PeeWee A designation

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply
HockeyDad41
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:40 pm

PeeWee A designation

Post by HockeyDad41 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:42 am

My son plays for his associations A team (we have an AA team as well) and I've been looking forward to seeing the matchups from associations that have an AA team and those that chose not to or couldn't. So far we have done well in all our games except when we played North Branch.

Predictably some of the teams that didn't field an AA team have been stronger and a bit more of a challenge.

I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about this set up once my kid started playing at this level, but I think it is a good fit for his team. I get the feeling that there could be a lot of parity at the PWA level in D10 with the exception of North Branch. I think some of those kids might not find much of a challenge at the A level but given the team is so small I can see why they did it.
Solving all of hockey's problems since Feb 2009.

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:56 pm

Looks like Cent. tied them.

Hockeyfan2000
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:30 pm

Post by Hockeyfan2000 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:40 pm

I think ever since the aa/a designation came along associations have been struggling with what teams should be fielded each year. My son played Peewee A (the second team) the first year of the new designations when AA played the A. Watching those AA games was painful. I don't think there is any clear answer to the issue. District 10 has large associations and some pretty small associations and no matter what each associations decides there is going to be some mismatches.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:15 am

I'm not sure why associations are allowed to rig this system by self-designating what levels their teams play at. If they classify as a AA high school program they should be required to have AA PeeWee and Bantam teams.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:34 am

I have come around on this and would argue the opposite. There is no need whatsoever for AA/A designation and youth hockey designation should have no bearing on where the high schools are designated.

In the past I have made the argument on this board that there should be a vertical integration and linear relationship between the youth association and the high school they feed. Others have pointed out the purpose of youth hockey is to promote the game and develop players, period, and that there is a line that exists between youth and high school programs, and the two should not be intermixed. Especially when you consider there are many youth associations who feed multiple schools.

I am not saying I agree with them, what I am saying is that it's either one way or the other, can't have it both ways. You can't maintain there is a seperation between the two and at the same time align the AA/A designation based on the high school classification. If there truly is a seperation between the two than there is no need for AA/A. Associations should field only A teams, whether they want to field one A team or multiple A teams is entirely up to how they want to manage their association. Or, Minnesota Hockey could make a rule that there must be X number of A teams fielded per the number of registered players at a particular level, i.e. 1 A team per 50 registered players at an age level. This would level the playing field so small could compete against big, but also forces the large associations to develop quality depth in their program by running multiple A teams and not rely on sheer numbers to dominate the smaller programs.

By having the AA/A classification you have effectively excluded any A designated team from competing at the highest level simply due to high school enrollment, unless you are talking about the opposite, forcing A class schools who play AA at youth down to A. We know who we're talking about here.

Just go back to the old way of doing things.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:09 pm

I still look back at greybeard58 defending the mandatory cross scheduling of AA and A teams. Telling them they should play A and then having them pounded by the AA teams.. 16-1 games, Blaine's 1-15 playing their 16-30's... AA teams scored like 720 goals and the A teams had like 38... And many still tried to defend it...?

Reefer madness!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:25 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:I still look back at greybeard58 defending the mandatory cross scheduling of AA and A teams. Telling them they should play A and then having them pounded by the AA teams.. 16-1 games, Blaine's 1-15 playing their 16-30's... AA teams scored like 720 goals and the A teams had like 38... And many still tried to defend it...?

Reefer madness!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
The problem you reference here is an entirely separate issue than whether the Macro AA system makes sense or not.

Post Reply