AA
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
Bleed Maroon and Gold
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:05 am
- Location: Centerville
Elliot
My understanding of why they did the AA/A split was so the smaller associations that normally played B1 or had little to no success at the A level would be able to field competitive A teams.
Here is how I would like to see it handled
AA teams can have a AA team and then a B1 team
A teams can have an A team and then a B1 team
Teams can schedule non-district games with either AA or A teams. I would like the districts to have the AA and A unbalanced schedule. I understand people will disagree with me however if you have 1-15 from each association they games should not be blowouts for every single cross over game. However it needs to be uniform through out each district. I do not think we should allow each district to choose how they want to schedule their district games between the AA and A teams.
My two cents. for what its worth not like it matters what we think since MN hockey does the opposite of what the people voice.
My understanding of why they did the AA/A split was so the smaller associations that normally played B1 or had little to no success at the A level would be able to field competitive A teams.
Here is how I would like to see it handled
AA teams can have a AA team and then a B1 team
A teams can have an A team and then a B1 team
Teams can schedule non-district games with either AA or A teams. I would like the districts to have the AA and A unbalanced schedule. I understand people will disagree with me however if you have 1-15 from each association they games should not be blowouts for every single cross over game. However it needs to be uniform through out each district. I do not think we should allow each district to choose how they want to schedule their district games between the AA and A teams.
My two cents. for what its worth not like it matters what we think since MN hockey does the opposite of what the people voice.
-
ogelthorpe
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:54 pm
-
black sheep
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:57 pm
-
Reincarnated
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:49 am
-
Reincarnated
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:49 am
North Region
D16 #1 Grand Rapids
D 15 #1 Moorhead
D12 #1
D11 #2 East
D2 #2
D10 #2 Centennial
D 10 #3 Anoka
D11 #3 Cloquet
East Region
D11 #1 Hermantown ?
D2 #1
D10 #1 Elk River
D16 #2
D15 #2 Brainerd
D12 #2
D2 #3
D10 #4 Blaine
West Region
D3 #1 Wayzata
D6 #1 Edina
D5 #1 STMA
D8 #2
D5 #3 Buffalo
D8 #4 Lakeville South
D6 #4
D10 # 5 Rogers
South Region
D8 #1 Woodbury
D9 #1 Rochester
D3 #2
D6 #2 Prior Lake
D5 #2 St. Cloud
D6 #3 Burnsville
D8 #3
D8 #5 Lakeville North
I am sure some of these are wrong and some are missing fill them in with this years teams????
D16 #1 Grand Rapids
D 15 #1 Moorhead
D12 #1
D11 #2 East
D2 #2
D10 #2 Centennial
D 10 #3 Anoka
D11 #3 Cloquet
East Region
D11 #1 Hermantown ?
D2 #1
D10 #1 Elk River
D16 #2
D15 #2 Brainerd
D12 #2
D2 #3
D10 #4 Blaine
West Region
D3 #1 Wayzata
D6 #1 Edina
D5 #1 STMA
D8 #2
D5 #3 Buffalo
D8 #4 Lakeville South
D6 #4
D10 # 5 Rogers
South Region
D8 #1 Woodbury
D9 #1 Rochester
D3 #2
D6 #2 Prior Lake
D5 #2 St. Cloud
D6 #3 Burnsville
D8 #3
D8 #5 Lakeville North
I am sure some of these are wrong and some are missing fill them in with this years teams????
I like the AA or A solution as noted above. Makes sense.
Or stronger districts could field AA and A teams depending on size, just don't force them to play eachother. That's completely moronic.
What other districts outside of D6 and D10 had large enough numbers to field two well-stocked conferences (AA and A)?
Or stronger districts could field AA and A teams depending on size, just don't force them to play eachother. That's completely moronic.
What other districts outside of D6 and D10 had large enough numbers to field two well-stocked conferences (AA and A)?
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.
-
wannagototherink
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:20 am
-
Bleed Maroon and Gold
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:05 am
- Location: Centerville
[quote="DrGaf"]I like the AA or A solution as noted above. Makes sense.
Or stronger districts could field AA and A teams depending on size, just don't force them to play eachother. That's completely moronic.
What other districts outside of D6 and D10 had large enough numbers to field two well-stocked conferences (AA and A)?[/quote]
The only reason D10 had enough teams to field two conferences was because several associations had both AA and A teams. Which if you are looking at regional brackets for AA and A teams. There are some that have teams in both the AA and A bracket. Which defeats the purpose of what they said was the reason for going to AA and A. It is not giving the smaller associations a chance to play in regionals and state. If thats how its going to be go back to the A and B1.
Or stronger districts could field AA and A teams depending on size, just don't force them to play eachother. That's completely moronic.
What other districts outside of D6 and D10 had large enough numbers to field two well-stocked conferences (AA and A)?[/quote]
The only reason D10 had enough teams to field two conferences was because several associations had both AA and A teams. Which if you are looking at regional brackets for AA and A teams. There are some that have teams in both the AA and A bracket. Which defeats the purpose of what they said was the reason for going to AA and A. It is not giving the smaller associations a chance to play in regionals and state. If thats how its going to be go back to the A and B1.
Oh I agree with your statement ... but once you start handing out A level, good luck getting them back.Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:The only reason D10 had enough teams to field two conferences was because several associations had both AA and A teams. Which if you are looking at regional brackets for AA and A teams. There are some that have teams in both the AA and A bracket. Which defeats the purpose of what they said was the reason for going to AA and A. It is not giving the smaller associations a chance to play in regionals and state. If thats how its going to be go back to the A and B1.DrGaf wrote:I like the AA or A solution as noted above. Makes sense.
Or stronger districts could field AA and A teams depending on size, just don't force them to play eachother. That's completely moronic.
What other districts outside of D6 and D10 had large enough numbers to field two well-stocked conferences (AA and A)?
If associations kept the model, it would just be A and a single B1 team. It always felt like once you hit the "B" levels programs would start splitting the talent.
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.
-
GoldenBear
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:38 am
Take a look at District 3; A Districts saw Crow River win and Armstrong get second, beating out Hopkins. Wayzata's A's didn't advance. Wayzata may have had a bad weekend but during the season their games with these teams were competitive. So this was a good thing for District 3. Under last years's makeup, these teams would have played A and gotten waxed...Wayzata's AA team beat CR 16-0, Hopkins 10-1 and Armstrong 9-0 (may be a goal off on these games) and they beat the Wayzata AA team 6-0. So I think a good idea, just don't have the cross over games. Allow Wayzata AA to schedule other games in replacement of CR etc, or better yet only play 50 games and not 55 games during the year.
HAGD GB
HAGD GB
I am with Goldenbear.
Not sure why anyone is worried about the AA/A thing. The programs with AA/A/B1 etc did not do very well at A this year. They believed their 16-30 or so would be able to hang and most didn't. With the exception of Edina and Wayzata they were mostly under .500, many under .250.
This may work itself out as programs re-evaluate. The question will be did those kids get that much better by playing A and with the next 15 or would they have been better off having 2 B1 teams (WBL / Stillwater / etc...) and winning a few more games or having closer games.
As far as the scheduling goes that is up to the districts and the associations to figure out. They did that themselves. If they want to have 2 different leagues then have 2 different leagues, small ones whatever...
In the end very few programs with AA/A had their A team make regions.
The bigger issue is the regional seeding...that must get fixed. No more of this losing to go to the easy region! Realign districts if you need to so you can get that fixed, or have someone smarter than I am come up with something like giving the #1 seeds the option to move. I am sure someone has a good idea.
Not sure why anyone is worried about the AA/A thing. The programs with AA/A/B1 etc did not do very well at A this year. They believed their 16-30 or so would be able to hang and most didn't. With the exception of Edina and Wayzata they were mostly under .500, many under .250.
This may work itself out as programs re-evaluate. The question will be did those kids get that much better by playing A and with the next 15 or would they have been better off having 2 B1 teams (WBL / Stillwater / etc...) and winning a few more games or having closer games.
As far as the scheduling goes that is up to the districts and the associations to figure out. They did that themselves. If they want to have 2 different leagues then have 2 different leagues, small ones whatever...
In the end very few programs with AA/A had their A team make regions.
The bigger issue is the regional seeding...that must get fixed. No more of this losing to go to the easy region! Realign districts if you need to so you can get that fixed, or have someone smarter than I am come up with something like giving the #1 seeds the option to move. I am sure someone has a good idea.
-
hockeysmart
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:18 pm
It appears Woodbury, Edina and elk river are the only ones with AA and A to make regions. I know Duluth east and hermantown have AA as well but they were guaranteed regions due to the amount of A teams up north.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
Wayzata would go AA and then B-1? I would hate to be the 17-40+ ranked kids knowing that there is an A level out there that would much better suit them.Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:Elliot
My understanding of why they did the AA/A split was so the smaller associations that normally played B1 or had little to no success at the A level would be able to field competitive A teams.
Here is how I would like to see it handled
AA teams can have a AA team and then a B1 team
A teams can have an A team and then a B1 team
Teams can schedule non-district games with either AA or A teams. I would like the districts to have the AA and A unbalanced schedule. I understand people will disagree with me however if you have 1-15 from each association they games should not be blowouts for every single cross over game. However it needs to be uniform through out each district. I do not think we should allow each district to choose how they want to schedule their district games between the AA and A teams.
My two cents. for what its worth not like it matters what we think since MN hockey does the opposite of what the people voice.
-
officehazard
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:33 pm
AA/A is a good thing, just let associations make their decisions, not MN hockey. Wayzata has a very deep Bantam group this year and would have been competitive with AA and 2As. However, their squirt group is much weaker and will struggle to put up a competitive AA and A team as PWs and Bantams. I would not force Wayzata to go AA/A every year if their talent does not support that breakdown. This year OMGHA should have skipped the A team all together, however, their squirts will probably support very competitive AA/A teams as they progress.Wayzata would go AA and then B-1? I would hate to be the 17-40+ ranked kids knowing that there is an A level out there that would much better suit them.
A lot of talk this year about the shenanigins in the PW and Bantam tryouts this year in Wayzata. It looks like they put too many 1st years on the A team and left them vulnerable. If the big associations use A to prep the first years for AA, then I would be against the AA/A split.
I would:
*eliminate B2, have AA, A, B and C. Keep state tournaments for AA, A and B. We don't need 5 divisions for peewees and bantams.
*keep allowing A to play AA but have separate divisions in all districts for their league play (essentially similar to allowing B1's under the old system to schedule games against A). This way smaller associations can play at a more competitive level and get in games against the bigger guys to give their kids experience.
*Encourage, somehow, associations with big numbers of kids to field two AA teams, ala Wayzata last year with two A teams. Encourage multiple association teams at the same level to be balanced, not stacked. I say encourage, recommend, etc. because it is difficult to mandate and from year to year skill fluctuates.
*Create recommendations as to team level placement based on numbers of kids at tryouts. 15 kids: at least a C, 30: B & C, 45: A, B, & C, 60: AA, A, B, C, etc, maybe at 100 recommend two AA teams. Encourage teams to play up if possible (with 30 kids go A, etc.) I say recommend because skill fluctuates, but keep and eye on it because us hockey folks have a tendency to slash when the ref isn't looking.
*Disallow bottom loading, meaning having AA, A, B and 6 C teams, so as to get three championship teams, I really hate this one (Edina, great association but guilty of this one).
*While this wouldn't necessarily eliminate the bigger associations from taking home AA and A titles, it would create, like this year, more opportunities for small associations to move through the playoffs.
*whatever is done I think the priority should be to create more parity of play. The top teams in each division this year have 5 or less losses and the bottom 5 teams have less than 10 wins. Whatever is done should get these teams playing where they should be (up or down). If you look at Youth Hockey Hub Rankings you will see the Average Goal Differential for some teams is 4 or more. I would say these teams are obviously in the wrong classification now and shows some teams need guidance to play where they belong.
*eliminate B2, have AA, A, B and C. Keep state tournaments for AA, A and B. We don't need 5 divisions for peewees and bantams.
*keep allowing A to play AA but have separate divisions in all districts for their league play (essentially similar to allowing B1's under the old system to schedule games against A). This way smaller associations can play at a more competitive level and get in games against the bigger guys to give their kids experience.
*Encourage, somehow, associations with big numbers of kids to field two AA teams, ala Wayzata last year with two A teams. Encourage multiple association teams at the same level to be balanced, not stacked. I say encourage, recommend, etc. because it is difficult to mandate and from year to year skill fluctuates.
*Create recommendations as to team level placement based on numbers of kids at tryouts. 15 kids: at least a C, 30: B & C, 45: A, B, & C, 60: AA, A, B, C, etc, maybe at 100 recommend two AA teams. Encourage teams to play up if possible (with 30 kids go A, etc.) I say recommend because skill fluctuates, but keep and eye on it because us hockey folks have a tendency to slash when the ref isn't looking.
*Disallow bottom loading, meaning having AA, A, B and 6 C teams, so as to get three championship teams, I really hate this one (Edina, great association but guilty of this one).
*While this wouldn't necessarily eliminate the bigger associations from taking home AA and A titles, it would create, like this year, more opportunities for small associations to move through the playoffs.
*whatever is done I think the priority should be to create more parity of play. The top teams in each division this year have 5 or less losses and the bottom 5 teams have less than 10 wins. Whatever is done should get these teams playing where they should be (up or down). If you look at Youth Hockey Hub Rankings you will see the Average Goal Differential for some teams is 4 or more. I would say these teams are obviously in the wrong classification now and shows some teams need guidance to play where they belong.
-
My_Kid_Loves_Hockey
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:25 am
Here is a breakdown of the teams in the Bantam AA region based on the # of teams at that level (this is just the way they list them on the association website):
North:
Grand Rapids: AA/B
Cloquet: AA/B
Bemidji: AA/B/B
Duluth East: AA/A/B
Hermantown: AA/A/B
Rogers: AA/B/B(co-op with Champlin Park)
Roseau: AA/B
Hibbing: AA/B
South:
Rochester: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2
Blaine: AA/A/B1/B2
St. Cloud: AA/B/B
White Bear Lake: AA/B/B/B2/C/C/C
STMA: AA/B/B
LVS: AA/B1/B2/C
Buffalo: AA/B/B
Minnetonka: AA/A/B1/B2/C
East:
Stillwater: AA/B1/B1/B2/B2
LVN: AA/B1/B2/C
Prior Lake: AA/A/B1/B2/C
Rosemount: AA/B1/B2/C
Woodbury: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Burnsville: AA/B1/B2/C
Edina: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/B2/C/C
Mounds View: AA/B2/C
West:
Moorhead: AA/A/B/B2
Eastview: AA/B2/C
Elk River: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Osseo/MG: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Wayzata: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2/B2/C
Anoka: AA/B1/B2/B2
Centennial: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Brainerd: AA/B
32 total teams and how many teams at this level
8 teams: 2
7 teams: 1
6 teams: 3
5 teams: 5
4 teams: 7
3 teams: 9
2 teams: 5
If we look at the BA regions, they break down with the following # teams at each level(leaving out the 5 teams who also have AA teams in regions (Woodbury, Edina, Elk River, Hermantown and Duluth East)
5 teams: 1 (Tartan)
4 teams: 3 (Mahtomedi, Cottage Grove & Armstrong)
3 teams: 6 (Sibley Area, Bloom. Kennedy, Hopkins, Crow River, Spring Lake Park & Mankato)
2 teams: 15 teams (Waconia, Detroit Lakes, Princton, Alexandria, Eveleth/Gilbert, EGF, North Shore, TRF, Greenway, Sartell, Owatonna, Lichfield/Dassel/Cokato, Hutchison, Northfield, Sauk Rapids)
1 team: 2 (Warroad, Willmar)
To me this seems like the AA/A is doing what it was intended, getting smaller associations into the A playoffs and some to the state tournament.
The thing that bothers me is that there are associations with 4 & 5 teams at this level but they don’t step up to play the AA level while many with fewer teams do......
North:
Grand Rapids: AA/B
Cloquet: AA/B
Bemidji: AA/B/B
Duluth East: AA/A/B
Hermantown: AA/A/B
Rogers: AA/B/B(co-op with Champlin Park)
Roseau: AA/B
Hibbing: AA/B
South:
Rochester: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2
Blaine: AA/A/B1/B2
St. Cloud: AA/B/B
White Bear Lake: AA/B/B/B2/C/C/C
STMA: AA/B/B
LVS: AA/B1/B2/C
Buffalo: AA/B/B
Minnetonka: AA/A/B1/B2/C
East:
Stillwater: AA/B1/B1/B2/B2
LVN: AA/B1/B2/C
Prior Lake: AA/A/B1/B2/C
Rosemount: AA/B1/B2/C
Woodbury: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Burnsville: AA/B1/B2/C
Edina: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/B2/C/C
Mounds View: AA/B2/C
West:
Moorhead: AA/A/B/B2
Eastview: AA/B2/C
Elk River: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Osseo/MG: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Wayzata: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2/B2/C
Anoka: AA/B1/B2/B2
Centennial: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Brainerd: AA/B
32 total teams and how many teams at this level
8 teams: 2
7 teams: 1
6 teams: 3
5 teams: 5
4 teams: 7
3 teams: 9
2 teams: 5
If we look at the BA regions, they break down with the following # teams at each level(leaving out the 5 teams who also have AA teams in regions (Woodbury, Edina, Elk River, Hermantown and Duluth East)
5 teams: 1 (Tartan)
4 teams: 3 (Mahtomedi, Cottage Grove & Armstrong)
3 teams: 6 (Sibley Area, Bloom. Kennedy, Hopkins, Crow River, Spring Lake Park & Mankato)
2 teams: 15 teams (Waconia, Detroit Lakes, Princton, Alexandria, Eveleth/Gilbert, EGF, North Shore, TRF, Greenway, Sartell, Owatonna, Lichfield/Dassel/Cokato, Hutchison, Northfield, Sauk Rapids)
1 team: 2 (Warroad, Willmar)
To me this seems like the AA/A is doing what it was intended, getting smaller associations into the A playoffs and some to the state tournament.
The thing that bothers me is that there are associations with 4 & 5 teams at this level but they don’t step up to play the AA level while many with fewer teams do......
-
MrBoDangles
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm
But then there's "Why should we go up to AA with four or five teams when Edina has ten"?My_Kid_Loves_Hockey wrote:Here is a breakdown of the teams in the Bantam AA region based on the # of teams at that level (this is just the way they list them on the association website):
North:
Grand Rapids: AA/B
Cloquet: AA/B
Bemidji: AA/B/B
Duluth East: AA/A/B
Hermantown: AA/A/B
Rogers: AA/B/B(co-op with Champlin Park)
Roseau: AA/B
Hibbing: AA/B
South:
Rochester: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2
Blaine: AA/A/B1/B2
St. Cloud: AA/B/B
White Bear Lake: AA/B/B/B2/C/C/C
STMA: AA/B/B
LVS: AA/B1/B2/C
Buffalo: AA/B/B
Minnetonka: AA/A/B1/B2/C
East:
Stillwater: AA/B1/B1/B2/B2
LVN: AA/B1/B2/C
Prior Lake: AA/A/B1/B2/C
Rosemount: AA/B1/B2/C
Woodbury: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Burnsville: AA/B1/B2/C
Edina: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/B2/C/C
Mounds View: AA/B2/C
West:
Moorhead: AA/A/B/B2
Eastview: AA/B2/C
Elk River: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Osseo/MG: AA/A/B1/B2/B2/C
Wayzata: AA/A/B1/B1/B2/B2/B2/C
Anoka: AA/B1/B2/B2
Centennial: AA/A/B1/B2/B2
Brainerd: AA/B
32 total teams and how many teams at this level
8 teams: 2
7 teams: 1
6 teams: 3
5 teams: 5
4 teams: 7
3 teams: 9
2 teams: 5
If we look at the BA regions, they break down with the following # teams at each level(leaving out the 5 teams who also have AA teams in regions (Woodbury, Edina, Elk River, Hermantown and Duluth East)
5 teams: 1 (Tartan)
4 teams: 3 (Mahtomedi, Cottage Grove & Armstrong)
3 teams: 6 (Sibley Area, Bloom. Kennedy, Hopkins, Crow River, Spring Lake Park & Mankato)
2 teams: 15 teams (Waconia, Detroit Lakes, Princton, Alexandria, Eveleth/Gilbert, EGF, North Shore, TRF, Greenway, Sartell, Owatonna, Lichfield/Dassel/Cokato, Hutchison, Northfield, Sauk Rapids)
1 team: 2 (Warroad, Willmar)
To me this seems like the AA/A is doing what it was intended, getting smaller associations into the A playoffs and some to the state tournament.
The thing that bothers me is that there are associations with 4 & 5 teams at this level but they don’t step up to play the AA level while many with fewer teams do......
[quote="hockeysmart"]It appears Woodbury, Edina and elk river are the only ones with AA and A to make regions. I know Duluth east and hermantown have AA as well but they were guaranteed regions due to the amount of A teams up north.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.[/quote]
If you look at Woodbury A and Elk River A neither won 10 games this year...making regions is nice after tough years of getting beat up (not as tough when the majority of the teams in each disrict make it)!
Someone tell me if it was a good year of development and that the kids enjoyed it. Hopefully next year they will be better off for it.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.[/quote]
If you look at Woodbury A and Elk River A neither won 10 games this year...making regions is nice after tough years of getting beat up (not as tough when the majority of the teams in each disrict make it)!
Someone tell me if it was a good year of development and that the kids enjoyed it. Hopefully next year they will be better off for it.
-
helightsthelamp
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:21 pm
In D10 ER A games against other A teams were very competitive and increase development. Games against AA teams were for the most part blow outs and very difficult on the confidence of 14-15 year old boys... Going into the D10 Bantam A tournament, I was confident any one of those teams could end up winning the tournament. The AA/A split is not what has been bad (aside from regional set ups due to numbers of teams) it was the forced games between AA and A teams that for the most part were blow outs which is not good for development for the players on either the AA or A team... What really amazes me is at squirts A team can not play a B1 team, however at PW and Bantam, it is forced????Trout wrote:If you look at Woodbury A and Elk River A neither won 10 games this year...making regions is nice after tough years of getting beat up (not as tough when the majority of the teams in each disrict make it)!hockeysmart wrote:It appears Woodbury, Edina and elk river are the only ones with AA and A to make regions. I know Duluth east and hermantown have AA as well but they were guaranteed regions due to the amount of A teams up north.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.
Someone tell me if it was a good year of development and that the kids enjoyed it. Hopefully next year they will be better off for it.
-
hockeysmart
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:18 pm
Trout wrote:If you look at Woodbury A and Elk River A neither won 10 games this year...making regions is nice after tough years of getting beat up (not as tough when the majority of the teams in each disrict make it)!hockeysmart wrote:It appears Woodbury, Edina and elk river are the only ones with AA and A to make regions. I know Duluth east and hermantown have AA as well but they were guaranteed regions due to the amount of A teams up north.
I personally think these next 15 kids will benefit greatly from playing at a higher level than b1.
Someone tell me if it was a good year of development and that the kids enjoyed it. Hopefully next year they will be better off for it.
As mentioned with elk river, Woodbury was very competitive against A teams and close with AA. Struggled in D8 as most teams are AA but worst lost all year was 6-0. I would say that isn't too bad. Including tournaments, scrimmages and district play Woodbury had more than 10 wins. Much better for these kids to play A than a year of B1 bantams
thanks for the insights on the Bantams.
It will be interesting to see if the likes of Stillwater and WBL developed as well at B1 as the other programs did at A. I think they are probably the biggest programs in the state not to do the AA/A split.
They both did have 2 equal B1 teams. I am sure they would have been similar to ER or Woodbury if they had done the same. D2 was very competitive in B1 so many very good games since no teams had the AA/A split.
Do you all believe Pee Wee was as Successful as Bantam with the split. I would think because they are younger the amount of devlepment and progression could be even greater...I may be wrong though.
It will be interesting to see if the likes of Stillwater and WBL developed as well at B1 as the other programs did at A. I think they are probably the biggest programs in the state not to do the AA/A split.
They both did have 2 equal B1 teams. I am sure they would have been similar to ER or Woodbury if they had done the same. D2 was very competitive in B1 so many very good games since no teams had the AA/A split.
Do you all believe Pee Wee was as Successful as Bantam with the split. I would think because they are younger the amount of devlepment and progression could be even greater...I may be wrong though.
-
BluehawkHockey
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:48 am
I think at the A level, there was good development at Peewee. Even A teams playing AA was good for development. The teams that really had a problem at the A level were the teams that also had a AA in the same association in D10. So, ER, Blaine, Andover really struggled. Centennial did pretty well. The rest of the A teams fared fairly well against the AA teams. I think only NCBD and SLP managed to get wins against AA teams but the rest of the teams weren't getting beat by double digits. I think the A teams should continue to play the AA teams with maybe the exception being to not have the A/AA play in the same association. And those A teams with a AA team probably should have been B1 teams anyway.
-
helightsthelamp
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:21 pm
To use one assocation with no AA team as an example NCBD did lose by double digits to AA teams at PW... 12-1 to Andover and 10-0 to Blaine... NCBD are D10 #3 seed for west region... overall D10 record 7/9/6, so while they did pull off a win against a AA team, they did also get blown out by AA teams, also lost to champlin 7-0.... Take out the AA games and I think they are playing at the right level. In general, A playing other A teams for the most part was good... but a regional seed at A level did get blown out on multiple occassions when playing AA teams...BluehawkHockey wrote:I think at the A level, there was good development at Peewee. Even A teams playing AA was good for development. The teams that really had a problem at the A level were the teams that also had a AA in the same association in D10. So, ER, Blaine, Andover really struggled. Centennial did pretty well. The rest of the A teams fared fairly well against the AA teams. I think only NCBD and SLP managed to get wins against AA teams but the rest of the teams weren't getting beat by double digits. I think the A teams should continue to play the AA teams with maybe the exception being to not have the A/AA play in the same association. And those A teams with a AA team probably should have been B1 teams anyway.