When should an association have to field an A team?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Gildan2036
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:09 pm
Location: East St. Paul

When should an association have to field an A team?

Post by Gildan2036 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:08 pm

I'm throwing this one out there again, cause its always fun to see the banter.

When should you have to field an A team, or a B team, or a C team?

Listen up District One - this ones for you.......

JHSHockeyfan123456789
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: JOHNSON

Post by JHSHockeyfan123456789 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:12 pm

I think an association needs to take into account all the +'s and -'s that would go into the choosing and do whats best for the kids.

barado23
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:44 am

Post by barado23 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:15 pm

I think associations do the kids an injustice if they play at a level where they don't belong. Either way. If they are too good, the kids believe that everything in life is easy. If they are pounded on, they think life sucks. No good answer for this one.

tunavichy
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:43 pm
Location: Como area

Post by tunavichy » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:17 pm

Hey,
Como will never give in to that, This year our board even wants to go with two "B" Pee Wee teams and no "A" Pee Wee and I think the wool has been pulled over the directors eyes and he might agree. Now the "B" coach at Johnson has two of our teams to worry about. Rumor had it that the "B" coach at Johnson was going to become president of District 1. Well we might not have gotten away with two "B" Pee Wee teams if he would have taken it.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:17 pm

My answer to the question is: Every year.

Gildan2036
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:09 pm
Location: East St. Paul

Post by Gildan2036 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:22 pm

Packerboy,
You had a GREAT post on the message about tryouts, thanks. I really enjoyed reading that.

TyrellFashizo
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:26 am

Post by TyrellFashizo » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:35 pm

I wonder if people don't look at picking teams the same way coaches do. If there is ever a chance to screw up kids, it happens about the time they hit the peewee level. They start to see things differently and by the time the kid reaches Bantams, from past experience, I think that we've lost the kid or have them hooked.

Good luck guys, I'm done with my tryouts.

barado23
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:44 am

Post by barado23 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:45 pm

I know when you finished your tryouts, when Greg told you who to take. I had a conversation with him and he told me why you didn't pick my kid.

Johnsonpres
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:28 pm

Post by Johnsonpres » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:01 pm

I don't tell any coach who to take, If he takes someone and it's a mistake he has to live with it. Our coaches at Johnson pick there own teams. Association are different everywhere and yes mistakes can be made but those mistakes happen with every system I have seen.

elliott70
Posts: 13622
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

D16

Post by elliott70 » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:08 pm

In District 16, your first team at Bantam, Pee Wee is an A team.
In the September meeting, an associatin has the opportunity to express why that team should not be an A team. The Director and the other associations then take action on it.

One year we had a team that tried A, but by Christmas knew it was not working and a switch was made (difficult but done).

It has worked well for about 14 years now.

SWPrez
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:48 am

Fielding no "A" team

Post by SWPrez » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:43 pm

I do not see a problem with an association assessing their talent pool and deciding that they shouldn't have an "A" team.

What they should do, however, is rate out their "A" talent players and have them waive into a program that is carrying an "A" team. This allows the player to develop and grow at the appropriate level for his abilities.

Last year, Como & Spring Lake Park were top ten teams at the PW B level. Both teams had two or three "A" players that did all of the heavy lifting for the teams. SW lost in the District championship in overtime on a nice goal by Como - who scored it.?..the "A" guy. He was a nice player and would have been one of our top "A" kids if not the top. Placing him against "B"s was what tilted the game. We had our girl player shadow him all game and she did a great job...until OT.

Having "A" players on the ice playing against players that have been assessed as "B" players gives an unfair advantage to a team. Clear out the "A" players by waiving them to programs that have elected an "A" team and I believe it would stop a lot of the banter on here.

That said, I have no problem if Como wants to go with no "A" teams. Just as long as "A" caliber players aren't improperly placed and tilt the games in their favor. This not only applies to Como, but to Spring Lake Park and other associations that do not field an "A" team. swprez

barado23
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:44 am

Post by barado23 » Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:25 am

SW coach,
Great post, I like the idea. It sounds intelligent and thoughtful.

54fighting
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: The sin bin

Waivers

Post by 54fighting » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:12 am

SWprez
Would your district director allow a couple of A level kids to waiver to an association that is going to field an A team?

TyrellFashizo
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:26 am

Post by TyrellFashizo » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:34 am

54,
I think the answer is yes. But it usually lies in the "A" players associaiton that won't waiver them out. They would rather keep the kids on a "B" team.

I really like the way you guys have put this problem into a solution. If you don't have an A team, get the A players on an A team.

Good on you.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:08 am

I respectfully disagree with SWPrez but if he really is a president of an association, he can skip purgatory and go right into heaven in my book.

I think we over manage and manipulate our kids experinces. If everybody in the District had an A team and was forced to have one , we'd be better off.

The idea that we should ship our better players off to other associaitons is, I think, bad policy.

I know, I know, ...our little precious ones wil be scared for life if the team goes 3-13. Well folks, I think that is better than having the top team a B team and sending our so called "A" players off to some other place.

Look at any conference or division in any league at any level. There will be teams that are dominant and others that struggle. Thats part of sports.

If everybody who would 'not compte' at the A level bailed on having an A team you would end up with 2 teams playing at the A level. The designations then become meaningless.

Play at the A level and dont let the manipulators who think they know everything about what kids feel over manage things. The kids care a lot less about the Ws than the parents. They just want to play and get better.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Do you want this?

Post by packerboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:38 am

Not it! Mass. elementary school bans tag
1 hour, 55 minutes ago

Tag, you're out! Officials at an elementary school south of Boston have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.

While there is no districtwide ban on contact sports during recess, local rules have been cropping up. Several school administrators around Attleboro, a city of about 45,000 residents, took aim at dodgeball a few years ago, saying it was exclusionary and dangerous.

Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Spokane, Wash., also recently banned tag during recess. A suburban Charleston, S.C., school outlawed all unsupervised contact sports.

"I think that it's unfortunate that kids' lives are micromanaged and there are social skills they'll never develop on their own," said Debbie Laferriere, who has two children at Willett, about 40 miles south of Boston. "Playing tag is just part of being a kid."

Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I've witnessed enough near collisions," she said.


Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Folks, this is what happens we cant control our need to stick our fingers into everything our kids do.

54fighting
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm
Location: The sin bin

Post by 54fighting » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:38 am

Packerboy,
I hear what you are saying. But the problem comes when you have 10 parents of B players and only 2-3 parents of A players. Some times the A parents get outnumbered.
I can give you example that happened this fall.
We live in a small association in the north metro. I joined the board to try to change some of the thinking and get them to try and play A hockey. We did so for the last 3 years either on our own or as a co-op with another community. In the 3 years that I was involved we went from having 0 kids skating at the A level to over 40 last year from Squirts to Bantam.
The teams had some success along the way some were close to .500 by the end of the season.
Well some parents got upset that their son/daughter did not make the merger team or they did not want to dedicate the amount of time it takes to compete at the A level and got real vocal and some even decided to get on the board.
This season the only level that they are skating A is squirt. They told the returning A peewee players that they were going to skate at the B level this year. When those couple of players approched the district (10 ) to see what if any options they had as far as trying to find a place to play A hockey they were told "tough luck " by the director. Even though our home association would have given them the waiver to leave.
Now they are all gone, 1 moved, 1 went across the river, 1 decided to try and play B bantam, and 2 somehow are streching the residency rules and playing for other communities.
It is so sad to see a group of kids, parents and board members try so hard to get something up and running and see it fall apart because the district refused to get involved and allowed a bunch of non-hockey people to screw things up.
And now those same people can't figure out why everyone is leaving.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:55 am

Good post 54. Thats the kind of thing that can happen and maybe some will read your post and not have to experience it to learn it can be bad policy.

A lot of these decisions are made by well meanng people who dont have a flippin clue what they are doing and dont understand the ripple effect it can have.

One thing no one thinks about when they advocate shipping out their "A players " to some other association is what effect it may have on the players who dont make the A team over there because of the transfers.

So, you take care of your "A players" and screw somebody elses?

Over managed and under analyzed.

TyrellFashizo
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:26 am

Post by TyrellFashizo » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:16 pm

Look at this from an educational standpoint (school that is).

If a student is above the level of learning in a classroom, then the student needs to be placed into the right situation.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:47 pm

Having everyone be at the "right level" and in the perfect spot based on their ability isnt a reasonable goal.

The player is either on the wrong team because he got screwed in tryouts; on the right team but at the wrong position; on the right team in the right position but on the wrong line and/or the players he is with arent good enough for him.

Everybody is a first line center on the A team.

TyrellFashizo
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:26 am

Post by TyrellFashizo » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:38 pm

I agree on one point, getting everyone to the perfect place PROBABLY won't happen, or most likely will never happen.

But I disagree to say that getting each player at the "right level" isn't a reasonable goal

Thats what coaches should be looking to do when they make lineups. If you aren't teaching or coaching to a GOAL, why play?

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:50 pm

Its not gonna happen.

In big associations, you have 25 kids who could play A hockey but some are on the B team because of roster limitations and nobody allows 2 A teams.

In small associations, the bottom kids on the A team should probably be playing at the B level but you cant have 9 man teams.

Getting everybody playing 'where they belong' is not a realistic goal.

The goal should be to get better and enjoy the game. What team you make as a youth player shouldnt be that important.

elliott70
Posts: 13622
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:09 pm

Again, pack-man and I agree.

Up north, it seems everyone wants to have an A team, even if they only have one team. Play at the highest level, do your best. If not good enough, get better.

We have programs that want to be an A team but with 7 skaters and a goalie they play B hockey. A program with 12 girls ages 9 to 15. So what are they - a 16U team, but they play with the teams that they can compete. 12, 14 whatever. Why? Because all any one wants is to play hockey.
Our number one rule is let the kids play hockey. Then try to get them at the right level. Kids don't move around unless there are not enough kids to play (Blackduck has 4 pee wees - they play in Bemidji or Bagley).

It works for us.

Johnsonpres
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:28 pm

Post by Johnsonpres » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:28 am

I think what it all comes down to is say like in our district 1 last year Como did not field an A Pee Wee team but played all the big associations outside of our district and beat most of them and ended up being rated #8 in the final poll. The message sent than is if you want to succeed go to a lower level. In the past I have had teams in the A level not win a league game and go to the playoffs and regionals and end up losing in the semi finals of the regional to go to state. That year we only had 17 total Pee Wee's in our program at Johnson and only won 3 games during the season. My point is I would rather compete at the higher level and lose by a goal or two than go "B" and win 95% of the games played like Como's "B" Pee Wee's did last year. My vote is play where you should not where you think your going to the state tournament by taking a short cut.
Last year our "A" Pee Wee team ended up 10 wins above .500 and to me that is a very good achievement for a inter-city program that usually has only 35 to 40 kids try-out every year. In closing I would like to see COMO go "A" this year.

packerboy
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:51 am

Post by packerboy » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:09 am

Keep up the good work Johnsonpres.

Keep hockey going in the inner city.

Its important.

Good luck.

Post Reply