At all age groups of hockey (Squirt, PW, Bantam) - you will find some organizations who can field power-house teams at the A level, or are deep enough to have quality players even at the C level. These organizations win most of their games, and will occasionally blow out other teams.
What I find troubling is the continued reports of 10-0 games in B level play. Some organizations seem compelled to field a B1 team even though 50% of their skaters are truly C-level players. They end up getting crushed in virtually every game - hardly an environment that will develop skills for anyone.
In other sports (soccer for example) associations self declare playing levels for younger teams (Squirt age and below). After that - the association must earn the right to field "A", B1, and B2 teams. If you lose 75% of the possible points at a B1 level, then that age group must move to B2 the next year. If you win more than 75% of the possible points - then you are required to move up a level.
I believe the intent of adding B1 teams to the mix was to enable larger associations (those with a lot of "A Bubble" kids) to have competitive games. It now seems many organizations are compelled to field a team at B1 whether they have talent or now - OR - opting against having an A team so they can win 98% of their games.
Any opinions on creating some sort of policy/enforcement program on levels of play similar to those used in other sports?
B-Level Blow-out Games
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
jBlaze3000
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Remember that Minnesota Hockey does not mandate that B teams be classified as B1 or B2, I believe it is a district thing. What happens then is that you will get good "B" teams that join B2 level tournaments and blow everyone away or lesser "B" teams that join B1 level tournaments and get killed. There is a very big difference between the best B1 teams and the worst B2 teams. I think every "B" team should be classified as B1 or B2.
One of the problems is that you have to declare so early. It would be nice to be able to set up some scrimmages to get a better feel for where your team would be able to play and then declare. I'm sure this would be a schedulers nightmare, but isn't it about the kids?
Does MN Hockey allow B1 teams to scrimmage A teams or B2 teams to scrimmage C teams?
Does MN Hockey allow B1 teams to scrimmage A teams or B2 teams to scrimmage C teams?
-
ontheglass
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:18 pm
You also have a growing number of associations who are "loading up" one of their B1 teams in hopes of winning the title. I believe 2 or 3 associations have "B1-1" teams and B1-2 teams in the mix. Makes it even tougher to figure out where to place teams.MaxSnatch wrote:One of the problems is that you have to declare so early. It would be nice to be able to set up some scrimmages to get a better feel for where your team would be able to play and then declare. I'm sure this would be a schedulers nightmare, but isn't it about the kids?
Does MN Hockey allow B1 teams to scrimmage A teams or B2 teams to scrimmage C teams?
Playing outside of a level (A versus B) requires permission from the district director(s).MaxSnatch wrote:One of the problems is that you have to declare so early. It would be nice to be able to set up some scrimmages to get a better feel for where your team would be able to play and then declare. I'm sure this would be a schedulers nightmare, but isn't it about the kids?
Does MN Hockey allow B1 teams to scrimmage A teams or B2 teams to scrimmage C teams?
-
InigoMontoya
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm
-
dogeatdog1
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:41 pm
This is a issue especially at the squirt level. Trying to pinpoint weather to have two B teams or one B and two C's is tough before tryouts and yet we have to book out tourneys prior to the season to get in the good tourneys. Anyone got the answer?InigoMontoya wrote:An issue (outside of the secret DD powers that can only be seen if you apply lemon juice to the back of the MNH handbook) is that associations are often required to declare classification prior to tryouts. Tough to tell what you've got before you see them skate, much less scrimmage.
-
smalltownhockey21
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:29 am
-
dogeatdog1
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:41 pm
I'd say Yeah but what typically happens is kids get frustrated.. Parents even more when you are 0 and 15 and haven't won a tourney game. Ask the Edina A1 squirts how it was last year.. still think it is a bad idea. learning to win is part of development too. and youth hockey is about having some fun along the way. That is one reason I don't feel bad when we put out our third line at squirts while the so called big guns (Edina Wayzata) start shortening their bench to with a game at squirts. and we lose by One or two...smalltownhockey21 wrote:I just have one question for everyone..if you skate a team above their level and you lose a game 10-0 at the beginning of the season, then at the end of the year the game is say 2-1 or 3-1 did you do your job on improving the kids?
Except when your kids are beating the other team by 10, then it is a waste of everyone's time. The winning team does not get better, develops bad habits, and gets overconfident in their abilities.I just have one question for everyone..if you skate a team above their level and you lose a game 10-0 at the beginning of the season, then at the end of the year the game is say 2-1 or 3-1 did you do your job on improving the kids?
These top B teams should be able to play lower end A teams or do something to improve competitiveness. I used to believe in having mercy on these teams, now I think you should run it up. Usually the 10-0 score includes a period or more of playing keep away. Several times our kids had to pack it in after 1 period since they were up by a bunch, only to come back the next game against a quality opponent and playing out of synch.
It is a waste of ice time-play at the right level and your kids will improve more without lowering the other teams play.
-
smalltownhockey21
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:29 am
Sorno...I get that you don't want to play lower competition so yeah I think it is important to have the right teams in the right level.It is a waste of ice time-play at the right level and your kids will improve more without lowering the other teams play.
But why should someone care about your kids improvement vs. Their kid's improvement?
I want all kids to improve and have fun, I just hate taking 3 hours out of an evening (going to, viewing, then going home) watching a blowout and paying for the icetime and refs.But why should someone care about your kids improvement vs. Their kid's improvement?
Since the district mandates that you play the game, not much you can do.
It is the waste of an evening or weekend afternoon that bothers me, not whether the kids develop or not.
-
smalltownhockey21
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:29 am
-
ilike2score
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:00 am
Currently there is associations who draw from a large pool and may field a couple 13 or 14 teams at one level. And other associations who may field one or two. Numbers are important in developing a good association. Most top level associations have numbers. My question is what do the smaller associations need to do to compete with the larger? We all create our kids the same way. After they is born, what makes some associations successful, and others, the kids are destined to nowhere?
Re: B-Level Blow-out Games
They really formed a B1 and B2 level???? sounds ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the fact that in some regions, a district will send 3 teams to a regional. The argument is beat to death, but certainly is true: Kids need to learn to lose. Get over it. Without ever playing teams above them, how is a below average team ever going to know what it takes to be successfull. Second: it used to be quite an honer to go to regions, earning one of two spots available in the districts to move on, now, all you have to do is get 3rd????? Same is true for B2.... a given program who usually would compete for a spot at regions with Alexandria, Moorhead, or Brainerd..... now has to compete with who????? Wadena, Park Rapids, Moorhead's 3rd team??????justanotherpucker wrote:At all age groups of hockey (Squirt, PW, Bantam) - you will find some organizations who can field power-house teams at the A level, or are deep enough to have quality players even at the C level. These organizations win most of their games, and will occasionally blow out other teams.
What I find troubling is the continued reports of 10-0 games in B level play. Some organizations seem compelled to field a B1 team even though 50% of their skaters are truly C-level players. They end up getting crushed in virtually every game - hardly an environment that will develop skills for anyone.
In other sports (soccer for example) associations self declare playing levels for younger teams (Squirt age and below). After that - the association must earn the right to field "A", B1, and B2 teams. If you lose 75% of the possible points at a B1 level, then that age group must move to B2 the next year. If you win more than 75% of the possible points - then you are required to move up a level.
I believe the intent of adding B1 teams to the mix was to enable larger associations (those with a lot of "A Bubble" kids) to have competitive games. It now seems many organizations are compelled to field a team at B1 whether they have talent or now - OR - opting against having an A team so they can win 98% of their games.
Any opinions on creating some sort of policy/enforcement program on levels of play similar to those used in other sports?
Little Johnny needs to learn that all will not be handed to him, he needs to learn that 1st place is a very high honor, and he has to work very hard to achieve it.
To think: there used to be one state champion.......