pre-season predictions for section 3A

goalieguy_14 · Post by **goalieguy_14** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Didn't see it on here so figured i'd throw it out there.

Who are your pre season favorites?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:47 pm

1. New Ulm
2. Hutchinson
3. Litchfield
4. Marshall
5. Worthington
6. Windom
7.Luverne
8. Fairmont
9. Redwood Valley
10. Sleepy Eye

Just a guess.

goalieguy_14 · Post by **goalieguy_14** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:12 pm

Where does willmar stack up against these teams?

summer · Post by **summer** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:17 pm

goalieguy_14 wrote:Didn't see it on here so figured i'd throw it out there.

Who are your pre season favorites?

Sorry to say, does anyone except your area care? It sure seems that way. I spend my time defending Ben Hanowski from a small school and a weak section and all I get is class bigotry from people who only think kids from class AA are any good!

Post by **karl(east)** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:01 pm

summer wrote:Sorry to say, does anyone except your area care? It sure seems that way. I spend my time defending Ben Hanowski from a small school and a weak section and all I get is class bigotry from people who only think kids from class AA are any good!

Even if only Section 3A people care, they have just as much right to use this forum to discuss section 3A as people from any other section.

And what on earth do Ben Hanowski and the slights you think you're getting over your defense of him have to do with 3A?

hero12 · Post by **hero12** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:20 pm

I don't know a lot about hutch or litchfield, but I know Marshall will be down from other years. Also, don't expect much out of worthington windom or luverne. The sad thing is elliots list looks pretty good even considering what I just said. The southwest conference is looking at one of the weaker years its had in a while. Excluding hutch and litchfield, New Ulm should walk away with this section.

goalieguy_14 · Post by **goalieguy_14** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:32 pm

hero12 wrote:I don't know a lot about hutch or litchfield, but I know Marshall will be down from other years. Also, don't expect much out of worthington windom or luverne. The sad thing is elliots list looks pretty good even considering what I just said. The southwest conference is looking at one of the weaker years its had in a while. Excluding hutch and litchfield, New Ulm should walk away with this section.

hutch still has good goaltending and thats what beat new ulm last year,
i'm still curious about willmar though,what do they have returning,
and could they make some noise?

pipesniper07 · Post by **pipesniper07** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:15 pm

just to throw this out there, willmar moved to section 6A. theyre no longer in 3A.

goalieguy_14 · Post by **goalieguy_14** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:07 pm

pipesniper07 wrote:just to throw this out there, willmar moved to section 6A. theyre no longer in 3A.

sorry about my lack of knowledge, and sorry to hear that about willmar, thought they could maybe have a shot at the 3A section

h20 · Post by **h20** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:08 pm

just for all you naysayers out there that bash this section, Yes it is weak but remember Hutch did win a game last year in the State, so to dsya the leader of the pack of this section doenst stand a chance is just wrong. By the Willmar if in this section still wouldnt be able to compete with the big boys, No scoring and weak goaltending out there this year.

keepmeoutofit · Post by **keepmeoutofit** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:10 pm

Willmar may have troubles but it isn't the goaltender. Didn't Willmar beat Hutch last year?

Tigers95 · Post by **Tigers95** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:37 pm

Willmar beat Hutch during the regular season at Willmar. I think the score was something like 2-1. In the section semifinals Hutch beat Willmar 5-1.

hero12 · Post by **hero12** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:29 pm

h20 wrote:just for all you naysayers out there that bash this section, Yes it is weak but remember Hutch did win a game last year in the State, so to dsya the leader of the pack of this section doenst stand a chance is just wrong. By the Willmar if in this section still wouldnt be able to compete with the big boys, No scoring and weak goaltending out there this year.

I grew up in this section, granted it has changed a little, but for the most part it was all the same. Even though somebody from this section will be one of the 8 teams at state, we probably won't hear anything about them after their first game. It will be fun to see how the section plays out, but whoever comes out on top really doesn't have a chance..

letsgowild · Post by **letsgowild** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:01 pm

elliott70 wrote:1. New Ulm
2. Hutchinson
3. Litchfield
4. Marshall
5. Worthington
6. Windom
7.Luverne
8. Fairmont
9. Redwood Valley
10. Sleepy Eye

Just a guess.

this is pretty close to what i would say but move redwood to about the 4 or 5 spot

Skill Stick · Post by **Skill Stick** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:10 pm

Apparently some new ulm players are suspended for a school related acticity?

hockie · Post by **hockie** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:24 pm

How many kids does Sleepy Eye have in their program?

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:35 am

The youth site says one single team at Squirt, PeeWee and Bantam. I think District 4 is one that has you skate the top team as A regardless of where they might fit in some other District. I saw the team at Bantam A Regionals in 2008 so they've had some success.

The high school is a co-op of Sleepy Eye, St. Mary's and Springfield High schools. I'd be surprised if they're able to skate a distinct JV team after the varsity team is selected. Also could be a testament to making them skate A as youth. If they had skated at B level the whole way up it would be hard to develop the 3-4-5 A level players I presume they have.

http://www.sleepyeyehockey.com/

blue2141 · Post by **blue2141** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:52 pm

hero12 wrote:
h20 wrote:just for all you naysayers out there that bash this section, Yes it is weak but remember Hutch did win a game last year in the State, so to dsya the leader of the pack of this section doenst stand a chance is just wrong. By the Willmar if in this section still wouldnt be able to compete with the big boys, No scoring and weak goaltending out there this year.
I grew up in this section, granted it has changed a little, but for the most part it was all the same. Even though somebody from this section will be one of the 8 teams at state, we probably won't hear anything about them after their first game. It will be fun to see how the section plays out, but whoever comes out on top really doesn't have a chance..

I too have watched this section for years. I believe that the gap between 3A and the rest of the A teams in the state is narrowing. Granted, it is not there yet, but it gets better every year. The section got a win in last year's state.

I know that this thread will get the annual bashing from insecure "experts" trying to make themselves feel better by dissing someone else. It may not be this year but one of these years they will be eating crow.

bender09 · Post by **bender09** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:57 pm

benders.....

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:10 pm

blue2141 wrote:
hero12 wrote:
h20 wrote:just for all you naysayers out there that bash this section, Yes it is weak but remember Hutch did win a game last year in the State, so to dsya the leader of the pack of this section doenst stand a chance is just wrong. By the Willmar if in this section still wouldnt be able to compete with the big boys, No scoring and weak goaltending out there this year.
I grew up in this section, granted it has changed a little, but for the most part it was all the same. Even though somebody from this section will be one of the 8 teams at state, we probably won't hear anything about them after their first game. It will be fun to see how the section plays out, but whoever comes out on top really doesn't have a chance..
I too have watched this section for years. I believe that the gap between 3A and the rest of the A teams in the state is narrowing. Granted, it is not there yet, but it gets better every year. The section got a win in last year's state.

I know that this thread will get the annual bashing from insecure "experts" trying to make themselves feel better by dissing someone else. It may not be this year but one of these years they will be eating crow.

'CROW' is the favorite dish of the 'bored' members.
You would think that we would grow tired of it, but we are always back for more.

Prodigy Project · Post by **Prodigy Project** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:18 am

1. Litchfield
2. Hutchinson
3. New Ulm
4. Marshall
5. Worthington
6. Luverne
7. Windom
8. Fairmont
9. Redwood Valley
10. Sleepy Eye

that simple.

grizzgreen3312 · Post by **grizzgreen3312** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:21 am

watchout for sleepy eye this year. they got a sophomore by name of Jack Kanfeld who is a very talented winger. sleeper team!

bender09 · Post by **bender09** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:32 am

like i said benders. if people are putting sleepy eye in the mix because of a talented sophomore this section is definatly a FEW years away.

new2coachin · Post by **new2coachin** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:58 am

1. New Ulm
2. Litch-D-C
3. Hutch
4. Redwood Valley
5. Marshall
6. Luverne
7. Windom
8. Worthington
9. Fairmont
10. Sleepy Eye

This section will be New Ulm's to lose. A strong case could be made for any of the top three to be #1, but pre-season, New Ulm in my opinion is the favorite. RV & Marshall at 4 & 5 could be switched and will probably split the season games against each other. 6,7&8 teams is a toss up where to place them. Fairmont & Sleepy Eye will surprise some of the higher ranked teams, but will have a tough time moving up.

letsgowild · Post by **letsgowild** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:29 pm

Skill Stick wrote:Apparently some new ulm players are suspended for a school related acticity?

Ya,I think about 8 to 10 hockey players are out the first game ,dont no much more.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

pre-season predictions for section 3A

pre-season predictions for section 3A

Re: pre-season predictions for section 3A

Re: pre-season predictions for section 3A