Page 4 of 5
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:54 pm
by 99GoalieDad
97 Team Pepsi 4 Machine 3 Championship - Pepsi is the biggest 97 Team you will see
97 Torspo 4 97 Legacy 3 OT - 3rd Place - Good, clean game - Nobody got into a fight
99 Machine 7 Jr Steelers 2 - Championship
99 Torspo 3 Warriors 2 - 3rd Place - No drama
Great Tournament, Great kids and families - Well Done!
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:25 am
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
99GoalieDad wrote:97 Team Pepsi 4 Machine 3 Championship - Pepsi is the biggest 97 Team you will see
One of the most skilled as well. Not a ton of depth, but there top 7 or 8 kids can play with anyone on the planet in their age group. Doesn't hurt that their most skilled kids are also their biggest. Really good kids to, well mannered, respectful with a great passion for the game.
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:05 pm
by Pylon
Tournament Champions
2002 Manitoba 2K2 Warriors
2001 Anaheim Wildcats
2000 Minnesota Machine
1999 Minnesota Machine
1998 Selkirk JR Steelers (Manitoba)
1997 Team Pepsi (Manitoba)
1996 Legacy
From what I heard and saw there were some very good games in all catergories. I think for the most part, the best team won in all divisions.
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 5:45 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
Pylon wrote:Tournament Champions
2002 Manitoba 2K2 Warriors
also from Manitoba
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:44 pm
by Pylon
WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:Pylon wrote:Tournament Champions
2002 Manitoba 2K2 Warriors
also from Manitoba
I only saw them play a little bit but they were a very skilled team.
That is a fun age to watch!
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:34 am
by old goalie85
How skilled can 02's be.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:35 am
by Pylon
old goalie85 wrote:How skilled can 02's be.
Obviously you didn't watch any of the top teams play.
You would be very surprised what these young kids could do! I know I was!
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:00 am
by frederick61
I saw the 97 semifinals including the Pepsi team from Winnipeg. It was interesting to watch. One of the best things about Minnesota Association hockey is the two year window a kid has to play at a given level.
Parents are always concerned about having their kid play at the best level and having game time to develop their skills. It is probably the source of most arguments in youth hockey development. The 97 semifinals demonstrated how the two year policy helps the kids (and parents) achieve the dual goals of best level of play and game time.
The 97 semifinals consisted of kids that were borne in 1997. Minnesota’s two year policy splits the 97 kids in half. Currently, kids borne before July 1, 1997 will skate bantam hockey in Minnesota next year, kids borne after July 1, 1997 will play peewee hockey.
USA and Canadian hockey grouped the kids by year and force the kids to play up every year. Kids born in December always have to compete with January born kids in the same year. The younger kids can’t compete. In Minnesota’s two year level, the December born kids can always play at a lower level and compete at the higher level (with more ice time) the second year.
The Minnesota teams were overall younger (more peewee like teams) competing against USA/Canadian teams that were older (more bantam like teams). The Minnesota teams did well. Teams like the Pepsi team had size and skills more akin to bantam level because, I suspect, they were mostly older kids borne in the early part of the year. The younger kids in their area (borne in the later part of the year) are probably no longer interested in playing hockey because of the lack of ice time and level of play.
Minnesota's teams do well because they retain the younger players and gives all players at a given level the same opportunities at the start of each season. This is repeated over and over at each level as the kids grows. And that creates more interest in the kids and in the parents.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:35 am
by thunderwolf
Sorry Frederick, but to me, your logic appears flawed. First, I must say that single birth year hockey in Canada is generally ony played in large Metro areas like Toronto, and even then is primarily only used at the AAA level. Designations like A and AA, or Major and Minor are no different than A and B in Minnesota and aren't based on a players age, but their skill level.
The only real difference between the systems is the cutoff deadline, Minnesota being July 1, I believe, and Canada being Dec. 31.
Saying that the system is biased against players born in December, as they have to always play agains players born in January is no different than saying that Minnesota players born in June are disadvantaged because they play against players born in July. Either way, there is a cutoff in place and some players birthdates fall right before, and some shortly thereafter.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:56 am
by frederick61
After I posted the above, I ran across this on another thread posted by
“WhosPuckIsItAnyways?”
“Here's a compelling breakdown of last years WHL Bantam Draft. This is the Western Canada/USA draft of Bantam Majors, where January 1 is the start date ...
– The breakdown by birth month:
January – 47 players
February – 38 players
March – 23 players
April – 32 players
May – 20 players
June – 17 players
July – 16 players
August – 11 players
September – 4 players
October – 10 players
November – 13 players
December – 4 players
Moreover, albeit a bit of a coincidence, there were 8 players drafted who had January 1 birthdays. 8!! That's as many kids born January 1 in the draft (the oldest you can possibly be) as were picked from the months of September & December combined.”
“WhosPuck…” was talking about the potential age change, but I think it demonstrates the point I was trying to make (47 players born in January drafted versus 4 players born in December).
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 1:39 pm
by buttend
frederick61 wrote:I saw the 97 semifinals including the Pepsi team from Winnipeg.
Is that team even "from Winnepeg" I was told that they were from all over Canada ( MB, SK ON)and a couple from Michigan. Were they good or just physically dominant? I was told the Legacy and Machine teams were faster and more skilled, just could not overcome the size.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:08 pm
by thunderwolf
Just curious how many Minnesota born players that made it to the NHL were July, Aug., Sept. born, again supporting the idea that the oldest players in each age group had the best chance of advancing to the highest levels.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:14 pm
by frederick61
buttend wrote:frederick61 wrote:I saw the 97 semifinals including the Pepsi team from Winnipeg.
Is that team even "from Winnepeg" I was told that they were from all over Canada ( MB, SK ON)and a couple from Michigan. Were they good or just physically dominant? I was told the Legacy and Machine teams were faster and more skilled, just could not overcome the size.
The Pepsi team was good. I did not count how many kids skated for the Pepsi. Most of the kids definitely had size to be bantams. Their smaller kids (two or three) would be a medium sized or slightly smaller peewee player. Their strength was in one wing and one center. Both players were excellent and had the size and skill to be skating in the Advanced 15 at New Hope. One of the two looked like a late rooster move (wore a make shift jersey where the others had jerseys with all the bells and whistles including names).
Their defense consisted of big, strong, kids that had basic skills but still needed development. Against the smaller Minnesota kids, they used their size and strength to compete, but did not dominate. I felt the Pepsi won because they were the stronger team over the 4 or 5 tourney games and were stronger deeper into a game. All that speaks to their age being a factor.
If you are looking to get experience at the next level, playing at this level during the summer helps. For those Minnesota kids who will be bantams next year, it had to be a good experience. For those playing peewee next year, it should really help. But most importantly, the action on ice that I saw was good hockey. Sometimes in summer hockey you play kids that want to “goon it up”. Whoever ran the tourney did a good job at least on the weekend.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:56 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
Frederick. I have to chime in because I know a lot of those Pepsi kids personally, have coached some of them and my oldest boy has played with many of them.
The team itself is made up of mostly Winnipeg area kids. There is a boy from Saskatoon (played for Saskatoon Fury AA), a boy from Detroit (played for Little Caesars '97), 3 boys from the Ochap reserve (all 3 played for Moose Mountain Wild AA) , a boy from Thompson, Manitoba, a boy from Selkirk, Manitoba and the rest from the Winnipeg area.
ALL of these boys with the exception of the Detroit kid, played 2 year gap hockey - no different than the Minnesota kids. In fact, they played against younger kids than the Minnesota boys did all year, as PeeWee hockey in Western Canada was 98/97 last year.
Some of their best players have birthdays in the second half of the year, but they are still 2 years away from the bantam draft.
A misconception is that this team was selected for size, but the truth is, the core of these boys have been together for a while, certainly on the summer AAA scene since they were 7, and coincidentally sprouted at the same time. Many are native boys - not sure if they genetically sprout earlier or not.
I agree with you this was great hockey, but it has nothing to do with the single birth year argument, which is prevelant in EASTERN CANADA and USA Tier 1. For perspective, the Top '97 birth year team (Compuware) opted to play at the '96 level in the Detroit Tournament.
I remain a staunch supporter of the 1 year system and Minnesota Hockey would really take off if it embraced this system, which not only enhances development, but increases retention and reduces injury.
The Bantam Draft thread you pointed to really underlines the disadvantage that late birthdays have in a 2 year gap system (as is the case in the Western Canadian WHL Draft). If you compare with the OHL (Ontario Hockey League) Draft, which drafts kids from a 1 year gap system, you will see a more balanced distribution of birthdays and a higher quantity (ratio-wise and overall) of developed kids to choose from due to the development opportunities available to more kids and less falling through the cracks, quitting and/or getting seriously injured.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:14 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
- One of the two looked like a late rooster move (wore a make shift jersey where the others had jerseys with all the bells and whistles including names).
That's Ethan Williams. He's not a late addition at all. Been on this squad for 3 three years. Starting Playing for Selkirk Steelers AAA as a 1st year Mite. Skinny gangly and small, but tremendously gifted around the net. Came to play for this team (originally a pick-up squad called Team Manitoba, built for the Subway & Vegas) 2 years ago. Played for Lightning Crunch (and Team Pepsi in Vegas in July) last year and sprouted physically (grew tall) over the Winter. Not sure why Williams didn't have a Pepsi logo - maybe he prefers Coke.
- Their defense consisted of big, strong, kids that had basic skills but still needed development.
That's a very good observation for the most part, although Akigan is a long term prospect and #77, Ethan Bear, is likely the best 97 defenseman West of the Mississippi.
- I felt the Pepsi won because they were the stronger team over the 4 or 5 tourney games and were stronger deeper into a game. All that speaks to their age being a factor.
Have to part company here. There is no age difference between the Pepsi kids and the Minnesota kids.
- I was told the Legacy and Machine teams were faster and more skilled, just could not overcome the size.
You were mis-informed. The top half of the Pepsi roster is as skilled and fast as any kids you will find at this age group. They all stickhandle very well, have exceptional skating skills and see the game at a higher level than most. The top end Minnesota teams have a depth advantage, as their is a significant drop in talent from the top 7-10 Pepsi players to the last 5 or 6 - and they don't shorten the bench.
Obviously the Pepsi team enjoyed an overall size advantage, but they also had a shooting advantage - almost to a man - every Pepsi player can shoot the puck like a Bantam A player - and they all know how to hit clean and strong - and how to get a dirty dig in if it's called for.
It was a great clash of hockey culture and style and a fitting close 4-3 finish.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:24 pm
by old goalie85
Nice job puck.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:49 pm
by frederick61
If Winnipeg is the starting point, I would equate their youth hockey organization similar to Duluth’s. The local associations are governed more by local Winnipeg rules then by regional or state rules. Under Winnipeg rules last year, kids were grouped by association and each association fielded “AA” teams at each year level. For example, “AA” peewee teams were 1997 and younger; “AA” minor peewee teams were 1998 or younger. “AA” minor bantams were 1996 or younger. The only “AAA” teams were Bantams that were 1995 or younger (one team) and 1996 or younger (second team). They were considered city teams.
Is there some other Winnipeg hockey that I am missing? I am confused as to what is “two year gap hockey”?
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:57 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
frederick61 wrote:If Winnipeg is the starting point, I would equate their youth hockey organization similar to Duluth’s. The local associations are governed more by local Winnipeg rules then by regional or state rules. Under Winnipeg rules last year, kids were grouped by association and each association fielded “AA” teams at each year level. For example, “AA” peewee teams were 1997 and younger; “AA” minor peewee teams were 1998 or younger. “AA” minor bantams were 1996 or younger. The only “AAA” teams were Bantams that were 1995 or younger (one team) and 1996 or younger (second team). They were considered city teams.
Is there some other Winnipeg hockey that I am missing? I am confused as to what is “two year gap hockey”?
Well, let me clear it up for you.
The Detroit boy played birth year
97 (1 year gap) AAA hockey.
The 4 Saskatchewan boys played
98/97 (2 Year gap) AA hockey
The 6 rural Manitoba boys played
98/97 (2 year gap) hockey
The 5 Winnipeg boys played
97 & under (2 year gap) AA hockey
ONLY the Detroit kid played the single birth year hockey you are refering to. The rest played in 2 year gap systems just like Minnesota.
Your confusing the Winnipeg system a little bit. It doesn't have birth year hockey. It has PeeWee AA (open to all peewees) and Minor PeeWee AA (open to just first year peewees). Then it has Bantam AA (open to all Bantams) and Minor Bantam AA (open to just first year Bantams). There is no 'Major' division in Winnipeg AA hockey. PeeWee AA and Bantam AA are 2-year gap programs which include a mix of first and second year players.
This is in place so undersized kids can continue their development in good hockey at a high level without having to face kids 50 pounds heavier than they are and a foot taller. It reduces injuries, increases retention and provides a great platform for increased and uninterupted player development for younger and/or smaller first year kids.
That said, none of the '97 Team Pepsi kids were PeeWee Minors. All played in PeeWee 2-year gap leagues just like the Minnesota kids, with the sole exception of Blaisdell (Little Caesars '97).
While I have tremendous respect for your opinins and input, I will have to respectfully submit that Team Pepsi '97 gives no legs whatsoever in supporting an argument of a 2-year system favoring a 1-year system, although I think you and I should begin a new (civil) thread on that topic, as it will be a great and long standing dialougue - and one that needs to be had.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 4:26 pm
by Goalie Dude
I think the real question here is: What the heck are they feeding their kids in Canada to make them so big?
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 4:32 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
frederick61 wrote:USA and Canadian hockey grouped the kids by year and force the kids to play up every year. Kids born in December always have to compete with January born kids in the same year. The younger kids can’t compete. In Minnesota’s two year level, the December born kids can always play at a lower level and compete at the higher level (with more ice time) the second year.
About to get way off topic here and I apologies, but there is no better argument for a 1 year system than this praragraph.
For starters, kids in a 1 year system are not
forced to play up. Quite the contrary, they stay within a 12 month window all the way up. Again, the OHL Bantam Draft is excellent proof of this, as opposed to Western Canadian 2 year gaps (like Minnesota), dominated by only the oldest kids, playing every other year with an advantage as high as 24 months and being 'average' at the worst case scenario in an off-year.
You correctly site that kids born in December are at a disadvantage against kids born 11 months earlier in a 1 year window. Now exagerate that advantage here in Minnesota (and most of Western Canada) where the youngest kids are forced to compete against kids 23 months older. Nowhere is that advantage more underlined than in the WHL Bantam Draft.
Your option of playing those young kids at a lower level of hockey only encourages bad habits, gives them a lower quality of coaching every other year and does nothing to eliminate their size/strength disparity. These young second year kids in a two year window are at a sever disadvantage compared to young kids in a 12 month window.
Winnipeg actually has a nice balance where all kids are eligible to play 2-year peewee and bantam AA hockey (years where most injuries occur) but first year kids also
have the option of playing in a 12 month window in 'minor' AA system where the coaching and competition remains at the highest level for their age group. Maximizes the safety, devolpment, and retention of these kids - not to mention their enjoyment of the game and confidence to play it.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 5:14 pm
by frederick61
I am trying to frame the debate. I looked at Team Pepsi as a product of a 1-year system, but you point out it is a product of a 2-year gap system. My position is that the current 2-year system used by Minnesota Hockey is better then a 1-year system. But where is the 1-year system defined? USA hockey? Canadian hockey? Does that definition include a 2-year gap concept?
Forced to play up maybe more my term. I meant that every year in a single year system, a kid has to change level (AA peewee to minor bantam for example). In Minnesota Hockey, the kid can play peewee hockey for up to three years depending on when in the year he was born. Kids like the stability since when they are placed on A or B or C level team depending on skill level they can look forward next year to improvement (providing their parents do have an "end of the world moment") and they know that the better, older, players will be forced to move up.
If you want start a thread.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:02 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
frederick61 wrote:
My position is that the current 2-year system used by Minnesota Hockey is better then a 1-year system.
What are you basing your position on?
In Minnesota Hockey, the kid can play peewee hockey for up to three years depending on when in the year he was born.
How is this so? What birthday gives a kid in Minnesota a 3 year entitlement to Pee Wee hockey?
Kids like the stability since when they are placed on A or B or C level team
That doesn't sound like stability at all. They get bounced around from level to level, A, B or C and get thrown to the wolves every second year, forced to play against kids 24 months older than themselves, with 40 pound disparities being the norm rather than the exception. Some years they play with their classmates and peers and others they don't.
Stability comes from a 12 month window, playing against kids at your own level, be it A, B or C on a year in and year out basis, playing with their peers all the way up, with disparities in size, weight and talent minimized and consistent on a year to year basis.
depending on skill level they can look forward next year to improvement
This isn't unique to Minnesota or 2-year gap hockey. Kids always have the potential to move up on a year to year basis depending on their improvement. A 12 month window enhances their chances of improving, as they are not denied quality coaching or dropped to a level below their skill simply due to a diminutive stature compared to the 2nd year boys.
(providing their parents do have an "end of the world moment")
Parents are an easy target. Unfortunately, incidents like the one at BIG 2 give hockey parents a bad rap, and it's easy to paint all hockey parents with the same brush. The reality is that the vast majority of parents are level headed about these sorts of things and it is the kids who get riled up about them. Most parents try to put that sort of thing in perspective for their kids and use it as a learning experience. The biggest uphill battle for kids facing the stigma of not making an A team doesn't come from parental pressure - it comes the peer pressure at school. Go to any middle school cafeteria during hockey season and you will see tables seperated by 'level' of play. A players sit at one table. C players sit at another. B players bounce back and forth depending on the dynamics. A bit of a different issue again, but has some crossover here, as this reduces some stress on the kids (not eliminates) once kids are put in a 12 month window instead of 24.
the better, older, players will be forced to move up.
In a 12 month window, they are not waiting on kids to move up, they all move up every year. There is no downside
If you want start a thread.
OK, I will. Some real good discussions to be had here.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:32 pm
by muckandgrind
WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:frederick61 wrote:
[
In Minnesota Hockey, the kid can play peewee hockey for up to three years depending on when in the year he was born.
How is this so? What birthday gives a kid in Minnesota a 3 year entitlement to Pee Wee hockey?
A kid born in July or August can play 3 years at the PeeWee level.
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 9:44 pm
by WhosPuckIsItAnyways?
muckandgrind wrote:A kid born in July or August can play 3 years at the PeeWee level.
How does that work? By requesting to "play up" as a 2nd year squirt?
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:00 pm
by MinnGirlsHockey
muckandgrind wrote:WhosPuckIsItAnyways? wrote:How is this so? What birthday gives a kid in Minnesota a 3 year entitlement to Pee Wee hockey?
A kid born in July or August can play 3 years at the PeeWee level.
I believe this still depends upon the player's association. Not all July/August birthday kids are automatically allowed to play up to PeeWees in their final year of Squirt eligibility. Some associations allow these so-called "bubble" kids to play up based on whether space is available at the PeeWee level (and assuming they don't need numbers at the Squirt level) and I think many use evaluations to determine who can and who can't.