moorehead bantam b1 tourny
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
More scores...
Duluth 9
Centennial 3
Grand Rapids 5
Blake 0
Chaska 7
Roseau 3
Stillwater 7
Mound/Westonka 1
Edina White 6
East Grand Forks 0
Todays Winner Bracket Matchups
Duluth vs Wayzata (current score Wayzata 5 Duluth 3..game in progress)
Chaska Vs White Bear Lake
Sauk Rapids vs Edina White
Stillwater vs Grand Rapids
Loser Bracket
Centennial vs Grand Rapids
Roseau vs Moorhead
East Grand Forks vs Eden Prairie
Mound/Westonka vs Blake
Duluth 9
Centennial 3
Grand Rapids 5
Blake 0
Chaska 7
Roseau 3
Stillwater 7
Mound/Westonka 1
Edina White 6
East Grand Forks 0
Todays Winner Bracket Matchups
Duluth vs Wayzata (current score Wayzata 5 Duluth 3..game in progress)
Chaska Vs White Bear Lake
Sauk Rapids vs Edina White
Stillwater vs Grand Rapids
Loser Bracket
Centennial vs Grand Rapids
Roseau vs Moorhead
East Grand Forks vs Eden Prairie
Mound/Westonka vs Blake
More Scores
Thanks for the update. Keep the scores coming. Do you have a weather forecast? Is there a Storm brewing up there?
Duluth 9
Centennial 3
Grand Rapids 5
Blake 0
Chaska 7
Roseau 3
Stillwater 7
Mound/Westonka 1
Edina White 6
East Grand Forks 0
Todays Winner Bracket Matchups
Duluth vs Wayzata (current score Wayzata 5 Duluth 3..game in progress)
Chaska Vs White Bear Lake
Sauk Rapids vs Edina White
Stillwater vs Grand Rapids
Loser Bracket
Centennial vs Grand Rapids
Roseau vs Moorhead
East Grand Forks vs Eden Prairie
Mound/Westonka vs Blake[/quote]
Duluth 9
Centennial 3
Grand Rapids 5
Blake 0
Chaska 7
Roseau 3
Stillwater 7
Mound/Westonka 1
Edina White 6
East Grand Forks 0
Todays Winner Bracket Matchups
Duluth vs Wayzata (current score Wayzata 5 Duluth 3..game in progress)
Chaska Vs White Bear Lake
Sauk Rapids vs Edina White
Stillwater vs Grand Rapids
Loser Bracket
Centennial vs Grand Rapids
Roseau vs Moorhead
East Grand Forks vs Eden Prairie
Mound/Westonka vs Blake[/quote]
Saturday Scores
Loser's Bracket
Centennial 10
Grand Forks 3
Blake 9
Mound Westonka 2
(Centennial faces Blake at 445pm)
Grand Forks vs Mound at 3pm
Moorhead 5
Roseau 2
Eden Prairie 8
East Grand Forks 2
Moorhead vs EP at 815pm
Roseau vs EGF at 630pm
Winner Bracket
Wayzata 5
Duluth 4
Stillwater 3
Grand Rapids 1
Wayzata vs Stillwater at 515pm
Duluth vs Grand Rapids at 330pm
Chaska 3
White Bear Lake 2
Sauk Rapids 3 (OT)
Edina 2
Chaska vs Sauk Rapids at 845pm
WBL vs Edina at 7pm
More scores later...
Loser's Bracket
Centennial 10
Grand Forks 3
Blake 9
Mound Westonka 2
(Centennial faces Blake at 445pm)
Grand Forks vs Mound at 3pm
Moorhead 5
Roseau 2
Eden Prairie 8
East Grand Forks 2
Moorhead vs EP at 815pm
Roseau vs EGF at 630pm
Winner Bracket
Wayzata 5
Duluth 4
Stillwater 3
Grand Rapids 1
Wayzata vs Stillwater at 515pm
Duluth vs Grand Rapids at 330pm
Chaska 3
White Bear Lake 2
Sauk Rapids 3 (OT)
Edina 2
Chaska vs Sauk Rapids at 845pm
WBL vs Edina at 7pm
More scores later...
Final Scores of the Day...
Winner's Bracket
Duluth 4
Grand Rapids 1
White Bear Lake 0
Edina White 3
Consolation of the Winners Bracket
Duluth vs Edina
Grand Rapids vs WBL for 7th Place
Wayzata 8
Stillwater 1
Sauk Rapids 1
Chaska 0
Championship Game at 145pm Sunday
Sauk Rapids vs Wayzata
3rd Place Game
Chaska vs Stillwater
Winner's Bracket
Duluth 4
Grand Rapids 1
White Bear Lake 0
Edina White 3
Consolation of the Winners Bracket
Duluth vs Edina
Grand Rapids vs WBL for 7th Place
Wayzata 8
Stillwater 1
Sauk Rapids 1
Chaska 0
Championship Game at 145pm Sunday
Sauk Rapids vs Wayzata
3rd Place Game
Chaska vs Stillwater
Loser's Bracket Scores
Grand Forks 7
Mound/Westonka 4
East Grand Forks 3
Roseau 2
Consolation of the Losers Bracket
Grand Forks vs East Grand Forks
7th Place Game
Mound/Westonka vs Roseau
Blake 6
Centennial 3
Eden Prairie 7
Moorhead 1
Championship of the Loser's Bracket
Blake vs Eden Prairie at 115pm
3rd Place Game
Moorhead vs Centennial
Grand Forks 7
Mound/Westonka 4
East Grand Forks 3
Roseau 2
Consolation of the Losers Bracket
Grand Forks vs East Grand Forks
7th Place Game
Mound/Westonka vs Roseau
Blake 6
Centennial 3
Eden Prairie 7
Moorhead 1
Championship of the Loser's Bracket
Blake vs Eden Prairie at 115pm
3rd Place Game
Moorhead vs Centennial
Final Scores...
Loser's Bracket
15th Place
Mound/Westonka over Roseau 8-6
13th Place (Consolation)
East Grand Forks over Grand Forks 4-3
11th Place (3rd Place in Loser's Bracket)
Moorhead over Centennial 2-0
9th Place (Champion of the Loser's Bracket)
Eden Prairie over Blake 3-1
EP Solid team.
7th Place
White Bear Lake over Grand Rapids 2-0
5th Place (Consolation Game of the Winners Bracket)
Duluth over Edina White 4-3 in OT.
3rd Place
Stillwater over Chaska (Tied 2-2 after OT, went to a shootout, Stillwater won 5-3 in shootout)
1st Place...and Champion of the Moorhead Tournament
Sauk Rapids over Wayzata (ranked #1 in LPH)
3-2 in Regulation
Excellent Matchup!!! Sauk Rapids led 1-0 in first period. Wayzata tied in up at the end of the first (SR player with weird bouncing puck went in SR net). Sauk Rapids went ahead in 2nd period with 2 quick goals. Wayzata added a second goal in the third.
Both teams played a tough game.
Loser's Bracket
15th Place
Mound/Westonka over Roseau 8-6
13th Place (Consolation)
East Grand Forks over Grand Forks 4-3
11th Place (3rd Place in Loser's Bracket)
Moorhead over Centennial 2-0
9th Place (Champion of the Loser's Bracket)
Eden Prairie over Blake 3-1
EP Solid team.
7th Place
White Bear Lake over Grand Rapids 2-0
5th Place (Consolation Game of the Winners Bracket)
Duluth over Edina White 4-3 in OT.
3rd Place
Stillwater over Chaska (Tied 2-2 after OT, went to a shootout, Stillwater won 5-3 in shootout)
1st Place...and Champion of the Moorhead Tournament
Sauk Rapids over Wayzata (ranked #1 in LPH)
3-2 in Regulation
Excellent Matchup!!! Sauk Rapids led 1-0 in first period. Wayzata tied in up at the end of the first (SR player with weird bouncing puck went in SR net). Sauk Rapids went ahead in 2nd period with 2 quick goals. Wayzata added a second goal in the third.
Both teams played a tough game.
The championship game was a very good game. Sauk Rapids has a few very good players and their goalie was outstanding. Wayzata played well and got beat by a good team. Great game and should be another great game if they play again.
The 3rd place game was a good game also. It went into a shootout before Stillwater won. Unfortunately one of the players went overboard in his celebration and ruined what was otherwise a good win. It was a great hockey tournament and I enjoyed all the games I watched. No admission fees was a great thing to see. All tournaments should look at doing this.
The 3rd place game was a good game also. It went into a shootout before Stillwater won. Unfortunately one of the players went overboard in his celebration and ruined what was otherwise a good win. It was a great hockey tournament and I enjoyed all the games I watched. No admission fees was a great thing to see. All tournaments should look at doing this.
-
JoltDelivered
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:31 am
-
DannyNoonan
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:33 am
And if we add tournaments for levels C through Z, everyone can go home happy!gohawk4 wrote: The question is why don't other small associations do the same thing. It would make for a great B level and it would allow these associations to play close games all year long, instead of losing 10-0 against some of the larger associations.
Clever my friend. A small association usually has 1 A team 1 B team and maybe 1 C team. There A team is about .200 and there B team is .300 and there C team is .500. Now if you move the A team to B they become .500, the B -> B2 team is .500 and the C team hasn't changed. Tell me where we need this C through Z teams. If you don't agree why not bring up valid points.DannyNoonan wrote:And if we add tournaments for levels C through Z, everyone can go home happy!gohawk4 wrote: The question is why don't other small associations do the same thing. It would make for a great B level and it would allow these associations to play close games all year long, instead of losing 10-0 against some of the larger associations.
Who enjoys playing 10-0 games? Anyone? The winner doesn't like them because they don't have to try. The losers don't like it because they can't even grab the puck before it is taken away.
We have parents thinking, My kid is too good for a B team. However, a lot of these kids deserve to be at the B level. They would have more fun, learn more and develop into players that are just as good as if they play A.
You can teach a kid to play against better competition, but if they aren't touching the puck and losing every game, What did they get out of it?
I am a coach with no kids. I benefit in no way, shape or form if we win or lose 10-0 or 3-2. However, We are hurting these kids if we keep putting them in games that are 10-0.
-
DannyNoonan
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:33 am
I don't know where you got your statistics and I'm not sure they're accurate. If a team is losing every game 10-0 they probably are at the wrong level. However, I don't think it's right that a team that might win 40-50% of their games at the A level moves down to dominate the B level if their association has no A team.
You are correct SR does not have an A.
There was a push to go A but not enough support. In fact SR does have an A PeeWee and Squirt Team. They have not gone A at the Bantam level in many years.
The Bantams have 3 goalies and 26 skaters in District 10 one of the toughest in the state (I'd say D-3 is toughest).
How does a small association compete with large associations that have 6-10 Bantam teams and only skate 1 A???
I think if you have enough for 6 teams you should have 2 A, 2-B1 and 2-B2. (or if you have 6 you should be required to have 2 A's. You can't tell me there are only 12 top players with 72 skaters).
I also think the A level should be split into two like the B level. Play A1 and A2 (or AAA and AA like Canada). That way smaller associations would be more inclined to go A2 and provide a chance for those players to be at the A level.
but that's just my humble opinion.
There was a push to go A but not enough support. In fact SR does have an A PeeWee and Squirt Team. They have not gone A at the Bantam level in many years.
The Bantams have 3 goalies and 26 skaters in District 10 one of the toughest in the state (I'd say D-3 is toughest).
How does a small association compete with large associations that have 6-10 Bantam teams and only skate 1 A???
I think if you have enough for 6 teams you should have 2 A, 2-B1 and 2-B2. (or if you have 6 you should be required to have 2 A's. You can't tell me there are only 12 top players with 72 skaters).
I also think the A level should be split into two like the B level. Play A1 and A2 (or AAA and AA like Canada). That way smaller associations would be more inclined to go A2 and provide a chance for those players to be at the A level.
but that's just my humble opinion.
I agree with points made by both GH4 and Mitch.
Also, it's time for A and AA traveling teams. Smaller associations might be more inclined to play at an "A" level than they are at a "B" level, even if that is where they belong now. AA would fit the larger associations, or a smaller association that can compete at that level.
Guidelines and oversight would be needed to ensure that associations aren't continually trying to play at a level beyond what their numbers and/or talent support -- which is the case with quite a few "A" teams today. The current classification system could work well, but I believe too many coaches/associations believe they have to play at an A level to get their kids ready for highschool. They better approach, in my opinion, is whether they're playing at a level where they can compete enough to develop and have fun along the way.
I've been part of two smaller associations, and the temptation for some coaches to play their kids up a level for their individual benefit (and not necesarily the overall team's benefit) has been repeated enough for me to say it happens in large part because they don't view their kid as a "B" player. The A and AA designations are more likely to be viewed favorably as an indicator of an association's size, rather than ability, which is how I think too many view the current A vs. B labels.
But, we've been down this road already on other threads...
Also, it's time for A and AA traveling teams. Smaller associations might be more inclined to play at an "A" level than they are at a "B" level, even if that is where they belong now. AA would fit the larger associations, or a smaller association that can compete at that level.
Guidelines and oversight would be needed to ensure that associations aren't continually trying to play at a level beyond what their numbers and/or talent support -- which is the case with quite a few "A" teams today. The current classification system could work well, but I believe too many coaches/associations believe they have to play at an A level to get their kids ready for highschool. They better approach, in my opinion, is whether they're playing at a level where they can compete enough to develop and have fun along the way.
I've been part of two smaller associations, and the temptation for some coaches to play their kids up a level for their individual benefit (and not necesarily the overall team's benefit) has been repeated enough for me to say it happens in large part because they don't view their kid as a "B" player. The A and AA designations are more likely to be viewed favorably as an indicator of an association's size, rather than ability, which is how I think too many view the current A vs. B labels.
But, we've been down this road already on other threads...
Why does everyone think that 1/3 of your program should be A players. A is for the top talent. I believe out of 72 kids, 17 is a good number of kids playing A. 17 out of 100 is a good number of kids playing A's. 34 out of 100 is not the right amount of A players. We cannot all have A players. If they went to a A1 and A2, you would see many associations go to 2 A teams. However, they don't have that at this point. This leaves associations with three choices. 1) We can have 1 A and 1 B1 and they will be a top team in both leagues. 2) We can have an A1 and A2, the A1 will be a top team and the A2 will have many lopsided losses. or 3) We have 2 equal A teams and will likely be a middle of the road team.
Try telling the top kids and their parents that you want them to be on a middle of the road team instead of a chance at winning state. Not going to happen. So 3 is out.
Now do the same thing with telling 17 kids and parents that they will be a lower team at the A level instead of having a chance to win state. This you will get about half and half responses. They get to play better kids and get a chance at the best teams, but they may never get the joy of winning state or even districts. Plus you take away another 10 games from Playoffs.
Try telling the top kids and their parents that you want them to be on a middle of the road team instead of a chance at winning state. Not going to happen. So 3 is out.
Now do the same thing with telling 17 kids and parents that they will be a lower team at the A level instead of having a chance to win state. This you will get about half and half responses. They get to play better kids and get a chance at the best teams, but they may never get the joy of winning state or even districts. Plus you take away another 10 games from Playoffs.
You are correct gohawk it can be a slippery slope to form two A teams.
For SR it was a tough choice. As a small association it came down to do we give these boys a better chance to get to state or play A which some of the boys are A players but be a .300-.500 or maybe lower team. (by your statistics 24% of our players would be A players or 6 - which I'm not sure you can play A with 6 top players).
In the end they choose to be a top team and enjoy success at B1 which btw is a truly great level especially for small associations.
For SR it was a tough choice. As a small association it came down to do we give these boys a better chance to get to state or play A which some of the boys are A players but be a .300-.500 or maybe lower team. (by your statistics 24% of our players would be A players or 6 - which I'm not sure you can play A with 6 top players).
In the end they choose to be a top team and enjoy success at B1 which btw is a truly great level especially for small associations.
I got to see Sauk Rapids play and they seem to have made the right choice. From what I have seen, they have an A caliber goalie and that would allow them to compete at the A level a little bit. I don't think they would be greater than a .500 team. I also see this in Wayzata Blue and all other B1 teams. I don't see any of them cracking .500 especially if they have to play the top A teams throughout the year. Good choice playing at the B1 level. Regionals should be interesting as you get D10, D3 and D15 in the West.