Run up the Score to facilitate "Rightsizing"

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Toomuchtoosoon
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Run up the Score to facilitate "Rightsizing"

Post by Toomuchtoosoon » Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:02 pm

As a parent, I am getting sick and tired of wasting time and money taking my kids to blowout games. It does no one any good to have lopsided scores. The North Metro's, Shakopee's, Hopkins, Kennedy's of the world just don't get it. Neither do the Wayzata's and OMGHA of the world. In every D3 boys district level, Wayzata and OMGHA are going to regions-no one else is. If Wayzata and OMGHA are not going to go with multiple "A" teams, then the rest of the associations in the district need to max out at B1.

Follow the high school classifications. A is only for AA highschools, B1 is for A highschools and second tier AA teams. Or just go AA and A so the kids can have "PeeWee A" on their sweatshirts.

IF the smaller associations are going to insist on playing with the big boys (their top 15 against the big boys top 15) , then they deserve to get waxed. Don't shut it down anymore for these associations. Win by 30 if you have to-maybe then they will get the idea that they should not be competing at that level. If their 16-30 get waxed by the big boys 16-45, then so be it.

This is not a rip on the kids, it is an indictment of the parents and boards involved. Parents and hockey associations need to do the right thing. Place your kids at the right level-it is best for everyone. Otherwise, just pour it on until they figure it out.

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:49 am

I agree.

They really ought to look at this at the same time they are looking at re-alignment. Another poster recently suggested that they put all associations with 500+ skaters into a Tier - I bracket and all associations with less than that into a Tier - II bracket. I like this idea. They should also allow the smaller associations that want to opt up (i.e. Roseau, Duluth East, Bloomington Jefferson, etc.) to do so.

Another option would be to force the programs like Wayzta et. al. to field two "A" teams at each level. I prefer the other plan, though.
Last edited by muckandgrind on Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vapor
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:22 pm

Post by Vapor » Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:10 am

IMO...make these big association field more A teams. We don't need a class system in Youth hockey.

HockeyReality
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:25 am

Post by HockeyReality » Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:52 am

Vapor wrote:IMO...make these big association field more A teams. We don't need a class system in Youth hockey.
No? Why don't we need a class system? Because it would make the weaker teams feel bad?

Why penalize your top players? I feel your top players get better playing against top players. Do we want to develop average players or top National players? A top player needs to play against other top players. Creating parity by watering down the A level (or top level) only benefits the average player. At least everyone will be happy. Maybe we should cater to the average and below average players even more. We should create a lighter puck for the younger ages so the average player can look good by scoring in the upper corner.

IMHO
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:53 pm

Post by IMHO » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:07 am

Vapor wrote:IMO...make these big association field more A teams. We don't need a class system in Youth hockey.
And maybe we should force Edina, Blaine, Minnetonka, and Wayzata high schools to have 2 Varsity teams. It's unfortunate about lopsided scores in some of these districts, but these large associations are putting their best on the ice to challenge their players with the best of other like organizations around the state all season at tournaments and obviously in the post season. IMHO you've gotta go with Toomuchtoosoon and others that suggest a two tier system like the high schools. This will also align things with who these kids will play against when they're older. It will mean a bit more travel, but that way little Jimmy can have an 'A' on his sweatshirt and things will be more even. Trust me, those blowouts are no fun for EITHER team and do neither team any good.

jancze5
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:11 pm

don't

Post by jancze5 » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:14 am

I don't like a tiered system for one reason, it basically creates AAA hockey for those associations that are dubbed "the best" by whoever creates the league. If you're going to Tier, you may have to have open enrollement hockey so the top end kids from the second tier have a chance to play the new supposed top league. Not a bad idea though.

I like the idea of having more than one A team for the larger, more dominant associations. No reason why some associations couldn't field more than one A team based on the numbers they had. It opens more oppurtunity for kids in those associations while leveling the playing field a bit for the lesser associations.

I don't know though, tough subject.
New England Prep School Hockey Recruiter

spin-o-rama
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by spin-o-rama » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:47 am

How about having District Directors manage the registering of teams at the appropriate levels and having imbalanced district schedules?

Scrimmages and tournaments can obviously be set up for like for like scheduling. (There are exceptions like Edina - Wadena at Fargo.)

DKS1962
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:38 pm

Post by DKS1962 » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:54 am

I support the 2 Tier format similar to the high school where teams can opt up and tier 1 teams can play tier 2 teams.
That would take care of janze5's concern of a AAA league for the top few associations.

VicKevlar
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:47 pm

Post by VicKevlar » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:04 am

North Metro, in more than a few circles argued against A teams specifically at PeeWee and Squirt levels this year and proposals were brought up to mirror the Spring Lake Park model (No A teams, perhaps two B1 teams if talent was there). However, the same cadre of individuals who have been running the show the past six years and are permament members of the Hockey Ops board nixed everything from the start.

Won't matter too much longer anyway......MH's decision last year killed the association and we'll be Champlin Park within three years.

D3 actually has a "Competition Committee" to review placement of all teams at all levels. IIRC, it's made up of the DD, President, Coach in Chief and rotating association D3 reps. It was put into place last year. I was the only D3 board member to vote against it because this Committee has absolutely no power to force changes. The outgoing D3 DD refused to use this power. The Committee simply makes recommendations to the associations. And the associations promptly ignore them.

HockeyReality
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:25 am

Post by HockeyReality » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:17 am

Are we really upset that some teams always dominate? We should probably throw Roseau in there too. Their youth teams are always very good. They too should be forced to field two A teams to make it fair for the less priviledged.

Garth
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:38 pm

Post by Garth » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:21 am

We have a tiered systm, A, B1, B2 and C. That is four classes, more than enough. Yes, we just need to use the system we have more effectively; obviously that is easier said than done. But, adding an A2 class so small town Johnny can say he is in Pee Wee A can't be the right answer.

seek & destroy
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: don't

Post by seek & destroy » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:31 am

jancze5 wrote:I don't like a tiered system for one reason, it basically creates AAA hockey for those associations that are dubbed "the best" by whoever creates the league. If you're going to Tier, you may have to have open enrollement hockey so the top end kids from the second tier have a chance to play the new supposed top league. Not a bad idea though.

I like the idea of having more than one A team for the larger, more dominant associations. No reason why some associations couldn't field more than one A team based on the numbers they had. It opens more oppurtunity for kids in those associations while leveling the playing field a bit for the lesser associations.

I don't know though, tough subject.
A tiered system would not be good because you will have people looking to move better players to those associations (see what is happening now between Kennedy and Jefferson). Likewise 'forcing' associations to field more than one A team doesn't seem right either. You already have that situation at the B1 level where some associations have only 1 team and have a advantage over others that field 2 or 3 teams. The basic result at the B1 level is associations have to guess as to how much they can dilute their talent and still be competitive. It is voluntary and every now and then you get board members who really want their little borderline player on a B1 team so they push for multiple B1 teams and every now and then you get board members who know their kid is going to make it and really want to WIN games so they create only one B1 team. Creating that same situation at the A level would be a shame.

The easiest solution is for associations who are really concerned about advancing in playoffs (or eliminating blowouts) to request to play down a level. This is already allowed and there are some associations that already choose to not field any A teams. This allows the current system to stay in place and leaves it up to associations to determine if they can compete at the higher A level.

Although others may like this, I personally wouldn't want to do this at my son's age because I would want my associations best 15 to play the other's best 15 whether we lose badly or not. It's easy enough to look for and line up tournaments that may not field as competitive of A teams so you can have positive results for the people that think winning games is the only measure of success. It's my belief that the way to get better is to play the best and do what you can to beat them. It never hurts for kids to learn the lessons of losing OR how far they have to go to be the best and, when they do manage to pull off the upset, there is no greater joy for those kids!

Toomuchtoosoon
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Post by Toomuchtoosoon » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:47 pm

I personally wouldn't want to do this at my son's age because I would want my associations best 15 to play the other's best 15 whether we lose badly or not.
Sorry, but many of us do not want to keep beating you badly. It is hard for that 2nd tier kid in the major associations (ones who just missed the A team), to optimize their development. They learn to play slower and it is tough to figure out what they need to work on if it does not get exposed in a game situation. I really do not see the value in playing the third period in running time. In D3, many of the lower level A teams would struggle to be competive at the B1 level. They have no chance of extending their season beyond districts, so why keep on signing up for the beatings year after year. Give your kids a chance to touch the puck and play meaningful games vs. watching a team play keep away in the third period. Put your kids at the right level where they have a chance.

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:51 pm

if you use D3 as an example and you want a few lower teams to play B instead of A- how many teams at the A level would you have. 2 ?

Toomuchtoosoon
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Post by Toomuchtoosoon » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:57 pm

if you use D3 as an example and you want a few lower teams to play B instead of A- how many teams at the A level would you have. 2 ?
It really does not matter. The district should enforce standards to ensure competitiveness. There is a reason for multiple levels in all sports. I would hate to dilute the top since that may facilitate many of these kids/parents to look for alternatives. It really does not matter what you call the levels, just make sure there is a standard to be in that level. There are already 4 levels to play in which should be enough.

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:29 pm

puckboy wrote:if you use D3 as an example and you want a few lower teams to play B instead of A- how many teams at the A level would you have. 2 ?
Simple solution: schedule more non-district games.

GoldenBear
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:38 am

Post by GoldenBear » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:46 pm

You can't schedule non-district games at squirts. 35 game limit. The blowout games which can represent 10-15 games of your 35 really hamstring you.

puckboy
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Post by puckboy » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:52 pm

seems fair- have 2-3 teams playing A in District 3 and they get 2-3 bids to regions:)

DKS1962
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:38 pm

Post by DKS1962 » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:53 pm

Out state districts/associations are not as deep number wise/talent wise & try to play A with their top kids. They can not compete with the big metro associations.
We do have a tiered system now but A teams are not allowed to play B teams. Sauk Rapids, Princeton & others choose to play B because District 10 is solid but are not allowed to play smaller A associations.
They play small associations 2nd team (B team) and they are blow outs
when they could have competitive games against these smaller associations A teams.
Redistricting, 2 tier A system, Allowing A teams to play B teams...I don't have the answer but their is a huge disparity between the large associations and small.

HustleandFlow
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:14 pm

Post by HustleandFlow » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:03 pm

I will preface by saying I have no idea what the correct solution is here. I don't know if there is a full proof solution for this. But I will say this, two things need to dictate what is done, devlopement and enthusiasm (fun) so the kids that do play continue to return. There are 3 things that play way to big of a role in this sport and continue to cloud the picture, and those are status, ego, and politics.

Tiers based on association size:

Benefits - Competition, keeps kids with their friends, more teams with the opportunity to experience a run deep into the Minnesota Youth Hockey Playoffs.

Problems - Travel, no more David vs. Goliath miracles, cost, fesability for districts/Minnesota Hockey to fund 2 district/regional/state tournaments as many districts and associations are already losing money with just 1 series of tournaments.

Possible solutions - Incorportate Tier 1 AAA in some fashion (not likely any time soon), use exsisting Tier system based on association enrollment, allow the more dominant assoctiations to apply to compete with the larger associations in the district/regional/state tournaments (if want tougher regular season schedule your non league games accordingly), keep it as is where your top players can waive out to a different district team if their association does not offer an A program.

My main concern - The small percentage of top caliber players stuck in smaller associations because that is where they live. It is true, you cannot ask Mahtomedi or a Shakopee or a ect....... to compete year in and year out against the jugernaught associations in district 2 and district 6. But why ask your top end players to accept playing down. Waivers are ok but then are you compromising the fun aspect of playing with your buddies, will you burn out with the travel and being the one kid not talking about stuff that happen at school or over the weekend. Not to mention many associations will not allow a waivered player to take an A spot.

I beleive something needs to be done but as I said at the onset, I have no idea what.

muckandgrind
Posts: 1566
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am

Post by muckandgrind » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:13 pm

GoldenBear wrote:You can't schedule non-district games at squirts. 35 game limit. The blowout games which can represent 10-15 games of your 35 really hamstring you.
Sure you can. Call them "scrimmages", "non-district games" or whatever you like, but they are scheduled all the time.

HustleandFlow
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:14 pm

Post by HustleandFlow » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:26 pm

Correction to the Possible solutions paragraph in my post:


Allow the more dominant SMALL associations to apply to compete in the year end tourneys with the large associations.

Toomuchtoosoon
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Post by Toomuchtoosoon » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:42 pm

seems fair- have 2-3 teams playing A in District 3 and they get 2-3 bids to regions:)
The sad thing is it would not change the results. Wayzata and OMGHA go anyway on the boys side.

At the A level, how about combining D6 and D3 one year and give them 4 seeds vs. 2 each. next year combine D3 with D# and give the same number of seeds. Most districts may welcome that since it would only increase the number of teams from their districts from going to regions if they knock off Wayzata or OMGHA.

O-townClown
Posts: 4357
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

roster size

Post by O-townClown » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:44 pm

How many skaters are on these inferior A teams? I would hope that they only want 10-12 rather than 15. If they haven't made that adjustment they should.
Be kind. Rewind.

DKS1962
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:38 pm

Post by DKS1962 » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:57 pm

Townoclown,
depends on the#'s at that level. 22 skaters..easy two teams. What do you do with 18 skaters like we had at Bantams this year ? We moved 3
9th graders up to high school and played A with 15 great kids but different
abilities. Tough to compete & develope all your kids.

Post Reply