HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Pardon the potential insult on 12UB Hockey but why is it Ranked in the first place?

For example:

Some teams should be A teams but their board or coaches decided B would be better now they dominate.

Some of these teams are comprised of 12A players as daddy/mommy got mad at other daddy or daddy wants to coach so they opt for 12B.

Some of the teams have 10A or 10B players on them as numbers require them to play up to field a team.

Their ranking isn't an assessment of anything. It's apples and oranges. I don't even think they should keep score. Put an asterick by every victory in which that organization doesn't field an A team or has A players. Sure it's fun to handicap and pick tops in anything but 12B hockey definately isn't it!

Thank you for your remarks, it is nice to see a position taken and defended courteously and politely.

I agree that all of the situations you point out regrettably do occur. However, 12B is a sanctioned Minnesota Hockey level of play and all the teams playing have registered according to the rules set forth.

Do you suggest that we segregate teams at this level as “B” & “True B” (those from programs which field “A” Teams?

Also, are you saying that all "B" Level Hockey is illegitimate?

I'll add that there are A level players on the largest association B teams too. 3 or 4 A level players on the teams with no A and 3 or 4 A level players on B teams that other associations would love to have on their A. Don't worry about it. Way to many different situations.

The Bone wrote:Thank you for your remarks, it is nice to see a position taken and defended courteously and politely.

I agree that all of the situations you point out regrettably do occur. However, 12B is a sanctioned Minnesota Hockey level of play and all the teams playing have registered according to the rules set forth.

Do you suggest that we segregate teams at this level as “B” & “True B” (those from programs which field “A” Teams?

Also, are you saying that all "B" Level Hockey is illegitimate?

No and no (maybe and some), it's just a little sarcasm mixed in with the points - don't take me too seriously.

MNHCP- I agree my daughter plays on the Forest Lske U10B's and we are like 15 & 1. We should be an A team no matter what. I'm not passing judgement on others ,but , if you want to have a top program you must skate your top team A.[In my opinion]

observer wrote:I'll add that there are A level players on the largest association B teams too. 3 or 4 A level players on the teams with no A and 3 or 4 A level players on B teams that other associations would love to have on their A. Don't worry about it. Way to many different situations.

There is a potentially very distinct difference though between the 3 or 4 potentially "A" caliber players on a large association's "B" team and a "B" team from a smaller association with NO "A" team.

The last 3 or 4 potential "A" players that didn't make the "A" team for their association could potentially be good enough to play at the "A" level somewhere, but they are not the "top" 3 or 4 "A" players. When an association plays down to the "B" level, and they have 3 or 4 "strong A" players, they will dominate at the "B" level.

In my humble opinion, only the coaches/parents ego's get stroked by having kids that should play at the "A" level, play down. Hurray, win 40 games and go to state, but don't develop one "A" level player...that just does not make sense to me...

If we want to develop players we need to find a way to get them playing at the level that is appropriate for them.

James B Mcbain wrote:

The Bone wrote:Minnesota 12UB
Real World Top 15 - 1/3/11

1. Northern Lakes (Pequot Lakes)
2. Chisago Lakes
3. Edina White
4. Elk River
5. Cottage Grove
6. New Prague
7. Red Wing
8. OMG Black
9. Wayzata Navy
10. OMG Orange
11. Edina Black
12. North Metro
13. Edina Green
14. Wayzata Blue
15. Centennial Red

Watchoo smokin'?

The Bone wrote:Once again JBM
Thank you for all your hard work and valuable insights. You really have made this forum a better place!

hockeyfan87 wrote:

observer wrote:I'll add that there are A level players on the largest association B teams too. 3 or 4 A level players on the teams with no A and 3 or 4 A level players on B teams that other associations would love to have on their A. Don't worry about it. Way to many different situations.

There is a potentially very distinct difference though between the 3 or 4 potentially "A" caliber players on a large association's "B" team and a "B" team from a smaller association with NO "A" team.

The last 3 or 4 potential "A" players that didn't make the "A" team for their association could potentially be good enough to play at the "A" level somewhere, but they are not the "top" 3 or 4 "A" players. When an association plays down to the "B" level, and they have 3 or 4 "strong A" players, they will dominate at the "B" level.

In my humble opinion, only the coaches/parents ego's get stroked by having kids that should play at the "A" level, play down. Hurray, win 40 games and go to state, but don't develop one "A" level player...that just does not make sense to me...

If we want to develop players we need to find a way to get them playing at the level that is appropriate for them.

I agree with your post, except the first line. There is no difference between a B team with 4 A players from New Ulm and a B team with 4 A players from Edina. (Except that the B players from Edina are probably better than the B players from New Ulm - which is counter to your point.)

LPH (1-6-2011)

1 ELK RIVER

2 Chisago Lakes

3 New Prague

4 Edina White

5 North Metro

6 Edina Black

7 Wayzata Navy

8 Cottage Grove

9 OMGHA Orange

10 Mankato

LPH (1-6-2011)

1 ELK RIVER

2 *Chisago Lakes : No A Team

3 *New Prague No A Team

4 Edina White

5 *North Metro No A Team

6 Edina Black

7 Wayzata Navy

8 Cottage Grove

9 OMGHA Orange

10 *Mankato No A Team

It does amaze me that 6 of the top teams also have TOP 10 A TEAMS. Wow! - also see myhockeyrankings.com for Cottage Grove 12UA at #10. The rest got their asterisk.

So, inyourhead you can go right ahead and delete your post now.

Maybe we all could learn from Elk River, Cottage Grove and Maple Grove?

mnhcp wrote:LPH (1-6-2011)

1 ELK RIVER

2 *Chisago Lakes : No A Team

3 *New Prague No A Team

4 Edina White

5 *North Metro No A Team

6 Edina Black

7 Wayzata Navy

8 Cottage Grove

9 OMGHA Orange

10 *Mankato No A Team

It does amaze me that 6 of the top teams also have TOP 10 A TEAMS. Wow! - also see myhockeyrankings.com for Cottage Grove 12UA at #10. The rest got their asterisk.

So, inyourhead you can go right ahead and delete your post now.

Maybe we all could learn from Elk River, Cottage Grove and Maple Grove?

Why do I have to delete my post? I just posted the LPH rankings and you throw a cow. Calm down a little bit.

inyourhead wrote:

mnhcp wrote:LPH (1-6-2011)

1 ELK RIVER

2 *Chisago Lakes : No A Team

3 *New Prague No A Team

4 Edina White

5 *North Metro No A Team

6 Edina Black

7 Wayzata Navy

8 Cottage Grove

9 OMGHA Orange

10 *Mankato No A Team

It does amaze me that 6 of the top teams also have TOP 10 A TEAMS. Wow! - also see myhockeyrankings.com for Cottage Grove 12UA at #10. The rest got their asterisk.

So, inyourhead you can go right ahead and delete your post now.

Maybe we all could learn from Elk River, Cottage Grove and Maple Grove?

Why do I have to delete my post? I just posted the LPH rankings and you throw a cow. Calm down a little bit.

Hey alltoserious (I mean inyourhead) I think he had a smiley face which I take as kidding.

Now...whatchoo smoking, we got cheated again.

Which "We" is missing from the rankings? Don't know a lot about most of these teams?

Edina, Wayzata, and Osseo Maple Grove all also have 4 teams at the 12U level, and only one A team. You can bet that all their B teams have a number of players on them that would play on most associations' A teams.

Kudos go to the true B teams from Cottage Grove and Elk River who have done well despite not having the numbers that those other mega associations have.

Ok ive seen the complaints about associations without a teams, but one has to consider the district they play in and what they have to compete against, while i dont favor them playing Bs i also dont fell it is right for many small associations to coop into one association and that is the case in the outstate area alot,, so if you are a small association with nobody else around , your stuck and can only compete at the lower level,, always two side to this issue

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this whole A/B thing never ever ends.

Any flipside issues where an association has one team and that team plays 'A' and gets crushed? My daughter lpays 14UA and there are at least several associations fielding one team, playing 'A', and for the most part struggling. The good news is that they do have a handful of games that are competitive since there are other teams in this same bucket. I'd be interested to hear comments on those teams that play 'A' that should clearly play 'B'. Does it benefit the team as a whole or just those truly 'A'-caliber players?

U14 is a mess. It is my opinion that the top two or three 14B teams in district 6 (Which I guarantee has all the top teams in the state) are better than the bottom three to four 14A teams in d6 (which has some of the best teams in the state). Eden Prairie would have been better off doing like Edina and having two A teams. I look at the small associates that decided to play A instead of the mess that is B and wonder "How did you know?"

Yes, EPdad the bimodality of team talent levels in D6 14UA is readily apparent.

You are right EPDad U14 is a mess and the top 14B teams are listed on the D6 web-site. In fact all the 14B teams are listed. There are no other teams. I talked to several 14A coaches that said after the High School decimated their team they wanted to move down to B They were denied. We need to do 2 things at U14. One, we need to let teams declare A or B after the High Schools are done and the coaches have an idea who they have left. And two, we need to go back to U15.

NPC wrote:You are right EPDad U14 is a mess and the top 14B teams are listed on the D6 web-site. In fact all the 14B teams are listed. There are no other teams.

Yup. That's an iron clad guarantee if I ever saw one. After teams formed I started looking around all the associations to see who the competition would be at state. I was shocked to learn the state of hockey can only field twelve 14B teams. Takes all the fun out of reading the Warrior rankings and makes me feel sad for the two teams not listed.

U15 sounds like a good idea. Of course then we are poaching from the U19 teams which are already few and far between. The girls numbers are not there yet, and I am worried that they are not trending in the right direction.

Lucky, not sure why this is a surprise to you? The most pure level of girls hockey has been and will continue to be 12U until the numbers grow. In EP the girl's coordinator was determined to move 12's up to play 14B. Many parents questioned his motivation to move the girl's to a level that has not fully developed. EP had the numbers to have 3 12u teams of 12-13 skaters. Instead they have 2 12u teams that are not competitve and moved girls up to play 14B.

EPDAD, I thought about the U19. I am hoping that as more players become aware of U19, the age spread of 16 to 19 will provide enough players to keep it going and growing.

Pitbull, Maybe if we go back to U15, that will stop some of the raiding of the U12 teams. I am not talking about a huge number here. Sometimes 2 or 3 players can make a difference between having a team or not.

pitbull wrote:In EP the girl's coordinator was determined to move 12's up to play 14B. Many parents questioned his motivation to move the girl's to a level that has not fully developed. EP had the numbers to have 3 12u teams of 12-13 skaters. Instead they have 2 12u teams that are not competitve and moved girls up to play 14B.

Say what? Just one 12u team that's not competitive (12ub). Just because you were a #1 ranked 12UA team last year (09/10) - doesn't mean your above average 12UA team this year (10/11) is uncompetitive! As a matter of fact myhockeyrankings.com has you listed 18th out 62 teams. Many would be honored to be on your team this year. Sounds kinda whiney to me.