Bantam B1 State

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:24 pm

Wow, lots of good banter;

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. 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.

To ask #16 play with #60 is ludicrous. Kind of like asking a high level math student to take the lowest level math class. These kids deserve every opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible. This should not be about someone's warped sense of leveled play or a fair chance for everyone to skate at that level, rather it needs to be about development of the players and playing kids where they belong so upper teams do not have to play teams that are not competitive with them.

If you look at the record of OMG Crimson, they pounded Edina Green 6 times this season which was a balanced team with white - and green was ranked 1,2 or 3 all season. The reality is the OMG Crimson team was a great team this year and happened to have deep class of bantams across the board thus the three teams ranked in the top 20. As for Edina White they were a great team too but not a better team than OMG. OMG had three key players out with injuries the first three times they met so the OMG team they faced in the State Championship was not the same as the team they faced the three previous times.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:17 am

Garbage goal wrote:Wow, lots of good banter;

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. 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.

To ask #16 play with #60 is ludicrous. Kind of like asking a high level math student to take the lowest level math class. These kids deserve every opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible. This should not be about someone's warped sense of leveled play or a fair chance for everyone to skate at that level, rather it needs to be about development of the players and playing kids where they belong so upper teams do not have to play teams that are not competitive with them.

If you look at the record of OMG Crimson, they pounded Edina Green 6 times this season which was a balanced team with white - and green was ranked 1,2 or 3 all season. The reality is the OMG Crimson team was a great team this year and happened to have deep class of bantams across the board thus the three teams ranked in the top 20. As for Edina White they were a great team too but not a better team than OMG. OMG had three key players out with injuries the first three times they met so the OMG team they faced in the State Championship was not the same as the team they faced the three previous times.

Heard the "players out with injury' garbage numerous times. Edina White was every bit as good a team as Crimson, especially when you consider the fact that the EHA made the dubious decision to let their best player move up to the A team. Again, if OMG had fielded balanced teams, or Edina upper and lower, the result may have been different.

"Ludicrous" may be a bit overstated. Plenty of 16s have prospered just fine playing with that horrible #60 and come away okay. I think you've lost a little perspective.

puckfan · Post by **puckfan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:38 am

The simple solution is to give them all championship medals

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:00 am

puckfan wrote:The simple solution is to give them all championship medals

Not trying to be over-inclusive, but sometimes the experts overstate the talent and need for "development" of #16 and understate the need at #60. Funny, both paid the same amount of money to play.

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:26 am

Wayzata peewee B1 had the proverbial 16 playing with 60 on 3 teams and did fine. Every situation is different, so don't make broad generalizations and apply to everything. The only difference if Wayzata went two b1s was that they would have taken 1st and 2nd instead of just 1st.

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:51 am

sorno82 wrote:Wayzata peewee B1 had the proverbial 16 playing with 60 on 3 teams and did fine. Every situation is different, so don't make broad generalizations and apply to everything. The only difference if Wayzata went two b1s was that they would have taken 1st and 2nd instead of just 1st.

Peewees? Thought we were talking about Bantams. Besides I think OMG runs 3 balanced and many others at Peewee run balanced as well. And maybe ludicrous was too strong of a word but....these kids are preparing for high school.

Understood Edina lost their best player to the 'A' team. How is that different than injured players? Spilled milk. He should have been on A to begin with. Not sure how Dornbach missed him to begin with. Yes Edina White is a good team and so is Green. But Maple Grove still would have been competitve if Edina went to one team. Not sure the result would have been different. Edina White had a two man advantage in for 5.5 minutes in the second and 1.5 in the third and still could not create scoring opps.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:44 am

I would love to see the best 17 from Edina Green and White play against the OMG Crimson.

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:23 am

LowLight21 wrote:I would love to see the best 17 from Edina Green and White play against the OMG Crimson.

Completely agree with you, it would be a great game.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 pm

Garbage goal wrote:
sorno82 wrote:Wayzata peewee B1 had the proverbial 16 playing with 60 on 3 teams and did fine. Every situation is different, so don't make broad generalizations and apply to everything. The only difference if Wayzata went two b1s was that they would have taken 1st and 2nd instead of just 1st.
Peewees? Thought we were talking about Bantams. Besides I think OMG runs 3 balanced and many others at Peewee run balanced as well. And maybe ludicrous was too strong of a word but....these kids are preparing for high school.

Understood Edina lost their best player to the 'A' team. How is that different than injured players? Spilled milk. He should have been on A to begin with. Not sure how Dornbach missed him to begin with. Yes Edina White is a good team and so is Green. But Maple Grove still would have been competitve if Edina went to one team. Not sure the result would have been different. Edina White had a two man advantage in for 5.5 minutes in the second and 1.5 in the third and still could not create scoring opps.

The dfference is EW did not have that player for the playoffs, OMG did have the three "key" players for the playoffs. Spilled milk maybe, but you brought up the injured players.

I've never said OMG wouldn't be competitive with balanced teams, I think I've said thay would have been fine - that's why they should have done it. Of course that would mean 16 would have to play with 60. Not sure about getting ready for high school is a good reason, unless, of course, you've given up on 31-60 for high school.

TheSiouxSuck · Post by **TheSiouxSuck** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:58 pm

Bluewhitefan wrote:
Garbage goal wrote:Wow, lots of good banter;

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. 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.

To ask #16 play with #60 is ludicrous. Kind of like asking a high level math student to take the lowest level math class. These kids deserve every opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible. This should not be about someone's warped sense of leveled play or a fair chance for everyone to skate at that level, rather it needs to be about development of the players and playing kids where they belong so upper teams do not have to play teams that are not competitive with them.

If you look at the record of OMG Crimson, they pounded Edina Green 6 times this season which was a balanced team with white - and green was ranked 1,2 or 3 all season. The reality is the OMG Crimson team was a great team this year and happened to have deep class of bantams across the board thus the three teams ranked in the top 20. As for Edina White they were a great team too but not a better team than OMG. OMG had three key players out with injuries the first three times they met so the OMG team they faced in the State Championship was not the same as the team they faced the three previous times.
Heard the "players out with injury' garbage numerous times. Edina White was every bit as good a team as Crimson, especially when you consider the fact that the EHA made the dubious decision to let their best player move up to the A team. Again, if OMG had fielded balanced teams, or Edina upper and lower, the result may have been different.

"Ludicrous" may be a bit overstated. Plenty of 16s have prospered just fine playing with that horrible #60 and come away okay. I think you've lost a little perspective.

I dont think there was any perspective lost. Its more beneficial from a development standpoint to practice and play with players of similar talent. Its comparable to kids leaving to go to ann arbour (on a smaller scale of course) they go there to play with players who can push them to reach their potential (the exposure arguement not withstanding.)

#16 might not suffer to a huge degree but will #60 be given the proper course to develop playing with players he cannot keep up with?

I can sure say its a hell of a lot easier to put an efficient practice plan together when you have kids who have similar talent levels rather than having your top 3 who could probably contribute at the A level and your bottom 3 still learning to stop on their left side.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:57 pm

TheSiouxSuck wrote:
Bluewhitefan wrote:
Garbage goal wrote:Wow, lots of good banter;

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. 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.

To ask #16 play with #60 is ludicrous. Kind of like asking a high level math student to take the lowest level math class. These kids deserve every opportunity to be developed at the highest level possible. This should not be about someone's warped sense of leveled play or a fair chance for everyone to skate at that level, rather it needs to be about development of the players and playing kids where they belong so upper teams do not have to play teams that are not competitive with them.

If you look at the record of OMG Crimson, they pounded Edina Green 6 times this season which was a balanced team with white - and green was ranked 1,2 or 3 all season. The reality is the OMG Crimson team was a great team this year and happened to have deep class of bantams across the board thus the three teams ranked in the top 20. As for Edina White they were a great team too but not a better team than OMG. OMG had three key players out with injuries the first three times they met so the OMG team they faced in the State Championship was not the same as the team they faced the three previous times.
Heard the "players out with injury' garbage numerous times. Edina White was every bit as good a team as Crimson, especially when you consider the fact that the EHA made the dubious decision to let their best player move up to the A team. Again, if OMG had fielded balanced teams, or Edina upper and lower, the result may have been different.

"Ludicrous" may be a bit overstated. Plenty of 16s have prospered just fine playing with that horrible #60 and come away okay. I think you've lost a little perspective.
I dont think there was any perspective lost. Its more beneficial from a development standpoint to practice and play with players of similar talent. Its comparable to kids leaving to go to ann arbour (on a smaller scale of course) they go there to play with players who can push them to reach their potential (the exposure arguement not withstanding.)

#16 might not suffer to a huge degree but will #60 be given the proper course to develop playing with players he cannot keep up with?

I can sure say its a hell of a lot easier to put an efficient practice plan together when you have kids who have similar talent levels rather than having your top 3 who could probably contribute at the A level and your bottom 3 still learning to stop on their left side.

This might very well be true, but we heard ealier in the post that OMG was so deep. It sounded to me like #60 could have handled himself just fine - probably has no problem stopping on either side. I also think that this argument is too often used to make sure we separate the "most talented" players earlier, so that they can get "developed" by the better coaching. This ends up self-fulfilling in the end.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:01 pm

While we're on the topic of association sizes, what are the largest associations in the state? OMG, Wayzata, Woodbury and Edina must be the top four right? OMG and Wayzata both had 9 Bantam teams, Woodbury had 7, and Edina had 7. Any other associations with 7 or more?

suzannehanrahan · Post by **suzannehanrahan** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:50 pm

Bluewhitefan wrote: The dfference is EW did not have that player for the playoffs, OMG did have the three "key" players for the playoffs. Spilled milk maybe, but you brought up the injured players.

I've never said OMG wouldn't be competitive with balanced teams, I think I've said thay would have been fine - that's why they should have done it. Of course that would mean 16 would have to play with 60. Not sure about getting ready for high school is a good reason, unless, of course, you've given up on 31-60 for high school.

Rumor has it 1 of those 3 key players was out for half the season to a knee injury and another was a PeeWee player that moved up to Bantams. (OMG allows that?)

Sounds like the outcome of any previous games with EW would have been significantly different had they had the same guns they brought to the State Tournament. Did I hear correctly that Crimson had almost 60 minutes of penalties in 2nd and 3rd alone in the final against EW?

TheSiouxSuck · Post by **TheSiouxSuck** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:14 am

Bluewhitefan wrote:
TheSiouxSuck wrote:
Bluewhitefan wrote: Heard the "players out with injury' garbage numerous times. Edina White was every bit as good a team as Crimson, especially when you consider the fact that the EHA made the dubious decision to let their best player move up to the A team. Again, if OMG had fielded balanced teams, or Edina upper and lower, the result may have been different.

"Ludicrous" may be a bit overstated. Plenty of 16s have prospered just fine playing with that horrible #60 and come away okay. I think you've lost a little perspective.
I dont think there was any perspective lost. Its more beneficial from a development standpoint to practice and play with players of similar talent. Its comparable to kids leaving to go to ann arbour (on a smaller scale of course) they go there to play with players who can push them to reach their potential (the exposure arguement not withstanding.)

#16 might not suffer to a huge degree but will #60 be given the proper course to develop playing with players he cannot keep up with?

I can sure say its a hell of a lot easier to put an efficient practice plan together when you have kids who have similar talent levels rather than having your top 3 who could probably contribute at the A level and your bottom 3 still learning to stop on their left side.
This might very well be true, but we heard ealier in the post that OMG was so deep. It sounded to me like #60 could have handled himself just fine - probably has no problem stopping on either side. I also think that this argument is too often used to make sure we separate the "most talented" players earlier, so that they can get "developed" by the better coaching. This ends up self-fulfilling in the end.

But if they were so deep and even, whats really the difference if they split the teams up or stack one more than the others in an effort to win state? The arguement isnt about developing the "most talented" players. It involves developing the less talented players also by pairing them with people they can compete against. People need to stop getting so up in arms about that status accompanied with whichever team their child plays on and realize that B1 and B2 teams can be beneficial to their childs development.

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:24 am

suzannehanrahan wrote:
Bluewhitefan wrote: The dfference is EW did not have that player for the playoffs, OMG did have the three "key" players for the playoffs. Spilled milk maybe, but you brought up the injured players.

I've never said OMG wouldn't be competitive with balanced teams, I think I've said thay would have been fine - that's why they should have done it. Of course that would mean 16 would have to play with 60. Not sure about getting ready for high school is a good reason, unless, of course, you've given up on 31-60 for high school.
Rumor has it 1 of those 3 key players was out for half the season to a knee injury and another was a PeeWee player that moved up to Bantams. (OMG allows that?)

Sounds like the outcome of any previous games with EW would have been significantly different had they had the same guns they brought to the State Tournament. Did I hear correctly that Crimson had almost 60 minutes of penalties in 2nd and 3rd alone in the final against EW?

You are partially correct, according to the coach they had a torn meniscus, broken collar bone & torn hammy. No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor. 6 first years and one Osseo kid who is really a MG kid but open enrolled into Osseo.

Coach also said penalties were 60 minutes. It was really unbalanced in the first two periods, never have seen anything like it. MG had 5 players in the box twice during the second period. Third period official called it pretty even but still there was an EW or MG kid in the box the entire third period. Although it disrupted the flow of a good game it really does not matter; the bottom line is MG won the game 3-0, that speaks for itself.

Sioux Suck agree with you on both of your last two posts.

puckfan · Post by **puckfan** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:51 pm

No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor

Wrong, there was a PW age eligible player on that team.

I have no Bantam, nor am I from MG/Edina/Wayzata but I really love reading about how people from all these other super sized associations throw out the "well if we would have made a top team, they wouldn't have won" or "well our association makes them equal and that's how everyone else should do it".

This is basically the same dicussion that's going on on the "2 A Team" forum, but Edian/Wayzata/MG don't do 2 Squirt A, or Peewee teams for what could be the same reason MG did what they did......................Winning!

Bottom line is no mater what people say, in the end its all about winning but nobody wants to admit it.

Please keep the enteretaiment value of this post up by complaining about why they won the BB state tourny.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:35 pm

puckfan wrote: Bottom line is no mater what people say, in the end its all about winning but nobody wants to admit it.

This is just simply not true. If it was only about winning, the big associations would create one team at the A, B1, and B2 levels, and throw the rest of the kids on C teams. For the associations with 7 Bantam teams, that would certainly create a lot more winning at every Bantam level.

MGHockey12 · Post by **MGHockey12** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:35 pm

Garbage goal wrote:
You are partially correct, according to the coach they had a torn meniscus, broken collar bone & torn hammy. No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor. 6 first years and one Osseo kid who is really a MG kid but open enrolled into Osseo.

Yes there was a PeeWee-

That PW age player made it to extendeds for Bantam A so he didnt move up. Same kid that had torn hammy, missed 12 games and was still in the top 2-3 goals/assists.

If Maple Grove was all about winning wouldn't they make him play PW?

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:19 pm

MGHockey12 wrote:
Garbage goal wrote:
You are partially correct, according to the coach they had a torn meniscus, broken collar bone & torn hammy. No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor. 6 first years and one Osseo kid who is really a MG kid but open enrolled into Osseo.
Yes there was a PeeWee-

That PW age player made it to extendeds for Bantam A so he didnt move up. Same kid that had torn hammy, missed 12 games and was still in the top 2-3 goals/assists.

If Maple Grove was all about winning wouldn't they make him play PW?

Same Same - PeeWee age but Bantam eligible? My understanding is he is an 8th grader who is playing his grade not his age? Allowable under MN Hockey. So technically he is a Bantam even though he is age eligible for PeeWees. Young 8th grader but still an 8th Grader.

What I do agree with you on is; If OMG was about winning how come they have only won 2 State tournaments in 40 years? Obviously a MG parent - Love the openess but might want to work on that state tourney record. You guys have the talent and numbers.

Puck fan - love the statement about entertainment value of the complaining about why OMG won the State Tourney. Nothing better than the unbderdog taking it to some of the big dogs! Great game by OMG. Hats off to the coaches!

Garbage goal · Post by **Garbage goal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:22 pm

Garbage goal wrote:
MGHockey12 wrote:
Garbage goal wrote:
You are partially correct, according to the coach they had a torn meniscus, broken collar bone & torn hammy. No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor. 6 first years and one Osseo kid who is really a MG kid but open enrolled into Osseo.
Yes there was a PeeWee-

That PW age player made it to extendeds for Bantam A so he didnt move up. Same kid that had torn hammy, missed 12 games and was still in the top 2-3 goals/assists.

If Maple Grove was all about winning wouldn't they make him play PW?
Same Same - PeeWee age but Bantam eligible? My understanding is he is an 8th grader who is playing his grade not his age? Allowable under MN Hockey. So technically he is a Bantam even though he is age eligible for PeeWees. Young 8th grader but still an 8th Grader.

What I do agree with you on is; If OMG was about winning how come they have only won 2 State tournaments in 40 years? Obviously a MG parent - Love the openess but might want to work on that state tourney record. You guys have the talent and numbers.

Puck fan - love the statement about entertainment value of the complaining about why OMG won the State Tourney. Nothing better than the unbderdog taking it to some of the big dogs! Great game by OMG. Hats off to the coaches!

And to the players - they brought it!

Toomuchtoosoon · Post by **Toomuchtoosoon** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:53 pm

puckfan wrote:
No Peewees on the team, that is a rumor
Wrong, there was a PW age eligible player on that team.

I have no Bantam, nor am I from MG/Edina/Wayzata but I really love reading about how people from all these other super sized associations throw out the "well if we would have made a top team, they wouldn't have won" or "well our association makes them equal and that's how everyone else should do it".

This is basically the same dicussion that's going on on the "2 A Team" forum, but Edian/Wayzata/MG don't do 2 Squirt A, or Peewee teams for what could be the same reason MG did what they did......................Winning!

Bottom line is no mater what people say, in the end its all about winning but nobody wants to admit it.

Please keep the enteretaiment value of this post up by complaining about why they won the BB state tourny.

Edina whining at its best. A kid who is young enough to play peewee, but decides to play bantam with his buddies in his grade is a bad thing. An 8th grader chooses Bantam B1 over Peewee A? OMG PeeWees are weak, but the Bantams are strong. Makes sense to me.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:20 am

Edina whining at its best. A kid who is young enough to play peewee, but decides to play bantam with his buddies in his grade is a bad thing. An 8th grader chooses Bantam B1 over Peewee A? OMG PeeWees are weak, but the Bantams are strong. Makes sense to me.[/quote]

Can you point me to the post where anyone was whining about the PW playing Bantam?

All I've seen so far is a bunch of posts about winning a state title by stacking one team - perfectly fine by the rules - Elk River, Woodbury, OMG, Blaine, Wayzata etc. all do it. Funny, the "whiners" aren't allowed to do it by D6 rules, yet they're the ones with all the banners on the ceiling. They'd likely have even more if they could tier their teams.

Celebrate a fine state title by a very good team, but stop with all the "development" crap. The B1A approach is not about better development of #60 and never has been. It's about not forcing poor little #16, who, if he was as good as his dad thinks he is, would have made the A team, to play with pathetic #60.

Mg17 · Post by **Mg17** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:07 pm

Bluewhitefan wrote:Edina whining at its best. A kid who is young enough to play peewee, but decides to play bantam with his buddies in his grade is a bad thing. An 8th grader chooses Bantam B1 over Peewee A? OMG PeeWees are weak, but the Bantams are strong. Makes sense to me.

Can you point me to the post where anyone was whining about the PW playing Bantam?

All I've seen so far is a bunch of posts about winning a state title by stacking one team - perfectly fine by the rules - Elk River, Woodbury, OMG, Blaine, Wayzata etc. all do it. Funny, the "whiners" aren't allowed to do it by D6 rules, yet they're the ones with all the banners on the ceiling. They'd likely have even more if they could tier their teams.

Celebrate a fine state title by a very good team, but stop with all the "development" crap. The B1A approach is not about better development of #60 and never has been. It's about not forcing poor little #16, who, if he was as good as his dad thinks he is, would have made the A team, to play with pathetic #60.[/quote]

I disagree. Hockey as do other sports have a responsibility to deliver a combination of both development and fun. A fine line really. I don't recall seeing anyone crying over their child not making an 'A' team here. I don't recall anyone labeling #60 as pathetic, rather they pointed out there was a talent difference I also think that running two lowers and an upper is about development as much as it is opportunity. In 2008/2009 OMGHA ran one B1 and the rest of the kids played B2. Many of the kids who had B1 talent that year and previous years were forced to play B2. In 2009/2010 they ran a second or lower B1 and in 2010/2011 they expanded that to two lower B1 teams. Totaling three B1 teams. The bulk of this years State Champion team came from the 09/10 lower B1 team. That team made it to regions and was eliminated by an upper Wayzata team that was very talented.

The team that won state was developed as lower B1 the previous year and had a very good year. Not to dissimilar from the two lower teams this year. Without the opportunity of developing at the B1 level the previous year albeit lower they may not have had the same experiences or opportunity that helped them win state.

I think your poor little 16 statement and pathetic 60 is a little harsh and naive. By that logic they should all play 'A'. I recall someone saying they all payed the same fees right, so we should let them all play at the same level using that logic.

And yes we are celebrating a fine season and a State title!

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:45 pm

Mg17 wrote:I don't recall seeing anyone crying over their child not making an 'A' team here. I don't recall anyone labeling #60 as pathetic, rather they pointed out there was a talent difference

Clearly choosing what you want to read and ignoring the rest. You're right "pathetic" was my word, "ludicrous" was the OMG poster's. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that there was a talent difference between 16 and 60. That's a real newsflash. Coach the kid and quit using the development of #16 as your excuse for not.

Mg17 · Post by **Mg17** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:08 pm

Bluewhitefan wrote:
Mg17 wrote:I don't recall seeing anyone crying over their child not making an 'A' team here. I don't recall anyone labeling #60 as pathetic, rather they pointed out there was a talent difference
Clearly choosing what you want to read and ignoring the rest. You're right "pathetic" was my word, "ludicrous" was the OMG poster's. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that there was a talent difference between 16 and 60. That's a real newsflash. Coach the kid and quit using the development of #16 as your excuse for not.

Man, sarcasm at its best. I don't think I was using development as an excuse. I don't think I was ignoring anything either, just posting my response to your opinion. Your position differs from mine. Two sides to every coin.