HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

JSR wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

JSR wrote: You missed the point entirely. YOU don't get to designate yourself. Your designation is forced upon you but who you play is not. Further, we have virtually zero sandbagging in Wisconsin because no one wants to play 10-0 games on purpose and in rare times they do they do not schedule another game with them. If a B team and a A team are a good fit for playing a competitive game against eachother then there is ZERO reason they shouldn't play eachother. It's good for everyone. Further, there is no sense in sandbagging because you are given your designation as either an A, B or C team and it's based on club size. And that designation only means something come state tourney/regional play off time. You can't "sandbag" anything for that as that is also dictated to you. I think you need to re-read everything, this doesn't lead to more sandbagging it gets rid of it almost 100%. Your system encouraged sandbagging etc... by leaving the wrong things up to the associations. We left the right things up to our assocations and took the other stuff away and that is one problem we don't have

My response was to your first sentence and regarding the way the current MN Hockey system is set up. Nothing to do with WI, I didn't even read the rest.

If you are not going to read it then don't respond. It makes you look very foolish

My response was only to point out that you were wrong on MN teams not being able to play across designations. They can. I didn't read the rest because comparing MN and WI Youth Hockey is pointless. It's Apples and Oranges. What works in one will not necessarily work in another.

Exactly. All opinions are certainly good and welcomed. That said, I just don't see myself spending time on a message board for hockey in another state giving thoughts on how they should do things. Every state is different and has different dynamics. What's the point? And how would I even know what would work well in a different state?

Section 8 guy wrote:Exactly. All opinions are certainly good and welcomed. That said, I just don't see myself spending time on a message board for hockey in another state giving thoughts on how they should do things. Every state is different and has different dynamics. What's the point? And how would I even know what would work well in a different state?

Translation : "We know everything, there is nothing we can learn from anyone else ever, we are the best so we don't need to listen to anyone or try and learn and grow"

JSR wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:Exactly. All opinions are certainly good and welcomed. That said, I just don't see myself spending time on a message board for hockey in another state giving thoughts on how they should do things. Every state is different and has different dynamics. What's the point? And how would I even know what would work well in a different state?

Translation : "We know everything, there is nothing we can learn from anyone else ever, we are the best so we don't need to listen to anyone or try and learn and grow"

LOL, you need to find a hobby dude. You're way too obsessed with Minnesota.

I think what I really said was......I know nothing about the dynamics of Hockey in Wisconsin, or any other state, so how could I even begin to understand the dynamics of hockey in the state or what they should do to improve it.......with a slight tinge of.......And why would I even want to?

BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Section 8 guy wrote:BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

2 sandbagging teams have been mentioned. Big deal! Let them enjoy some success to help revitalize their programs with new excitement. Sorry your team lost to them. Your plan would create many more unbalanced situations. Those two teams will likely opt to play at a higher level next year if the talent on the teams below is the same or better.

Move on.

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

Minnesota Hockey is actually working on it. By late Spring they hope to have a proposal ready to submit to JSR for final approval.

observer wrote:2 sandbagging teams have been mentioned. Big deal! Let them enjoy some success to help revitalize their programs with new excitement. Sorry your team lost to them. Your plan would create many more unbalanced situations. Those two teams will likely opt to play at a higher level next year if the talent on the teams below is the same or better.

Move on.

My team is actually one of the sandbaggers. They don't plan on moving up.

Jeffy95 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

Minnesota Hockey is actually working on it. By late Spring they hope to have a proposal ready to submit to JSR for final approval.

typical response I'd expect from someone like you.....

unlike you I try to learn as much as I can so I can help my sport locally as much as I can. I'm in it for the sport not just myself or my kid, I know that's a hard concept to understand for folks like yourself

JSR wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote: Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

Minnesota Hockey is actually working on it. By late Spring they hope to have a proposal ready to submit to JSR for final approval.

typical response I'd expect from someone like you.....

unlike you I try to learn as much as I can so I can help my sport locally as much as I can. I'm in it for the sport not just myself or my kid, I know that's a hard concept to understand for folks like yourself

Come on, lighten up Junior. Where's your sense of humor? I don't care who you are that was funny right there!

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

I asked above for you to quantify how many teams at both the A level and B level in both Bantams and PeeWees that you feel are sandbagging and need to go about things differently. It would be helpful to understand how widespread you feel the problem actually is. No need to name names. Just looking for the scope of the problem is all.

Section 8 guy wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:BTW......did TEO take his Mandatory declarations system and go home?

Still very curious to hear some takes on how widespread the problem really is......

Still here waiting for more relevant points to address.

I asked above for you to quantify how many teams at both the A level and B level in both Bantams and PeeWees that you feel are sandbagging and need to go about things differently. It would be helpful to understand how widespread you feel the problem actually is. No need to name names. Just looking for the scope of the problem is all.

Before I crunch the numbers, how many sandbaggers would there need to be for you to consider it a problem as well? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it if the facts don't carry any weight anyhow.

So let me get this straight..........with all of this talk of empirical data, regression theory, data points and analytics.........you didn't even bother to define the scope of the problem before you initiated the process?

C'mon man! Are you serious?

I laid out what I see. I see one Bantam A team that my guess is had decent reasoning behind the decision to play B vs A based on how their team fared two years ago playing PeeWee A hockey. I've seen them play. I don't think they would fare all that well playing Bantam A hockey but one could reasonably say they should have based on results to this point.

I also see two pretty easy to spot west metro associations that show up pretty consistently in the top 5 at A and B that should probably do some things differently. Beyond that......I don't see a lot that tells me we need a top down government approach system overhaul.

I certainly don't pretend to see all these teams play so there absolutely could be a lot more than that that I'm missing. If there is, it would be helpful to the discussion if you could define how many you think there are......naming names not necessary. If there isn't.......then I would tend to fall back to the original point that we are better off dealing directly with the relatively small number of offenders than risk forcing teams into a situation where they can't be competitive and they know it before the season even starts.

I love this framework as a guideline but don't love it as a forced rule. I would agree completely though that an association with 6 teams at one level.....5 even....should have a AA team.

Section 8 guy wrote:So let me get this straight..........with all of this talk of empirical data, regression theory, data points and analytics.........you didn't even bother to define the scope of the problem before you initiated the process?

C'mon man! Are you serious?

Actually, I've done a lot of analysis. I just wanted to know if you were willing to consider it before I shared it. I think I have my answer.

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:So let me get this straight..........with all of this talk of empirical data, regression theory, data points and analytics.........you didn't even bother to define the scope of the problem before you initiated the process?

C'mon man! Are you serious?

Actually, I've done a lot of analysis. I just wanted to know if you were willing to consider it before I shared it. I think I have my answer.

In the end, there are too many variables to have a forced rule for what leagues associations should place their teams.

From what I understand, it was talked about at the MN Hockey meeting and the responsibility was put upon the District Directors to monitor team classifications more closely and work with associations to make sure teams are classified in a way that ensures more competitive balance in league play. It will never be "fair"enough, as every district has a completely different make up. Some associations will sandbag for a short term "lift" for their program (trophies...yeah!), and some will make the long term decision to better challenge their skaters. In the long run, the long term decision will feed higher quality skaters to the high school team. The short team decision will stifle development.

Coiuld MN Hockey adopt this is a guideline........then if there do appear to be shenanigans the DDs have a basis for discussion with the offending associations.....or other associations have a basis to go to the DD and request that another association be addressed?

Section 8 guy wrote:Coiuld MN Hockey adopt this is a guideline........then if there do appear to be shenanigans the DDs have a basis for discussion with the offending associations.....or other associations have a basis to go to the DD and request that another association be addressed?

Fair compromise. Deal.

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:Coiuld MN Hockey adopt this is a guideline........then if there do appear to be shenanigans the DDs have a basis for discussion with the offending associations.....or other associations have a basis to go to the DD and request that another association be addressed?

Fair compromise. Deal.

To a degree, this already exists as the DD can assign teams to the appropriate level.
The local assn. can register their team where they want but that designation can be changed by the DD.

elliott70 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:

Section 8 guy wrote:Coiuld MN Hockey adopt this is a guideline........then if there do appear to be shenanigans the DDs have a basis for discussion with the offending associations.....or other associations have a basis to go to the DD and request that another association be addressed?

Fair compromise. Deal.

To a degree, this already exists as the DD can assign teams to the appropriate level.
The local assn. can register their team where they want but that designation can be changed by the DD.

Still need a standard to reference.

Is there any further oversight to make sure that the DDs are handling any complaints appropriately?

The Exiled One wrote:

elliott70 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote: Fair compromise. Deal.

To a degree, this already exists as the DD can assign teams to the appropriate level.
The local assn. can register their team where they want but that designation can be changed by the DD.

Still need a standard to reference.

I agree.

Section 8 guy wrote:Is there any further oversight to make sure that the DDs are handling any complaints appropriately?

Yes, two methods.

1 Can be taken immediately by filing a grievance with MH.

2 DD are voted in by the local assn. every 3 years.