HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I hate how cocky some of the players are, but its true. Wayzata is the top association in the state, period.

Pee Wee B1 last year; both teams were playing each other in the championship. That goes to show how talented of an association Wayzata is.

DingleDangle17 wrote:I hate how cocky some of the players are, but its true. Wayzata is the top association in the state, period.

Pee Wee B1 last year; both teams were playing each other in the championship. That goes to show how talented of an association Wayzata is.

They're good, no doubt about it. Wait until the group that was Squirt A last year plays at the Pee/Bantam (and if they can keep them at the High School level). It should be fun to watch.

Hockeyguy_27 wrote:

DingleDangle17 wrote:I hate how cocky some of the players are, but its true. Wayzata is the top association in the state, period.

Pee Wee B1 last year; both teams were playing each other in the championship. That goes to show how talented of an association Wayzata is.

They're good, no doubt about it. Wait until the group that was Squirt A last year plays at the Pee/Bantam (and if they can keep them at the High School level). It should be fun to watch.

Yeah it should

So the plan for success is to draw high school boundaries so you pack 3000+ kids into one high school - and then field only one squirt A team out of 9-12 squirt teams?

Hope most of those kids dream of being B1, Junior Gold and JV state champs - because there won't be room on the varsity.

SEMetro wrote:So the plan for success is to draw high school boundaries so you pack 3000+ kids into one high school - and then field only one squirt A team out of 9-12 squirt teams?

Hope most of those kids dream of being B1, Junior Gold and JV state champs - because there won't be room on the varsity.

Having 5 squirt A teams wont make any more room on varsity.

Do you think the argument on this board that numbers breed succes (don't see Roseau)(see Wayzata/Edina/etc..) also carries over to the number of players that come out of this state versus others into the Junior/D-1/pro level?

In other words, are hockey players that much better here and in Michigan than kids in Arizona or Connecticut or is that their are 12 hockey players here for every 1 in those states. So the success rate in terms of #'s seems scewed in comparison.

any sense in that?

Centennial has been good this past decade but that is it. I suppose if you were talking in recent times, they would be towards the top. I think Edina has had the most success over the last 30 years. Go to Centennials rink, they have pictures of all those who have played college hockey or above. There are maybe 10. Even Armstrong has sent more players to the college level and above. Centennial use to be the "easy" game years ago. I can never remember Edina being considered the "easy" game.

Wayzata is good. Time will tell. I was trying to look through the State High School Tournament History book. I am not seeing too much success from Wayzata. I know they have problems keeping their players that they develop at the youth level.
When you look at it it,

jancze5 wrote:Do you think the argument on this board that numbers breed succes (don't see Roseau)(see Wayzata/Edina/etc..) also carries over to the number of players that come out of this state versus others into the Junior/D-1/pro level?

In other words, are hockey players that much better here and in Michigan than kids in Arizona or Connecticut or is that their are 12 hockey players here for every 1 in those states. So the success rate in terms of #'s seems scewed in comparison.

any sense in that?

I think numbers adds to the success of youth programs but does not necessarily translate into success at HS and beyond. I think it actual hurts development. Take a top first year B1 squirt at Wayzata, because of numbers, he may never fully develop and a lot of times he will be on the boarder of A/B1. In HS, he will be lucky to play JR gold as a Soph, JV as a Junior and V as a senior. Pretty hard to get noticed and develop. Now in a small program, that same player would be on the bottom of the A team the first year. Throughout his career he will develop with the A players and play better competition. Basically he is forced outside his comfort zone. In High School he may play 2 or 3 years of varsity. Same player, the one going to a small high school will get more opportunities to advance. My view, Parity and large associations are hurting MN hockey. That is why good programs like Roseau can be so good. Same players have been playing together for years. Rarely does that happen in big associations because kids grow differently.

Red Lake Falls

They take their 10 kids and compete very well at B level. When possible they play A level and take their lumps.

They do all their paper work correctly and keep their 'old, nothing great rink' in good operating order.

HockeyRC wrote:Centennial has been good this past decade but that is it. I suppose if you were talking in recent times, they would be towards the top. I think Edina has had the most success over the last 30 years. Go to Centennials rink, they have pictures of all those who have played college hockey or above. There are maybe 10. Even Armstrong has sent more players to the college level and above. Centennial use to be the "easy" game years ago. I can never remember Edina being considered the "easy" game.

They stopped updating that years ago. There are currently 7 Centennial kids playing D1 hockey, including 3 Gophers. Many more D3.

I see no one has figured out the answer to this question yet. Here is my .02. The programs with bigger numbers typically have more success (Roseau being the exception that proves this rule)

Hockeyguy_27 wrote:I see no one has figured out the answer to this question yet. Here is my .02. The programs with bigger numbers typically have more success (Roseau being the exception that proves this rule)

Your logic is an embarassment to public schoolers everywhere...

Typically? Unsuccessful hockey programs create low numbers, and end up with few top end athletes. Successful programs create high numbers, and end up with most if not all (Roseau) of the top end athletes. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Neutron 14 wrote:

HockeyRC wrote:Centennial has been good this past decade but that is it. I suppose if you were talking in recent times, they would be towards the top. I think Edina has had the most success over the last 30 years. Go to Centennials rink, they have pictures of all those who have played college hockey or above. There are maybe 10. Even Armstrong has sent more players to the college level and above. Centennial use to be the "easy" game years ago. I can never remember Edina being considered the "easy" game.

They stopped updating that years ago. There are currently 7 Centennial kids playing D1 hockey, including 3 Gophers. Many more D3.

That hit a nerve

Centennial does need to update the wall of fame. There's a lot of good talent that has come out of school.

Thanks for the clarification on Centennial. You are correct, there are a number of recent players playing at the D1 level that are not on the wall. Too bad they do not keep the board updated. All associations should have walls that recognize their accomplishments. My point was that it is hard to compare an association that has had 6-8 years of success with one that has over 30.

Neutron 14 wrote:

Hockeyguy_27 wrote:I see no one has figured out the answer to this question yet. Here is my .02. The programs with bigger numbers typically have more success (Roseau being the exception that proves this rule)

Your logic is an embarassment to public schoolers everywhere...

Typically? Unsuccessful hockey programs create low numbers, and end up with few top end athletes. Successful programs create high numbers, and end up with most if not all (Roseau) of the top end athletes. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Please explain this analysis in English. I have read this twice and have no idea what you're talking about!

PS. your spelling of embarrassment is kind of embarrassing to you