What is with this AA and A stuff?

[lilgretzky99]

Why not just start with a B team?

Just following the HS classification of AA and A, I guess. Doesn't seem that out of line to me. Football is five or six classes. Should they go to one class?

Agreed! AA and A teams can play each other. They can play in the same tournaments and scrimmage each other. When the post season starts they have to play in their respective class AA or A.
This new setup allows smaller associations (A) to play larger associations (AA) in tournaments and scrimmages for development, and allows them to play team at the A level for post season play. More play is good.

Keep in mind. The old way.........
You had A teams. Then B1-B2-C teams. If a small association opted to offer B1 as their top team they couldn't play A teams. This new rule give each association the flexibility to play A or AA. Which in return allows them to scrimmage and play each other in tournaments.

AA/A rule is a good thing.

[MrBoDangles]

It's going to ruin their high school system that they've tried so hard to protect.

They've injected their own cancer.

[lilgretzky99]

It's going to ruin their high school system that they've tried so hard to protect.

They've injected their own cancer.

How so? I'm interested to hear why?

[MrBoDangles]

It's going to ruin their high school system that they've tried so hard to protect.

They've injected their own cancer.

How so? I'm interested to hear why?

I've heard plenty of feedback from AA teams that are losing to other associations second A team. Talk about bad for morale..

Hard to have a positive outlook for your potential against future conference foes when this happens.

The development of two A teams is also going to shift the power even more towards the larger programs in high school.

It's the reason why we've had WAY more player movement the last two years also.

Nobody stops to think

[lilgretzky99]

It's going to ruin their high school system that they've tried so hard to protect.

They've injected their own cancer.

How so? I'm interested to hear why?

I've heard plenty of feedback from AA teams that are losing to other associations second A team. Talk about bad for morale..

Hard to have a positive outlook for your potential against future conference foes when this happens.

The development of two A teams is also going to shift the power even more towards the larger programs in high school.

It's the reason why we've had WAY more player movement the last two years also.

Nobody stops to think

So you have a large association with tons of talent. You want to go back to A - B1 - B2 and C? If so, the larger programs A teams are now B teams. Now parents are complaining the larger association B team is loaded with top B players. In the end its the same scenario. Isn't it?

[MrBoDangles]

How so? I'm interested to hear why?

I've heard plenty of feedback from AA teams that are losing to other associations second A team. Talk about bad for morale..

Hard to have a positive outlook for your potential against future conference foes when this happens.

The development of two A teams is also going to shift the power even more towards the larger programs in high school.

It's the reason why we've had WAY more player movement the last two years also.

Nobody stops to think

So you have a large association with tons of talent. You want to go back to A - B1 - B2 and C? If so, the larger programs A teams are now B teams. Now parents are complaining the larger association B team is loaded with top B players. In the end its the same scenario. Isn't it?

Same scenario? You're saying nothing has changed?

Try reading my post again

[lilgretzky99]

I've heard plenty of feedback from AA teams that are losing to other associations second A team. Talk about bad for morale..

Hard to have a positive outlook for your potential against future conference foes when this happens.

The development of two A teams is also going to shift the power even more towards the larger programs in high school.

It's the reason why we've had WAY more player movement the last two years also.

Nobody stops to think

So you have a large association with tons of talent. You want to go back to A - B1 - B2 and C? If so, the larger programs A teams are now B teams. Now parents are complaining the larger association B team is loaded with top B players. In the end its the same scenario. Isn't it?

Same scenario? You're saying nothing has changed?

Try reading my post again

I look at it like more kids will benefit in the end. More players playing against better talent.

[MrBoDangles]

So you have a large association with tons of talent. You want to go back to A - B1 - B2 and C? If so, the larger programs A teams are now B teams. Now parents are complaining the larger association B team is loaded with top B players. In the end its the same scenario. Isn't it?

Same scenario? You're saying nothing has changed?

Try reading my post again

I look at it like more kids will benefit in the end. More players playing against better talent.

I agree to some extent, but the power shifts will hurt in many other ways.....

[old goalie85]

Look at Stillwater/WBL they are developing twice tekids FL is. We will see this in the SEC in the next two years. [my opinion] Fl should have Pe-wee AA/A teams next just to try to keep up. Though it would be "sending lambs to slaughter".

[lilgretzky99]

Look at Stillwater/WBL they are developing twice tekids FL is. We will see this in the SEC in the next two years. [my opinion] Fl should have Pe-wee AA/A teams next just to try to keep up. Though it would be "sending lambs to slaughter".

LSU contacted my kid to see if he wants to make a recruiting trip.

[SCBlueLiner]

Simple solution. Go back to A only. Make a rule that if a level has X amount of kids they have to field multiple A teams. This will even everything out for all involved though the mega association will no longer have the "super team". For example, maybe the rule is one A team for every 100 skaters. If an association has 300 skaters at a level they must carry 3 A teams.

Before you say this is punishing the mega association and dilute their talent base, I would argue this will help them in the long run by exposing more players to a higher level of hockey. Exposes more players to better coaching and more ice time. Forces associations to develop more A players giving them even more depth in the program as opposed to dropping a player to B and forgetting about them.

It will also raise the competitive level of more games. No more lopsided scores. Small associations are able to compete on a more even footing. More teams available to play for scheduling. More A tournaments. More everything.

[lilgretzky99]

Simple solution. Go back to A only. Make a rule that if a level has X amount of kids they have to field multiple A teams. This will even everything out for all involved though the mega association will no longer have the "super team". For example, maybe the rule is one A team for every 100 skaters. If an association has 300 skaters at a level they must carry 3 A teams.

Before you say this is punishing the mega association and dilute their talent base, I would argue this will help them in the long run by exposing more players to a higher level of hockey. Exposes more players to better coaching and more ice time. Forces associations to develop more A players giving them even more depth in the program as opposed to dropping a player to B and forgetting about them.

It will also raise the competitive level of more games. No more lopsided scores. Small associations are able to compete on a more even footing. More teams available to play for scheduling. More A tournaments. More everything.

BlueLiner- No need to overthink AA/A classifications. If there's any blame to go around. It all starts with each association. To make it very simple. Each association is responsible for putting their teams in a positive situation. If a team cannot win a fair share of games in their district then they should opt to play down. As long as they don't run away with the district.
Just because there's a larger association. It doesn't mean they have the depth and talent to automatically play AA. Each association can waiver their district to opt out of AA classification.
The way I look at it. By offering AA/A classifications these teams can play in scrimmages and tournaments. If you have a weaker team but want the opportunity to play stronger teams for development, then sign up to scrimmage stronger teams or play in harder tournaments.
The worst thing I've seen over the years. Are the associations Board of Directors putting a team in a classification they cannot compete in. Instead of pointing fingers at Minnesota Hockey I believe it all starts at the association level and then District office.
Teams simply need to be placed in a successful situation. I personally like the fact that AA / A teams can scrimmage each other. If you go back to A - B1 - B2 - C teams the A teams don't have the flexibility to do this. A can only play A. This leaves B players and teams behind. AA/A allows for more flexibility. Just my take.

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

Yes but please acknowledge that some associations consistently play down. I would rather lose a close game than win by ten every time. That doesn't develop anybody.

[dlow]

Simple solution. Go back to A only. Make a rule that if a level has X amount of kids they have to field multiple A teams. This will even everything out for all involved though the mega association will no longer have the "super team". For example, maybe the rule is one A team for every 100 skaters. If an association has 300 skaters at a level they must carry 3 A teams.

Before you say this is punishing the mega association and dilute their talent base, I would argue this will help them in the long run by exposing more players to a higher level of hockey. Exposes more players to better coaching and more ice time. Forces associations to develop more A players giving them even more depth in the program as opposed to dropping a player to B and forgetting about them.

It will also raise the competitive level of more games. No more lopsided scores. Small associations are able to compete on a more even footing. More teams available to play for scheduling. More A tournaments. More everything.

To me this is the obvious solution for all the reasons outlined above. I'd like to know if something like this has ever been proposed and if so why it did not go forward.

As for saying it is the association's responsibility to place the teams correctly, I'd say yes but the year to year changes on board's and coaches, and parents egos getting in the way make objective decisions difficult. Having a standard that could be opted out of in certain years (ie, fielding an A with only 30 players at a level if a special group is there) would seem to work to best from where I'm standing.

[lilgretzky99]

Yes but please acknowledge that some associations consistently play down. I would rather lose a close game than win by ten every time. That doesn't develop anybody.

Like I said. The association is responsible for placing teams in the right situation.

[MrBoDangles]

Look at Stillwater/WBL they are developing twice tekids FL is. We will see this in the SEC in the next two years. [my opinion] Fl should have Pe-wee AA/A teams next just to try to keep up. Though it would be "sending lambs to slaughter".

Maybe they're planning on these high schools fielding another team in class A since they said this pilot was all about classification?

[old goalie85]

Or our Varsity will be playing their Jv in five or six years. FL is truly going to have to look at going AA/A just to survive. Just the way it is !!!

[Nevertoomuchhockey]

Yes but please acknowledge that some associations consistently play down. I would rather lose a close game than win by ten every time. That doesn't develop anybody.

Like I said. The association is responsible for placing teams in the right situation.[/quote
But they don't and have no incentive to do so.

[old goalie85]

Agreed.

[elliott70]

Simple solution. Go back to A only. Make a rule that if a level has X amount of kids they have to field multiple A teams. This will even everything out for all involved though the mega association will no longer have the "super team". For example, maybe the rule is one A team for every 100 skaters. If an association has 300 skaters at a level they must carry 3 A teams.

Before you say this is punishing the mega association and dilute their talent base, I would argue this will help them in the long run by exposing more players to a higher level of hockey. Exposes more players to better coaching and more ice time. Forces associations to develop more A players giving them even more depth in the program as opposed to dropping a player to B and forgetting about them.

It will also raise the competitive level of more games. No more lopsided scores. Small associations are able to compete on a more even footing. More teams available to play for scheduling. More A tournaments. More everything.

To me this is the obvious solution for all the reasons outlined above. I'd like to know if something like this has ever been proposed and if so why it did not go forward.
As for saying it is the association's responsibility to place the teams correctly, I'd say yes but the year to year changes on board's and coaches, and parents egos getting in the way make objective decisions difficult. Having a standard that could be opted out of in certain years (ie, fielding an A with only 30 players at a level if a special group is there) would seem to work to best from where I'm standing.

It was proposed about 10 years ago.
MH board members did not want to take on the large associations.

[elliott70]

Yes but please acknowledge that some associations consistently play down. I would rather lose a close game than win by ten every time. That doesn't develop anybody.

Like I said. The association is responsible for placing teams in the right situation.[/quote
But they don't and have no incentive to do so.

Actually the district director has the ultimate power for classyfing teams.

[Bleed Maroon and Gold]

I know I am beating a dead horse on this but what was wrong with the way things were done even before B2 was involved. Lets go back to how it used to be A, B and C.

OR

How about we do what this was actually intended to be. AA and A. So if you have a AA school you can petition to play A depending on numbers and if your an A school you can petition to go to AA. However if you are a Co-op of a AA and A association you would have to play AA and if it is two AA associations you would have to stay AA. If you are two A associations you stay A unless you petition to move up. Another thing would be that if you have a AA team your second team would be B. This was intended for smaller associations to be able to have a chance to go to the state tournament. I feel that this is not being handled the correct way with how the district directors and MN hockey are classifying the teams.

If you want to have two "A" teams then they need to be at the same designation. I will use Edina for example. If they want two "A" teams they would both have to be AA. This would still let them develop that many more kids but does not take away from the smaller associations.

However lets use D10 as an example.
Centennial AA and A bantam teams. AA is doing good, A is middle of the pack

Elk River AA and A bantams. AA is one of the top in state. A is bottom of D10

Andover A bantam Top 4 of D10

Irondale/St. Francis bantam Two AA associations combined to compete at A. Top 10 in state and only 1 loss in D10.

This is just a few examples of how this does not work to let the District directors to make the judgement call.

Sorry for the rambling.

[seek & destroy]

Simple solution. Go back to A only. Make a rule that if a level has X amount of kids they have to field multiple A teams. This will even everything out for all involved though the mega association will no longer have the "super team". For example, maybe the rule is one A team for every 100 skaters. If an association has 300 skaters at a level they must carry 3 A teams.

Before you say this is punishing the mega association and dilute their talent base, I would argue this will help them in the long run by exposing more players to a higher level of hockey. Exposes more players to better coaching and more ice time. Forces associations to develop more A players giving them even more depth in the program as opposed to dropping a player to B and forgetting about them.

It will also raise the competitive level of more games. No more lopsided scores. Small associations are able to compete on a more even footing. More teams available to play for scheduling. More A tournaments. More everything.

To me this is the obvious solution for all the reasons outlined above. I'd like to know if something like this has ever been proposed and if so why it did not go forward.

As for saying it is the association's responsibility to place the teams correctly, I'd say yes but the year to year changes on board's and coaches, and parents egos getting in the way make objective decisions difficult. Having a standard that could be opted out of in certain years (ie, fielding an A with only 30 players at a level if a special group is there) would seem to work to best from where I'm standing.

Right or wrong, I think the issue was that bigger associations (and especially the top player parents) did not want to dilute the top level team and potentially (in their minds) hurt their overall development. By splitting into multiple A teams, the pressure would then be put on by parents of players 16-30 to make them "equal" A teams rather than have the top 15 on one team and the next 15 on the other. That is what happened at the B level which eventually created the B1/B2 designation (which could just as easily be called the BB and B level). Once some associations had multiple teams at the B1 level, the push was made to make sure they were 'equal' B1 teams. The A level parents saw how it happened and didn't want it to happen at the A level. Setting up the AA/A classification took away the issue because it still allowed the top 15 players to be together and satisfied the push by many outside the large associations for those larger associations to field more than one A team.

The real 'simple solution' should be that weaker AA teams be willing to play some A teams and lose occasionally. Stronger A teams should try to play some AA teams to challenge themselves. It's OK that some associations have HUGE programs and have the ability to choose from 100+ players. I, for one, have no issue that Edina is very good in youth hockey...kudos to them for developing such a great program and getting so many kids interested in the sport. That's a large part of the reason it's so fun and special when a small program happens to have a really talented group of players in any given year, and is able to beat them. This desire to flatten the playing field so that no one dominates at a level is counterproductive and typically is based on parents being upset when their players team loses by a lot to someone. Parents, coaches and players need to be realistic about their teams skill levels and be okay with an occasional loss to a lower level team or a big loss to a team from their level and not freak out that somehow it will humiliate their player and ruin their hockey career...it isn't the end of the world.

[thespellchecker]

Do you think there will be more teams classified as A and less classified as AA in 2015-16, as compared to today?

[ahastars03]

I think if MN tries to force the big associations to have equal AA teams and the top players don't get to play with the other top players because they have to be even it will drive MN to AAA hockey in the winter faster. If I was the parent of a top player and they had to play with number 30 and I had the option to go to a AAA team in the winter I would certainly look to do that. I think many others would look that direction as well.

what does everyone think about that? We are all blessed to have association hockey, we should do everything we can to keep it. Forcing things like making everything "even" will drive top players out to AAA.

Just my thought, maybe I am way off.