Why not two A teams ?

[taxi43]

Just Curious ...<br><br>If you are a District Director, Board Member or Coach of a large association, what is the rational used for determining the number of A teams in an association for district play? <br><br>It would appear that all of the large associations could easily field multiple A Teams at the Squirt, Peewee and Bantam levels.<br><br>If these large associations each formed 2 A Teams, the state tournament would likely be more competetive for the smaller associations and the large associations would have the opportunity to place multiple teams into the tournament. <br><br>Plus it would seem that there would be more kids developed at a higher level of play.<br><br>So, why not two A Teams ?<br><br>Thoughts ?<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FutureSeaWolve]

They only have 1 A team because they want only the best to play A. Plus they want to be competitive with the B too.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[MN HOCKEY NUT]

Because then "A" hockey loses its meaning. "A" hockey is for the best kids out of an area. Unless you are huge like St. Cloud, Rochester, and Duluth I just think this a dumb idea. If everyone is allowed to play "A", then what is the point of even having classifications? <p></p><i></i>

[FutureSeaWolve]

well ya but isn't B supposed to stand for the 2nd best kids in the area and there are more than 1 B teams<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[mrslasher]

The never ending arguments between those that want all the best players playing at the top level, and those that just want their kid to be on the best possible team. I know for Rochester, the parents that want to have a top A and bottom A (vs an even split) won out since they've taken over the board and got it through, at least for the Peewees. It'll happen soon to the Bantams too though. The bottom A team got hosed as you can imagine...no district tournament, lack of teams and tournaments, it was a mess...<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Mnhckyscout]

I'll tell you why not to have two A teams. It is true that larger cities have a bigger population thus having more kids to play and making a better team possible, but the kids also work hard and deserve to be on one good A team instead of two medicore teams. Like mrslasher said, two A teams for Pewees was not a good idea. <p></p><i></i>

[SEMetro]

This is really a dispute over where you draw hockey association boundaries. I agree that in 98-99% of the cases you don't need 2 A teams based upon the existing association boundaries. <br><br>But at some point I think everyone would agree that it gets ridiculous. To me, having 9-10 squirt teams and only one A team is nuts. As the populations continues to grow exponentially, there will come a day when some affluent areas will have more than 12, 14, 16 teams at an age level unless you change the association boundaries or field 2 A teams.<br><br>If the huge associations don't care about being competitive with normal-sized associations in surrounding communities - don't have 2 A teams. But if we don't want to make things competitive based upon where you draw the community boundaries, then why even have community-based hockey? I guess instead of fielding 2 A teams, you could draw community lines (for example, split Wayzata in half) so that numbers are realistic.<br><br>Look at the scoring differences between Edina, EP and Wayzata in the PWA state tourney when they played the 5 normal sized associations in the tourney (Lakeville South, Sartell, Ros, DE) -- by my count only one game out of 5 was competitive. In the other 4 games, there was a 31 goal differential. Is that good for anyone?<br><br>Seems like there is an easy fix - form 2 A teams or draw the association lines differently.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Mnhckyscout]

What I really meant to say in my past post was that maybe some kids work harder and that is why they are better. Sure the association has more kids but the kids that make A are the ones that work hard. That's why bigger associations have better teams, there are more kids making for more opportunity for 17 kids to work hard. If small associations kids work hard there is no reason that can't be as good as big community. <p></p><i></i>

[chips]

Why would you not want the best kids on your A team? I have never understood having equal B teams for associations who have two B teams. The best kids should be able to play together to get better. I don't know of any association who would be able to compete with two A teams not even Edina.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[lakerscoach]

semtro-i agree 100%!! redrawing the boundaries is essential. go to district 3, all season long was wayzata really challenged?? and if they aren't challenged in half their games during a season is it fun for either team? and did the wayzata team improve as much as the could have?<br>as the rules are, i agree that wayzata should not be forced to put up 2 'a' teams. but, are the rules right. we need to take a look at the competitiveness of the games on the whole and possible bring out some new ideas. a possible idea is to not force associations to draw up two "equal" teams. 2 teams that compete at the 'a' level, but 1 is obviously better than the other. <br>chips-i would take the top 8 players from eden prairies peewee 2 b1 teams and bet that they would compete with just about any 'a' team in the state, not to mention the wayzata peewee 2 b1 teams as well. <p></p><i></i>

[SEMetro]

An association with 2 teams can sometimes - not usually - beat an association with 3-5 teams. And its great when it happens - especially if the coach from the smaller association does not have to shorten his bench.<br><br>But c'mon, at some point everyone would agree that there is the "ridiculous" line. Are we hitting that point with the top 1-2% largest associations - 10 teams per level? How many teams per level difference does it take before it is just pointless? <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Gray Mullet]

I don't know guys at this point there are still a few variables to consider. The size and scope of the Super Suburb can and will change even with Wayzata and Eden Prarie. Eventually their communites will grow older much like Bloomington Jefferson who I think is now down to 3 peewee clubs (A, B1 an B2) and as well Burnsville who has dropped just a bit in numbers. When I was a kid Grand Rapids had enough kids and talent to field 2 A teams. Back than kids grew up and played for the local high school pretty much. Now days even the big programs lose kids as they get older. Wayzata seems to lose them to the privates and to junior level play. So from that aspect it seems to be wise to field two A teams just to develop players. Now that is key if your local association is interested in developing for the local high school or not. Some associations do that as they have the Varsity head coach on board as either a board member or as a consult to the board. In the history of Wayzata and Eden Prarie it is safe for me to say heck yes develop as many A level players as you can...because the attrition proves you guys will need those kids in the long run. If memory serves me correct in the State tournament Wayzata pretty much rolled two lines against Grand Rapids (a small association) three lines and the game was pretty even through 2 periods being 0-0 after 1, 2-1 after 2 and Wayzata seperating with the 3 big studs in the third. Now if that was correct (and it may not have been) than there seems to be no need to split into 2 A teams if all you are playing in tight situations is 2 lines. Again I may have been wrong on that assumption of rolling 2 lines. How you harness the large programs is something I am not certain we need MN Hockey to micro manage. If the the individual assocations like Wayzata and Eden Prarie see that the numbers warrant splitting in order to develop that seems to be a much better route to take. But again I do not claim to know exactly what the skill level is nor the mindset of the various boards. I do understand and respect what 'coach' and SEMetro are saying just not certain we need to go that route for certain or not. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... @mnhs>Gray Mullet</A> at: 3/30/06 4:16 pm<br></i>

[greybeard58]

A person would think that the talent and numbers would answer whether 2 A level teams or not. Is it better for the next group of players to play at the B level go through the season and be rairly challenged or play at the A level and maybe be around .500? <br> At the squirt level if the numbers are there 2 A teams should be a no brainer, at the Peewee level a closer look but still if the numbers and talent level is there should also be a no brainer. Bantams a closer look. This year St Cloud had both of their A Peewee teams make the region 30+ players playing at the higher level I would think that was the right choice for this year, next year could be different situation. <p></p><i></i>

[NateFranch]

In Mankato we have two "A" PW (and two "A" squirt teams also) teams due to the district we play in and the small size of several of the associations around us in D4. They are split into an A1 and A2 group. The A2 team can usually compete in disctrict 4 play at about a .500 level, but has to stay away from the big metro "A" teams and tournaments. Works okay.<br><br> Seems like the basic question is what percentage of kids should be competing at the "A" level - five percent? Ten percent? Thirty? Many associations have two, three or four PeeWee teams and field one "A" team. That seems about right. For an association to have ten teams and only one "A" team doesn't work very well, from a statewide perspective at least, at either the "A" or "B" level-because now we have a B1 team that is not really compatible with most "B" teams in the state. <br><br> There are good arguments both ways. I'd just say try to keep like-ability kids playing each other as much as possible. <p></p><i></i>

[SEMetro]

Does anybody really believe that little Johnny will miss his chance to develop and play in the NHL if there are 2 squirt A teams out of 10 and Johnny has to skate with the top 20% of kids not just the top 10%? <p></p><i></i>

[NateFranch]

I would say it makes sense to try to have <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the top 20-25% of each squirt, peewee or bantam group play at the "A" level</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Just as a target for each district and association; you'll still have some disagreement. <p></p><i></i>

[PAMESH]

Most people generally agree that the difference between the bottom A player and the top B player in lagre associations is barely noticable. So why not go smaller but more. Then you have 24 playing A instead of 15 and everyone gets more ice and they practice as one team so the costs are reduced and the demand for ice is not increased to much.<br><br>Now playing with the best would be great if you were playing against the best which would ony happen if all associatons were equal but they are not. Wayzata and Eden Prairie cut more A players then smaller associations keep. <p></p><i></i>

[JOHNSONPREZ]

Jeez, What is 20% of 45. That is what we have at each level.<br>So with Nate Frenchs idea we would not have enough for an "A" team at any level. <p></p><i></i>

[TyrellFashizo]

Don't worry, the teams you guys have aren't good enough for A anyway. <br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p>"Coach'n ain't easy" </p><i></i>

[NateFranch]

Hey Prez - Not saying you couldn't go "A" under such a guideline.<br> <br> A lot of D4 (SW MN area) associations only have one team period, be it PeeWee or Bantam, due to small enrollment numbers. They choose whether to go "A" or "B" based upon help from the district director and (hopefully) some common sense. If J/SLP has 45 kids, you could still decide whether it works to go "A", "B", or both. If associations want to "play up" (like, for example, Roseau did in HS hockey) they can do so. I don't hear anybody complaining about that kind of choice.<br><br> However, a target of 20-25% for "A" teams would help prevent an association from "playing down"; that is, fielding a B1 team that can beat most "A" teams. That type of situation does seem to get a lot of attention, don't you think?<br><br>Just an idea. I know you do a good job for your kids. <p></p><i></i>

[JOHNSONPREZ]

Yeah Nate that could help, I know in our area there has been teams that should have went "B". A few years ago we only had 17 players toal with goalies and we played "A" and got beat by most teams 7 or 8 to 1 and we only won 3 games that year. Those kids are now out of high school and to this day I still think we made the right decision because in high school these kids made it to the regional finals and lost in overtime. <p></p><i></i>

[big7stars]

On the REAL Hockey forum this Tyrelll dude has been picked to be a water boy at Johnson. Go to Real Hockey(Minnesota Hockey). <p></p><i></i>

[SEMetro]

Johnson Prez is right most associations can't hit 20% if all kids tried out - in fact all associations with less than 5 teams at a level can't hit 20%. I would suspect that at least 90% of associations can't hit 5 teams per level.<br><br>So requiring 15% as a minimum really only affects associations with 10+ teams at a level. <p></p><i></i>