AA/A: Did it work as planned for today?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:03 am

I am 1,500 miles away and have not followed the "AA" split as closely as I would if I lived in the Twin Cities. With today being state championship Sunday, my question is this:

Did it allow more of the communities not normally contending for state championships a chance to realistically do so?

I see Sartell, Orono, and other communities in the mix at the end of the season and I'm wondering if that is at all due to the change.

A separate discussion I suppose could be whether that benefit (if realized) is worth it considering the other challenges faced along the way. Those challenges have been hashed out a great deal on this board and is really not the subject of this thread.

I'm just curious about post-season competition.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:50 pm

I have always said we would see the biggest results at the B level.

Peewee B's saw four small associations make it to State -- Johnson/Como, North Metro, Moose Lake, and Hallock. None of these teams would likely have made it to state without the AA/A split because Wayzata, OMG, Tonka, Edina and other similar mega-associations would have dominated both A and B. (Note that all of these smaller associations fielded no A team this year.)

And the PWA field showed some interesting new variety with Cottage Grove and Luverne making it through, not to mention Minneapolis winning it all-- could any of these three have made it vs. the mega-associations #1-#16? Doubt it, but miracles are possible.

Sartell and Orono are interesting cases -- the new, upcoming and excellent smaller associations that field top-flight A and B teams at SQ, PW and maybe even Bantam. They can occasionally beat an OMG, Edina or Wayzata, but probably not often enough to get through regions at the top (AA) level.

I think the new split made A and B very interesting indeed and brought a lot of fresh blood and enthusiasm into the tournament.

AA -- yawn. Yankees (Edina) win again versus Red Sox (Wayzata). Ho hum.

skiumah · Post by **skiumah** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:44 pm

Is this a good model for the HS to follow?

Let's say AA is voluntary and not mandated. I've never liked the school size as a determining factor. Take Minneapolis for example: 4,000 kids (not sure, just using a large number) in the district but only 36 hockey players trying out. What if Hermantown has 800 kids in their district, but 39 hockey players? The only number that matters is how many kids come out for the program. Guessing Hermantown (A) could handle the Novas (AA) by 4-5 goals.

Strong programs like Edina, DE, EP, HM, GR, STA, etc. would want to compete for the AA title. And if a team dominates A, they should be forced to AA. Maybe make them stay for 3 years, and then they could opt down to A again. Or, move the top 3 A teams up, and send the bottom 3 AA teams down. Just like in the English Premier League.

Just a random idea...only allow 32 teams in AA. Split them in to 8 groups of 4, come playoff time. They each play 3 games the first week- Tues, Thurs & Sat. Top 2 finishers advance to the Xcel. Start the 16 team single elimination tournament on Wednesday. Although this would be a lot of hockey- 7 games in 12 days, with 4 in a row at the end. I guess you could advance only the top finishers of each group. Then everything would be normal: 3 to win sections, 3 at the Xcel.

I really like this option, that would be a ton of fun. But what if only 20 programs choose to be in AA? What's a fair way to add another 12 teams? Seems like 16 would have to be the minimum in AA. There could be 4 groups of 4 with the top 2 advancing.

Could we name 16 "helmet" schools that would anchor AA? Take no offense to my order of schools, or if I left a team(s) out:
1. Edina
2. EP
3. Jefferson
4. HM
5. WBL
6. STA
7. BSM
8. GR
9. Wayzata
10. Minnetonka
11. Eastview
12. Bville
13. LS
14. LN
15. Moorehead
16. Eagan
...
Could we get this list to 32?

Just talking out loud. I bet there's some creative ways we could work this tournament. Please feel free to add your ideas.

dlow · Post by **dlow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:16 pm

AA/A did work well at getting new teams into the playoffs with some advancing quite far. This should give some of these associations and players and extra step going into next year.

-longer term it will be interesting to see if this really holds back kids though because many wont play the top level competition now if their association only goes up to A level, or B1--- and I would expect less and less games between A and AA next year....meaning more of the same at the state HS tourney...
Hopefully some success by these lesser guys leads to growth at their mite levels though...

Anyone hear from associations that fielded AA and A about whether they will do that again, or go AA then B1?

-over all though, either way its not as big of a thing as it was made out to be, only by those obsessed hockey parents, myself included...

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:55 am

SKIYA- I would include Stillwater/Woodbury/Eastridge/MV/ The deal is it's not just hockey, at the highschool level it a combination of sports.

Mite-dad · Post by **Mite-dad** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:33 am

Personally I thought the "A" level had a lot of parity. Small associations could compete well with the bigger associations from anywhere. I know our small association PWA team defeated teams from Prior Lake, Eden Prairie, Duluth East, and Moorhead. We also got totally thrashed by AA teams from some of these associations.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:45 am

Peewee AA: Edina. Nothing different

Peewee A(B): Mpls. How did they not have an AA team?

Peewee B(2) Edina over Wayzata. Hoooray for the small programs!!!

Bantam AA: Edina.

Bantam A(B): Mahtomedi over Edina. Mahtomedi was filled with players from other associations that didn't want to be caught in the AA and then B-1 gap. Movement will only multiply next year when MNH divides (D6) play more. Some of these players that MNH forced to move, might have brought their former program to a section championship in the future.

Bantam B(2) Wayzata. Go figure!

Would programs have dropped down to this new lower level if it was still called B-1? It's the tough question..

Remember for next year.
AA is A
A is B1
B1 is B2
And C is only needed in the mega associations so that these kids don't get in the way of their trophy chasing.

Could have simply added a B-2 state tournament.., if they were really about seeing new faces.

stupidiswhatstupiddoes · Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:51 am

I do not think it was as much of a failure as others felt it was. In District 3 the league play was competitive at the A level. The bantam AA teams in District 3 I don't think cared for it very much and it did not make much sense as they destroyed most of the A teams. I think the AA teams may need to look at creating a regular season league so that their games actually mean something since Wayzata and Osseo were slated right into regions.

So I think it has potential but needs to be tweaked based upon what was learned this past season.

DrGaf · Post by **DrGaf** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:01 pm

stupidiswhatstupiddoes wrote:I do not think it was as much of a failure as others felt it was. In District 3 the league play was competitive at the A level. The bantam AA teams in District 3 I don't think cared for it very much and it did not make much sense as they destroyed most of the A teams. I think the AA teams may need to look at creating a regular season league so that their games actually mean something since Wayzata and Osseo were slated right into regions.

So I think it has potential but needs to be tweaked based upon what was learned this past season.

It was a complete and utter failure in D10 at both the PW and B levels.

... in my humble opinion of course.

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:15 pm

DrGaf wrote:
stupidiswhatstupiddoes wrote:I do not think it was as much of a failure as others felt it was. In District 3 the league play was competitive at the A level. The bantam AA teams in District 3 I don't think cared for it very much and it did not make much sense as they destroyed most of the A teams. I think the AA teams may need to look at creating a regular season league so that their games actually mean something since Wayzata and Osseo were slated right into regions.

So I think it has potential but needs to be tweaked based upon what was learned this past season.
It was a complete and utter failure in D10 at both the PW and B levels.

... in my humble opinion of course.

why?

CRBantamAcoach · Post by **CRBantamAcoach** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:23 pm

DrGaf wrote:
stupidiswhatstupiddoes wrote:I do not think it was as much of a failure as others felt it was. In District 3 the league play was competitive at the A level. The bantam AA teams in District 3 I don't think cared for it very much and it did not make much sense as they destroyed most of the A teams. I think the AA teams may need to look at creating a regular season league so that their games actually mean something since Wayzata and Osseo were slated right into regions.

So I think it has potential but needs to be tweaked based upon what was learned this past season.
It was a complete and utter failure in D10 at both the PW and B levels.

... in my humble opinion of course.

District 10 2012-2013

PeeWee A
AA vs A
58 wins 3 loss 4 tie
AA scored 387 goals to 61 goals for A
AA had 26 shutouts vs A teams (40%)
AA had 23 games only 1 goal allowed (35%)
AA had 49 games 1 or less goals given up (75%)
AA had 38 games won by 4 or more goals (58%)

Bantam A
AA vs A
51 wins 4 loss 1 tie
AA scored 365 goals to 80 goals for A
AA had 18 shutouts vs A teams (32%)
AA had 18 games only 1 goal allowed (32%)
AA had 39 games 1 or less goals given up (64%)
AA had 39 games won by 4 or more goals (70%)

I wouldn't go so far to call it a failure, but the numbers don't lie, most of the games were in favor of the AA team before they started the game. There were a lot of games between AA and A that were close and provided the players a chance to get better as a player and a team.

The goal of most players is to play Varsity hockey or beyond, so many of the players will benefit from the AA teams playing A teams. When you get to high school, your school is going to be AA or A. From there, you really don't mix a whole lot between AA and A schools. Yes, there is some mixing in places like the far north where Roseau still moves up to play AA and Moorhead is 2 hours from the next AA team.

It would be nice if the District would look at some numbers while making choices for next season, but the old saying goes: you can wish in one hand and crap in the other - see which one fills up first.

There should be a bit more discussion with coaches and the associations, but it doesn't happen.

BluehawkHockey · Post by **BluehawkHockey** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:53 pm

CRBantamAcoach wrote:
DrGaf wrote: District 10 2012-2013

PeeWee A
AA vs A
58 wins 3 loss 4 tie
AA scored 387 goals to 61 goals for A
AA had 26 shutouts vs A teams (40%)
AA had 23 games only 1 goal allowed (35%)
AA had 49 games 1 or less goals given up (75%)
AA had 38 games won by 4 or more goals (58%)

Bantam A
AA vs A
51 wins 4 loss 1 tie
AA scored 365 goals to 80 goals for A
AA had 18 shutouts vs A teams (32%)
AA had 18 games only 1 goal allowed (32%)
AA had 39 games 1 or less goals given up (64%)
AA had 39 games won by 4 or more goals (70%)

I wouldn't go so far to call it a failure, but the numbers don't lie, most of the games were in favor of the AA team before they started the game. There were a lot of games between AA and A that were close and provided the players a chance to get better as a player and a team.

The goal of most players is to play Varsity hockey or beyond, so many of the players will benefit from the AA teams playing A teams. When you get to high school, your school is going to be AA or A. From there, you really don't mix a whole lot between AA and A schools. Yes, there is some mixing in places like the far north where Roseau still moves up to play AA and Moorhead is 2 hours from the next AA team.

It would be nice if the District would look at some numbers while making choices for next season, but the old saying goes: you can wish in one hand and crap in the other - see which one fills up first.

There should be a bit more discussion with coaches and the associations, but it doesn't happen.
I think in D10 the biggest mistake was allowing associations with a AA team to also field an A team. Those A teams really struggled with a few exceptions of course. If those associations didn't have both AA/A, then most of players on A teams would be going to play HS Hockey at an A level. And most of the players on AA teams would be going to play HS Hockey at a AA level. Then it probably isn't as big a failure. It may do more for the A teams then the AA teams.

The other thing to consider is that if they didn't make a AA/A split, most of the A only teams would have still been playing A level hockey. The scores would have still been the same against the bigger 'AA' association A teams. So, it did at least provide the opportunity for smaller associations to advance at least to regions.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:05 pm

CRBantamAcoach wrote:
DrGaf wrote:
stupidiswhatstupiddoes wrote:I do not think it was as much of a failure as others felt it was. In District 3 the league play was competitive at the A level. The bantam AA teams in District 3 I don't think cared for it very much and it did not make much sense as they destroyed most of the A teams. I think the AA teams may need to look at creating a regular season league so that their games actually mean something since Wayzata and Osseo were slated right into regions.

So I think it has potential but needs to be tweaked based upon what was learned this past season.
It was a complete and utter failure in D10 at both the PW and B levels.

... in my humble opinion of course.
District 10 2012-2013

PeeWee A
AA vs A
58 wins 3 loss 4 tie
AA scored 387 goals to 61 goals for A
AA had 26 shutouts vs A teams (40%)
AA had 23 games only 1 goal allowed (35%)
AA had 49 games 1 or less goals given up (75%)
AA had 38 games won by 4 or more goals (58%)

Bantam A
AA vs A
51 wins 4 loss 1 tie
AA scored 365 goals to 80 goals for A
AA had 18 shutouts vs A teams (32%)
AA had 18 games only 1 goal allowed (32%)
AA had 39 games 1 or less goals given up (64%)
AA had 39 games won by 4 or more goals (70%)

I wouldn't go so far to call it a failure, but the numbers don't lie, most of the games were in favor of the AA team before they started the game. There were a lot of games between AA and A that were close and provided the players a chance to get better as a player and a team.

The goal of most players is to play Varsity hockey or beyond, so many of the players will benefit from the AA teams playing A teams. When you get to high school, your school is going to be AA or A. From there, you really don't mix a whole lot between AA and A schools. Yes, there is some mixing in places like the far north where Roseau still moves up to play AA and Moorhead is 2 hours from the next AA team.

It would be nice if the District would look at some numbers while making choices for next season, but the old saying goes: you can wish in one hand and crap in the other - see which one fills up first.

There should be a bit more discussion with coaches and the associations, but it doesn't happen.

Those are horrific numbers.

SLP gets credit for most of the few positives in those numbers.

Total failure!

goaliewithfoggedglasses · Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:03 pm

BluehawkHockey wrote:The other thing to consider is that if they didn't make a AA/A split, most of the A only teams would have still been playing A level hockey. The scores would have still been the same against the bigger 'AA' association A teams. So, it did at least provide the opportunity for smaller associations to advance at least to regions.

This is what I still can't wrap my head around in this argument. Wouldn't the teams have been the same if this was last year, only difference being the AA this year would be called A? Wouldn't the scores be just as lopsided? Unless the single A teams this year have all been B1 with no A in prior years then I can't see what is different?

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:51 pm

This is what I still can't wrap my head around in this argument. Wouldn't the teams have been the same if this was last year, only difference being the AA this year would be called A? Wouldn't the scores be just as lopsided? Unless the single A teams this year have all been B1 with no A in prior years then I can't see what is different?

Correct. In a way. Only exceptions would be a few small teams that decided to give A a try that had only played B previously. And, large associations that had AA but now also a team at A and that team didn't do well against AA.

Bo is right. Adding a B2 tournament would have been the same solution. This was different because there was more movement than there would have been had they just added a B2 tourney.

Scheduling is the challenge now. Maybe 6 did it right. Will D10 A teams want to keep one game with each AA team or drop them all. Some Districts and associations will handle that better than others. Some associations pay for all District games and then teams add their own outside of District play. Some new book keeping and expense challenges. Getting all the ice and refs scheduled at once for a 10-20 game League season will be the only way to go. Adding 20-30 games individually is a ton of work and expense. VFW Leagues and Maroon & Gold type leagues will ease some of that burden and get game counts where teams want them. AA teams will only want to play other AA teams. Maybe just AA scheduling sessions in addition to District ones. OMG can get their games scheduled with Wayzata on one quick phone call as the only two AA teams in D3. And the same scheduling challenges for the A teams although there are more of them in each District so their scheduling is quite a bit easier.

Skip the mentions of high school. That isn't the role of any youth association. Youth Associations are for developing youth players....

Level decisions need to be made by the associations so their players are playing at the right level. Hopefully the associations do the right thing as they adjust their levels. It will also change each year with the number of teams. Most associations have peaks and valleys with numbers and bubbles of talent.

loveitorleaveit · Post by **loveitorleaveit** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:35 pm

observer wrote:
Skip the mentions of high school. That isn't the role of any youth association. Youth Associations are for developing youth players....

SERIOUSLY?

15 years ago, there wasn't one youth program I can think of that had the same nickname as the high school they fed into and for that matter, they didn't even have the same colors as the high school program they fed into.

NOW - I can't think of any that aren't the same colors and have the same nickname.

As much as I hate to admit it CRcoach is right, you can do what you want to do at the youth level, but its all about the high school team you are going to play for. That was my sons goal from the beginning.

CR should know all about having talented youth players walking from that program. Someone up for Mr. Hockey this year is from CR.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:09 pm

loveitorleaveit,

Your name says a lot.

What I'm saying is work on developing lots of players. More and more every year. You can work hard to grow and improve your youth association and you can work hard to improve the local high school experience. That is what you control.

loveitorleaveit · Post by **loveitorleaveit** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:38 pm

observer wrote:loveitorleaveit,

Your name says a lot.

What I'm saying is work on developing lots of players. More and more every year. You can work hard to grow and improve your youth association and you can work hard to improve the local high school experience. That is what you control.

I wanted the name hititandquitit, but someone else already beat me to it.

I hear ya

observer, it makes sense, but too many kids leave good youth programs to feed other high schools.

This AA/A thing might only fuel more of that.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:48 pm

too many kids leave good youth programs to feed other high schools.

Good. (Not the leaving part) That means you're doing a good job of development and that is the responsibility of a youth association. Now, the most important function of a youth association, recruit more kids.

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:28 am

[quote="BluehawkHockey"][quote="CRBantamAcoach"][quote="DrGaf"]
I think in D10 the biggest mistake was allowing associations with a AA team to also field an A team. Those A teams really struggled with a few exceptions of course.
Those that fielded AA and A teams at the Bantam level in D10 were at the correct level IMO. The A teams (16-30) were very competetive with the other A teams that did not have AA teams. Moving the 16-30 down to B1 would not have been near as competetive.

The biggest mistake D10 made was forcing A teams to play AA teams.

During the season was a complete failure in my opinion (for D10), however end of the season was a huge success as many teams that typically would not have made it to regions and state did make it. One huge challenge I see is that the only association that was deep enough to send teams to state at A level which also fielded a AA team was Edina. Clearly shows you need to be very deep in order to be at the top at both AA and A levels. Does this prompt the associations that fielded both to move their second team down to the B1 level? Look at the D10 BA tournament scores, they were all very close games. Largest margin of victory was 3 goals, CR beat ER 3-0. However, in playback game ER beat CR 4-2 to gain the #3 seed to regions. D10 Playoff champion was Princeton which entered the tourney as the #6 of 7 seed. 6 of the 10 games were decided by 1 goal including a 4 OT thriller in semifinal game which advanced Princeton to the ship. This is parity and shows these teams were at the right level, especially when you compare how these teams faired against AA teams.... 14 goals total seperated the winners from the losers in the tournament for all 10 games... I can think of more then 1 occassion in which the goal differential between AA and A was at least that during one game....

CRBantamAcoach · Post by **CRBantamAcoach** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:57 am

helightsthelamp wrote:
BluehawkHockey wrote:
CRBantamAcoach wrote: I would agree to the idea that AA playing A teams were for the most part not worth the time and money. I can speak to my team and my level for the past two years in D10. We played with this AA vs A system last season as well. On average, in District 10 it will cost the home team over $500 to host the game. If we have 15 players on the roster - its about $30 per player. For that kind of money, I can set up 2 scrimmages with another team home and away. It would allow us to schedule competitive games that increase our skills as players and a team. So really, we are better off not playing the AA teams.

You are right about the district playoffs - the A teams were very good against one another. All the games were very close.

Aimforthefivehole · Post by **Aimforthefivehole** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:20 am

I can say we (our A team) really liked it. It is probably in large part because there were more A teams in our district than other districts. We played a number of AA teams and while we only probably won 5 of those games it was beneficial for the boys. Tournaments were a bit of an issue because it wasn't fully set up at the time and some big time AA teams entered into A tournaments and ripped through the competition. Folks suggest it might be like the old B1 level but that's not what we felt or saw. Any time you play the top 15 kids in 60% of your games and then the rest are balanced by playing very large associations second set of 15, it is entirely different. B1 teams are often split between 30 players. So not only did our A team play against very good competition but our B1 and B2 teams did as well.

Leave it as is, fix the tournaments, boot any rules about mandating AA playing A, and most improtantly get those associations who sandbagged to move up into the right tier. Anyone with 7 PW teams needs to go AA...

57special · Post by **57special** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:15 am

So would it be safe to say that to worked at the State level, but needs work at some of the District levels?

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:22 pm

57special wrote:So would it be safe to say that to worked at the State level, but needs work at some of the District levels?

Yes and at some tournaments as I was not clear as all were "A" teams... There is a big difference when facing the top AA teams which majority of A teams don't match up against, however top A teams could compete with lower to mid AA teams