Proper fit for ALL winter kids

[old goalie85]

Does any assc. other than Roch have two 'A' teams?

[ogelthorpe]

I think this seems like a reasonable idea and better then the waiver to another association. I think since it is optional, travel will be known prior to the player trying out and up to the family. You could have both the waiver and the District team available and let the District's decide for now how they want to handle this issue. It may be that the outstate areas go with the waiver due to travel and the Metro uses the District A team. I think it is definately something to look at.

I have a question about the big associations having one A team and really strong B teams. Why isn't there a rule/guidline on the number of teams at each level (A,B,C) based on the number of kids in the level? I am asking this because it seems that our association debates this every year and the answer is different every year based on the politics that given year. An example my kid is a second year squirt this year, both this year and last we had four squirt teams. Last year there was 1 A, 1B and 2C teams. This year there is 1A, 2B and 1C teams. There always seems to be big long debates at the August/September board meetings about how to divide the teams up. Shouldn't there just be a set way to do the teams based on the mumbers? I am only a squirt parent and just getting started on the travel stuff so maybe I am over simplifying things.

[nhl'er]

I think this seems like a reasonable idea and better then the waiver to another association. I think since it is optional, travel will be known prior to the player trying out and up to the family. You could have both the waiver and the District team available and let the District's decide for now how they want to handle this issue. It may be that the outstate areas go with the waiver due to travel and the Metro uses the District A team. I think it is definately something to look at.

I have a question about the big associations having one A team and really strong B teams. Why isn't there a rule/guidline on the number of teams at each level (A,B,C) based on the number of kids in the level? I am asking this because it seems that our association debates this every year and the answer is different every year based on the politics that given year. An example my kid is a second year squirt this year, both this year and last we had four squirt teams. Last year there was 1 A, 1B and 2C teams. This year there is 1A, 2B and 1C teams. There always seems to be big long debates at the August/September board meetings about how to divide the teams up. Shouldn't there just be a set way to do the teams based on the mumbers? I am only a squirt parent and just getting started on the travel stuff so maybe I am over simplifying things.

I've been discussing the need for years with fellow hockey parents and board members. MN Hockey needs to pick a number, for example, if you have more than 120 players at a specified level (Bantam, Peewee, Squirt) then you must field two A teams. This would give players at the large associations the opportunity to play A where they really belong playing and also level the playing fields between the large and small associations. More games would be competative accross the state. Picking the number is the hard part, but can be tweaked over the years to find the right number. It's rediculious to see the Mega associations only fielding one A team. What that clearly demonstrates is that its all about winning (going to state) etc..Rather than about the best devlopment model for the kids in their programs.

[old goalie85]

the more kids skating A the better for development of the high school. yes? no? maybe?

[blondegirlsdad]

I think the original idea is a great place to start. It addresses kids who really have no other shot. Makes too much sense to be ignored, as I can see hardly any downside.

The second issue is tougher. It sucks to be the bubble kid, but at least you have the chance to make the A team, theoretically. There are just too many constituencies to please. The kids who barely miss A really want the shot to develop at that level, but the best kids' parents don't want those kids anywhere near the top kids. I've always believed that the system tilts early for the top kids, and it really is an uphill climb when you're not at that A level starting out, at least in a large association. It's worse in girls (especially in a large or competetive association) since there's no B1 distinction.

I like the mandated second A team if the association numbers are high myself, but they should be equal rather than A1/A2.

[O-townClown]

If these B teams can beat most average A teams, then shouldn't they, themselves, be an A team??

Muck, use Edina as an example. The Pee Wee B1 teams could beat most A teams in the state, but probabale none of those in District 6. For them to "be an A team" they'd need to play elsewhere, which is where I think this breaks down.

Two years ago Edina's "A2" Squirt team didn't fare well in league play. There are other leagues where they would have done better.

[muckandgrind]

If these B teams can beat most average A teams, then shouldn't they, themselves, be an A team??

Muck, use Edina as an example. The Pee Wee B1 teams could beat most A teams in the state, but probabale none of those in District 6. For them to "be an A team" they'd need to play elsewhere, which is where I think this breaks down.

Two years ago Edina's "A2" Squirt team didn't fare well in league play. There are other leagues where they would have done better.

Did Edina split the teams evenly? Or did they take the top 15 and put them on the first A team, then the next 15 and put them on the second A team?

[old goalie85]

We have b1 and b2. Why not a1 and a2.

[nhl'er]

If these B teams can beat most average A teams, then shouldn't they, themselves, be an A team??

Muck, use Edina as an example. The Pee Wee B1 teams could beat most A teams in the state, but probabale none of those in District 6. For them to "be an A team" they'd need to play elsewhere, which is where I think this breaks down.

Two years ago Edina's "A2" Squirt team didn't fare well in league play. There are other leagues where they would have done better.

If Edina would have balanced the two A teams then both teams would have been competative. instead they chose to go 1-15 and 16-30. Again demonstrates that it is all about winning at these big programs. If they had been balanced, both teams would have been in the top10-15 teams in the state.

[observer]

I wouldn't blame the large associations for the way they do it. There is an A and B State Tournament so that is the goal. There is nothing wrong with good B hockey. Remember, a lot changes between squirt and HS. Keep working hard and being a leader, and carrying a load, on B1 can deliver good players just like A. And, the kids and parents are all nicer.

This discussion is regarding the lonely 1-2-3 A level players stuck in small associations without A. The should Edina, Wayzata, etc. have two A teams is a discussion for you to have with your association. I think no. Let them rock as B1s and win a State title. Scheduling outside of the metro is almost impossible but these programs know how to do their scheduling to deliver a completive experience for their kids.

[karl(east)]

mnhockeyhub.com has an excellent interview with Duluth East HS coach Mike Randolph up this week, in which he rips on several mega-associations for having so few A teams. He blames them for stunting their own kids' development.

I highly recommend the interview: http://www.mnhockeyhub.com/news_article ... r_id=32760

[Cowboy]

I don't understand the ban on interlevel play. For a small association that isn't sure whether to play A or B for example; why couldn't they declare B and still enter an A tournament or at least set up some games against some weaker A teams.

Also, is hockey the only youth sport that doesn't have level of play governed to some degree? If you go to state as a B1 team, why can't MN Hockey force you to go A next year? Or if you really struggle in your district why can't they force you to go down a level? I know teams change every year but somehow they make it work in soccer and I believe baseball. This might also help eliminate some of the arguing at association meetings every fall.

I really like MBD's idea by the way.

[old goalie85]

Why can't a top B team play in a A tourny? I understand it is not allowed. Why?

[goldy313]

the more kids skating A the better for development of the high school. yes? no? maybe?

Maybe. There are all sorts of factors involved in this. If your Wayzata or another similar association with huge numbers in a fairly equal district then yes. If your struggling with numbers fielding an A team that gets beat 15-0 on a nightly basis will soon have kids looking to find another sport or if you're in an association where many can't afford the time and money needed to be an A team you'll end up losing kids for financial reasons.

At the high school level we don't expect Redwood Valley or Pine City to compete with Eden Prairie and Edina. We shouldn't at the youth level either. I agree with the sentiment that whether you have an A team or not should be more dependant on the numbers of kids involved than just on the fact you have kids playing hockey.

[council member retired]

[quote="old goalie85"]Why can't a top B team play in a A tourny? I understand it is not allowed. Why?[/quote]

not sure about B to A, but the team i coached for 5 yrs was B2.
We played in a B trny four of the five years.

[BadgerBob82]

Every association should have the freedom to do what they feel is best for their association. Some thinking winning is more important than placing their kids at the right level for their abilities. I am not aware of another association fielding more than 1 A team other than Rochester and Lakeville. Lakeville has 2 associations and Rochester is done as an A1 A2 setup. Numbers can dictate where some years 1 A, some 2 and with the moronic creation of District 9, Rochester will field 3 A teams per level. All the Lou Nanne blather has been Rochester has 4 high schools, should have 4 A teams. Well Edina, Eden Prairie and other metro associations certainly feed more than one high schoo, so the same should apply when you have 150 kids at a level. Top 10% play A in those associations.

That said, how many B players ever skate for Edina HS?

[old goalie85]

I have noticed that from bantam A to high school most,.

if not all of the kids that played varsity, played on the bantam A. In the lower levels alot of kids that skate b as squirts end up being top high school players.[and I know we have beat this point into the ground] My point is that the more kids skating at a higher level, the more kids being developed, the more kids enjoying and staying in the sport. Thats the goal right?

[muckandgrind]

Why can't a top B team play in a A tourny? I understand it is not allowed. Why?

not sure about B to A, but the team i coached for 5 yrs was B2.
We played in a B trny four of the five years.

That's because Minnesota Hockey doesn't recoginize "sub levels" (B1 and B2)......it's all "B" to MH. So any B2 team can register for a B1 tournament and vice versa.

[hocmom]

I think it truly is a numbers game.

If associations played 33% at A, 33% at B and 33% at B1 or C... I think most A teams could compete with each other. This leaves out the first year learn to skate crowd and also the huge assocation with 7 or 8 elite kids at each level.

In Southern MN if your associations fields two teams, A and B is safe...IMHO.

[MrBoDangles]

the more kids skating A the better for development of the high school. yes? no? maybe?

Maybe. There are all sorts of factors involved in this. If your Wayzata or another similar association with huge numbers in a fairly equal district then yes. If your struggling with numbers fielding an A team that gets beat 15-0 on a nightly basis will soon have kids looking to find another sport or if you're in an association where many can't afford the time and money needed to be an A team you'll end up losing kids for financial reasons.

At the high school level we don't expect Redwood Valley or Pine City to compete with Eden Prairie and Edina. We shouldn't at the youth level either. I agree with the sentiment that whether you have an A team or not should be more dependant on the numbers of kids involved than just on the fact you have kids playing hockey.

That is exactly the problem smaller associations are having. In many cases teams that are playing A is because of the skill of two or three exceptional players. In most cases the association goes along with this out of fear of losing their top end players. The result is the lopsided scores and 12 other kids playing way over their heads. These 12 could be playing at the proper level and be involved in winning some games. The other alternative is playing B level with these three kids and watching them score at will which is also a lose - lose situation

Nobody wants to pay $1,500 to watch their kid have a perma frown.

[MrBoDangles]

District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.

Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team

East A Squirts roster

Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators

The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.

My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.

Just an idea and food for the bOred.

I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.

The folks at the mega associations would never try to hold other kids back.

[play4fun]

District pooled team, A option, for kids in associations that B is the highest level offered.
- Could offer 1 or 2 teams depending on demand and skill.
- Would eliminate 10 percent of the kids scoring 90 percent of the goals.
- Would give other A teams another decent team to play
- The players would still pay and be a part of their home association.
- Kids would be able to play at a proper level and most would have 2-3 teammates from their home association.
- Kids would not have to waive into a hostile situation to play at a proper level.
- The demand for Tier 1/ Tier 2 would lessen.

Just a hypothetical example............ District 10 East pooled team

East A Squirts roster

Pine City
PC
PC
North Branch
NB
NB
NB
Cambridge- Isanti
C-I
C-I
C-I
Chisago Lakes
CL
CL
CL Picked by 100% out of district evaluators

The MN model has a proper level of play for all kids...... rec leagues, large associations that offer A teams, and B and C level teams in small associations. The only ones that are not getting a fair shake are the skilled kids in small associations.

My kids are not superstars, I have just seen many kids leave these types of associations because of a lack of a fit.

Just an idea and food for the bOred.

I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.

The folks at the mega associations would never try to hold other kids back.

Bo,

Are you going to run with this and put together a proposal -- or a team to draft one up? You've had lots of good feedback already on your proposed solution.

If you'd like some help, I'm sure there are those out there who are willing.

[MrBoDangles]

I think this is a fantastic idea. In addition to the benefits you described above, it also gives the A Bantam player an opportunity to get selected for the Adv 15 camp....which can't happen if his association doesn't have an A team.

The folks at the mega associations would never try to hold other kids back.

Bo,

Are you going to run with this and put together a proposal -- or a team to draft one up? You've had lots of good feedback already on your proposed solution.

If you'd like some help, I'm sure there are those out there who are willing.

It will be a team thing. I talked to one guy from the neighbor to the west association and he talked to a couple others. Might see something in Lets Play Hockey in the near future.

[greybeard58]

The idea is good but since you have used District 10 as an example a bit of history maybe should be stated. First the current and past District Director and the current and past District President have during their tenure encouraged associations to place their teams at the proper competitive level and if it took a cooperative to place teams at the highest level so be it not only at the monthly meetings but also during the summer meetings . All was required was a written agreement by the associations in the cooperative detailing who would host what level, ice time ,payments and length of agreement.

In the past at the youth level as far back as the 2005-06 season the coop’s have been St Francis/Cambridge/Isanti, St Francis/North Branch. Becker Big Lake and Princeton and the last 2 years Cambridge/Isanti and North Branch none are still in effect. The only successful coop’s have been on the girls side.

I would suggest that first your groupings be changed to include all of the smaller associations in District 10 and would also be at the Peewee and Bantam levels only. I would group North Branch, Chisago Lakes and Pine City in one group have Cambridge/Isanti, Princeton and Mora in the next group and then place Spring Lake Park, Irondale and St Francis in another. This would be to place teams at the A and B1 level for Peewee and Bantams. All the associations would have to be in agreement on a large number of items and the duration should be mandated for a 4 year period. With a 4 year mandated agreement this would give the next group a chance knowing it will still be in effect and can not be rescinded.

It is too late for this season but with hard work and cooperation could be in place for next season. Remember the District Director will also have to be aware of all things also as his approval is needed.

The biggest problem will be the egos of the parents and board members, if they can be kept in check the idea might work, however no one association should be guaranteed any spots on the top team. High school coaches might also spread negatives as you might be developing players his team will be going against, team colors have in the past also raised problems, coaches supposedly favoring one association over the other. The District does not need to be involved in the daily operation, that is the responsibility of the coop.

I hope that something would succeed and give more players a chance to compete, but this effort will need to include all levels on play at the bantam and peewee age groups.

Remember that the associations are the affiliates and they need to not only be involved but will have to approve. I would also get the larger associations on board with the idea that this will make their teams better. You want them on your side on this issue not against the idea.

[old goalie85]

Grey- I agree high school coaches will say bad for me ,and my job.