AA & A youth hockey associations

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:40 pm

observer wrote:Considering there is zero organizational connection between youth hockey associations and high schools I'm still confused how the governing body of youth hockey associations doesn't understand that.

Other than being friendly towards one another there is no connection. Different legal structure, roles and responsibilities.

Definitely going from bad to worse, fast.

Yet another reason.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:45 pm

JSR wrote:
Shinbone_News wrote:
observer wrote:Considering there is zero organizational connection between youth hockey associations and high schools I'm still confused how the governing body of youth hockey associations doesn't understand that.

Other than being friendly towards one another there is no connection.
Not strictly true. MANY associations have the feeder high school's head coach as ACE director on their Board and/or hockey committee. There seems to be a movement afoot to create a more direct relationship in many associations around the state -- all a part of the same defensive posture to keep community-based hockey strong. Many HS head coaches run summer development programs for their feeder associations. And high school varsity is where almost every Minnesota kid hopes to one day play.

Various posters frequently make this point and I'm not sure why. (Though, yes, the AA vs. A split, meant to mimic the high school system, is a complete mess.) I think the MSHSL is sort of a joke, and it succeeds in spite of itself, where MN Hockey is a much better run institution. MSHSL hockey would not exist in any meaningful way without MN Hockey doing all the recruiting and development of every single player who ends up making that varsity team. As the head coach of Eagan recently told a roomful of Level 4's, the varsity program is just the very tip of the iceberg -- the rest of it is the youth association, its parents, and its volunteers. This is not true of any other sport that the MSHSL oversees, not even soccer, baseball or football.
Can't speak about MSHSL but it probably depends on the state or community. I can tell you that exact statement from that high school coach rings true reegarding the soccer program in our city. Our high school is the beneficiary of a unbelieveable youth program in soccer (and it's parents, volunteers and coaches) not the other way around.

Same for football and baseball in our town, probably for soccer also.

But it is a one way street. Hockey, baseball, football stand alone for almost 100% of resources at the youth level (here).
But in communmities where open enrollment is (somewhat) easy and private schools are available, this is not true.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:06 pm

Elliot: I wonder if you could briefly state how the proposal was presented to the MN Hockey Board?

We hear it was for many different reasons. But what were the actual reasons presented?

As I have said, aligning hockey associations with high school enrollments is foolish. But I still think the AA/A concept is a good one. I have feared it would not be adminstered "correctly". But I still ahve hope that after 1 year, associations will see where their teams fit best and adjust their team numbers at each level to fit their association best.

No hard list of rules can define who should have how many teams at each level. But, the concept of having AA-A-B1-B2-C (FIVE) levels of play just seems better than the olden days of A & B

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:36 pm

old goalie85 wrote:White Bear going AA/ B1. What up?? Grow some Balls !!!!

Little Bemidji walks bull legged and is playing AA/A..

The stupidity of this AA/A pilot is JUST starting to surface.

BadgerBob was right about this setting Minnesota Hockey back ten years.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:37 pm

BadgerB, Are you still seeing the extended playoff runs with mega associations 16-32 playing A(B-1) and other mega associations playing B-1(new B-2)?

We've opened the floodgates!

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:54 pm

pineline wrote:I'm not a WBL guy but unless D2 is going to go with seperate leagues for AA & A I can understand the thinking. Some of the first year Bantams going up against some of the bigger 2nd year players don't stand a chance. You could be talking about player 1 against player 30 from the association, if WBL AA vs WBL A. Now do any of the AA teams benefit from playing the A teams? Do any of the A teams benefit from getting their lunch handed to them by a AA team?

Associations in D6 had to ask themselves the same question in determining what to do. But, I believe that D6 is going the way of having seperate leagues for AA & A.

I wish the Minnesota Hockey board would have "asked themselves some questions".

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:13 pm

Bo: I totally agree with you! I had hoped associations would do it right. But appears they are not. And agreed MN Hockey didn't think their oversight of this out. Maybe they should have implemented in 2013? (Though I know you will say not at all)

In my fairytale world, AA-A-B1-B2-C levels still exist in harmony.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:45 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: I totally agree with you! I had hoped associations would do it right. But appears they are not. And agreed MN Hockey didn't think their oversight of this out. Maybe they should have implemented in 2013? (Though I know you will say not at all)

In my fairytale world, AA-A-B1-B2-C levels still exist in harmony.

Good to hear. Yes, it's going to be ugly!

"My kid should have the option to play at the new A level since he didn't make the AA team." This will be the cry(for good reason) of the season from parents of AA/B-1(real B-2) associations.

Player movement at a much higher rate after this season.

10 years? No! Programs will be set back even longer.

Ugottobekiddingme · Post by **Ugottobekiddingme** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:46 pm

Congratualtions, pronouncing our new couple Bob and Bo. Don't worry this will be legal soon as well showing we all participate in one way or another in community based sports directed from the top.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:00 pm

Ugottobekiddingme wrote:Congratualtions, pronouncing our new couple Bob and Bo. Don't worry this will be legal soon as well showing we all participate in one way or another in community based sports directed from the top.

Still on your knees trying to persuade the Advanced Program in to taking your Elk River boy? Did you hook up a spot this year?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:13 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Elliot: I wonder if you could briefly state how the proposal was presented to the MN Hockey Board?

We hear it was for many different reasons. But what were the actual reasons presented?

The original proposal by Dave Hendrickson was to take the large associations and make them AA and the smaller ones A by number of players at the bantam level and the peewee level.

At the end of the year just divide them up and have two separate tourneys.

Well that slipped away..
and was never given a real shot.

The new proposal came up and said we will have an A level with two tourneys. AA and A based on high school level of play.

Well of course there were a ton of questions, but were told we will work it out and it went forward and is still being wroked out. But it is here...

I never once voted on a finished product.
But when I voted I voted 'no' because I did not knwo what it looked like and it was not a good thing for D16 as we are small and once you split the A level up we have a smaller less meaningful district play-off, which we promote as a big thing.

I know the explanation is not really clear but that is how feel it was presented. Not clear.

C-dad · Post by **C-dad** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:42 am

elliott70 wrote: I never once voted on a finished product.
But when I voted I voted 'no' because I did not knwo what it looked like and it was not a good thing for D16 as we are small and once you split the A level up we have a smaller less meaningful district play-off, which we promote as a big thing.

I know the explanation is not really clear but that is how feel it was presented. Not clear.

So it was like the ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass it to see what's in it." ????

Excuse me, but that seems like poor governance to me. I think major changes should be well understood and debated before becoming law.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:20 am

Thanks Elliot! Sad to hear this was the process but understandable. I still think the concept is a good one, but I had initial fears MN Hockey Board would not "think it through".

Love C-Dad's analogy. A "concept or vision" was approved by the board. The next step should have been to create an actual proposal for implementation.

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:30 am

I'm sorry I missed the news of WBL and Stillwater going AA and B1.

I agree with most, the Pilot was meant specifically for these large associations.

I wrote an article a month or so ago "What you talkin' bout Tonka" because Minnetonka had submitted AA/B1, too.

This stance by these two juggernauts in D2 hurts their 16-30 kids, it hurts the competitive balance MNH was shooting for, and it puts trophies in already full trophy cases. This hurts the middle class (Forest Lake, Lakeville North, Jefferson, etc) almost as bad as it hurts the 16-30 kids who now have to play B hockey vs. A.

Minnetonka changed it's mind....so can WBL and Stillwater. C'mon!!!

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:38 am

Some on here still need to think this through....

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:47 am

BadgerBob, You keep boasting that your AA/A plan would work... Well, let us hear your plan in great detail.

MNH is in a pickle and are calling on you in this time of need.

Quasar · Post by **Quasar** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:31 am

MrBoDangles wrote:BadgerBob, You keep boasting that your AA/A plan would work... Well, let us hear your plan in great detail.

MNH is in a pickle and are calling on you in this time of need.

CRICKETS......

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:49 am

My plan has been put forth many times in many threads.

The bottom line, one would hope associations would know how many players they have at all levels, when the generally ability level of their players is at each level, the depth of their ability level and AND hopefully the decision makers can do what is right for ALL of their members. (AA-C levels)

One would also hope MN Hockey had thought through their plan and created guidance policies that would cover MOST of the quirks that would come up.

One would also hope individual Districts would know the associations and develop their plan accordingly.

It is becoming apparent the above is not happening?

I can't fix stupid.

NicePass · Post by **NicePass** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:05 am

somewhat related but this isn't at the association level, it's at the team level.

Are associations where you are able to field two AA teams or 1 AA and two A teams because they have a depth of talent for a given birth year?

I'm not sure if having a 2nd AA team is saying your 16-30th skaters are as good as anyone else's top-15 or will they just develop better playing up versus playing down with the next bracket down, whether that's A, A1 or B.

That split is done in the middle of the tier sometimes too, two equal (or possibly selected) B1 or A1 teams etc. For reference the associations here can have 6 or 7 teams playing at SQ and PW, so about 80-100? kids at those levels. We will have a declaration/pre-season to make sure teams are where they belong, and no one's getting beat 10-1 by everyone else.

What do you think about splitting teams within a level like that?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:09 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:My plan has been put forth many times in many threads.

The bottom line, one would hope associations would know how many players they have at all levels, when the generally ability level of their players is at each level, the depth of their ability level and AND hopefully the decision makers can do what is right for ALL of their members. (AA-C levels)

One would also hope MN Hockey had thought through their plan and created guidance policies that would cover MOST of the quirks that would come up.

One would also hope individual Districts would know the associations and develop their plan accordingly.

It is becoming apparent the above is not happening?

I can't fix stupid.

I don't remember hearing your plan..... Does anybody else?
It's very impotant to hear since you're able to solve all these problems.

Details please!

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:09 am

I spoke with John Perry (MNH VP of Maroon Districts) and he gave me the impression that each association was free to do whatever they felt best. There would be no mandates on association size, strength, etc

I guess I was just hoping the biggies would do the math and see the great opportunity they were given to allow 15 more kids an A hockey experience.

#Fail

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:17 am

Bo, don't embarrass yourself.

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:24 am

YouthHockeyHub, you've just posted twice suggesting letter designation means something. Ego? So long as kids are on teams with players of similar ability, and good coaching, the letter means nothing. On a good team with a good coach should be enough. Everyone knew there were outstanding B1 teams around so I still don't understand the problem. I'm afraid this whole thing started because someone wanted to say their player was A instead of B. I'm sorry they felt so strongly because they messed it up now.

I can kinda get behind the another level discussion but that doesn't work for the majority of the State as described by Elliott. That challenge could have been fixed through better scheduling and allowing uber B1 teams to schedule some games against appropriate A teams.

And unless Larry Hendrickson is an active parent in a member youth association he shouldn't be dreaming up changes in the system anyways. That isn't, nor should it be, Minnesota Hockey's role. Governing body. Leave ideas and suggestions to the membership.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:46 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo, don't embarrass yourself.

I want to be embarrassed by your plan... if it will keep this from becoming a disaster.

"Fix the stupid" you talk of...

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:55 am

Sorry Bo. My plan would have worked well. But there is no way for me to fix the world. My little corner of it will survive very well under the AA-A configuration. Who cares if it doesn't work for every kid in every association. Right, look out for #1?

But don't step in #2, so I'm not going to stand near you!