Peewee coach rant

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

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

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:00 am

The Exiled One wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:You start with the preface that every association should field at least one A team and work from there. To my knowledge there is no Class B high school hockey so why would we limit the small associations to a max level of B2 under any proposal. Their high school teams would suffer dramatically due to lack of forcing competition throughout the players' youth career by not playing A. Plus you would see mass exodus and avoidance of small programs because they cannot field an A level team.

<30 players = A & B2 or C
....work your charts from there.
I strongly disagree. I think you work from the bottom up. Forcing an association with 28 players to find 14 players who can compete with Edina's 2nd best team is a recipe for disaster. Getting blown out 20-0 is not going to prepare them for HS. However, if they feel that they do have 14 players who can compete with Edina's second best team, they are welcome to opt up. Requiring them to do so is ridiculous.
So you are going to tell every outstate program that the highest level team they can field is B2? Sorry Warroad, sorry Luverne, sorry Redwood Falls, sorry _________, you're too small to field an A team. The standard of competition is not Edina. Remember, if this is put into place I could envision an Edina having to field 2 AA teams along with 3 or 4 A teams. So you would no longer be playing skater #16-30 on the lone A team fielded now.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:03 am

I was also responding to a post which said the small associations are limited to no higher than B2. I think we are on the same page. Remember there can also be abuses by small associations who will play down in order to rack up wins at the expense of developing players.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:05 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:
The Exiled One wrote:I strongly disagree. I think you work from the bottom up. Forcing an association with 28 players to find 14 players who can compete with Edina's 2nd best team is a recipe for disaster. Getting blown out 20-0 is not going to prepare them for HS. However, if they feel that they do have 14 players who can compete with Edina's second best team, they are welcome to opt up. Requiring them to do so is ridiculous.
So you are going to tell every outstate program that the highest level team they can field is B2?
Go back and read slower.

EDIT: I just read your second post. Sorry for the snark.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:10 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:Remember there can also be abuses by small associations who will play down in order to rack up wins at the expense of developing players.
Here's some data to illustrate that point...

How Edina's peewee declarations would change based on my table:

Current: L1, L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L5
Proposed: L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5

They should have one less C team, one less B2 team, one more B1 team, and one more A team.

Smaller associations could sandbag the same way unless we provide some sort of structure.

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:26 pm

Whatever. Your kid is moving up next year. Every association is different way beyond numbers. The jockeying for position is BS (ultimately in terms of individual player development means nothing).

Recruit some more mites.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:03 am

Speaking of Mounds View - Irondale, their Pee Wee "A" team beat Hermantown AA last night and is currently beating Rochester's Pee Wee AA team.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:27 am

Johnson - Como - North St Paul and Mounds View - Irondale knew exactly what they were doing..

The sandbagging went through the roof with an extra trophy/level to grab!!

Hiding kids on B-2 and C teams has only skyrocketed because of this!!!!

The new AA/A is a circus..

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:59 pm

Mounds View and Irondale high schools should also get a year in mind for a merge so they don't lose this talent. And they will lose this talent, if they have to part for weaker (divided) high school teams.

MVI high school hockey will beat a Richfield type situation that is closing in.

Could be a very solid section contender when they get to HS age.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:51 am

MrBoDangles wrote:Mounds View and Irondale high schools should also get a year in mind for a merge so they don't lose this talent. And they will lose this talent, if they have to part for weaker (divided) high school teams.

MVI high school hockey will beat a Richfield type situation that is closing in.

Could be a very solid section contender when they get to HS age.
They won't suffer the fate of Richfield because Richfield is the only HS in the district. If (or rather when) Irondale can't find enough players for a varsity team, the school district will simply merge the teams. MVHS and IHS varsity will cease to exist the same year... guaranteed. The kids will always have a place to play.

Second, the MSHSL won't let them merge until they definitively don't have enough players to support two varsity programs. From their perspective, it's about opportunity, not competitiveness.

Finally, the parents of the kids that don't want to play for a losing public school team simply don't want their kids to attend a public school. Very few of the St. Odelia's, St. John's, and St. Charles kids from our area will attend public high school, hockey or not. Many of our top youth players attend these schools.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:38 am

The Exiled One wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:Mounds View and Irondale high schools should also get a year in mind for a merge so they don't lose this talent. And they will lose this talent, if they have to part for weaker (divided) high school teams.

MVI high school hockey will beat a Richfield type situation that is closing in.

Could be a very solid section contender when they get to HS age.
They won't suffer the fate of Richfield because Richfield is the only HS in the district. If (or rather when) Irondale can't find enough players for a varsity team, the school district will simply merge the teams. MVHS and IHS varsity will cease to exist the same year... guaranteed. The kids will always have a place to play.

Second, the MSHSL won't let them merge until they definitively don't have enough players to support two varsity programs. From their perspective, it's about opportunity, not competitiveness.

Finally, the parents of the kids that don't want to play for a losing public school team simply don't want their kids to attend a public school. Very few of the St. Odelia's, St. John's, and St. Charles kids from our area will attend public high school, hockey or not. Many of our top youth players attend these schools.
I see... But many would be surprised how many would stay with a possible powerhouse high school program. Mpls and others are starting to hold on to their elite players.

flpucknut
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:24 pm

Post by flpucknut » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:48 am

This is the system that has been created. People are playing within the rules... the rules needs to be changed, lets blame the rule makers as much if not more than the "sandbaggers"

Since the MV/I team is the point of conversation, I'll use them as an example.

They really have the best of both worlds when you look at it from an associations position.

As an association you get to rack up wins, which keeps people motivated and coming back, AND be able to play some of the best AA teams in the state in tournaments and through normal scheduling.

If B teams can't skate up to A, then A teams shouldn't be allowed to skate up to AA. This might make associations think twice about declaring an association with 6 PW teams at the A level for their top team. Im guessing some parents of top players would want their kids playing against the best out there, not just most associations 15-30.

When my son started playing hockey 9 years ago, I predicted that in 20 years association hockey would be a thing of the past. While it might not happen in the next 11 years, it is going that way. MN hockey needs to realize this AA/A was a complete failure and readjust quickly before more harm is done to what was at one time the blueprint for the country when it came to youth hockey.

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:29 am

flpucknut wrote:This is the system that has been created. People are playing within the rules... the rules needs to be changed, lets blame the rule makers as much if not more than the "sandbaggers"

Since the MV/I team is the point of conversation, I'll use them as an example.

They really have the best of both worlds when you look at it from an associations position.

As an association you get to rack up wins, which keeps people motivated and coming back, AND be able to play some of the best AA teams in the state in tournaments and through normal scheduling.

If B teams can't skate up to A, then A teams shouldn't be allowed to skate up to AA. This might make associations think twice about declaring an association with 6 PW teams at the A level for their top team. Im guessing some parents of top players would want their kids playing against the best out there, not just most associations 15-30.

When my son started playing hockey 9 years ago, I predicted that in 20 years association hockey would be a thing of the past. While it might not happen in the next 11 years, it is going that way. MN hockey needs to realize this AA/A was a complete failure and readjust quickly before more harm is done to what was at one time the blueprint for the country when it came to youth hockey.
:idea:

Haven't given out the Bo lightbulb in a while...

flpucknut
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:24 pm

Post by flpucknut » Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:19 am

I'm not around enough to know if that is a good thing or not - :D

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:41 am

flpucknut wrote:I'm not around enough to know if that is a good thing or not - :D
On here, it's equivalent to the congressional Medal of Honor! :wink:

Cobber
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:09 pm

Post by Cobber » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:30 am

District 16 has teams that do not have a A or AA teams and play in the B1 division for playoffs and play some A teams during the year is that normal for the rest of the state.

Jeffy95
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:45 am

Post by Jeffy95 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:13 am

Cobber wrote:District 16 has teams that do not have a A or AA teams and play in the B1 division for playoffs and play some A teams during the year is that normal for the rest of the state.
No, it's not normal in the rest of the state but it makes a lot of sense in Disrict 16. There are a lot of smaller, rural type Associations in that District. Some of them are trying to build A programs for the first time so they are wisely allowed to have some B teams on their schedule to give them some competitive games.

jBlaze3000
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:25 pm

Post by jBlaze3000 » Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:04 am

Eagles93 wrote:
nobody wrote:Everyone likes to pick on Edina...and at times they were extremely guilty.

So lets look at D6

Standings:http://www.d6hockey.net/page/show/92541-standings

Expected to by tops Edina, compared to New Prague, standings don't lie..

I scrolled down as far as 10UA and realized it was insane.

NP

12UA 0 wins 8 goals on the season?
10UA 0 wins 4 goals on the season?

No 10u or 12u b teams...HOW could anyone do that in a sane world? That must be a fun year....How could anyone be that far off?

The same thing runs thru the boys teams, almost as bad. The majority of teams are winless in D6. Who are the parity police?
Edina is EXTREMELY guilty of this, particularly at the PeeWee and Bantam B1/B2 levels. They dominate these levels every year and they nor D6 does anything to correct. Having seen these teams, they have some players playing easily 2 levels too low. I don't know why Edina parents put up with this and don't demand change. I wouldn't want my kid that's an A level player playing B2.

On the financial side, Edina B teams get free games at the expense of other associations in district playoffs. Edina teams will play 3-5 district playoff games while the New Prague/Waconia/Shakopee teams are lucky to play 2 games.

This could all easily be "fixed" with solutions like proposed above. Some type of percentile chart that associations look at and know which level their teams will be at based on numbers. Only exception would be an association opting UP for certain levels, not DOWN.

Regarding New Prague girls... they had a 10UB team last year, no 10UA. They went 15-1 and won district playoffs. Their only loss was to Waconia, who also had no A team and went 16-0. It's tough when you only have enough players for one team, there's a large difference between 10UA and 10UB.
I agree. Especially when you consider that in your average association, an "A" level player typically has a very good chance of playing high school hockey.

I often wonder what its like to be one of these "B2" kids in Edina knowing that I have almost zero chance of playing varsity. Are they content to just beat up on on smaller schools and then call it a career after bantams?

Post Reply