HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I also see this in Wayzata Blue and all other B1 teams. I don't see any of them cracking .500 especially if they have to play the top A teams throughout the year.

That is where I and others differ in opinion. If they are a .500 team playing against top teams, then there is no doubt they should play "A". If the alternative is winning 95% of you games, with many of them blowouts, then the decision is "A".

Even some critics admit there are anywhere from 5-10 legitamite "A" players on Wayzata Blue. I propose that given a much tougher schedule would raise the level of all the players that by the end of the year, they would be at least borderline "A".

It would also facilitate the development of top 1st year players not quite ready to crack the top 15 in September. By playing an "A" schedule (most likely against middle of the pack teams for most of the year), they will enhance their long term development.

I congratulate SR for making the right decision. Now if other associations would follow suit, there would be more enjoyable games for kids to play in. Follow the HS model. AA and A, or like football, 5A, 4A etc. Many options are available, just need the nads at MinnHOck to show some leadership.

PS, I noticed that their is a undefeated Wayzata Squirt B team. A lot of ugly scores in there.

Rochester Black is playing A (second team) 3-17-3 record, 37 goals
for & 132 goals against. Should they have played B ? I guess only
the team can answer that question.

First off, 3-17-3 and getting outscored by 100 goals doesn't seem like it would be enjoyable for either their team or the teams they play. Second, Too much, I have stated that there are 5-7 A players on Wayzata Blue before. They are a filled with mostly second years, so talking about developing first years isn't really their case. I am again not saying that they cannot compete against A teams, however, they cannot compete at the A level. They could play well against, Hopkins, Armstrong, and teams like that. They would not be able to play against Wayzata, Duluth, Rogers, and the rest of the top teams. This is why I said teams should play at their level. They are not a top team, so they play B1. It seems easy enough. I also agree with AA, A like high school if you would allow AA schools to also include an A team. You would see many associations go to 2 A teams, one at AA and one at A. I believe Wayzata Blue would have played A this year, if this were the case.

It seems easy enough. I also agree with AA, A like high school if you would allow AA schools to also include an A team. You would see many associations go to 2 A teams, one at AA and one at A. I believe Wayzata Blue would have played A this year, if this were the case.

Total agreement. One way to do it would be to block traditionally weak programs from going A (they would have to apply year to year). B1 becomes weak when weak programs insist on an "A" team. No big overhaul needed, just some oversight on associations who choose to put their kids in over their heads.

I would think there would only be a few associations that could support 2 A teams, so we do not need a Warren commission to investigate. I think Wayzata could have supported 2, even if the 2nd team played against more 2nd Tier opponents. They definitely would have been over .500 in their district. Next year though, they may not have the quality numbers to support. Remember, these kids won PeeWee A and B two years ago, so that would be justification to try. I think Edina could be in the same boat with their Bantams next year given the success as PeeWees. Don't use the Edina Squirt experiment this year as ammo for 1 A team at the squirt level. I think their group last year was much stronger top to bottom, and the Squirt Choice league took a chunk of good players.

One thing to remember though is that the Wayzata Blue members who may not have been "A" material at the beginning of the year, are more likely to develop into potential A players at the end of the year given tougher competition. We can agree that playing in blowouts doesn't help anyone, but given the opportunity to lose 4-2 to a quality opponent is better then blowing a weak one out 10-1. If Wayzata had 2 A teams from the time they were squirts, maybe those 7 "A" level players would now be 15. Too many blow-out wins over the years just does not benefit the kids.

I think playing 2 squirt A teams in an association is a great idea. Your risk here is setting kids in spots that they may not be in later. You may be establishing the top 30 players now, but where will these kids be in 4 years. Will they be the top even if they don't grow. I don't think associations should go to 2 A teams at the Bantam level. At the bantam level, associations should know where their team belongs. Are they an A team, meaning can play against the best teams. If yes, they play A. If not, they say, could we compete at B1 level. Hopefully this is yes or they should have never played A.

Here is my suggested way to do this. Doesn't mean it is perfect or couldn't be adjusted, just what is on my mind.

Squirts- Teams look at size of association and previous results and decide if they want 0, 1 or 2 A teams and down the line.

PeeWees- Teams look how they did 2 years before. If they .500 or Better, they play as an A team. If they were under .500, you drop to a B1-level. If you were over .800 at the B- level, you move up to A.

Bantams- Same as Peewees, however, if you were under .500 at Squirt A and over .800 at Peewee B, or vice versa, you can choose which one you think is better for your development. This would limit the number of associations with the option of playing at either A or B level.

If we make rules and follow them, associations no longer have to be in charge of pleasing the parents, instead it is the kids fault for not being able to play.

I know I am going to get, what if my kid is an A player with no A team. I believe you should be able to waiver out. Or your association could form an A team with another association that doesn't have an A.