I'm just curious about what others think. First, I don't put huge stock in the different ranking out there but I know many of you do. I was looking through them tonight and noticed that both Wayzata & Edina had their single A bantam teams ranked in the top 31 on myhockeyrankings. My question is, if you took the kids from those teams and split them equally with their AA teams, they would still have very good teams and they would be exposing more kids to the higher level while still being incredibly competitive.
Now first let me say, I don't necessarily think it is the way to go, I am genuinely just curious to what others think about. Secondly, I am not picking on those two programs I just mention them because being in the top 31 that would put them in the 32 team AA regions.
The other reason this question intrigues me is because I hear a lot of people on here that trash coaches for only caring about winning. That coaches now a days sacrifice player development for the almighty win. If that is the case, then is that not just a byproduct of the example set by the association or Minnesota Hockey by not requiring programs in this situation to equally divide their teams in the name of player development?
I sincerely hope to stimulate an intelligent conversation based on the question & not a bunch of child-like banter and name calling. Again, I only named those programs based on the info from this year. It could be about any given program(s) in any given year.
Should Larger Associations Be Required To Field Multiple AA
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
wannagototherink
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:20 am
Should Larger Associations Be Required To Field Multiple AA
"I've never seen a dumb-bell score a goal!" ~Gretter
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
What other districts require the association to declare AA or A for district play? In D6 they require each association to declare AA or A the so on. Our association offers a AA team and B1 team in Bantams. When we play other associations that offer AA and A teams we really play their B2 team. Not sure how that benefits our team?BadgerBob82 wrote:Maybe not require 2 AA teams. But probably 2 A teams. And every AA association should be required to field an A level team
Re: Should Larger Associations Be Required To Field Multiple
I guess it all depends on what you consider player development. Is exposing more kids to higher level player development? Depends on whether they are ready for that level or not? How will this effect the top half of the players? Will practices benefit them as much as if you didn't split the teams? Isn't one of the reasons for developing a AA team to provide an opportunity for the top kids to practice together and play against other top kids?wannagototherink wrote:My question is, if you took the kids from those teams and split them equally with their AA teams, they would still have very good teams and they would be exposing more kids to the higher level while still being incredibly competitive.
...equally divide their teams in the name of player development?
I don't know, maybe the Edinas and Wayzatas have enough talent to field two teams and benefit all of the kids on those teams. How about some commments from the Wayzata people that had 2 A teams I believe at least at the PW level last year?
-
Shinbone_News
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am
I think one of the bigger, unacknowledged issues is that Minnesota's age classifications make for a crooked path to progress: One birth year might be very strong, the next might be weaker -- so every two years maybe an association does have enough talent for two AA or A teams, other years one of those teams would get crushed.
The only reason to even have this discussion is to talk about parity between teams, and that's always going to be a stab in the dark until you have an undefeated team dominating all other teams at its class, or a winless team. Only then is it obvious that an association maybe got it wrong
No association should have to apologize for wanting its teams to succeed. Winning is a lot more fun and encouraging to kids than losing -- the positives of learning to take a lump start to diminish after, say, the sixth or seventh loss in a row. Winning "proves" that your players are doing what they're supposed to be doing -- or at least appearing to develop.
The only reason to even have this discussion is to talk about parity between teams, and that's always going to be a stab in the dark until you have an undefeated team dominating all other teams at its class, or a winless team. Only then is it obvious that an association maybe got it wrong
No association should have to apologize for wanting its teams to succeed. Winning is a lot more fun and encouraging to kids than losing -- the positives of learning to take a lump start to diminish after, say, the sixth or seventh loss in a row. Winning "proves" that your players are doing what they're supposed to be doing -- or at least appearing to develop.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
For a number of years a large number of people here were complaining that the stronger/larger associations only fielded one team at the "A" Bantam and Peewee level. There were associations that did field more than one team at the "A" Level such as Rochester, Mankato, Duluth and for a few years St Cloud.
This year there are a number of the larger and Stronger Associations fielding 2 "A"Bantam and Peewee teams. Whether you call the AA and A or Blue White the reality is they are all registered as "A". We have the larger associations fielding 2 A teams and now there are also a number of smaller associations also now playing at the A level.
Whether you agree or disagree with Mn Hockey about the creation of a another level for District, Region and State tournament, the bottom line is that there are more registered teams at the "A" Bantam and "A" Peewee levels than in past years and more players are now exposed to the higher level of competition.
This year there are a number of the larger and Stronger Associations fielding 2 "A"Bantam and Peewee teams. Whether you call the AA and A or Blue White the reality is they are all registered as "A". We have the larger associations fielding 2 A teams and now there are also a number of smaller associations also now playing at the A level.
Whether you agree or disagree with Mn Hockey about the creation of a another level for District, Region and State tournament, the bottom line is that there are more registered teams at the "A" Bantam and "A" Peewee levels than in past years and more players are now exposed to the higher level of competition.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
greybeard58 wrote:For a number of years a large number of people here were complaining that the stronger/larger associations only fielded one team at the "A" Bantam and Peewee level. There were associations that did field more than one team at the "A" Level such as Rochester, Mankato, Duluth and for a few years St Cloud.
This year there are a number of the larger and Stronger Associations fielding 2 "A"Bantam and Peewee teams. Whether you call the AA and A or Blue White the reality is they are all registered as "A". We have the larger associations fielding 2 A teams and now there are also a number of smaller associations also now playing at the A level.
Whether you agree or disagree with Mn Hockey about the creation of a another level for District, Region and State tournament, the bottom line is that there are more registered teams at the "A" Bantam and "A" Peewee levels than in past years and more players are now exposed to the higher level of competition.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
Badger doesn't understand that an association could have twelve studs to help create a great AA team and then fall off hard after that. Force an association to have a A team to just be pounded because you're able to have a AA team?Irish wrote:What other districts require the association to declare AA or A for district play? In D6 they require each association to declare AA or A the so on. Our association offers a AA team and B1 team in Bantams. When we play other associations that offer AA and A teams we really play their B2 team. Not sure how that benefits our team?BadgerBob82 wrote:Maybe not require 2 AA teams. But probably 2 A teams. And every AA association should be required to field an A level team
These are the types that are creating this mess.
No they should not be required but there should be recommendations from MN hockey to associations to place teams at certain levels (A,B or C) based on the number of kids trying out for age designations (squirt, peewee, bantam, + girls groups).
A simple way would be to say 15 kids= at least a C team, 30 kids=at least a C and B, 45=at least an A,B and C...and so on (one A team for every 45 kids would work well)
Since some associations have consistently stronger teams based on smaller numbers (ex. northern teams) and some have bigger numbers of kids but struggle (some metro teams come to mind, or southern mn teams) there should be discretion to determine which teams to field. But generally similar sized associations are competitive with each other.
I agree with an earlier comment that winning is important and no team should be forced to play above their level and get there backside handed to them. If not parity, then competitive games is what we would work towards in determining correct levels of play.
With some recommendations given then at least associations would be expected to field teams at certain levels and there would be some pressure (parents and or inter-district associations, etc.) to do so.
As far as the AA/A thing, I have posted here against it but I will say that I think more kids playing playoff hockey is a plus for overall development. Those games are the most intense games of the year and experience in those games is an development accelerator.
A simple way would be to say 15 kids= at least a C team, 30 kids=at least a C and B, 45=at least an A,B and C...and so on (one A team for every 45 kids would work well)
Since some associations have consistently stronger teams based on smaller numbers (ex. northern teams) and some have bigger numbers of kids but struggle (some metro teams come to mind, or southern mn teams) there should be discretion to determine which teams to field. But generally similar sized associations are competitive with each other.
I agree with an earlier comment that winning is important and no team should be forced to play above their level and get there backside handed to them. If not parity, then competitive games is what we would work towards in determining correct levels of play.
With some recommendations given then at least associations would be expected to field teams at certain levels and there would be some pressure (parents and or inter-district associations, etc.) to do so.
As far as the AA/A thing, I have posted here against it but I will say that I think more kids playing playoff hockey is a plus for overall development. Those games are the most intense games of the year and experience in those games is an development accelerator.
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Able to have an AA team? I've always said the AA-A thing should not automatically reflect the HS program(s) they feed, it should be based on association size. I would say 75-80 players at each level is a starting point for discussion. Then you have an AA-A-B1-B2-C team. Small associations with 12 studs would likely have less than 50 players. They are opting up to "AA" not an automatic AA association. So would seem right to go to B1.
When you look at associations with 120+ at each level, then you need to start looking at multiple "A" teams.
You can keep posting lopsided AA vs. A scores and it only means the District is stupid forcing these games. With 8 teams at each level, there was no reason to force those games. That doesn't mean the AA - A thing is bad? Fix your stupid District Directors!
When you look at associations with 120+ at each level, then you need to start looking at multiple "A" teams.
You can keep posting lopsided AA vs. A scores and it only means the District is stupid forcing these games. With 8 teams at each level, there was no reason to force those games. That doesn't mean the AA - A thing is bad? Fix your stupid District Directors!
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
You agree with me 100% now.BadgerBob82 wrote:Able to have an AA team? I've always said the AA-A thing should not automatically reflect the HS program(s) they feed, it should be based on association size. I would say 75-80 players at each level is a starting point for discussion. Then you have an AA-A-B1-B2-C team. Small associations with 12 studs would likely have less than 50 players. They are opting up to "AA" not an automatic AA association. So would seem right to go to B1.
When you look at associations with 120+ at each level, then you need to start looking at multiple "A" teams.
You can keep posting lopsided AA vs. A scores and it only means the District is stupid forcing these games. With 8 teams at each level, there was no reason to force those games. That doesn't mean the AA - A thing is bad? Fix your stupid District Directors!
How would you work out the regular season games between A/AA in District 10?
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Sounds more like you agree with me now! What, did you forget your position on this? You have always maintained the old A-B1-B2-C is best!
I'm sure you will think this is very complicated, but D10 has 8 AA and 8 A teams at PW, and 8 AA and 7 A at Bantams, correct? For the 8 team leagues, play each other 3 times for 21 games. At PW A, play each team 3 times for 18 games.
At the District scheduling meeting, any AA and A teams that want to schedule non-league games can do so.
I'm sure you will think this is very complicated, but D10 has 8 AA and 8 A teams at PW, and 8 AA and 7 A at Bantams, correct? For the 8 team leagues, play each other 3 times for 21 games. At PW A, play each team 3 times for 18 games.
At the District scheduling meeting, any AA and A teams that want to schedule non-league games can do so.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
What? Should I pull up your old posts to show how you've swayed?BadgerBob82 wrote:Sounds more like you agree with me now! What, did you forget your position on this? You have always maintained the old A-B1-B2-C is best!
I'm sure you will think this is very complicated, but D10 has 8 AA and 8 A teams at PW, and 8 AA and 7 A at Bantams, correct? For the 8 team leagues, play each other 3 times for 21 games. At PW A, play each team 3 times for 18 games.
At the District scheduling meeting, any AA and A teams that want to schedule non-league games can do so.
The proposal was ALL about "AA" teams playing "A(B-1)" teams. Now you're saying just schedule a couple "non-league" games against the other level? Couldn't MNH have saved us all this grief by letting the stronger B-1 teams schedule a few "non-league" A games in the old format? You wanted this circus in place of a minor change in the old format? Did I not warn of these things??
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Ahhh, no. The problem was in the past too many B1 caliber teams were playing at the A level so they could somehow get better. I had said all along, the B1-B2 thing has worked well for years. Do it at the A level. So we have AA and A. I agree with you that FORCING A teams to play AA teams is stupid. There is no need for that. But, for some A teams to play some AA teams is great and they now have that option. It has also forced larger associations to field more than 1 team at the A level. It is working perfectly!
Don't tell me because District 10 is so stupid to FORCE A teams to play AA teams that THAT is what I wanted that in the first place!
The proposal has provided about 40 additional A level teams. There are still B1 caliber teams playing at the A level, but that's because of associations playing at the wrong level, not the fact the AA level was added.
Don't tell me because District 10 is so stupid to FORCE A teams to play AA teams that THAT is what I wanted that in the first place!
The proposal has provided about 40 additional A level teams. There are still B1 caliber teams playing at the A level, but that's because of associations playing at the wrong level, not the fact the AA level was added.
-
greybeard58
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
The associations were well aware that if you registered multiple teams as "A" Bantam or "A"Peewee the schedule would be where all "A" teams would play each other once and declared their teams accordingly.
For those who really feel strong about how District 10 scheduled the games, there next meeting according to their web site is Jan 7 at the Champlin forum show up and speak up. The Mn Hockey Jan meet is also in Jam at the end of the month show up there and let your opinions be known.
BTW Bo why not post all the A Bantam and A Peewee scores from the D10 web site rather than the occasional blowout.
For those who really feel strong about how District 10 scheduled the games, there next meeting according to their web site is Jan 7 at the Champlin forum show up and speak up. The Mn Hockey Jan meet is also in Jam at the end of the month show up there and let your opinions be known.
BTW Bo why not post all the A Bantam and A Peewee scores from the D10 web site rather than the occasional blowout.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
Guys, they're not A level teams just because the letter says A.!
! If what BB82 says is correct in that teams "that played A last year shouldn't have", how is it better this year by adding so many more "A" teams? Ya don't make any sense.... If you're saying "don't force A teams to play AA teams" then in all reality aren't they really just B-1 teams....?
Grey, do you even know how bad the scores have been between the 1-16
AA teams and the 17-32 A teams in your own District 10? I did post the one tie between the Champlin AA team and Centennial's number 2 team and how negatives can only come from it. Are you actually for Blaine(etc) to play their 1-16 against their 17-32??
Is there ANYBODY else out there that gets this?
! If what BB82 says is correct in that teams "that played A last year shouldn't have", how is it better this year by adding so many more "A" teams? Ya don't make any sense.... If you're saying "don't force A teams to play AA teams" then in all reality aren't they really just B-1 teams....?
Grey, do you even know how bad the scores have been between the 1-16
AA teams and the 17-32 A teams in your own District 10? I did post the one tie between the Champlin AA team and Centennial's number 2 team and how negatives can only come from it. Are you actually for Blaine(etc) to play their 1-16 against their 17-32?? Is there ANYBODY else out there that gets this?
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
-
BadgerBob82
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am
Very simple Bo. When a district has 8 of each level (AA-A) I see no reason why they should be FORCED to play each other. But I think there are many larger associations where their A level team can match well with other associations AA teams. This format allows them to play each other. That is not "swaying" on the issue.
Over the years, there have been around 100 PW A teams and 90 Bantam A teams. The point I have made over and over is the bottom 30-40 ranked A teams were of similar ability level as the top 20-30 B1 teams.
The issues with this? Top 20-30 B1 teams were running over ther remaining B1 teams. Top B1 teams couldn't play similar competition at the A level. Yes, special permission could be granted, but what A team would really schedule a game with a B1 team that likely will beat them? Then lower level A teams were getting trounced all season and most didn't make District play-offs or if they did have a "play-in" game, were beat ending their season in early February.
The AA-A proposal improves on all of these situations. Is it perfect? NO! Some associations didn't declare teams/levels properly. Some Districts did stupid things like D10 FORCING AA vs A games. MN Hockey did nothing to guide/force associations/districts to do the right thing. Some tournaments didn't do a good job of inviting AA and/or A teams. But, even with these problems, the AA-A proposal is an improvement on the past. Just like the addition of B2 improved the B level.
Keep posting lopsided D10 AA vs A scores.
But how about you post the real reason you hate this proposal. It clearly has to do with Little Bo. What's going on? You hated that your association is awful and he had to play B1's. Now you have a waiver and are still mad. You are very tranparent and this proposal must not be benefitting little Bo. So how about you tell the forum what your problem really is. Maybe we can talk you off the ledge. Summer AAA hockey is only 3-4 months away. Then all will be good with you?
Over the years, there have been around 100 PW A teams and 90 Bantam A teams. The point I have made over and over is the bottom 30-40 ranked A teams were of similar ability level as the top 20-30 B1 teams.
The issues with this? Top 20-30 B1 teams were running over ther remaining B1 teams. Top B1 teams couldn't play similar competition at the A level. Yes, special permission could be granted, but what A team would really schedule a game with a B1 team that likely will beat them? Then lower level A teams were getting trounced all season and most didn't make District play-offs or if they did have a "play-in" game, were beat ending their season in early February.
The AA-A proposal improves on all of these situations. Is it perfect? NO! Some associations didn't declare teams/levels properly. Some Districts did stupid things like D10 FORCING AA vs A games. MN Hockey did nothing to guide/force associations/districts to do the right thing. Some tournaments didn't do a good job of inviting AA and/or A teams. But, even with these problems, the AA-A proposal is an improvement on the past. Just like the addition of B2 improved the B level.
Keep posting lopsided D10 AA vs A scores.
But how about you post the real reason you hate this proposal. It clearly has to do with Little Bo. What's going on? You hated that your association is awful and he had to play B1's. Now you have a waiver and are still mad. You are very tranparent and this proposal must not be benefitting little Bo. So how about you tell the forum what your problem really is. Maybe we can talk you off the ledge. Summer AAA hockey is only 3-4 months away. Then all will be good with you?
BB82
One of your more sensible posts. It's never going to be right for everyone. Some Districts and associations like the auto scheduling within their district because it's quite a bit easier than going out and scheduling 20 games on your own. Some even have issues where ice and refs are paid for with District scheduling but not for outside and that can mean a financial difference for the families on the team. That may be what happened in D10. Just make sure your skater is working hard and development will occur whatever level they play at.
One of your more sensible posts. It's never going to be right for everyone. Some Districts and associations like the auto scheduling within their district because it's quite a bit easier than going out and scheduling 20 games on your own. Some even have issues where ice and refs are paid for with District scheduling but not for outside and that can mean a financial difference for the families on the team. That may be what happened in D10. Just make sure your skater is working hard and development will occur whatever level they play at.
Last edited by observer on Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
hockeydad10
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:08 pm
It will never be perfect. The reality is there are probably 5-10 associations who are year in year out just bigger and better than everyone else, Edina, Wayzata, now prior lake, Duluth East, etc.
Would making them field two equal AA teams be fair to them, probably not. The fact is I would suggest that each district look at associations that have both AA and A, AA and B1 or A and B1.
Probably every association other than those listed above with have an A team that will not be competitive against their own AA team or several other AA teams within their district. They will likely be competitive against most of the smaller association teams A or AA.
The goal of this was not for in season change but to give the smaller associations who have histroically had A teams a chance to compete in post season.
Don't tell me there were not lopsided games in the past years, I would hazard a guess there will be plenty this year when one AA goes against another AA. Has more to do with the associations philosophy on what level their teams are at than the system.
Just my opinion though
Would making them field two equal AA teams be fair to them, probably not. The fact is I would suggest that each district look at associations that have both AA and A, AA and B1 or A and B1.
Probably every association other than those listed above with have an A team that will not be competitive against their own AA team or several other AA teams within their district. They will likely be competitive against most of the smaller association teams A or AA.
The goal of this was not for in season change but to give the smaller associations who have histroically had A teams a chance to compete in post season.
Don't tell me there were not lopsided games in the past years, I would hazard a guess there will be plenty this year when one AA goes against another AA. Has more to do with the associations philosophy on what level their teams are at than the system.
Just my opinion though
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
It's all very simple to understand, Bob. You've been in the tough position of coaching the A-2 team in Rochester and have felt your son's team has been run through the ringer at the top level, but have also felt that playing B-1 would be a slap in the face. Well, Bob, how many levels do you think we need? Do you want to go AAA, AA, A, B-1, B-2, C-1 AND C-2?BadgerBob82 wrote:Very simple Bo. When a district has 8 of each level (AA-A) I see no reason why they should be FORCED to play each other. But I think there are many larger associations where their A level team can match well with other associations AA teams. This format allows them to play each other. That is not "swaying" on the issue.
Over the years, there have been around 100 PW A teams and 90 Bantam A teams. The point I have made over and over is the bottom 30-40 ranked A teams were of similar ability level as the top 20-30 B1 teams.
The issues with this? Top 20-30 B1 teams were running over ther remaining B1 teams. Top B1 teams couldn't play similar competition at the A level. Yes, special permission could be granted, but what A team would really schedule a game with a B1 team that likely will beat them? Then lower level A teams were getting trounced all season and most didn't make District play-offs or if they did have a "play-in" game, were beat ending their season in early February.
The AA-A proposal improves on all of these situations. Is it perfect? NO! Some associations didn't declare teams/levels properly. Some Districts did stupid things like D10 FORCING AA vs A games. MN Hockey did nothing to guide/force associations/districts to do the right thing. Some tournaments didn't do a good job of inviting AA and/or A teams. But, even with these problems, the AA-A proposal is an improvement on the past. Just like the addition of B2 improved the B level.
Keep posting lopsided D10 AA vs A scores.
But how about you post the real reason you hate this proposal. It clearly has to do with Little Bo. What's going on? You hated that your association is awful and he had to play B1's. Now you have a waiver and are still mad. You are very tranparent and this proposal must not be benefitting little Bo. So how about you tell the forum what your problem really is. Maybe we can talk you off the ledge. Summer AAA hockey is only 3-4 months away. Then all will be good with you?
Do you understand that families/kids(A talent) on B-1 teams in AA/B-1 associations are going to be much more likely to seek out an association that provides the new A level? What young Hockey family is going to move into an association that doesn't now provide AA then A? What family would with the possibility of being stuck one to two levels behind as a first or second year? This hurts the mid size associations in a big way and the balance tips even more to your mega association type programs.
All these teams being classified as "A" teams in your head is just a pipe dream. You can put an A on your teams but it still won't make them top tier.....
Youth Hockey in Minnesota is crumbling because of self centered mega association folks like yourself.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
observer wrote:BB82
One of your more sensible posts. It's never going to be right for everyone. Some Districts and associations like the auto scheduling within their district because it's quite a bit easier than going out and scheduling 20 games on our own. Some even have issues where ice and refs are paid for with District scheduling but not for outside and that can mean a financial difference for the families on the team. That may be what happened in D10. Just make sure your skater is working hard and development will occur whatever level they play at.