U12B American Region Tournament

Discussion of Minnesota Girls Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)

fun&games
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:08 am

Post by fun&games » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:58 am

Hockeydaddy wrote:So what do you do about the kids from big associations who aren't chosen for their A squad? Because little Suzie doesn't get along with the A coach's kid she gets banished to the B team, and now she has no shot to go to state? I


There are many skaters selected for their association's A teams who don't really have a legitimate "shot" at state either, due to low numbers, or a shallow talent pool. I think, perhaps naively, that coaches select players that they believe will help the team be successful.

in the larger associations politics are played after the top ten kids, it's a fact. Maybe they should just not even play at all if you don't play A, is that what you're saying?

How has this "fact" been established. While your personal experience may support this statement, it is still an opinion. Also, I would never say (and I don't think I did), that if a skater doesn't play A trhey shouldn't play. I'm just wondering if there were no B state tournament if it would encourage associations to field A teams that currently don't. If winning state, or having a "shot" at state is the reason teams are playing B instead of A then eliminating the tournament would make a difference.

No, how about you don't get to send a team t
o state if you don't send an A team? That would force more rainbow situations, I wou
ld think.


Sorry, I don't know what a rainbow situation is. Smarter folks than me will need to weigh in here. It's complicated, and I'm just interested in what others think. Thanks.[/list][/code][/quote]

luckyEPDad
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by luckyEPDad » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:34 pm

fun&games wrote:I don't mean to be disrespectful to any players, but wouldn't this whole discussion about playing A or B be avoided if there were no state tournament for B teams. If the purpose of the state tournament is to recognize the best teams at an age level (maybe this isn't the purpose?) then there is no need for a B state tourney. If it's about giving more players an opportunity to have a state "experience" I think it somewhat diminishes the "specialness" of making it to state. Perhaps if there were no state tournament for B teams, some of the teams that elect to play B might be motivated to play at the A level. I'm just curious about what people think about this...I don't really have a strong opinion about it, and I'm sure I've missed some important points about why there is a B tournament.
Without a doubt the purpose of the tournament is to provide an "experience". What other purpose can it have? The only thing you take away from the tournament is the "experience", and it is not something that can ever be taken away from you.

As for "specialness", there is not a kid at the A or B tournament who didn't think that was pretty special. Last year Proctor won the 12B tournament. The kids and parents went nuts. For them it was very special.

Proctor and Red Wing and a whole lot of other teams don't have the numbers to play at the A level. But a B state tournament trophy can do a lot to increase interest in the sport. And when 6 year olds see those "big girls" strutting around in their "State Champions" apparel they begin to dream. That is the purpose of the state tournaments, to nurture dreams.

oldhockeyguy
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by oldhockeyguy » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:35 pm

Saying teams are choosing to play B JUST so they can get to state is purely speculation on your part and I suggest try giving some of these associations a little credit on making hard decisions surrounding difficult circumstances. These decisions are made with all players best interest in mind.....not just a select few (A calibur players as you say). I'm not convinced it's about hardware at all. In fact, I know that it's not.

Most of the one team U12B associations have just enough players to field a team - Red wing had 10 skaters total at U12. These teams consist of a couple high end B/mid level A players, some midlevel B players and some low end B players. If you watched these teams play and you understand how to assess hockey talent, it's quite obvious. Some of these teams you banish have 2nd and 3rd year skaters and goaltenders. They do not have tryouts.

Eden Praire clearly has some A-calibur players playing at B. Why don't you suggest they create 2 A teams and one B team....if you think it's good to field a watered down A team

There are no A teams with mid and low level B players participating. All kids deserve the opportunity to develop and have fun. How much fun would a low levelB players having against an A team? How much are they learning when they never touch the puck and cannot compete yet? Imagine the level of discouragement for these young girls and their parents.

You need to look at the whole picture, get the facts about each association, and put yourself into that situation before you make such ridiculous accusations It's a overall team development decision vs. hardware. It about the best interest of all the kids...not just a select few.

To the person who made the following comment: The U12B Tournament is a ........ MN Hockey has no place for that kind of negativity.

Congrats to all teams who made it to the U12B State Tourney.

luckyEPDad
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by luckyEPDad » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:46 pm

oldhockeyguy wrote: Eden Praire clearly has some A-calibur players playing at B. Why don't you suggest they create 2 A teams and one B team....if you think it's good to field a watered down A team
I had to give credit to Edina last year for fielding two 12A teams. I would like to see that trend continue. We don't quite have the talent in EP for that yet, but that should definately be one of our goals.

oldhockeyguy
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by oldhockeyguy » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:05 pm

EPDAD,

That's exactly my point. Hope you realize my comment was not negative about your team or association. I've seen your team - nice team, well coached...good sportsmanship!

As you say, if you had the talent to compete - top to bottom - you would strive to have 2 A teams. Likewise, if a U12B team with limited tryout numbers had the talent - across the board - to compete at A, then of course it should be done.

drop the puck
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 am

Post by drop the puck » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:09 pm

oldhockeyguy wrote:Saying teams are choosing to play B JUST so they can get to state is purely speculation on your part and I suggest try giving some of these associations a little credit on making hard decisions surrounding difficult circumstances. These decisions are made with all players best interest in mind.....not just a select few (A calibur players as you say). I'm not convinced it's about hardware at all. In fact, I know that it's not.

Most of the one team U12B associations have just enough players to field a team - Red wing had 10 skaters total at U12. These teams consist of a couple high end B/mid level A players, some midlevel B players and some low end B players. If you watched these teams play and you understand how to assess hockey talent, it's quite obvious. Some of these teams you banish have 2nd and 3rd year skaters and goaltenders. They do not have tryouts.

Eden Praire clearly has some A-calibur players playing at B. Why don't you suggest they create 2 A teams and one B team....if you think it's good to field a watered down A team

There are no A teams with mid and low level B players participating. All kids deserve the opportunity to develop and have fun. How much fun would a low levelB players having against an A team? How much are they learning when they never touch the puck and cannot compete yet? Imagine the level of discouragement for these young girls and their parents.

You need to look at the whole picture, get the facts about each association, and put yourself into that situation before you make such ridiculous accusations It's a overall team development decision vs. hardware. It about the best interest of all the kids...not just a select few.

To the person who made the following comment: The U12B Tournament is a ........ MN Hockey has no place for that kind of negativity.

Congrats to all teams who made it to the U12B State Tourney.

drop the puck
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 am

Post by drop the puck » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:11 pm

drop the puck wrote:
oldhockeyguy wrote:Saying teams are choosing to play B JUST so they can get to state is purely speculation on your part and I suggest try giving some of these associations a little credit on making hard decisions surrounding difficult circumstances. These decisions are made with all players best interest in mind.....not just a select few (A calibur players as you say). I'm not convinced it's about hardware at all. In fact, I know that it's not.

Most of the one team U12B associations have just enough players to field a team - Red wing had 10 skaters total at U12. These teams consist of a couple high end B/mid level A players, some midlevel B players and some low end B players. If you watched these teams play and you understand how to assess hockey talent, it's quite obvious. Some of these teams you banish have 2nd and 3rd year skaters and goaltenders. They do not have tryouts.

Eden Praire clearly has some A-calibur players playing at B. Why don't you suggest they create 2 A teams and one B team....if you think it's good to field a watered down A team

There are no A teams with mid and low level B players participating. All kids deserve the opportunity to develop and have fun. How much fun would a low levelB players having against an A team? How much are they learning when they never touch the puck and cannot compete yet? Imagine the level of discouragement for these young girls and their parents.

You need to look at the whole picture, get the facts about each association, and put yourself into that situation before you make such ridiculous accusations It's a overall team development decision vs. hardware. It about the best interest of all the kids...not just a select few.

To the person who made the following comment: The U12B Tournament is a ........ MN Hockey has no place for that kind of negativity.

Congrats to all teams who made it to the U12B State Tourney.
I said ...
drop the puck wrote:Absolutely. NOT.

Chisago and Champlin Park should have played 12A hockey too!!

The whole 12B tournament is ..........

In five years we will see if it made a difference for Chisago, Tartan, and Champlin to play down.
I see little negativity in this comment unless you chose to fill in the blank that way :lol:

Champlin, Tartan, and Chisago Lakes knew exactly what they were doing in calculating their season, placing the team at B, and the high potential to make (if not win) state.

oldhockeyguy
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by oldhockeyguy » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:17 pm

Sorry, your wrong and you do not have the facts.

Nothing wrong with an opinion.....but it is merely and opinion....not fact based.

drop the puck
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 am

Post by drop the puck » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:36 pm

oldhockeyguy wrote:Sorry, your wrong and you do not have the facts.

Nothing wrong with an opinion.....but it is merely and opinion....not fact based.
Agree that you could not be more off-based in your opinions....

D10RoXyourSoX
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:56 am
Location: HOCKEYTOWN, USA

Post by D10RoXyourSoX » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:59 pm

MinnGirls-HockeyPAPA etc... :shock: :shock:

Hockey PAPA-maybe it is with that mentality you have been bit in the butt and you blame coaches for not picking your daughter. Be realistic, coaches in general are not out to make decisions based on parental likes and dislikes. If this occuring then you need to address it at the board level in the off season when positions are filled and decisions made.

MinnGirls--Listen, you played at the right level, admit it. Last year this debate went on about Centennial going undefeated too. Their goalie was exceptional and yes she played A hockey this year at the 14 level and some speculate that she will tryout for the HS team as a Frosh. BUT, that team was not an A Calibur team! They would have struggled considerably for the reason Tartan, Chisago, Champlin would have this year if they played A hockey; THEY DO NOT HAVE THE TALENT POOL for "A" competition. They do not have the scorers or the deep hockey understanding that top level "A" teams have. Now that being said, take the 8th place team from the 12 A tournament and a bubble team. Stillwater 12A - Thief River 12A - Minnetonka 12A & Elk River 12 A - were the 7th & 8th place teams in State and Elk River and Minnetonka were bubble per say. Your Associations would not even made regions let alone have a shot at playing these Associations with the chance of winning. It does not compute.

Leave it alone, enjoy your accomplishments and in 2 years, go to your board and tell them you want to play 14A. I think in two years you will come up with another "scenario" that will make you feel better. Have a great summer, relax and come back next fall ready to play "A" hockey.

BTW - the 2 A team scenario is not a good idea. Edina last year and other associations past and present found out that playing upper and lower A teams retards the hockey growth of the players. They learn to dump and chase to stay with teams, the puck control lacks significantly because the speed & skill is far superior than that of a true A team. Associations, please learn from these associations and dont go down that road, you only create a player that learns to lose and how to lose by as little as possible.

Great job Champlin, Congratulations on your State Tournament Championship. 8)
__________________________

GO BLUE!

luckyEPDad
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by luckyEPDad » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:07 pm

D10RoXyourSoX wrote: BTW - the 2 A team scenario is not a good idea. Edina last year and other associations past and present found out that playing upper and lower A teams retards the hockey growth of the players. They learn to dump and chase to stay with teams, the puck control lacks significantly because the speed & skill is far superior than that of a true A team. Associations, please learn from these associations and don't go down that road, you only create a player that learns to lose and how to lose by as little as possible.
Yeah, that really killed off Edina. Their girls were horrible this year (oozing sarcasm).

Neither of Edina's 12A teams finished at the bottom of district 6 last year. Are your suggesting programs that have teams finishing near the bottom of their district should drop their A team? I don't think that idea would have a lot of support here. Nice message. If you don't win, give up.

I've seen a lot of A teams (girls, boys, all ages) that play dump and chase hockey. I blame it on the coaches instead of the talent. Given a weak team coaches can decide to play defensive hockey, or to develop their players even if it means losing a few games. Coaches who chose wins over development (at any level below pro) should not be coaching (my opinion).

I've seen coaches obsessed with wining turn good teams into mediocre ones. All decisions are based on strategy and gamesmanship, not what is best for the players. I played for one of those coaches a long time ago and remember it not being much fun. Conversely my daughter had a coach tell the team up front that wins and losses aren't important and that the focus for the team is to get better each week. That team start out losing a lot of games, but were winning more often than not at the end. Two years later the nucleus of that team played at the state tournament.

checco33
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:45 pm

12ub regional state tournament

Post by checco33 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:11 pm

..
Last edited by checco33 on Tue May 07, 2013 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

MinnGirlsHockey
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 am

Post by MinnGirlsHockey » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:10 pm

D10RoXyourSoX wrote:MinnGirls--Listen, you played at the right level, admit it.
Dude, I don't know how many times I have to say it but I ain't from Tartan! I'm a D2 guy who happens to pay attention to other neighboring associations.
D10RoXyourSoX wrote:They do not have the scorers or the deep hockey understanding that top level "A" teams have. Now that being said, take the 8th place team from the 12 A tournament and a bubble team. Stillwater 12A - Thief River 12A - Minnetonka 12A & Elk River 12 A - were the 7th & 8th place teams in State and Elk River and Minnetonka were bubble per say. Your Associations would not even made regions let alone have a shot at playing these Associations with the chance of winning. It does not compute.
I don't disagree with this assertion at all (of course, other than your referring to Tartan as "my" association -- please see above). Obviously none of the top 12UB teams would stand a chance against any of the top 12UA teams. I don't think anyone here is trying to say anything to the contrary.

All I've been trying to say (apparently unsuccessfully up to this point!), is that with 60 12UA teams and 96 12UB teams in MN this year, Tartan and probably a handful of other 12UB teams mentioned earlier certainly could've been competitive playing against some other 12UA teams. I'm sure they'd be in the bottom 20 of the 60 total teams, but all I'm saying is that they could compete with at least the bottom third of this year's 12UA level. They chose not to do that and that is fine. They will have to deal with the consequences of this decision (good or bad) down the road.

This leads me back to the earlier discussion of possibly having a 3rd playing level for girls hockey. With 156 teams playing 12UA this year, it certainly seems plausible to have had 3 playing levels with approx 50 teams each this year. But I'm also a realist and know that change doesn't happen overnight with MN Hockey.

D10RoXyourSoX
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:56 am
Location: HOCKEYTOWN, USA

Post by D10RoXyourSoX » Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:46 am

[/quote]


I've seen a lot of A teams (girls, boys, all ages) that play dump and chase hockey. I blame it on the coaches instead of the talent. Given a weak team coaches can decide to play defensive hockey, or to develop their players even if it means losing a few games. Coaches who chose wins over development (at any level below pro) should not be coaching (my opinion).
[/quote]

Lucky--

U R exactly right, having B teams for associations like Edina did help them get where they are this year. Look at the whole picture of State Tournament Hockey. They had a dozen teams in the state tournament and specifically at they had U19-14A & 12A in the Championship game. obviously playing B hockey is where some of those players played to improve skill, hockey understanding and confidence. Get real Peter Pan, this is not a fairy tale. You mentioned the pros....Why is it that the Wild have the Houston club??? to give the players the right situation to improve their game in an enviroment that is designed for just that.

Kids dont stop improving at the age of 10-12-14 if they have the desire to get better. A player who plays B can flourish at the A level and will given time, commitment and most important, desire. I was not labeling kids "losers" as you put it, I was saying they are playing at the right level at this time in their hockey development. Playing B hockey should not be a crutch, but parents put to much emphasis on this label of A or B.

Again, read the article (LPH)about your own Club (EP, High school Boys) regarding kids on that team that played C hockey and B hockey and became State Champions. Its fine and obviously your program helped these kids at the C/B levels to develop them into fine Varsity athletes.

Great Job, congratulations on your success to:

Champlin 12B Champs - EP 12A Champs - Wayzata 14B Champs - Edina 14A Champs - OMG U19B Champs

Someone in this forum said it best

"Love the players, hate the parents"
__________________________

GO BLUE!

PWD10
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:25 pm

Post by PWD10 » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:13 am

All of Champlin Parks "A" players left the association for the year and played elsewhere. Mostly at Blaine. Go read all those posts from earlier this year and the controversy. If Champlin Park, Chisago Lakes, Tartan, etc would have played A schedules they would have not even been close to .500 "
Champlin park also had 3 girls playing on its Peewee A team which made the D10 playoffs and did pretty good.

Not a kid in this mix, but I saw some girls games at D10 this year, and the teams with A teams at the 12B level looked completely overmatched in size and abiliity by those teams that didn't have an A team.

Fair? I don't know, I didn't have anyone competing on that side of the fence. We were usually just waiting for a game to end before ours.

hockeydad2010
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:03 am

Post by hockeydad2010 » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:58 pm

To me the bottom line is that Tartan played at the wrong level. Anytime you can go 33-2-1 and win by 6+ goals a game you should have played at a higher level, worked hard to compete and hope to be .500. If an "A" team dominates like that I have no problem because that is as high as they can play, like someone else said, some teams are just better. That is the case at any level, but to dominate in this fashion means they should have played up. PERIOD!

Congrats to teams like North St Paul and Mahtomedi who chose to work hard and grind it out at the "A" level. It was a long year but they chose not to take the easy road filled with trophies and padded stats.

I just bought a home in the Tartan area but I will not be switching my kids over to that program because of this. As far as I am concerned this is one of the worst cases of sandbagging I have even seen and I would hate for one of my kids to be stuck on a team like this.

Just my opinion, flame away!

sinbin
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:12 pm

Post by sinbin » Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:25 am

I don't have kids in this mix, either, but a couple of questions come to mind: How good were the other teams in Tartan's district? Did any of them advance to State? Maybe a case of Tartan being very good and all of the other teams being not very good. How even were Tartan's lines? Did they have 3 lines of A players or did they have an A line, a B line, and a C line? With only one team, there could be a huge disparity in talent. I'm not decrying or defending Tartan or any of the other teams lumped in the same boat, but it would be helpful to know a few more details before passing judgement.

Post Reply