Proper fit for ALL winter kids

[MrBoDangles]

This would be a much more even development model for ALL kids. And I believe Minnesota Hockey would develop way more top end talent.

[MrBoDangles]

Makes sense, nice idea.

On the girls side you could even get rid of the annual complaints about good B teams where there is no A team.

Districts could rotate the host association annually. The district itself could host the try-out, select the coach, and set the roster. But the host association would need to take care of ice, uniforms, insurance.... I think you could see some highly competitive teams with out really changing the rules much. Anyone would have the option of staying home with a B team instead of trying out.

Co-ops can be hard to hold together long term but with this the associations actually would get to keep their identity and even host a solid A team every few years.

I was thinking more of a revolving practice schedule of the associations with players involved. Although either way could work...
Example- Pine City is responsible for providing 3 hours of ice and then again four weeks later. Games would be divided equally as well. Or be responsible on a player percentage basis. Just like now a kid/parent pays for a percentage of the yearly ice.

Teams could have a simple name like D10 North A Squirts. Kids would be on this team but would still pay their association for their season, also do any fundraising and do any volunteering that needed to be done by player or parent. They would STAY a member of their home association. Parents would be responsible for extra fees like jerseys, socks, and tryouts unless covered. As a second year Squirt this might be a good option, the next year as a 1st year PeeWee they might have a better fit playing B-1 or 2

The skill level is wider than ever in small associations from the popularity of AAA summer Hockey. Without some serious thinking by MN Hockey things could really start to unravel.

Q, This was an idea from a different angle, but it might help with the ice problem..... Like now, each kid/parent pays for a percentage of the seasons ice received from the association. If an association has three kids on the team(s) you describe, they would then be responsible for that percentage of ice to their players.

[Quasar]

Q, This was an idea from a different angle, but it might help with the ice problem..... Like now, each kid/parent pays for a percentage of the seasons ice received from the association. If an association has three kids on the team(s) you describe, they would then be responsible for that percentage of ice to their players.

Cool... were talking on two different threads.. I think availability was the suggested problem. Like not enough ice to cover the needs of all the Minnesota youth hockey teams. Plus all the other activities. High school, Jr. Gold, Junior hockey etc..

At least tha's the way I understood the post...

[MrBoDangles]

Q, This was an idea from a different angle, but it might help with the ice problem..... Like now, each kid/parent pays for a percentage of the seasons ice received from the association. If an association has three kids on the team(s) you describe, they would then be responsible for that percentage of ice to their players.

Cool... were talking on two different threads.. I think availability was the suggested problem. Like not enough ice to cover the needs of all the Minnesota youth hockey teams. Plus all the other activities. High school, Jr. Gold, Junior hockey etc..

At least tha's the way I understood the post...

One team of 16 players

Say 48 hours of ice for the team. Association has 2 players on the team. That association would then be responsible to provide 6 hours of ice for the team

Association is responsible for their players percentage either way........ The player receives what they pay for either way. Current team or this new team.

It would require more travel, but would not put a burden on one rink.

[Quasar]

Cool... were talking on two different threads.. I think availability was the suggested problem. Like not enough ice to cover the needs of all the Minnesota youth hockey teams. Plus all the other activities. High school, Jr. Gold, Junior hockey etc..

At least tha's the way I understood the post...

One team of 16 players

Say 48 hours of ice for the team. Association has 2 players on the team. That association would then be responsible to provide 6 hours of ice for the team

Association is responsible for their players percentage either way........ The player receives what they pay for either way. Current team or this new team.

It would require more travel, but would not put a burden on one rink.

Sounds like a solution. I have no idea how much ice is available in any given area, but I'm sure good people with good intentions could figure it out..

[silentbutdeadly3139]

Q, This was an idea from a different angle, but it might help with the ice problem..... Like now, each kid/parent pays for a percentage of the seasons ice received from the association. If an association has three kids on the team(s) you describe, they would then be responsible for that percentage of ice to their players.

Cool... were talking on two different threads.. I think availability was the suggested problem. Like not enough ice to cover the needs of all the Minnesota youth hockey teams. Plus all the other activities. High school, Jr. Gold, Junior hockey etc..

At least tha's the way I understood the post...

One team of 16 players

Say 48 hours of ice for the team. Association has 2 players on the team. That association would then be responsible to provide 6 hours of ice for the team

Association is responsible for their players percentage either way........ The player receives what they pay for either way. Current team or this new team.

It would require more travel, but would not put a burden on one rink.

48 hours is quite low and its not accurate to say the association is responsible for player percentage. Its not that easy. Time is allocated to a team not a player so now that 6 hours is taken away from association teams and given to an elite team. Thats 6, or 12 shared ice practices the association looses. Not trivial when many 1 rink associations are already buying ice from other rinks.

edit : then again they can have that 10 - 11pm time slot that always seems to be available

[MrBoDangles]

Cool... were talking on two different threads.. I think availability was the suggested problem. Like not enough ice to cover the needs of all the Minnesota youth hockey teams. Plus all the other activities. High school, Jr. Gold, Junior hockey etc..

At least tha's the way I understood the post...

One team of 16 players

Say 48 hours of ice for the team. Association has 2 players on the team. That association would then be responsible to provide 6 hours of ice for the team

Association is responsible for their players percentage either way........ The player receives what they pay for either way. Current team or this new team.

It would require more travel, but would not put a burden on one rink.

48 hours is quite low and its not accurate to say the association is responsible for player percentage. Its not that easy. Time is allocated to a team not a player so now that 6 hours is taken away from association teams and given to an elite team. Thats 6, or 12 shared ice practices the association looses. Not trivial when many 1 rink associations are already buying ice from other rinks.

edit : then again they can have that 10 - 11pm time slot that always seems to be available

There are also some in most districts that are trying to sell ice... It explains being able to buy ice from other rinks.

[Quasar]

One team of 16 players

Say 48 hours of ice for the team. Association has 2 players on the team. That association would then be responsible to provide 6 hours of ice for the team

Association is responsible for their players percentage either way........ The player receives what they pay for either way. Current team or this new team.

It would require more travel, but would not put a burden on one rink.

48 hours is quite low and its not accurate to say the association is responsible for player percentage. Its not that easy. Time is allocated to a team not a player so now that 6 hours is taken away from association teams and given to an elite team. Thats 6, or 12 shared ice practices the association looses. Not trivial when many 1 rink associations are already buying ice from other rinks.

edit : then again they can have that 10 - 11pm time slot that always seems to be available

Ice availability is a problem. Maybe the late night is ok.. remember these are driven people were talking about. Both the kids and their parents. Not my cup O tea..Just sayin.

[MrBoDangles]

I like big parts of the suggestion so don't get me wrong, but...

One unfortunate difficulty is that it doesn't work in the north and south where it's needed most. We have it good in the metro where all members of a district are within 30-40 minutes of one another max. There are associations, in the same district, over 2 hours apart in northern and southern Minnesota which would make practices, and games, difficult by Minnesota standards. Also, in the north there are associations with just 10-15 skaters at a level. Take the 2-3 best A players away and what are they left with?

Impartial team selection would be difficult as a coach is going to want a player or two more from a particular association at the expense of a deserving kid from another one. I know that happens during association team selection as well but cries of foul will be more frequent as team selection crosses association boundaries.

I think the current solution of waiving to a neighboring association, that offers A when your association doesn't, may still be the best solution. Maybe more clarity around that option is best. I've heard of players waiving out and not making A but playing B1 at the new bigger association and still being happy. Especially as a first year. B1 at a large association can be better than A at a small one as the range of player skills is more closely matched top to bottom.

All associations have peeks and valleys in player numbers and ability. Sounds like an idea from a family in a numbers dip looking for an out. Your player is in a tough spot and the reward for hard work is not fair if the other 12 kids didn't work as hard. All of a sudden his development sped past the others. Unfortunately strong skating 12 year old players don't drop from trees. The solution for younger families in your association is to work hard recruiting. Right now by the way. Metro associations need 30-50 new mite boys each year minimum to have the numbers to host at least 3-4 teams per level. Without 3-4 teams at each level the range of skater ability, and commitment is wide.

The rural associations are feeling down as there are only 10-15 boys in the whole town in a single age group. Not kidding.

It would be an OPTION north, south, east, and west. If the drive is too far it is THEIR choice.

2-3 players that get to play at a proper level. And a remaining team that gets to play at a proper level and as a team.

Like I said in the first post to bring in outside evaluators to pick 100% of the team. NO POLITICS

Most of the time a kid will never get a fair shake waiving into another association. When they do knock a kid of the top team it can get very ugly. There would be no outsider feeling with a pooled team.

You are very quick to say waive out......? Why not form a team of the "waive out" type so they don't have to feel like an outsider? They will still be able to practice and play at their home rink from time to time and feel like they belong. They will stay a member of their home association.

Like I said before MN Hockey needs to do some creative thinking. The alternative is that the private sector will start to take over.

[MrBoDangles]

District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.

Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team

East A Squirts roster

Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators

The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.

My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.

Just an idea and food for the bOred.

Needs to be offered.

[MrBoDangles]

I like big parts of the suggestion so don't get me wrong, but...

One unfortunate difficulty is that it doesn't work in the north and south where it's needed most. We have it good in the metro where all members of a district are within 30-40 minutes of one another max. There are associations, in the same district, over 2 hours apart in northern and southern Minnesota which would make practices, and games, difficult by Minnesota standards. Also, in the north there are associations with just 10-15 skaters at a level. Take the 2-3 best A players away and what are they left with?

Impartial team selection would be difficult as a coach is going to want a player or two more from a particular association at the expense of a deserving kid from another one. I know that happens during association team selection as well but cries of foul will be more frequent as team selection crosses association boundaries.

I think the current solution of waiving to a neighboring association, that offers A when your association doesn't, may still be the best solution. Maybe more clarity around that option is best. I've heard of players waiving out and not making A but playing B1 at the new bigger association and still being happy. Especially as a first year. B1 at a large association can be better than A at a small one as the range of player skills is more closely matched top to bottom.

All associations have peeks and valleys in player numbers and ability. Sounds like an idea from a family in a numbers dip looking for an out. Your player is in a tough spot and the reward for hard work is not fair if the other 12 kids didn't work as hard. All of a sudden his development sped past the others. Unfortunately strong skating 12 year old players don't drop from trees. The solution for younger families in your association is to work hard recruiting. Right now by the way. Metro associations need 30-50 new mite boys each year minimum to have the numbers to host at least 3-4 teams per level. Without 3-4 teams at each level the range of skater ability, and commitment is wide.

The rural associations are feeling down as there are only 10-15 boys in the whole town in a single age group. Not kidding.

It would be an OPTION north, south, east, and west. If the drive is too far it is THEIR choice.

2-3 players that get to play at a proper level. And a remaining team that gets to play at a proper level and as a team.

Like I said in the first post to bring in outside evaluators to pick 100% of the team. NO POLITICS

Most of the time a kid will never get a fair shake waiving into another association. When they do knock a kid of the top team it can get very ugly. There would be no outsider feeling with a pooled team.

You are very quick to say waive out......? Why not form a team of the "waive out" type so they don't have to feel like an outsider? They will still be able to practice and play at their home rink from time to time and feel like they belong. They will stay a member of their home association.

Like I said before MN Hockey needs to do some creative thinking. The alternative is that the private sector will start to take over.

What we're ending up with is 10 -15 programs that will have all the talent. Is this the broader base MN Hockey is looking for? Some creative thinking is needed to help kids play competitive Hockey where they are at.

Summer AAA has opened the eyes of many...

[old goalie85]

yea that was kinda the set-up I was talking about. Then the kids can still go to school w/buddys/play ball/whatever!!!

[the_juiceman]

do other sports have this same issue and I just don't hear about it? baseball, football, basketball? I know in baseball, you have to play where you plan on going to HS school once you hit 13 yr old

[trippedovertheblueline]

do other sports have this same issue and I just don't hear about it? baseball, football, basketball? I know in baseball, you have to play where you plan on going to HS school once you hit 13 yr old

Travel soccer is whatever team will take you.
Baseball is by school attendance or city of residence, without restrictions.
No idea about LaCrosse or Hoops.
Football is mostly community in the metro until middle school. 3-6th grade could probably use city or school for organization to play. Not sure if they use middle school attendance exclusively at the middle school point.

[O-townClown]

Baseball is an absolute mess. From what I can tell, the sport has no national governing body. There are so many different associations with their own rules that there are essentially no rules.

[Outoftowner]

I love the idea Bo!

As a parent of a peewee player in one of the worst associations in the state, I can say that your idea affects us directly.

My peewee didn't even play assos. hockey this year. He skated at MM instead. We tried to wavier to a neighboring association, but our association kept dragging their feet all summer. So I took my kid to MM for a tryout for the choice league. After he made it, then my assos. came back with an offer to waiver him up to bantams, figuring he could skate bantam A. By that time we were already committed to MM and besides, he is a young second year peewee( birthday is in June). He would have gotten killed playing at 85lbs in bantams. Also the bantams suck too. They are in the bottom twenty five in the rankings. The peewees are in the bottom five. Choice league was a great alternative to blowouts every game and my association's' numbers excuses, fun only/winning isn't important, loser philosophy that they spout, as my kids continue to not learn the game correctly.

I've figured out that when you suck so badly and put up games scores like 11-0, 15-1 etc... on a regular basis, kids lose all drive to get better and their attitudes change into little excuse makers. The whole association makes excuses to keep the association together and eventually adopt a community rec attitude toward competitive traveling hockey.

So anyway, I love your idea! District A teams are a great answer for our family and people in our situation.

[MrBoDangles]

District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.

Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team

East A Squirts roster

Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators

The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.

My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.

Just an idea and food for the bOred.

I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.

Muck, I'm very confused........

[MrBoDangles]

District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.

Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team

East A Squirts roster

Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators

The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.

My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.

Just an idea and food for the bOred.

I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.

and again, Muck?

[MrBoDangles]

Muck?

[muckandgrind]

Muck?

It looks as though District 10 hasn't moved forward with the District-sponsored "A" team...what do you want from me?

It was proposed, there were some discussions, but never went any further than that.

I think it's a good idea.

[MrBoDangles]

Muck?

It looks as though District 10 hasn't moved forward with the District-sponsored "A" team...what do you want from me?

It was proposed, there were some discussions, but never went any further than that.

I think it's a good idea.

It contradicted your opinion on the abilities of some kids that are only offered B-1 in their association.

That's my thought.. If we pool some talented kids from weaker teams you will end up with a strong A team. I would then bet the farm that they would get more credit this way then being a strong player on a B1, or make believe A team.

The longer they're able to develop at a fair level, the more likely they'll stay. The alternative is the max exodus of players into the few elite associations.

The base is getting smaller and smaller.

[muckandgrind]

Muck?

It looks as though District 10 hasn't moved forward with the District-sponsored "A" team...what do you want from me?

It was proposed, there were some discussions, but never went any further than that.

I think it's a good idea.

It contradicted your opinion on the abilities of some kids that are only offered B-1 in their association.

That's my thought.. If we pool some talented kids from weaker teams you will end up with a strong A team. I would then bet the farm that they would get more credit this way then being a strong player on a B1, or make believe A team.

The longer they're able to develop at a fair level, the more likely they'll stay. The alternative is the max exodus of players into the few elite associations.

The base is getting smaller and smaller.

I don't think it's a contradiction. I'm sure there are "A" level players "stuck" playing on a B1 team. My point is that, while the system is imperfect, there really is no other way short of opening the tryout process up to ALL players age-eligible...too many players to tryout in such a short period of time.

By going to District-sponsored "A" teams, you don't need to change the current criteria.

[MrBoDangles]

It looks as though District 10 hasn't moved forward with the District-sponsored "A" team...what do you want from me?

It was proposed, there were some discussions, but never went any further than that.

I think it's a good idea.

It contradicted your opinion on the abilities of some kids that are only offered B-1 in their association.

That's my thought.. If we pool some talented kids from weaker teams you will end up with a strong A team. I would then bet the farm that they would get more credit this way then being a strong player on a B1, or make believe A team.

The longer they're able to develop at a fair level, the more likely they'll stay. The alternative is the max exodus of players into the few elite associations.

The base is getting smaller and smaller.

I don't think it's a contradiction. I'm sure there are "A" level players "stuck" playing on a B1 team. My point is that, while the system is imperfect, there really is no other way short of opening the tryout process up to ALL players age-eligible...too many players to tryout in such a short period of time.

By going to District-sponsored "A" teams, you don't need to change the current criteria.

I agree, but problems should be solved, especially when it involves kids.

[muckandgrind]

It contradicted your opinion on the abilities of some kids that are only offered B-1 in their association.

That's my thought.. If we pool some talented kids from weaker teams you will end up with a strong A team. I would then bet the farm that they would get more credit this way then being a strong player on a B1, or make believe A team.

The longer they're able to develop at a fair level, the more likely they'll stay. The alternative is the max exodus of players into the few elite associations.

The base is getting smaller and smaller.

I don't think it's a contradiction. I'm sure there are "A" level players "stuck" playing on a B1 team. My point is that, while the system is imperfect, there really is no other way short of opening the tryout process up to ALL players age-eligible...too many players to tryout in such a short period of time.

By going to District-sponsored "A" teams, you don't need to change the current criteria.

I agree, but problems should be solved, especially when it involves kids.

How would you solve this problem? Open the tryout up to every age-eligible player?

[MrBoDangles]

I don't think it's a contradiction. I'm sure there are "A" level players "stuck" playing on a B1 team. My point is that, while the system is imperfect, there really is no other way short of opening the tryout process up to ALL players age-eligible...too many players to tryout in such a short period of time.

By going to District-sponsored "A" teams, you don't need to change the current criteria.

I agree, but problems should be solved, especially when it involves kids.

How would you solve this problem? Open the tryout up to every age-eligible player?

The kids that were already invited and a few alloted slots for the skilled B-1 players in small associations.

Gotta go.. Thanks for the conversation.