Rogers Bantam A's--#1 in my rankings

[d10observer]

I think a lot of teams can make their case from #2 on down, but Rogers, in my humble opinion, is the cream of the crop. I've seen them play 3 times, and they are good. Damn good. There may be a couple of teams as good, but you won't find one as consistant. Watch for them to bring the hardware back from Thief River....

[Tenoverpar]

They might be, but too bad they have at least 3 kids (3rd line) who will probably quit hockey after this year after watching their friends play every other shift all season. I'm down with shortening the bench at times, but if you're rolling 2 lines in the first period, you've got issues

[Who else?]

You need to get outside of D10 and watch a few more teams...
Duluth East, Wayzata, OMG will be there at the end.
If we start re-ranking teams in the state (based only on two lines)... Rogers would be towards the middle to bottom half.

Everyone can be consistently great with two lines... Good coaches develope and play their 3rd lines.

I was tired of watching Rogers after one game.

[muckandgrind]

They might be, but too bad they have at least 3 kids (3rd line) who will probably quit hockey after this year after watching their friends play every other shift all season. I'm down with shortening the bench at times, but if you're rolling 2 lines in the first period, you've got issues

This is the Catch 22 that most smaller youth associations face...Because of smaller numbers, if you want to run an A team and compete, you need to play your best players more. Generally, large associations do not face this dilema as their pool of players to choose from is large enough to fill three lines.

This is why I laugh at the Wayzata parent complaining about the "lack of an even playing field" when Wayzata played a Tier I AAA team. Wayzata and other large associations have been benefiting from that very same lack of an even playing field for quite some time now. Their A teams are generally stacked when they are choosing from 125+ players...compare that with smaller associations who are choosing from a pool of 30-50 players.

In my opinion, Minnesota Hockey should take a look at this issue. Little League baseball has a good solution that Minnesota Hockey could, and should model. Hockey associations should be required to charter an A team per # of players in their association. Maybe 1 A team per 75 players and associations that would have multiple A teams, having a draft to fill those teams to ensure balance. That would create a more competitive environment for everyone, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with the Rogers team, but if what people are saying is true and that coach is only rolling two lines than he must make the choice of giving his team a chance to win or roll all three lines for the sake of being "fair".

[Who else?]

Bottom line - the parents and coaches need to define and agree on 'competitive' before finalizing rosters. Using Rogers as an example... if they (alleged) played only 2 lines they are serving only pride. How much worse would the team be, in this situation, if they played all 3 lines? What does it matter?

If a team goes 2-48-0 in a season, then the kids pretty much only had exposure on playing in their defensive zone. If a team is close to .500 or better, at least they are developing and productive.

If a coach elects to play 66% of their team for some kind of Bantam / Peewee resume' they are at the wrong level, wrong profession, for the wrong reasons.

Playing against organizations like Roseau and Duluth East... they don't have Wayzata numbers, but put a heckuva product on the ice (at all levels). I also respect programs that elect not to field an 'A' team due to lack of depth... developement should be the #1 priority.

Coaches need to get over themselves and parents need to get off their back.

[muckandgrind]

Bottom line - the parents and coaches need to define and agree on 'competitive' before finalizing rosters. Using Rogers as an example... if they (alleged) played only 2 lines they are serving only pride. How much worse would the team be, in this situation, if they played all 3 lines? What does it matter?

If a team goes 2-48-0 in a season, then the kids pretty much only had exposure on playing in their defensive zone. If a team is close to .500 or better, at least they are developing and productive.

If a coach elects to play 66% of their team for some kind of Bantam / Peewee resume' they are at the wrong level, wrong profession, for the wrong reasons.

Playing against organizations like Roseau and Duluth East... they don't have Wayzata numbers, but put a heckuva product on the ice (at all levels). I also respect programs that elect not to field an 'A' team due to lack of depth... developement should be the #1 priority.

Coaches need to get over themselves and parents need to get off their back.

Please don't use Roseau as an example of a small association playing tough against the big ones. Roseau is a completely different animal than any other small association. The main reason is that they can play hockey for free year round. I would venture to guess that there is no other association or community that pays the ice bills through local taxes. Those kids get more free year round ice time than just about any kid in the state of Minnesota.

I also respect associations that don't field an A team due to numbers, but there are many who feel that the best way for players to get ready for HS is to play at the A level.

My question is how much ice time are the 3rd line players actually getting? It could be less than the 1st two lines mainly because those kids don't play on special teams (PP and PK). If there are a lot of penalties called, the 3rd line ends up watching more than playing. Because when the penalty is over, many coaches start the line rotation over. That is just a fact of life and hockey.

If the player doesn't like the fact that they aren't getting as much ice time, they have a couple of options: (1) work harder to improve your game so as to either move up to one of the top lines or special teams units, or (2) talk to the coach about moving down to the B team.

[elliott70]

I think a lot of teams can make their case from #2 on down, but Rogers, in my humble opinion, is the cream of the crop. I've seen them play 3 times, and they are good. Damn good. There may be a couple of teams as good, but you won't find one as consistant. Watch for them to bring the hardware back from Thief River....

Can we wait and see if they get out of districts first.

[rbkhockey4life]

Ok i dont know about all of you guys but when i was a kid everyone played, because of the fact they were trying to develop everyone for when it really matters when you get into highschool hockey. Made sense to me because lets face all youth hockey is ten to twelve years of development for highschool when everything matters. Were dreams can be achieved.

[rbkhockey97]

PEople... Rogers A bantams are not number one.. Everybody knows this guy either plays on the team or has a kid on the team.. Considering his name is d10 observer.. we all now the wayzatas edinas burnsvilles centennial and sometimes other are always the top.. I have seen rogers play and they play their first two lines.. which is not fair.. this is not youth hockey.

[Fire and Ice]

I am a believer!

[Snipindaily11]

A lot of people have said to compare the Rogers team to other top teams like Centennial and OMG and they would not be in the top half. If I am not mistaken Rogers beat both of these teams. Not only that but if you say it is NOT youth hockey to play 2 lines than the kids are in for a rude awakening when high school rolls around. I saw them play in the EP tourney and yes, their 3rd line did not skate much but they did skate. They were there to win and make a statement so they did what was needed to win. This was a tourney, the approach changes. They deserve to be taken into consideration as one of the top teams in the state from what I have seen.

[northwoods oldtimer]

This is the Catch 22 that most smaller youth associations face...Because of smaller numbers, if you want to run an A team and compete, you need to play your best players more. Generally, large associations do not face this dilema as their pool of players to choose from is large enough to fill three lines.

This is why I laugh at the Wayzata parent complaining about the "lack of an even playing field" when Wayzata played a Tier I AAA team. Wayzata and other large associations have been benefiting from that very same lack of an even playing field for quite some time now. Their A teams are generally stacked when they are choosing from 125+ players...compare that with smaller associations who are choosing from a pool of 30-50 players.

In my opinion, Minnesota Hockey should take a look at this issue. Little League baseball has a good solution that Minnesota Hockey could, and should model. Hockey associations should be required to charter an A team per # of players in their association. Maybe 1 A team per 75 players and associations that would have multiple A teams, having a draft to fill those teams to ensure balance. That would create a more competitive environment for everyone, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with the Rogers team, but if what people are saying is true and that coach is only rolling two lines than he must make the choice of giving his team a chance to win or roll all three lines for the sake of being "fair".

Jeez muckandgrind get with the program if you listen to some of the meatheads on another thread you do not shorten the bench at Bantam level you do it at Squirts come on man it is about winning! If you cannot win with the kids in the program than just merge with another asociation! OMG

[Who else?]

I love these forums.

Bantam hockey is youth hockey, high school is not... no rude awakening here.

Just think if Rogers would have developed their third line kids two years ago... oh wait... they didn't take 15 Peewee A's at the time. Go figure.

While these head cases start a thread to draw attention to their own team, remember, they're no different than anyone else doing the same thing.

Your top 2 lines have beaten the top 3 lines of some good teams. You've gotten your feedback, you've heard some facts. You're as good as your association and as classy as your coaches (just like everyone else)... sleep well.

[black sheep]

Bottom line - the parents and coaches need to define and agree on 'competitive' before finalizing rosters. Using Rogers as an example... if they (alleged) played only 2 lines they are serving only pride. How much worse would the team be, in this situation, if they played all 3 lines? What does it matter?

If a team goes 2-48-0 in a season, then the kids pretty much only had exposure on playing in their defensive zone. If a team is close to .500 or better, at least they are developing and productive.

If a coach elects to play 66% of their team for some kind of Bantam / Peewee resume' they are at the wrong level, wrong profession, for the wrong reasons.

Playing against organizations like Roseau and Duluth East... they don't have Wayzata numbers, but put a heckuva product on the ice (at all levels). I also respect programs that elect not to field an 'A' team due to lack of depth... developement should be the #1 priority.

Coaches need to get over themselves and parents need to get off their back.

Please don't use Roseau as an example of a small association playing tough against the big ones. Roseau is a completely different animal than any other small association. The main reason is that they can play hockey for free year round. I would venture to guess that there is no other association or community that pays the ice bills through local taxes. Those kids get more free year round ice time than just about any kid in the state of Minnesota.

Correction...Roseau kids do not play hockey year round for free. During hockey season yes, summer programs you pay...but not alot.

One thing is true...most Roseau kids could not afford to play in the cities, every kid has the opprotunity to play.

[muckandgrind]

Bottom line - the parents and coaches need to define and agree on 'competitive' before finalizing rosters. Using Rogers as an example... if they (alleged) played only 2 lines they are serving only pride. How much worse would the team be, in this situation, if they played all 3 lines? What does it matter?

If a team goes 2-48-0 in a season, then the kids pretty much only had exposure on playing in their defensive zone. If a team is close to .500 or better, at least they are developing and productive.

If a coach elects to play 66% of their team for some kind of Bantam / Peewee resume' they are at the wrong level, wrong profession, for the wrong reasons.

Playing against organizations like Roseau and Duluth East... they don't have Wayzata numbers, but put a heckuva product on the ice (at all levels). I also respect programs that elect not to field an 'A' team due to lack of depth... developement should be the #1 priority.

Coaches need to get over themselves and parents need to get off their back.

Please don't use Roseau as an example of a small association playing tough against the big ones. Roseau is a completely different animal than any other small association. The main reason is that they can play hockey for free year round. I would venture to guess that there is no other association or community that pays the ice bills through local taxes. Those kids get more free year round ice time than just about any kid in the state of Minnesota.

Correction...Roseau kids do not play hockey year round for free. During hockey season yes, summer programs you pay...but not alot.

One thing is true...most Roseau kids could not afford to play in the cities, every kid has the opprotunity to play.

Thanks for the clarification, BlackSheep. My point is still valid, though, nobody should compare Roseau to any other "small" association in the State. I should've also pointed out to 'Who Else' that Duluth East is NOT a small program as you said:

11-Squirt teams (ages 9-10)

6-PeeWee teams (ages 11-12)

6-Bantam teams (ages 13-14)

Any program with 5 or more teams at each level cannot be considered "small". Now I realize that not all six Pee Wee and six Bantam teams are called "Duluth East", just the A PeeWee and A and B Bantam (I believe), but they are ALL part of the same DAHA association.

[Who else?]

muckandgrind:

If you want to constantly critique my examples:

Duluth East - Less than 40 kids (I beleive 35) tried out for Bantam A and B1, yet I would say they are pretty strong... wouldn't you? Source - Duluth East member / parent. Duluth youth hockey (as a whole) is common by name, but structured uniquely and not much different (in concept or opportunity) than other co-op northern teams. Even Rogers has opportunity to draw from STMA, Elk River, Otsego, and Zimmerman (check the playing history of their rosters).

Roseau - If you want to pick and chose the small associations that should be referred to (as respected) it is your choice. I will still envy their program and give them credit.

There are many other small programs I admire (including B B1), but these are the two most obvious.

If I have to come up with other associations / examples to make my point then you're missing it. The comparison was Rogers as a small association vs. the larger 'Wayzatas'... size doesn't always equate to quality or my (personal) respect. It also doesn't justify playing 66% of your players.

Bantam hockey is still youth hockey... what is the goal again?

PS... I looked around and didn't see any posts from Wayzata, Edina, OMG, Lakeville, or other programs claiming to be #1. When a thread like this is started, the feedback is predictable. Some talk... others skate.

[muckandgrind]

muckandgrind:

If you want to constantly critique my examples:

Duluth East - Less than 40 kids (I beleive 35) tried out for Bantam A and B1, yet I would say they are pretty strong... wouldn't you? Source - Duluth East member / parent. Duluth youth hockey (as a whole) is common by name, but structured uniquely and not much different (in concept or opportunity) than other co-op northern teams. Even Rogers has opportunity to draw from STMA, Elk River, Otsego, and Zimmerman (check the playing history of their rosters).

Roseau - If you want to pick and chose the small associations that should be referred to (as respected) it is your choice. I will still envy their program and give them credit.

There are many other small programs I admire (including B B1), but these are the two most obvious.

If I have to come up with other associations / examples to make my point then you're missing it. The comparison was Rogers as a small association vs. the larger 'Wayzatas'... size doesn't always equate to quality or my (personal) respect. It also doesn't justify playing 66% of your players.

Bantam hockey is still youth hockey... what is the goal again?

PS... I looked around and didn't see any posts from Wayzata, Edina, OMG, Lakeville, or other programs claiming to be #1. When a thread like this is started, the feedback is predictable. Some talk... others skate.

Than your DE source should also know that all Duluth East PeeWee and Bantam A players allow players from both Denfield and Central to tryout...basically a Co-op. And the fact that there are 6 Bantam teams within DAHA leads one to believe that the pool of players they have to choose from is larger than 40 kids. 6 Bantam teams @ 13 players a team = 78 players. I wouldn't consider 78 players trying out to be small at all.

I also "envy" Roseau's program, but you can't compare them or hold them up as an example of how a small association can compete. Most towns I know of don't have free hockey in the winter and cheap hockey in the summer. If everyone did, then Roseau would be the norm, not the exception.

The goal of Bantam A hockey is to get them ready for HS. You can say otherwise, but that's it. Many coaches feel the best way to get players ready is to have them play at the A level. Like I said before, smaller organizations don't have the luxury of rolling 3 solid lines, so the 3rd line may see fewer shifts than the top 2 lines especially if none of those 3rd liners aren't on a special teams unit. If the parents or players have a problem with that, than they should ask that their player be moved to the B team. Simple solution.

[keepyourheadup]

We're not talking "seeing fewer shifts", what I witnessed was basically no shifts from the drop of the puck in the first period. The kids were even sitting/standing in a group in the middle of the bench so they didn't clog the doorway. Rogers is a top 5 team, I"m just not certain I condone the way they do it. Hey if the parents and kids are ok with it who are we to judge?

[iwearmysunglassesatnight]

Is this development or winning ?
Tonka Squirt Tryout info : they are fielding 7 teams : A (1) B (3) C (3)

"Team Selection

Rosters will be filled and based on performance at tryouts. At the conclusion of the tryout sessions the evaluators will select the teams based on cumulative score and tryout ratings. [size=18]The “A” team will have 13 skaters."[/size]

[muckandgrind]

Is this development or winning ?
Tonka Squirt Tryout info : they are fielding 7 teams : A (1) B (3) C (3)

"Team Selection

Rosters will be filled and based on performance at tryouts. At the conclusion of the tryout sessions the evaluators will select the teams based on cumulative score and tryout ratings. The “A” team will have 13 skaters."

Both. Nothing strange or odd about this. Many Squirt teams will have 13 skaters. In fact, 13 skaters is the ideal number for ANY Squirt team. How many skaters will fill out the other teams? Why do you think this is strange? You would prefer what? 15-17 skaters? That's too many.

13 skaters works out to 3 lines and 2 defensive pairings...which is what you want.

[Duluth East Hockey Fan]

muckandgrind:

If you want to constantly critique my examples:

Duluth East - Less than 40 kids (I beleive 35) tried out for Bantam A and B1, yet I would say they are pretty strong... wouldn't you? Source - Duluth East member / parent. Duluth youth hockey (as a whole) is common by name, but structured uniquely and not much different (in concept or opportunity) than other co-op northern teams. Even Rogers has opportunity to draw from STMA, Elk River, Otsego, and Zimmerman (check the playing history of their rosters).

Roseau - If you want to pick and chose the small associations that should be referred to (as respected) it is your choice. I will still envy their program and give them credit.

There are many other small programs I admire (including B B1), but these are the two most obvious.

If I have to come up with other associations / examples to make my point then you're missing it. The comparison was Rogers as a small association vs. the larger 'Wayzatas'... size doesn't always equate to quality or my (personal) respect. It also doesn't justify playing 66% of your players.

Bantam hockey is still youth hockey... what is the goal again?

PS... I looked around and didn't see any posts from Wayzata, Edina, OMG, Lakeville, or other programs claiming to be #1. When a thread like this is started, the feedback is predictable. Some talk... others skate.

Than your DE source should also know that all Duluth East PeeWee and Bantam A players allow players from both Denfield and Central to tryout...basically a Co-op. And the fact that there are 6 Bantam teams within DAHA leads one to believe that the pool of players they have to choose from is larger than 40 kids. 6 Bantam teams @ 13 players a team = 78 players. I wouldn't consider 78 players trying out to be small at all.

I also "envy" Roseau's program, but you can't compare them or hold them up as an example of how a small association can compete. Most towns I know of don't have free hockey in the winter and cheap hockey in the summer. If everyone did, then Roseau would be the norm, not the exception.

The goal of Bantam A hockey is to get them ready for HS. You can say otherwise, but that's it. Many coaches feel the best way to get players ready is to have them play at the A level. Like I said before, smaller organizations don't have the luxury of rolling 3 solid lines, so the 3rd line may see fewer shifts than the top 2 lines especially if none of those 3rd liners aren't on a special teams unit. If the parents or players have a problem with that, than they should ask that their player be moved to the B team. Simple solution.

I don't know where you get your facts, but Denfeld, Central kids are not allowed to tryout for the DE program. In fact this year when the Laker program (the Denfeld/Central part of DAHA) decided against fielding an A team those kids were NOT allowed to tryout for the East team. I know for a fact that DE had only 34 kids tryout for the A team. DAHA is the association that holds the affiliate agreement with MN Hockey and USA hockey that allows for there to be hockey in Duluth. I can promise you that DE parents don't just sit back and allow Denfeld or Central kids to move over and play in the DE youth program. I really don't care if you consider the program small, large, fat, slim, black or white. But you need to have your facts straight.

[muckandgrind]

muckandgrind:

If you want to constantly critique my examples:

Duluth East - Less than 40 kids (I beleive 35) tried out for Bantam A and B1, yet I would say they are pretty strong... wouldn't you? Source - Duluth East member / parent. Duluth youth hockey (as a whole) is common by name, but structured uniquely and not much different (in concept or opportunity) than other co-op northern teams. Even Rogers has opportunity to draw from STMA, Elk River, Otsego, and Zimmerman (check the playing history of their rosters).

Roseau - If you want to pick and chose the small associations that should be referred to (as respected) it is your choice. I will still envy their program and give them credit.

There are many other small programs I admire (including B B1), but these are the two most obvious.

If I have to come up with other associations / examples to make my point then you're missing it. The comparison was Rogers as a small association vs. the larger 'Wayzatas'... size doesn't always equate to quality or my (personal) respect. It also doesn't justify playing 66% of your players.

Bantam hockey is still youth hockey... what is the goal again?

PS... I looked around and didn't see any posts from Wayzata, Edina, OMG, Lakeville, or other programs claiming to be #1. When a thread like this is started, the feedback is predictable. Some talk... others skate.

Than your DE source should also know that all Duluth East PeeWee and Bantam A players allow players from both Denfield and Central to tryout...basically a Co-op. And the fact that there are 6 Bantam teams within DAHA leads one to believe that the pool of players they have to choose from is larger than 40 kids. 6 Bantam teams @ 13 players a team = 78 players. I wouldn't consider 78 players trying out to be small at all.

I also "envy" Roseau's program, but you can't compare them or hold them up as an example of how a small association can compete. Most towns I know of don't have free hockey in the winter and cheap hockey in the summer. If everyone did, then Roseau would be the norm, not the exception.

The goal of Bantam A hockey is to get them ready for HS. You can say otherwise, but that's it. Many coaches feel the best way to get players ready is to have them play at the A level. Like I said before, smaller organizations don't have the luxury of rolling 3 solid lines, so the 3rd line may see fewer shifts than the top 2 lines especially if none of those 3rd liners aren't on a special teams unit. If the parents or players have a problem with that, than they should ask that their player be moved to the B team. Simple solution.

I don't know where you get your facts, but Denfeld, Central kids are not allowed to tryout for the DE program. In fact this year when the Laker program (the Denfeld/Central part of DAHA) decided against fielding an A team those kids were NOT allowed to tryout for the East team. I know for a fact that DE had only 34 kids tryout for the A team. DAHA is the association that holds the affiliate agreement with MN Hockey and USA hockey that allows for there to be hockey in Duluth. I can promise you that DE parents don't just sit back and allow Denfeld or Central kids to move over and play in the DE youth program. I really don't care if you consider the program small, large, fat, slim, black or white. But you need to have your facts straight.

This is from the DAHA playing rules. Am I reading this wrong?

E. PeeWee and Bantam A Level Teams.

1. PeeWee A teams and Bantam A teams shall be formed with players residing within the East high school boundaries and the combined boundaries for Central and Denfeld high schools.

2. In selecting players for such teams, if players are approximately equal in playing ability, the older players shall be selected for the A teams.

3. PeeWee A and Bantam A boundaries shall be reviewed every two years by the
Board of Directors.

4. A bantam player who is currently attending a Duluth public high school, but does not reside in that high school boundary, is eligible to play with the bantam team that is within that high school boundary.

I read this to say that players who live in both the Denfield and Central areas are also allowed to play for DE. Also, kids don't have to play Bantams for their local rink...if they are enrolled at DE, they can play Bantams for DE as well.

[shooter803]

Although getting off thread on this - To clarify - Duluth East & Duluth Lakers (Denfeld/Central) programs are totally seperate entities. When you read the DAHA rules the AND in point #1 refers to East & Lakers individually. DAHA is very specific in Duluth boundries and proving residency (acutually now require all requirements in playing rules to be met, not just 4) for which program the player is in. Laker Bantams were not allowed to tryout for East Bantams. One family did move and had all requirements met to play @ East. Point #4 also is East/Laker specific - East plays w/ East - Lakers w/ Lakers. Boundry issues may have to be delt w/ in the future as Duluth continues to lose numbers, but @ this time nothing has been changed @ peewee/batam levels. The only combining of players can occur at the Bantam/Peewee B2 levels - after A's & B1's are set the programs may need to combine to produce a viable B2 team which does happen most years.

[rogershockey]

[quote="Who else?"]I love these forums.


Just think if Rogers would have developed their third line kids two years ago... oh wait... they didn't take 15 Peewee A's at the time. Go figure.


I am a Rogers Hockey guy, and I'll only address this comment here. 2 years ago there were 35 skaters who signed up to play at the PeeWee level. Rogers skated Three PW teams (A,B1,and B2) and carried 13 skaters on the A and B1 teams. What would you have suggested that we do, cut players from the youth program and only carry 2 teams, carry 18 skaters on an A team? I'd like to hear any other better way to do this.

[cooper26]

We're not talking "seeing fewer shifts", what I witnessed was basically no shifts from the drop of the puck in the first period. The kids were even sitting/standing in a group in the middle of the bench so they didn't clog the doorway. Rogers is a top 5 team, I"m just not certain I condone the way they do it. Hey if the parents and kids are ok with it who are we to judge?

No doubt the majority of kids and parents would say they are "okay" with it, but the odds that all of 17 kids and 34 parents believing that what the coach is doing is okay are miniscule. Regardless of what any of them might feel comfortable sharing here, it's a good bet that 3 to 5 families on this team aren't real happy with the season's prospects. And what if it happens in consecutive years? What do you suggest a frustrated parent should do?

I think what Rogers is doing is wrong. So do many others and that's all been debated here in the past. And this stuff happens in squirts! The parent who steps up and trys to communicate with the coach or the association will be ridiculed as a whiner and labeled a malcontent who doesn't appreciate volunteer coaches. Even those fellow parents who agree with him will scatter.

"Who are we to judge?" We are experienced hockey parents and because we are "outsiders", we can offer an opinion without fear of retribution. Until people start believing it's "okay" to talk to coaches and share opinions, we're all they've got. The discussion is a good thing.