21/22 Peewee players

[Quasar]

I was thinking the same thing, juice. Aren't these teams all 'A' but are being lumped into two different playoff formats dubbed 'AA' and 'A' for state tournament purposes only largely based on association size? So there really is no such thing as 'AA' in MN Hockey.

USA Hockey has a 'AA' designation. The difference between 'A' and 'AA' in USA Hockey is the 'AA' teams are squads that have declared themselves as National Tournament bound teams (Tier 2). There are still games between 'A' and 'AA' teams. In fact, it's actually kinda stupid and goes to the "more A's behind the name" ego, there is no more National Tournament for the Pee Wee age and I don't think there was one for the Squirt level yet there are still Squirt and Pee Wee teams out there dubbing themselves 'AA'. Omaha and Kansas City come to mind. In fact, I know of a couple tournaments this coming year where both Omaha and KC are bringing there 'AA' teams to 'A' tournaments in MN. No big deal, they are just letters. It's those association's top teams playing against the top association teams from MN. Actually, the MN teams still have the advantage due to the age difference thing.

If the conversation here is about putting together USAH National Tournament bound teams (AA) on a district level, sure, go ahead and have that conversation. First thing MN Hockey would have to do is change to USAH's calender year age groupings so they are on the same page.

If you are talking about MN Hockey's associations being competitive as National bound teams, however, I don't think you need district teams. Larger association's 'A' teams are equivalent to or better than most USAH 'AA' squads right now. Look at the results of the Fargo squirt tournament. Edina and EGF were the class of the 'A' bracket and there were USAH 'AA' squads playing in the 'B' bracket and losing.

All this A, AAA, AA, talk is making my head spin.

If Minnesota Hockey had teams that conformed to USHA rules they would have to be designated as something. AA seems to be the easiest way to do that.. As for Minnesota teams being competitive on a National Stage I guess we will have to keep comparing apples to oranges.

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: This is what Quasar said. "my kid would have a lot better development playing with those guys because our A team just isn't as good as theirs"

You are right, the better argument would be, higher quality coaching, more practice hours, lower cost, less travel, more games, hotter Mom's, free beer/brats, etc...

[Quasar]

JSR: This is what Quasar said. "my kid would have a lot better development playing with those guys because our A team just isn't as good as theirs"

You are right, the better argument would be, higher quality coaching, more practice hours, lower cost, less travel, more games, hotter Mom's, free beer/brats, etc...

DUH.......

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: Let's break down your (WAHA) rules (RESTRICTIONS)

1. you have to make that teams "A" team
2. the other team has to be of a "higher level"
3. all assocations are limited in the number of incoming transfers
4. two per age level per two year period
5. any association team that wants to be part of the state tourney etc
6. do not make the "A" team you are still beholden to your home assocation
7. would then need a waiver to transfer out
8. parents have all season and all summer to think about those decisions
9. you will talk to that associations coaches before going to tryouts
10. the coaches will let you know if you should come and tryout

So after all of this, you don't think a simple waiver, stating your intentions and the intention of the accepting association is reasonable?

While an extreme scenario, a group of parents (err kids) could drive around from town to town trying out for various teams, then make THEIR decision as to which team will be blessed with their little super-star? I sure am glad the sane world of spring/summer/fall AAA programs don't do it this way!

[JSR]

JSR: Let's break down your (WAHA) rules (RESTRICTIONS)

1. you have to make that teams "A" team
2. the other team has to be of a "higher level"
3. all assocations are limited in the number of incoming transfers
4. two per age level per two year period
5. any association team that wants to be part of the state tourney etc
6. do not make the "A" team you are still beholden to your home assocation
7. would then need a waiver to transfer out
8. parents have all season and all summer to think about those decisions
9. you will talk to that associations coaches before going to tryouts
10. the coaches will let you know if you should come and tryout

So after all of this, you don't think a simple waiver, stating your intentions and the intention of the accepting association is reasonable?

While an extreme scenario, a group of parents (err kids) could drive around from town to town trying out for various teams, then make THEIR decision as to which team will be blessed with their little super-star? I sure am glad the sane world of spring/summer/fall AAA programs don't do it this way!

No I don't think it's reasonable the way it's set up. The waiver process is ALSO available down here but your waiver process is such a dictatorship I do find this process to be alot better, yes. And yes occasionally you do have a kid trying out for multiple assocations down here, I personally find nothign wrong with that. I know a kid who tried out at 6 different assocations last year, made all 6 "A" teams and then chose the assocation he wanted to play for, I wish him well and glad he had the ability and power on his own to be able to do that and was able to do it without worrying about whether or not he would be granted a waiver or not. I'm glad that NONE of those restricitions or waiver processes apply to Tier 1 AAA hockey down here, you either make the team or you don;t, if you do you play for them no restrictions, no waivers.... CHOICES!!!! There is nothing sane about youth sports in any place or any design, to think so is foolish, which is why choices are important. I think our system down here is too restricitve but it's ALOT less restrictive than MN......

[BadgerBob82]

Yours sounds more restrictive than MN. Gotta make this team. Can't have more than 2. Gotta have a 2 year period. Don't make "A" level, you get returned. And you say MN is restrictive?

I think your example of trying out for 6 teams, making all 6, then negotiating the best deal. Then the other 5 teams have to find a replacement. And hope that kid hasn't gone somewhere else. Or have tryouts over to fill the final roster spots.

And you think that makes any logical sense?

Repectfully disagree.

Make your choice. Get your waiver. Live with your decision.

[JSR]

Yours sounds more restrictive than MN. Gotta make this team. Can't have more than 2. Gotta have a 2 year period. Don't make "A" level, you get returned. And you say MN is restrictive?

I think your example of trying out for 6 teams, making all 6, then negotiating the best deal. Then the other 5 teams have to find a replacement. And hope that kid hasn't gone somewhere else. Or have tryouts over to fill the final roster spots.

And you think that makes any logical sense?

Repectfully disagree.

Make your choice. Get your waiver. Live with your decision.

How can a system be more restrictive when we have the same waiver process that you have AND we also have the other process you can take that does not require a waiver.... That makes no logical sense.... ours is far less restrictive plus we have the Tier 1 option opening it up even further. Far and away less restrictive, come on badgerbob now your jus tbeing argumentative if you can't see that. As for the kid who made 6 teams, totally applaud his ability to do that, I believe in the free market system and being able to play as high as you want wherever you want if your talent and abilities allow for it....

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: Unless I am wrong, our system just says you need a waiver. Doesn't have to be any reason or stipulations. Ask for a waiver. Get it or be denied? Appeal it?

Yours sounds far more rules. If you can't agree that restricting the situation when you can move, sets the number of players than get move, sets a time limit for number of players moved, etc...

Here it's just ask?

[BadgerBob82]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But could an association that has low numbers and historically only played at the B level, Advertise/Recruit players to waiver in to create an "A" team? Could 15 players waiver into an association and create an "A" team when there wouldn't have been one otherwise?

Is there a cap like in WI (per JSR) that only 2 players can be accepted from outside the association?

[JSR]

JSR: Unless I am wrong, our system just says you need a waiver. Doesn't have to be any reason or stipulations. Ask for a waiver. Get it or be denied? Appeal it?

Yours sounds far more rules. If you can't agree that restricting the situation when you can move, sets the number of players than get move, sets a time limit for number of players moved, etc...

Here it's just ask?

You keep misreading my statement and "combining" the two things. You can do the waiver process just like you do in MN OR you can avoid waivers if your kid is good enough and do it the other way without waivers but with some speed bumps? Not sure how else to say it?

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: I understand. But you agree with me there are restrictions set by WAHA for both waiver or just show up? WAHA has restrictions that I think are greater than MN. Even though MN doesn't allow just showing up.

[JSR]

JSR: I understand. But you agree with me there are restrictions set by WAHA for both waiver or just show up? WAHA has restrictions that I think are greater than MN. Even though MN doesn't allow just showing up.

Huh??????????

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: You can just show up at any tryout, but then you have rules to follow. Last resort is a waiver, which also have rules. I find WAHA rules restrictive.

(WAHA) rules (RESTRICTIONS)

1. you have to make that teams "A" team
2. the other team has to be of a "higher level"
3. all assocations are limited in the number of incoming transfers
4. two per age level per two year period
5. any association team that wants to be part of the state tourney etc
6. do not make the "A" team you are still beholden to your home assocation
7. would then need a waiver to transfer out

[JSR]

JSR: You can just show up at any tryout, but then you have rules to follow. Last resort is a waiver, which also have rules. I find WAHA rules restrictive.

(WAHA) rules (RESTRICTIONS)

1. you have to make that teams "A" team
2. the other team has to be of a "higher level"
3. all assocations are limited in the number of incoming transfers
4. two per age level per two year period
5. any association team that wants to be part of the state tourney etc
6. do not make the "A" team you are still beholden to your home assocation
7. would then need a waiver to transfer out

Less restrictive than MN by along shot, if the "just show up policy" was the only way to do it then I'd see your meaning but becasue they have BOTH it makes it far less restictive. The "rules" are set up to govern the jsut show up kids not the waiver kids. I think you are thinking the "rules" apply both ways, but they are separate and you don't have to do the just show up tryout thing first you can just go through the waiver process up front if you want, hence why it is way less restrictive than MN, not more (ie if you get a waiver you can go anywhere you want any level program you want and play at any level team, B or C or whatever, you want/make and you only need the sign off of the two clubs involved. the rules you listed are for the kids who want to avoid waivers). So again we have a waiver process that in my opinion is an easier waiver process than MN and then we also have the other option to avoid waivers for what is likely th emost talented kids. So I don't get how you see that as being more restrictive that is completely factually inaccurate, it's not even an opinion thig in my eyes. I still don't follow you on that?

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: "to my knowledge they are separate"

I think you are wrong and not separate. If you find you can have unlimited waivers flock in, then I will stand corrected. Until then I can only go so far as to say WI has a set of rules and I'm not 100% sure if they are more or less restrictive than MN. The same but different?

[JSR]

JSR: "to my knowledge they are separate"

I think you are wrong and not separate. If you find you can have unlimited waivers flock in, then I will stand corrected. Until then I can only go so far as to say WI has a set of rules and I'm not 100% sure if they are more or less restrictive than MN. The same but different?

You can have unlimited waivers flock in if you go through the waiver process or through the tryout process but any TEAM (not association) that accepts more than two of these players in given year is ineligible for the state tournament for that season. So yes you can accept unlimited number of waivers but there is a price to be paid if you do in the form of not competing for state that year. So the rules don't say you can't do it they just say you can't do it just to become a state super power and win a title because they won't let you compete for said title if you go over board and do things that way. If you don't care about going to state you can accept as many as you want and you can play any regular season schedule you want. Also, if you had let's say an A, B & C team you could accept two at each level through waiver processs and still be eligible for state tourney. SO based on that 100% accurate data from the WAHA guide book I'll say I still think it's less restrictive in it's reality of how it gets applied in the reality of how many kids actualy want/need to take advantage of said rules be it here or in MN

[Mite-dad]

I would go with two teams. However, a few years ago our association had 21 kids at the PeeWee level. We decided to go with one large PWB team. The team consisted of A through C ability players. We left one line home every game and rotated through the whole season until districts. The team ended up having a fantastic season and kids and adults all enjoyed the year. They ended up winning districts and regions and going to the state tourney where they got a little beat up, but it was a memorable year for all involved. They were allowed to play a few scrimmages with A teams throughout the year as well.

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: So you can accept as many as you want, as long as it ins't more than TWO? IF more than TWO, then you are deemed ineligible?

Huh, you're right, that doesn't seem restrictive at all!

[MrBoDangles]

I would go with two teams. However, a few years ago our association had 21 kids at the PeeWee level. We decided to go with one large PWB team. The team consisted of A through C ability players. We left one line home every game and rotated through the whole season until districts. The team ended up having a fantastic season and kids and adults all enjoyed the year. They ended up winning districts and regions and going to the state tourney where they got a little beat up, but it was a memorable year for all involved. They were allowed to play a few scrimmages with A teams throughout the year as well.

Thanks

[JSR]

JSR: So you can accept as many as you want, as long as it ins't more than TWO? IF more than TWO, then you are deemed ineligible?

Huh, you're right, that doesn't seem restrictive at all!

Not ineligible to play, just ineligible for the state tournament. FYI, state tournament is not as big of a deal here for alot of associations as it is up in MN so I do know some associations that happily excede the two player limit because they don't wish to play in the state tourney anyway, they'd rather play tourneys like the NIKE Bauer or other AA or even AAA teams or up in MN, if they can get a team that good for development purposes(and again that is per season and once a player has been with you for two seasons he/she is no longer consdiered a transfer and you can then tak more at that age level). Anyway I look at it as our overall system that is less restrictive, your narrowing the view. When you consider we have Tier 1 AAA with ZERO restrictions whatsoever plus we have the baility to mvoe across assocaitons with some restricitions depending on how you view it that I still think it makes it less restricitive overall than the MN model. If you narrow it to purely association then I could understand, it's that extra Tier 1 element on top of the association stuff that makes things turn on their head for me

[MrBoDangles]

They "decided" to go with one team.

Of the six that were not allowed to play with their association.
- 2 went to the Cambridge-Mora co-op.
- 2 were lucky to get out of district and join, close by, Forest Lake's association.
- Other 2 are probably done(?).

These kids should have been treated like GOLD from an association that's trying to get a rink built.

Coach's kids that might not have made the top team with having two teams was the deciding factor.

No wonder why the elaborate shell of a rink entryway will remain a huge pigeon coop.

The Minnesota model

[InigoMontoya]

Give us an update next fall, when community based hockey forces those 4 kids back home, so the bantams can have two teams of 13 skaters - then again in 2014, when they cut the 4 of them loose because they don't want a bantam team of 19.

[BadgerBob82]

The "MN Model" isn't the problem. Appears to be another example of a rural hockey association that wanted it's own identity, broke apart from a co-op. Yet can't generate more players to become a viable association. Building a hockey rink in town might help attract young players to start hockey. But PW and Bantam is a hard time to start the game.

[JSR]

They "decided" to go with one team.

Of the six that were not allowed to play with their association.
- 2 went to the Cambridge-Mora co-op.
- 2 were lucky to get out of district and join, close by, Forest Lake's association.
- Other 2 are probably done(?).

These kids should have been treated like GOLD from an association that's trying to get a rink built.

Coach's kids that might not have made the top team with having two teams was the deciding factor.

No wonder why the elaborate shell of a rink entryway will remain a huge pigeon coop.

The Minnesota model

Wow, bad decision IMHO.... if you have enough for two lines anda goalie to make two teams in rural areas you make two teams, no brainer, you don't cut kids like that for those reasons. Stupid...

[InigoMontoya]

The "MN Model" isn't the problem. Appears to be another example of a rural hockey association that wanted it's own identity, broke apart from a co-op. Yet can't generate more players to become a viable association. Building a hockey rink in town might help attract young players to start hockey. But PW and Bantam is a hard time to start the game.

Six 12 year old boys signed up for hockey and were denied an opportunity to play via "the model". It seems to me these 6 boys, and the hundreds of others like them, are exactly whom "the model" declares they serve.