B1/B2 Levels at U10 & U12
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
blondegirlsdad
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:30 am
B1/B2 Levels at U10 & U12
How many associations do you think could support a B1 team at the U10 and U12 levels? I know there has been some discussion about this idea from time to time.
In District 8 there are a few associations that have two 12UB and/or 10UB teams. Most of us are still trying to consisitently fill an A and a B team at those levels. The skill levels at the B levels vary widely from association to association. Remember that youth ("boys") hockey was around for many years before they began fielding B1 and B2 programs and the girls programs are still very young.
I wish we all had the numbers that Edina has for girls hockey. They have done a great job of recruiting. I would think for now Edina should consider fielding mutiple A teams if they are beating up on too many teams at the B level.
I wish we all had the numbers that Edina has for girls hockey. They have done a great job of recruiting. I would think for now Edina should consider fielding mutiple A teams if they are beating up on too many teams at the B level.
If other associations don't have B1/B2 levels, the best answer is for associations like Edina and Eden Prairie to offer two A teams. They should do this at the U10, U12 and Squirt level. They need to develop more girls and boys. Problem is that often it's the parents of the A kids on the boards and they don't care that much about developing more kids at the expense of their kid playing at the top level (and not having the A team "watered down" in their opinion).
They should field two equal A teams - not graduated teams, unless they will play different schedules. It's more important to develop the kids at these early levels - not as important to collect all the trophies. I think that as long as the teams are competitive, your long term benefits for all the kids and the association and ultimately the HS teams, will be better met by developing more kids at a young age.
They should field two equal A teams - not graduated teams, unless they will play different schedules. It's more important to develop the kids at these early levels - not as important to collect all the trophies. I think that as long as the teams are competitive, your long term benefits for all the kids and the association and ultimately the HS teams, will be better met by developing more kids at a young age.
I agree doglover except I don't think they have to be equal. If 16 -30 can compete that's good. If not then they shouldn't have 2 A teams. The association should be able to field their best team for a run at state at the levels that have state. Two balanced teams might both do great or they might both be finished in the middle of Feb. My daughter is in Edina, U12, so I hope they have 2 A teams or a top B team.
While Edina has a lot of girls playing, making balanced teams doesn't allow them to compete. Without B2 or C for the girls those B teams have 3rd line A players and 3rd line C players on the same team. How many U12B teams at state didn't have an A team. Five for sure and I think it was six. I think Pequat Lakes was the only association site I couldn't find so I'm assuming they did not have an A team. I'm not complaining about associations not having an A team. I always read about people having ideas on how Edina should run their program. I think they are doing okay.
Maybe these outstate teams should play A to develop their girls instead of playing down to make a run at B state.
So what is better?
A second A team that might go 2 and out in districts, or not make districts, and finish their season around Valentine's Day or have a strong B team that makes a run to state playing increasingly stronger competition and playing until the middle of March.
On an unrelated topic, as I've posted and read posts, opinions, I always wonder where posters kids are playing to get a perspective on their opinion.
While Edina has a lot of girls playing, making balanced teams doesn't allow them to compete. Without B2 or C for the girls those B teams have 3rd line A players and 3rd line C players on the same team. How many U12B teams at state didn't have an A team. Five for sure and I think it was six. I think Pequat Lakes was the only association site I couldn't find so I'm assuming they did not have an A team. I'm not complaining about associations not having an A team. I always read about people having ideas on how Edina should run their program. I think they are doing okay.
Maybe these outstate teams should play A to develop their girls instead of playing down to make a run at B state.
So what is better?
A second A team that might go 2 and out in districts, or not make districts, and finish their season around Valentine's Day or have a strong B team that makes a run to state playing increasingly stronger competition and playing until the middle of March.
On an unrelated topic, as I've posted and read posts, opinions, I always wonder where posters kids are playing to get a perspective on their opinion.
I can't speak for all outstate associations but... In district 8, some of our associations have an A team and a B team. In District 4 they do not offer A leagues for their girls but Faribault and Owatonna have moved their stronger teams to D8 as an A team. Owatonna was 12UB state champs a few years ago and then was a middle of the pack team the following year playing in D8's 12UA league. I think they will be better off in the long run because of their A experiences.
If D4 or D8 had a B1 league it would be the right fit for some of our teams but then the team numbers in our A and B(2?) leagues would be small. I think alot of the better southern girls teams are really at a B1 skill level. i.e. we are not good A teams and maybe we're too good for B.
The Rochester girls that I have worked with over the past 5 seasons played 12UB as 8&9 year olds and got beaten badly all year. They have played 10UA, 12UA and 14UA in the last 4 years. Last year at 14UA we had 6-7 A skilled players, 4-5 B skilled players and 3-4 C skilled players with only one second year player on the team. Obviously we were not a great team but we did manage to get to Regionals where we played hard but were outmatched in every game. Our top skilled players would not have improved as much if we had played 14UB. The weaker skilled players were in over their heads. I think our girls will be better prepared to play high school based on their experiences. At high school, our girls will compete in the Big 9 conference which has no where near the depth of the Lake Conference etc. To get out of the Section we have to get past Farmington, Lakeville S and Lakeville N.
I hope I didn't offend anyone from Edina. I didn't intend to tell them how to run their program. They are in an enviable postition when you look at the numbers of their girls that play hockey. At our last board meeting we were looking at A, B1, B2 and C options for our peewees and bantams but with our girls programs I am looking at 2 teams each at 10U and 12U and only one at 14U. Rather than choosing the number of teams to enter at various levels I am juggling to determine our overall skill levels and how many players to budget for on each team.
When I coached youth teams (mostly boys) the talent level of my top and bottom players was fairly close. I tried to keep my lines relatively balanced. With our 14U team last year I set them up so that my strongest players were paired and so were my less skilled players. At times our weaker skaters were overmatched by our opponents but at least their line could play together without a dominant player or a weak link player. For the most part we just rolled our lines except on power plays or penalty kills. Special teams is where the less skilled players can really give up goals.
If D4 or D8 had a B1 league it would be the right fit for some of our teams but then the team numbers in our A and B(2?) leagues would be small. I think alot of the better southern girls teams are really at a B1 skill level. i.e. we are not good A teams and maybe we're too good for B.
The Rochester girls that I have worked with over the past 5 seasons played 12UB as 8&9 year olds and got beaten badly all year. They have played 10UA, 12UA and 14UA in the last 4 years. Last year at 14UA we had 6-7 A skilled players, 4-5 B skilled players and 3-4 C skilled players with only one second year player on the team. Obviously we were not a great team but we did manage to get to Regionals where we played hard but were outmatched in every game. Our top skilled players would not have improved as much if we had played 14UB. The weaker skilled players were in over their heads. I think our girls will be better prepared to play high school based on their experiences. At high school, our girls will compete in the Big 9 conference which has no where near the depth of the Lake Conference etc. To get out of the Section we have to get past Farmington, Lakeville S and Lakeville N.
I hope I didn't offend anyone from Edina. I didn't intend to tell them how to run their program. They are in an enviable postition when you look at the numbers of their girls that play hockey. At our last board meeting we were looking at A, B1, B2 and C options for our peewees and bantams but with our girls programs I am looking at 2 teams each at 10U and 12U and only one at 14U. Rather than choosing the number of teams to enter at various levels I am juggling to determine our overall skill levels and how many players to budget for on each team.
When I coached youth teams (mostly boys) the talent level of my top and bottom players was fairly close. I tried to keep my lines relatively balanced. With our 14U team last year I set them up so that my strongest players were paired and so were my less skilled players. At times our weaker skaters were overmatched by our opponents but at least their line could play together without a dominant player or a weak link player. For the most part we just rolled our lines except on power plays or penalty kills. Special teams is where the less skilled players can really give up goals.
Zboni is right - this is a good discussion and I like all the points that have been made. It's clear that the posters on this thread are considering what's best for all the players at these levels and trying to best match skill levels so everyone can develop. It's complicated - if outstate teams or smaller associations don't have the talent to field an A team it's a tough decision. The benefits of playing up at the A level (as long as the expectations are clear with the parents that the team will probably be 500 or less and development is the goal) were well stated by Mac15. The towns that maybe only have a couple true A players at a given level are best playing B though so it's not a discouraging year - it's tough to watch the 12-0 games even if your kid is on the winning team. Doesn't do either team much benefit.
I have a kid who has always played A, one that plays B as a first year and A as a second year, and one that plays only B so we're across the board. I think it's been helpful in providing perspective. I find the most annoying posts in the forum come from first time parents with only A players. They have no perspective, often their boy is small (but quick) with little hope of good size, and they absolutely know it all!! Youth hockey is definitely a marathon, not a sprint and I think at the younger ages, it's extremely important to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to play at a high level (as long as they are somewhat competitive). As the kids get older - U12/PW, U14/Bantams - I think it's ok to stick with one A team (except maybe U12 dependent on the association but still questionable and tough to call).
Great discussion and interesting points. No easy answers.
I have a kid who has always played A, one that plays B as a first year and A as a second year, and one that plays only B so we're across the board. I think it's been helpful in providing perspective. I find the most annoying posts in the forum come from first time parents with only A players. They have no perspective, often their boy is small (but quick) with little hope of good size, and they absolutely know it all!! Youth hockey is definitely a marathon, not a sprint and I think at the younger ages, it's extremely important to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to play at a high level (as long as they are somewhat competitive). As the kids get older - U12/PW, U14/Bantams - I think it's ok to stick with one A team (except maybe U12 dependent on the association but still questionable and tough to call).
Great discussion and interesting points. No easy answers.