narrow and inaccurate description of both success and the value of high school athletics.

Upon closer examination it is clear that “yellow journalism” only sensationalizes the co-op issue and fans the flames of misinformation.  Neither of those is good for the growth of the game or brings us any closer to a logical solution regarding co-ops.

Dan Bauer is a free-lance writer, teacher & hockey coach in Wausau, WI.  You can contact him at dbauer@wausauschools.org.