small towns who dont have the talent wanting to play a?

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Thu May 10, 2012 11:04 pm

not quite sure what your getting at

PWD10 · Post by **PWD10** » Fri May 11, 2012 10:02 am

1. If you don't play at the top level those players will either not play for you or they will move to an organization that can provide the talent level.
2. There are hidden gems out there who can play but don't have all the fancy letters behind them, or come from organizations that lack something for loss of words here.
3. You a lot of times have to get kids out away from their coaches and into other situations to find out if you really have a good team and players.
4.Lose games in situations where nothing matters. No one cares who wins showcase or Minnesota Rec. I really don't even know that is an option where you live.
5. Don't get hung up on the letter systems in Minnesota. We have kids who are AA players who can't score and kids who have the heart and no letters that can.
6. If possible try to have more youth games during the summer in house. Nothing IMO feels as good as coming outside after playing a summer game on ice.
7. Have older kids work with the younger showing them tricks and tips as much as possible. We found the kids pay attention more to Seniors then the coaches.
8. Finally I can't stress enough how good our players became after a summer of Roller Hockey if you can finagle that. On top of that if you can get the games outside and have neighborhood kids watch it will boost recruitment. We used to have one Saturday where we had a player/town BBQ and it worked well.

One other thing that we did that worked well living in another Timezone was we held our tryouts immediately after T2 Nationals. We would have tryouts then and for every returning player they were automatically entered into a drawing for a free camp at CANAM for a week in Lake Placid at there choosing. Canam worked well with our organization and we got a good deep discount. The players all came back better then when they left from my memory. We built a small fee per player into the enrollment fee and took care of it that way. We're talking like $10 per player. I don;t know the camps around here well enough but I am sure there are others who do.

dlow · Post by **dlow** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:31 pm

Teams should play at a level where games are competitive. This past year my son's association had thirty kids at peewee tryouts. They decided to go B1 instead of A and it was, without a doubt, the right decision. The team did well, confidence was gained, the few better, "A," players were team leaders and succeeded on special teams, the lesser, "B2" kids, got more experience with better skilled players. Parents of all the kids said it was their best year.

The previous year their was an A, B1 and C and only the C played close to 500 hockey.

Related, I think winning is an underrated factor in "development". Discouragement, inter-team arguments, and negativity always being around do not help kids want to work harder and improve. Teams playing at the wrong level (up) do not win and things often get so negative, effort lacks and selfish play becomes the regular.

I think this is the main reason the bigger associations have such a hard time moving teams up to the correct, competitive playing level. They have enjoyed winning -- and so have their kids, and they have seen that winning is a key factor to player development. Maybe I'm wrong about that but thats what I saw this past season.

defense · Post by **defense** » Wed May 16, 2012 8:53 am

Maybe I'm old school, but if your association is feeding a hs program, I don't think any favors are being done by not having the players competing with their opponents best players. The best in a program should compete against the best of the others.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed May 16, 2012 9:16 am

defense wrote:Maybe I'm old school, but if your association is feeding a hs program, I don't think any favors are being done by not having the players competing with their opponents best players. The best in a program should compete against the best of the others.

Five of the nine A programs in District 2 play high school Hockey in the SEC. How will we tell the 3 - 4 out of 5 that they have no chance in high school because they didn't make the AA cut at the youth level? A higher competition level for the AA programs will make it all the harder for under the quota programs in high school.

Player movement!

Tony, who are your three alloted picks in District 2?

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed May 16, 2012 9:50 am

@defense and BoDangles:

I don't understand what you are saying? What does playing at the AA, A or B level have to do with high school hockey? I agree it is difficult when you have 4-5 obvious A caliber players forced to play at the B level due to low numbers. But for the 10 remaining players forced to play at the A level, how does that help them?

I don't think kids playing way over their ability level does anything positive. Maybe at the Squirt level it's fine. But having B teams playing at the A level is not development. It is ego of parents, coaches or associations that can't deal with playing at the B level.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed May 16, 2012 10:09 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:@defense and BoDangles:

I don't understand what you are saying? What does playing at the AA, A or B level have to do with high school hockey? I agree it is difficult when you have 4-5 obvious A caliber players forced to play at the B level due to low numbers. But for the 10 remaining players forced to play at the A level, how does that help them?

I don't think kids playing way over their ability level does anything positive. Maybe at the Squirt level it's fine. But having B teams playing at the A level is not development. It is ego of parents, coaches or associations that can't deal with playing at the B level.

As for AA/A

Forest Lake plays Edina and gets pounded almost every time.
White Bear plays Edina and it's a close game almost every time.

Forest Lake plays White Bear and most of the games are pretty well contested

. It's called a rivalry...... For what ever reason it happens.

What would happen if WB only had to play FL once during the season, played only invite AA Winter tournaments, played in a totally different regional and state tournament?

Rivalry dead... 100% advantage White Bear in high school.

I would really like to see who Tony thinks would get the "three" bids in District 2..... Sounds like he has a good feel of what will happen from attending all the meetings.

Fugly!

defense · Post by **defense** » Wed May 16, 2012 10:33 am

Everyone has an opinion and that is mine. Right or wrong? Whatever.
how about this question: if a team is always playing b hockey , that is all they know, now they go to hs and are expected to jump in to all of a sudden playing varsity?
Yes, having success is important, but its about preparation too, and if you always layer against the b teams, all that you as a program have done is prepared for b team hockey, not varsity. You have to look big picture, not just next season, or just peewees or just hockey. If I may: I want the boys to always be striving for bigger things, not to be satsfied, striving to be at the highest level.
As for a and wa, if the bigger program wants more competition, schedule it, and sign up for a higher level in the post season. For the smaller program you should want to try and beat the big guy, its called progress, striving to be the best.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Wed May 16, 2012 4:25 pm

defense wrote:Everyone has an opinion and that is mine. Right or wrong? Whatever.
how about this question: if a team is always playing b hockey , that is all they know, now they go to hs and are expected to jump in to all of a sudden playing varsity?
Yes, having success is important, but its about preparation too, and if you always layer against the b teams, all that you as a program have done is prepared for b team hockey, not varsity. You have to look big picture, not just next season, or just peewees or just hockey. If I may: I want the boys to always be striving for bigger things, not to be satsfied, striving to be at the highest level.
As for a and wa, if the bigger program wants more competition, schedule it, and sign up for a higher level in the post season. For the smaller program you should want to try and beat the big guy, its called progress, striving to be the best.

it is called progress and playing at a level you cant compete WILL NOT obtain that progress. You think the kids will be prepared when they get to varsity if they get man handled in every game at the youth level? absolutely not because they have no experience making plays or playing in competitive games not to mention the amount of kids who lose interest quit and dont have the passion they once had because of getting discouraged. Plus in the district i am in, the majority of the teams are AA schools when we are single A. I have seen plenty of kids from my town who played at least one year of B in youth at every level and ended up being damn good varsity players. one of them plays in the wcha. also when you play at a level you cant compete and you have studs on the team those studs feel its necessary to do most of the work themselves (takes the team aspect out of it) if they played at a level down they would make more plays to their team mates in essence making everyone better including the studs.[/u]

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 6:52 am

To each his own.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu May 17, 2012 8:25 am

hellofellow89 wrote:
defense wrote:Everyone has an opinion and that is mine. Right or wrong? Whatever.
how about this question: if a team is always playing b hockey , that is all they know, now they go to hs and are expected to jump in to all of a sudden playing varsity?
Yes, having success is important, but its about preparation too, and if you always layer against the b teams, all that you as a program have done is prepared for b team hockey, not varsity. You have to look big picture, not just next season, or just peewees or just hockey. If I may: I want the boys to always be striving for bigger things, not to be satsfied, striving to be at the highest level.
As for a and wa, if the bigger program wants more competition, schedule it, and sign up for a higher level in the post season. For the smaller program you should want to try and beat the big guy, its called progress, striving to be the best.
it is called progress and playing at a level you cant compete WILL NOT obtain that progress. You think the kids will be prepared when they get to varsity if they get man handled in every game at the youth level? absolutely not because they have no experience making plays or playing in competitive games not to mention the amount of kids who lose interest quit and dont have the passion they once had because of getting discouraged. Plus in the district i am in, the majority of the teams are AA schools when we are single A. I have seen plenty of kids from my town who played at least one year of B in youth at every level and ended up being damn good varsity players. one of them plays in the wcha. also when you play at a level you cant compete and you have studs on the team those studs feel its necessary to do most of the work themselves (takes the team aspect out of it) if they played at a level down they would make more plays to their team mates in essence making everyone better including the studs.[/u]

Not so sure that winning 80% of your games at B-1(against kids you won't face in HS) is better than winning 20% at the A level for development.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu May 17, 2012 9:18 am

BoDangles and defense: I will use District 9 as my example. Take out Rochester Red. The highest ranked PW team was I think in the 50's. The next team in the 60's. The majority of the teams in the 80's-90's. Out of 100 teams. Then D9 has 3-4 associations that don't field A teams. So I ask you, Is a team in the bottom 20% of the state, that can only "make plays and play hockey" against 20 teams truly doing a service to the development of their kids?

OR, they could play B1hockey. Compete against the top 30 B1 teams in the State. Still probably only have a .500 season. Yet play in regional and potential state tournament into March? All the while involving all 15-17 players on the team to develop their skills.

Teaching the bottom 10 players on a team to fire the puck off the glass, dump and kinda chase, get humiliated every game is not what I call development. And the top 5 kids on the team will play over 50% of each game and still will not be making plays. Just trying to survive.

That is not youth hockey development.

I will admit, your example of Forest Lake and WBL is a good one. But you are still comparing teams in the upper 1/3 of the associations. Think past 50-60th place associations. What is good for the ENTIRE state, not just your little corner of it.

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 9:23 am

hellofellow89 wrote:
defense wrote:Everyone has an opinion and that is mine. Right or wrong? Whatever.
how about this question: if a team is always playing b hockey , that is all they know, now they go to hs and are expected to jump in to all of a sudden playing varsity?
Yes, having success is important, but its about preparation too, and if you always layer against the b teams, all that you as a program have done is prepared for b team hockey, not varsity. You have to look big picture, not just next season, or just peewees or just hockey. If I may: I want the boys to always be striving for bigger things, not to be satsfied, striving to be at the highest level.
As for a and wa, if the bigger program wants more competition, schedule it, and sign up for a higher level in the post season. For the smaller program you should want to try and beat the big guy, its called progress, striving to be the best.
it is called progress and playing at a level you cant compete WILL NOT obtain that progress. You think the kids will be prepared when they get to varsity if they get man handled in every game at the youth level? absolutely not because they have no experience making plays or playing in competitive games not to mention the amount of kids who lose interest quit and dont have the passion they once had because of getting discouraged. Plus in the district i am in, the majority of the teams are AA schools when we are single A. I have seen plenty of kids from my town who played at least one year of B in youth at every level and ended up being damn good varsity players. one of them plays in the wcha. also when you play at a level you cant compete and you have studs on the team those studs feel its necessary to do most of the work themselves (takes the team aspect out of it) if they played at a level down they would make more plays to their team mates in essence making everyone better including the studs.[/u]

Whoa, I done recall saying that their is not a place for b hockey, or that just because a player is on a b team he. Will not play d1. I said you gotta look big picture in the program. A program that does not have an a team also does not have a b team player who is working his butt off trying to get to the A. Team.

Stripes2011 · Post by **Stripes2011** » Thu May 17, 2012 9:35 am

it seems to be alot of talk on this forum about. When I looked at this high school they play in a pretty tough Conference AA, that looks very similar to the District 2 that they are in. White Bear, Forest Lake, Roseville, Stillwater, Mounds View, Cretin (Highland). So if an association skates only at this new A level instead of AA what happens when they get to High School? Can they compete? seems to me was up near the top of the SE Conference a year or two ago? I am quessing an area such as, which has a large school district, but limited numbers in the hockey Association will always be a hit or miss depending on the talent of a few top end players at each particular age group?
Now Mahtomedi, which I am more familiar with, plays in the same District 2 youth association, however they skate at the high school Class A level. Sometimes they have discussions if a particular team / age group should skate A or B-1, to me this makes sense if they opt down a level due to the fact their high school team does not play the Suburban east / D2 teams I mentioned above.
I guess I am hoping these large school districts do not look at dropping to a lower level youth hockey classification at the expense of a few more wins. I am not sure that helps anything in over all development. To me it may make the high school league games more lopsided. then we all know what will happen there, they'l add a 3rd level at the high school league so we have more winners.
Or - maybe I am misunderstanding the whole AA / A classification system and need to stick to calling off sides and icings

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu May 17, 2012 10:38 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:BoDangles and defense: I will use District 9 as my example. Take out Rochester Red. The highest ranked PW team was I think in the 50's. The next team in the 60's. The majority of the teams in the 80's-90's. Out of 100 teams. Then D9 has 3-4 associations that don't field A teams. So I ask you, Is a team in the bottom 20% of the state, that can only "make plays and play hockey" against 20 teams truly doing a service to the development of their kids?

OR, they could play B1hockey. Compete against the top 30 B1 teams in the State. Still probably only have a .500 season. Yet play in regional and potential state tournament into March? All the while involving all 15-17 players on the team to develop their skills.

Teaching the bottom 10 players on a team to fire the puck off the glass, dump and kinda chase, get humiliated every game is not what I call development. And the top 5 kids on the team will play over 50% of each game and still will not be making plays. Just trying to survive.

That is not youth hockey development.

I will admit, your example of Forest Lake and WBL is a good one. But you are still comparing teams in the upper 1/3 of the associations. Think past 50-60th place associations. What is good for the ENTIRE state, not just your little corner of it.

I could only imagine the lack of competion if a borderline A team opted down to B-1 after saying the A teams are so weak in District 9.

How many "corners" are you willing to sacrifice?

As for AA/A

We are going to end up creating an Elite 32 that will end up being the same(very little turnover) 32 every year. The advantage from youth through HS will go to these 32 programs from the new numbers of talented finding their way there and the increased competition level among other things. The non-mega associations will all feel the pain.

No player/association will be excited to play in the new A(b-1) tournament after not getting an Elite 32 bid.

The only possible outcomes are negative....... Unless you're from a mega association.

I'm thinking way past......

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:03 pm

lol yeah so they work their but off to make the b1 team if there even is 2 teams at a level. its not for the betterment of the program when kids quit and lose their passion for the game because they never get the opportunity to play in a competitive one. you said how do expect these kids to be a ready for varsity when they play B at the youth level. They are a lot more prepared than the kids who are forced to play A when they cant compete at that level. I have seen both methods.

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 12:52 pm

Go ahead and laugh. There are a teams out there to compete against, ya just gotta schedule them. Only thing that changes then is the post season... if the team ain't good enough, it ain't good enough, thats what playoffs are..deciding who's best.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Thu May 17, 2012 1:09 pm

aren't you required to play each team in your district twice that's half your games right there your right tho if the teams aren't good enough to play at that level than they shouldn't be playing at that level. kids get discouraged and lose interest when they get their buts handed to them at the same they don't get any better playing in those games. if the games they played in were always competitive they would truly see how great the game is and they would want to get better. your cheating the kids out of the true spirit of the game when you force them to play at a level they are not going to be competitive in.

hipcheck62 · Post by **hipcheck62** » Thu May 17, 2012 1:32 pm

It seems to me that the biggest issue people are having with this is that the good kids will go to the bigger associations to play AA. How likely is that? How easy is it to switch?

If there isn't going to be any more movement than there is now, nothing will change. You are still going to have to figure out the strength of your team and schedule accordingly. What level that is at only matters to parents.

SB65 · Post by **SB65** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:00 pm

Here is a REAL LIFE example of what I believe the Original Poster was referencing. Squirt level - small association (a real small association not a Forest Lake type small) in a district with top level AA teams. Small associations in this district typically play their top teams at the B1 level. 3 years ago this association's highest level SQ team played B1 level and was approximately a .500 - .600 team. The past two seasons played A level and their record has been 0 wins, 36 losses and 1 tie. In those 37 games they have averaged less than 1 goal a game for and about 7 goals a game against.

Which is the right level for this association?

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:10 pm

hellofellow89 wrote:aren't you required to play each team in your district twice that's half your games right there your right tho if the teams aren't good enough to play at that level than they shouldn't be playing at that level. kids get discouraged and lose interest when they get their buts handed to them at the same they don't get any better playing in those games. if the games they played in were always competitive they would truly see how great the game is and they would want to get better. your cheating the kids out of the true spirit of the game when you force them to play at a level they are not going to be competitive in.

Again, to each his own.
I don't have issues arguing my point or opinion but I will not respond when words are put in my mouth. Read the post for what it is, nothing more.
The fact remains that if the association always plays b hockey only, they will always be second rate.
Good luck

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:21 pm

Which successful high school hockey program is fed by an association playing only B hockey?

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:37 pm

Inigo: There are no successful high school teams fed only by B1 level programs. Most programs fielding only B teams are small associations feeding Class A schools. Think of how many associations do not field an A team? My point is about 30-40 more than should.

My point is AA will truly be top level teams. The A level will be the old B1 level. So, my hope is MNHockey FORCES AA associations to field A level teams also. PLUS, I think smaller associations that formerly had an A and B1 team might now field two A teams.

So there might only be 30-50 AA teams, but maybe 100-120 A teams. That will be a win-win for the elite AA programs and will benefit the A programs. Plus they will all be classified as "A" level teams and can schedule games AA vs. A also.

HOWEVER, I know it will not be done "right" and will be fouled up so bad it will set MN back 10 years!

HockeyTalk18 · Post by **HockeyTalk18** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:44 pm

Hellofellow

I have seen different outcomes then you speak of regarding playing down to gain confidence and learning to win. I have been involved with Mites thru Jr. Gold from C’s to A’s
In my experience what I see is that between levels (C’s to A’s) is they are actually playing different games, I’ll try and explain and remember this is just my views.
You said that you see when kids get pushed up that the “better” kid feels he has to do it all, I have seen exactly the opposite, in a lot of cases I have seen a B2 or B1 player with some huge points for the year and that’s not bad with the exception of when it’s not playing right and that’s what I see most often, why? Because they don’t have to play right to get points and win games and then mom/dad/kid are all happy Until they try and play a higher level. As always there are a few exceptions

Coaching kids to play in a manner that they will need to at a higher level is very hard when they play down and score goals and win, but doing so in a way that will not work at the next level of which almost all say they want to do, I know that because I ask them, do you want to play HS hockey? Beyond HS?. Moms and Dads are a very large part of that scene, it’s more fun for the parents to watch their kid score goals and win games at a lower level and for the short term it’s just flat out more fun and let the next year or 4 take care of themselves.

Supporting each other on the ice is another area I see a very big diff between the levels ( supporting the puck carrier that is, not fighting support), most kids who spend a lot of time at the lower levels just don’t feel the need to support as quickly as needed at a higher level, and in some cases not because they are not good enough, but because they never really had to skate very hard to get to a passing lane really really quick due to the puck carrier needs help Fast, pressure comes very quick at the higher levels, breaking to an area to be open for a pass at the same time the pass is being made to your teammate, and yes some kids get that easier than others and yes there is always exceptions

I have seen groups of kids play down and do very well only to be fooled a year or 2 later, the same group of kids that go with 4 or 5 losses at a lower level end up with 4 or 5 wins at a higher level, again not always because they were not good enough, it’s just a different game

I hear a lot of people rip chipping the puck, area passing, ringing the puck and dumping the puck, Really? Sometimes those are the right plays, and when players support each other the right way, a chip out of the zone is really just a pass off the boards/glass to the weak wing or center depending on which D zone you play, but your right most games you watch the teammates are not supporting that play so it just looks stupid, it’s very easy to play that play and work, and just maybe you will get that D who’s pinching like a mofo to back off a bit, maybe… area passes are another great pass or option to use to get the puck out or in, Ringing the puck? C’mon this is another great option depending on what the other team is doing and IF your team is ready for that play, if the other team wants to send 2 sometimes 3 people in on the puck and your week wing can see the ring coming and can actually handle a rung pass ( I know it’s hard to believe but that’s part of the game) it sure does create time and space for you team or would you rather your D or Center just get killed in the corner trying to make some toe pull or between the legs play?. Dumping the puck is not always bad either, a good way to get changes, also a good way to combat the other teams D gapping thru the Neutral, I know most people from MN and actually some very high level folks here would rather see some great move to get around them but if you Gap too close thru the neutral zone and your 6’ + as a PW or Ban, sorry boys but maybe just maybe dumping the puck in is a good play, but again not if your teammates are not reading that play and going in and getting the puck and quickly chipping it to another supporting player, I see a lot of kids dumping the puck and they have to go get it and that big D is right on their tail, bad move, there are a lot of plays that become useful and sometime needed at the higher levels and very few people want to accept that. I feel that some of these things are used and needed the higher level you play whether we like it or not and until you play those levels you have a very hard time adjusting to it and yes it makes a different game

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu May 17, 2012 2:53 pm

hockeytalk: I understand your coaching 101. But when you see teams "over their head" game in-game out. Chipping the puck isn't a "play" it's a way of life. Flinging the puck where nobody is, can be called an area pass, but not when meant as an icing that only gets to the red line. Rimming the puck in either zone is a great play, unless the idea is hoping for an icing again. The same teams using these tactics, often get fewer than 5-10 shots on goal. They learn D-zone coverage as a sag into the slot and get hit by pucks (I mean learning to block shots)

I agree the top A level is played differently than a C level. And clearly different from Mite to Jr Gold.

We have all watched the games that aren't just lopsided scores, but lopsided in every single aspect of the game.

(Gotta say, I always love hearing somebody say dumping the puck is a good play to get a shift change!!!)