Mega, A, B, Small B, C and house

[elliott70]

Please comment on the following idea:

Minnesota Hockey changes the A, B, C class to

Mega - This would include all associations over a certain size. They would be an A classification and eleigible to play all A teams. They would have a state tournament. The 'state' would include any small association that would elect to participate.

A - All assocaitions would be eligible to enter an A team. Mega would have their first team in the higher class. This would be a second state tournament.

B - Would be the second team from smaller associations and the third, fourth, fifth from larger associations. Separate state tournament.

Small B - would be from associations that normally only have one team at every level.

C - similar to existing programs, limited travel, no state tournaments. Rec hockey with a little more.

House - all players would be eligible. No travel (or limited based on conditions) Basically dual rostering for travel players and playing in games on home ice against other kids.

[highschoolhockeyfann]

I am a little confused, is this your idea? Or Minnesota hockeys?

[elliott70]

I am a little confused, is this your idea? Or Minnesota hockeys?

This is 'an' idea.

The 'Discernment Committee' is trying to get ideas and feeling from all hockey people.
So, no, this is not a MN Hockey idea being pursued.
But, yes, it could be. All ideas are acceptable at this time to the committee.
And, since I serve on the steering committee, I am open for discussion.
Which I am hoping this thread will generate.

Yes, yes/no, looking for all/any. Those would be the appropraite answers.

[Pucknutz69]

I like it.

Or what if each district had an Elite team made up of the top players. Like a preseason Advanced program. Coaches would apply, kids would be nominated based on the level of play the previous year, It could have it's own State tournament then the top team gets a shot at nationals. Run it like the Elite 2 program, weekend series 3-4 games, invitational tournaments with outstate or foreign competition. It would let Minnesota Hockey gain control of the AAA hockey, create opportunities for other players to gain training and or coaching. Shattuck without the $35,000 tuition attached.

[whockeyguy]

really it is not much differant from what is is now, just a little more names to it, your still going to have the same problems as with the current situation, , seems like if this was the alternative then leave it alonne

[Marty McSorely]

I think this is just explained wrong. It appears a different way to have a class level.

Class 1 associations (over 500 kids)
Class 2 associations (300-500 kids)
Class 3 associations (under-300)

From here associations would be told what level teams they can have A, B or C. A smaller association could move up if they want. A State Tourney would be Class 1 A&B, Class 2 A&B, Class 3 B&C.

Not rocket science but similar to High School but have the levels within the class.

[Hobey Faker]

I like the idea. I think this would help level the playing field for smaller associations and include more kids in the state tournament experience.
definitely worth taking a serious look.

[SEMetro]

This looks like an attempt to fix the problems caused by a huge association fielding only one A team.

A good example of this can be seen from Edina's squirt A scores - 10 reported games - only 1 game within 7 goals. This year Edina has 12 squirt teams with only one A team. Any reasonable hockey person could see this coming.

http://www.edinahockeyassociation.com/t ... eam=team14

IMO the best solution is to require mega-associations (Wayzata, Edina, etc.) to field 2 A teams at a given level if their numbers hit a certain point. It is the simplest solution.

The proposal to create more classifications for state titles is not bad but there will be feedback from folks worried that little Johnny will not develop if he is playing at the A level and not in the "Edina/Wayzata AAA league."

If this passes, you might also get some combinations of associations/high schools that want to combine to form one AAA team to play in the Edina/Wayzata AAA league - similar to an association like Rochester fielding one A team for multiple high schools.

[egf hockey1]

It sounds like it would turn into separate metro / outstate state tournaments. D16 is already spread out enough and to do this we would almost have to combine with D15, even with combining it would be a three team Mega District tourney with Moorhead, (Bemidji and Roseau if they decide to move up classifications.) I kind of like it the way it is, although seeing more teams in the State tourney would be nice (16 teams)

[puckboy]

is this only for tournament play or would seperate districts be formed for district play.

I agree with the post about multiple A team. If large association did thiit would solve a few of the problems.

[goldy313]

I don't like the "mega" idea unless the idea behind it is to force these large associations to field more teams at the A level; Edina Squirts or Rochester Bantams for example. Otherwise if it's just another class and what associaton wouldn't want the chance to play "mega" at the end of the year, it's more games.

I really like the House idea, personally I think every kid should have to play in a house league and have their traveling team as a "secondary" team. That way if you want to travel you can and if you don't you can still play against higher level players. Play house hockey 1 night a week then the kids who want to travel go to that team the rest of the week and give the kids who don't some ice to work on their own skills. I think an immediate impact would be an increase in kids playing hockey, travel knocks to many out too soon. The more kids we can keep playing hockey the better off we'll be.

[boardmember]

This looks like an attempt to fix the problems caused by a huge association fielding only one A team.

A good example of this can be seen from Edina's squirt A scores - 10 reported games - only 1 game within 7 goals. This year Edina has 12 squirt teams with only one A team. Any reasonable hockey person could see this coming.

http://www.edinahockeyassociation.com/t ... eam=team14

Exactly SEMetro!


If you are seriously going to have a discussion on reviewing/changing the class set up for Minnesota Hockey, the proposal in this thread is not the place to start! If you looking to level set the competition and provide more kids the opprotunity to play at an A or B level, than look no further than requiring large Associations to field 2 A teams at a certain registration number per level.

Edina had over 200+ Squirts 1 A team (12 other squirt Teams)
Other large Districts with 1 Squirt A Team
Woodbury 9 SQ teams
Wayzata 8+ SQ travel teams + in house teams
White Bear Lake 10 SQ Teams
Minnetonka 8 SQ teams
Eastview 7 SQ teams
Roseville 9 SQ teams

I'm sure I've missed others!

Smaller Metro associations

Bloomington Jefferson 4 Sq Teams
Burnsville 4 Sq teams
Bloomington Kennedy 3 teams
Prior Lake 4 teams
Richfield 2 teams
Apple Valley 4 teams
Mpls Park 4 teams
Hopkins 3 teams
+ many, many others

Whats the registration number?? 80,90,100 players per level???

If its Mega you want than join......

Jefferson/Kennedy
Maple Grove /Osseo
Eastview/Apple Valley
Lakeville North/South
Combine the 6-7 Duluth SQ teams
St Cloud and Roch field only 1 "A" team

[Hockeyguy_27]

This looks like an attempt to fix the problems caused by a huge association fielding only one A team.

A good example of this can be seen from Edina's squirt A scores - 10 reported games - only 1 game within 7 goals. This year Edina has 12 squirt teams with only one A team. Any reasonable hockey person could see this coming.

http://www.edinahockeyassociation.com/t ... eam=team14

IMO the best solution is to require mega-associations (Wayzata, Edina, etc.) to field 2 A teams at a given level if their numbers hit a certain point. It is the simplest solution.

The proposal to create more classifications for state titles is not bad but there will be feedback from folks worried that little Johnny will not develop if he is playing at the A level and not in the "Edina/Wayzata AAA league."

If this passes, you might also get some combinations of associations/high schools that want to combine to form one AAA team to play in the Edina/Wayzata AAA league - similar to an association like Rochester fielding one A team for multiple high schools.

This is a great idea! I like this and Elliot's idea. The only exception is teams like Roseau should not be penalized against competing in the Mega class should they choose to.

[SEMetro]

You can fix the competitive problems in one of two simple ways: (1) requiring two A teams if you field a certain number (eight or more?) of teams at a given age level; or (2) setting a fixed minimum percentage of players that should be allowed to play at an A level (top 15%?).

Elliott, given how difficult it is for any volunteer board to find the time to make significant changes, I think getting this type of proposal through would be much easier than setting up an extra state tournament for mega associations. Good luck.

[elliott70]

We have self-imposed time lines to do certain things in an effort to have MN Hockey more responsive. We have met 3 times. The next meeting will have afew agenda items, including sending out questionnaires to coaches, players, board members.

I try to stay ahead (be prepared) of the meetings. In this case I am throwing out an idea (this particular idea was not discussed in this format but in a similar vain) trying to get commentary and additional ideas.

This idea is based on current things that re happening in some places and in some manner.

All of you have given great responses, but none have been all inclusive of what we have talked about as reasons (our perception of what reasons people want certain things).

But the more ideas and opinions the better - off the wall, keep everything the same, change this, change that - it all helps.

We meet again on the 19th or 20th, so add something.

Thanks

[spin-o-rama]

SEMetro & Boardmember - Your ideas make the most sense.

Also, maybe have a buffer zone. For instance, if an association has over 140 at a level then 2 A teams, if 120-139 then they can opt for 1 or 2.

If an association has 2 A teams should they be balanced? Edina was willing to do 2 unbalanced A teams (1-15 and 16-30), but D6 said they had to be even so Edina went with 1.

[sorno82]

SEMetro & Boardmember - Your ideas make the most sense.

Also, maybe have a buffer zone. For instance, if an association has over 140 at a level then 2 A teams, if 120-139 then they can opt for 1 or 2.

If an association has 2 A teams should they be balanced? Edina was willing to do 2 unbalanced A teams (1-15 and 16-30), but D6 said they had to be even so Edina went with 1.

[SEMetro]

All of you have given great responses, but none have been all inclusive of what we have talked about as reasons (our perception of what reasons people want certain things).

I was just cherry-picking the easiest fix for a growing problem. I agree there is also a "small B" problem wherein you only can field one team at a given level. Those teams as they are usually too weak for true A but sometimes too strong for true B especially if there is a line + of true A players. You see this quite often on the girls side. If the logistics can be figured out, a separate tourney for small B makes sense.

If an association has 2 A teams should they be balanced? Edina was willing to do 2 unbalanced A teams (1-15 and 16-30), but D6 said they had to be even so Edina went with 1.

Yes, otherwise you are just adding another level (A2) to the four other levels (A, B1, B2 and C). You are doing nothing to even out the competition problems faced at the A and B1 levels by the megas.

[HooBear]

Let me see if I am clear on the proposal:

Mega would be top players in any association or essentially A1. Would be open to any association that desired no matter what size. Would be predicated on minimal size eg. If > 100 Bantams total in program would need to have a Mega team/A1 (# is debateable). If over threshold # would an association be forced to field a team? (Seems the intent, I agree with it)

A would be open to any association, but would essentially be an A2. For large programs, would be the second A team eg Players 16-30 for the hypothetical 100 Bantams program. For smaller programs would be their top group.

B would then be split into B and small B (basically B1 and B2). Would smaller associations be able to play up to B1 if they would like to, similar to A1, A2?

C left alone

House left alone

Thoughts:
1. Allow the local associations to make decisions as to playing up, but enforce the rule that if over a certain number of players at each level the association must field a team at the higher levels example >100 Bantams must have 2 A teams either A1 + A1 or A1 + A2. This would help avoid an association from dropping a team from example A2 to B1 to improve chances of "Johnny going to State"
2. Consider use of promotion/relegation as in soccer? If a team finishes dead last then it is relegated to the level below the following year? If it wins it's District or goes to State then it must move up a level? I know that there is turnover of team players, but in general it would indicate the strength of the association at the particular level. So If there is an A1, A2 and A2 goes to State, the next year you would have 2 A1 teams in this age group in this association?
3. Encourage House or even C teams to have exchange 1 day tournaments? One of the weaknesses/problems of House is that in most associations, there are only 2-3 House teams...who get bored playing each other. Encouraging 1-2 single day exchange series might improve the quality of the experience.

[BNyrup24]

If an association has 2 A teams should they be balanced? Edina was willing to do 2 unbalanced A teams (1-15 and 16-30), but D6 said they had to be even so Edina went with 1.

D3, D10 and others apparently allow unbalanced teams (at least at the B1 level, and I assume at the A level as well). Seems to me that this should be consistent througout the state, not left for districts to decide.

[5thgraders]

[quote="elliott70"]We have self-imposed time lines to do certain things in an effort to have MN Hockey more responsive. We have met 3 times. The next meeting will have afew agenda items, including sending out questionnaires to coaches, players, board members.

I try to stay ahead (be prepared) of the meetings. In this case I am throwing out an idea (this particular idea was not discussed in this format but in a similar vain) trying to get commentary and additional ideas.

This idea is based on current things that re happening in some places and in some manner.

All of you have given great responses, but none have been all inclusive of what we have talked about as reasons (our perception of what reasons people want certain things).

But the more ideas and opinions the better - off the wall, keep everything the same, change this, change that - it all helps.

We meet again on the 19th or 20th, so add something.

Thanks[/quote] USA HOCKEY TIER 1 AAA = PROBLEM SOLVED

[elliott70]

We have self-imposed time lines to do certain things in an effort to have MN Hockey more responsive. We have met 3 times. The next meeting will have afew agenda items, including sending out questionnaires to coaches, players, board members.

I try to stay ahead (be prepared) of the meetings. In this case I am throwing out an idea (this particular idea was not discussed in this format but in a similar vain) trying to get commentary and additional ideas.

This idea is based on current things that re happening in some places and in some manner.

All of you have given great responses, but none have been all inclusive of what we have talked about as reasons (our perception of what reasons people want certain things).

But the more ideas and opinions the better - off the wall, keep everything the same, change this, change that - it all helps.

We meet again on the 19th or 20th, so add something.

Thanks

USA HOCKEY TIER 1 AAA = PROBLEM SOLVED

Your response is not adequate.
What probelm does it solve and why?
What problems would it create?

[zboni99]

Without outside restrictions I don't think an A1 league will work. You will always have people (in associations) who will always make teams at the highest level regardless.

I like the soccer idea of a premier league. That works because soccer levels are one-year levels. I don't think you should penalize/reward the year ahead or behind by the results of the other. So why doesn't MN hockey go to a PW minor and major, Bantam minor and major levels. You would get twice as many kids playing at the A level. Keep the age dates aligned with the school year so kids play with the kids in their grade. Another benefit is keeping the locker room age appropriate. I don't really like my kid being in the locker room with kids a year older. The older kids are socially/emotionally at a higer level. I think there is a huge difference between 6 and 7, and 8 and 9 grades. With this structure, teams can be moved up or down the next year based on the results of the previous year. To appease the people who's kids won't be playing against kids a year older, MN Hockey sanctions Tier 1 AAA hockey aligned with birthyear. This way they can play against the top teams in the country.

Why not have a B2 and a C state tournament. Those kids might not be as good but they still would like to play for a state title as much as the A players.

I agree, all districts should either stack their teams for a run to state or make multiple teams equal in talent. Since policing balanced teams would be a nightmare, districts should stack teams state wide.

D6 rules state if you have multiple teams they have to be competitive. That doesn't mean equal. I'm sure Edina Squits16-30 could have been competitive at the A level. I'll bet the same is true for Wayzata in D3.

[skillbuilder]

Elliot,
This has some similarities to my "developing skill sets" post currently on page 10 about 25 topics down. If you care to re-read that post it speaks for me well on this idea and will give you some additional points to re-hash per your request.

[edge]

Could Minnesota go with the tier 1 and 2 per age group like all the other states and keep the associations the same?
I know Minnesota does not want to go down the birth year road because of the high school teams and the additional 9th graders it would have.
But will it come to a point when they will look at it?