Thanks! I LOVE D16!pioneer wrote:Okay AF1, here you go:
Code: Select all
Bemidji Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 13 37.90 43.01 +5.11 B2 Blue 11 22.59 23.07 +0.48 B2 White 11 22.37 23.02 +0.65 Overall 34 +2.31 Grade: A - ------------------------------------------------------- Crookston Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 12 34.25 40.64 +6.39 B2 11 16.94 21.07 +4.12 Overall 23 +5.66 Grade: A + ------------------------------------------------------- East Grand Forks Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 14 39.35 47.05 +7.70 B1 15 29.20 31.47 +2.27 B2 13 18.51 27.48 +8.98 Overall 42 +6.51 Grade: A + ------------------------------------------------------- Hallock Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 13 28.78 33.50 +4.72 Overall 13 +4.72 Grade: A + ------------------------------------------------------- Lake of the Woods Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 13 28.78 32.41 +3.63 Overall 13 +3.63 Grade: A + ------------------------------------------------------- Red Lake Falls Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference B2 10 23.28 26.82 +3.44 Overall 10 +3.44 Grade: A + ------------------------------------------------------- Roseau Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 14 36.51 36.88 +0.49 B2 14 22.12 23.19 +1.07 Overall 28 +0.74 Grade: B - ------------------------------------------------------- Thief River Falls Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 13 35.81 40.23 +4.42 B2 13 21.76 21.74 -0.01 Overall 26 +2.00 Grade: B + ------------------------------------------------------- Warroad Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference A 13 28.78 33.81 +5.03 Overall 24 +5.03 Grade: A + -------------------------------------------------------
Best Associations
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Air Force 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:22 pm
- Location: East Grand Forks
Re: District 16
District 12
Code: Select all
Ely
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B2 12 28.39 15.74 -12.65
Overall 12 -12.65
Grade: F
-------------------------------------------------------
Eveleth
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 36.51 32.34 -4.17
B2 White 14 22.12 18.53 -3.59
Overall 28 -3.88
Grade: F
-------------------------------------------------------
Grand Rapids
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 38.87 37.90 -0.96
B1 13 28.16 27.96 -0.20
B2 12 18.26 19.39 +1.13
Overall 39 -0.02
Grade: C
-------------------------------------------------------
Greenway
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 13 35.81 32.34 -3.46
B2 13 21.76 16.96 -4.80
Overall 26 -3.99
Grade: F
-------------------------------------------------------
Hibbing
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 37.01 36.22 -0.80
B2 16 22.56 26.25 +3.69
Overall 31 +1.07
Grade: B -
-------------------------------------------------------
International Falls
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 10 32.43 34.45 +2.01
B2 10 19.92 21.46 +1.54
Overall 20 +1.85
Grade: A -
-------------------------------------------------------
Mesabi East
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B2 15 29.49 28.84 -0.65
Overall 15 -0.65
Grade: C
-------------------------------------------------------
Virginia
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 14 36.23 30.18 -6.05
B2 13 21.47 20.51 -0.96
Overall 27 -4.26
Grade: F
-------------------------------------------------------
District 15
Code: Select all
Alexandria
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 12 37.67 39.87 +2.20
B1 12 27.69 29.03 +1.345
B2 10 16.69 20.17 +3.485
Overall 34 +2.07
Grade: A -
-------------------------------------------------------
Brainerd
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 12 37.67 37.63 -0.04
B2 11 27.32 29.33 +2.01
C 11 18.14 19.98 +1.85
Overall 34 +1.18
Grade: B
-------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Lakes
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 12 35.28 37.35 +2.07
B2 12 21.50 24.16 +2.66
Overall 24 +2.28
Grade: A
-------------------------------------------------------
Fergus Falls
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 11 34.64 35.23 +0.59
B2 12 21.82 21.13 -0.69
Overall 23 -0.12
Grade: C +
-------------------------------------------------------
Leech Lake
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B2 13 28.78 26.66 -2.12
Overall 13 -2.12
Grade: D
-------------------------------------------------------
Little Falls
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B2 13 28.78 27.27 -1.51
Overall 13 -1.51
Grade: D +
-------------------------------------------------------
Moorhead
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 15 39.01 41.87 +2.87
B1 13 28.19 33.87 +5.68
B2 13 18.66 26.60 +7.94
Overall 41 +5.31
Grade: A +
-------------------------------------------------------
Morris Benson
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
B1 12 35.28 26.27 -9.01
B2 12 21.50 20.70 -0.80
Overall 24 -5.28
Grade: F
-------------------------------------------------------
Northern Lakes
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 13 35.81 32.80 -3.01
B2 13 21.76 21.95 +0.19
Overall 26 -1.73
Grade: D
-------------------------------------------------------
Prairie Center
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 13 28.78 29.58 +0.80
Overall 13 +0.80
Grade: B
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadena
Team Skaters Expected Actual Difference
A 9 28.92 30.02 +1.10
B2 9 17.84 15.77 -2.08
Overall 18 -0.41
Grade: C -
-------------------------------------------------------
All Associations
All districts have been crunched, now we can tally and rank them all. Remember, what this reflects is how far above or below the expected level each association is playing at for the PeeWee level. The number equates to goal differential per game, e.g., collectively the Edina teams are scoring ~1/3 of a goal per game more than should be expected. As you can see, the EGF teams are a collective 6 1/2 higher! Certainly, some of the successes (or failures) can be attributed to a certain "bubble" of talented kids that come through a given program. But for instance, the Moorheads and Duluth Easts of MN are well known to be at the top for development.
As one poster alluded to, recruitment of eligible players is core piece of a successful association. Associations like Moorhead, DE, etc. have an edge in recruitment becasue they have established, successful programs. These communities are geared to the hockey culture and inherently are able to attract the best athletes to the sport.
However, once the kids are there they need to be developed. I think another poster was spot on in the analysis that the successful associations tend to have dedicated "hockey guys" (i.e., dads) that are integrated into their associations.
The whole point of this exercise was, for me, to analyze the various associations, identify the stronger ones, and hopefully find out what makes these top associations tick. I am heavily involved in my association - have been for years - and sadly, I must say that it is NOT one of the "successful" ones. I would like to change that. I would hope that others that see their associations lagging behind the others would want to do the same. In the end, I would like to see Minnesota Hockey improve - so that we can remain the top youth hockey development model in the U.S.! Mind you, I do not think that our model is "broken", I just think that we could all learn from those that have succeeded and use it to improve all of us.
~ Pioneer ~
As one poster alluded to, recruitment of eligible players is core piece of a successful association. Associations like Moorhead, DE, etc. have an edge in recruitment becasue they have established, successful programs. These communities are geared to the hockey culture and inherently are able to attract the best athletes to the sport.
However, once the kids are there they need to be developed. I think another poster was spot on in the analysis that the successful associations tend to have dedicated "hockey guys" (i.e., dads) that are integrated into their associations.
The whole point of this exercise was, for me, to analyze the various associations, identify the stronger ones, and hopefully find out what makes these top associations tick. I am heavily involved in my association - have been for years - and sadly, I must say that it is NOT one of the "successful" ones. I would like to change that. I would hope that others that see their associations lagging behind the others would want to do the same. In the end, I would like to see Minnesota Hockey improve - so that we can remain the top youth hockey development model in the U.S.! Mind you, I do not think that our model is "broken", I just think that we could all learn from those that have succeeded and use it to improve all of us.
~ Pioneer ~
Code: Select all
1 East Grand Forks 6.55
2 Duluth East 5.58
3 Moorhead 5.57
4 Crookston 5.38
5 Warroad 5.21
6 Hallock 4.93
7 Luverne 3.76
8 Lake of the Woods 3.71
9 Red Lake Falls 3.61
10 Hutchinson 3.44
11 La Crescent 3.37
12 Crow River 3.26
13 Hermantown 3.17
14 Kennedy 3.12
15 Sauk Rapids 2.96
16 Litchfield Dassel Cokato 2.82
17 Willmar 2.77
18 Jefferson 2.67
19 Thief River Falls 2.49
20 Lakeville North 2.41
21 Alexandria 2.37
22 Detroit Lakes 2.37
23 Hopkins 2.37
24 North Metro 2.13
25 Bemidji 2.07
26 Duluth Lakers 2.04
27 Cloquet 1.97
28 Anoka 1.90
29 Winona 1.84
30 International Falls 1.83
31 Superior 1.81
32 Rosemount 1.57
33 New Prague 1.52
34 Proctor 1.49
35 Mason City 1.46
36 Hibbing 1.40
37 Red Wing 1.37
38 South St. Paul 1.3
39 Stillwater 1.27
40 Brainerd 1.25
41 Eden Prairie 1.21
42 Highland Central 1.1
43 St. Michael Albertville 1.09
44 Mahtomedi 1.08
45 Eastview 1.06
46 Farmington 1.
47 Northfield 0.97
48 Burnsville 0.97
49 Osseo Maple Grove 0.97
50 Roseau 0.94
51 Lakeville South 0.91
52 Mankato 0.88
53 Elk River 0.84
54 Hudson 0.65
55 Prairie Center 0.62
56 Centennial 0.58
57 Woodbury 0.57
58 Wayzata 0.57
59 Orono 0.53
60 Hastings 0.5
61 Sartell 0.47
62 Moundsview 0.47
63 Cottage Grove 0.39
64 Forest Lake 0.35
65 Edina 0.29
66 Apple Valley 0.28
67 Inver Grove Heights 0.21
68 Buffalo 0.2
69 St. Peter Le Sueur 0.18
70 Roseville 0.12
71 Sibley Area 0.11
72 Owatonna 0.08
73 Grand Rapids -0.01
74 White Bear Lake -0.03
75 Coon Rapids -0.06
76 Fergus Falls -0.06
77 Mora -0.1
78 Spring Lake Park -0.1
79 Minnetonka -0.1
80 Chisago Lakes -0.11
81 Marshall -0.15
82 Sleepy Eye -0.2
83 North St. Paul -0.21
84 Prior Lake -0.25
85 St. Francis -0.28
86 Tartan -0.28
87 Monticello Annandale Maple Lake -0.46
88 Mesabi East -0.47
89 Princeton -0.47
90 St. Cloud -0.54
91 Andover -0.63
92 Wadena -0.66
93 Rogers -0.73
94 Shakopee -0.81
95 Faribault -0.81
96 Blaine -0.95
97 Somerset -0.95
98 Mound Westonka -0.96
99 River Lakes -1.24
100 New Ulm -1.27
101 Eagan -1.39
102 Chaska -1.44
103 Northern Lakes -1.45
104 Rochester -1.47
105 Little Falls -1.48
106 Albert Lea -1.53
107 Champlin Park -1.54
108 St. Paul Saints -1.67
109 River Falls -1.76
110 Minneapolis Park -1.84
111 Worthington -2.
112 New Richmond -2.
113 Leech Lake -2.15
114 Cambridge Isanti North Branch -2.2
115 Armstrong -2.34
116 Redwood Falls -2.67
117 Austin -2.94
118 Two Harbors -2.98
119 Waconia -3.02
120 Dodge County -3.14
121 Virginia -3.57
122 Irondale -3.61
123 Eveleth -3.94
124 Greenway -4.18
125 Morris Benson -4.86
126 Moose Lake -5.08
127 Fairmont -5.36
128 Windom -5.49
129 St. Marys Point -5.5
130 Ashland -5.65
131 Silver Bay -5.66
132 Dinomights -5.89
133 Waseca -6.37
134 Langford -7.01
135 Pine City -7.74
136 Edgecumbe -11.66
137 Ely -12.8-
mvhockey12
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:29 pm
Re: Very Nice Comments
northwoods oldtimer wrote:No P Connections thanks for the nice comments and a nod for the north kids. I tend to agree with you on this very much. Karl from the East is right but he best be very concerned about the District 11 policy of watered down B teams. This will hurt Duluth East a lot in the future if it continues. Roseau and Grand Rapids do a a very good job with getting a solid product out of small numbers, Roseau gets the edge with the community support that just transcends any other program in the state. Virginia and Hibbing do a very good job as well in development when it comes to small numbers.No Political Connections wrote:I think you also have to look at how many of your B level players are making it onto successful high school teams when those perennial A players from the squirt level on up are getting cut from that team.
Development is taking that relatively small herd of mites through the system and forming powerhouse high school teams with kids who might or might not go on. The northern teams do this. With those western suburbs teams it is a numbers game and being smart enough to skim off the top kids when they have risen to the top. That is not the sign of a good developmental hockey program, that is a sign of given a large enough number of anything and you can form what ever you want to form with it. You could even get a large enough group of monkeys, give them each a typewriter and given enough time and paper the law of averages says one of them will type a best selling novel. The trick is being good enough to teach a monkey to read, write and type so you don't need a whole bunch of monkeys to luck out and get a best selling author, you just need a few monkeys who want to learn and some good teachers.
You want to evaluate your program to make it a top developer? Do not listen to what that guy once said. Do not "Go West, Young Man". Go North, that is where the developers are. (Be sure to bring your coat though as it looks like winter has finally gotten here)
The watered down B teams in District 11 is really not good for East. They are already slowly losing numbers every year and this new rule hurts them against almost every city team they face. In the district play itself they may still be able to compete but in tournaments it's difficult. Not to mention having kids on these teams where some should/could be on A and others who should definitely be on a B2 (or even C) team.
I know this doesn't apply to the discussion but do you, northwoods, or Karl know why this decision was made by the district?