As far as I know Edina is the only association skating 2 teams at the 12A level. They have one good one and one with the next group of girls.
We saw the second Edina U2A team (white) yesterday. They are lower tier in D6 and really struggled. The question we had watching it was: is this good for these girls? Will they develop better by playing at this level, or are they better off dominating in U12B? I don't know how many are first-years. I would guess they had quite a few. Will those kids be better next year because of this? Any opinions?
Edina's U12A Experiment
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)
The 2nd team (white) played us tough 3 times maybe they had an off day (Burnsville will do that to you.) I would think that those first-year kids on that team got some good experience and will probably be better equipped to compete next year than B kids. But from what I know the Edina Green team is half first-years too.
We don't have enough kids here to do it. I wonder what Wayzata and EP parents think? Looks like each has some pretty good 12B teams too and could contemplate running 2 A programs.
We don't have enough kids here to do it. I wonder what Wayzata and EP parents think? Looks like each has some pretty good 12B teams too and could contemplate running 2 A programs.
-
drop the puck
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 am
-
Icehound99
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:14 pm
Lakeville is another that did not split at this level but probably would've been fine, but there are cases where egoes will not let two groups form at the risk of not finishing at or near the top in wins. Why is there no North abd South like other Lakeville groups? I applaud Edina for their forming two teams, although it would've been the right thing to make them equal maybe.
-
jollyroger
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:12 am
My opinion is that Edina did the right thing for this year and this group of kids. But it depends on the situation. It might not work the same for them next year or the year after.
1) The 12A Green team has a legit shot at winning state--if they had evenly divided the two A teams that probably wouldn't be the case.
2) If they made 3 'equal' B teams there would be several A-level players sprinkled among the 3. Is that fair to those players?
3) If they made 3 B teams B1, B2, B3, the B1 team would be the A White team and would smoke any B team around--there would be no competition for them. That wouldn't be good for those kids. The B3 team would be trampled on, also not doing them any good.
Hasn't the A White team played pretty well lately against some pretty good teams, especially compared to November? That would tell me they've made the right decision.
1) The 12A Green team has a legit shot at winning state--if they had evenly divided the two A teams that probably wouldn't be the case.
2) If they made 3 'equal' B teams there would be several A-level players sprinkled among the 3. Is that fair to those players?
3) If they made 3 B teams B1, B2, B3, the B1 team would be the A White team and would smoke any B team around--there would be no competition for them. That wouldn't be good for those kids. The B3 team would be trampled on, also not doing them any good.
Hasn't the A White team played pretty well lately against some pretty good teams, especially compared to November? That would tell me they've made the right decision.
Have two A level teams will advance the developement of both the A1 and A2 teams...in my opinion more so than if the White squad was playing at the B level.
From an association standpoint, I prefer having one A team at each level. I think the A team is suppose to be the one team that the whole association rallys around. I never liked coaching the B-1 vs B-1 game...it is always the most anticipated game but even the parents find it uncomfortable to cheer.
With that said, Edina making a top team was a wise choice.
From an association standpoint, I prefer having one A team at each level. I think the A team is suppose to be the one team that the whole association rallys around. I never liked coaching the B-1 vs B-1 game...it is always the most anticipated game but even the parents find it uncomfortable to cheer.
With that said, Edina making a top team was a wise choice.
-
blondegirlsdad
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:30 am
Hey! A thread about my favorite team!
Speaking as a parent of one of the kids on Edina White, I think the association did a good thing by making two teams. There's no question in my mind that by playing the schedule we did, by practicing with and against the kids we did will be better for most of the girls, my daughter included. There are a ton of girls in this age group in Edina, and I think the association knew this and did the best thing they could for most of the girls.
Did our team win a lot? No, but if you're in D6, there are only 3 teams that did. We only got creamed a couple times, and Burnsville, Eden Prairie and Wayzata creamed a lot of people. We're hardly unique there. We played everyone else very close, beat a few, lost a few, won a couple by a wide margin, but weren't at all out of place. Heck, we're still making plans for a run at the state title.
As to a misconception from one of the previous posts - this team was, in fact, mostly second year kids. My daughter and 3 others were the only first years, so it's not like the association just decided to get a whole bunch of first years ready for next year at everyone's expense. I am convinced that the fact that my kid got to experience the increased speed and physical play will help her tremendously next year if she's lucky enough to get to play A level again.
I know some parents in the association (and even on the team) don't agree with me, but that may be in the execution of the idea, not in the idea itself. Our biggest issue as a family was with the fact that our kid got run from behind, broke her wrist and missed half the season. (She's fine now, thanks for asking.)
Pens4 has it right, though, about playing the team in your own association. Nobody cheered too loud at our in-association games. The first game, we didn't really have much to cheer about, and the other parents (most all of whom are good friends) sort of applauded politely when they scored. Second game felt closer, more cheering, but similar result. Either way, tough - they're supposed to be better, so when they are, it's kind of not a bulletin. On the off chance one of the Edina teams gets bounced, we'll all get behind the team that's left.
Count us as happy to have gotten the chance and feeling good about the development. I wish there were B1's or A2's or some other levels in girls, but there aren't and every association has some issues as to where they should play, etc.
Speaking as a parent of one of the kids on Edina White, I think the association did a good thing by making two teams. There's no question in my mind that by playing the schedule we did, by practicing with and against the kids we did will be better for most of the girls, my daughter included. There are a ton of girls in this age group in Edina, and I think the association knew this and did the best thing they could for most of the girls.
Did our team win a lot? No, but if you're in D6, there are only 3 teams that did. We only got creamed a couple times, and Burnsville, Eden Prairie and Wayzata creamed a lot of people. We're hardly unique there. We played everyone else very close, beat a few, lost a few, won a couple by a wide margin, but weren't at all out of place. Heck, we're still making plans for a run at the state title.
As to a misconception from one of the previous posts - this team was, in fact, mostly second year kids. My daughter and 3 others were the only first years, so it's not like the association just decided to get a whole bunch of first years ready for next year at everyone's expense. I am convinced that the fact that my kid got to experience the increased speed and physical play will help her tremendously next year if she's lucky enough to get to play A level again.
I know some parents in the association (and even on the team) don't agree with me, but that may be in the execution of the idea, not in the idea itself. Our biggest issue as a family was with the fact that our kid got run from behind, broke her wrist and missed half the season. (She's fine now, thanks for asking.)
Pens4 has it right, though, about playing the team in your own association. Nobody cheered too loud at our in-association games. The first game, we didn't really have much to cheer about, and the other parents (most all of whom are good friends) sort of applauded politely when they scored. Second game felt closer, more cheering, but similar result. Either way, tough - they're supposed to be better, so when they are, it's kind of not a bulletin. On the off chance one of the Edina teams gets bounced, we'll all get behind the team that's left.
Count us as happy to have gotten the chance and feeling good about the development. I wish there were B1's or A2's or some other levels in girls, but there aren't and every association has some issues as to where they should play, etc.
Good questions Drop the Puck.drop the puck wrote:Development is based on wins or by improving as a team?
The two Edina 12A teams were not formed by an even split of talent?
In general, D6 rules require that the teams of the same level have an even split of talent. As far as I know there is no A1/A2 distinction in D6. The Edina Board must have gotten a waiver on this issue.
Next, I don't know the answer to your question about development of team versus wins. I do know that it is important that teams be competitive. Edina did a 12B1 and a 12B2 team a number of years ago. The 12B2 team was pathetic and not competitive (I think they lost every game and it wasn't close) and most of the girls on the 12B2 team were disheartened and quit. There are two sides to every decision. Creating a 12A2 team may be great for the A2 girls but what does it do to the B teams. Thankfully the Edina B teams were competitive this year but competitiveness of the B teams has to be a concern every year. The other problem is that many of the kids on the B teams are competitive too. Did Edina throw away the chance for their B teams to be competitive for a State title by taking 3-4 of the top players off their B teams?
The problem at the B level is that some kids were pretty good and were bubble kids and some kids were just learning to skate! I think the answer to all of this is instead of A1 and A2 teams Mn Hockey should create a metro wide C or B2 league for developmental players. Numbers is a problem so they shouldn't worry about who lives in what association and should create rainbow teams to be competitive and teach kids the game of hockey.
I've thought a lot about this over the years and discussed it many times with people in power. I think creating a league for beginners is the right way to go.
Numbers is a problem so they shouldn't worry about who lives in what association and should create rainbow teams to be competitive and teach kids the game of hockey. [/quote]MaxSnatch wrote:
I think that we need to call it something other than Rainbow teams
[/quote]How about selectively competitive teams? Whatever we call them I think we need a place for newbies to learn. It will make the B level that much more competitive and give the newbies a place where they can actually touch the puck.
Edina's girls program is one that we can all envy. To have enough talent to even consider 2 A teams is great. When they get to high school they have a top notch varsity and JV and then on top of that I think they have two 19U teams (how many 19U teams are in Minnesota?). Its interesting that a girl could be on a 12A today and in the future not be able to crack Edina's varsity. Compare this to Rochester where we have one A team at 10U, 12U and 14U and these girls feed three different high school teams. Right now Century has to recruit girls that never played youth hockey to fill in their high school team.
OntheEdge, In Rochester we have a girls City League that is developmental. They are registered as 14U (house) and they have girls ages 9-14. Most of them are newbies, some consider themselves as recreational players, some aspire to play on a travel team and others are happy to just be playing. Some of the families just do not want to travel.
OntheEdge, In Rochester we have a girls City League that is developmental. They are registered as 14U (house) and they have girls ages 9-14. Most of them are newbies, some consider themselves as recreational players, some aspire to play on a travel team and others are happy to just be playing. Some of the families just do not want to travel.
I'm aware of Rochester's in-house program. Other communities have in-house programs too (Shakopee - Squirts). I think most in-house leagues are not registered with USA Hockey. Edina has talked about an in-house league for years but the demands on ice and tradition has not taken the idea too far (also the talk was for the boys side and its not that pressing of an issue because there is already C level hockey to accomodate newer skaters).Rocket78 wrote:Edina's girls program is one that we can all envy. To have enough talent to even consider 2 A teams is great. When they get to high school they have a top notch varsity and JV and then on top of that I think they have two 19U teams (how many 19U teams are in Minnesota?). Its interesting that a girl could be on a 12A today and in the future not be able to crack Edina's varsity. Compare this to Rochester where we have one A team at 10U, 12U and 14U and these girls feed three different high school teams. Right now Century has to recruit girls that never played youth hockey to fill in their high school team.
OntheEdge, In Rochester we have a girls City League that is developmental. They are registered as 14U (house) and they have girls ages 9-14. Most of them are newbies, some consider themselves as recreational players, some aspire to play on a travel team and others are happy to just be playing. Some of the families just do not want to travel.
I think in the Metro area there are enough girls to have a Metro League but probably not enough to have a team in each association at the U10, U12 and U14 levels. I think it would require quite a bit of work and coordination from Minnesota Hockey to get something like this started with so many associations and the rules for USA registered teams. I think a C or B2 level would help develop the C/B2 player and keep B1 players happy that they are playing with more developed players.