District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.
Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team
East A Squirts roster
Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators
The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.
My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.
Just an idea and food for the bOred.
Proper fit for ALL winter kids
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
Re: Proper fit for ALL winter kids
I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.MrBoDangles wrote:District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.
Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team
East A Squirts roster
Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators
The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.
My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.
Just an idea and food for the bOred.
-
O-townClown
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
- Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town
This is a great solution. You reach a lot more of the supposed misplaced kids. A few Tier I teams won't do that.
Cooperative efforts in youth and HS hockey often work. It places resolution at the local level, which is far better than blowing up the community-based model.
Aside from Minneapolis-Park, what co-op successed can we point to? (And that one is on its last legs.)
Cooperative efforts in youth and HS hockey often work. It places resolution at the local level, which is far better than blowing up the community-based model.
Aside from Minneapolis-Park, what co-op successed can we point to? (And that one is on its last legs.)
Be kind. Rewind.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
royals dad
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:41 pm
Makes sense, nice idea.
On the girls side you could even get rid of the annual complaints about good B teams where there is no A team.
Districts could rotate the host association annually. The district itself could host the try-out, select the coach, and set the roster. But the host association would need to take care of ice, uniforms, insurance.... I think you could see some highly competitive teams with out really changing the rules much. Anyone would have the option of staying home with a B team instead of trying out.
Co-ops can be hard to hold together long term but with this the associations actually would get to keep their identity and even host a solid A team every few years.
On the girls side you could even get rid of the annual complaints about good B teams where there is no A team.
Districts could rotate the host association annually. The district itself could host the try-out, select the coach, and set the roster. But the host association would need to take care of ice, uniforms, insurance.... I think you could see some highly competitive teams with out really changing the rules much. Anyone would have the option of staying home with a B team instead of trying out.
Co-ops can be hard to hold together long term but with this the associations actually would get to keep their identity and even host a solid A team every few years.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
I was thinking more of a revolving practice schedule of the associations with players involved. Although either way could work...royals dad wrote:Makes sense, nice idea.
On the girls side you could even get rid of the annual complaints about good B teams where there is no A team.
Districts could rotate the host association annually. The district itself could host the try-out, select the coach, and set the roster. But the host association would need to take care of ice, uniforms, insurance.... I think you could see some highly competitive teams with out really changing the rules much. Anyone would have the option of staying home with a B team instead of trying out.
Co-ops can be hard to hold together long term but with this the associations actually would get to keep their identity and even host a solid A team every few years.
Example- Pine City is responsible for providing 3 hours of ice and then again four weeks later. Games would be divided equally as well. Or be responsible on a player percentage basis. Just like now a kid/parent pays for a percentage of the yearly ice.
Teams could have a simple name like D10 North A Squirts. Kids would be on this team but would still pay their association for their season, also do any fundraising and do any volunteering that needed to be done by player or parent. They would STAY a member of their home association. Parents would be responsible for extra fees like jerseys, socks, and tryouts unless covered. As a second year Squirt this might be a good option, the next year as a 1st year PeeWee they might have a better fit playing B-1 or 2
The skill level is wider than ever in small associations from the popularity of AAA summer Hockey. Without some serious thinking by MN Hockey things could really start to unravel.
-
steelheader
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:33 pm
-
Air Force 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:22 pm
- Location: East Grand Forks
I too think it is a good idea, that is why it won't work, it is a good idea and it puts kids first, and it wasn't proposed by somebody looking to make a power play in the youth hockey community.
Before it can be adopted, Minnesota Hockey will have to wirte a confusing rule about it and then determine some sort of fee participating famlies will have to pay to have this priviledge.
Before it can be adopted, Minnesota Hockey will have to wirte a confusing rule about it and then determine some sort of fee participating famlies will have to pay to have this priviledge.
-
northwoods oldtimer
- Posts: 2679
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:01 pm
Let John Russo run itAir Force 1 wrote:I too think it is a good idea, that is why it won't work, it is a good idea and it puts kids first, and it wasn't proposed by somebody looking to make a power play in the youth hockey community.
Before it can be adopted, Minnesota Hockey will have to wirte a confusing rule about it and then determine some sort of fee participating famlies will have to pay to have this priviledge.
I like big parts of the suggestion so don't get me wrong, but...
One unfortunate difficulty is that it doesn't work in the north and south where it's needed most. We have it good in the metro where all members of a district are within 30-40 minutes of one another max. There are associations, in the same district, over 2 hours apart in northern and southern Minnesota which would make practices, and games, difficult by Minnesota standards. Also, in the north there are associations with just 10-15 skaters at a level. Take the 2-3 best A players away and what are they left with?
Impartial team selection would be difficult as a coach is going to want a player or two more from a particular association at the expense of a deserving kid from another one. I know that happens during association team selection as well but cries of foul will be more frequent as team selection crosses association boundaries.
I think the current solution of waiving to a neighboring association, that offers A when your association doesn't, may still be the best solution. Maybe more clarity around that option is best. I've heard of players waiving out and not making A but playing B1 at the new bigger association and still being happy. Especially as a first year. B1 at a large association can be better than A at a small one as the range of player skills is more closely matched top to bottom.
All associations have peeks and valleys in player numbers and ability. Sounds like an idea from a family in a numbers dip looking for an out. Your player is in a tough spot and the reward for hard work is not fair if the other 12 kids didn't work as hard. All of a sudden his development sped past the others. Unfortunately strong skating 12 year old players don't drop from trees. The solution for younger families in your association is to work hard recruiting. Right now by the way. Metro associations need 30-50 new mite boys each year minimum to have the numbers to host at least 3-4 teams per level. Without 3-4 teams at each level the range of skater ability, and commitment is wide.
The rural associations are feeling down as there are only 10-15 boys in the whole town in a single age group. Not kidding.
One unfortunate difficulty is that it doesn't work in the north and south where it's needed most. We have it good in the metro where all members of a district are within 30-40 minutes of one another max. There are associations, in the same district, over 2 hours apart in northern and southern Minnesota which would make practices, and games, difficult by Minnesota standards. Also, in the north there are associations with just 10-15 skaters at a level. Take the 2-3 best A players away and what are they left with?
Impartial team selection would be difficult as a coach is going to want a player or two more from a particular association at the expense of a deserving kid from another one. I know that happens during association team selection as well but cries of foul will be more frequent as team selection crosses association boundaries.
I think the current solution of waiving to a neighboring association, that offers A when your association doesn't, may still be the best solution. Maybe more clarity around that option is best. I've heard of players waiving out and not making A but playing B1 at the new bigger association and still being happy. Especially as a first year. B1 at a large association can be better than A at a small one as the range of player skills is more closely matched top to bottom.
All associations have peeks and valleys in player numbers and ability. Sounds like an idea from a family in a numbers dip looking for an out. Your player is in a tough spot and the reward for hard work is not fair if the other 12 kids didn't work as hard. All of a sudden his development sped past the others. Unfortunately strong skating 12 year old players don't drop from trees. The solution for younger families in your association is to work hard recruiting. Right now by the way. Metro associations need 30-50 new mite boys each year minimum to have the numbers to host at least 3-4 teams per level. Without 3-4 teams at each level the range of skater ability, and commitment is wide.
The rural associations are feeling down as there are only 10-15 boys in the whole town in a single age group. Not kidding.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
It would be an OPTION north, south, east, and west. If the drive is too far it is THEIR choice.observer wrote:I like big parts of the suggestion so don't get me wrong, but...
One unfortunate difficulty is that it doesn't work in the north and south where it's needed most. We have it good in the metro where all members of a district are within 30-40 minutes of one another max. There are associations, in the same district, over 2 hours apart in northern and southern Minnesota which would make practices, and games, difficult by Minnesota standards. Also, in the north there are associations with just 10-15 skaters at a level. Take the 2-3 best A players away and what are they left with?
Impartial team selection would be difficult as a coach is going to want a player or two more from a particular association at the expense of a deserving kid from another one. I know that happens during association team selection as well but cries of foul will be more frequent as team selection crosses association boundaries.
I think the current solution of waiving to a neighboring association, that offers A when your association doesn't, may still be the best solution. Maybe more clarity around that option is best. I've heard of players waiving out and not making A but playing B1 at the new bigger association and still being happy. Especially as a first year. B1 at a large association can be better than A at a small one as the range of player skills is more closely matched top to bottom.
All associations have peeks and valleys in player numbers and ability. Sounds like an idea from a family in a numbers dip looking for an out. Your player is in a tough spot and the reward for hard work is not fair if the other 12 kids didn't work as hard. All of a sudden his development sped past the others. Unfortunately strong skating 12 year old players don't drop from trees. The solution for younger families in your association is to work hard recruiting. Right now by the way. Metro associations need 30-50 new mite boys each year minimum to have the numbers to host at least 3-4 teams per level. Without 3-4 teams at each level the range of skater ability, and commitment is wide.
The rural associations are feeling down as there are only 10-15 boys in the whole town in a single age group. Not kidding.
2-3 players that get to play at a proper level. And a remaining team that gets to play at a proper level and as a team.
Like I said in the first post to bring in outside evaluators to pick 100% of the team. NO POLITICS
Most of the time a kid will never get a fair shake waiving into another association. When they do knock a kid of the top team it can get very ugly. There would be no outsider feeling with a pooled team.
You are very quick to say waive out......? Why not form a team of the "waive out" type so they don't have to feel like an outsider? They will still be able to practice and play at their home rink from time to time and feel like they belong. They will stay a member of their home association.
Like I said before MN Hockey needs to do some creative thinking. The alternative is that the private sector will start to take over.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
InigoMontoya
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm
I agree. Smaller associations are in a lose-lose situation. If they play A and a metro team waxes the ice with them - the metro A parents whine about wasting time. If they play B and they beat a metro team - the metro B parents whine about that, too.old goalie85 wrote:This is a great idea. This would be a good thing for existing A programs, and add more teams to the mix. Teams would not have the power B clubs then.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
Get on the agenda at your next District meeting.....or ask your Association's District Rep to bring it up at the next District meeting.old goalie85 wrote:How would someone get this started. [best idea I've seen on this forum]
I know that this idea was brought up at the District 10 meeting a few weeks ago. Great idea, just needs someone to drive it.
-
old goalie85
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
I see in the meeting minutes that someone brought up Advanced advantages for A players. Did someone bring anything else to the table?muckandgrind wrote:Get on the agenda at your next District meeting.....or ask your Association's District Rep to bring it up at the next District meeting.old goalie85 wrote:How would someone get this started. [best idea I've seen on this forum]
I know that this idea was brought up at the District 10 meeting a few weeks ago. Great idea, just needs someone to drive it.
-
steelheader
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:33 pm
Even in the more remote areas, parents of A players are usually willing to drive great lengths. They do it from the end of the season until the start of the next.
You see this when you have an A player who is forced to play at B1 because their association doesn't offer A. Spring to fall is spent trying to get the appropriate play for their child.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it might allow the kid to play other sports or take some time off.
You see this when you have an A player who is forced to play at B1 because their association doesn't offer A. Spring to fall is spent trying to get the appropriate play for their child.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it might allow the kid to play other sports or take some time off.
-
Toomuchtoosoon
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:46 pm
What about the Wayzata or Edina Kid who just misses A team. Good friend told me Wayzata bottom 5 would make the ER Peewee A team after watching tryout scrimage, and they are supposedly a top 5 program. Wayzata Blue or Edina Green Bantam B could beat most average A teams.
Your solution does not address the other capable A players stuck in a mega association.
Your solution does not address the other capable A players stuck in a mega association.
-
USA! USA! USA!
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:23 pm
what do you mean they don't have a problem? everyone is agreeing this is a good idea so power "B" teams with "A" players aren't blowing away regular B teams and the A players get to play A hockey ... but it's ok for Edina & Wayzata B teams to load up with A players and wax other B squads ... what's the difference?
Why not include these A players in the equation as well, and leave B hockey for the B players ...
Why not include these A players in the equation as well, and leave B hockey for the B players ...
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
More of a problem of when is it time for a mega association to field another A team. Many should...... These kids on these B-1 teams are sacrificed so that their A team can be the best. Little do they know that the development would be better overall with more kids playing at a high caliber. These kids are not improving at the same rate spanking other B-1 teams. Like I have said before, Do you get better playing against the little kid across the street, your little sister, or the big brother on the hs team? Having two B-1 teams in the top 10 is a shame.USA! USA! USA! wrote:what do you mean they don't have a problem? everyone is agreeing this is a good idea so power "B" teams with "A" players aren't blowing away regular B teams and the A players get to play A hockey ... but it's ok for Edina & Wayzata B teams to load up with A players and wax other B squads ... what's the difference?
Why not include these A players in the equation as well, and leave B hockey for the B players ...
The kids in the B level associations currently don't even have the option to try out for an A team. Therefore this could be THEIR opportunity to try out.
-
InigoMontoya
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm
-
muckandgrind
- Posts: 1566
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:48 am
If these B teams can beat most average A teams, then shouldn't they, themselves, be an A team??Toomuchtoosoon wrote:What about the Wayzata or Edina Kid who just misses A team. Good friend told me Wayzata bottom 5 would make the ER Peewee A team after watching tryout scrimage, and they are supposedly a top 5 program. Wayzata Blue or Edina Green Bantam B could beat most average A teams.
Your solution does not address the other capable A players stuck in a mega association.