spin-o-rama wrote:
I'm curious if you championed the poor C kids being "demoted" when B split to B1 and B2.
It sounds like letter on the sweatshirt envy is what's getting your constituents in a huff.
And it sounds like you're just concerned for your home(Edina, from your posts) association.
MNH will see the huff of their constituents...... Again, 17-32 playing two levels back.
Your newly combined Edina A(new B-1) team of 16-32 that will pound other A teams
Minnetonka going AA and then B-1(don't want to compete with Edina's 16-32).... Their B-1 team will pound other B-1(B-2) teams.
Player movement to mega associations for AA
Coon Rapids - St Francis combining so they don't lose more players. Cambridge - Mora combining for the same reason... See what's happening?
etc.
etc.
Glad you have no concerns since you're with Edina, but it could get really lonely after a while.
I didn't mean to confuse you into thinking that others support you as their voice.
My prediction is that a mega association doesn't win A at PW or Ban this year. And your pick is Edina. I respect you for putting your allegiance in 1 team. Cheer extra loud for them.
This would NEVER work, but might help illustrate something. Using PW hockey for the sake of discussion, say there is a total of 500 PW teams from A-C levels. If every association would build their teams 1-17; 18-35, 36-52, etc. and then you rank them 1-500. Then create your AA,A,B1,B2,C levels with about 100 teams at each level. The top 25% of each level is still going to dominate that level.
Somebody said that top associations should have to field AA team then B1 teams with no A level teams? How dumb is that?
I think Wayzata, Lakeville and Rochester have it right. They are the only associations in the state that have fielded 2 A level teams. Wayzata and Lakeville will have two AA teams, then I'd guess 2 A level teams. The other top associations should do the same. Rochester will go 1 AA and 1 A. And Rochester's #2 team has been a B1 team that has made a go of playing at the A level and managed to be ranked in the top 90. Now move 50 AA teams out of the A level and the #2 Rochester team could be in the top 1/2 of the A pool playing competitive games all season long. Other associations will figure it out and field teams at the appropriate level.
The way it is now, alot of A teams are really mid-pack B1 teams. And mid-pack B1 teams are already 2 levels away from the top level.
People worried about being two levels down from the top should quit hockey and take up an individual sport. The team aspect is lost on glory hunters.
BadgerBob82 wrote:This would NEVER work, but might help illustrate something. Using PW hockey for the sake of discussion, say there is a total of 500 PW teams from A-C levels. If every association would build their teams 1-17; 18-35, 36-52, etc. and then you rank them 1-500. Then create your AA,A,B1,B2,C levels with about 100 teams at each level. The top 25% of each level is still going to dominate that level.
Somebody said that top associations should have to field AA team then B1 teams with no A level teams? How dumb is that?
I think Wayzata, Lakeville and Rochester have it right. They are the only associations in the state that have fielded 2 A level teams. Wayzata and Lakeville will have two AA teams, then I'd guess 2 A level teams. The other top associations should do the same. Rochester will go 1 AA and 1 A. And Rochester's #2 team has been a B1 team that has made a go of playing at the A level and managed to be ranked in the top 90. Now move 50 AA teams out of the A level and the #2 Rochester team could be in the top 1/2 of the A pool playing competitive games all season long. Other associations will figure it out and field teams at the appropriate level.
The way it is now, alot of A teams are really mid-pack B1 teams. And mid-pack B1 teams are already 2 levels away from the top level.
People worried about being two levels down from the top should quit hockey and take up an individual sport. The team aspect is lost on glory hunters.
No problem with an AA caliber kid barely missing the cut and having to play in the new watered down B-1(B-2) level? And knowing the whole time that there is an A level out there that would be a MUCH better fit..
There will be plenty of unhappy people and deservedly so.
Bo: My point is that associations should be able to figure out if they have an AA team, they certainly are "deep" enough to field an A team. MN Hockey should "encourage" all AA programs to field at least 1 A team also. Vote out Board members that don't understand hockey.
BBgunner wrote:I am not as familiar with D2 so I will plead the 5th. I am however familiar with D10. So I will use this as an example, and maybe in D10 this works but in D2 it will not. Keep in mind D10 was the AA test pilot last year...
Irondale- would be A, B1 this year last year B1 and B2 at Bantam
Mora- would be A and B2 probably
Blaine- AA and A B1 and B2 last year was A B1 B1 and B2
CL- A and B2 maybe a B1 there second group is pretty tough
Pine City- B1 only if numbers are down
Andover- AA A B1 B2
ER- AA A B1 B2
Anoka- AA A B1 or maybe a B2 instead
SLP- A b1 or b2
Camb/Isanti- A and B1 prob
Champlin Park- AA A B1
Centennial- AA A B1 B2
North Branch- A and B2
Princeton- A and B1
Rogers- AA A B1
St Francis- A and B2
OK this is bantam level and all guesses, of course without knowing who is going to what level for sure it is impossible to be right.
I am not sure how the model works in D2 or any other district but I would like to think in D10 it should help competition.
Looks about accurate for the bantam levels. HoweverIrondale would be A and B2. also I just heard Coon Rapids and St. Francis are co-oping this year so that would put them at AA and B1 would be my guess. They will be forced to play AA because they have to take the biggerschools designation and that would put them at AA and with a co-op they will not be able to waive down to A.
In what universe is Edina, EP, or Wayzata AA teams ever going to play the second tier A or AA teams outside of a district game? All this complaining is meaningless since you will never get the chance to get soundly beaten by the bigs. Just be thankful that MN Hockey is giving you the chance to play in March. Kids quitting since they aren't playing at the highest level? That is the most asinine thing I think I have ever heard. If you want to play AA-here is what you do: Get off of these boards, sell your house in North Branch, move to WBL. Get a second job if you have to, but just don't waste your time bitching about it here.
Toomuchtoosoon wrote:In what universe is Edina, EP, or Wayzata AA teams ever going to play the second tier A or AA teams outside of a district game? All this complaining is meaningless since you will never get the chance to get soundly beaten by the bigs. Just be thankful that MN Hockey is giving you the chance to play in March. Kids quitting since they aren't playing at the highest level? That is the most asinine thing I think I have ever heard. If you want to play AA-here is what you do: Get off of these boards, sell your house in North Branch, move to WBL. Get a second job if you have to, but just don't waste your time bitching about it here.
We've been talking about the AA to B-1 gap problem in medium size associations.
Just from reading these posts it seems to me that the responsibilty now comes down to the local associations or who ever selects what level the teams would skate at. If its now a big jump from AA to that B1 level the local association should be the be the one then to declare AA and A not AA to B1. Am I correct on reading this??
Stripes2011 wrote:Just from reading these posts it seems to me that the responsibilty now comes down to the local associations or who ever selects what level the teams would skate at. If its now a big jump from AA to that B1 level the local association should be the be the one then to declare AA and A not AA to B1. Am I correct on reading this??
Careful now. Straight answers like yours destroy peoples' basis to complain.
BBgunner wrote:I am not as familiar with D2 so I will plead the 5th. I am however familiar with D10. So I will use this as an example, and maybe in D10 this works but in D2 it will not. Keep in mind D10 was the AA test pilot last year...
Irondale- would be A, B1 this year last year B1 and B2 at Bantam
Mora- would be A and B2 probably
Blaine- AA and A B1 and B2 last year was A B1 B1 and B2
CL- A and B2 maybe a B1 there second group is pretty tough
Pine City- B1 only if numbers are down
Andover- AA A B1 B2
ER- AA A B1 B2
Anoka- AA A B1 or maybe a B2 instead
SLP- A b1 or b2
Camb/Isanti- A and B1 prob
Champlin Park- AA A B1
Centennial- AA A B1 B2
North Branch- A and B2
Princeton- A and B1
Rogers- AA A B1
St Francis- A and B2
OK this is bantam level and all guesses, of course without knowing who is going to what level for sure it is impossible to be right.
I am not sure how the model works in D2 or any other district but I would like to think in D10 it should help competition.
Looks about accurate for the bantam levels. HoweverIrondale would be A and B2. also I just heard Coon Rapids and St. Francis are co-oping this year so that would put them at AA and B1 would be my guess. They will be forced to play AA because they have to take the biggerschools designation and that would put them at AA and with a co-op they will not be able to waive down to A.
co-op with St. F & CR?--is this for real?
It was in the talks however looks like St Francis board voted it down
Stripes2011 wrote:Just from reading these posts it seems to me that the responsibilty now comes down to the local associations or who ever selects what level the teams would skate at. If its now a big jump from AA to that B1 level the local association should be the be the one then to declare AA and A not AA to B1. Am I correct on reading this??
Roseville, Mounds View, Forest Lake, etc etc will all declare AA knowing they have to compete with the likes of conference(SEC) rival White Bear Lake in high school. By declaring single A and then B-1 they would be saying they have no chance to compete in High School. Many of Minnesota's medium size associations have the top end talent to play at the AA level, but then fall off hard after 10 to 25 players. So what players do we short change then with this new model?
Great question with a filled with common sense answer.
BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: My point is that associations should be able to figure out if they have an AA team, they certainly are "deep" enough to field an A team. MN Hockey should "encourage" all AA programs to field at least 1 A team also. Vote out Board members that don't understand hockey.
What if you have 14 studs and the talent goes down hard after that? Make an A team suffer because you have the talent to play AA?
BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: My point is that associations should be able to figure out if they have an AA team, they certainly are "deep" enough to field an A team. MN Hockey should "encourage" all AA programs to field at least 1 A team also. Vote out Board members that don't understand hockey.
What if you have 14 studs and the talent goes down hard after that? Make an A team suffer because you have the talent to play AA?
