Run up the Score to facilitate "Rightsizing"

gohawk4 · Post by **gohawk4** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:30 pm

puckboy wrote:there is not 20 teams that have a shot every year- NO WAY. I would say at most 10 teams.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out a large assocaition that is not competitive. Numbers do mean success. I'm not saying if its right or wrong - but it is a fact.

So are you saying there are only 10 large associations. If that is the case then you aren't going to find exceptions. Small associations being competitive is easier to find because there are 90 or so small ones in your case study. If there are 50 large associations and all were top teams then you would have something. Are Hopkins, Brooklyn Park, Mpls. Park (now that they are merged), any team in D3 other than OMGHA or Wayzata large association?

pondhockey7 · Post by **pondhockey7** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:43 pm

OMG and Wayzata 10 total PEEWEE Teams 1A, 3 B1, 3 B2, and 3 C teams. average of 15 players per team 135 kids at the Peewee Level.

Those are some really big programs WOW!

Total at the BIG SHOW (HS STATE) Osseo 1 Maple Grove 0, Wayzata 2=3
ZERO STATE TITLES

Total Little Show 1st or 2nd places (Peewee A) OMG 1 TITLE, Wayzata 1 Title 2 seconds.

Littler Show(Peewee B1) recorded last 4 years Wayzata other Peewee A team does really well.

Edina Little Different Story Solid History at all Levels. Still 9 peewee teams only one A, lots of High School History.

Roseau, well enough said, 3 teams 1A and 2Bs. Very Small town should even compete with the big Dogs, but always solid always great. More than likely will win high school AA state when this Peewee A team is old enough.

I guess some big communities pride themselves on little achievements.

HustleandFlow · Post by **HustleandFlow** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:47 pm

Another option could be Co-ops at the Peewee and Bantam level between 2 or 3 smaller associations. This is becoming more and more common in the Bantam level across the state, ie.......River Lakes, River Heights, North Metro, ect, ect...........

The associations operate individually for 6 years as mites and squirts but then as Peewees they can share the cost and the ice and the profits (more numbers) of a bantam and possibly a peewee co-op. That way the kids still play within their boundries and in most cases their H.S. feeder association for 6 to 8 years, but then for competitiveness at the higher levels co-op for a couple of years and then branch to their respective H.S. program.

Lets face it, numbers fall from mites to squirts, then a little more from squirts to peewees primarily due to the checking aspects and then dramatically from peewees to bantams. Bantams are bigger, stronger, faster, and in most cases either started or completed puberty. Weaker skaters get frustrated and also many kids when approaching H.S. narrow down to 1 or possibly 2 sports.

pebbles · Post by **pebbles** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:49 pm

PondHockey,
I'm not exactly sure of the point you are making. I don't think OMG and Wayzata are the ones on here tooting their horn and saying how good they are.

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:36 pm

sorno82 wrote:Otown-

Did Edina produce more good players when they were split east and west, or when combined? Maybe use college level as a criteria for "good".

Sorn, that's a great question. Edina produced a ton in the 1980s after the schools merged back. Edina produced a ton in the 1970s when one school went to two. Edina produces a lot now. Honestly, I don't think it matters. Something about the cream rising to the top.

Edina's youth programs didn't win a lot of state titles in the 1980s, but those same kids did at Varsity (1982, 1984, 1988). The community has seen more than an average of a player a year drafted by the NHL. One A team? Kids grow up knowing that even making teams is ultra-competitive. The best players probably play B as first years. Two A teams? More opportunities.

Great question. I don't think it really matters from a developmental standpoint. Two A teams means they win less and more kids have a chance to play A hockey.

drop the puck · Post by **drop the puck** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:34 pm

I would suspect that all of the private schools KNOW WHERE to go looking for recruits for their programs. On the eastside there is Hill, ST, and CD, plus a few others. West side has even more

Add in the US development team and programs that are top 5 at Bantam A and PWA can not be an indicator of HS success.

nahc · Post by **nahc** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:01 pm

So the whole idea is to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to play at the A level..........I would think we would look at those skaters who can COMPETE at the A level.......a huge difference. I'm talking about those skaters who can't adjust to the speed of the game, shy away from any physical contact on offense or defense, and just plain look out of place. Their parents may not like the thought that their kids might not be capable, at the moment, to play at the A level.........so the KIDS should play at a lower level where they will be successful......

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:07 pm

So the whole idea is to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to play at the A level..........

No, the idea is to minimize blowout games, which are a complete waste of time and money. One way is to establish a criteria for an association to play at the A level. If they don't meet it, then their top team plays b1. Another way would be to go AA and A, based on highschool or association size. Another would be to force big associations to go with multiple A teams.

Many solutions, none perfect, all better than the status quo.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:19 pm

the real issue is the smaller assocations do not have the depth to compete wth the larger assocations They might have 4-5 kids that are the same caliber as the large associations but thats it.

large has 150 kids tryout out so 10% make an A team

small assocaiton has 45 kids tryout so 33% make an A team.

HustleandFlow · Post by **HustleandFlow** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:40 pm

Here is the problem with prohibiting an association from playing A due to their enrollment. Under Minnesota Hockey if your association does not offer an A program then you can waiver out to an association that does. Usually they want this to stay within the district. The small associations are already struggleing and now you are going to handcuff them even further by not offering their top players an A level program.

No perfect solution but restricting small associations from fielding A teams will only cripple their sustainability. There needs to be another option, maybe not perfect, but something has to be done.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:53 pm

D3 solution: if the teams want to be competitive with Wayzata and MG

Merge North Metro, Armstrong/Cooper, Hopkins and Orono together. The merged group numbers would be similiar to Wayzata's and MG.

HustleandFlow · Post by **HustleandFlow** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:01 pm

Toomuchtosoon - Does your child/children skate in a large or small association? If large what do you propose the small associations do?

My children have skated for 2 different district 2 teams (large), 1 district 1 team (small), and I have one kid that has skated with the fire (AAA). My best solution at this point would be for MH to get involved solely in a promotional aspect and encourage smaller communities to Co-op at the higher levels based on geographic sensibility.

I have been a coach and a spectator on both sides of the blowouts and I understand your frustrations. I will say this though, you cannot be upset with the small associations for doing the best with what they have. If they don't field A teams they stand to lose their top players.........especially in the metro where there are infinate options if your association dos'nt offer A. I suffered through a couple of seasons in district 1 and while frustrating it was better than have your top end players not be challanged. You think the A level in district 1 is bad, you should see the B level.

play4fun · Post by **play4fun** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:31 pm

"Here is the problem with prohibiting an association from playing A due to their enrollment. Under Minnesota Hockey if your association does not offer an A program then you can waiver out to an association that does. Usually they want this to stay within the district."

Hustle, where is this written?

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:15 pm

Is there a baseball forum I'm missing, cause I don't hear them overhauling baseball and I know for a fact that I have driven 50 miles round trip so the kids can play three innings and have the mercy rule kick in because the other team hasn't scored a run. How fun for the other team, the kids may not even all get to bat at the younger ages. During one unfortunate year I even spent an entire weekend in Red Wing, so the kids could be outscored 90-10 in baseball, mainly because of pitching at the youth age. I've heard it happens at basketball games and tournaments too. It may even happen at soccer, but we no longer have a resident 'bored' soccer expert, so I'll just have to guess.

I will say this. Our association is on the bubble of 500 kids that has hypothetically been thrown out. Two years ago we had three kids opt off the peewee A team and down to the B team, that B team went to State-first youth team ever from our association to make it. This year we are sending two teams to regionals and we are right about at that 500 kid mark, so that mark may have some relevance. I don't think we would have made it if we had only had B teams up until this year, all of our A caliber kids would have opted to play in nearby districts. And wouldn't those districts be happy to have them??? I can't imagine our parents, if we suddenly told them we had twelve 'A' kids from neighboring small associations.

I'd like a solution, and than I'd like it applied to baseball because I waste a lot more time in the summer than I do in the winter.

Chuck Norris Fan · Post by **Chuck Norris Fan** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:26 pm

nahc wrote:So the whole idea is to give as many kids as possible the opportunity to play at the A level..........I would think we would look at those skaters who can COMPETE at the A level.......a huge difference. I'm talking about those skaters who can't adjust to the speed of the game, shy away from any physical contact on offense or defense, and just plain look out of place. Their parents may not like the thought that their kids might not be capable, at the moment, to play at the A level.........so the KIDS should play at a lower level where they will be successful......

this gets back to some ideas i have talked about in the past..... lets make everyone happy and have "A" teams in every association.... or better yet every team is an "A" team, no b's no c's etc etc.... then everyone can say they made an "A" team in school on monday!!!!

really a proper solution would be to make 8 to 10 teams across the state that have the elite 136-170 players at the national bantam age level (94's). If this takes one kid from an association or 20 it will give the best a chance to compete with the best. Then when every association has their bantam "A" teams they will all be on an even level. (no unfair advantage of numbers because the best are gone from every association)

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:12 pm

My kids have/are playing in a large association. The district is weak, which makes for a lot of lopsided games. I think it hurts all kids involved in both fun and development aspect. My son told me the other day that he preferred playing easy teams since he did not like the pressure of losing. This bothers me a lot because I don't mind losing a bit and do not like the fact that the kids have put so much pressure on themselves regarding losing. The enjoyment factor is not what it should be. I want them to focus on the effort, not the result.

I don't subscribe to the thought that small associations have to go A to for the benefit of a few good kids. You end up having many more kids having to play at a lot higher level than they should in order to cater to a few. News flash-those kids will eventually go elsewhere if they are good enough and the local high school team is not competitive. Some will stay to the end like David Backes, but most will leave if that is their perogitive. You might as well make the experience favorable for the vast majority by letting them play at the correct level and enjoy some success, vs. the alternative of never going to regions and being on the wrong side of a lot of blowouts. It is really doing what is best for the vast majority vs. catering to a few who probably will not be as loyal in the end.

HustleandFlow · Post by **HustleandFlow** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:33 am

Play 4 fun - Honestly I have no idea where it is written that a player can leave if their association does not offer the A level. What I do know is I saw it happen more than a few times in district 1 which is why teams like Como and Irondale went back to A teams.

Toomuchtosoon - In the stereotypical world your theory is dead nuts on the money. "News flash-those kids will eventually go elsewhere if they are good enough if they are good enough and the local high school team is not competitive." You are assuming the family has the money to open enroll or attend a private school or even in the event of a scholarship how does the blue collar family take on the expenses of this. Hockey is and always has been a very expensive sport, many very good atheletes have not played for the simple fact of cost and budget.

The question I pose to you is this, "Why should the kids that have the ability be asked to play down to accomidate the others?

This issue is a major problem, especially in the metro area. I have seen our team lose 0 - 14 and win 11 - 0. Closing the gap on that spectrum is the issue at hand. No solution will be perfect, but if we can close the spectrum from a 25 goal span to even a 10 or 15 goal span we would be way ahead of where we are now.

I will say this also, I get more frusterated in the offseason AAA open and invite tournaments when I see these blowouts. These teams are supposed to be put together to compete at their designated or probably to be more accurate their desired level and they do not experience the restrictions that the associations have to deal with in the winter.

This is just one mans opinion, no better or no worse than yours. Lets hope MH can find the common ground on this with the help of the states entire hockey community.[/b][/u]

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:55 am

the way associations are starting to address this issue in the metro is to merge smaller associations. Need numbers to compete and place the kids at the right level. This trend will continue unless something changes.

few examples
SLP and Southwest
Washburn/Richfield
Armstrong/Cooper
Maple Grove/Osseo
Brooklyn Park/Tri City
SSP /Inver Grove

Others?

taxi43 · Post by **taxi43** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:23 am

SLP and Southwest
Washburn/Richfield
Armstrong/Cooper
Maple Grove/Osseo
Brooklyn Park/Tri City
SSP /Inver Grove

So if communities are merging to remain competitive, is it still community based hockey? - it seems to me they are just AAA teams

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:38 am

taxi43 wrote:SLP and Southwest
Washburn/Richfield
Armstrong/Cooper
Maple Grove/Osseo
Brooklyn Park/Tri City
SSP /Inver Grove

So if communities are merging to remain competitive, is it still community based hockey? - it seems to me they are just AAA teams

In many cases it's "merge or die". Some associations don't have enough players to create more than a single team if they don't partner with another association in some fashion.

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:39 am

not quite AAA since they are defined by a geographical boundary. AAA is not.

HustleandFlow · Post by **HustleandFlow** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:43 am

AAA teams??????? Not even close. The Co-ops are still restricted by boundries. If you combined 1 community that had 29 bantams try out and another that had 45 bantams try out you now have a Co-op of 74 skaters to choose from.

AAA selects from all over. My sons team last year had St. Cloud, Duluth, Rochester, Eau Claire, and Grand Forks. (Summer team that is)

District 1 is a perfect example. If you eliminate Mpls Park the other 4 (Como, Highland, Johnson, Irondale) have about 150 total Bantams. That would be a perfect Co-op to join District 2 and dissolve District 1. Mpls Park can join District 3 and give another top 20 team to compete with OMG and Wayzata.

HockeyReality · Post by **HockeyReality** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:52 am

Vapor wrote:
HockeyReality wrote:Are we really upset that some teams always dominate? We should probably throw Roseau in there too. Their youth teams are always very good. They too should be forced to field two A teams to make it fair for the less priviledged.
Not a good comparison. A small assoc. has at most 30 - 35 go out for their teams...compared to a big Metro association that has 150+ ?? You can get 2 VERY good A teams with 150+ trying out.

That was my point. Many have used the arguement that an association should have two A teams because they always win or always go to state. Using that same logic, Roseau should have to field two A teams to give the other teams in their district a chance to go to state.

There are many big associations that are not successful year and year out. It would be interesting to see the actual size of the associations based on membership, not community size. Anyone know where that informaiton can be found?

puckboy · Post by **puckboy** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:20 am

hockeyreality- what large associations are not succesful?

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:23 am

HockeyReality wrote:
Vapor wrote:
HockeyReality wrote:Are we really upset that some teams always dominate? We should probably throw Roseau in there too. Their youth teams are always very good. They too should be forced to field two A teams to make it fair for the less priviledged.
Not a good comparison. A small assoc. has at most 30 - 35 go out for their teams...compared to a big Metro association that has 150+ ?? You can get 2 VERY good A teams with 150+ trying out.
That was my point. Many have used the arguement that an association should have two A teams because they always win or always go to state. Using that same logic, Roseau should have to field two A teams to give the other teams in their district a chance to go to state.

There are many big associations that are not successful year and year out. It would be interesting to see the actual size of the associations based on membership, not community size. Anyone know where that informaiton can be found?

I wish people would stop using Roseau an example to prove you don't need numbers to be successful. The City of Roseau pays for the ice, so every kid gets a ton of ice whenever they want at basically no cost. I can't think of any other community in this state that supports youth hockey to that extent. Very few small associations are successful, the vast majority are not.

Roseau is one of the exceptions that proves the rule. For the most part, the success an association has correlates directly to the size of the pool from which they choose their players. It's simple statistics.