Let me throw this out there to get everyone's opinion. This is a true scenerio that happened this fall.
If, after registration, you had 56 skaters sign up for your traveling Peewee program how would you divide them up?
1 A team w/ 15 skaters, 1 B1 team w/15 skaters 2 B2 teams w/13 skaters each.
or
1 A team, 1 B1 team, 2 B2 teams w 14 skaters each
or
1 A team w/15 skaters, 1 B1 team w/15 skaters, 1 B2 team w/15 skaters and cut 11 kids.
Just looking for some unbiased opinions. This particular association chose the later and sent 11 kids down to join the kids that had signed up for the house team leaving 22 skaters on that team. Seemed kind of odd to me. Any thoughts?
Numbers question
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Neutron 14
- Posts: 5339
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:48 pm
If you have 54 kids that want to play traveling peewee's, don't send any to house. Divide the teams based on level of talent. 2 equal B2 teams with however many kids on each.
If winning a District Championship at the B2 level is your goal, you've lost your way.
It would be interesting to know how many of the kids cut to house quit hockey altogether.
Sad...
If winning a District Championship at the B2 level is your goal, you've lost your way.
It would be interesting to know how many of the kids cut to house quit hockey altogether.
Sad...
A lot depends on the quality of the kids.
I would have an A team with 13 skaters and one goalie, assuming you have that many kids that will fit A competition
or an A team with 18 skaters and 2 goalies if there are that many A level players.
I would leave this decision to the coach assuming he (and assistants ahve experience and know the district level.
Then I would have one or two or three B1 teams, again depending on whether they can play at that level.
If not, then I would have the rest on B2 teams, assuming they have a league in which to play.
I would not cut anyone (again assuming they can skate well enough to learn the hockey stuff - indivdual and team - with more emphasis on individual skills).
I would have an A team with 13 skaters and one goalie, assuming you have that many kids that will fit A competition
or an A team with 18 skaters and 2 goalies if there are that many A level players.
I would leave this decision to the coach assuming he (and assistants ahve experience and know the district level.
Then I would have one or two or three B1 teams, again depending on whether they can play at that level.
If not, then I would have the rest on B2 teams, assuming they have a league in which to play.
I would not cut anyone (again assuming they can skate well enough to learn the hockey stuff - indivdual and team - with more emphasis on individual skills).
-
54fighting
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm
- Location: The sin bin
C league
Weather you call it a "C" league or a House league the point is the same. The kids who got cut will get about 1/4 of the ice that the B2 kids will get. Couple that with the number of kids on the team and it is even worse. Another thing to consider is that now you have a group of people who signed up to play on the house/C team because they didn't want much ice or tournament time and they now have half their team looking for more ice because they signed up for traveling hockey. I know they have already had a couple of kids quit from both groups. I think they are down to 17 or 18 skaters.
The biggest point I was trying to make was why deny 11 kids the chance to play traveling hockey. The board just made the decision that these kids will never develop into upper level players so why waste our time with them. Lets just send them down to the house/ "C" level and hope enough quit that the team will not be to crowded.
I think that is very short sited and another example of where I would like to see the district director or Minnesota Hockey step in and look out for those kids. But being it is in District 10 I know that their director will just wash his hands of it and say " We leave that up to the local boards"
The biggest point I was trying to make was why deny 11 kids the chance to play traveling hockey. The board just made the decision that these kids will never develop into upper level players so why waste our time with them. Lets just send them down to the house/ "C" level and hope enough quit that the team will not be to crowded.
I think that is very short sited and another example of where I would like to see the district director or Minnesota Hockey step in and look out for those kids. But being it is in District 10 I know that their director will just wash his hands of it and say " We leave that up to the local boards"
Pee Wee A would go.
A-13
B1 - 13
B2 - 15 each,
If a Bantam A
A - 14
B1-14
B2 each at 14.
If you do not have 4 goalies then you shft down to have a skater take turns.
Too manny times boards want to give that "A" experiance! Let the bubble child be the best player (Hopfully) on the next lower team.
Kids need goals set in front of them to work towards. But you also don't want to place children because the number works.
attendance seams to be a problem at the lower levels which help with the extra players.
A-13
B1 - 13
B2 - 15 each,
If a Bantam A
A - 14
B1-14
B2 each at 14.
If you do not have 4 goalies then you shft down to have a skater take turns.
Too manny times boards want to give that "A" experiance! Let the bubble child be the best player (Hopfully) on the next lower team.
Kids need goals set in front of them to work towards. But you also don't want to place children because the number works.
attendance seams to be a problem at the lower levels which help with the extra players.
C teams in both D8 and D6 are competitive traveling teams that get just about the same amount of ice as B2 teams. I think the difference in
perception for folks who reside where C teams do not meet this same definition necessitates the need to change the reference of 'C' to B2 in their minds in order to grasp what is being said.
Several of the large associations with competitive traveling C teams also have 'House' teams that are more recreational.
perception for folks who reside where C teams do not meet this same definition necessitates the need to change the reference of 'C' to B2 in their minds in order to grasp what is being said.
Several of the large associations with competitive traveling C teams also have 'House' teams that are more recreational.
I now see your point more clearly and I agree with you. Maybe we need to create a B3 league, so kids that don't skate B2 can still skate B3. Same ice time, playoffs as the B2's etc etc.
It will also help with associations that can't field a competitive B2 team. This would also allow us to eliminate the "C" leagues all together.
I know some "C" recreational players/parents will be upset, but it is a possible solution.
It will also help with associations that can't field a competitive B2 team. This would also allow us to eliminate the "C" leagues all together.
I know some "C" recreational players/parents will be upset, but it is a possible solution.
Because the end result was 1 team with 22 skaters on it I would have found a home for 4-5 of the cut kids on an upper level team somewhere. Since there is a place for the kids who get cut to go and play I have no issue with cutting kids, but to make that team have 22 players seems harsh, especially since you can only dress 18 skaters for a game, how would you like to be the one figuring out which kids can't play?
-
shoot to thrill
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:13 am
If I understand correctly, you have a total of 67 players (56 trying out and 11 who did not). I know that in D6 they would require:
1 - A team with 15 skaters (required at all levels w/few exceptions)
1 - B1 team
1 - B2 team
2 - C teams
Our C teams travel, play tournaments and do everything just like a B2 team except the players get slightly less ice time and are not quite as skilled. The biggest problem is that you have 1/2 the kids that want to work hard, tryout and play at a higher level and the other half that don't even take the time to tryout and consider hockey recreational only. That makes it very difficult on those parents whose kids really want to get better because the others quite often miss practice or other things because they don't care as much.
Because the A team must have 15 skaters the rest of the teams will likely have 13 each to utilize all 67 skaters. That means in D6 the likely scenario would be that 15 kids would have been sent down to play at the C level (along with the 11 who do not tryout). You could never have a team with 22 skaters.
The only way around the above team situation is if you make a special exception request to have 2 - B2 teams and 1 - C team. Not often granted but you can ask.
Good?, Bad?...I'm not sure but that is how it would likely go.
1 - A team with 15 skaters (required at all levels w/few exceptions)
1 - B1 team
1 - B2 team
2 - C teams
Our C teams travel, play tournaments and do everything just like a B2 team except the players get slightly less ice time and are not quite as skilled. The biggest problem is that you have 1/2 the kids that want to work hard, tryout and play at a higher level and the other half that don't even take the time to tryout and consider hockey recreational only. That makes it very difficult on those parents whose kids really want to get better because the others quite often miss practice or other things because they don't care as much.
Because the A team must have 15 skaters the rest of the teams will likely have 13 each to utilize all 67 skaters. That means in D6 the likely scenario would be that 15 kids would have been sent down to play at the C level (along with the 11 who do not tryout). You could never have a team with 22 skaters.
The only way around the above team situation is if you make a special exception request to have 2 - B2 teams and 1 - C team. Not often granted but you can ask.
Good?, Bad?...I'm not sure but that is how it would likely go.