Fielding 2 A Teams

BlaineJGA · Post by **BlaineJGA** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:03 pm

Just curious to what peoples thoughts are on this. Not trying to bash any program or anyone decision. If you can field 2 or more B level teams and all are pretty competitive. Would it be better to field 2 A teams and have them be competitive. I know at the Bantam level OMGH had 3 bantam B teams all rated in the top 20. Would there top team been as competitive at the A level as well? I know this will never happen at any association but would they be able to do it? I know the discussion always comes up about associations that dont feel an A level team but when the B level teams are not as good as some of the associations that field 2 B level teams could they be forced to have 2 A teams also?

Just looking for thoughts not trying to bash any association at all

TTpuckster · Post by **TTpuckster** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:09 am

EGF fielded 2 Bantam A teams this year.

Their top A team made it to state and had a pretty decent year.
The other A team did not win very many games and appeared to not be very competitive.

I do not have a feel for what the view was in EGF.
Somebody from there will need to give you more feedback on it.

57special · Post by **57special** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:18 pm

IMO opinion the A and B teams have to be overwhelmingly better than their opponents to warrant a two A team scenario. This year's Edina Squirt A's were such a case, winning every single game they played(41-0), and usually by lopsided scores. Their four B teams were also very good, winning 95% of their non in house games. I would guess that if they promoted the top 15 skaters from B and split them evenly with the existing A's they would still be very good, but nowhere near undefeated.
The B teams might take even more of a hit, and would probably be a bit better than .500.

Are there any other cases out there of towns with exceptional A and B results across the board?

ahastars03 · Post by **ahastars03** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:48 pm

This year Wayzata PeeWee level was very good. Next year Edina Bantams will be very good. If you do 2 A teams I don't think you can do them evenly. You have to do A1 and A2. Let the top team still compete for a title and the second team is playing good compitition all year and maybe would finish above .500 but are at least playing A level instead of beating teams by 5 plus goals at the B level.

At the end of the day it is the associations call and you have to live with the decisions that are made for each association.

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:10 pm

The Mega associations that are consistantly winning at a high level--"A" & "B" are not going to field an "A2" team and be a .500 team. They would much rather have an awesome "B" team instead of an average "A2" team. IMO
A "B" trophy is better than no "A" throphy...otherwise they would have done it long ago.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:21 am

Moorhead also fielded two A teams at the Pee Wee level.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:02 am

I think the decision about A or B should be based on the results. If a B team is winning but the games are tight and the team is being challenged, great, stay B. If a B team is winning most games by a margin of 10-15 goals, then you may want to challenge the players a bit by fielding an A or second A team.

In the metro area where you have some associations that field 3 B1 teams, and several B2s, you can probably put together a very nice, competitive, and challenging schedule for your top B1 teams so it should not matter if a team is A or B. There is such a small difference in talent between the #10 kid on the A team and the #10 kid on the B1.

In the outstate it is a different matter. With small associations, many just have a Pee Wee program, not an A or B, just Pee Wees and some put it on the line and skate an A schedule but many just play B. If you are fortunate to be an EGF, Moorhead, Bemidji, Brainerd, or Duluth where you can have a quality A team and multiple B teams, that B1 will probably abuse most other smaller regional association's B teams, there may need to be a hard decision in those bigger associations that may want to move their B1 to and A schedule to challenge the kids.

There is a tradeoff to be made though, do we skate this talented group as a B team and dominate our schedule by 10-15 goals a game and possibly make a run deep into the playoffs OR do we skate them as an A team, have competitive and challenging games that are won or lost by a goal or two, hopefully finish around .500 but know that they will probably be eliminated early in districts.

I think should be about development, at what level will the kids grow the most as hockey players. Personally, I would rather my kid be the #16 kid and be on the B team then the #15 kid and be on the A team. The top B team kid is going to get more, longer shifts, with power play and penalty kill, the bottom kids on the A team will sit more often and won't see as much special teams opportunities. And that statement applies to both outstate and metro associations, youth and high school. Besides, in youth hockey, both A and B have the same opportunities, district, region, and state tournaments and titles, some just need to get over the ego issues of being an a player or parent.

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:23 pm

It all depends on if your program is interested in development of individual players or winning games. East Grand Forks had an a2 team at the bantam level and moorhead had an a2 team at the peewee level this season. Moorhead was right around .500 and competed very well. EGF only won a handful of games but were competitive until they had an ugly coaching change at christmas break and had different coaches on the bench every game after that. I personally think that the A2 team was the better option even with the poor record for EGF because the kids were challenged. Like Air force mentioned early, the regular season games when this group was peewees were very lopsided and didn't teach the kids anything. At least by seeing the top competition this year they were challenged and had to work hard to compete. When they decided to take a shift off they got scored on, which is what should happen.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:30 pm

I think you could go with a % rule. Like 20 % of your kids at a given level should be playing A. Assc. that have 150 pee-wees try out would have two A's.

Newbie Dad · Post by **Newbie Dad** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:47 pm

This is kind of a perspective from the opposite end of the spectrum... My son plays in a very small association within the Metro area. If we are lucky we'll have 2 teams at each level (BA, PW SQ) next year. We debate whether those teams should be A and B2, or B1 and B2, etc... One question that always gets asked is " can we compete with Wayzata and OMGHA?", but I wonder if that is even a fair question. We may never be able to compete with mega associations at the A level, but should that be the measuring stick? What if we [u]can [/u]compete with the other smaller associations in our district? Should that be the criteria for whether or not we have an A team? It is a matter of opinion, so I don't think there is a right answer.

Now to try and tie this back in with the original discussion, if mega associations did field 2 A teams, it might encourage smaller assocations to continue fielding A teams, rather than dropping down to B1. I don't know if that is good or bad, but just a possibility.

Cdale · Post by **Cdale** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:48 pm

Could some of the better B-1 teams maybe be allowed to mix in some A team opponents? For instance if you are an association with more than 1 B-1 team you are allowed to play a certain number of A oponents but would retain the B status.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:20 pm

Cdale wrote:Could some of the better B-1 teams maybe be allowed to mix in some A team opponents? For instance if you are an association with more than 1 B-1 team you are allowed to play a certain number of A oponents but would retain the B status.

The option is there, it was discussed in another thread but I am not going to look it up and link it. As and Bs can play, you just need to get it approved by your district director. In our district, lower As play some mid Bs. We also sometimes have our B1s play North Dakota A2s.

FIRE*ON*ICE · Post by **FIRE*ON*ICE** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:34 pm

57special wrote:IMO opinion the A and B teams have to be overwhelmingly better than their opponents to warrant a two A team scenario. This year's Edina Squirt A's were such a case, winning every single game they played(41-0), and usually by lopsided scores. Their four B teams were also very good, winning 95% of their non in house games. I would guess that if they promoted the top 15 skaters from B and split them evenly with the existing A's they would still be very good, but nowhere near undefeated.
The B teams might take even more of a hit, and would probably be a bit better than .500.

Are there any other cases out there of towns with exceptional A and B results across the board?

Centennial Suqirt A District Champs and Centennial Squirt B1 District Champs only losing 2 games all season, beating one of the Edina B teams who didn't lose very many games either.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:14 pm

I watched the Rosemount B pee-wee team @ Anoka tourny. I think they could have beat our team.[FL pw A] Farmington looked tough as well.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:16 pm

Let me add we were a very average pee-wee group. The Apee-wees, And our B peewee both had sub .500 records.

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:36 pm

Newbie Dad wrote:This is kind of a perspective from the opposite end of the spectrum... My son plays in a very small association within the Metro area. If we are lucky we'll have 2 teams at each level (BA, PW SQ) next year. We debate whether those teams should be A and B2, or B1 and B2, etc... One question that always gets asked is " can we compete with Wayzata and OMGHA?", but I wonder if that is even a fair question. We may never be able to compete with mega associations at the A level, but should that be the measuring stick? What if we can compete with the other smaller associations in our district? Should that be the criteria for whether or not we have an A team? It is a matter of opinion, so I don't think there is a right answer.

Now to try and tie this back in with the original discussion, if mega associations did field 2 A teams, it might encourage smaller assocations to continue fielding A teams, rather than dropping down to B1. I don't know if that is good or bad, but just a possibility.

I agree with the perspective that trying to compete with the mega assc. is not what you should be thinking about, but rather, will you be competitive, win some games, maybe be around .500 and qualify for districts. My son's A PW team won 1 district game & 6 overall. The parents lobbied to be a "B1" team, but the assc. said no. It should be about development, while making the team competitive. No one develops when they are losing by 5-6 goals 80% of the time. It demoralizes the kids and takes the passion for hockey away from them. Winning, or thinking they have a chance to win is what makes it fun for the kids, and helps fuel that passion.

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:35 pm

Actually you state says that you can't play out of your level in peewees and bantams. North Dakota plays as A2 because they don't have B1, Minnesota plays B1 because there is no A2. District 16 can play A2 teams with there B teams because Mr. Elliott says that it is the same thing.

PWD10 · Post by **PWD10** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:17 pm

The parents lobbied to be a "B1" team, but the assc. said no.

EGF only won a handful of games but were competitive until they had an ugly coaching change at christmas break and had different coaches on the bench every game after that.

And this is exactly why Minnesota should go to an open hockey enrollment system after the top level is chosen. Open waiver or simply release any kid playing below the top level. No forms or prior approvals needed. You don't like Target you can go to Sears. You don't like Taco Bell you can go to Chipolte. Same should happen with hockey here.
The Associations now are free to do as they please with little accountability or concern. Lets level the playing field and make it more enjoyable for all.

The Key mantra openly bandied around in Minnesota, is that Hockey is supposed to be fun. Well in the above cases do you really think it is or was?

Now back to the question. I am sure more teams or orgs would possibly go to a higher level if they were able to allow kids to openly and freely waive in. However instead of calling it a wavier we would call them freeagents. Free to come and go as they please with any organization they so choose or would take them. No paperwork needed at all. If the org will take you and you make the team so be it. If more kids are playing at the top level instead of being stifled by a bad tryout, or a couple of biased individuals within an association, the better the hockey will be for everyone.

Seriously only 8 out of 19 associations fielded Bantam A teams in D10 this year. I wouldn't be surprised if it was less next year by one or possibly two teams. That is a lot of associations whose kids have no shot at the advanced levels. Is this where we really want to go in the state of hockey? I hope not.

57special · Post by **57special** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:45 am

FIRE*ON*ICE wrote:
57special wrote:IMO opinion the A and B teams have to be overwhelmingly better than their opponents to warrant a two A team scenario. This year's Edina Squirt A's were such a case, winning every single game they played(41-0), and usually by lopsided scores. Their four B teams were also very good, winning 95% of their non in house games. I would guess that if they promoted the top 15 skaters from B and split them evenly with the existing A's they would still be very good, but nowhere near undefeated.
The B teams might take even more of a hit, and would probably be a bit better than .500.

Are there any other cases out there of towns with exceptional A and B results across the board?
Centennial Suqirt A District Champs and Centennial Squirt B1 District Champs only losing 2 games all season, beating one of the Edina B teams who didn't lose very many games either.

at least your district allows B1 and B2 teams at the Squirt level,unlike D6 Do you think that Centennial would be able to field two competitive A teams?

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:32 am

Different. Squirts don't play past their District playoffs.

PeeWees and Bantams have Regional and State Tournaments at both the A and B level.

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:56 am

Balanced teams vs. upper and lowers or A2. Some are saying balance others like the idea of upper and lowers yet others like the idea of an A2 team. This issue was addressed years ago with the creation of B1 and B2 but many associations have allowed just about the entire skating population of a certain level to play B hockey. A and B was created to deliver just what everyone is talking about but B teams have been expanded to include skaters who may not really be a "B" player.

There are multiple ways to handle this but in the current environment brought on by District and Minnesota Hockey rules we really need to move to a system that is AA, A, B1, B2.

If an AA, A, B1, B2 system happens; moving forward we must hold associations and districts accountable for making sure that they play teams at the appropriate level including forcing teams up or down based on previous years performance.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:50 am

This is just a very difficult topic to "solve." The associations that don't field an A team but have success at the B level get criticized (New Prague, Chisago Lakes, to name a few). However, if those associations did field A teams, chances are they might win 25% of their games and lose decisively in another 25%. While that would certainly be better for the development of the kids on that team, it's also incredibly difficult to push through a 50+ game season without winning much. It's easy to make claims that associations field teams at certain levels just to win more games, but I think that's an oversimplification.

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:26 pm

LowLight21 wrote:This is just a very difficult topic to "solve." The associations that don't field an A team but have success at the B level get criticized (New Prague, Chisago Lakes, to name a few). However, if those associations did field A teams, chances are they might win 25% of their games and lose decisively in another 25%. While that would certainly be better for the development of the kids on that team, it's also incredibly difficult to push through a 50+ game season without winning much. It's easy to make claims that associations field teams at certain levels just to win more games, but I think that's an oversimplification.

Totally agree & having AA, A, B1, B2 solves that issues. So take what is pretty much the Maroon and Gold today plus a few teams here and there and call it Double A.

Then take the Chisago Lakes', New Prague's etc...along with the upper Bantam B1 teams from some of the larger Associations (probably something like the top 6-8 in State this year) plus all the other teams that are currently classified as an A team by today's definition. Call this Single A.

Leave the remaining B1 teams at B1 and the existing B2 teams at B2 and now you have 4 legitemately competitve classifications for travel hockey. Have the districts and MN hockey police the classifications (e.g. come up with a points system that forces up and down movement based on previous years performance) and you have a classification system that alleviates many of the issues you see talked about on the hockey forum and elsewhere.

I know it would be a little more complicated than this and would take some work to arrange it but...the end result would be much better than the system we have today.

PS, I watched both NP and Chisago play this year and they absolutely belong at B1, yes they were some of the top teams at B1 Bantam but...belong? He-double hockey sticks yes - so whomever is criticizing those two is crying because they got piss pounded by them. That was the best thing their respective associations could have done for those players.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:37 pm

Garbage goal wrote: PS, I watched both NP and Chisago play this year and they absolutely belong at B1, yes they were some of the top teams at B1 Bantam but...belong? He-double hockey sticks yes - so whomever is criticizing those two is crying because they got piss pounded by them. That was the best thing their respective associations could have done for those players.

I agree completely. I'm not one of those criticizing these two, but simply acknowledging that these arguments are present, especially with CS and NP having a lot of success this past season.

Garbage goal wrote: Leave the remaining B1 teams at B1 and the existing B2 teams at B2 and now you have 4 legitemately competitve classifications for travel hockey. Have the districts and MN hockey police the classifications (e.g. come up with a points system that forces up and down movement based on previous years performance) and you have a classification system that alleviates many of the issues you see talked about on the hockey forum and elsewhere.

I think there's a lot of promise with an idea like this. The natural argument is that teams aren't static from year to year. How would you handle Edina's two Bantam B1 teams from this past season? Both Green and White were rated top five all season. Would both be asked to play up in the A tier? Only White because they advanced to the State final?

C-dad · Post by **C-dad** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:59 pm

Another difficult question is how do you calculate things year-to-year? Edina had a very good PW A team (won state), an OK Bantam A team (knocked out at regions), a couple OK PW B1s (knocked out at regions), a couple good BB1s (as mentioned). What level do you plan for two As the coming season? Having watched it for four years now, I believe it is next year's Bantam group. That 2 year cohort has been strong each time they were together and unless the BA coaches are awful, or they lose some top kids to high school teams, they'll be good next year. But they'll fall off again the year after.

My point is, it is fluid and often hard to predict year-to-year.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Fielding 2 A Teams

Fielding 2 A Teams

Opposite perspective

Re: Opposite perspective