HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

spin-o-rama wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:

YouthHockeyHub wrote:I wrote a little piece this week on some of the side effects of the AA/A pilot.

http://youthhockeyhub.com/the-tipping-p ... -sideways/

The last 3 weeks have been very interesting to say the least.

Enjoy,

TS

Spin, I'll take you back to page one.

I already called Tony on those claims. Thanks.

And his motive?

Bo: You have confused me many times as to the basis for your position against the AA/A thing. I have always thought was based on the direct affect to your own kid? It sounds like you are from North Branch? And you are saying that even with the AA/A thing, North Branch is not going to play at the A level. You've made the claim the AA level is the holy grail and nobody will want to play A or B or C since AA is untouchable now?

So the real problem is that your son will remain a B player and there will be 2 A levels ahead of him?

If this is correct, you actually have no problem with the AA/A thing?

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: You have confused me many times as to the basis for your position against the AA/A thing. I have always thought was based on the direct affect to your own kid? It sounds like you are from North Branch? And you are saying that even with the AA/A thing, North Branch is not going to play at the A level. You've made the claim the AA level is the holy grail and nobody will want to play A or B or C since AA is untouchable now?

So the real problem is that your son will remain a B player and there will be 2 A levels ahead of him?

If this is correct, you actually have no problem with the AA/A thing?

I've always maintained that it's not about my kids, it's just that I see the negatives coming that we've talked about.

IHEA wrote:So let's see if I have this right

Former A teams, now AA will not only be playing the top teams but also former B1 teams, now A. The only associations with B1 teams that won't move up to A are those that want the team to compete at the B2 level and thereby keeping them at B1.

State playoffs have not changed because the AA teams are playing AA teams just as last year A teams played A teams. The new A teams will play A teams just like they did when they were called B1.

In the regular season we now have all of the formerly classified A teams in the same pool as the formerly classified B1 teams which means many more teams to schedule game against for the regular season at the top team level. Will there be a league requirement for AA teams to schedule an equal number of games against A teams as other AA teams?

The other levels remain unchanged as far as their competition with only letter changes.

So basically everyone gets to feel better about their new letters and the regular season top tier of hockey is diluted in that all former A and B1 players are now playing together.

Bump

Why is it difficult to understand that you basically take two groups AA/A that play a weighted schedule but compete against each other as well therefor creating a higher level of competition for A teams and keeping the AA kids playing the same teams and competition without many of the picking on the little guy games? So smaller association gets to compete with similar teams and larger associations can take kids 16-30 and put them on a team in a more competitive league than have them beat up kids 16-30 from a small association or kids 31-45 from a larger one.
I look at it like this kid from North Metro tiny hockey program gets crushed in high school because they are placed on combined number of kids in 5 schools it takes to barely field a JV and Varsity team finally getting to move to A where they belong and could compete with North Suburban teams. Meanwhile the rest of the teams left in the NW Suburban conference can add two tougher non conference foes now and have a stronger schedule and more competitive games.

This whole program is a joke. AA teams don't want to play A teams...the A programs were suppose to be for smaller towns/communities & programs, giving those kids a better chance to get to a state tournament. Does anyone see that coming? Essentially you have done nothing but change the level from B-1 to A, that's it, an alpha-numerical change...well except for the confusion that is. For this type of thing to actually work an association would need to choose between A OR AA, not be allowed to have both. How has it improved Sleepy Eye's (just an example) chances of getting to a state tournament when they still need to get by "mega-associations" like Edina, Wayzata, Eden Prairie, etc? If Minnesota Hockey was smart, they'd scrap it now and just go back to the old way!

Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

wannagototherink wrote:Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

Parody or Parity? Now there's a freudian slip

wannagototherink wrote:Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

Sounds like your Jonny is B-1???

MNM JMH wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

Sounds like your Jonny is B-1???

Whether or not Jonny is B-1, good post and I agree. I don't understand the logic of letting a AA program field an A team. Why even change it? So now some small associations will get to play B1, but get to say they play A, seems like MNH is causing a bunch of stress for nothing.

MNM JMH wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

Sounds like your Jonny is B-1???

Actually, my little Jonny isn't a B-1 at all, not that it would matters if he was, my point whether self-serving or not is valid. The reality is, anyone who believes this new program has any potential payoff in its current form is nothing more than a lemming. If someone can explain to me how this program, as it is currently being laid out, benefits anyone other than the top 10 programs and show me how the A level is any different than last year B-1 level (other than having the chance to play AA team that have zero interest in playing them) than I will change my tune & throw my full support behind this. (whatever thats worth). Heck even having both A & AA in district regular season play each other was taken away, so you can't even force the 2 levels to play each other. Did you know most of the AA programs are coordinating their tournament schedules so they don't go to tourneys allowing A teams in? This is a joke & it amazes me people can't see it.


I may be wrong, but I believe Keith Hendrickson from Virginia was the one who came up with the original plan (which looks nothing like its current state), it would be interesting to see what he or whoever came up with this program thinks of what it has become?

wannagototherink wrote:

MNM JMH wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:Furthermore, if these programs are good enough to have an A & AA team than force them to have two AA teams split equally? That would truly bring parody to both levels and this program would works...but God forbid we try to make the game more competitive, that might make it possible to develop more players across the state and that's just not fair to do to my little Gretter, he needs to play with the best against the best. Problem is, and this is all throughout hockey, USA Hockey down...we are in too big a hurry to get kids to the next level. We forget that these kids can develop until they're 25 years old. We decide at 12-15 years old who is worthy and the rest get the left overs. Most kids get their "rink rat" hockey all summer long playing AAA on this team or that team. Teams that are for the most part hand picked so everyone gets to play with who they think is the best. Why can't the real season be about trying to get EVERY player better. You can't tell me these programs that are good or big enough to field both an A & AA team, that they could make pretty competitive AA teams if they split them equally.

Sounds like your Jonny is B-1???

Actually, my little Jonny isn't a B-1 at all, not that it would matters if he was, my point whether self-serving or not is valid. The reality is, anyone who believes this new program has any potential payoff in its current form is nothing more than a lemming. If someone can explain to me how this program, as it is currently being laid out, benefits anyone other than the top 10 programs and show me how the A level is any different than last year B-1 level (other than having the chance to play AA team that have zero interest in playing them) than I will change my tune & throw my full support behind this. (whatever thats worth). Heck even having both A & AA in district regular season play each other was taken away, so you can't even force the 2 levels to play each other. Did you know most of the AA programs are coordinating their tournament schedules so they don't go to tourneys allowing A teams in? This is a joke & it amazes me people can't see it.


I may be wrong, but I believe Keith Hendrickson from Virginia was the one who came up with the original plan (which looks nothing like its current state), it would be interesting to see what he or whoever came up with this program thinks of what it has become?

Aside from D6, what districts are segregating AA from A during the regular season? I don't think many have enough of both level to have the luxury.

Bluewhitefan wrote:

wannagototherink wrote:

MNM JMH wrote: Sounds like your Jonny is B-1???

Actually, my little Jonny isn't a B-1 at all, not that it would matters if he was, my point whether self-serving or not is valid. The reality is, anyone who believes this new program has any potential payoff in its current form is nothing more than a lemming. If someone can explain to me how this program, as it is currently being laid out, benefits anyone other than the top 10 programs and show me how the A level is any different than last year B-1 level (other than having the chance to play AA team that have zero interest in playing them) than I will change my tune & throw my full support behind this. (whatever thats worth). Heck even having both A & AA in district regular season play each other was taken away, so you can't even force the 2 levels to play each other. Did you know most of the AA programs are coordinating their tournament schedules so they don't go to tourneys allowing A teams in? This is a joke & it amazes me people can't see it.


I may be wrong, but I believe Keith Hendrickson from Virginia was the one who came up with the original plan (which looks nothing like its current state), it would be interesting to see what he or whoever came up with this program thinks of what it has become?

Aside from D6, what districts are segregating AA from A during the regular season? I don't think many have enough of both level to have the luxury.

I was told District 2, 10 & 11 were also not having a mixed league schedule.

It was Dave Hendrickson who presented an AA/A proposal to the Mn Hockey board either 2003 or earlier when he was the DD for District IR now District 12.

Also it is my understanding the District 10 will follow the playing schedule they used last year for their "A" Bantam League and "A"Peewee league both will have 2 divisions with a home and home within their division and a single game against each team in the other division. Last year's A Bantam league was set up that way.

greybeard58 wrote:It was Dave Hendrickson who presented an AA/A proposal to the Mn Hockey board either 2003 or earlier when he was the DD for District IR now District 12.

Isn't Dave the one who also pushed for the break up of the one class high school hockey tournament?

If I remember correctly it was the Coach at Brooklyn Center that was one of the pushers back in the 90's

How did that work out for the Centaurs?

Maybe should have spent some energy recruiting and developing BC program.

Same said for AA - A - if the top programs are stronger, recruit and develop your programs to compete rather than throw in the towel and create a new level to compete at for false glory.

wannagototherink wrote: Heck even having both A & AA in district regular season play each other was taken away, so you can't even force the 2 levels to play each other.

D16 the AA play the A in the regular season - MANDATORY.

I may be wrong, but I believe Keith Hendrickson from Virginia was the one who came up with the original plan (which looks nothing like its current state), it would be interesting to see what he or whoever came up with this program thinks of what it has become?

You are right, this is not what Dave H. proposed.

elliott70 wrote:

wannagototherink wrote: Heck even having both A & AA in district regular season play each other was taken away, so you can't even force the 2 levels to play each other.

D16 the AA play the A in the regular season - MANDATORY.

I may be wrong, but I believe Keith Hendrickson from Virginia was the one who came up with the original plan (which looks nothing like its current state), it would be interesting to see what he or whoever came up with this program thinks of what it has become?

You are right, this is not what Dave H. proposed.

Elliott, I'm glad to see you are around...can you give some insight on why Minnesota Hockey has allowed this program to migrate so far from the way it was originally intended? I personally don't understand it and if I'm off base I would like to know it.

If AA and A teams become so divided that they don't play conference games or tournaments together then what is the point. If that happens then this whole concept will be a complete failure (unless you happen to be affiliated with one of the AA teams, then you probably think its great)

What is so wrong with keeping the same system (A, B1, B2, C) but having guidelines or requirements that certain numbers of kids at a given level would prompt an A team or two A teams if numbers allow it.

Example: at least one A team for every 60 kids that tryout.

This would create parity and the competitive games that are good for everyone, right?

I agree with others who have said this plan (AA/A) will suck the life out of the small metro associations that are still keeping it together. This will quicken association mergers and ultimately hurt hockey growth the way most of us want it.

There were some good intentions stated in MN Hockey's announcement of the program, but the manipulation of it will be a detriment to many hard working kids out there.

dlow wrote:If AA and A teams become so divided that they don't play conference games or tournaments together then what is the point. If that happens then this whole concept will be a complete failure (unless you happen to be affiliated with one of the AA teams, then you probably think its great)

What is so wrong with keeping the same system (A, B1, B2, C) but having guidelines or requirements that certain numbers of kids at a given level would prompt an A team or two A teams if numbers allow it.

Example: at least one A team for every 60 kids that tryout.

This would create parity and the competitive games that are good for everyone, right?

I agree with others who have said this plan (AA/A) will suck the life out of the small metro associations that are still keeping it together. This will quicken association mergers and ultimately hurt hockey growth the way most of us want it.

There were some good intentions stated in MN Hockey's announcement of the program, but the manipulation of it will be a detriment to many hard working kids out there.

dlow: I also fear MN Hockey will not adminster this proposal correctly. However, you ask what's wrong with the A,B1,B2,C? The problem is there has long been a great divide between the top 40-50 A teams and the bottom 50-60 A teams. Add to that many of the top 40-50 A associations fielded 1-2 very strong B teams that many associations started fielding B2 teams. So we divided the B level in B1 and B2. But the top 20-30 B1 teams are deeper in talent than the bottom 40-50 A teams. So there is a large cross-over in the A-B1 levels. (Right or wrong, A's can't play B's)

Top level A programs have dominated tournament play, District and Regional play. And I think it's safe to say no team outside of the top 30 has ever made it to a State Tournament in recent history. So the AA-A proposal for POST SEASON TOURNAMENTS makes perfect sense.

Where the problems will come. If associations try to "out think" the proposal. If associations do the "wrong thing" for it's players and don't field the right number of teams at the right levels. If "special interests" manipulate the intent of the proposal. If parents freak out without knowing up from down.

We have done the A,B,C thing. We added another B level, so we now think of the status-quo as A,B1,B2,C. B2's can play B1's and they do. If the B2 thing hasn't hurt hockey then how would a A1-A2 hurt hockey?

Edina is still not going to schedule non-league home & home games with Austin or Albert Lea. But to say it is bad because associations on the outer fringe of the Metro area will lose all their "good" players to large AA associations is foolish. Field teams based on the ability level of your association within the levels of play provided. Parents have and will continue to move their kids around chasing greener pastures.

Very well said Badger Bob!

Need to give this a shot. The reality with the previous set-up is that the "B" champions in Peewee and Bantam were really middle of the pack "A" teams. On the "A" level, the balance of power was centered primarily on metro area large associations.

This new proposal offers some distinct advantages to many kids. There will be 64 more teams play an extra week (32 Bantam, 32 Peewee), with 16 additional teams getting to play in state. Not sure how that can hurt kids. Also, the "B" champion will truly be a "B"team. It will take some time to sort through the AA/A district play and association sponsored tourneys, but it will get worked out.

No one can claim success or failure of the experiment until you actually conduct the experiment. In the mean time, over 900 kids get to play in a regional tourney that would not have before, and 225 kids will get to play in a state tourney that would not have before.

Plus the top teams will still get to play other top teams without having a dozen or so forced blowouts in district play. Minnesota Hockey had to do this due to the dominance of the huge associations at the A and B level. This should level the playing field without watering down the top teams.

sorno82 wrote:Need to give this a shot. The reality with the previous set-up is that the "B" champions in Peewee and Bantam were really middle of the pack "A" teams. On the "A" level, the balance of power was centered primarily on metro area large associations.

This new proposal offers some distinct advantages to many kids. There will be 64 more teams play an extra week (32 Bantam, 32 Peewee), with 16 additional teams getting to play in state. Not sure how that can hurt kids. Also, the "B" champion will truly be a "B"team. It will take some time to sort through the AA/A district play and association sponsored tourneys, but it will get worked out.

No one can claim success or failure of the experiment until you actually conduct the experiment. In the mean time, over 900 kids get to play in a regional tourney that would not have before, and 225 kids will get to play in a state tourney that would not have before.

Plus the top teams will still get to play other top teams without having a dozen or so forced blowouts in district play. Minnesota Hockey had to do this due to the dominance of the huge associations at the A and B level. This should level the playing field without watering down the top teams.

Couldn't they just have had a state tournament for teams in the upper half of district standings and another tournament for the teams in the lower(standings will determine what tournament you play in) half? Probably would have saved all the headaches that are to come with this AA/A brain fart.....

If this is really about getting all (weaker) teams a state tournament experience......?