HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

The only way this works is if every AA association is also required to field an A team. Also, for smaller associations that historically don't field an A team would then be required to field an A team is larger than say 45 kids?

Otherwise, any team not classified as AA should just field a B1 team.

We chop up the A/AA issue with a prediction on what will happen this weekend. Have yet to talk to someone with a vote who says they will vote for it. However, all people I've talked to say that it could go either way. My gut says it will pass, based simply on the fact that the committee has worked it's butt off on this issue.

http://youthhockeyhub.com/aaa-split-pros-and-cons/

Tony: Feable attempt at researching the issue. You state there are approximtely 100 Pee-Wee A teams. The top 32 would play AA. I was told the proposal would then REQUIRE those 32 associations to field an A team rather than the past practice of fielding B1 teams to mop up the rest of the associations in the State. You also say several associations that only field B teams would likely field an A level team. My math would say there would be well over 100 A level teams, in addition to the 32 AA teams.

If associations held AA and A tournaments throughout the season, and Districts provided an AA and A district schedule, I find it hard to see the downside to this proposal?

I know the old school purests that want to remove the facemasks, use wood sticks, play outdoor games and reinstall checking in PW are saying it would water down the field. I fail to see how anything would be watered down?

The reality is, the AA associations already dominate the regional and state tournaments. Their desire to win trophies has them fielding B1 teams to dominate that level also. This has resulted in associations not even fielding A teams so as to compete at the appropriate B1 level. So we have confusion at the B level that resulted in creation of the B2 designation.

I guess the bottom line is there will be the same number of kids playing hockey in MN and the same number of teams in the same number of associations. It is just the change in letters.

MN probably only has 32 legitimate A level teams. Since the remaining 68 associations won't play at the B1 level, the creation of AA and A should solve this problem. Eventually, MN can have AAA, AA and A levels and do away with the B1, B2 and C designations.

We are in trouble. No way FL can field AA and then be " REQUIRED" to field a seperate A team. Our squirt A/Pee-wee A were .500-.600 type teams last year. Same give or take w/the two B squirts/one pee-wee B. Now we forced to have an AA/A/b ??? One size does not fit all in this deal.

BB82 - How in the world is talking to 4 board members, 3 association presidents, and 2 DDs a poor attempt?

I spoke to 6 votes this weekend over the past 6 weeks, plus a person on the tournament committee. To call that feeble is just CS internet posting.

I stand behind what I write. The plan may pass, but the structure of the deal is still very much in question. Logistics is going to be the biggest hurdle the Tournament Committee faces.

Best Regards.

Tony: I must have misread your article yesterday. I apologize, you did exhaustive research, I just didn't think you did a strong job presenting the pro-cons.

As oldgoalie said, there will be associations that don't fit using the proposal of high school enrollments. That's why it should be done based on association size. Strength and winning percentages should not play into the formula. An association may feed a 2,000 student high school, yet only have 40 kids playing hockey at each level. But an association with 150 kids at a level clearly can field more than 1 A team.

I am not in favor of a poorly thought out proposal. (i.e. Blue Pucks, PW Checking Rule, Age Appropriate Modules for all)

I am in favor of associations fielding the appropriate number of teams at the appropriate levels. District 9 for instance has 15 A teams, though only 2-3 play at an A level compared to the rest of the State. These 12 associations should play at a B level with similar competition throughout the State. I think if all associations did this, it would result in about 64 A teams and 150+ B teams. But nobody wants to play on a B team, so lets call it AA and A? Better yet, AAA, AA and A. Just eliminate B and C levels hockey altogether. What about the B2 level? OK, AAAA, AAA, AA and A should take care of it.

I don't think it's a "don't want to play "B" hockey" as much as it's a Can't ever play the other "A" kids

with around 100 PWA teams, 15 per team avg? = around 1500 kids

the minute you go B1 you say good buy to ever playing vs any of those A teams, can't scrimmage them, can't play them in a Tourney, Etc..

then throw in that some associations don't field a B1 team because they go A then B2, you wont play them either unless it's in a B tourney that brings in both B1 and B2 teams

with this many teams playing A and not allowing B1's to EVER play an A team do you not see the problem? before changing all this stuff around I really wish they would have just allowed B1's to play against A's, I'll bet that would have taken care of a lot of what we are seeing. Right now a lot of associations are just looking around at everyone else and saying crap, if their going A then i guess we have to also.

I would bet that most associations that go A don't want to play the top 20 teams, they just don't want to be told they CAN'T play the bottom 80.

HockeyTalk18: You make an excellent point! I think many associations play A so they can play A teams. However, when you look at the bottom 40-50 A teams, they are really better suited to play the top 40-50 teams at the B1 level. So maybe it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. But then a AAA, AA, A format would place EVERYONE at the "A" level, so everyone could play everyone? Win-Win?

Spoke to a D6 President yesterday who is convinced their DD will vote for the change. As I've predicted twice. This measure will pass this weekend.

TS