Will Edina go undefeated at PWA (or AA) this year?

[Jerry Lundegaard]

+2.

I just made a quick survey of Edina Peewees. Here's the tally of wins-losses-ties to this point in the season:

PWAA 40-0-0
PWA 36-4-1
PWB1 35-4-0
PWB2 (Black) 20-4-2
PWB2 (Gold) 13-5-1
PWB2 (Green) 22-7-1
PWB2 (White) 25-3-1
PWC (Black) 17-4-1
PWC (Green) --N/A -- (Seem to have password protected their results)
PWC (White) 20-8-1

Total: 228-39-8

That's an .830 batting average, folks.

Like I said, Edina likes to win above all else. Looking at these numbers tells me they probably should have 2 AA teams, 2 A teams, 2 B1 teams, 2 B2 teams, and 2 C-Teams.

At least they'd beat each other up a couple times per year. But that would sacrifice the possibility of going undefeated for three or four years straight.

Buncha liberal whack jobbers on this board eh Margie?

Now we gotta have twelve A teams in Edina and dole out some of our "undersized" talent to surrounding communities!

Pretty soon they'll be askin us to pay for everything too.

Since when do ya gotta go .500 to have a successful season.

Your views are holding the kids back.

Really, how? Kids seem to be doing just fine.

[MrBoDangles]

Buncha liberal whack jobbers on this board eh Margie?

Now we gotta have twelve A teams in Edina and dole out some of our "undersized" talent to surrounding communities!

Pretty soon they'll be askin us to pay for everything too.

Since when do ya gotta go .500 to have a successful season.

Your views are holding the kids back.

Really, how? Kids seem to be doing just fine.

Yep, they'll be "just Fine".

[SCBlueLiner]

I didn't intend for this to become an Edina gripe fest. Was just lamenting on the fact that I think it is important for kids to be placed at the appropriate level of play. For all of its faults I believe USAH agrees with me on this tenant of their ADM model. Players of similar ability should play with/against each other.

Now, inside an organization a player may be ranked the 36th best player and be placed on a B1 team, however, skill wise, that same child may have the skill and ability to play on half the AA teams in the state. IMO, that kid should be playing AA against his peers. Playing B1 may not challenge the player enough, he may not develop to his full potential, and he may get frustrated at always being buried down the roster and quit prematurely which was mentioned previously in this thread. That is not good for anybody.

[Shinbone_News]

3 points

1. When is it ALL about winning vs developing
2. How many other associations have 10 Pee Wee teams (lots of kids to pick from)
3. WHO REALLY CARES

3 points

1. Do you have to have a losing record to be "developing" kids?
2. 10 teams, isn't that a good thing that so many kids are playing a sport, building relationships and skills, discipline and talents that will help them well beyond their playing days?
3. If you really don't care, why bother to reply?

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

[Bluewhitefan]

3 points

1. When is it ALL about winning vs developing
2. How many other associations have 10 Pee Wee teams (lots of kids to pick from)
3. WHO REALLY CARES

3 points

1. Do you have to have a losing record to be "developing" kids?
2. 10 teams, isn't that a good thing that so many kids are playing a sport, building relationships and skills, discipline and talents that will help them well beyond their playing days?
3. If you really don't care, why bother to reply?

Do we know for sure that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked to waived out?

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Do we know that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked? Would D6 allow it for the only reason that they wanted to play on a higher level team?

[QuackerTracker]

3 points

1. Do you have to have a losing record to be "developing" kids?
2. 10 teams, isn't that a good thing that so many kids are playing a sport, building relationships and skills, discipline and talents that will help them well beyond their playing days?
3. If you really don't care, why bother to reply?

Do we know for sure that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked to waived out?

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Do we know that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked? Would D6 allow it for the only reason that they wanted to play on a higher level team?

Also, what association is going to take kids from outside their boundries to take spots from kids withing there assn? I don't foresee many assn willing to do that.

[SnowedIn]

Shinbone/Blue are dead on. the system should work for both the community and also the player. In doing so it makes the level of hockey stronger for all kids. Set up an extra AA team if that is appropriate or at least another A team to allow those kids to compete at the level they should be at. Or let them waive out so they can compete at the level of their talent and make another team stronger. This benefits the whole system. Whatever way you want to look at it, a player should be competing at their talent level. If they are not, that is the fault of the system.

Of course there is the scenario in which you don't have enough talent to field a team at a certain level and there are kids not playing at the right level, but that's not what we are talking about here.

[Bluewhitefan]

Shinbone/Blue are dead on. the system should work for both the community and also the player. In doing so it makes the level of hockey stronger for all kids. Set up an extra AA team if that is appropriate or at least another A team to allow those kids to compete at the level they should be at. Or let them waive out so they can compete at the level of their talent and make another team stronger. This benefits the whole system. Whatever way you want to look at it, a player should be competing at their talent level. If they are not, that is the fault of the system.

Of course there is the scenario in which you don't have enough talent to field a team at a certain level and there are kids not playing at the right level, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Very slippery slope. So, if Edina or Wayzata decides to have two AA teams for kids 1-30, then 30-33 are going to want to waive out. The cycle never stops - the top kids at every level below the top all feel wronged. Edina should have more teams at AA, A or B1, but that won't solve all the problems.

[rocketscience]

[quote="QuackerTracker"]
Also, what association is going to take kids from outside their boundries to take spots from kids withing there assn? I don't foresee many assn willing to do that.[/quote]

Really? Edina has done it

[Bluewhitefan]

Also, what association is going to take kids from outside their boundries to take spots from kids withing there assn? I don't foresee many assn willing to do that.

Really? Edina has done it

When? I don't believe they've taken anyone that didn't either switch schools or move - and I use the term move loosely to include empty townhouses and apartments.

[SnowedIn]

Shinbone/Blue are dead on. the system should work for both the community and also the player. In doing so it makes the level of hockey stronger for all kids. Set up an extra AA team if that is appropriate or at least another A team to allow those kids to compete at the level they should be at. Or let them waive out so they can compete at the level of their talent and make another team stronger. This benefits the whole system. Whatever way you want to look at it, a player should be competing at their talent level. If they are not, that is the fault of the system.

Of course there is the scenario in which you don't have enough talent to field a team at a certain level and there are kids not playing at the right level, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Very slippery slope. So, if Edina or Wayzata decides to have two AA teams for kids 1-30, then 30-33 are going to want to waive out. The cycle never stops - the top kids at every level below the top all feel wronged. Edina should have more teams at AA, A or B1, but that won't solve all the problems.

Won't solve all of the problems but it will solve a lot of them. We are not talking about the few bubble kids that did not make the higher team. We are talking about a whole team of kids with enough talent to play at a higher level. To go 50-3 in a season versus playing at the right level and battling it out for the W is a completely different development experience for that group.

[Jerry Lundegaard]

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Good discussion, just trying to get my point across.

My feeling is it seems that most view the success of the Edina Association and in this case their PeeWee program as a problem instead of looking at it as perhaps a model or challenge for their associations, players and teams.

First they look at their AA team and instead of giving the players and coaches kudo's for their success and saying "wow, we're going to have to step it up to beat these guys" they say "geeze, they really should have two AA teams". Then, they look at the A-C teams, see the same thing and it gives them reinforcement for their argument.

A very socialistic approach - they have too much and we need some of it, and we're going to regulate it so we get it.

How would Herbie have done with this approach?

[MrBoDangles]

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Good discussion, just trying to get my point across.

My feeling is it seems that most view the success of the Edina Association and in this case their PeeWee program as a problem instead of looking at it as perhaps a model or challenge for their associations, players and teams.

First they look at their AA team and instead of giving the players and coaches kudo's for their success and saying "wow, we're going to have to step it up to beat these guys" they say "geeze, they really should have two AA teams". Then, they look at the A-C teams, see the same thing and it gives them reinforcement for their argument.

A very socialistic approach - they have too much and we need some of it, and we're going to regulate it so we get it.

How would Herbie have done with this approach?

Yes, Kudo's to Edina

But at the same time having 70 kids playing B-2 and winning 80% of their games is a joke. Why not challenge more kids and have atleast one or two more B-1 teams?

Why have an AA team that beats most other teams 10 - RIP?

I feel for ya if you don't get this, but why should you when nobody else in Edina does.

Herbie would have said to quit taking the easy route and grow some balls.

[57special]

3 points

1. Do you have to have a losing record to be "developing" kids?
2. 10 teams, isn't that a good thing that so many kids are playing a sport, building relationships and skills, discipline and talents that will help them well beyond their playing days?
3. If you really don't care, why bother to reply?

Do we know for sure that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked to waived out?

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Do we know that Edina wouldn't waive them out? Have they asked? Would D6 allow it for the only reason that they wanted to play on a higher level team?

D6 will not waiver out (or in) players unless they go to school or move into a school in the community.

[57special]

[/quote]

Also, what association is going to take kids from outside their boundries to take spots from kids withing there assn? I don't foresee many assn willing to do that.[/quote]


MANY associations would be thrilled to have an influx of players of ANY skill level.

[57special]

I think you two are actually in agreement. My point was pretty simple, and (I think) marginally worth caring about.

It looks like between 20 and 30 kids quit hockey after Peewees in Edina. I know from talking to coaches and dads there that many are fine players that could easily continue beyond, but they're not creme-de-la-creme and they get frustrated with the politics.

The world doesn't stop on its axis. But Edina could let a few waiver out, and they could create a couple of teams at AA, A, and B1 -- and STILL have winning teams while giving the kids more than one or two serious games per year.

Sorry to have touched a nerve. Guess you guys want your cake and to eat it too, and that's fine.

Good discussion, just trying to get my point across.

My feeling is it seems that most view the success of the Edina Association and in this case their PeeWee program as a problem instead of looking at it as perhaps a model or challenge for their associations, players and teams.

First they look at their AA team and instead of giving the players and coaches kudo's for their success and saying "wow, we're going to have to step it up to beat these guys" they say "geeze, they really should have two AA teams". Then, they look at the A-C teams, see the same thing and it gives them reinforcement for their argument.

A very socialistic approach - they have too much and we need some of it, and we're going to regulate it so we get it.

How would Herbie have done with this approach?

I get and appreciate your point. I don't think that Edina(or any other team) should have to split a AA team. The whole point of such a team is to be the best possible, and to set a benchmark for their community and for MN hockey in general. Excellence excites and inspires people... I think that's what the AA level is about.

In general , though, the Edina( and some others) teams at the other levels are bringing bazookas to a knife fight. Beating teams 10-0 or 15-0 is good for no one. If Edina insists on keeping kids down at levels they shouldn't be playing at then I think they should have to pay the consequences, and allow players that can play up at least two levels in another Association a waiver. It would keep their Associations honest in their assessments, and restore competitive balance within Districts.

[57special]

He could send him to BSM too then he'll waiver into SLP. Definitely sounds like an A SLP player.

BTW, I too agree Edina should have had multiple B1 teams at both PW and Bantam this year, as a minimum. Maybe multiple A or AA teams instead.

+2.

I just made a quick survey of Edina Peewees. Here's the tally of wins-losses-ties to this point in the season:

PWAA 40-0-0
PWA 36-4-1
PWB1 35-4-0
PWB2 (Black) 20-4-2
PWB2 (Gold) 13-5-1
PWB2 (Green) 22-7-1
PWB2 (White) 25-3-1
PWC (Black) 17-4-1
PWC (Green) --N/A -- (Seem to have password protected their results)
PWC (White) 20-8-1

Total: 228-39-8

That's an .830 batting average, folks.

Like I said, Edina likes to win above all else. Looking at these numbers tells me they probably should have 2 AA teams, 2 A teams, 2 B1 teams, 2 B2 teams, and 2 C-Teams.

At least they'd beat each other up a couple times per year. But that would sacrifice the possibility of going undefeated for three or four years straight.

Actually, the winning % is actually higher, as many of the losses in the B2 and C levels are to other Edina teams.
Also, some of the losses are to higher level teams. I know that the A team has losses to AA teams, not sure whether the B1 has lost to A teams. B2 team lost to a good B1 team in the finals of a B1 Tourney,etc.

So the point is that the results are even more lopsided than what they appear.

[Shinbone_News]

I think it's great that Edina sets the standard of excellence. Good on ya for that. If not Edina, then it would be Tonka or Wayzata or someone else.

But I think the two serious points here have been made well:

1) Kids should play at the level they are suited to, and that's an issue of parity ACROSS associations and districts. Given the tight restrictions on waivers and playing in your home association, parity can ONLY be managed at the association level by fielding teams at their appropriate levels. Edina, you rock. But you throw parity into a shambles at every level below AA. (You can keep your 40-0-0 record at PWAA, BTW. Well done!)

2) How many kids quit hockey altogether for the simple reason that they aren't able to play up to their appropriate level -- and actually can't be convinced to stick around for another more or less undefeated season at B2 or C? I think you'd rather have kids quit because they just can't get the knack, rather than because they're too good.

One caveat: People hated it when Edina fielded two (maybe three) B1 teams a few years ago and ended up winning first and second in state (or something like that). So there's that.

[Shinbone_News]

And I mention Wayzata specifically because they DO have a board of directors that is less interested in winning and more invested in this idea of development through playing up. Look at their two PWB1 teams this year -- both very nice teams with wins against top-10 opponents, but also the losses that inevitably happen when your talent depth thins out halfway through the second line.

Wayzata can and does compete with Edina at various levels, but their philosophy is much less political and tradition-bound, and I think it's starting to show with their high-school results.

Edina does the whole metro a great service by making great hockey players without enough roster-space to acccomodate them all by high school. Breck, St Thomas, Benilde, and Blake all benefit. So there's that too.

[redtundra]

And I mention Wayzata specifically because they DO have a board of directors that is less interested in winning and more invested in this idea of development through playing up. Look at their two PWB1 teams this year -- both very nice teams with wins against top-10 opponents, but also the losses that inevitably happen when your talent depth thins out halfway through the second line.

Wayzata can and does compete with Edina at various levels, but their philosophy is much less political and tradition-bound, and I think it's starting to show with their high-school results.

Edina does the whole metro a great service by making great hockey players without enough roster-space to acccomodate them all by high school. Breck, St Thomas, Benilde, and Blake all benefit. So there's that too.

The problem with the Wayzta analogy is that they HAVE done a very good job at the youth level for a long time, but their high school team has been an abject failure by any standard. They have BEEN to only 1 state tournament, and won zero in high school. I know they have been in a very tough regional, but that is not the only reason. The coaching change they finally made is the real reason they look to do better going forward. With that many kids and the talent they have, they should. On another note regarding Edina PWAA, we played them last night. They looked to be very short benched. I believe they have a standard roster size (15 skaters), so don't know what was up.

[sagard]

D6 is a tough place even at the B2 level. Many large 4+ team programs start B2 at the bottom half of tryout scores. Several D6 programs sprinkle in a full teams (or two) worth of top half tryout scores players onto their B2 teams. Meanwhile having the luxury of multiple C level teams.

Yeah it makes them tough and they win at all levels.

[Mnhockeys]

How much does Edina's success be attributed to MN Made's programs in the recent years?

Being in the backyard of Edina, MN Made offers many programs that Edina kids probably have the highest participants.

[hockeyover40]

How much does Edina's success be attributed to MN Made's programs in the recent years?

Being in the backyard of Edina, MN Made offers many programs that Edina kids probably have the highest participants.

On the PWAA team I know 10 for sure skated at MM. Most of those skated both in the Summer and Winter programs. The rest might of but, I'm not sure so I won't speculate.

[MrBoDangles]

Minnesota Made's Nortwest facility has done wonders for Wayzata too.

Numbers.

[oldman70]

The real point with Edina peewee aa is they have at least three 99s that
sould be playing bantams, for their development, can score easily in peewees
but so what.