Elite II Rosters

PuckTime · Post by **PuckTime** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:13 pm

Looks like the rosters are now available at:

http://www.elite2hockey.com/rosters.htm

southernmnscout · Post by **southernmnscout** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:05 pm

PuckTime wrote:Looks like the rosters are now available at:

http://www.elite2hockey.com/rosters.htm

There are no rosters on there. When you click on roster they are all empty. At least they are for me...

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:09 pm

It worked for me...

PuckTime · Post by **PuckTime** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:14 pm

Try just going to the website then and try it that way.

www.elite2hockey.com

sieve_33 · Post by **sieve_33** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:54 pm

I heard there was an additional All-Star Team going to Boston for a few games... Any word on a full roster?

Hockman21 · Post by **Hockman21** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:27 pm

its not an all star team it is just if u want to go to boston u can and there are 4 teams goin

hockeyguy99 · Post by **hockeyguy99** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:19 pm

Many of the top players declined.

Stealth · Post by **Stealth** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:22 pm

They only wanted the sophomores to go to Boston.
That is the age group for the tournament Boston is hosting and allowed four teams from MN to attend for the group of EliteII players pool.

When you go thru the list some team are mainly juniors. Along with the allotment of seniors.
I don’t see why seniors are playing in this?

This will someday evolve to:
Elite 3 a sophomore level,
Elite 2 a junior level
Elite 1 as it is known today by the Upper Midwest Elite 1 level. Best players (able to make it) that are available

Sioux Fan · Post by **Sioux Fan** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:27 pm

I think that the Elite 1 should take the best players then Elite II then another league should evolve so that we don't have good sophomores sitting around in the fall when they want to play as good a hockey has they can.

I know we could have had a very good sophomore team in our area and I fully support the move to expand to a 3rd league.

southernfool · Post by **southernfool** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:50 pm

I agree that another tier would be nice but it should be just for the next level of player...not for sophomores only. Tier II should be for the next best group of players from Tier I whether they are sophomores or juniors (the way it is now). The current tier II teams have some of the best sophomores playing with the Juniors and there are over 70 sophomores that earned their spots. If they ever decide to do another level it should be for the next tier of sophomores and Juniors and leave these levels like they are.

Sioux Fan · Post by **Sioux Fan** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:04 pm

I completly agree especially with the success of our seniors in playing college and junior hockey we should just have the next best 25 guys on Elite II and the next best 25 guys on Elite III.

No Senior or Junior or Sophomore limits or restrictions. Just the best players available that want to play.

Blue&Gold · Post by **Blue&Gold** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:22 am

In the past, the level of committment also dropped at the two levels, both from a player/parent level and the coaching/administration level. It may have improved, but I think there is still that issue. If you went to a III level, you would probably struggle to get the teams together. I think the fall leagues around the area fill that niche.

I did notice, while looking at the rosters, that some of the teams appear to be from one or two schools for the most part, with a few extras thrown in. I know from past experience that some of the teams take the selection process down into the world of "my kids" instead of the "best kids". As long as that happens, the long-term outlook for the league is not good.

Just my $.03 worth..

notaclue · Post by **notaclue** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:05 am

I would agree with Blue&Gold, if this is truly a developmental league why do teams load up with two schools like one team that I think has half their roster from two schools. I would also be careful to say it's not the players fault, they don't pick themselves. It makes me question the coaches and general managers and their perpective on winning versus development. It's easy to say development, but most everybody wants to win.

quickgym guy · Post by **quickgym guy** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:25 pm

Blue&Gold wrote:In the past, the level of committment also dropped at the two levels, both from a player/parent level and the coaching/administration level. It may have improved, but I think there is still that issue. If you went to a III level, you would probably struggle to get the teams together. I think the fall leagues around the area fill that niche.

I did notice, while looking at the rosters, that some of the teams appear to be from one or two schools for the most part, with a few extras thrown in. I know from past experience that some of the teams take the selection process down into the world of "my kids" instead of the "best kids". As long as that happens, the long-term outlook for the league is not good.

Just my $.03 worth..

That is what happened in section 7...

Indians forever · Post by **Indians forever** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:30 pm

quickgym guy wrote:
Blue&Gold wrote:In the past, the level of committment also dropped at the two levels, both from a player/parent level and the coaching/administration level. It may have improved, but I think there is still that issue. If you went to a III level, you would probably struggle to get the teams together. I think the fall leagues around the area fill that niche.

I did notice, while looking at the rosters, that some of the teams appear to be from one or two schools for the most part, with a few extras thrown in. I know from past experience that some of the teams take the selection process down into the world of "my kids" instead of the "best kids". As long as that happens, the long-term outlook for the league is not good.

Just my $.03 worth..
That s what happened in section 7...

Quick, please elaborate on this?????

quickgym guy · Post by **quickgym guy** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:14 pm

Indians forever wrote:
quickgym guy wrote:
Blue&Gold wrote:In the past, the level of committment also dropped at the two levels, both from a player/parent level and the coaching/administration level. It may have improved, but I think there is still that issue. If you went to a III level, you would probably struggle to get the teams together. I think the fall leagues around the area fill that niche.

I did notice, while looking at the rosters, that some of the teams appear to be from one or two schools for the most part, with a few extras thrown in. I know from past experience that some of the teams take the selection process down into the world of "my kids" instead of the "best kids". As long as that happens, the long-term outlook for the league is not good.

Just my $.03 worth..
That s what happened in section 7...
Quick, please elaborate on this?????

The majority of the players are from East, along with the coach and GM...Hmmm

7A22A · Post by **7A22A** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:42 pm

Well Duluth East, errr, I mean 7a / 7aa looked competitive with a 4-2 win over Team Wisconsin and 6-5 loss to West Metro.

GR3343 · Post by **GR3343** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 pm

7A22A wrote:Well Duluth East, errr, I mean 7a / 7aa looked competitive with a 4-2 win over Team Wisconsin and 6-5 loss to West Metro.

As well as a 5-2 win over North Dakota

puckinawsum · Post by **puckinawsum** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:44 pm

One thing that a lot of people don't think about is how many kids a school might have. What I mean is that bigger schools have more kids. They might have a lot of good players, but not all of them will play varsity or get a lot of time at that level so they don't get looked at and make the Elite 1 team. I believe that is why you will see bigger schools represented more. And I don't mean to take awatanything from the smaller school. There are a lot of good players there to. That is just my view point, I probably didn't say it the best but I hope you get it.

Blue&Gold · Post by **Blue&Gold** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:39 am

Here's the bottom line with the Elite II program and the teams: Some of the sections work hard to get the best players that they can, and try to be fair. Other teams work hard to put their boys on a team and use it as pre-season training for the coming year. The Elite program (some call it Elite I, but it's really THE Elite program, called "Upper Midwest High School Elite Program" or something close to that) isn't concerned about that as they don't have representatives from the high schools involved. They even move kids around (one year playing for NW, the next for North as an example).

The point is that the Elite II program will stay in the bowels of a "not-quite-there" institution as long as they allow some teams to take the easy way out and just promote their own kids. They have a great mission but it's not carried out from top to bottom.

Of course, IMHO of course.

GR3343 · Post by **GR3343** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:22 pm

quickgym guy wrote:
Blue&Gold wrote:In the past, the level of committment also dropped at the two levels, both from a player/parent level and the coaching/administration level. It may have improved, but I think there is still that issue. If you went to a III level, you would probably struggle to get the teams together. I think the fall leagues around the area fill that niche.

I did notice, while looking at the rosters, that some of the teams appear to be from one or two schools for the most part, with a few extras thrown in. I know from past experience that some of the teams take the selection process down into the world of "my kids" instead of the "best kids". As long as that happens, the long-term outlook for the league is not good.

Just my $.03 worth..
That is what happened in section 7...

I would have to defend the picks for Section 7. I viewed the tryouts and noticed that there were not a lot of schools represented. There were a lot from the Duluth schools, but very few from the other schools around the section. Maybe one or two, but not many. There were around 35 kids at the tryouts, and the sessions were fast paced. After 10 min, there were obvious choices to cut and to keep, the rest of the tryouts gave players an opportunity to make it. It was fair all the way around. Being a GR guy, I would have liked to see more GR players try out, but only 3 chose to do so. Good to see that all 3 made it. Pretty tough to have more schools represented if only one or two players tried out and weren't quite good enough.

Section 7 will be well represented by the group assembled. After 1 week of play, it appears that all the players get along, and there doesn't seem to be any selfish play on the ice.

Blue&Gold · Post by **Blue&Gold** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:12 pm

And therein reinforces my statement that some don't take it as seriously as others. I've seen teams picked based on getting "their" kids on the team, and some are picked based on only a certain number show up. (I don't argue what happened in section 7, in fact I believe it.)

It's a tough world, hockey.

Pucknutz69 · Post by **Pucknutz69** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:27 pm

You have to look at who was INVITED OR REFFERED before you starting complaining about who isn't there. Some coaches don't promote thier players for this league. This year most of the Hill kids decided to play on the Blades U16 team instead of Elite 2. That is why the roster is set with White Bear and Totino kids. You also have to look at who was invited but declined due to football or other commitments.

The hockey I saw this past weekend was good except for the penalties. The ref was loving his whistle blowing.

flatontheice · Post by **flatontheice** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:56 pm

Pucknutz69 wrote:You have to look at who was INVITED OR REFFERED before you starting complaining about who isn't there. Some coaches don't promote thier players for this league. This year most of the Hill kids decided to play on the Blades U16 team instead of Elite 2. That is why the roster is set with White Bear and Totino kids. You also have to look at who was invited but declined due to football or other commitments.

The hockey I saw this past weekend was good except for the penalties. The ref was loving his whistle blowing.

Why did the Hill kids do that? Who do they play? Sounds like it must be parent driven.

GR3343 · Post by **GR3343** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:43 pm

[quote=
The ref was loving his whistle blowing.[/quote]

The games I saw were well refereed. Not many weak calls.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Elite II Rosters

Elite II Rosters

Re: Elite II Rosters