One of the biggest problems I have seen in youth sports is the inconsistent level of competiveness, especially at the “B” level. Whether the mega association should have diluted the talent by going with two “A” teams, or the small or struggling association opting to go with an “A” team when their numbers and talent do not warrant it, something should be done (it has a ripple down effect on all the levels). It does not help any kid to win or lose by large margins. The games become a mockery where parents get excited when their overmatched kids get it out of the zone or get a shot on goal. It is a waste of everyone’s time and money to have to go through with this. There are usually some kids that should be at that level, but most of the other kids are usually playing up a level, which cannot be much fun when you lose a lot of games.
Given this, there are numerous issues to consider. By having your top team be a “B1” team, you will have a few kids that are playing below their proper level. They may play year round and/or are just naturally better. These kids would be candidates for a winter “AAA” team if the parents are willing to make the commitment. However, there may be a solution that works for most of the kids.
My proposal would be to establish the B1 level as the “standard” level. Associations would allocate their teams prior to the season based on numbers, past performance of the age group, and talent depth (don’t force 15 kids on a team if there are only 10 at that level). The “A” or premier level would require an association to petition MinnHock or the districts each year to participate. This would be a no brainer for several associations. Where the twist comes in would be to allow smaller or struggling associations to combine to form a competitive “A” team. They would have to make the case that they have an “A” quality team, but combining 2 or 3 of these associations will no doubt improve their chances of being competitive.
The “B1” Level would now have kids who would be on an overmatched “A” team playing on more competitive “B1” team. The top kids will play more competitive games with kids of similar abilities, or at least not such a huge discrepancy. Every year is different so proposals would have to be made each year. The big association kids who just missed making the “A” team will now have more consistent competition, and the drive for two “A” teams would be lessened. The smaller association kids will now be able to play in more competitive games and get a chance to win a few against the big guys. This is obviously easier to accomplish in the Metro, but it could also work in the outstate areas as long as the travel is not extreme.
USA hockey would have bend their rules a bit, but maybe allow outstate associations combine for a couple of tournaments each year. Bureaucracy would be the only issue with that proposal.
Creating competiveness (top to bottom)
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
Or it can be seen as a compromise. The partner associations will have to get their act together if they want their top players to play at the top level. One rule could be if an association does not actively seek a partner, then they would be forced to waiver a player to another association. This is high level proposal, and not perfect, but it is better than we have now and will keep the vast majority of associations that have their act together intact.sorno, what you have described is AAA except that you have added a layer of association boards to screw it up
I made a recommendation similar to this to the Discernment committee over a year ago.
MH would establish definitions in the MH handbook that establishes AA, A, B....
(semantics A, B1 etc)
It would also establish guidelines to follow to establish an association, combine (merge) associations (or certain co-op levels), split an association, end an association.
It also had plans on determining what a district would be for admin and for playing.
Everyone (for the most part) wants to be considered A, but within A, B and even C there is a difference in ability (this changes to some degree from year to year, but for the most part; everyone knows which ones are which before the year begins).
And with a AA and A, an A team can play a AA (to get more games, to test where they stand and the AA team will get more games and let the lesser players get more ice time).
It is something that is needed and can be massaged to fit better, but it needs to be started now (09-10 season). But at our rate of getting things done, it will not happen (ever).
MH would establish definitions in the MH handbook that establishes AA, A, B....
(semantics A, B1 etc)
It would also establish guidelines to follow to establish an association, combine (merge) associations (or certain co-op levels), split an association, end an association.
It also had plans on determining what a district would be for admin and for playing.
Everyone (for the most part) wants to be considered A, but within A, B and even C there is a difference in ability (this changes to some degree from year to year, but for the most part; everyone knows which ones are which before the year begins).
And with a AA and A, an A team can play a AA (to get more games, to test where they stand and the AA team will get more games and let the lesser players get more ice time).
It is something that is needed and can be massaged to fit better, but it needs to be started now (09-10 season). But at our rate of getting things done, it will not happen (ever).
Based on the multiple topics posted on this site that all come back to the question of level of play (e.g., Should there be multiple teams at the A level for big associations? Should players from smaller associations allowed to play outside of their local association? Is AAA coming because people want other choices? etc...), I have a question for anyone who would like to answer.
Is there anyone out there who would actually like to put in the time and effort into coming up with a proposal or two for MN Hockey to consider?
Otherwise, most of the discussions in these threads boil down to wishing and complaining. For what? Just to vent? Nothing wrong with that, but if anyone would like to see if they can be part of changing the current system, I'm willing to help coordinate something pro-active. Some good ideas have already been laid out by others, but they'd need to be developed further and laid out for MN Hockey to accept or reject.
It sounds like Elliot has tried once already, but sometimes it takes more than one voice to change things.
Any takers? Just send me a pm. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and continue reading your posts. Lots of good thoughts posted in these threads, but to quote Elliot, "at our rate of getting things done, [change] will not happen (ever)."
So, live with the current system, or decide to be part of changing it. I'm okay with either route, but I do think the current system could use some tweaking. I await your (collective) decision...
Is there anyone out there who would actually like to put in the time and effort into coming up with a proposal or two for MN Hockey to consider?
Otherwise, most of the discussions in these threads boil down to wishing and complaining. For what? Just to vent? Nothing wrong with that, but if anyone would like to see if they can be part of changing the current system, I'm willing to help coordinate something pro-active. Some good ideas have already been laid out by others, but they'd need to be developed further and laid out for MN Hockey to accept or reject.
It sounds like Elliot has tried once already, but sometimes it takes more than one voice to change things.
Any takers? Just send me a pm. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and continue reading your posts. Lots of good thoughts posted in these threads, but to quote Elliot, "at our rate of getting things done, [change] will not happen (ever)."
So, live with the current system, or decide to be part of changing it. I'm okay with either route, but I do think the current system could use some tweaking. I await your (collective) decision...
[quote="sorno82"][quote]sorno, what you have described is AAA except that you have added a layer of association boards to screw it up[/quote]
Or it can be seen as a compromise. The partner associations will have to get their act together if they want their top players to play at the top level. One rule could be if an association does not actively seek a partner, then they would be forced to waiver a player to another association. This is high level proposal, and not perfect, but it is better than we have now and will keep the vast majority of associations that have their act together intact.[/quote]
I agree more with your second post but you would need the "stick" of forcing the associations to waive the players to go try out for a coop team. From what I have heard from those in small associations, the boards will fight any waivers of good players as this will translate into a lot more losses for the remaining (read boardmembers') kids. I would be more in favor of district select teams with open tryouts and no waiver required.
Or it can be seen as a compromise. The partner associations will have to get their act together if they want their top players to play at the top level. One rule could be if an association does not actively seek a partner, then they would be forced to waiver a player to another association. This is high level proposal, and not perfect, but it is better than we have now and will keep the vast majority of associations that have their act together intact.[/quote]
I agree more with your second post but you would need the "stick" of forcing the associations to waive the players to go try out for a coop team. From what I have heard from those in small associations, the boards will fight any waivers of good players as this will translate into a lot more losses for the remaining (read boardmembers') kids. I would be more in favor of district select teams with open tryouts and no waiver required.
Exactly, and especially when they are people going through it rather than an old bunch of men not in the arena often enough.play4fun wrote:Based on the multiple topics posted on this site that all come back to the question of level of play (e.g., Should there be multiple teams at the A level for big associations? Should players from smaller associations allowed to play outside of their local association? Is AAA coming because people want other choices? etc...), I have a question for anyone who would like to answer.
Is there anyone out there who would actually like to put in the time and effort into coming up with a proposal or two for MN Hockey to consider?
Otherwise, most of the discussions in these threads boil down to wishing and complaining. For what? Just to vent? Nothing wrong with that, but if anyone would like to see if they can be part of changing the current system, I'm willing to help coordinate something pro-active. Some good ideas have already been laid out by others, but they'd need to be developed further and laid out for MN Hockey to accept or reject.
It sounds like Elliot has tried once already, but sometimes it takes more than one voice to change things.
Any takers? Just send me a pm. Otherwise, I'll just sit back and continue reading your posts. Lots of good thoughts posted in these threads, but to quote Elliot, "at our rate of getting things done, [change] will not happen (ever)."
So, live with the current system, or decide to be part of changing it. I'm okay with either route, but I do think the current system could use some tweaking. I await your (collective) decision...
But I am still at it....
State meeting coming up, please show up....
Barman,
Who hosts each district team? Who coaches? Who makes selections?Could some districts have "select" teams, and others not? Would the district teams be mandated to play teams within their district? Could they select their own schedule?
You make a good suggestion, but how would it work?
Not looking for all of the answers in this forum, just making a point.
Who hosts each district team? Who coaches? Who makes selections?Could some districts have "select" teams, and others not? Would the district teams be mandated to play teams within their district? Could they select their own schedule?
You make a good suggestion, but how would it work?
Not looking for all of the answers in this forum, just making a point.
How about your level of play is based on past performance? For instance if you win less than 20% of your games you move down a level and more than 80% you move up. So an association with a solid A team also has a dominate B1 team, the B1 team would moved up to A also giving that association two A teams.
Teams that have no business playing at a certain level would be moved up or down to a level better suited for them. It's not perfect since talent level can vary year to year and having either a extremely talented or weak group at a certain level would hurt the kids in the following group in that association but I think for the most part level of play in most associations remains somewhat constant.
I'm not sure, but I think something similar is done in youth soccer.
Teams that have no business playing at a certain level would be moved up or down to a level better suited for them. It's not perfect since talent level can vary year to year and having either a extremely talented or weak group at a certain level would hurt the kids in the following group in that association but I think for the most part level of play in most associations remains somewhat constant.
I'm not sure, but I think something similar is done in youth soccer.
Cowboy, I agree that past performance should be one consideration that's taken into account. I'm not sure if or what level winning percentages should play into the equation, but they're certainly one factor that merits discussion.
I am interested in models used by other sports to guide level of play, so if anyone is familiar with a good route to model after (e.g., soccer), please share. I think Muck has advocated something along the lines of baseball and participation numbers. That's another route worth exploring (and, I'm also aware that a counter concern is diluting level of play at the highest levels).
I have a couple of people who have responded that they'd be interested in helping pull some ideas together, and really need a couple more to kick something off the ground. So I'm still looking for a few brave souls -- just send me a pm.
If we can get a group pulled together, this forum can be used as a sounding board for ideas.
I am interested in models used by other sports to guide level of play, so if anyone is familiar with a good route to model after (e.g., soccer), please share. I think Muck has advocated something along the lines of baseball and participation numbers. That's another route worth exploring (and, I'm also aware that a counter concern is diluting level of play at the highest levels).
I have a couple of people who have responded that they'd be interested in helping pull some ideas together, and really need a couple more to kick something off the ground. So I'm still looking for a few brave souls -- just send me a pm.
If we can get a group pulled together, this forum can be used as a sounding board for ideas.
When will reality set in for you all? The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot level the playing field for the entire world, not in sports, not in school and not in the job market. It's just life, and there will be inequities. The reality is that some associations simply have the numbers available to them, while others do not. Naturally if you have 150 kids to chose from, the percentages will dictate that you will have a greater number of talented kids than if you have 50 to chose from. How about to make things even, we just force people to move. Or better yet, we conduct one gigantic try-out that encompasses the entire state of MN, then distribute the players evenly. After all, no one should ever learn to struggle or succeed with grace. Under your misguided "let's have next year's team play at a level based on the success of last year's squad" philosophy, our Squirt A team would probably be playing down a level -- whereas the reality of the situation is that we are a much better TEAM than last year's squad, and we are having a great season. I guess we should have been forced to pay the price for last year's team versus building our own team this season. I guess under your scenario, the Gopher basketball team would be playing high school ball this season, the Detroit Lions should probably start seeking NCAA eligibility, and the Atlanta Falcons should be thanking heavens that you aren't in charge or they would never have been a worst-to-first type team this season.
By the same token, the folks forming the teams and deciding the level of play in each association should be picked for their position(s) based on experience. They should know enough to make an honest assessment of what level will best suit their team.
The long and short of it is, you all seem to want to make life just perfect for everyone, and it isn't. So just let them play and stay out of it.
By the same token, the folks forming the teams and deciding the level of play in each association should be picked for their position(s) based on experience. They should know enough to make an honest assessment of what level will best suit their team.
The long and short of it is, you all seem to want to make life just perfect for everyone, and it isn't. So just let them play and stay out of it.
These were simple suggestions. I disagree completely that teams should be moved based on the previous year also. I, however, would like to see teams that struggled at Squirt A, play PeeWee B1, teams that dominate PeeWee B1 with no A team, should move to Bantam A in 2 years. Teams are basically the same from year to year, especially at smaller associations. If 2 years ago you struggled at PeeWee A why go through bantam A. Same goes for a team that has lots of first years. If you struggle at B1, the next year you have two options: 1)stay at B1, 2)play B2. Notice if your team is basically staying together to the next team, don't move up to struggle more.
Not trying to make the world perfect, or take inequities out Rage. But you do bring up a good point about associations and their decision making regarding the appropriate level of play for their squads. But where's the consistency in decision making? Even within the same associations from year to year?
All I'm looking for is some consistency between associations and districts on how they view and establish teams, since it seems to be very INCONSISTENT and continually driven by local politics, or the views of individual coaches, rather than from a broader perspective. You don't need to look farther than the topics posted on this site to see that their are MULTIPLE ways associations structure and place their teams within the current structure. So why not at least explore a few ideas? The goal isn't that all teams will all have .500 records going forward... That's delusional. But encouraging better decision making by providing better guidelines is somehow not a worthy ambition?
If your happy with the current system, as many are, good for you. Many are not.
Maybe I should just join the AAA bandwagon... Fewer heads in the sand.
All I'm looking for is some consistency between associations and districts on how they view and establish teams, since it seems to be very INCONSISTENT and continually driven by local politics, or the views of individual coaches, rather than from a broader perspective. You don't need to look farther than the topics posted on this site to see that their are MULTIPLE ways associations structure and place their teams within the current structure. So why not at least explore a few ideas? The goal isn't that all teams will all have .500 records going forward... That's delusional. But encouraging better decision making by providing better guidelines is somehow not a worthy ambition?
If your happy with the current system, as many are, good for you. Many are not.
Maybe I should just join the AAA bandwagon... Fewer heads in the sand.
I love the idea of B1 being the base line for top assoc (in essence the old A) and assoc can have as many as they want or bo to b2, c etc.play4fun wrote:Not trying to make the world perfect, or take inequities out Rage. But you do bring up a good point about associations and their decision making regarding the appropriate level of play for their squads. But where's the consistency in decision making? Even within the same associations from year to year?
All I'm looking for is some consistency between associations and districts on how they view and establish teams, since it seems to be very INCONSISTENT and continually driven by local politics, or the views of individual coaches, rather than from a broader perspective. You don't need to look farther than the topics posted on this site to see that their are MULTIPLE ways associations structure and place their teams within the current structure. So why not at least explore a few ideas? The goal isn't that all teams will all have .500 records going forward... That's delusional. But encouraging better decision making by providing better guidelines is somehow not a worthy ambition?
If your happy with the current system, as many are, good for you. Many are not.
Maybe I should just join the AAA bandwagon... Fewer heads in the sand.
Then Assoc with a top level group of players can apply to Minnesota Hockey to be part of the A program and play other A teams within the state. The State would have to approve the ability to play at that level (much like soccer does now).
All teams must be comprised of association players as they do today.
If a top team doesn't want the extra travel they can elect to play B1 and stay in their local district just like today.
This gives a hybrid of allowing those top organizations to have matching competition.
It is really semantics on how you classify the teams. The top level should have an independent body determine if they meet the criteria for participation. By an association not forming a top tier, it will make the lower tiers more competitive. Combining associations for that top tier would provide the top players in the association the ability to compete at the right level, without requiring those not ready to compete at a level above.
This could probably result in Osseo/North Metro/Armstrong/Cooper to form one year for a top tier team (don't worry about specifics now, just concept). They could compete against MG, Wayzata, Orono/Crow River/ Mound and Hopkins/Mnpls/Park. Now you have 6 competive teams in District three. There may need to be some district switching from year to year, but it should be much better than seeing a lot of blow-outs. Leave the B and C structure as is for now.
There should be no undefeated "B" teams this time of year. Instead of diluting the top, make the top, midddle and bottom stronger by establishing a criteria for participation. Nothing is perfect, but this may be a step in the right direction.
This could probably result in Osseo/North Metro/Armstrong/Cooper to form one year for a top tier team (don't worry about specifics now, just concept). They could compete against MG, Wayzata, Orono/Crow River/ Mound and Hopkins/Mnpls/Park. Now you have 6 competive teams in District three. There may need to be some district switching from year to year, but it should be much better than seeing a lot of blow-outs. Leave the B and C structure as is for now.
There should be no undefeated "B" teams this time of year. Instead of diluting the top, make the top, midddle and bottom stronger by establishing a criteria for participation. Nothing is perfect, but this may be a step in the right direction.
We're close with two variances:sorno82 wrote:It is really semantics on how you classify the teams. The top level should have an independent body determine if they meet the criteria for participation. By not forming a top tier, it will make the lower tiers more competitive. Combining associations for that top tier would provide the top players in the association the ability to compete at the right level, without requiring those not ready to compete at a level above.
This could probably result in Osseo/North Metro/Armstrong/Cooper to form one year for a top tier team (don't worry about specifics now, just concept). They could compete against MG, Wayzata, Orono/Crow River/ Mound and Hopkins/Mnpls/Park. Now you have 6 competive teams in District three. There may need to be some district switching from year to year, but it should be much better than seeing a lot of blow-outs. Leave the B and C structure as is for now.
There should be no undefeated "B" teams this time of year. Instead of diluting the top, make the top, midddle and bottom stronger by establishing a criteria for participation. Nothing is perfect, but this may be a step in the right direction.
1) I think assoc that do not want to travel should not be forced to move up (ie; Roseau might not want that kind of travel in the winter). Therefore they can stay at B1 (or whatever classification you call it) and at times will dominate, but heck they do now many times.
2) Winter season to me is association time so not for combining assoc to develop an elite team. If you assoc can do it great, if not they play in their existing district just like today. If you start combining where does it start/stop? Put Edina, Wayzata & EP together and you will have the same issue putting them up against many of the other combined assoc.
I still like the idea of kids playing with their friends from top to bottom and giving the team (not just a few individuals) the opportunity to play against the very best when they fit in that bracket.
Just so we're all on the same page, here's how MN Hockey defines level of play. This is the current system.
"VII. LEVELS OF PLAY
A. "Divisions" means Mite, Squirt, Peewee, 10&Under, 12&Under, Junior Gold, etc.
B. "Classifications" means A, B, C, House, etc.
C. In order to encourage the development and expansion of hockey within the State and to provide for uniformity of competition for the purpose of obtaining those goals, all youth hockey shall be divided into four competitive classifications as herein provided. It shall be primarily the responsibility of each district director to maintain the integrity of each classification within his/her district.
"A" The highest competitive classification, essentially a development program designed to enhance team and individual skills. MH will provide for district, regional and state tournament competition at this classification. Every association shall have the right to enter teams in the A classification.
"B" The intermediate competitive classification, also essentially a development program, but primarily intended to provide a uniform competitive experience for smaller communities and programs that are not able to compete effectively at the A classification. Every association that has an A classification team shall also have the right to enter teams in the B classification.
"C" The lowest competitive classification essentially a recreational program but also intended as an entry level for new communities and programs in order to provide a good competitive experience until they are ready to advance to a higher competitive classification. There shall be no regional or state tournaments at the C level. All associations that have teams in A or B level classifications shall also be entitled to enter teams in the C classification.
"House" Similar to the “C” or recreational classification, but limited to an “in-house” program (Teams do not participate in any way outside of their home association).
D. Interlevel Play - There shall be no interlevel play (games or scrimmages) between divisions (i.e. Peewee vs. Bantam, 14U vs. 12U) or between classifications (A and B, B and C or A and C teams), with the exception of Youth 16&Under and Junior Gold "B". In special circumstances where interlevel play between classifications is appropriate, approval of the cognizant District Director(s) must be obtained... District Directors may permit a B or C classification team from small cities or newly developed programs to play in a higher classification league if there is no comparable classification league available."
"VII. LEVELS OF PLAY
A. "Divisions" means Mite, Squirt, Peewee, 10&Under, 12&Under, Junior Gold, etc.
B. "Classifications" means A, B, C, House, etc.
C. In order to encourage the development and expansion of hockey within the State and to provide for uniformity of competition for the purpose of obtaining those goals, all youth hockey shall be divided into four competitive classifications as herein provided. It shall be primarily the responsibility of each district director to maintain the integrity of each classification within his/her district.
"A" The highest competitive classification, essentially a development program designed to enhance team and individual skills. MH will provide for district, regional and state tournament competition at this classification. Every association shall have the right to enter teams in the A classification.
"B" The intermediate competitive classification, also essentially a development program, but primarily intended to provide a uniform competitive experience for smaller communities and programs that are not able to compete effectively at the A classification. Every association that has an A classification team shall also have the right to enter teams in the B classification.
"C" The lowest competitive classification essentially a recreational program but also intended as an entry level for new communities and programs in order to provide a good competitive experience until they are ready to advance to a higher competitive classification. There shall be no regional or state tournaments at the C level. All associations that have teams in A or B level classifications shall also be entitled to enter teams in the C classification.
"House" Similar to the “C” or recreational classification, but limited to an “in-house” program (Teams do not participate in any way outside of their home association).
D. Interlevel Play - There shall be no interlevel play (games or scrimmages) between divisions (i.e. Peewee vs. Bantam, 14U vs. 12U) or between classifications (A and B, B and C or A and C teams), with the exception of Youth 16&Under and Junior Gold "B". In special circumstances where interlevel play between classifications is appropriate, approval of the cognizant District Director(s) must be obtained... District Directors may permit a B or C classification team from small cities or newly developed programs to play in a higher classification league if there is no comparable classification league available."
Creating Competiveness (Top to Bottom)
Or.............................have differant classes like in High School. One could have a 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A and 1A or some takeoff of that based on the size of the town the team comes from. Private schools/teams would not be included.........This would allow teams with the same size of associations (in theory) to compete against like associations. Tourneys are where a team could play against larger associations, etc..
So, a couple in favor of setting B1 as the standard, with the option to play at an A level if approved by somebody TBD. That's one good option worth exploring more, so I'll cue that one up as "Option A" for further posts.
Going the different classes route like in HS (per nahc) has some intuitive appeal as well. Let's assume for a moment that the HS classification is a starting point for assigning the corresponding association to a similar class (let's ignore the exceptions for now, and focus on the bigger concept). Would teams need to spend more time out of their current districts to find enough teams at similar levels to play against? If so, wouldn't associations want to form leagues or conferences just like they do in HS athletics?
I'm not trying to start a re-districting string here -- that's covered elsewhere. So let's stick with level of play as the primary issue, and ignore whether or not current districts come into play. This is all hypothetical, so offer ideas like there's a clean slate to work with.
Or, does the current A, B, C system do the same thing, but need to be defined differently (e.g., not every association would have a right to play at an a level without prior permission). Maybe more opportunities for inter-level play, so that moving up to A isn't quite as appealing as it may be now?
Going the different classes route like in HS (per nahc) has some intuitive appeal as well. Let's assume for a moment that the HS classification is a starting point for assigning the corresponding association to a similar class (let's ignore the exceptions for now, and focus on the bigger concept). Would teams need to spend more time out of their current districts to find enough teams at similar levels to play against? If so, wouldn't associations want to form leagues or conferences just like they do in HS athletics?
I'm not trying to start a re-districting string here -- that's covered elsewhere. So let's stick with level of play as the primary issue, and ignore whether or not current districts come into play. This is all hypothetical, so offer ideas like there's a clean slate to work with.
Or, does the current A, B, C system do the same thing, but need to be defined differently (e.g., not every association would have a right to play at an a level without prior permission). Maybe more opportunities for inter-level play, so that moving up to A isn't quite as appealing as it may be now?
This is the current system. District Directors put teams in classification. However for a practical matter very little of that is done.play4fun wrote:So, a couple in favor of setting B1 as the standard, with the option to play at an A level if approved by somebody TBD. That's one good option worth exploring more, so I'll cue that one up as "Option A" for further posts.
Going the different classes route like in HS (per nahc) has some intuitive appeal as well. Let's assume for a moment that the HS classification is a starting point for assigning the corresponding association to a similar class (let's ignore the exceptions for now, and focus on the bigger concept). Would teams need to spend more time out of their current districts to find enough teams at similar levels to play against? If so, wouldn't associations want to form leagues or conferences just like they do in HS athletics?
I'm not trying to start a re-districting string here -- that's covered elsewhere. So let's stick with level of play as the primary issue, and ignore whether or not current districts come into play. This is all hypothetical, so offer ideas like there's a clean slate to work with.
Or, does the current A, B, C system do the same thing, but need to be defined differently (e.g., not every association would have a right to play at an a level without prior permission). Maybe more opportunities for inter-level play, so that moving up to A isn't quite as appealing as it may be now?
In D16 everyone's first team is an A team. They petition to play at a B level or lower. DD with input and voice from all associations make the decision. If someone does not fit we will adjust early & get them a lower level schedule. Those at the B level are granted to play some of the lower level A teams to get a more competitive game.
This type of competetive league is already being played and without all the red tape associated with MN Hockey. My son's BA team plays in the Maroon-Gold League which includes Edina, EP, Rochester, Duluth, SSM, WBL, etc. It gives them about another 20 games. I'm not sure we need to add more classes or levels.
You may still get some lopsided games within your District...but every team needs to have a breather once in a while.
You may still get some lopsided games within your District...but every team needs to have a breather once in a while.
What's wrong with trying to get competative leagues? Just out of curiousity, would you mind sharing what last years A squirt record was and that of this years team? I know it can vary year to year but I think for the most part it's the same associations at the top and bottom every year. It wouldn't have to be a hard line rule either, associations could petition up or down if they know they have a stronger or weaker team coming up.Road Rage wrote:When will reality set in for you all? The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot level the playing field for the entire world, not in sports, not in school and not in the job market. It's just life, and there will be inequities. The reality is that some associations simply have the numbers available to them, while others do not. Naturally if you have 150 kids to chose from, the percentages will dictate that you will have a greater number of talented kids than if you have 50 to chose from. How about to make things even, we just force people to move. Or better yet, we conduct one gigantic try-out that encompasses the entire state of MN, then distribute the players evenly. After all, no one should ever learn to struggle or succeed with grace. Under your misguided "let's have next year's team play at a level based on the success of last year's squad" philosophy, our Squirt A team would probably be playing down a level -- whereas the reality of the situation is that we are a much better TEAM than last year's squad, and we are having a great season. I guess we should have been forced to pay the price for last year's team versus building our own team this season. I guess under your scenario, the Gopher basketball team would be playing high school ball this season, the Detroit Lions should probably start seeking NCAA eligibility, and the Atlanta Falcons should be thanking heavens that you aren't in charge or they would never have been a worst-to-first type team this season.
By the same token, the folks forming the teams and deciding the level of play in each association should be picked for their position(s) based on experience. They should know enough to make an honest assessment of what level will best suit their team.
The long and short of it is, you all seem to want to make life just perfect for everyone, and it isn't. So just let them play and stay out of it.
Actually the MSHSL floated around an idea similar to this when going to 2 classes. And other youth sports use something similar. It's not perfect by anymeans but is just an idea I threw out.
I agree that the problem really lies with those that are choosing what level to play and there really shouldn't be a need for any changes. But when I see teams that would be under .500 at the B level trying to play A hockey and get beat over and over by large margins I think someone should step in. That is not a life lesson; in the real world if you are the worst at something and continually fail you won't be doing it very long. Besides we are talking about kids not adults like you use in your example.
Maybe in this case we shouldn't be ignoring the semantics of AA, A, and B1.
It's too deeply ingrained for most through our educational system to think of anything labeled "B" as anything but second fiddle/rate/grade/rank etc...
Elliott, let me understand your previous recommendation a bit better. Did you propose adding one level, AA (presumably for larger associaitons and those who can play at that level from time to time)?
I think most people would view AA and A as distinctions of size in a more favorable light than the current A versus B. And, having a new AA classification for the mega associations would mean they could still have two "A" teams at each level, without diluting the top tier.
It also sounds as if you suggested more open inter-level play (i.e., up or down one level). That way the A teams from mid- to small-sized associations could still take a shot at the top teams from the larger associations on occasion.
I know this will sound like much to do about nothing for some out there, but adding one more tier, and defining all of the tiers more clearly might help some associations slot their teams more appropriately. I also think that there is enough difference between the top and bottom levels of play to accomodate another level, if only to better separate the "A1" and "A2" or "B1" teams.
It's too deeply ingrained for most through our educational system to think of anything labeled "B" as anything but second fiddle/rate/grade/rank etc...
Elliott, let me understand your previous recommendation a bit better. Did you propose adding one level, AA (presumably for larger associaitons and those who can play at that level from time to time)?
I think most people would view AA and A as distinctions of size in a more favorable light than the current A versus B. And, having a new AA classification for the mega associations would mean they could still have two "A" teams at each level, without diluting the top tier.
It also sounds as if you suggested more open inter-level play (i.e., up or down one level). That way the A teams from mid- to small-sized associations could still take a shot at the top teams from the larger associations on occasion.
I know this will sound like much to do about nothing for some out there, but adding one more tier, and defining all of the tiers more clearly might help some associations slot their teams more appropriately. I also think that there is enough difference between the top and bottom levels of play to accomodate another level, if only to better separate the "A1" and "A2" or "B1" teams.
That was the proposal. Providing definition within the Handbook, giving those that wanted an A team the chance to have an A team, but those that are always strong in numbers and by default strong at A could now be AA, their league would be the tougher metro teams and the outstate teams that wanted to commit to that level and more travel.play4fun wrote:Maybe in this case we shouldn't be ignoring the semantics of AA, A, and B1.
It's too deeply ingrained for most through our educational system to think of anything labeled "B" as anything but second fiddle/rate/grade/rank etc...
Elliott, let me understand your previous recommendation a bit better. Did you propose adding one level, AA (presumably for larger associaitons and those who can play at that level from time to time)?
I think most people would view AA and A as distinctions of size in a more favorable light than the current A versus B. And, having a new AA classification for the mega associations would mean they could still have two "A" teams at each level, without diluting the top tier.
It also sounds as if you suggested more open inter-level play (i.e., up or down one level). That way the A teams from mid- to small-sized associations could still take a shot at the top teams from the larger associations on occasion.
I know this will sound like much to do about nothing for some out there, but adding one more tier, and defining all of the tiers more clearly might help some associations slot their teams more appropriately. I also think that there is enough difference between the top and bottom levels of play to accomodate another level, if only to better separate the "A1" and "A2" or "B1" teams.
Dultuh East and Moorhead are already doing that travel.
Roseau would probably not want that degree of travel and really are not at that level on a consistent basis... but still could get those teams on their schedule. (Ex this year's Roso BA team, good, but not at the level of Dultuh East or even Bemidji - playing A as opposed to AA would be just fine for them).
The large metro teams would have an A team also thereby bringing their B1 team(s) on a more even playing level (and allowing that second tier of players to get better competition and hopefully develop better).