HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I know it wouldn't be popular, but MN Hockey could step in: If your association has over (insert a #) of registered Peewees/Bantams, then you are requireed to have 2 'A' teams, and atleast 2 'B-1' teams.

Realistically, this is probably the only way "progress" could be made in this endeavor. If left up to the associations, they'll continue to keep just one A team, and augment/tier their B1 and B2 teams based on whatever criteria they have always used to do this.

Cdale wrote:I know it wouldn't be popular, but MN Hockey could step in: If your association has over (insert a #) of registered Peewees/Bantams, then you are requireed to have 2 'A' teams, and atleast 2 'B-1' teams.

How About if your association does not have (insert a #) . you must coop with another association to field a A team. Let's quit dumbing down things.

would we have to combine all of district 16 into one "A" team then? because Edina and the other big associations have more kids at any given age level then our entire district does. Coop does nothing but exposing fewer kids to a high level of competition just to win a few more games.

I'm not saying this idea is right.....I just tossed it out there. Maybe it's a horrible idea, just a thought.

The reality is that too many people are focussed at winning at the Youth level, without any real concern with high school success (which may be fine if thats your deal). Edina and Eden Prairie went though a very long period of limited success at the high school level, even though the teams were successful at the youth level. Wayzata has never had any real success at the High school level when compared to the success they have had at the youth level.

These three programs have had a lot of defections when the kids get to high school, but only Edina and EP have been able to overcome that reality in recent years. One could make the argument by only exposing the top 17 kids to A hockey each year, they do a disservice to the high school team by not exposing more kids to higher level competition. This helps kids by identifying their weaknesses at an early age and give them time to work on them. If kid 16-22 at any of these associations are playing at a lower level than they should be, they can have personal success without really trying. This develops sloppy habits and hinders their development.

That is why so many smaller associations have greater success in HS than in youth hockey. They are constantly challenged and those who are willing to take on the challenge, develop into fine hockey players. They pass up those major association bubble players since they competed at a higher level all though the youth years.

The major associations have now slowed or hindered the development of many bubble players who could develop into good high school players if they had the higher level coaching and extra ice time their A level competition had. Some of those youth level A players stop developing, or their early advantage is nullified once puberty kicks in. THose early A players may not be very good in HS, but the kids right behind them had their development curtailed by playing lower competition and getting less ice. Too many large associations handicap their high school teams by not going with 2 A teams if their talent dictates. Being .500 is not a bad thing, unless you are from Edina, Wayzata, or EP.

EP and Edina have been successful recently, but that is just due to excessive numbers of talented players. IF you look at the last 10-15 years, their HS success has been mediocre compared to the youth success.

To maximize high school and beyond success, you need to properly challenge all players in the association, not just the select few.

If I was a high school coach at one of these cities, I would be part of the evaluation of how the youth teams were partitioned in order to ensure all kids were given the opportunity to compete at the highest level they could handle. I would want my kids to know how to handle adversity and learn to compete when things were not going your way.

But thats just me.

LowLight21 wrote:

Garbage goal wrote: PS, I watched both NP and Chisago play this year and they absolutely belong at B1, yes they were some of the top teams at B1 Bantam but...belong? He-double hockey sticks yes - so whomever is criticizing those two is crying because they got piss pounded by them. That was the best thing their respective associations could have done for those players.

I agree completely. I'm not one of those criticizing these two, but simply acknowledging that these arguments are present, especially with CS and NP having a lot of success this past season.

Garbage goal wrote: Leave the remaining B1 teams at B1 and the existing B2 teams at B2 and now you have 4 legitemately competitve classifications for travel hockey. Have the districts and MN hockey police the classifications (e.g. come up with a points system that forces up and down movement based on previous years performance) and you have a classification system that alleviates many of the issues you see talked about on the hockey forum and elsewhere.

I think there's a lot of promise with an idea like this. The natural argument is that teams aren't static from year to year. How would you handle Edina's two Bantam B1 teams from this past season? Both Green and White were rated top five all season. Would both be asked to play up in the A tier? Only White because they advanced to the State final?

I agree it will not be perfect from year to year but in reality it will be much better than what exists today. Generally speaking as the skaters hit Puberty things change significantly. So between a PeeWee team and then two years later that same team (for the most part) as Bantams; there may be a talent delta. However, for the most part they will remain generally in the same talent bracket.

Consequently, I think it is a very do-able system and needs serious consideration by both the State and District governing bodies. I would suggest they start with Bantams and if successful move it to PeeWees. I think the end result is that you will see parody accross the four classifications and give every association a chance to get to and win state no matter the numbers of kids and even more importantly a chance to develop with and play against like talented players. Good for everyone.

Garbage goal wrote:

LowLight21 wrote:

Garbage goal wrote: PS, I watched both NP and Chisago play this year and they absolutely belong at B1, yes they were some of the top teams at B1 Bantam but...belong? He-double hockey sticks yes - so whomever is criticizing those two is crying because they got piss pounded by them. That was the best thing their respective associations could have done for those players.

I agree completely. I'm not one of those criticizing these two, but simply acknowledging that these arguments are present, especially with CS and NP having a lot of success this past season.

Garbage goal wrote: Leave the remaining B1 teams at B1 and the existing B2 teams at B2 and now you have 4 legitemately competitve classifications for travel hockey. Have the districts and MN hockey police the classifications (e.g. come up with a points system that forces up and down movement based on previous years performance) and you have a classification system that alleviates many of the issues you see talked about on the hockey forum and elsewhere.

I think there's a lot of promise with an idea like this. The natural argument is that teams aren't static from year to year. How would you handle Edina's two Bantam B1 teams from this past season? Both Green and White were rated top five all season. Would both be asked to play up in the A tier? Only White because they advanced to the State final?

I agree it will not be perfect from year to year but in reality it will be much better than what exists today. Generally speaking as the skaters hit Puberty things change significantly. So between a PeeWee team and then two years later that same team (for the most part) as Bantams; there may be a talent delta. However, for the most part they will remain generally in the same talent bracket.

Consequently, I think it is a very do-able system and needs serious consideration by both the State and District governing bodies. I would suggest they start with Bantams and if successful move it to PeeWees. I think the end result is that you will see parody accross the four classifications and give every association a chance to get to and win state no matter the numbers of kids and even more importantly a chance to develop with and play against like talented players. Good for everyone.

Sorry forgot to address your Edina Question. BTW I believe your question is apllicable to MG & Wayzata and EP and probably others. Take the best of their top two teams and that is the Single A team. The reamining players would probably be about equal with the rest of the renaining B1.

If an association sends players to two public high school programs (Lakeville for example) the need for two "A" level teams at Bantams is soon evident. The next question becomes what to do with players who will attend private schools. They live in the community so they should be allowed to play on "A" level teams. In the case of two "A" level teams the private school kids would play for the team determined by school attendance boundaries.
If I remember correctly, when the second high school in Lakeville was being built and attendance boundaries were set, their board decided to form two "A" level squirt teams. The two "A" level teams expanded up to pee wees and bantams in the next two years if my memory is correct.
I believe the Lakeville board did an excellent job preparing to send players to two high school programs. I'm sure there are still complaints about attendance boundaries. Those boundaries are set by the school board and will no doubt change in response to population shifts over the years.
As far as associations that have only one public high school in their area, they should decide on their own if talent allows for two "A" level teams in certain age levels. I think the associations are better in touch with this situation than the district or state organizations would be!

Out there is the question--should youth hockey's main objective be to get kids ready for the local HS? A question I have is, what to do with kids(6-7-8 grade) that have said they have no intention of attending the local HS? They are going private or plan on open enrolling. Should they still have the opportunity to play "A", knowing they won't be around for the HS team? Let them waiver to the Assc. where they plan on going to HS? Put them on the "B" team just out of spite? or do you put together the best team, at the appropiate levels and cross the other bridge when you get to it? Just curious what others train of thought is.

the_juiceman wrote:Out there is the question--should youth hockey's main objective be to get kids ready for the local HS? A question I have is, what to do with kids(6-7-8 grade) that have said they have no intention of attending the local HS? They are going private or plan on open enrolling. Should they still have the opportunity to play "A", knowing they won't be around for the HS team? Let them waiver to the Assc. where they plan on going to HS? Put them on the "B" team just out of spite? or do you put together the best team, at the appropiate levels and cross the other bridge when you get to it? Just curious what others train of thought is.

This is easy. Just do what Lakeville does - create your two A teams based on their residence and which public high school they map to. Lakeville could very well have just split into two separate associations to roughly accomplish the same thing, but I like what they did in keeping one master association. On which youth team a private school kid plays is no different than a Hill-Murray kid who grows up playing youth hockey in Woodbury. Two high school doesn't make things any more complicated for private school kids. Two high schools is hardest for the structure of the youth association - varying approaches here with different levels of success.

egf hockey1 wrote:It all depends on if your program is interested in development of individual players or winning games. East Grand Forks had an a2 team at the bantam level and moorhead had an a2 team at the peewee level this season. Moorhead was right around .500 and competed very well. EGF only won a handful of games but were competitive until they had an ugly coaching change at christmas break and had different coaches on the bench every game after that. I personally think that the A2 team was the better option even with the poor record for EGF because the kids were challenged. Like Air force mentioned early, the regular season games when this group was peewees were very lopsided and didn't teach the kids anything. At least by seeing the top competition this year they were challenged and had to work hard to compete. When they decided to take a shift off they got scored on, which is what should happen.

Pretty rational response... you sure you're from EGF?

The Other Bash Brother wrote:
Pretty rational response... you sure you're from EGF?

Ouch......

I think one of the problems with the "East Grand Forks" scenario was that that age group in the district and area teams is on a 2 year ebb and tide of talent with EGF being on the high end when the other teams are on the low end.

I'm not just basing this on two years of observations.

So basically every other year EGF had a really nice B team that steamrolled the competition. Unfortunately for the kids the year they decided to field two A teams was a year when the other teams were at their peak so they were not competitive....basically they did the move one year too early.

ivycreek wrote: Ouch......

I think one of the problems with the "East Grand Forks" scenario was that that age group in the district and area teams is on a 2 year ebb and tide of talent with EGF being on the high end when the other teams are on the low end.

I'm not just basing this on two years of observations.

So basically every other year EGF had a really nice B team that steamrolled the competition. Unfortunately for the kids the year they decided to field two A teams was a year when the other teams were at their peak so they were not competitive....basically they did the move one year too early.

I think you are correct in that the district teams were at a high point in talent and competitiveness last season, BUT if there was a year for EGF to do 2 A teams, last year was the year. The probable group that will be the #16-30 skaters this year went undefeated in district play and won the district tournament but was nowhere near as much a powerhouse as the group that made up the Bantam A2 team last season. District 16 may be down at Bantam A this year, but an EGF A2 team would fare even worse than last year.

Those players that are A players will be on the A team if they work hard and earn it. History shows that the probable Bantam A will be among the best in the state and can make a legit run at a state title. Those that make the B1 need to set their season goals right away, undefeated district schedule, (did it at PWB but games were much more competitive and challenging than the team the year before) win district tournament (did it at PWB), win first three games at region (lost a 1 goal game in the state qualifier at PWB), play their three best games of the year at the state tournament.

MN Hockey IS going to an A and AA system for bantams and pee wees next year. (2012-20120

It will apply to the district and state tourneys. Otherwise A and AA teams will play a straight A schedule.

Air Force 1 wrote:The probable group that will be the #16-30 skaters this year went undefeated in district play and won the district tournament but was nowhere near as much a powerhouse as the group that made up the Bantam A2 team last season. District 16 may be down at Bantam A this year, but an EGF A2 team would fare even worse than last year.

Not sure I agree 100% with this. It depends on what were using as a measuring stick. I think they would do fine with the distirct/non-district seasonal play. Where they would not fare well is District playoffs and beyond (at an A level.)

So then the question is do you want to keep them at B where hopefully with the right focus they can do good post-season, or move them to A for more challenge during the "regular" season.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would opt for the B schedule and and the challenge of the post season.

So then the question is do you want to keep them at B where hopefully with the right focus they can do good post-season, or move them to A for more challenge during the "regular" season.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would opt for the B schedule and and the challenge of the post season.

So have them bored and learning bad habits for four months in-district, and driving 4-5 hours to find a comparable B1 team, just so the kids can go to state? It seems like there is a right or wrong answer to me.

InigoMontoya wrote:
So have them bored and learning bad habits for four months in-district, and driving 4-5 hours to find a comparable B1 team, just so the kids can go to state? It seems like there is a right or wrong answer to me.

Like I said with the right focus. Coaches can to a point control the bad habits, and when district games are 2 hours away already what's another couple of hours to play a good B team for a non-district game, or enter the tournaments that are known for higher caliber teams?

I think if done properly you can develop these kids at a B level, and give them some success.

I also think that in a smaller association like EGF it's something that needs to be monitored on an individual team (year) basis because the formula may not be applicable a few years down the road.

InigoMontoya wrote:

So then the question is do you want to keep them at B where hopefully with the right focus they can do good post-season, or move them to A for more challenge during the "regular" season.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would opt for the B schedule and and the challenge of the post season.

So have them bored and learning bad habits for four months in-district, and driving 4-5 hours to find a comparable B1 team, just so the kids can go to state? It seems like there is a right or wrong answer to me.

Having a solid winning B1 season = being bored and learning bad habits how, exactly? Most larger associations have paid, non-parent coaches at the B1 level, so I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that B1 is a real step down for bubble players. Maybe it is in D-16.

Plenty of people would say taking a third or fourth line A player, who may often get short benched, and making him a stud on the first line of B1 is a great way to build confidence and leadership. I don't automatically call that "boring" or "learning bad habits."

the_juiceman wrote:Out there is the question--should youth hockey's main objective be to get kids ready for the local HS? A question I have is, what to do with kids(6-7-8 grade) that have said they have no intention of attending the local HS? They are going private or plan on open enrolling. Should they still have the opportunity to play "A", knowing they won't be around for the HS team? Let them waiver to the Assc. where they plan on going to HS? Put them on the "B" team just out of spite? or do you put together the best team, at the appropiate levels and cross the other bridge when you get to it? Just curious what others train of thought is.

This is an interesting question. I think that it can be the focus, and MN Hockey is moving in that direction with the new A and AA tiers at Bantam and PeeWee, because it will be loosely determined by the high school each team feeds into predominantly (like high school, teams will be able to opt up or down with a two-year commitment.) I like the closer relationship to high schools, because I think for the vast majority of mid-pack skilled players at better-than-average associations -- say #5 to #16 -- high school varsity is the achievable goal -- and beyond that, life intervenes and they get other interests, maybe play D3, pond hockey and so on.

But as far as development, I think you have to build the best teams with the best players all the way along, in order to keep the quality of practices and games as high as possible for all players (and appropriate for skill level, ie. Bs and Cs) in the PRESENT. Sending those kids down to B is a disservice to the kids who will stay and play for their feeder high school. The way to persuade some to STAY is to offer a great Bantam product that builds team loyalty and friendship. (Sadly, the best way is to have a state-tourney worthy feeder high school for players #1-#4).

There are not many associations in the state who would prefer to LOSE players, especially at the Bantam A level. On the contrary, they do every thing they can to keep them, including subsidizing their fees with higher costs (per hour of ice, e.g.) at mite and squirt.

MN Hockey IS going to an A and AA system for bantams and pee wees next year. (2012-20120

It will apply to the district and state tourneys. Otherwise A and AA teams will play a straight A schedule.

While this sounds like a great idea, what do you do with associations that,while their school populations dictate that they are A or AA, their association size is either smaller or larger?

Our association is AA based upon school size but we will have approx 36 Bantams and like 40 or so PW's.

Shouldn't the size of the association, not the school dictate the A/AA or the 2A team scenario?

puckfan wrote:

MN Hockey IS going to an A and AA system for bantams and pee wees next year. (2012-20120

It will apply to the district and state tourneys. Otherwise A and AA teams will play a straight A schedule.

While this sounds like a great idea, what do you do with associations that,while their school populations dictate that they are A or AA, their association size is either smaller or larger?

Our association is AA based upon school size but we will have approx 36 Bantams and like 40 or so PW's.

Shouldn't the size of the association, not the school dictate the A/AA or the 2A team scenario?

They can opt up or down, they just have to make a two year commitment to stay there. Same as high schools (though it may be tougher for them to opt down if they have a high population).

Shinbone_News wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

So then the question is do you want to keep them at B where hopefully with the right focus they can do good post-season, or move them to A for more challenge during the "regular" season.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would opt for the B schedule and and the challenge of the post season.

So have them bored and learning bad habits for four months in-district, and driving 4-5 hours to find a comparable B1 team, just so the kids can go to state? It seems like there is a right or wrong answer to me.

Having a solid winning B1 season = being bored and learning bad habits how, exactly? Most larger associations have paid, non-parent coaches at the B1 level, so I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that B1 is a real step down for bubble players. Maybe it is in D-16.

Plenty of people would say taking a third or fourth line A player, who may often get short benched, and making him a stud on the first line of B1 is a great way to build confidence and leadership. I don't automatically call that "boring" or "learning bad habits."

The group we are talking about, the #16-30 Bantam skaters in EGF this year will fit very well as a B. The situation is known and scheduling will be done accordingly to play strong B1 teams outside of the required district schedule and quality tournaments. Will they have a nice record at the end, probably, but they will be challenged each game and if they let down, they will lose. Individually, there will be a couple kids that could be considered bubble A kids, but as a team, they will be a very nice, competitive Bantam B team that could actually stand up to a metro B1. They won't blow anyone out, except maybe Crookston.

Garbage goal wrote:

LowLight21 wrote:This is just a very difficult topic to "solve." The associations that don't field an A team but have success at the B level get criticized (New Prague, Chisago Lakes, to name a few). However, if those associations did field A teams, chances are they might win 25% of their games and lose decisively in another 25%. While that would certainly be better for the development of the kids on that team, it's also incredibly difficult to push through a 50+ game season without winning much. It's easy to make claims that associations field teams at certain levels just to win more games, but I think that's an oversimplification.

Totally agree & having AA, A, B1, B2 solves that issues. So take what is pretty much the Maroon and Gold today plus a few teams here and there and call it Double A.

Then take the Chisago Lakes', New Prague's etc...along with the upper Bantam B1 teams from some of the larger Associations (probably something like the top 6-8 in State this year) plus all the other teams that are currently classified as an A team by today's definition. Call this Single A.

Leave the remaining B1 teams at B1 and the existing B2 teams at B2 and now you have 4 legitemately competitve classifications for travel hockey. Have the districts and MN hockey police the classifications (e.g. come up with a points system that forces up and down movement based on previous years performance) and you have a classification system that alleviates many of the issues you see talked about on the hockey forum and elsewhere.

I know it would be a little more complicated than this and would take some work to arrange it but...the end result would be much better than the system we have today.

PS, I watched both NP and Chisago play this year and they absolutely belong at B1, yes they were some of the top teams at B1 Bantam but...belong? He-double hockey sticks yes - so whomever is criticizing those two is crying because they got piss pounded by them. That was the best thing their respective associations could have done for those players.

The only way that works is if there's someone other than the associations deciding who plays where. If Minnesota Hockey wanted to intervene and say "you're playing here and you're playing here" to every association in the state that would go a long way to fix the problems. As long as associations have the power to decide, there will always be programs who opt up or opt down, go with one A team over two, depending on what they feel is best.

Shinbone_News wrote:

InigoMontoya wrote:

So then the question is do you want to keep them at B where hopefully with the right focus they can do good post-season, or move them to A for more challenge during the "regular" season.

I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but I think I would opt for the B schedule and and the challenge of the post season.

So have them bored and learning bad habits for four months in-district, and driving 4-5 hours to find a comparable B1 team, just so the kids can go to state? It seems like there is a right or wrong answer to me.

Having a solid winning B1 season = being bored and learning bad habits how, exactly? Most larger associations have paid, non-parent coaches at the B1 level, so I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that B1 is a real step down for bubble players. Maybe it is in D-16.

Plenty of people would say taking a third or fourth line A player, who may often get short benched, and making him a stud on the first line of B1 is a great way to build confidence and leadership. I don't automatically call that "boring" or "learning bad habits."

steamrolled the competition

Sounds like a little more than a "solid" season.