Official Bantam B 2007-2008

EagleGuy91 · Post by **EagleGuy91** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:57 pm

I love irony . . .we are off topic, but since we are here are my two cents!

My vague-o-meter is going crazy. Blake won. They have one team in their association and took all the players that tried out onto that team. I don't think anyone is forgetting that less than a week later. And your "no-talent coach who creates an atmosphere of pressure and constant improvement which is too much for kids" (or so I hear around town) would probably suggest you be proud and humble about that Championship.

I am not convinced that a Championship is better or worse based on the number of kids in an association/community. It's still about 15-20 kids and a couple coaches (and parental support) all working together and believing in themselves and their common goal. There may have been deeper, more talented teams than Blake and teams that believed in each other more or had less distractions, but Blake was the team this year that put together the greatest percentage of each of those components to achieve the Championship. Before that it was Wayzata. Before that there was Maple Grove. Small program, large program, medium program. Inconsistent pattern at the B level.

sixbucksagallon · Post by **sixbucksagallon** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:10 pm

They had many kids who did not try out. Nonetheless, I don't think it is neccessary to jump all over a kid because of some misspelled words. Maybe it's not his spelling, maybe it's his typing, or maybe he has some sort of learning disorder. Maybe you should first find out a little bit more about him and his situation before you tell him he is is butchering the English language without care or consequence. If you decide to put someone in the gallows then I suggest you clean out your garage first.

I am sorry if I have offendend you. Although, your words when you read them again sure sound like you think you are better than he is. "Regardless, I will not stop for you to catch up or come backwards so you can feel good about yourself" sure sounds like you are way up there and he can either catch up to you or pump gas the rest of his life.

demongoed · Post by **demongoed** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:45 pm

Eagle-
I believe that each of the C teams at Tonka had 11 skaters each. One of those teams ended up with 13 because they took in 2 kids from Hopkins at Hopkins' request because they weren't able to fit them into their program.

It's neither here nor there. I think there was a discussion within Tonka before the season about 2 B1 teams, but numbers were down, and when you look at EP and Edina, with many more kids, fielding 2 teams at that level, it's hard to guage how competitive you'd be. There's a fine line between competitive and brutal, and when you're looking at retention, you want to try to find the right balance between development and success.

Blake won the championship game. They got there in their own way, and it worked. All teams that made that 8-team field should be proud, and look forward to next year.

flatontheice · Post by **flatontheice** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:21 pm

demongoed wrote:Eagle-
I believe that each of the C teams at Tonka had 11 skaters each. One of those teams ended up with 13 because they took in 2 kids from Hopkins at Hopkins' request because they weren't able to fit them into their program.

It's neither here nor there. I think there was a discussion within Tonka before the season about 2 B1 teams, but numbers were down, and when you look at EP and Edina, with many more kids, fielding 2 teams at that level, it's hard to guage how competitive you'd be. There's a fine line between competitive and brutal, and when you're looking at retention, you want to try to find the right balance between development and success.

Blake won the championship game. They got there in their own way, and it worked. All teams that made that 8-team field should be proud, and look forward to next year.

For the record, Blake appealed all the way to USA hockey in 2005 to try and play at the A level. They were denied. I am not certain as to all of the reasons why they were denied but I am certain there was much concern that it would open up a huge can of worms with regards to the other private schools. The Blake affiliate agreement is MAHA's worst nightmare and best kept secret.

BNyrup24 · Post by **BNyrup24** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:43 pm

Interesting thread. Here are my two cents:

1. It is my understanding (as the last poster stated) that Minnesota Hockey would not allow Blake to play at the A level. I think that STA and Minnehaha faced the same restriction (whether they would have wanted to play up or not is a different question). The rationale seems to have been that if we let them have an A team it'll encourage kids to leave their community association. In practice, requiring them to play at the B level (no matter how good they actually are) may be unfair to other B teams. (But it sounds like this whole private school affiliate agreement issue may be modified or discontinuted soon. If not, look for Bantam B teams from SPA, Holy Angels, Cretin, Hill-Murray, Benilde, Breck, etc. at a rink near you very soon!)

2. I think that the ability to create uneven teams at a given level (ala Wayzata, Centennial) should be uniform throughout Minnesota Hockey, and not a District issue. It is only the larger associations in a District that would care to create uneven teams, so if a District has 12 associations and only two have the numbers to stack, the District members and leadership probably won't feel any need to make the change. It is unfair for the large associations in those districts, however, to be have those restrictions when their competition from other districts and in the playoffs does not. Minnesota Hockey, please step in and make this uniform across all Districts!

Duluth 4 · Post by **Duluth 4** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:58 pm

blueblood wrote:What's the deal dude? Someone pee in your wheaties?

EG91 is one of the top youth coaches in the state and he knows what he's talking about. He knows the bantam b scene in this state as well as anyone and will call a spade a spade when he sees it.

Now we're playing poker.. thats really interesting.

findme · Post by **findme** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:51 am

Thank you BNyrup24 for the info-just looking for the facts here!

Congrats to Blake for a great State Tourney performance!

Bearhockey13 · Post by **Bearhockey13** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:20 pm

BNyrup24 wrote:Interesting thread. Here are my two cents:

1. It is my understanding (as the last poster stated) that Minnesota Hockey would not allow Blake to play at the A level. I think that STA and Minnehaha faced the same restriction (whether they would have wanted to play up or not is a different question). The rationale seems to have been that if we let them have an A team it'll encourage kids to leave their community association. In practice, requiring them to play at the B level (no matter how good they actually are) may be unfair to other B teams. (But it sounds like this whole private school affiliate agreement issue may be modified or discontinuted soon. If not, look for Bantam B teams from SPA, Holy Angels, Cretin, Hill-Murray, Benilde, Breck, etc. at a rink near you very soon!)

2. I think that the ability to create uneven teams at a given level (ala Wayzata, Centennial) should be uniform throughout Minnesota Hockey, and not a District issue. It is only the larger associations in a District that would care to create uneven teams, so if a District has 12 associations and only two have the numbers to stack, the District members and leadership probably won't feel any need to make the change. It is unfair for the large associations in those districts, however, to be have those restrictions when their competition from other districts and in the playoffs does not. Minnesota Hockey, please step in and make this uniform across all Districts!

It simply comes down to this, stacking a B level team does not develop players. It may however get you a state championship.

WBL considered stacking there B Bantam teams (once) but a couple of people far smarter than me, decided that the development of these young athletes, is more important than winning a state tournament.

"shame on them for wanting to make our kids better hockey players"

If you take Wayzata Blue and Blake out of the picture.

Blake- No "A" which is a joke, but I understand they tried, so no fault of
there's

Wayzata Blue- because they simply stacked there team, which is another joke. Shame on the board-(This is B hockey Dudes) Get a life.

You would have had a more entertaining season, and exiting TRUE state tournament!!!!

Take for instance Wayzata Blue and Blake out of the East Regions. You would have had Eagan, Woodbury, Stillwater, Wayzata Navy, WBL Orange & Black, possibly Wayzata gold and Maple grove.

This would have been a true regions and the winners would have deserved a state seed.

WBL does not stack there B teams, simply because they want to develop as many kids as they can. Both of our teams were very competitive, going 1,1,1 against each other and all 1 goal games. and equally competitive against most of the top teams in the state.

Having Equal teams imagine that.

Wayzata and Blake were bar none the 2 top teams in the state.

But in my eyes they were not TRULY the 1st and 2nd in the state at the B level.

BNyrup24 · Post by **BNyrup24** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:53 pm

Bearhockey, for the most part I agree with you. Blake's situation seems forgiveable, since it was a MN HOCKEY rule ('though one has to question why a parent pulls his/her kid from the community association to put them on a private school "B" team), but Wayzata's stacked teams seem to be designed to do nothing other than beat the cr@p out of everyone else. But setting aside those two teams, is there any merit to stacking teams? Just to play devil's advocate for a minute: what if the rule was that you could have "stacked" teams if they were picked based on birth year (i.e., 1st year v. 2nd year)? I see some merit in an association saying "we have enough B1 level skaters for 2 B1 teams, but most of our 1st year B1s will be next years A team, so we'd like them to play together to further develop our likely Bantam A team for the next year." Thoughts?

Bearhockey13 · Post by **Bearhockey13** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:53 am

BNyrup24 wrote:Bearhockey, for the most part I agree with you. Blake's situation seems forgiveable, since it was a MN HOCKEY rule ('though one has to question why a parent pulls his/her kid from the community association to put them on a private school "B" team), but Wayzata's stacked teams seem to be designed to do nothing other than beat the cr@p out of everyone else. But setting aside those two teams, is there any merit to stacking teams? Just to play devil's advocate for a minute: what if the rule was that you could have "stacked" teams if they were picked based on birth year (i.e., 1st year v. 2nd year)? I see some merit in an association saying "we have enough B1 level skaters for 2 B1 teams, but most of our 1st year B1s will be next years A team, so we'd like them to play together to further develop our likely Bantam A team for the next year." Thoughts?

The first year bantams playing together may develop them as a team for that year, but than they go to high school and some are playing varsity and some JV and some junior gold. I believe that 1 year of keeping them together will not make that much of a difference, because they will be split up in high school.

Why is Wayzata not so good at the high school level, and they are the biggest association in the state??? (Maybe the Country)

They will tell you everything from the coach sucks, (which it is amazing how many coaches suck according to parents) that it's because they loose so many kids to private schools. Well I agree to a point. But every district looses kids to the privates. If your losing allot of kids than you have to develop more.

A big part is our coaching. WBL from A squirts to A Bantams, including the B-1 teams, (ALL NON PARENT) are for the most part all on the same page, and that is not necessarily winning (Don't get me wrong winning is fun and everybody like to win)

But more importantly developing these young athletes.

Not teaching them how to play hockey, but teaching them how to play the game of hockey (HUGE DIFFERENCE)

Out of the Peewee A & 2 B-1's & Bantams A & 2 B-1's, guess how many made it to regions this year???????? "ALL OF THEM"

Why you ask??????
Our coaches for the most part don't play to win...(until it counts)
They teach to develop and the more kids you develop, the more you will win, when it's important.

And as competitive as all 3 Wayzata teams were this year any way, if you split all of the teams equally, not only would they have had 3 great teams, but more importantly would have developed all the players equally. And the more kids you develop, the more you have to choose from when they move up. So loosing a few does not hurt you as bad.

For instance as a goalie, would you rather take 30 shots a game or 12??? I don't think 12 is going to develop as much as 30 on average. So now the goalie that didn't make the B-1 1 team, but averaged 30 shots a game, all of a sudden beats out the B-1 1 goalie next year because he developed more during the season. As a player playing against equal or better competition will make you a better player. Beating up on everyone will in some cases will set some players backwords.

cajones18 · Post by **cajones18** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:36 am

Why wouldn't you stack a Bantam B team if you had the talent to do it?

Duluth 4 · Post by **Duluth 4** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:39 pm

cajones18 wrote:Why wouldn't you stack a Bantam B team if you had the talent to do it?

becuase if you make them even they will play better games.

ninety5 · Post by **ninety5** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:51 pm

Facts:

Blake did not appeal to USA Hockey, they appealed using the MH Grievance process and were denied. Then the issue was dropped. The issue was not to play A, the issue was to have the option to choose based on the current players and what is best for each year.

There were not "many" players that go to Blake that didn't "try-out"-- I beleive 3. And "try-out" would indicate that there was a selection process, which is incorrect.

Blake lost to teams that were not at State. Wayzata lost only to Blake. You can draw your own conclusions on that one. Season series 3-3-1 between the two.

Either way, EG knows his stuff, and many others on here are smart and have good intentions, for that, people should say thank you and not point fingers.

Blue Collar, White Collar is irrelevant, be a good human being and things will shake out in your favor.

Bladetape...be careful what you disclose or brag about...you never know who is watching.

philip18 · Post by **philip18** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:34 pm

I thought the point of having a B1 and B2 level was to have your best B players on a team- all others should be in B2. If there was just one B level then I agree all teams in an association should be balanced. B1 is not B it is B1!

bladetape48 · Post by **bladetape48** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:30 pm

does anyone know how many bantam b1 teams their were in the state?

RickO'Shea · Post by **RickO'Shea** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:48 pm

philip18 wrote:I thought the point of having a B1 and B2 level was to have your best B players on a team- all others should be in B2. If there was just one B level then I agree all teams in an association should be balanced. B1 is not B it is B1!

B1 is B. Not the A team. Nothing more. Nothing less.

AimHigh · Post by **AimHigh** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:30 pm

philip18 wrote:I thought the point of having a B1 and B2 level was to have your best B players on a team- all others should be in B2. If there was just one B level then I agree all teams in an association should be balanced. B1 is not B it is B1!

So...if an association has 3 "B1" teams, shouldn't they be balanced since they are all the same level?

philip18 · Post by **philip18** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:54 pm

An association should only have one B1 team. I thought that is why B1 was created from B. Maybe it should be called A2.

NikeBauer4life · Post by **NikeBauer4life** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:56 pm

What did people think of the Blake first line? I heard they did great all season but when it came to state and regions they didnt really do much. The second line of Blakes scored alot of goals when it came to state.[/u][/i][/b]

ninety5 · Post by **ninety5** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:39 am

Blake didn't have a "first" line. They were color coded.

And 7 of 12 goals is not too bad. Quit looking to toot your horn. Be humble it's much easier.

Duluth 4 · Post by **Duluth 4** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:26 pm

ninety5 wrote:Blake didn't have a "first" line. They were color coded.

And 7 of 12 goals is not too bad. Quit looking to toot your horn. Be humble it's much easier.

it doesnt matter if there color coated every kid knows what was the first,second, and third lines.

bladetape48 · Post by **bladetape48** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:12 pm

ninety5 wrote:Blake didn't have a "first" line. They were color coded.

And 7 of 12 goals is not too bad. Quit looking to toot your horn. Be humble it's much easier.

thats feeble

dlhhockey · Post by **dlhhockey** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:58 pm

philip18 wrote:An association should only have one B1 team. I thought that is why B1 was created from B. Maybe it should be called A2.

the number of b1 teams should be based on the level of the kids trying out. when associations get in trouble is when they are strictly saying "this is the teams were having this year, 1 b1, 2 b2 and that's that" instead of seeing what types of players try out. There were two b1's at DE this year and one b2. The b2 team folded after a couple of weeks due to some inept game planning by DAHA and a few kids (parents) that didn't want to be on a b2 team. The two b1 teams were split first year and second year based on tryout performance. Those two teams tied two of the three times they played, the first year team won the league over the other based on a tie breaker and they faced each other at regions, with the second year team winning by a goal to go to state. And to boot, the first year team was coached by quality parent coaches.
You're telling me that before tryouts the level of teams should have been decided?
You don't set in stone what level of teams you're having until you see who trys out.
p.s. they're going to be a fantastic A team next year.

dlhhockey · Post by **dlhhockey** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:03 am

I forgot to mention that the remaining 7-8 b2 players were absorbed into these two teams. for the most part, they rose to the occasion and learned a lot, and are much improved players.

ninety5 · Post by **ninety5** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:40 am

thats feeble

nice. welcome back.[/quote]

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Official Bantam B 2007-2008

Re: Cajones18

B1 Vs B

Re: B1 Vs B

Re: B1 Vs B

Blakes lines