'B' teams in towns that don't skate an 'A'

[frederick61]

Isn't it already allowable for an association to designate two A teams at a level, but in doing so it must field two balanced teams (not one with the top 17 and one with 18-34 designated A1 and A2)? If the association goes the A1/A2 route they must find a home for the A2 team and that can be difficult. Rochester tried the an A1 and A2 approach, but always had difficulty with finding a competitive home for the A2 team.

[hudini3]

If you have only one team and choose to play B in order to give some of the weaker players a place to play, it would be best if you actually play them.

AMEN

[muckandgrind]

If you have only one team and choose to play B in order to give some of the weaker players a place to play, it would be best if you actually play them.

Of course, if you choose to play B then you should be playing everyone.

[muckandgrind]

Isn't it already allowable for an association to designate two A teams at a level, but in doing so it must field two balanced teams (not one with the top 17 and one with 18-34 designated A1 and A2)? If the association goes the A1/A2 route they must find a home for the A2 team and that can be difficult. Rochester tried the an A1 and A2 approach, but always had difficulty with finding a competitive home for the A2 team.

I don't know the rule, but it seems that both Rochester and Edina field unbalanced A teams, which is not the way it should be done.......I would like to hear from a Rochester/Edina parent to see if that is truly the case.

[netminder.net]

Bantam A
Rochester Red 17-4-2, Ranked #4 (Mnhockeyrankings.com)
Rochester Black 3-8-3, Ranked #82 (Mnhockeyrankings.com)
Common opponents;
Red v Eagan 2-1
Black v to Eagan 0-10
Red v Sibley 5-1
Black v to Sibley 0-1

[woodley]

But what about those teams that only have one team that they play at B level? Should they play A or B. For instance... Waseca (D4) has played only one bantam team for many years as a B team. And each year they just dominate the true B teams during district games and the district tournaments. I don't really think that is helping the players get better walking through districts.
This year District 4 east has 4 out of 7 teams do not skate A teams. And 2 of those teams are in the top 3.
I just don't think that's fair!!!

I think it should depend on the overall talent level of the players on the team. How many top end (A) players are there compared to low end (C) players? If you have more low end players, then that team should probably play B. If you have more top end players, then you should probably play A. Just remember, how much can the low end players really develop game sense if they will never see the puck in a A game?

My philosophy is that at PeeWee and Bantam, a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players. If you're bottom players are really weak, then you should play down a level.

The problem to this one, Muck, is often those same low end kids only see one shift per period unless the game is in hand. . . . . the team referenced above had at least one (and likely two) kids who were going to play high school but used Bantams as a "fall league." The coach skated these same two kids every other shift for the majority of games. . . . kinda shoots the "development" of the lower end kids, huh? In D4, 40% do not field A teams. In 2007-08, one association fielded only a Bantam B team. Normally this would not be a huge issue, but, this same association had only fielded a B team in 06-07, won the District and Region and returned more than 50% of the team. .. . . . development????

[gohawk4]

Muckandgrind, you keep telling me that a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players, but then you tell second associations to move up to 2 A teams. Knowing the Wayzata Bantam situation there are probably 5-8 kids that could play at the A level on the B1 team. By being able to play, this includes, playing the more physical game and being able to move the puck up the ice and not being able to throw the puck everytime they touch it. So lets say that 7 (to make math easier) of these kids are good enough. With an equal draft, that gives you two teams with 11 players that are good enough to play at the A level. Leaving 4 players on each team that can't handle that level. So do you suggest they cut these kids or do they sit on the bench? If you cut them, you have to explain to everyone why a large association cut 8 kids from being able to play A, or you have to explain to the parents why their kids aren't playing much.

You are missing my point in the fact that every association should not have an A team. If smaller associations that can't play A, play B then the B level is stronger and large associations' second team are still playing against the weaker A teams, who are now playing at the B level, where they belong. I think we have different ideas because I come from a large association and you are from a smaller association. Smaller Associations should play B hockey, if you don't have enough A players and they will have the same strength of schedule as playing at the A level, because they will be facing these "second A" teams from large associations.

[muckandgrind]

Muckandgrind, you keep telling me that a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players, but then you tell second associations to move up to 2 A teams. Knowing the Wayzata Bantam situation there are probably 5-8 kids that could play at the A level on the B1 team. By being able to play, this includes, playing the more physical game and being able to move the puck up the ice and not being able to throw the puck everytime they touch it. So lets say that 7 (to make math easier) of these kids are good enough. With an equal draft, that gives you two teams with 11 players that are good enough to play at the A level. Leaving 4 players on each team that can't handle that level. So do you suggest they cut these kids or do they sit on the bench? If you cut them, you have to explain to everyone why a large association cut 8 kids from being able to play A, or you have to explain to the parents why their kids aren't playing much.


You are missing my point in the fact that every association should not have an A team. If smaller associations that can't play A, play B then the B level is stronger and large associations' second team are still playing against the weaker A teams, who are now playing at the B level, where they belong. I think we have different ideas because I come from a large association and you are from a smaller association. Smaller Associations should play B hockey, if you don't have enough A players and they will have the same strength of schedule as playing at the A level, because they will be facing these "second A" teams from large associations.

...and I stand by that. That's why programs like Wayzata and Edina dominate every year because the deviation of talent from their top to bottom player is much smaller than most associations. Their 3rd line players on their A teams would be 1st liners in the medium sized associations.

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with the THEORY of smaller associations playing B (mainly due to the way things are set up right now)...but like I also said there are two problems with that theory:

1) If you don't offer an A team, than A level players can waive out of your association so they can try out for an A team in another association.

2) There are many who say that the best way to get ready for HS is to play at the A level (Bantams).

I would disagree with your guess on the number of players on the Wayzata B1 team that can play A. Remember, they are 27-0-1. They are rolling over the best B1 teams in the State. If you have 175 players trying out for Bantams, than you should have AT LEAST 25-30 players capable of playing A hockey, at the very minimum. If you can get an A team out of 35-55 players, doesn't it also make sense that you could get two teams out of 175? The simple math equation below shows that you could get MORE than 30 players, all else being equal:

17/50 = 59.5/175

If you took the top 38 players from Wayzata and split them EVENLY between two teams, I bet both teams would still be ranked in the top 20, easily.

Being that you are from a large association, it's no wonder that you favor the current situation. But try and look at it from the other perspective. You have lots of top quality A level players in this state who don't have a chance to compete, let alone sniff the State tourney, because they come from a smaller or medium-sized association.

I hear everyone who is against Tier I AAA say it shouldn't be allowed because Tier I doesn't work in favor of the whole versus the few....how does the current situation work in favor of the whole when the same few associations dominate the state every single year?

Playing B sounds like the easy fix, but you need to think about the consquences to both the smaller associations as well as the players affected. The only real consequence I can think of in having Wayzata run two A teams is that they won't be quite as dominant..however, both teams would still be very very good and could still challenge for a state title on a yearly basis.

[elliott70]

Isn't it already allowable for an association to designate two A teams at a level, but in doing so it must field two balanced teams (not one with the top 17 and one with 18-34 designated A1 and A2)? If the association goes the A1/A2 route they must find a home for the A2 team and that can be difficult. Rochester tried the an A1 and A2 approach, but always had difficulty with finding a competitive home for the A2 team.

It is allowable to have multiple A teams.
The make-up of those teams is up to the local association. Some districts have rules pertaining to the make-up of those teams, but that is hard to police.
Any A team is allowed to play in the district competition. Rochester chose to play an independent schedule.

[gohawk4]

Muckandgrind your math only works if you assume that every 50 kids has 17 kids that are A quality. I have seen a lot of associations with 50 kids that only have about 5-10 players that should be A players. If they are not good enough to play against the top players in the state, they are not A players. The reason for such a huge difference in skill at the A level is because most kids aren't A players. Your average player is a B player. Your top kids are A, then the next are B and then the rest are C.

I have seen the Wayzata Blue team play many games. They are good, but more than half the kids are lucky to have the game played at the B level and not as fast and physical as the A level. This team has played quite a few good games, but also blow out teams that shouldn't have an A team. Maybe you should go to a game at the Edina tournament this weekend and explain to me which kids could make a step to the next level.

Why should we handicap the large associations so that the small associations can sniff state?

The reason coaches say that playing the A level is the only way to get ready for high school is because all these small associations keep A teams and that lowers the product at the B level. Bring the second tier A teams down and you get competitive levels at both A and B1.

[Johnsonpres]

We here at Johnson have 31 Pee Wee's and this is the first time we have not had an "A" team. Last year we won 3 games and it was a long season, This season we went "B" and we are 14 wins and 11 losses and a tie and we have 13 players and 10 are first year pee wee's. Our "C" team has not won a game. I think we did the right thing by going "B" and it is giving our players a chance to compete.

[hawkhockey]

But what about those teams that only have one team that they play at B level? Should they play A or B. For instance... Waseca (D4) has played only one bantam team for many years as a B team. And each year they just dominate the true B teams during district games and the district tournaments. I don't really think that is helping the players get better walking through districts.
This year District 4 east has 4 out of 7 teams do not skate A teams. And 2 of those teams are in the top 3.
I just don't think that's fair!!!

I think it should depend on the overall talent level of the players on the team. How many top end (A) players are there compared to low end (C) players? If you have more low end players, then that team should probably play B. If you have more top end players, then you should probably play A. Just remember, how much can the low end players really develop game sense if they will never see the puck in a A game?

My philosophy is that at PeeWee and Bantam, a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players. If you're bottom players are really weak, then you should play down a level.

i agree with you for the most part. But what happens to the other 8-10 players that should be playing at that level? Why should they have to sacrifice their devolopement because a few kids can't keep up?

[muckandgrind]

But what about those teams that only have one team that they play at B level? Should they play A or B. For instance... Waseca (D4) has played only one bantam team for many years as a B team. And each year they just dominate the true B teams during district games and the district tournaments. I don't really think that is helping the players get better walking through districts.
This year District 4 east has 4 out of 7 teams do not skate A teams. And 2 of those teams are in the top 3.
I just don't think that's fair!!!

I think it should depend on the overall talent level of the players on the team. How many top end (A) players are there compared to low end (C) players? If you have more low end players, then that team should probably play B. If you have more top end players, then you should probably play A. Just remember, how much can the low end players really develop game sense if they will never see the puck in a A game?

My philosophy is that at PeeWee and Bantam, a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players. If you're bottom players are really weak, then you should play down a level.

i agree with you for the most part. But what happens to the other 8-10 players that should be playing at that level? Why should they have to sacrifice their devolopement because a few kids can't keep up?

If you want to play at an A level, you should be able to waiver out and play for another association that has one. Either that, or run a 11 or 12 player A team.

[defense]

I think it should depend on the overall talent level of the players on the team. How many top end (A) players are there compared to low end (C) players? If you have more low end players, then that team should probably play B. If you have more top end players, then you should probably play A. Just remember, how much can the low end players really develop game sense if they will never see the puck in a A game?

My philosophy is that at PeeWee and Bantam, a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players. If you're bottom players are really weak, then you should play down a level.

i agree with you for the most part. But what happens to the other 8-10 players that should be playing at that level? Why should they have to sacrifice their devolopement because a few kids can't keep up?

If you want to play at an A level, you should be able to waiver out and play for another association that has one. Either that, or run a 11 or 12 player A team.

Let's not forgett what a team is guys...if you can make it all work, even if the weakest is really weak, it will be a positive for all of the players' developement. Do not forget that competition drives developement. Running a 11 or 12 member a team does nothing but were out the kids in good games...

[muckandgrind]

i agree with you for the most part. But what happens to the other 8-10 players that should be playing at that level? Why should they have to sacrifice their devolopement because a few kids can't keep up?

If you want to play at an A level, you should be able to waiver out and play for another association that has one. Either that, or run a 11 or 12 player A team.

Let's not forgett what a team is guys...if you can make it all work, even if the weakest is really weak, it will be a positive for all of the players' developement. Do not forget that competition drives developement. Running a 11 or 12 member a team does nothing but were out the kids in good games...

That sounds nice, but what if the 13th skater would be in completely over their head? How does that help them and the team? It doesn't. I don't have a problem with challenging players and taking them out of their comfort zone, but to put them in a situation where they have no chance to compete is doing both them and the team a disservice.

Sometimes, you are better off with 12 skaters versus adding that 13th.

[edinahornetkid24]

depends on the size of the community. For a smaller community, its totally fair.

[defense]

If you want to play at an A level, you should be able to waiver out and play for another association that has one. Either that, or run a 11 or 12 player A team.

Let's not forgett what a team is guys...if you can make it all work, even if the weakest is really weak, it will be a positive for all of the players' developement. Do not forget that competition drives developement. Running a 11 or 12 member a team does nothing but were out the kids in good games...

That sounds nice, but what if the 13th skater would be in completely over their head? How does that help them and the team? It doesn't. I don't have a problem with challenging players and taking them out of their comfort zone, but to put them in a situation where they have no chance to compete is doing both them and the team a disservice.

Sometimes, you are better off with 12 skaters versus adding that 13th.

Since there really isn't a lot of difference between 12 players and 13 fine, but talk about 10 vs 13 or 12 vs 15...........not being able to keep up in the 3rd or OT does everyone involved a disservice.

[muckandgrind]

Let's not forgett what a team is guys...if you can make it all work, even if the weakest is really weak, it will be a positive for all of the players' developement. Do not forget that competition drives developement. Running a 11 or 12 member a team does nothing but were out the kids in good games...

That sounds nice, but what if the 13th skater would be in completely over their head? How does that help them and the team? It doesn't. I don't have a problem with challenging players and taking them out of their comfort zone, but to put them in a situation where they have no chance to compete is doing both them and the team a disservice.

Sometimes, you are better off with 12 skaters versus adding that 13th.

Since there really isn't a lot of difference between 12 players and 13 fine, but talk about 10 vs 13 or 12 vs 15...........not being able to keep up in the 3rd or OT does everyone involved a disservice.

I would say that 12 skaters. is the minimum a Squirt or PW team could run with. A Bantam team should have a minimum of 13-14 skaters to account for injuries.

[ramstein]

This was an interesting read.

I am from one of these small association.

We field an A and B team at every level every year.....and yes some years they are weak teams. There are some players that are only on the A team to give the A team enough skaters.

I have also seen the towns that don't play A come in and dominate the B districts and move on.

The goal should be to develop the "teams" and the players. If we as parents/associations do the right thing then we should profit by building teams and players that can have success at the next level.

The ultimate goal is develop players to players and make them ready for the chance to play at the high school level. Where these little associations seem to show up at the HS state tournament. So maybe little jonny didn't make it to the state tournament as a PeeWee or Bantam.....but they aren't watching the high school state tournament on TV because they are there.

[Bdangler9090]

Waconia has no "A" team and their not good at all