Changes For Junior Gold Next Year, 2012-2013

ALCoach · Post by **ALCoach** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:54 pm

There is talk of changing the leagues for Junior Gold B next year to have an American and a National league, the National League would not be eligible for play in the State tournament, Below are a portion of the minutes from the Metro League January meeting. What does everyone think about this (the Minnesota Hockey Board has already voted on this and says it is ok).

• The board agrees with proposal:
o JR Gold A
o JR Gold B - American
o JR Gold B - National
o JR Gold 16
• proposes to move forward with the current proposal and updated level titles, as stated above (JR Gold A, JR Gold B – American, JR Gold B – National, JR Gold 16), without the new level having to go to a state tournament
o Allow for amendment of removing the “B” in the title if it is in conflict with the state tournament rules.
o All those on the MHL board in attendance are in favor of the proposal.

Good Luck to all the teams that made it to the State Tourney this year!

DangleDude · Post by **DangleDude** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:57 pm

I like it. However, one potential problem I see is that because the Nationals will not have a state tourney (and since it will be where all the low-end non-16 eligibles will end up), most, JG16-eligible players who don't make their American team will likely opt/prefer to play JG16 instead of for their National team. I think it will quickly evolve into a talent/skill hierarchy of: A, American, 16, National. Drafts will need to occur as such.

ALCoach · Post by **ALCoach** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:51 am

I think the concept is reasonable, but what I can see happening is that the associations with 2 B teams now will put one in American and one in National. Then load up the American team and let the National team survive with lower level players. This will cause problems down the road as who will play on a team and never have a shot at a state tournament, how will this make more teams? Who decides what teams can be in the American and the National? I am having a hard time seeing what we gain by not giving the teams in the National something to play for at the end of a season, when they have played well. Anyone from the Metro have an answer? Maybe explain how this is going to lay out and what teams would even think about playng in the National?

nux · Post by **nux** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:16 am

I am in favor of the 2 B system. I think it will be a more competitive year for alot of the teams. The only thing I worry about it not having a state tournament to play for. The Metro has worked so hard to clean up the game and I think part of that was giving the kids something to play for. With out a state tournament I worry that the "other" B league may revert back to a ruff league. What would the Fair Play points be worth with out concidering placement in a state tournament. As for adding more teams to the league, I think they are thinking of the associations with multiple teams and tryouts picking up more of the players say from the Bantam C level that other wise would have not tryed out for the competitive JR. Gold B. Just some thoughts.

ALCoach · Post by **ALCoach** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:33 pm

True, not having something at the end would cause problems, no reason to try to get fair play points to be higher in the standings for playoffs. They really need to think this through a little farther and not let the need to expand for more teams hurt the progress made by the fair play points, 3 penalty rule, and adding a state tournament for the B level. We now have competetive hockey and not goon hockey. I still would like to know who would play in the lower level of the B league and not get to play in a state tournament even if you won all your games that year. Knowing at the start of the year that no matter how well your team played at the end all you would have would be your team record.

nux · Post by **nux** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:57 am

I feel it will be a work in progress, you can not change everything over night. The Metro has done a good job of evolving with the times and I feel it will all come together nicely, maybee not next year but soon.

hockey relic · Post by **hockey relic** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:53 pm

1) There is still no place for less skilled non-U16 eligible to play. Most associations have one or two JG teams total. How do associations with 2 JG teams decide what level to play?

2) Is U16 meant to protect the younger (smaller) players? or develop them? I would like to understand the goal of that level.

DangleDude · Post by **DangleDude** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:04 pm

Just because there are issues/disadvantages with not having a state tourney at the National level of JGB doesn't mean that the solution is to make sure one gets added. First, Minnesota Hockey won't do it, second, there are other levels in all age brackets that get by fine without state. Neither B2 or C levels have a state tourney, but that doesn't make the other 95% of the season irrelevant; those levels just know that there's a cap on how far they can go. In the broader context, even though the MHL obviously is shying away from a B2 branding for this new level, that's basically what it is. Thus, JG (18U) will have three levels, A, B1, and B2, not any different than other ages. And JG-16 (16U) will have the one level. This gives the smaller or newer (to JG) associations the opportunity to field a National/B2 team vs. competing with some of the bigger/better associations at the A or American/B1 level, and also, it gives those bigger associations the opportunity to allow their "lower-rung" non-U16-eligibles to continue to play at an appropriate level without having to "force" them into a B environment where they don't necessarily fit otherwise. I just think that given all of this, that U16 will be higher on the preferred list for players than JG-B2 (National), and that league communications and association drafts will need to accurately represent that.

hockeyfan510 · Post by **hockeyfan510** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:35 am

Wont this create an advantage for the assocations with 2 JGB teams? Now they can play one american and one national, wont have to take any must take seniors, and can stack one team. I see nobody being able to beat Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka and WBL, ER if they still don't field an a team.

hockeyfan510 · Post by **hockeyfan510** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:41 am

The huge programs are the same reason nobody plays in the A league anymore. Nobody can compete with the 5-6 top programs every year.

TheMNhockey1 · Post by **TheMNhockey1** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:19 am

nux wrote:I am in favor of the 2 B system. I think it will be a more competitive year for alot of the teams. The only thing I worry about it not having a state tournament to play for. The Metro has worked so hard to clean up the game and I think part of that was giving the kids something to play for. With out a state tournament I worry that the "other" B league may revert back to a ruff league. What would the Fair Play points be worth with out concidering placement in a state tournament. As for adding more teams to the league, I think they are thinking of the associations with multiple teams and tryouts picking up more of the players say from the Bantam C level that other wise would have not tryed out for the competitive JR. Gold B. Just some thoughts.

As someone who will play Junior gold for a team that will have no state next year(senior also) first thing that came to my head was that i was gonna get into some fights this year nothing to lose.

amazinblaze · Post by **amazinblaze** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:12 am

Is this to protect the Moundviews, Buffaloes and St Michaels?
I can see the top tier programs(edina,WBL, Elk River, Wayzata) going yeah get these cupcakes off my schedule, but now what do they do? make a B1 and a B2 team? better shot a state title? or do they keep the teams balanced like now?
And what about the middle tier teams? Prior lake, Chaska, mahtomedi, North St Paul teams do? do they risk going B1 for a chance at State but with possiblity of going 4-20 against better competition or do they forgo a chance at state and for a possible winning record and 20-4 in B2?

I think the problem may lie in the 16u league, I always thought this was suppose to a Sophmore only league but it seems that league continues to grow while associations are taking advantage of the generous birthdate range.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:01 pm

Elk River a power house ?

They skate two teams at B and nothing at A, they have already thrown in the towel. Roseville too.

Suggest they follow the idea that all AA schools field an JGA team first and fill in behind. The A schools can decide to play their team where they believe they are competitive.

All B2 and C levels have District tournaments.

A couple of ideas ... MN Hockey does not need to get lazy on this one.

If they have the National League take the top four teams and let them play for a championship over a couple evenings. The number of teams in the Metro National league would be less than some Districts C Bantam and PW levels.

or let the top 2 - 3 teams into the JGB tournament - have them play in against the bottom seeded American league teams if you think there is an issue.

ALCoach · Post by **ALCoach** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:30 am

Over the last year, a group of Metro Hockey League (MHL) coaches and several MHL Board members reviewed the structure of the MHL for the purpose of making improvements. This review resulted in the creation of a new level, Junior Gold B National. We’d like to take a minute and explain the intent of this new level and how it may affect your association.

Over the last several years, the JG-B level has grown to 33 teams and has resulted in significant disparity from top to bottom. On the top end, we always have struggled with strong associations fielding a JG-B team without a JG-A team. At times, in hindsight, some of these teams should have played at the JG-A level. Generally, JG-B teams from our larger associations that field JG-A teams match up with these teams and the disparity is not outlandish, but we feel it’s better for a team to play at the JG-A level whenever possible. On the bottom end, we have associations fielding teams for the first time getting beat by 6+ goals on a regular basis and we have smaller associations experiencing similar defeats year after year.

The MHL Board along with the Maroon District Directors strongly encourages associations to strive to field a JG-A team, especially when the association is fielding more than one team. We have structured the JG-A level in a fashion where more teams make the play-downs, more teams go to state, and we have a select game.

The JG-B National level is designed for associations struggling to field a JG team and for smaller, weaker associations that have fielded teams over the years but have experienced many more losses than wins. Our desire is to create a place for these teams that encourages players to stick with the game because they’re not getting hammered each and every game. Our intent is to have the JG-B National level focus on recreational hockey. We will have some sort of end-of-season event, but no state tournament. This new level was not created as a way for established associations to put together exceptionally strong JG-B American teams (The regular JG-B level will be called American) by moving all their weaker players to a JG-B National team. An established association should have at least 5 other teams (Generally, a JG-A, two JG-B American and two JG-16 teams) before they consider a JG-B National team.

Please address any questions to your MHL Rep or me.

Thank you,

Tom Slaird – Chair Metro Hockey League

Well, this what they have announced (posted on the Metro website)[/quote]