Wayzata and Hopkins have filed appeals
Posted on July 6th, 2009 – 4:37 PMBy John Millea
Fallout from the placement of all four Classic Lake Conference schools into the Lake Conference continues today with word that Wayzata and Hopkins have filed appeals.
In its presentation to the placement committee last month, Wayzata had requested that it be placed into the Northwest Suburban. Hopkins said it would be satisfied with placement into the Lake or the Northwest Suburban. (Edina and Minnetonka both requested that they join the Lake.)
In reading the placement committee’s decisions for each school, one thing stands out. The dissolution of the Classic Lake began when the above four schools voted to toss Armstrong out; Armstrong was then accepted into the NW Suburban for 2010-11. The placement committee told the four schools the same thing: You clearly didn’t want to be in a conference with Armstrong, so we won’t put you into the NW Suburban.
A private hearing on the appeals will be heard Monday, and chances are almost nil that the committee’s decisions will be overturned. As someone who has been through this process in the past told me, these hearing are “a formality and an exercise in futility.”
16 Responses to "Wayzata and Hopkins have filed appeals"
John,
Interesting that Hopkins appealed. I believe you quoted the Hopkins AD in saying all they wanted was a place to play. They certainly got that with their placement in the Lake Conference.
Looks to me that they wanted to get away from a certain school.
John–Perhaps I missed something but what’s the stigma of being in a conference with Robb. Armstrong?
I have a tough time believing that it was actually being in the same conference as Armstrong as it was having the smaller conference and the difficulty of scheduling. I would be glad to take Wayzata into our conference (NWSC). Hopkins on the otherhand, that is a drive I don’t want to make.
Andrew, I can’t speak for the schools involved. However, the placement committee’s decision cites the Classic Lake’s notification to Armstrong that it was removing them from the conference; the four schools told Armstrong it didn’t fit with them because of its “enrollment, high free and reduced (lunch) numbers, lack of funding (for) activity programs and low participation numbers…”
To me, it sounds like Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Wayzata didn’t feel Armstrong was up to their standards. And in retrospect, the four schools may have cut their own throat when they booted Armstrong out. Because the Northwestern Suburban has accepted Armstrong as a new member in 2010-11, the placement committee believed what the other four Classic Lake schools said: they didn’t want to be in a league with Armstrong. But now two of them — Wayzata and Hopkins — are trying to say, “Wait! We DO want to be in a league with Armstrong! Forget what we said before!”
Perhaps Wayzata and Hopkins are trying to say we don’t want to be in a league with Minnetonka.
Perhaps a new school board in Wayzata (2 new members) and a new superintendant and a new HS principal make all the difference in the world. As someone once said - “There’s a new sheriff in town…”
My opinion is that the previous super at Wayzata was hanging on till retirement and didn’t want to ruffle feathers as long as he could hang on…same deal with the ex-wayzata HS principal.
So my guess is that they took the path of least resistance on this and a lot of other issues instead of having an opinion and standing up for it.
Bottom line - now we’re between a rock and a hard place - previous boards / administrations have said - “We don’t want Armstrong” so that rules out the Northwest Suburban. Lake Conference now says - “We don’t want all of you…” and will disband if we get you all. Why the Classic Lake didn’t do their due deligence and homework prior to booting Armstrong out - Who knows? You’d think that they’d be smart enough to know that the MSHSL isn’t going to let them go with a 4 team conference. But then again - maybe not.
The chances of the Lake splitting appear to be very strong. Here’s what I was told by a school-board member from a Dakota County school district: “There is no chance politically of sending our kids and families to Wayzata or Hopkins when we have neighboring schools in the number and quality there is today.”
My prediction:
Appeal is denied for the reasons that you (John) have laid out above. Classic Lake finishes after the 2009-2010 year. The 4 classic lake teams go to the lake conference in 2010-2011, but before then - the orginial Lake Conference members vote to pull out and form their own league. Classic Lake then reforms with Hopkins, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Edina and Eden Prairie.
Basically the CL gets what it apparently wanted: A conference of equals (although someone probably needs to double check Hopkin’s numbers on Free / Reduced Lunch) which includes EP but doesn’t include Armstrong.
Wayzata Dave, I agree with your prediction. I also think there’s a chance that Bloomington Jefferson and Kennedy could be left hanging if a Dakota County conference takes shape. We might see Jefferson and Kennedy tossed in with EP and the four Classic Lakes.
Appeal denied = A new 5 school conference (EP, Edina, Hopkins, Tonka, Wayzata)
Appeal granted = A new 5 school conference
(EP, Edina, Tonka, Jeff, JFK)
Bloomington may have enough political clout to be annexed into the Dakota Conference.
If appeal is granted then I think everyone gets what they want (after a fashion)
Wayzata and Hopkins go to the NW Suburban which makes sense. EP stays in the Lake (where they are now) and the Lake adds 2 teams to replace the 2 that they are losing.
Remember that the reason the “placement” didn’t sit well with the Lake conference is because it was 4 teams, not 1 or 2. I think that if the appeal is upheld everyone will be somewhat happy… Wayzata and Hopkins will have some explaining to do at the appeal - why did they vote for kicking Armstrong out? (see my previous comment for why I think Wayzata went along with it) and Why would they now be okay with playing in a conference with Armstrong?
Hint: Chace Anderson may want to read my previous comment and claim it was all his predecessor’s fault…Also it wouldn’t hurt to send Jay Hesby and Greg Rye (the two new board members) to the meeting to plead ignorance. Then and only then - they may have a chance… Not sure what Hopkin’s story will be… Peer pressure?
Wayzata Dave seems to make the most sense here. Granting the appeal will not change the NWSC or the Lake Conference - at least for a year or two. Both conferences will be able to accommodate the new schools with creative scheduling and divisions in football. Granting the appeal will work better for Dave Stead as well, making up for the absurdity of the Placement Committee’s decision that was not based on the 4 criteria established by the league. The Lake Conference’s presentation at that meeting covered all 4 of the criteria while the NWSC dealt only with socio-economic issues. These issues were off topic for the committee as stated by the MSHSL guidelines. This finding by the PC was analogous to the Supreme Court “inventing” a privacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Ok - did some digging and found that the vote on Armstrong was in November of 2008, so that means that the current Wayzata administration was in place… so no pleading ignorance or turnover on board or any out that I can see.
Going to try and corner a Wayzata Board member and see if I can get some insight…but my guess is that he’ll plead ignorance.
Guess this is going to fall into the you made your bed, now sleep in it category. Wayzata didn’t want Armstrong around (vote was 4-1, with Armstrong being the one No) now they and Hopkins will have to deal with the placement in the Lake Conference.
What will be interesting is to see how the Superintendants of the current Lake Schools react to all of this and if they truly do vote on leaving the Lake Conference.
It’s also interesting (and I think that John pointed this out at one point) that Wayzata had applied to the NWSC and was denied. So basically the one conference that made sense for them turned them down…
Finally - I can’t (ok - maybe I can) believe that there are still hard feelings from the Lake Conference schools from 16 years ago when the Classic Lake was formed.
Dave, I can confirm that hard feelings remain from the long-ago days when the current Classic Lake schools broke loose from the Lake. There aren’t many current Lake administrators who bridge that time period, but some apparently have passed on those hard feelings to their successors. It certainly makes no sense to me, especially for people who supposedly work for the good of all students.
John,
Whatever decision the Lake administrators end up making will be in the best interest of the students in their respective schools. Neither they nor the administrators in the NWSC are responsible for the situation that the Classic Lake schools find themselves in, and neither they nor the NWSC are responsible for fixing it.
The Classic Lake schools have repeatedly made overtures to many schools seeking new members, and the results are always the same, thanks but no thanks. Their repeated failure to retain former members and recruit new ones is more a result of how some of the schools treat each other, rather than any success they have achieved
in athletics. Think not? check with the folks in SLP, Richfield, Cooper and Armstrong.
Chuck -
And what you said is exactly the problem…”will be in the best interest of the students in their respective schools…” instead of as John pointed out… “Work for the good of all students”
That’s an important difference - Is the Classic Lake sin-free? I seriously doubt it… But is the Lake also guilt free? and the NWSC? If you dig deep enough you’ll find issues any place.
Since apparently no one wants to decide or has the authority to decide what is good for all students, we are stuck with the local thinking and precieved or real slights that have occurred.
What these Supers need is a strong governance body to come in and say this is how the conferences are going to be - Period. We don’t have that apparently with MSHL.
