A teams beating AA teams

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:16 pm

helightsthelamp wrote:Stats compiled from district 10 website:

Bantam AA record vs A in D10 games - 13-0-1
AA has out scored A 89-15

Pee Wee AA record vs A in D10 games - 16-2-2
AA has out scored A 118-17
The two wins both belong to SLP A team and the same AA association has both of the ties on their record

Those involved in the decision to have a split schedule for D10 AA/A games should resign out of embarrassment.

What I find even more interesting is a review of D10 board meeting minutes from December meeting makes no mention of this ill decided disparity.... Lets just close out eyes and pretend this isn't happening...

Tonight at Bantams Elk River AA plays Elk River A, can anyone give me any rationale as to why this game makes any sense?????

This was brought up at a recent D10 board meeting and TT said"according to Mn Hockey, they are all "A" teams. Every other Assc. had nothing to say.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:32 pm

Bo,
The A Bantam scores last year were also not as bad and the same setup minus the 2nd teams from Blaine, Centennial or Elk River. Go back 2,3 and 4 years ago and yes there were blow outs at the B1 and B2 levels both PW and Bantam. One team would be in the top 4 and the other might have won 1 game. If you want to blame someone blame the associations that placed their teams where they did which happens every year.

Lamp, Go to the D10 web site the Scores are under Peewee A and Bantam A by league. The standings are by divisions.
As far as guidance from the District it has been that you should place your teams at the proper level and Blaine and Centennial never split their teams equally always an upper and lower. There is no rule in D10 you have to equalize teams at the same level.

There was no rule change that caused this, this was because Mn Hockey added another level of region and state tournament and for a guideline used the HS classification as a starter. In D10 Rogers a class A HS is in the AA division. Coon Rapids an AA HS is in the A Division. Camb/Isanti (AA HS)and Mora an A HS are in the A Division while Irondale and St Francis are in the AA division.

The proposal had been in the works for over 2 years before it was placed in affect this year. How many hear went to the district and state meetings to voice their opinion my guess is none, easier to complain here than attend meetings and voice your opinion or provide a different solution. Heck everybody here was against the change in checking at the Peewee but nobody else took the time or courage to show up and voice your opinion.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:53 pm

greybeard58 wrote:Bo,
The A Bantam scores last year were also not as bad and the same setup minus the 2nd teams from Blaine, Centennial or Elk River. Go back 2,3 and 4 years ago and yes there were blow outs at the B1 and B2 levels both PW and Bantam. One team would be in the top 4 and the other might have won 1 game. If you want to blame someone blame the associations that placed their teams where they did which happens every year.

Lamp, Go to the D10 web site the Scores are under Peewee A and Bantam A by league. The standings are by divisions.
As far as guidance from the District it has been that you should place your teams at the proper level and Blaine and Centennial never split their teams equally always an upper and lower. There is no rule in D10 you have to equalize teams at the same level.

There was no rule change that caused this, this was because Mn Hockey added another level of region and state tournament and for a guideline used the HS classification as a starter. In D10 Rogers a class A HS is in the AA division. Coon Rapids an AA HS is in the A Division. Camb/Isanti (AA HS)and Mora an A HS are in the A Division while Irondale and St Francis are in the AA division.

The proposal had been in the works for over 2 years before it was placed in affect this year. How many hear went to the district and state meetings to voice their opinion my guess is none, easier to complain here than attend meetings and voice your opinion or provide a different solution. Heck everybody here was against the change in checking at the Peewee but nobody else took the time or courage to show up and voice your opinion.

What District 10 associations made mistakes in the levels they declared at? What would you have done different from them?

The MNH board ALL come on here and read the downfalls that were coming.

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:21 pm

Greybeard,
Comparing last year to this year is comparing apples to oranges, teams were deciding what level based upon where they would fall for end of the season districts, regions, and state. Last years was just a split by association size. In addition there are two different teams due to combined associations. Of course historically you can look back and there was blow outs at all levels including the old A level. Not sure what that proves. Factually, this year AA vs A at combined PW and Bantam are 29-2-3 with an average goal differential of 6.5 goals a game.

I understand the standings are by divisions, not really sure how split standings matter as it relates to the blowouts that are happening every game of AA vs A due to a split schedule????

The change of levels most certainly was a cause of this, if the rule had not changed, 1-15 would not be playing 16-30. I realize the change was done to add a tournament at the end of season with a new level for regions and state, but districts had to make changes to get levels for the end of the season tournaments... so not sure how you can say it didnt cause this???? At a minimum it is a byproduct of the change due to districts making changes in league formats and assocations determining teams based upon those changes.

It is easier to send e-mails and make phone calls then attend a meeting yes, to which I have done both on both this issue and the checking issue you mentioned. I have four kids and a very demanding job, maybe someday I will have the time to sit thru two days of meeting to voice my opinion, but until then I will voice my opinion on this forum and thru phone calls and e-mails.

One thing is very clear, you are defending the changes made and the subsequent outcome this season related to D10, so the question I have of you is do you think this change has been positive?

One other point, this change has a negative effect on the kids, as my son said to me the other night, "Dad you know I don't like to lose, but getting throttled over and over again makes it difficult to stay motivated" But at least we have more kids playing at the end of the year... Somehow that does not seem like a good trade off to me.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:35 am

I'm not a fan of this change but I don't think the new level is the problem. The scheduling is the problem.

The scheduling was a problem because MN Hockey said nothing changes until the playoffs and year end tourneys and that was bad info.

DrGaf · Post by **DrGaf** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:04 am

observer wrote:I'm not a fan of this change but I don't think the new level is the problem. The scheduling is the problem.

The scheduling was a problem because MN Hockey said nothing changes until the playoffs and year end tourneys and that was bad info.

I agree, the problem is mandating the AA vs A, not the new level.

According to the D10 site, the A v A games are looking competitive enough as opposed to the Centennial AA 15-0 smashing of Andover A. or Elk River AA crushing Blaine A 15-1. Aaaaaand I'm guessing the games were worse than that, probably didn't want to embarass the poor kids by posting a higher marging than that.

Sounds like TT is proving a point by sacrificing up these A teams.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:23 am

greaybeard: even though this is a thread about the "AA"/"A" fiasco, you mentioned the checking at peewee level. You are simply delusional if you think nobody on this board voiced their concern to the appropriate parties before taking checking away at the peewee level was dumped on us. Debate can be had on whether to blame USA Hockey for the rule of Mn Hockey for not voting to go against it, but havihng been a coach for the past several years both in and out of association, I can tell you that voices were heard regarding the peewee checking mess. Without getting into another topic on this thread, I can tell you that peewee hockey in the winter is now a joke and we didn't do our 7th and 8th graders any favors when checking was taken away. My opinion can obviously be debated, but to say that nobody took the time to voice their displeasure, whether it was an email, phone call or face2face meeting, is simply inaccurate.

longtimelistener · Post by **longtimelistener** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:43 am

Edina's PWA (16-30) is 14-1 vs. other association's AA/A (1-15). Includes 4-0 vs. AA (Hermantown, Farmington and Rosemount 2X). They are 5-0 vs. other assocations A (16-30).

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:33 am

longtimelistener wrote:Edina's PWA (16-30) is 14-1 vs. other association's AA/A (1-15). Includes 4-0 vs. AA (Hermantown, Farmington and Rosemount 2X). They are 5-0 vs. other assocations A (16-30).

I predicted this before the season. Combine the best players off of 2-3 top ten ranked B-1 teams and that's what you get.

Two A teams in the old model would be the SMART choice.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:55 am

longtimelistener wrote:
Edina's PWA (16-30) is 14-1 vs. other association's AA/A (1-15). Includes 4-0 vs. AA (Hermantown, Farmington and Rosemount 2X). They are 5-0 vs. other assocations A (16-30).

I predicted this before the season. Combine the best players off of 2-3 top ten ranked B-1 teams and that's what you get.

Two A teams in the old model would be the SMART choice.

Exactly. Are you pounding your chest trophy chasing longtimelistener? B1 dads that couldn’t stand the thought of their players being B1 for a year. Nothing was wrong with top B1 hockey in Minnesota. Pretty sure most of the most famous EP team, PWA State Champs, Bantam A State Champs and 2 time HS State Champs, played B their first year. Didn’t hurt them. It was well respected and considered an excellent level of play. You're the problem that caused this problem. A small group of fussers. At Edina, and some other programs, this year, they should have had two equally balanced A teams. I know, then they might not have made it to State. What we've learned is it's never right for everyone but I believe last year was a better approach.

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:01 am

I agree the new level is not the problem but scheduling was an outcome of the change. They are inter related and one does not occur without the other.

Going back to my original post on this topic, I expressed my displeasure on the split schedule not the new level... The new level has other issues in my opinion outside of competitive games such as AA teams already making regions and 5 teams of 7 from D10 making regions as well. Word around the rink at the bantam level would be better off being the fourth or fifth seed so you don't end up in the same region as Wayzata, OmGHA, and two other D10 teams... Just think in theory, 5 of 8 teams at state could be from D10... Highly unlikely, but possible... In the end I think state and regional tourney will be very competitive at all three level as such I don't have any issues with the new level, the issues have arisen from the implementation of the new level....

BTW ER AA 8 ER A 0. Shots 58-7... On the positive the A goalie faced a lot of shots and good scoring opportunities. He came up with some very solid saves!

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:07 am

Deep Breath,
My point was that there are times when a large physical presence is needed. The April Mn Hockey meeting where this(pw checking) was on the agenda would have been a great opportunity as the President of USA Hockey was there. A large turnout of people expressing their views would have gone a long way. I do know how many attended as I was there. However there were too many that either could not or would not take the time. The same will be for this issue. While phone calls and letters might get the attention of the powers in charge, a huge turnout will have a greater effect at the Mn Hockey meeting. Numbers work and can be intimidating.

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:13 am

observer wrote:I'm not a fan of this change but I don't think the new level is the problem. The scheduling is the problem.

The scheduling was a problem because MN Hockey said nothing changes until the playoffs and year end tourneys and that was bad info.

I am not a fan either, but the issue came when you had associations treat the change as a new level and not a playoff change.

hockey59 · Post by **hockey59** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:46 am

ogelthorpe wrote:
observer wrote:I'm not a fan of this change but I don't think the new level is the problem. The scheduling is the problem.

The scheduling was a problem because MN Hockey said nothing changes until the playoffs and year end tourneys and that was bad info.
I am not a fan either, but the issue came when you had associations treat the change as a new level and not a playoff change.

BINGO!

Should have been...if your hockey association (affiliated HS) is AA...you are AA for play-off purposes, If A, you are A for the play-off purposes.

Thought the idea was a have a big association and small association STATE CHAMPION when all was said and done.

There was simply NO NEED for a whole new level.

And if any of the big association A teams (Edina, Wayzata, OMG, EP, etc.) win the "new" PWA A or "new" Bantam A State Tourneys...it will have defeated the whole purpose of dividing the teams for play-off purposes into AA and A teams. nuff said.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:05 pm

observer wrote:
longtimelistener wrote:
Edina's PWA (16-30) is 14-1 vs. other association's AA/A (1-15). Includes 4-0 vs. AA (Hermantown, Farmington and Rosemount 2X). They are 5-0 vs. other assocations A (16-30).

I predicted this before the season. Combine the best players off of 2-3 top ten ranked B-1 teams and that's what you get.

Two A teams in the old model would be the SMART choice.
Exactly. Are you pounding your chest trophy chasing longtimelistener? B1 dads that couldn’t stand the thought of their players being B1 for a year. Nothing was wrong with top B1 hockey in Minnesota. Pretty sure most of the most famous EP team, PWA State Champs, Bantam A State Champs and 2 time HS State Champs, played B their first year. Didn’t hurt them. It was well respected and considered an excellent level of play. You're the problem that caused this problem. A small group of fussers. At Edina, and some other programs, this year, they should have had two equally balanced A teams. I know, then they might not have made it to State. What we've learned is it's never right for everyone but I believe last year was a better approach.

Why does providing factual information constitute "pounding your chest"?

silentbutdeadly3139 · Post by **silentbutdeadly3139** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:55 pm

greybeard58 wrote:Deep Breath,
My point was that there are times when a large physical presence is needed. The April Mn Hockey meeting where this(pw checking) was on the agenda would have been a great opportunity as the President of USA Hockey was there. A large turnout of people expressing their views would have gone a long way. I do know how many attended as I was there. However there were too many that either could not or would not take the time. The same will be for this issue. While phone calls and letters might get the attention of the powers in charge, a huge turnout will have a greater effect at the Mn Hockey meeting. Numbers work and can be intimidating.

If phone calls and letters don't work then there is something wrong that won't be fixed by showing up at the one meeting the president attends. The object is to solicit and listen to others opinions ... if they truely are interested in hearing them

longtimelistener · Post by **longtimelistener** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:56 pm

Exactly. Are you pounding your chest trophy chasing longtimelistener? B1 dads that couldn’t stand the thought of their players being B1 for a year. Nothing was wrong with top B1 hockey in Minnesota. Pretty sure most of the most famous EP team, PWA State Champs, Bantam A State Champs and 2 time HS State Champs, played B their first year. Didn’t hurt them. It was well respected and considered an excellent level of play. You're the problem that caused this problem. A small group of fussers. At Edina, and some other programs, this year, they should have had two equally balanced A teams. I know, then they might not have made it to State. What we've learned is it's never right for everyone but I believe last year was a better approach.

[/quote]

Observer - Settle down a bit. I was simply answering the question that was posed at the beginning of this thread. I completely agree with MrBoDangles's response...concise and accurate.

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey · Post by **My_Kid_Loves_Hockey** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:54 pm

I've been reading this for a while now and have to add my $0.02.

BINGO!

Should have been...if your hockey association (affiliated HS) is AA...you are AA for play-off purposes, If A, you are A for the play-off purposes.

This is one of the dumbest things that I keep seeing thrown around. What is the correlation between your school size (thus classification) and your YOUTH hockey program size?
It should be dictated by your YOUTH association size,how many players/teams at each level. This is more of a reflection on your association than anything else.

Our association is playing AA/B1/B2 (3 teams and 42 skaters) and that is a good fit for our association. I feel they made the correct choice when declaring teams and didn't fall to the prevailing "we need more A players" just to appease the parents.

It comes down to the individual associations making correct choices.

The other thing that I don't understand is for the last few years people complained that the multiple unbalanced B teams was not fair. Now they are actually A teams and because there are plently of blow out games now at the AA/A level it seems that this is more of an injustice then when it was happening at the B level.

Let the season finish out and then offer constructive reviews and suggestions to make it better next year.

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:25 pm

My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:I've been reading this for a while now and have to add my $0.02.

BINGO!

Should have been...if your hockey association (affiliated HS) is AA...you are AA for play-off purposes, If A, you are A for the play-off purposes.
This is one of the dumbest things that I keep seeing thrown around. What is the correlation between your school size (thus classification) and your YOUTH hockey program size?
It should be dictated by your YOUTH association size,how many players/teams at each level. This is more of a reflection on your association than anything else.

Our association is playing AA/B1/B2 (3 teams and 42 skaters) and that is a good fit for our association. I feel they made the correct choice when declaring teams and didn't fall to the prevailing "we need more A players" just to appease the parents.

It comes down to the individual associations making correct choices.

The other thing that I don't understand is for the last few years people complained that the multiple unbalanced B teams was not fair. Now they are actually A teams and because there are plently of blow out games now at the AA/A level it seems that this is more of an injustice then when it was happening at the B level.

Let the season finish out and then offer constructive reviews and suggestions to make it better next year.

This is a different issue, but I also agree it is dumb to base it solely on the class of the HS the associations feed, but that is why MH allows opt ups. The HS class is only the starting basis and is adjusted from there. They could have also used number of participants, but I think you end up with similar issues there. No perfect solution.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:56 am

Do we expect Minnesota Hockey to keep the AA/A program going into next season? Anyone involved with MH leadership have comments?

silentbutdeadly3139 · Post by **silentbutdeadly3139** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 am

LowLight21 wrote:Do we expect Minnesota Hockey to keep the AA/A program going into next season? Anyone involved with MH leadership have comments?

Let put it this way. Do you think they will abandon it admitting they made a mistake ?

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:25 am

Not a chance. It's here for the duration. Just like no checking @ pee-wee.

LowLight21 · Post by **LowLight21** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:29 am

I thought there was a stronger likelihood that MH could back off the AA/A rule because it is only a 'pilot' this season. The checking rule at Peewees wasn't presented as a pilot - it was a strict rule change.

REalhockey17 · Post by **REalhockey17** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:51 pm

Hermantown A beat CEC AA 5-2

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:41 am

REalhockey17 wrote:Hermantown A beat CEC AA 5-2

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

A teams beating AA teams

Re: District 10 AA vs A