Bauer Invite Chicago

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

NotMinnesotan
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:49 am

Post by NotMinnesotan » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:53 pm

Numbers don't lie, Tier 1 hockey is best path for kids to play junior hockey. Minnesota High School will always have elite talent and move kids on, but is far behind the amount of kids moving on from Midget AAA.

NotMinnesotan
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:49 am

Post by NotMinnesotan » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:10 pm

CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD wrote:I believe you will find more MN HS players go straight to D1 College than do Tier 1 Midgets. Which will skew your numbers. Besides numbers wise we are talking about one state vs the rest of the country. Certainly not the best path in MN.
You could add all of those (hand full) of kids going straight d1 and it would still be a 5-1 ratio of kids from midget hockey. Also I did not say every the rest of the country I said Midget AAA. Pretty sure there are other avenues high end players play in other parts of the country example prep school.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:52 am

MWS coach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
I 100% disagree on this.... 6 months at bantam age is where it makes THE MOST difference. Have you been to bantam games before? Have you seen the unbelievable size difference that occurs at the bantam age? You have kids who are 5'0" tall and 110 lbs playing against kids that are 6'2" and 200 lbs.... and I can tell you for a fact that six months makes a HUGE difference at that age. My oldest son was 5'1" and 115 lbs at the beginning of October of his first year of bantams, by March at the end of his first year of bantams he was 5'5" and 135 lbs... you don't think that made a huge difference in his game? ..... Further he is an August birthday in a state where they go purely by birth year. In MN he would have still been a Pee Wee, here he was a bantam. So again in my humble opinion you have it backwards. In my vast experience six months isn't that big of a deal at mites and squirts or even pee wees for the most part but it's a HUGE deal at bantams.

I'd also take umbrage with your idea that most of these Bantam AAA teams are taking players from "all over the world", sorry but that is not reality. 99% of the AAA teams that at are bantam age and younger are taking kids that are within driving distance to their rinks. I'll admit that midgets are a different animal but bantams and younger the kids overwhelmingly are from within a 2 hour drive of the AAA team's home rink. To give that further reality, yes MN takes from their "communities" but most of the communities up there have more hockey players in them than most AAA teams do within that same circumference. The Madison Capitols for instance if you drew a two hour drive circumference around Capitol Ice arena, you'd probably have the same number of players roughly that Edina has in a given age group....

Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
While I won't go as far as to say size doesn't matter, it most certainly does not make the "MOST" difference (to quote you). Ability to play the game is what makes the most difference. How big was the leading scorer in the USHL last year? He was playing against men.... Yes, kids hit growth spurt at different times, but only some will it make a difference for in that 6 month window. There is a 2nd half 03 birth year in our association that is bigger than most of the 01 second year bantams in our association, he is playing PW his size does not make him better....
There are exceptions to every rule of course, but given a "baseline of skill", which if you are playing "A" or better hockey in MN, or AAA anywhere else we are assuming you have a baseline of skill. But at BANTAMS given that baseline of skill and forgiving the rare exception, actually size makes the most difference at this age. Bar none. As you get older and get to the USHL or college or NHL I completely agree it becomes less of a factor because mental and physical maturation in other areas can off set it but at the bantam age (and younger) size is by far the biggest differentiating factor in the game amongst the kids. The "big kids" (again assuming they are in an appropriate level skill wise) impose their will and have the biggest impacts across the game at this age and it's not really even debatable. In fact I've seen far lesser skilled big men impact games in meaningful ways at bantams more so than really skilled small players on a much more consistent basis than any exceptions to the rule you might counter with. Yes you get a very rare exception to the rule but as a rule size matters most at bantams within the same skill level (ie AAA to AAA team, or MN AA to AA team etc... etc...)... again please don't come back at me with some "special" exception to the rule like a Mike Guentzel, or a current player like Cole Caufield out of WI. I already conceded there are always exceptions to the rule but the reality is they are special and rare, as opposed to the overwhelming majority that makes the rule, the rule being size matters big time. Heck even in the NHL yes you have the Patrick Kane's or the Mary St. Louis' of the world but in reality the average forward is 72.93" (6' 1") tall, and weighs 202.4 lbs. The average defenseman is 73.87" (6' 1 7/8") tall, and weighs 209.66 lbs. In otherwords, you can get there if you are smaller but your odds are a heck of a lot better if you are bigger because SIZE MATTERS and yes technically it matters the most to some degree because again we are assuming similar skill levels amongst peers and if you ask any coach anywhere if two players have the same hockey sense, same basic skill level and skating ability and heck even put up the same statistics but one is 5'10" and the other is 6'2" I will GUARANTEE you the coach will take the 6'2" player every single time without exception, so yes size matters most (but wit context).

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:37 pm

NotMinnesotan wrote:
CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD wrote:I believe you will find more MN HS players go straight to D1 College than do Tier 1 Midgets. Which will skew your numbers. Besides numbers wise we are talking about one state vs the rest of the country. Certainly not the best path in MN.
You could add all of those (hand full) of kids going straight d1 and it would still be a 5-1 ratio of kids from midget hockey. Also I did not say every the rest of the country I said Midget AAA. Pretty sure there are other avenues high end players play in other parts of the country example prep school.
Without any data sources and for conversations sake I will simply take your word for it. Even if your assumptions are true don't assume the goal of MN hockey is to get kids into the Jr. ranks. Good Lord just about any high school kid nowadays can compete at Tier 3 levels of Jr's. Most Tier 3 leagues are glorified midget or high school teams. Tier 2 starts to get more competitive and MN still sends a lot of kids in that direction. But MN hockey doesn't hold that statistic up as a measure of success. The MN model is about growing the game and having as wide of a base of players as possible. Having multiple kids go through youth and HS hockey in MN I have seen several players hang up the skates after their Sr. year because Tier 2 & 3 Jr's really isn't all that attractive to them. It's avg hockey. They simply make the decision to move on with life and head off to college or work.

Minnesota hockey isn't sick. Heck...it doesn't even have a slight cough and my advice would be to stop trying to diagnose it with an illness. It continues to pump out Division 1 and NHL players year after year after year. Those numbers don't lie.

NHL Players by State: MN Leads the nation and the gap is widening
http://www.minnesotafunfacts.com/minnes ... n-the-u-s/

I suppose from the outside looking in we look kind of funny with our goofy neighborhood teams and our longtime local coaches. But it's a proven model that keeps the game affordable and grows the game in the state. I saw an earlier post in this string about how Tier 1 teams have kids that ONLY have to drive 2 hours or less to practice. I about spit out my beer. I once pulled my son out of a pretty good AAA summer hockey program because I couldn't take the 40 minute drive through traffic 4 times a week. That was a funny comment...at least to me.
"I find tinsel distracting"

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:44 pm

JSR wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
I 100% disagree on this.... 6 months at bantam age is where it makes THE MOST difference. Have you been to bantam games before? Have you seen the unbelievable size difference that occurs at the bantam age? You have kids who are 5'0" tall and 110 lbs playing against kids that are 6'2" and 200 lbs.... and I can tell you for a fact that six months makes a HUGE difference at that age. My oldest son was 5'1" and 115 lbs at the beginning of October of his first year of bantams, by March at the end of his first year of bantams he was 5'5" and 135 lbs... you don't think that made a huge difference in his game? ..... Further he is an August birthday in a state where they go purely by birth year. In MN he would have still been a Pee Wee, here he was a bantam. So again in my humble opinion you have it backwards. In my vast experience six months isn't that big of a deal at mites and squirts or even pee wees for the most part but it's a HUGE deal at bantams.

I'd also take umbrage with your idea that most of these Bantam AAA teams are taking players from "all over the world", sorry but that is not reality. 99% of the AAA teams that at are bantam age and younger are taking kids that are within driving distance to their rinks. I'll admit that midgets are a different animal but bantams and younger the kids overwhelmingly are from within a 2 hour drive of the AAA team's home rink. To give that further reality, yes MN takes from their "communities" but most of the communities up there have more hockey players in them than most AAA teams do within that same circumference. The Madison Capitols for instance if you drew a two hour drive circumference around Capitol Ice arena, you'd probably have the same number of players roughly that Edina has in a given age group....

Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
While I won't go as far as to say size doesn't matter, it most certainly does not make the "MOST" difference (to quote you). Ability to play the game is what makes the most difference. How big was the leading scorer in the USHL last year? He was playing against men.... Yes, kids hit growth spurt at different times, but only some will it make a difference for in that 6 month window. There is a 2nd half 03 birth year in our association that is bigger than most of the 01 second year bantams in our association, he is playing PW his size does not make him better....
There are exceptions to every rule of course, but given a "baseline of skill", which if you are playing "A" or better hockey in MN, or AAA anywhere else we are assuming you have a baseline of skill. But at BANTAMS given that baseline of skill and forgiving the rare exception, actually size makes the most difference at this age. Bar none. As you get older and get to the USHL or college or NHL I completely agree it becomes less of a factor because mental and physical maturation in other areas can off set it but at the bantam age (and younger) size is by far the biggest differentiating factor in the game amongst the kids. The "big kids" (again assuming they are in an appropriate level skill wise) impose their will and have the biggest impacts across the game at this age and it's not really even debatable. In fact I've seen far lesser skilled big men impact games in meaningful ways at bantams more so than really skilled small players on a much more consistent basis than any exceptions to the rule you might counter with. Yes you get a very rare exception to the rule but as a rule size matters most at bantams within the same skill level (ie AAA to AAA team, or MN AA to AA team etc... etc...)... again please don't come back at me with some "special" exception to the rule like a Mike Guentzel, or a current player like Cole Caufield out of WI. I already conceded there are always exceptions to the rule but the reality is they are special and rare, as opposed to the overwhelming majority that makes the rule, the rule being size matters big time. Heck even in the NHL yes you have the Patrick Kane's or the Mary St. Louis' of the world but in reality the average forward is 72.93" (6' 1") tall, and weighs 202.4 lbs. The average defenseman is 73.87" (6' 1 7/8") tall, and weighs 209.66 lbs. In otherwords, you can get there if you are smaller but your odds are a heck of a lot better if you are bigger because SIZE MATTERS and yes technically it matters the most to some degree because again we are assuming similar skill levels amongst peers and if you ask any coach anywhere if two players have the same hockey sense, same basic skill level and skating ability and heck even put up the same statistics but one is 5'10" and the other is 6'2" I will GUARANTEE you the coach will take the 6'2" player every single time without exception, so yes size matters most (but wit context).
I would agree with that. A long time respected MN hockey man once told me, "Small hockey players have to prove they can play and big hockey players have to prove they can't play." Truer words have never been spoken.
"I find tinsel distracting"

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:54 pm

JoltDelivered wrote:
JSR wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
I 100% disagree on this.... 6 months at bantam age is where it makes THE MOST difference. Have you been to bantam games before? Have you seen the unbelievable size difference that occurs at the bantam age? You have kids who are 5'0" tall and 110 lbs playing against kids that are 6'2" and 200 lbs.... and I can tell you for a fact that six months makes a HUGE difference at that age. My oldest son was 5'1" and 115 lbs at the beginning of October of his first year of bantams, by March at the end of his first year of bantams he was 5'5" and 135 lbs... you don't think that made a huge difference in his game? ..... Further he is an August birthday in a state where they go purely by birth year. In MN he would have still been a Pee Wee, here he was a bantam. So again in my humble opinion you have it backwards. In my vast experience six months isn't that big of a deal at mites and squirts or even pee wees for the most part but it's a HUGE deal at bantams.

I'd also take umbrage with your idea that most of these Bantam AAA teams are taking players from "all over the world", sorry but that is not reality. 99% of the AAA teams that at are bantam age and younger are taking kids that are within driving distance to their rinks. I'll admit that midgets are a different animal but bantams and younger the kids overwhelmingly are from within a 2 hour drive of the AAA team's home rink. To give that further reality, yes MN takes from their "communities" but most of the communities up there have more hockey players in them than most AAA teams do within that same circumference. The Madison Capitols for instance if you drew a two hour drive circumference around Capitol Ice arena, you'd probably have the same number of players roughly that Edina has in a given age group....

Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
While I won't go as far as to say size doesn't matter, it most certainly does not make the "MOST" difference (to quote you). Ability to play the game is what makes the most difference. How big was the leading scorer in the USHL last year? He was playing against men.... Yes, kids hit growth spurt at different times, but only some will it make a difference for in that 6 month window. There is a 2nd half 03 birth year in our association that is bigger than most of the 01 second year bantams in our association, he is playing PW his size does not make him better....
There are exceptions to every rule of course, but given a "baseline of skill", which if you are playing "A" or better hockey in MN, or AAA anywhere else we are assuming you have a baseline of skill. But at BANTAMS given that baseline of skill and forgiving the rare exception, actually size makes the most difference at this age. Bar none. As you get older and get to the USHL or college or NHL I completely agree it becomes less of a factor because mental and physical maturation in other areas can off set it but at the bantam age (and younger) size is by far the biggest differentiating factor in the game amongst the kids. The "big kids" (again assuming they are in an appropriate level skill wise) impose their will and have the biggest impacts across the game at this age and it's not really even debatable. In fact I've seen far lesser skilled big men impact games in meaningful ways at bantams more so than really skilled small players on a much more consistent basis than any exceptions to the rule you might counter with. Yes you get a very rare exception to the rule but as a rule size matters most at bantams within the same skill level (ie AAA to AAA team, or MN AA to AA team etc... etc...)... again please don't come back at me with some "special" exception to the rule like a Mike Guentzel, or a current player like Cole Caufield out of WI. I already conceded there are always exceptions to the rule but the reality is they are special and rare, as opposed to the overwhelming majority that makes the rule, the rule being size matters big time. Heck even in the NHL yes you have the Patrick Kane's or the Mary St. Louis' of the world but in reality the average forward is 72.93" (6' 1") tall, and weighs 202.4 lbs. The average defenseman is 73.87" (6' 1 7/8") tall, and weighs 209.66 lbs. In otherwords, you can get there if you are smaller but your odds are a heck of a lot better if you are bigger because SIZE MATTERS and yes technically it matters the most to some degree because again we are assuming similar skill levels amongst peers and if you ask any coach anywhere if two players have the same hockey sense, same basic skill level and skating ability and heck even put up the same statistics but one is 5'10" and the other is 6'2" I will GUARANTEE you the coach will take the 6'2" player every single time without exception, so yes size matters most (but wit context).
I would agree with that. A long time respected MN hockey man once told me, "Small hockey players have to prove they can play and big hockey players have to prove they can't play." Truer words have never been spoken.
Bingo! Winner winner chicken dinner ;)

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:02 pm

JoltDelivered wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:
CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD wrote:I believe you will find more MN HS players go straight to D1 College than do Tier 1 Midgets. Which will skew your numbers. Besides numbers wise we are talking about one state vs the rest of the country. Certainly not the best path in MN.
You could add all of those (hand full) of kids going straight d1 and it would still be a 5-1 ratio of kids from midget hockey. Also I did not say every the rest of the country I said Midget AAA. Pretty sure there are other avenues high end players play in other parts of the country example prep school.
Without any data sources and for conversations sake I will simply take your word for it. Even if your assumptions are true don't assume the goal of MN hockey is to get kids into the Jr. ranks. Good Lord just about any high school kid nowadays can compete at Tier 3 levels of Jr's. Most Tier 3 leagues are glorified midget or high school teams. Tier 2 starts to get more competitive and MN still sends a lot of kids in that direction. But MN hockey doesn't hold that statistic up as a measure of success. The MN model is about growing the game and having as wide of a base of players as possible. Having multiple kids go through youth and HS hockey in MN I have seen several players hang up the skates after their Sr. year because Tier 2 & 3 Jr's really isn't all that attractive to them. It's avg hockey. They simply make the decision to move on with life and head off to college or work.

Minnesota hockey isn't sick. Heck...it doesn't even have a slight cough and my advice would be to stop trying to diagnose it with an illness. It continues to pump out Division 1 and NHL players year after year after year. Those numbers don't lie.

NHL Players by State: MN Leads the nation and the gap is widening
http://www.minnesotafunfacts.com/minnes ... n-the-u-s/

I suppose from the outside looking in we look kind of funny with our goofy neighborhood teams and our longtime local coaches. But it's a proven model that keeps the game affordable and grows the game in the state. I saw an earlier post in this string about how Tier 1 teams have kids that ONLY have to drive 2 hours or less to practice. I about spit out my beer. I once pulled my son out of a pretty good AAA summer hockey program because I couldn't take the 40 minute drive through traffic 4 times a week. That was a funny comment...at least to me.
First off I do not think MN Hockey has an illness or that there is anything inherently wrong with it at all (I know that wasn't in a response to me just wanted to make it clear). In fact it's a great model for many to learn from. SO I agree with you on ALOT....

I do disagree that Tier 2 junior hockey is average hockey. That is just blatantly false. The NAHL is a VERY high level of hockey and yes there are a lot of MN hockey players playing in it but do not degrade it as average hockey, there is no High School team in your state that could beat even the worst NAHL team. Tier 3 hockey I would agree is average if that, in fact it's pretty brutal across the board. There are exceptions to the rule and there is SOME good Tier 3 hockey but it is the exception not the rule but to lump Tier 2 and Tier 3 together is very intellectually dishonest.

As for the drive time comment, that was made by me and I think you vastly misinterpreted the comment. No where did I use the word "only" in talking about a 2 hour drive to practice. In fact 2 hours is a really long way and it SUCKS, trust me I know. I used the word "within" two hours because someone else claimed these AAA teams were somehow consistently taking kids from all over the world. There is a huge difference between a 2 hour drive and "all over the world" and that is the point I was making.

Jeffy95
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:44 pm

JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
You obviously didn't watch the 2016 USHL Fall Classic U14 Tournament. Central Scouting picked the top 16 teams in the Country to play in it. The Blades looked like Men among Boys out there. They absolutely crushed Team WI in the Championship Game and Westchester before that in the Semi's. They honestly made Team WI look like a U12 team in that game.

The U16 Blades also won the Championship, beating Chicago Mission and Dallas Stars Elite in the Semi's and Honeybaked in the Championship Game.

NotMinnesotan
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:49 am

Post by NotMinnesotan » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:16 pm

I do not include Tier 3 into any discussion involving junior hockey. If you can pay the fee to be on a team you can play tier 3 somewhere. Doesn't matter hockey background. The numbers are very easy to access. Go look at the USHL draft and NAHL draft from last year. Another statement that was made was Minnesota doesn't have it's goal to move kids onto junior hockey. That sentiment right there is why midget hockey has continued to grow and even start stealing kids from Minnesota. It is full of entire teams of kids that want to play juniors and college and their AAA teams goals are to get them signed and move on. Minnesota's goals are to go to State. Lastly, U14 hockey around the country is almost 100% local. Sure there are some exceptions just like there are plenty of exceptions here (for example a high end player living with friends to play bantams in a large association). U16 is the age where kids really begin to move to programs that better suite them and U16 is the level where programs recruit kids from all over.

As an outsider (from Chicago originally) but living here I will say the high school games that I attend are very fun to watch. The talent is clearly here and I have been to the State Tournament and there are only a few major tournaments around that I can think of that rival it. What I don't understand is just because a model worked very well, the best in fact for many years, is not allowed to be criticized or altered because "This is the way we've always done it". Not saying get rid of HS hockey, but I am pretty sure that a lot of hockey people around the state think there are some changes that could be made in order to make it even better and start producing more players to those higher levels.

So instead of arguing back and forth on what system is better, which is fun , how about I propose a question.

What changes to HS hockey would you like to see to IMPROVE the game and model everyone loves around here?

I will go first,

Kids SHOULD NOT be allowed to leave Bantam hockey to play JV. Period. Kids should develop with other kids their age.

Varsity teams should only have 3 lines and 4 d and JV should be the same. Varsity should be able to dress a fourth line and 2 extra d per game from JV, but since we all know 4th line kids don't get any real ice time, they would have played their jv game first and then can add 3-5 shifts they get in the varsity game. This will also encourage more time developing jv players by their varsity coaches and reward good play in JV on a game to game basis. There should be no 4th line JV as this level is pure development and kids need more ice time to do that.

Seniors should not be allowed to be on JV. This is a development team once again. This should be for growing sophomores and juniors who are not bantam eligible. (This rule would be exception based for very small rural teams I know nothing about and no clue what their numbers are).

There should be a 6 team Junior gold division made of kids who can choose to tryout and play made up of (the best of the rest). This would allow kids to compete with other kids who may still want to take hockey more seriously but were unfortunate enough to get cut. They could also compete against AA teams around the country on occasion. Their main schedule would be in their own division though.

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:25 pm

JSR wrote:
JoltDelivered wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:
CHI-TOWN HOCKEYDAD wrote:I believe you will find more MN HS players go straight to D1 College than do Tier 1 Midgets. Which will skew your numbers. Besides numbers wise we are talking about one state vs the rest of the country. Certainly not the best path in MN.
You could add all of those (hand full) of kids going straight d1 and it would still be a 5-1 ratio of kids from midget hockey. Also I did not say every the rest of the country I said Midget AAA. Pretty sure there are other avenues high end players play in other parts of the country example prep school.
Without any data sources and for conversations sake I will simply take your word for it. Even if your assumptions are true don't assume the goal of MN hockey is to get kids into the Jr. ranks. Good Lord just about any high school kid nowadays can compete at Tier 3 levels of Jr's. Most Tier 3 leagues are glorified midget or high school teams. Tier 2 starts to get more competitive and MN still sends a lot of kids in that direction. But MN hockey doesn't hold that statistic up as a measure of success. The MN model is about growing the game and having as wide of a base of players as possible. Having multiple kids go through youth and HS hockey in MN I have seen several players hang up the skates after their Sr. year because Tier 2 & 3 Jr's really isn't all that attractive to them. It's avg hockey. They simply make the decision to move on with life and head off to college or work.

Minnesota hockey isn't sick. Heck...it doesn't even have a slight cough and my advice would be to stop trying to diagnose it with an illness. It continues to pump out Division 1 and NHL players year after year after year. Those numbers don't lie.

NHL Players by State: MN Leads the nation and the gap is widening
http://www.minnesotafunfacts.com/minnes ... n-the-u-s/

I suppose from the outside looking in we look kind of funny with our goofy neighborhood teams and our longtime local coaches. But it's a proven model that keeps the game affordable and grows the game in the state. I saw an earlier post in this string about how Tier 1 teams have kids that ONLY have to drive 2 hours or less to practice. I about spit out my beer. I once pulled my son out of a pretty good AAA summer hockey program because I couldn't take the 40 minute drive through traffic 4 times a week. That was a funny comment...at least to me.
First off I do not think MN Hockey has an illness or that there is anything inherently wrong with it at all. In fact it's a great model for many to learn from. SO I agree with you on ALOT....

I do disagree that Tier 2 junior hockey is average hockey. That is just blatantly false. The NAHL is a VERY high level of hockey and yes there are a lot of MN hockey players playing in it but do not degrade it as average hockey, there is no High School team in your state that could beat even the worst NAHL team. Tier 3 hockey I would agree is average if that, in fact it's pretty brutal across the board. There are exceptions to the rule and there is SOME good Tier 3 hockey but it is the exception not the rule but to lump Tier 2 and Tier 3 together is very intellectually dishonest.

As for the drive time comment, that was made by me and I think you vastly misinterpreted the comment. No where did I use the word "only" in talking about a 2 hour drive to practice. In fact 2 hours is a really long way and it SUCKS, trust me I know. I used the word "within" two hours because someone else claimed these AAA teams were somehow consistently taking kids from all over the world. There is a huge difference between a 2 hour drive and "all over the world" and that is the point I was making.
USHL (Tier 1 Jr's) is Elite or a VERY high level of Hockey as you put it. Tier 2 (NAHL) isn't, it's a step below. It's decent. Jut my opinion. And yes I agree about the differences between Tier 2 & 3...didn't mean to lump Tier 2 into Tier 3. They are vastly different. For tier 2 Jr's I have watched the games both live and online and I have several family friends on teams. I have a hard time calling Tier 2 a "VERY high level" of hockey as you put it simply because I put the USHL in that category. And I do know kids jump from Tier 2 NAHL to Div 1 so it can produce some pretty good players. But they call it Tier 2 for a reason. Don't mean to degrade it just for the sake of being argumentative but I struggle with the term "VERY high level". I do acknowledge that there are examples of kids that have used Tier 2 hockey as a platform to springboard their hockey careers into really elite levels like the NHL but those are the outliers. However I will say this...it's nice for players at that age to have options like Tier 2 NAHL because so many players can and do develop at a later age. If it were an option for a son of mine I would seriously consider it depending on several factors such as team location, his long term personal goals, his maturity level, etc...
"I find tinsel distracting"

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:57 pm

Kids SHOULD NOT be allowed to leave Bantam hockey to play JV. Period. Kids should develop with other kids their age.
From a development perspective I have no problem with this but bantams can often times be 3x - 4x the cost of JV hockey. A lot of people who jump from bantams to JV do it for financial relief. What do we tell them?
Seniors should not be allowed to be on JV. This is a development team once again. This should be for growing sophomores and juniors who are not bantam eligible.
This is largely already the norm. Are there examples of coaches around the state who throw a bone to Sr's and let them play JV? Probably but the vast majority of coaches won't do this. They would agree with you.
There should be a 6 team Junior gold division made of kids who can choose to tryout and play made up of (the best of the rest). This would allow kids to compete with other kids who may still want to take hockey more seriously but were unfortunate enough to get cut.
I don't advocate for this. There has been a long established Jr. Gold league in MN for kids who don't play high school. When my oldest son went through a few years back the league was at ~25 teams. It's actually quite good. If we follow your suggestion we will greatly hurt that league. They fight every year to keep that league viable and losing six teams of players would be damaging. And there are numerous examples, at least in our area, of players getting cut and playing Jr Gold only to come back the following year and make the HS team.

The one change I would love to see is more games however the nature of the High School sports season seriously restricts the ability to do this. The hockey season has to be sandwiched in-between football season and spring sports. The good news is other options have popped up to fill the need. Options like the Upper Midwest Elite League, the Development Elite League, etc...And now U16 and U18 Tier 1 has popped up in MN in the fall as another option. I think it's great.
"I find tinsel distracting"

NotMinnesotan
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:49 am

Post by NotMinnesotan » Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:12 pm

Even at 35 games its only adding a game every other week. Looking at it that way I think it seems pretty easy to be honest.

JoltDelivered
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am

Post by JoltDelivered » Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:00 pm

NotMinnesotan wrote:Even at 35 games its only adding a game every other week. Looking at it that way I think it seems pretty easy to be honest.
We are in agreement here. To be honest I'm not sure what the rub is with the MSHSL in adding more games. It might be a work-life balance thing for players. Remember it's a school sport and the high school league will always put academics before sport. But if you are fortunate enough to play in the Elite League or D League or now Tier 1 prior to the HS season you will easily get in a 50 game season now between the leagues. So I guess for some the problem is solved.
"I find tinsel distracting"

Section 8 guy
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:15 pm

NotMinnesotan wrote:Varsity teams should only have 3 lines and 4 d and JV should be the same. Varsity should be able to dress a fourth line and 2 extra d per game from JV, but since we all know 4th line kids don't get any real ice time, they would have played their jv game first and then can add 3-5 shifts they get in the varsity game. This will also encourage more time developing jv players by their varsity coaches and reward good play in JV on a game to game basis. There should be no 4th line JV as this level is pure development and kids need more ice time to do that.
I think this is also pretty much how it goes now as well, at least for a lot of teams.

karl(east)
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:51 pm

NotMinnesotan wrote:Kids SHOULD NOT be allowed to leave Bantam hockey to play JV. Period. Kids should develop with other kids their age.
In addition to the cost issue mentioned above, there's another problem with this: a number of high schools in Greater Minnesota need those bantam-aged players just to field a full roster. And if a program doesn't produce enough talent for a top-level Bantam team, a skilled freshman is probably in a much better position playing varsity.

As for the game limit, as I've mentioned before, 25 games in 3 months is right on pace with the number a player would get in the USHL over that time frame. A kid who does a USHL before-and-after is actually going to wind up playing more games than someone who's in the USHL all year; a kid who does Elite League before and USHL after is going to play even more. Sometimes I think we obsess too much about numbers of games--I think it's been demonstrated that there's an ideal practice-to-game ratio somewhere out there. What really matters is ice time, quality coaching so that said ice time actually produces development, and, to a certain extent, the level of competition.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:29 am

I agree with Karl. There's enough hockey out there.. Could they easily add another 5-10 games? Sure...But it's probably going to have to come down to the hockey coaches pleading their case to the athletic directors who lets be honest, is almost always football focused

One thing they could do is move the periods to 20 minutes. Assuming finding the extra ice time isn't an issue at the rinks, this could be something positive.

I'd also like to see the hockey community get behind some sort of local tv contract. Sure more and more games are being streamed over the web and the quality is getting better but nothing would be better for the game then more Lou Nanne in your living room.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:14 am

How about allowing schools, that have the numbers to do so, to field two JV teams? Back when I was growing up our high school football programs fielded two freshman teams, a sophomore team, a JV, and a varsity. That's alot of kids playing football. Could do something similar with hockey, where numbers allow it, and field multiple JV squads.

I'll let somebody else figure out the logistics, I'm just bringing up the concept.

jg2112
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:10 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I agree with Karl. There's enough hockey out there.. Could they easily add another 5-10 games? Sure...But it's probably going to have to come down to the hockey coaches pleading their case to the athletic directors who lets be honest, is almost always football focused

One thing they could do is move the periods to 20 minutes. Assuming finding the extra ice time isn't an issue at the rinks, this could be something positive.

I'd also like to see the hockey community get behind some sort of local tv contract. Sure more and more games are being streamed over the web and the quality is getting better but nothing would be better for the game then more Lou Nanne in your living room.
Don't forget, as well, that for every JV/varsity set of games you schedule, you are taking about 5 hours of ice time from the local association. There are some associations that get seriously squeezed for practice hours once the boys' season gets underway. Adding more games would exacerbate that issue.

yesiplayedhockey
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:33 am

Post by yesiplayedhockey » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:57 am

I agree jg...Finding ice is tough no doubt. My only suggestion would be if they could start the season a little earlier (like right about the time most associations are getting going). Problem is, your up against "football" and that is most likely a losing battle.

MN HS hockey is as healthy as ever but it wouldn't surprise me if more Tier 1 options "invade" our winter season. Toss in all the open enrollment being done today and we as believers in the community based model need to keep searching for ideas.

Here are a couple ideas I'd love readers thoughts on

1. Would there be any value in the Class A championship team playing the Class AA championship team the week after state (David versus Goliath)

or

2. Would it make any sense to go to a three state tournaments...Small schools, private school, and big schools. Would this reduce open enrollment or have no effect on it? Or maybe split the state into 4 parts...North, Private, large metro, small metro. You'd have a tournament for each one of these and the winners would move on and play in a Final 4 format

I know what a lot of people will say, our State Tournament is fine the way it is. And I agree with that. But just trying to think outside the box on how we can keep kids playing for their community and not running around so much.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:15 pm

yesiplayedhockey wrote:I agree jg...Finding ice is tough no doubt. My only suggestion would be if they could start the season a little earlier (like right about the time most associations are getting going). Problem is, your up against "football" and that is most likely a losing battle.

MN HS hockey is as healthy as ever but it wouldn't surprise me if more Tier 1 options "invade" our winter season. Toss in all the open enrollment being done today and we as believers in the community based model need to keep searching for ideas.

Here are a couple ideas I'd love readers thoughts on

1. Would there be any value in the Class A championship team playing the Class AA championship team the week after state (David versus Goliath)

or

2. Would it make any sense to go to a three state tournaments...Small schools, private school, and big schools. Would this reduce open enrollment or have no effect on it? Or maybe split the state into 4 parts...North, Private, large metro, small metro. You'd have a tournament for each one of these and the winners would move on and play in a Final 4 format

I know what a lot of people will say, our State Tournament is fine the way it is. And I agree with that. But just trying to think outside the box on how we can keep kids playing for their community and not running around so much.
I've always liked the idea of a A vs AA state championship game the next Friday... Talk about a hot ticket!! @mshsl($$$$)

It would also be interesting to see the yearly national tier 1 champ come for a true championship game.. This one would be a little more far fetched (with timing etc) but what a great way to break down a couple walls and unite, if just a little, with the rest of the country.. I'd buy the ticket!

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:43 pm

Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
You obviously didn't watch the 2016 USHL Fall Classic U14 Tournament. Central Scouting picked the top 16 teams in the Country to play in it. The Blades looked like Men among Boys out there. They absolutely crushed Team WI in the Championship Game and Westchester before that in the Semi's. They honestly made Team WI look like a U12 team in that game.

The U16 Blades also won the Championship, beating Chicago Mission and Dallas Stars Elite in the Semi's and Honeybaked in the Championship Game.
You apparently don't comprehend very well. The U14 Blades are a super allstar team that is comprised predominantly of the best players from MN A & AA teams. Your AA teams up there are on par with AAA teams. Team Wisconsin is a before and after team comprised of bantam and high school players from WI but is not a super allstar team. In order to make one of those WI would need to make a team of the best players from not only our bantam and high schools but also include the Green Bay Jr Gamblers, the Milwuakee Jr Admirals, the Madison Capitols, and the kids playing in places like the Chicago Mission etc... Again I said the very top end talent is on par with the very top end talent from other states. Sending a super allstar team that had played together all spring and all summer to a SINGLE TOURNAMENT against regular winter teams that had literally just started up and barely had practiced together at a cherry picked beginning of the season tourney at a cherry picked age group is hardly a logical defense of your point..... as for the U16 Blades they were a good team but winning one showcase is hardly definitive proof. That U16 team played a longer schedule against tier 1 AAA teams from across the country and ended up being ranked 14th in the country when it was all said and done... note they also lost to teams like Anaheim (ranked 23rd) and Compuware and their 3-6 loss to Team North Dakota a team ranked #63 in the nation ..... your point fell apart right before your very eyes when forced to play those teams more often.... yikes
Last edited by JSR on Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:50 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:
yesiplayedhockey wrote:I agree jg...Finding ice is tough no doubt. My only suggestion would be if they could start the season a little earlier (like right about the time most associations are getting going). Problem is, your up against "football" and that is most likely a losing battle.

MN HS hockey is as healthy as ever but it wouldn't surprise me if more Tier 1 options "invade" our winter season. Toss in all the open enrollment being done today and we as believers in the community based model need to keep searching for ideas.

Here are a couple ideas I'd love readers thoughts on

1. Would there be any value in the Class A championship team playing the Class AA championship team the week after state (David versus Goliath)

or

2. Would it make any sense to go to a three state tournaments...Small schools, private school, and big schools. Would this reduce open enrollment or have no effect on it? Or maybe split the state into 4 parts...North, Private, large metro, small metro. You'd have a tournament for each one of these and the winners would move on and play in a Final 4 format

I know what a lot of people will say, our State Tournament is fine the way it is. And I agree with that. But just trying to think outside the box on how we can keep kids playing for their community and not running around so much.
I've always liked the idea of a A vs AA state championship game the next Friday... Talk about a hot ticket!! @mshsl($$$$)

It would also be interesting to see the yearly national tier 1 champ come for a true championship game.. This one would be a little more far fetched (with timing etc) but what a great way to break down a couple walls and unite, if just a little, with the rest of the country.. I'd buy the ticket!
Isn't your final idea actually being accomplished by having your very best HS players from the whole state being allowed to play on before and after Tier 1 AAA teams that are now included in the Tier 1 National Championship tournament process?
Last edited by JSR on Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jeffy95
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:30 pm

JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
You obviously didn't watch the 2016 USHL Fall Classic U14 Tournament. Central Scouting picked the top 16 teams in the Country to play in it. The Blades looked like Men among Boys out there. They absolutely crushed Team WI in the Championship Game and Westchester before that in the Semi's. They honestly made Team WI look like a U12 team in that game.

The U16 Blades also won the Championship, beating Chicago Mission and Dallas Stars Elite in the Semi's and Honeybaked in the Championship Game.
You apparently don't comprehend very well. The U14 Blades are a super allstar team that is comprised predominantly of the best players from MN A & AA teams. Your AA teams up there are on par with AA teams. Team Wisconsin is a before and after team comprised of bantam and high school players from WI but is not a super allstar team. In order to make one of those WI would need to make a team of the best players from not only our bantam and high schools but also include the Green Bay Jr Gamblers, the Milwuakee Jr Admirals, the Madison Capitols, and the kids playing in places like the Chicago Mission etc... Again I said the very top end talent is on par with the very top end talent from other states. Sending a super allstar team that had played together all spring and all summer to a SINGLE TOURNAMENT against regular winter teams that had literally just started up and barely had practiced together at a cherry picked beginning of the season tourney at a cherry picked age group is hardly a logical defense of your point..... as for the U16 Blades they were a good team but winning one showcase is hardly definitive proof. That U16 team played a longer schedule against tier 1 AA teams from across the country and ended up being ranked 14th in the country when it was all said and done... note they also lost to teams like Anaheim (ranked 23rd) and Compuware and their 3-6 loss to Team North Dakota a team ranked #63 in the nation ..... your point fell apart right before your very eyes when forced to play those teams more often.... yikes
Okay, I think I got it. There's All Star, Super All Star and Super Super All Star? That's Super...... I think you covered every excuse in the book except for one. Maybe Putin rigged the games??? :lol:

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:27 pm

Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
You obviously didn't watch the 2016 USHL Fall Classic U14 Tournament. Central Scouting picked the top 16 teams in the Country to play in it. The Blades looked like Men among Boys out there. They absolutely crushed Team WI in the Championship Game and Westchester before that in the Semi's. They honestly made Team WI look like a U12 team in that game.

The U16 Blades also won the Championship, beating Chicago Mission and Dallas Stars Elite in the Semi's and Honeybaked in the Championship Game.
You apparently don't comprehend very well. The U14 Blades are a super allstar team that is comprised predominantly of the best players from MN A & AA teams. Your AA teams up there are on par with AA teams. Team Wisconsin is a before and after team comprised of bantam and high school players from WI but is not a super allstar team. In order to make one of those WI would need to make a team of the best players from not only our bantam and high schools but also include the Green Bay Jr Gamblers, the Milwuakee Jr Admirals, the Madison Capitols, and the kids playing in places like the Chicago Mission etc... Again I said the very top end talent is on par with the very top end talent from other states. Sending a super allstar team that had played together all spring and all summer to a SINGLE TOURNAMENT against regular winter teams that had literally just started up and barely had practiced together at a cherry picked beginning of the season tourney at a cherry picked age group is hardly a logical defense of your point..... as for the U16 Blades they were a good team but winning one showcase is hardly definitive proof. That U16 team played a longer schedule against tier 1 AA teams from across the country and ended up being ranked 14th in the country when it was all said and done... note they also lost to teams like Anaheim (ranked 23rd) and Compuware and their 3-6 loss to Team North Dakota a team ranked #63 in the nation ..... your point fell apart right before your very eyes when forced to play those teams more often.... yikes
Okay, I think I got it. There's All Star, Super All Star and Super Super All Star? That's Super...... I think you covered every excuse in the book except for one. Maybe Putin rigged the games??? :lol:
What excuse? You miss the point entirely.... I note those Blades teams didn't make it to the Tier 1 AAA national tournament... what happened??? Oh yea that's right, they had to play a Tier 1 winter team to get there and couldn't beat them.. doh...

MWS coach
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:31 am

Post by MWS coach » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:21 pm

JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Jeffy95 wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:
MWS coach wrote:
NotMinnesotan wrote:You should like your chances, only bantam teams playing with 01's.
Yes, but also playing with 03's. First half of birth year for 3's and second half for 01's.

Not as much as an age difference when 02's move up to U16 next season when 1st half of 01's will also be on rosters.

At this stage of the game, 1/2 a year in either direction is not as big of a deal as you may think. You can either play the game or not. Sure some kid may be a little more physically developed, but than can happen with an 03 as well. Just as an older player such as an 01 may not have developed as much physically.

There is also a true T1 Minnesota team playing at 03 level, Gentry Galaxy, last I looked they are 3-0 and lost exhibition game to Mission by a goal on Thursday night! :D
Totally disagree. I'd bet each MN 02 team had at least 50% 01's. And it makes a HUGE difference.
I agree that up to six months at Bantam Age is really not a big deal. Maybe in Squirts or PeeWees but not in Bantams. Either way, this is more than offset by the MN teams being confined to players in a single community. These other teams can grab the best players from anywhere in the world. If MN did that it wouldn't even be worth their while going to the tournament.
Lastly, I think the Blades and other MN "all star" teams have proven time and again that while they can create more of them, that their "all star" teams aren't any better than the top AAA teams and going to these tournaments is more than worth their while. Everyone respects that you have greater numbers of players up there and the depth is superb but the top end talent isn't any better than top end talent elsewhere. :/
You obviously didn't watch the 2016 USHL Fall Classic U14 Tournament. Central Scouting picked the top 16 teams in the Country to play in it. The Blades looked like Men among Boys out there. They absolutely crushed Team WI in the Championship Game and Westchester before that in the Semi's. They honestly made Team WI look like a U12 team in that game.

The U16 Blades also won the Championship, beating Chicago Mission and Dallas Stars Elite in the Semi's and Honeybaked in the Championship Game.
You apparently don't comprehend very well. The U14 Blades are a super allstar team that is comprised predominantly of the best players from MN A & AA teams. Your AA teams up there are on par with AA teams. Team Wisconsin is a before and after team comprised of bantam and high school players from WI but is not a super allstar team. In order to make one of those WI would need to make a team of the best players from not only our bantam and high schools but also include the Green Bay Jr Gamblers, the Milwuakee Jr Admirals, the Madison Capitols, and the kids playing in places like the Chicago Mission etc... Again I said the very top end talent is on par with the very top end talent from other states. Sending a super allstar team that had played together all spring and all summer to a SINGLE TOURNAMENT against regular winter teams that had literally just started up and barely had practiced together at a cherry picked beginning of the season tourney at a cherry picked age group is hardly a logical defense of your point..... as for the U16 Blades they were a good team but winning one showcase is hardly definitive proof. That U16 team played a longer schedule against tier 1 AA teams from across the country and ended up being ranked 14th in the country when it was all said and done... note they also lost to teams like Anaheim (ranked 23rd) and Compuware and their 3-6 loss to Team North Dakota a team ranked #63 in the nation ..... your point fell apart right before your very eyes when forced to play those teams more often.... yikes
Okay, I think I got it. There's All Star, Super All Star and Super Super All Star? That's Super...... I think you covered every excuse in the book except for one. Maybe Putin rigged the games??? :lol:
What excuse? You miss the point entirely.... I note those Blades teams didn't make it to the Tier 1 AAA national tournament... what happened??? Oh yea that's right, they had to play a Tier 1 winter team to get there and couldn't beat them.. doh...
6 months later.... Blades teams do not qualify for AAA National Tournament, they are not a tier 1 team. There is no such thing as a Blades winter team.

Post Reply