2023 MN High School Football season

Donate To GopherHole
disco said:
Hopkins is listed as 1677 (9-12) adjusted by the high school league. The high school also has 40.3% free and reduced. That seems REALLY high for a school located in the city of Minnetonka, but I expect a lot of that is open enrolled kids.

I don't know the exact formula, but that leads me to think actual enrollment in grades 9-12 is closer to the 2000 I mentioned above. It's definitely in the top 32 and should be classified as such.
Click to expand...
Affluent families in Hopkins open enroll to Minnetonka and they gladly take them.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Affluent families in Hopkins open enroll to Minnetonka and they gladly take them.
Click to expand...
Yup

A lot of them buy in Minnetonka mailing addresses not realizing it is Hopkins schools
 

@MaxyJR1 my point was that using straight enrollment or even factoring in reduced lunch is not a good enough measure.

They don’t correlate strongly enough with the overall (down to youth feeder level!) health and numbers of the school’s program!
 

@disco while technically true that Hopkins high is directly north of the Hopkins border, this just gets at what is true of other cities that straddle 494 (like Plymouth): if you’re East if the highway, you’re likely in an older neighborhood that isn’t as wealthy, if you’re West if the highway, the opposite is more likely correct.

Indeed, Armstrong is to Hopkins what Wayzata is to Minnetonka (high schools).
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Affluent families in Hopkins open enroll to Minnetonka and they gladly take them.
Click to expand...
Yep. As I've pointed out, Minnetonka is about 40% open enrollment and a huge number of that is Hopkins, which then backfills from Minneapolis and poorer inner-ring suburbs. I know a number of people who live in the Hopkins district. Not one sends their kids to Hopkins schools.
 


Hopkins should be playing with Armstrong, Cooper, and SLP.

That’s what they are. A correct system would be able to acknowledge that and classify them as such.
 

MplsGopher said:
Hopkins should be playing with Armstrong, Cooper, and SLP.

That’s what they are. A correct system would be able to acknowledge that and classify them as such.
Click to expand...
Armstrong and Cooper aren't even in the same football district for this biennium.

Armstrong is with: STA, Hastings, Mahtomedi and Cretin.
Cooper is with: Jefferson, Apple Valley, Tartan and St. Louis Park.

And Hopkins shouldn't be rewarded for being terrible.
 

disco said:
Armstrong and Cooper aren't even in the same football district for this biennium.

Armstrong is with: STA, Hastings, Mahtomedi and Cretin.
Cooper is with: Jefferson, Apple Valley, Tartan and St. Louis Park.

And Hopkins shouldn't be rewarded for being terrible.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's rewarding being terrible as much as putting like schools together. Demographics have to be a factor in deciding where teams play. Schools that have really strong feeder programs and sport specific numbers should be pushed up with other programs for competition.

Andover plays all sports against the rest of District #11 (Anoka, Champlin Park, Coon Rapids, and Andover) and gets to play down in football. That's splitting hairs too much for me.
 

Demos *****should***** be a factor in the system, but they absolutely aren’t other than he reduced lunch.

Like schools — 1000% correct. That’s the whole point of what it should be.

If you’re even going to bother to hand out multiple state champion trophies in the first place (they should!), then the grouping a should make sense (they don’t!)
 



MplsGopher said:
Demos *****should***** be a factor in the system, but they absolutely aren’t other than he reduced lunch.

Like schools — 1000% correct. That’s the whole point of what it should be.

If you’re even going to bother to hand out multiple state champion trophies in the first place (they should!), then the grouping a should make sense (they don’t!)
Click to expand...
So there should be a poors state champion and an affluents state champion?
 

Of course it’s not so simple.

I’m sure the data isn’t freely publicly available, but would be really interesting to plot the programs in each class in the two dimensions of: total number of regular season wins over the last 5 years and total number of football participants from grades (say, 5? 6?) up through 12.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I don't think it's rewarding being terrible as much as putting like schools together. Demographics have to be a factor in deciding where teams play. Schools that have really strong feeder programs and sport specific numbers should be pushed up with other programs for competition.

Andover plays all sports against the rest of District #11 (Anoka, Champlin Park, Coon Rapids, and Andover) and gets to play down in football. That's splitting hairs too much for me.
Click to expand...
Agree with that. 6a football would be better as the top 48 than as the top 32.

8 sections of 6.
Play 5 in your section. Play paired for competitive games in the other 3 games (or play 9 games and have only the top 4 in each section make playoff….is my preferred option).
 

I think that - beyond simple enrollment - the broader issue is competitiveness.

some of the football district committees at lower levels have begun to take that into consideration.

there are schools in my area of SW MN that should be 2A by enrollment, but the districts are allowing them to play mostly 1A schedules - because they were not competitive against 2A schools and the continual losing was killing the programs through attrition.

it's a vicious cycle - team can't win - players aren't having any fun - they quit and younger players don't go out - numbers drop - and the team can't win due to lower numbers. so the district agreed to give some programs a chance to rebuild by playing a more competitive schedule. also worth noting that it impacts the JV program as well by giving those kids a chance to play competitive opponents and see what winning feels like.

of course, when section tournaments roll around, these schools have to face 2A schools again and will be huge underdogs. but at least the players got to enjoy some success in the regular season, and hopefully that is enough to keep kids out and generate more interest at the Junior High level.

now - does that translate to the 5A or 6A level? I can't answer that, having never played in that sandbox.
 



swede2 said:
So there should be a poors state champion and an affluents state champion?
Click to expand...
The MSHSL does not exist to regulate everyone having a chance to win.

I personally don’t think 6a football should exist. We have one too many classes.
Contracting a class would solve a lot of the problems we are talking about.


The MSHSL exists for fairness.
If you schedule one team to win more, you by definition are scheduling their opponent to lose more.
You should schedule based on objective criteria. Some have said football participation. I would be fine with that. Enrollment has always been used and is a lot cleaner because the numbers are reported to the state.
If a kid comes out for football but quits before the end of the season, how does that count? How does a freshmen that is in the roster but never come to school count?
Would have to iron all that out. But you could definitely classify differently.
You could also classify based on historical performance. And thats fine too. But then everyone should do it, not just loser programs.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I think that - beyond simple enrollment - the broader issue is competitiveness.

some of the football district committees at lower levels have begun to take that into consideration.

there are schools in my area of SW MN that should be 2A by enrollment, but the districts are allowing them to play mostly 1A schedules - because they were not competitive against 2A schools and the continual losing was killing the programs through attrition.

it's a vicious cycle - team can't win - players aren't having any fun - they quit and younger players don't go out - numbers drop - and the team can't win due to lower numbers. so the district agreed to give some programs a chance to rebuild by playing a more competitive schedule. also worth noting that it impacts the JV program as well by giving those kids a chance to play competitive opponents and see what winning feels like.

of course, when section tournaments roll around, these schools have to face 2A schools again and will be huge underdogs. but at least the players got to enjoy some success in the regular season, and hopefully that is enough to keep kids out and generate more interest at the Junior High level.

now - does that translate to the 5A or 6A level? I can't answer that, having never played in that sandbox.
Click to expand...
Correct.
There are problems. To me, part of the problem could be solved by contracting a class. And focusing less on playoffs and more on regular season.

Get full sections. Play your section. Schedule a competitive game on your own for your other game or two with a like-team from “districts”

Should move away from district scheduling and towards section scheduling. 6a did that this year. It’s the best schedule in years. Maybe the best schedule in the history of 6a.


Play an extra regular season game so teams get another competitive game.
Top 4 in each section make playoff instead of everyone.
 

I get that some schools are having a hard time scheduling a full slate of games and that was part of the impetus for wiping out conferences and going to sections but it seems like the result is taking the misery of a few and spreading it to all. With traditional conferences, it seems most were able to schedule and play who they wanted to play with, even if they weren't in the same class. When I played, our conference was a mix of C and B teams and very often, the conference champ was a C team. I'm not sure the toothpaste could be put back in the tube now, though. I doubt smaller schools in 2023 would agree to conferencing with larger schools.

It seems to me that, at least with the smaller, outstate schools, it's really become feast or famine. You're really good at FB or really bad. Fewer close games and lots of blowouts. In smaller schools it's about participation and very cyclical.
 

as I understand it, the whole point of going to District scheduling was to have teams face opponents that are similar in enrollment and closer in geography.

Supposedly, one of the reasons for the MSHSL opposing "Section" scheduling is that some teams would win up traveling further to play regular-season games, especially in out-state and Northern MN.

on another topic - enrollment alone doesn't always tell the story. some districts may have larger numbers of immigrants or non-English speaking students who are less likely to play Football. my local HS just joined a cooperative Soccer program with two other districts so that those students could play a sport that is more in keeping with their cultural background. good for them - but that reduces the number of potential football players.
 

I agree with most of what Some Guy says. There are too many classes.

The problem with looking at youth and feeder programs when classifying high schools is that youth programs aren't run directly through the schools. Most of the time now, at least in the metro, they're grouped by associations.

Our association is supposed to draw from kids that live in the boundaries of the Wayzata district. But we've had instances where one parent lives one place, and another elsewhere. We've had instances where a kid came in to play tackle in 4th-6th because his district didn't start until 7th grade.

And we have a fairly significant number of kids that attend or will attend private schools. Those kids will all be gone from the Wayzata system and play for Providence (mostly), West Lutheran, Holy Family, Benilde etc. starting in 7th grade mostly. If I had to guess, I'd say it's 20-25% of the youth program in any one grade. Obviously in a giant district like this, it's less of an impact, but if say, St. Louis Park loses 25% of their youth program to private schools, that's a bigger deal.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian said:
it's a vicious cycle - team can't win - players aren't having any fun - they quit and younger players don't go out - numbers drop - and the team can't win due to lower numbers.
Click to expand...
I think this has happened with the aforementioned Hopkins. They have one 6th grade team. Minnetonka has six. Wayzata has six. Edina has four. Maple Grove has 4 or 5.

Now the flip side is having too many teams at the youth level, and spreading the talent too thin. The point is to get kids to play, and keep playing, but all it takes is a couple kids getting hurt or quitting (or missing a game because of f-ing hockey :mad::mad::mad::mad:) and you're shorthanded and getting steamrolled. That gets old quick for the kids and they won't come back.
 

disco said:
I question some of the numbers on that list, but there's one glaring problem in the list regarding Hopkins having nothing to do with the reduced lunch stipulation.

The MSHSL classifies high schools for classification by grades 9-12. Hopkins was the last major metro school to be 10-12 and still using a Junior High model. This site lists Hopkins as 10-12, and if it's going by raw numbers of people who attend that building, that would mean the 9-12 population would be closer to 2000, which would put Hopkins about 21st, which I think is more accurate.
Click to expand...
You’re correct according to the department of education. Hopkins is one of the few 10-12 grade high schools
 

MplsGopher said:
@MaxyJR1 my point was that using straight enrollment or even factoring in reduced lunch is not a good enough measure.

They don’t correlate strongly enough with the overall (down to youth feeder level!) health and numbers of the school’s program!
Click to expand...
They can appeal as well. The next 64 schools have said, a school that size is not our problem. You have 700 more students. Figure it out.
 

State of Football said:
You’re correct according to the department of education. Hopkins is one of the few 10-12 grade high schools
Click to expand...
I thought they moved to a middle school model this year, but maybe it's next year?
 


It would not simply be a matter of judging it based on feeder numbers alone, either. Doing anything like this in the simplest possible way, is dumb.

All of these factors could be taken into consideration, perhaps averaged over a moving five year window: feeder numbers, total football participants in the high school program, number of seniors, school class size, total wins in the regular season, total budget of the high school program.

None of those is difficult (it certainly isn't difficult to mandate that the high school make a call to the director of the local youth association and ask for numbers) to track, and together I bet it would not be difficult to build a model that clusters like schools together much better.
 

See Rosemount beat Lakeville South. What happened to Rosemount? Saw them against Eagan and not impressed with Offense. Then second half against Farmington they start turning things around. Any significant developments?
 

let's check some scores

9-Player:
#4 Nevis (6-0) beats #5 Ogilvie (5-1) 34-8
Hills-Beaver Creek (6-0) beats #8 Edgerton (4-1) 26-14.

On Saturday: #9 Kingsland (5-0) at #7 LeRoy-Ostrander (5-0)

1A:
(class 2A) Staples-Motley (5-1) beats #8 (1A) Parkers Prairie (5-1) 26-0
Mayer Lutheran (5-1) beats #10 Lester Prairie (4-2) 34-26

2A:
#2 Caledonia (6-0) beats #3 Chatfield (5-1) 27-0
(class 1A) Upsala-Swanville (5-1) beats #10 (2A) K-M-S (5-1) 20-14

3A:
#7 (3A) D-G-F (5-1) beats #4 (4A) Detroit Lakes 21-0
(4A) Marshall (4-2) beats #3 (3A) Fairmont (5-1) 37-13

4A:
#1 Becker (6-0) beats #7 Rocori (4-2) 20-0
#10 Kasson-Mantorville (5-1) beats #3 Byron (5-1) 21-14
#6 Princeton (6-0) beats Chisago Lakes (4-2) 28-25

5A:
Owatonna (4-1) at #3 Mankato West (5-1) beats Owatonna (4-2) 42-7
Bloomington Jefferson (5-1) beats #9 Robbinsdale Cooper (4-2) 34-20

6A:
#7 Centennial (5-1) beats #9 Anoka (4-2) 35-15
 

Crazy finish in the Rosemount/Lakeville South game tonight.

Down 21-14 Rosemount is driving with about a minute left and fumbles at the South 16. South then goes 3 and out and has to punt the ball back to Rosemount who gets it around midfield with less than a minute and no timeouts.

Rosemount drives down to the 8 yard line and in spite of some serious home town clock shenanigans I won't go into, finds themselves with 2.7 seconds left and the ball at the 8. Rosmeount completes a TD pass as time expires and then elects to go for the win. Beautiful 2 pt play where QB went in motion, snap went to a RB who reversed it to another back who then threw it to the QB who was wide open in the corner of the EZ.

Game was 14-14 at halftime when both teams had the ball a grand total of 2 times each and couldn't be stopped.
 

GopherPharmaBiz said:
Welp there goes Hopkins’ final hope for avoiding a second straight winless season losing 30-0 to Roseville. They need to be moved to 5A. It’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well what about Roseville? They get their ass kicked for 2 years without a win. Good for them. Nobody likes to get piss pounded so I get the emotion. But kudos for them getting a win. Huge school and this is the first year in the last 3 that they had more than 40-50 kids 10-12 that play football. Stillwater and the like have that much from one grade. It’s tough when you have a very changing demographic that has no interest in football anymore. Hopkins is the same. It sucks because it wasn’t that long ago that both of those teams were very good. I guess it’s their time in the valley just like Forest Lake went through.
 

I wish there could be a way to get some Hopkins content on this thread. Anyone have some Hopkins info?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom