Does MN Hockey ever talk about the B1/B2 thing?

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

Post Reply
blueline_6
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Does MN Hockey ever talk about the B1/B2 thing?

Post by blueline_6 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:28 pm

Probably a question for elliott, but if anyone else has insight please share. Just wondering if MN Hockey ever talks about B1/B2 and either:
1) officially recognize two B classes or
2) tell everyone to knock it off, there is only AA,A,B,C.

lostmyonlypuckindasnow
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:43 pm

Post by lostmyonlypuckindasnow » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:34 pm

wouldn't that be that there's only A, B1, B2 and C because the AA-A have mixed tournaments and scrimmages and the others don't (except maybe at squirts where B2s are maybe new)?

AA is here to stay, it's not experimental and has it's own tournament, so why can AA teams play A teams but B1 can't play B2.

blueline_6
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:15 pm

I see B1 and B2 playing each other all the time at squirt, peewee and bantams. It happens in tournaments, especially "B" tournaments (not specifically designated as a B1 or B2 tournament), and I've also seen scrimmages set up between B1 and B2 teams.

According to their handbook, Minnesota Hockey recognizes five Divisions: A, B, C, House and Recreational.

They also have additional rules regarding assignment of Peewee and Bantam teams to the A and AA sub-divisions, which can be found in their "2018 A/AA Tournaments" document.

However, when it comes to B1/B2 sub-divisions, Minnesota Hockey falls back on USA Hockey for a convenient excuse. The following is taken from MN Hockey's "Tournament Supplement":

D. SUB-LEVELS – USA Hockey does not officially recognize sub-levels within an established division. B1 or B2 teams are considered “B” teams, and only “B” tournaments are sanctioned (not B1 or B2). This system is sometimes used to advertise that higher or lower caliber teams are desired for a
particular tournament. Any “B” team can attend a “B” tournament, but hosting organizations may reject applications from teams which are considered too strong or too weak for the anticipated competition.


So, MN Hockey has decided on their own that they will recognize "A" sub-divisions, but will use USA Hockey as a cop-out to avoid recognizing "B" sub-divisions.

I guess I would like to see them take a consistent stance. If they're not following USA Hockey regarding sub-divisions at the A level, why feel obligated to follow it at the B level?

elliott70
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:45 pm

For a long time in the 80's and 90's there were B1 and B2 leagues and separate tourneys.
I don't remember the year but a MH president (maybe Elmer Walls) decided (after attending a USAH meeting) that we did not need two B levels.

It is discussed a lot between district directors. The north 11, 12, 15 & 16 at one time had a regional event for B2 teams (as well as the B1 level). It was subsidizes by MH and they provided trophies, medals. At some point (many years ago now) MH says we don't recognize this level and the north districts kept it going for a while funding it outside of MH.

I don't see it ever coming back.

However because of more travel and interest at the metro C level (and the addition of rec hockey) I could see a limited travel with play-offs (district and regions) for C hockey. Whether this would change the B1 B2 distinction I do not know.

elliott70
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Re: Does MN Hockey ever talk about the B1/B2 thing?

Post by elliott70 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:50 pm

blueline_6 wrote:Probably a question for elliott, but if anyone else has insight please share. Just wondering if MN Hockey ever talks about B1/B2 and either:
1) officially recognize two B classes or
2) tell everyone to knock it off, there is only AA,A,B,C.
To more specifically answer your questions:

1 - Doubt it will happen - at least in the short term (next 5 years).

2 - Officially, no, won't happen.

If you want to see a change, present something to your district director (or me) for presentation to the Board. Be prepared to attend a board meeting or two (we move a little slow, usually).
Present your wishes, define them etc... and be prepared for questions, a cold shoulder, or a hearty pat on the back. We are political.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Post by SCBlueLiner » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:51 pm

Dang Elliot. Back in the 80's all I can remember is A, B, C. My dad, who handled our scheduling, told me we played AA. In a recent conversation about all the AA, A, B1, B2, C and all the different levels and subdivisions stuff I commented how back in my day all we had was A, B, & C, why do there have to be so many different levels these days? It was then he informed me we played AA. Blew my mind. I didn't think there was AA back then.

Who was correct in this argument?

The best part of all this is that I was a kid, I didn't care what level we played, we just played whoever was on the ice with us. Maybe that is what we need to remember, that the kids won't remember and they don't care, they just want to play the game.

elliott70
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:13 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:Dang Elliot. Back in the 80's all I can remember is A, B, C. My dad, who handled our scheduling, told me we played AA. In a recent conversation about all the AA, A, B1, B2, C and all the different levels and subdivisions stuff I commented how back in my day all we had was A, B, & C, why do there have to be so many different levels these days? It was then he informed me we played AA. Blew my mind. I didn't think there was AA back then.

Who was correct in this argument?

The best part of all this is that I was a kid, I didn't care what level we played, we just played whoever was on the ice with us. Maybe that is what we need to remember, that the kids won't remember and they don't care, they just want to play the game.
Well in 1986 there was a b c and house.
Not sure when but sometime after that and by 1990 we had b2.

Not sure prior to 1985
But in the 60 we had bantam and midget and peewee came along sometime.
And I do not remember any letters just house and travel.

blueline_6
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Post by blueline_6 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:55 pm

elliott70 wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:Dang Elliot. Back in the 80's all I can remember is A, B, C. My dad, who handled our scheduling, told me we played AA. In a recent conversation about all the AA, A, B1, B2, C and all the different levels and subdivisions stuff I commented how back in my day all we had was A, B, & C, why do there have to be so many different levels these days? It was then he informed me we played AA. Blew my mind. I didn't think there was AA back then.

Who was correct in this argument?

The best part of all this is that I was a kid, I didn't care what level we played, we just played whoever was on the ice with us. Maybe that is what we need to remember, that the kids won't remember and they don't care, they just want to play the game.
Well in 1986 there was a b c and house.
Not sure when but sometime after that and by 1990 we had b2.

Not sure prior to 1985
But in the 60 we had bantam and midget and peewee came along sometime.
And I do not remember any letters just house and travel.
I played youth hockey in a large West Suburban association in the 80's, 80-86 to be exact. From 80-85 either you made the A or B team or you played in the house league. Wasn't until 85-86 was the first time there were B1 and B2 teams. I imagine because of our size and the number of players and parents pushing for more opportunity to play on travel teams that our association was one of the ones that started this B1/B2 craze. My Dad (who was a Board member) told me the association responded to the parent pressure for more traveling roster spots by saying "okay, we'll have another travel team, but it's going to be a lower B team so don't complain to us if you lose a lot of games."

blueline_6
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Does MN Hockey ever talk about the B1/B2 thing?

Post by blueline_6 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:07 pm

elliott70 wrote:
blueline_6 wrote:Probably a question for elliott, but if anyone else has insight please share. Just wondering if MN Hockey ever talks about B1/B2 and either:
1) officially recognize two B classes or
2) tell everyone to knock it off, there is only AA,A,B,C.
To more specifically answer your questions:

1 - Doubt it will happen - at least in the short term (next 5 years).

2 - Officially, no, won't happen.

If you want to see a change, present something to your district director (or me) for presentation to the Board. Be prepared to attend a board meeting or two (we move a little slow, usually).
Present your wishes, define them etc... and be prepared for questions, a cold shoulder, or a hearty pat on the back. We are political.
Yea, should have expected that. I served on our association board and would give the same response to people asking "why do you do it this way?" :) I guess it doesn't bother me enough to get involved.

Cobber
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:09 am

Post by Cobber » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:25 am

The B1 tournaments are getting harder for legitimate B1 teams to compete with some of the associations electing not to have a AA or A team and just play at the B level.I thought the reason we added AA was so the youth teams would be competing at the same level as high school either AA or A.I don't know any high school team that opts down to play a jv or B schedule so maybe B2 should be for the B1 teams and B1 should be for the A teams that don't want to compete at the A level.

elliott70
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:57 pm

Cobber wrote:The B1 tournaments are getting harder for legitimate B1 teams to compete with some of the associations electing not to have a AA or A team and just play at the B level.I thought the reason we added AA was so the youth teams would be competing at the same level as high school either AA or A.I don't know any high school team that opts down to play a jv or B schedule so maybe B2 should be for the B1 teams and B1 should be for the A teams that don't want to compete at the A level.
I can tell you it is a complicated issue as each district has different issues as well as each association.

The board is studying the issue but with so many different views on it, it will be a while before it is resolved.

Cobber
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:09 am

Post by Cobber » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 pm

Thanks for working on this Elliott. Concussions and injuries are a problem right now and most of these A teams playing at a B level have a couple kids that would make most AA or A teams so many of the legitimate B players are getting injured playing against these teams.Thanks for the time you donate to make Minnesota hockey the best it can be.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1683
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Post by The Exiled One » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:56 pm

I feel like we have the rating system backwards. The C teams should be labeled "Level 1" teams. The B2 teams would be "Level 2". B1=3, A=4, AA=5. This would be all levels, mites through bantams.

For in-season tournaments, you can opt up but you cannot opt down. This would do away with "B" tournaments. You'd either be a level 2 tournament or level 3 tournament. If you have a strong level 2 team, you could opt up to play a level 3 tournament, but level 3 teams couldn't sandbag in a level 2 tournament.

Also, for non-district games, you could schedule up or down one level. There would no longer be hard lines between B1 and A or C and B2.

The other benefit to this system would be flexibility in creating level 6 (invite) tournaments. Since there would be no recognized level 6 teams, all the teams in the tournament would be "opting up" and the tournament organizers can pick and choose.

The main resistance to this system would be traditional and political. The political would be the associations that like to sandbag with their declarations and their tournament choices. The traditional is that every "A" parent wants to be able to claim their kid is on the "A" team and pretend it's the top team. Claiming their kid is "level 4" has less luster.

I think getting this system in place would be as difficult as switching the US to the metric system, but I don't want to go on pretending like there aren't solutions to the problem.

elliott70
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:02 am

The Exiled One wrote:I feel like we have the rating system backwards. The C teams should be labeled "Level 1" teams. The B2 teams would be "Level 2". B1=3, A=4, AA=5. This would be all levels, mites through bantams.

For in-season tournaments, you can opt up but you cannot opt down. This would do away with "B" tournaments. You'd either be a level 2 tournament or level 3 tournament. If you have a strong level 2 team, you could opt up to play a level 3 tournament, but level 3 teams couldn't sandbag in a level 2 tournament.

Also, for non-district games, you could schedule up or down one level. There would no longer be hard lines between B1 and A or C and B2.

The other benefit to this system would be flexibility in creating level 6 (invite) tournaments. Since there would be no recognized level 6 teams, all the teams in the tournament would be "opting up" and the tournament organizers can pick and choose.

The main resistance to this system would be traditional and political. The political would be the associations that like to sandbag with their declarations and their tournament choices. The traditional is that every "A" parent wants to be able to claim their kid is on the "A" team and pretend it's the top team. Claiming their kid is "level 4" has less luster.

I think getting this system in place would be as difficult as switching the US to the metric system, but I don't want to go on pretending like there aren't solutions to the problem.
Great idea may have to be tweaked some but has merit

Post Reply