AA level hockey

[Quasar]

For the past few days there has been a raging debate going on about District 9’s attempt to figure out how to handle a hand full of top players in the Bantam and Peewee A divisions in their District.

This post does not want to discuss that situation any further.!!

Rather. I would like to hear from serious people on the forum, which is read by many Minnesota hockey parents and players, about the problem of the top 5 or 6 % of players in any age group that are better than average. . These kids usually are the first line of most A teams…Coaches will short shift these kids to win close games. This is acceptable because the whole point of the exercise at the A level is to win. All coaches and kids know this. Most people have no problem with this, even though the other kids on the team have to sit.

People on this forum making noise about “Development” seem to be opposed to AA level teams in the Minnesota hockey structure fearing that it will lead to the dreaded AAA. . I see that as them saying that the elite player can play down, so the other kids can benefit from playing with elite players. The fact that the elite player cannot play up with his peers to “Develop” seems to fly right past their radar.

My suggestion is to form District teams that compete at the AA level… Any kid in the district can try out for the district team. I think the state could support 8 AA teams. They could have their own state tournament bracket, play within the Minnesota hockey rules, and the current District set up need not be changed. With the elite players removed, the remaining teams would be better balanced, producing a higher level of parity within each district come play off time.

The standards would have to be set high, and adhered to produce a true AA division. These cannot be a jazzed up A teams. Professional coaches and management of these AA teams can assure that only the elite will be playing at this level.

The question about A and AA teams in the future has been asked, and is being discussed at the district level in Minnesota.

Please refrain from emotional outbursts. Everyone at the Peewee and Bantam level knows this is a problem.

So the question is, how is this issue going to be resolved?

[Quasar]

I neglected to mention, this would only be at the Peewee and Bantam
level....It's really too hard to determine at the younger ages. perhaps, only Bantams should be considered ?

[Survey]

Am I reading that correct where there is only 8 teams?

If so, that would be pretty boring playing the same 8 teams for over 5 months. Sure some strong "A" teams would want to play them but that would be like a B1 team playing an A team and for the most part that's not allowed at some organizations.

Maybe I'm not understanding your suggestion.

[dogeatdog1]

For the past few days there has been a raging debate going on about District 9’s attempt to figure out how to handle a hand full of top players in the Bantam and Peewee A divisions in their District.

This post does not want to discuss that situation any further.!!

Rather. I would like to hear from serious people on the forum, which is read by many Minnesota hockey parents and players, about the problem of the top 5 or 6 % of players in any age group that are better than average. . These kids usually are the first line of most A teams…Coaches will short shift these kids to win close games. This is acceptable because the whole point of the exercise at the A level is to win. All coaches and kids know this. Most people have no problem with this, even though the other kids on the team have to sit.

People on this forum making noise about “Development” seem to be opposed to AA level teams in the Minnesota hockey structure fearing that it will lead to the dreaded AAA. . I see that as them saying that the elite player can play down, so the other kids can benefit from playing with elite players. The fact that the elite player cannot play up with his peers to “Develop” seems to fly right past their radar.

My suggestion is to form District teams that compete at the AA level… Any kid in the district can try out for the district team. I think the state could support 8 AA teams. They could have their own state tournament bracket, play within the Minnesota hockey rules, and the current District set up need not be changed. With the elite players removed, the remaining teams would be better balanced, producing a higher level of parity within each district come play off time.

The standards would have to be set high, and adhered to produce a true AA division. These cannot be a jazzed up A teams. Professional coaches and management of these AA teams can assure that only the elite will be playing at this level.

The question about A and AA teams in the future has been asked, and is being discussed at the district level in Minnesota.

Please refrain from emotional outbursts. Everyone at the Peewee and Bantam level knows this is a problem.

So the question is, how is this issue going to be resolved?

My take.

Development doesn't come in the last 5 minutes of a game and most good association have some sort of = effort = play time policy. At least up until bantams. I have always been the proponent of having kids challenged and playing at the right level. I have been coaching for more than 20 years and have never been in a position that I felt I was at a competetive disadvantage due to a wide range of talent on a single team.

Don't get me wrong it is tough to keep a Gretter like player engaged and maintain development for him/her. But those kids that are that talented are normally self motivating and do things outside the rink to maintain that level of play. I truely don't think that catering to those players by giving them more development opportunities is the right solution. It is the coaches job to develop all the kids and not focus on one end of the spectrum or the other. If you see a mite coach standing blowing a whistle without skating hard up and down the rink to work with all of the kids you have the wrong coach. If you have a peewee coach setting power plays and penalty kills at the beginning of the season and not giving everyone the chance to succeed or fail you have the wrong coach. The answer is not always spend $$$ on creating a new class of team with super competitive coaches and pulling those kids out of the mix. There is always a bubble kid that needs an opportunity to succeed or fail to learn from those mistakes and successes. Too many people are looking to get "My" kid the strategic advantage and the extra little boost to make him or her the superstar that should not have to play wth little Johnny bubble. I look at it like this. I want to make little Johnny bubble the best player that he can be so the superstar son/daughter has a chance to win state when he or she gets to highschool and maybe just maybe the roles on that team will be reversed (It happens more than you think).. Hockey the ultimate team sport.

[Quasar]

Am I reading that correct where there is only 8 teams?

If so, that would be pretty boring playing the same 8 teams for over 5 months. Sure some strong "A" teams would want to play them but that would be like a B1 team playing an A team and for the most part that's not allowed at some organizations.

Maybe I'm not understanding your suggestion.

I guess I think there are only enough tier 1 players to fill out 8 teams..

These are the things that have to be discussed. There are other teams in the area ...The Fire....St Mary shad. Fargo Force...
I don't have any answers just the question.. Thanks for starting the discussion... Q

[imaloserbaby]

there would be 9 teams if you include Rochester Red.

Sorry. I tried to resist but couldn't help it.

[Quasar]

[

Development doesn't come in the last 5 minutes of a game and most good association have some sort of = effort = play time policy. At least up until bantams. I have always been the proponent of having kids challenged and playing at the right level. I have been coaching for more than 20 years and have never been in a position that I felt I was at a competetive disadvantage due to a wide range of talent on a single team.

Don't get me wrong it is tough to keep a Gretter like player engaged and maintain development for him/her. But those kids that are that talented are normally self motivating and do things outside the rink to maintain that level of play. I truely don't think that catering to those players by giving them more development opportunities is the right solution. It is the coaches job to develop all the kids and not focus on one end of the spectrum or the other. If you see a mite coach standing blowing a whistle without skating hard up and down the rink to work with all of the kids you have the wrong coach. If you have a peewee coach setting power plays and penalty kills at the beginning of the season and not giving everyone the chance to succeed or fail you have the wrong coach. The answer is not always spend $$$ on creating a new class of team with super competitive coaches and pulling those kids out of the mix. There is always a bubble kid that needs an opportunity to succeed or fail to learn from those mistakes and successes. Too many people are looking to get "My" kid the strategic advantage and the extra little boost to make him or her the superstar that should not have to play wth little Johnny bubble. I look at it like this. I want to make little Johnny bubble the best player that he can be so the superstar son/daughter has a chance to win state when he or she gets to highschool and maybe just maybe the roles on that team will be reversed (It happens more than you think).. Hockey the ultimate team sport.

Thanks for the input.. I really don't know. I've been around hockey for a long time. The Minnesota hockey system has worked well for me and mine. My son played D111 more than I ever hoped for. It's a hot topic that needs some resolution in the near future.

I really don't have a dog in the fight. But I think all the parents of squirts on up should be at least thinking about this.

[Quasar]

there would be 9 teams if you include Rochester Red.

Sorry. I tried to resist but couldn't help it.

LOL.......................

[dogeatdog1]

[

Development doesn't come in the last 5 minutes of a game and most good association have some sort of = effort = play time policy. At least up until bantams. I have always been the proponent of having kids challenged and playing at the right level. I have been coaching for more than 20 years and have never been in a position that I felt I was at a competetive disadvantage due to a wide range of talent on a single team.

Don't get me wrong it is tough to keep a Gretter like player engaged and maintain development for him/her. But those kids that are that talented are normally self motivating and do things outside the rink to maintain that level of play. I truely don't think that catering to those players by giving them more development opportunities is the right solution. It is the coaches job to develop all the kids and not focus on one end of the spectrum or the other. If you see a mite coach standing blowing a whistle without skating hard up and down the rink to work with all of the kids you have the wrong coach. If you have a peewee coach setting power plays and penalty kills at the beginning of the season and not giving everyone the chance to succeed or fail you have the wrong coach. The answer is not always spend $$$ on creating a new class of team with super competitive coaches and pulling those kids out of the mix. There is always a bubble kid that needs an opportunity to succeed or fail to learn from those mistakes and successes. Too many people are looking to get "My" kid the strategic advantage and the extra little boost to make him or her the superstar that should not have to play wth little Johnny bubble. I look at it like this. I want to make little Johnny bubble the best player that he can be so the superstar son/daughter has a chance to win state when he or she gets to highschool and maybe just maybe the roles on that team will be reversed (It happens more than you think).. Hockey the ultimate team sport.

Thanks for the input.. I really don't know. I've been around hockey for a long time. The Minnesota hockey system has worked well for me and mine. My son played D111 more than I ever hoped for. It's a hot topic that needs some resolution in the near future.

I really don't have a dog in the fight. But I think all the parents of squirts on up should be at least thinking about this.

I agree the current model is working fine. I have coached kids at bantams that I thought man that kid has something.. Low and behold he ends up playing up to highschool and no more. Same year a little kid that was a role player smart and loved the game ended up playing D1 both have come back to me after college and thanked me for what I did for them. The highschool player is now coaching at the Bantam level and it is fun to see how his teams look. I can't wait to see my kids and their buddies make the run at the Highschool title and see which ones rise to the top. (Heck my kid might not be a part of that team but I am sure he will be there for his buddies) That is what youth hockey is all about. Not seeing if I can make my son into the next #1 draft pick.

[Quasar]

I agree the current model is working fine. I have coached kids at bantams that I thought man that kid has something.. Low and behold he ends up playing up to high school and no more. Same year a little kid that was a role player smart and loved the game ended up playing D1 both have come back to me after college and thanked me for what I did for them. The highschool player is now coaching at the Bantam level and it is fun to see how his teams look. I can't wait to see my kids and their buddies make the run at the Highschool title and see which ones rise to the top. (Heck my kid might not be a part of that team but I am sure he will be there for his buddies) That is what youth hockey is all about. Not seeing if I can make my son into the next #1 draft pick.

I get it. I coached my kid through Bantams, he played because he loved the game. He was surrounded by other kids like him. 9 kids from his varsity team went on to play in college at all levels. My grandson is a 97 Bantam now.. He is in the middle of his growth spurt, so who knows ?.

I'm thinking about the kids that we all know are special... If and when your son decided he was going to be the #1 draft pick.

Then what ?

[dogeatdog1]

I agree the current model is working fine. I have coached kids at bantams that I thought man that kid has something.. Low and behold he ends up playing up to high school and no more. Same year a little kid that was a role player smart and loved the game ended up playing D1 both have come back to me after college and thanked me for what I did for them. The highschool player is now coaching at the Bantam level and it is fun to see how his teams look. I can't wait to see my kids and their buddies make the run at the Highschool title and see which ones rise to the top. (Heck my kid might not be a part of that team but I am sure he will be there for his buddies) That is what youth hockey is all about. Not seeing if I can make my son into the next #1 draft pick.

I get it. I coached my kid through Bantams, he played because he loved the game. He was surrounded by other kids like him. 9 kids from his varsity team went on to play in college at all levels. My grandson is a 97 Bantam now.. He is in the middle of his growth spurt, so who knows ?.

I'm thinking about the kids that we all know are special... If and when your son decided he was going to be the #1 draft pick.

Then what ?

Then He probably will be:O) I am not the one that makes that choice though he will be I will support him and give him the outside help that he needs. I will not encourage him to leave his buddies behind if he is that talented he will get noticed. I really liked the Hudson Fasching story that I have seen lately. If it is true he really has his head on straight!

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Quasar - Interesting discussions. It's so fascinating to me to see how I can agree with 90% of what a poster says and then come to a different conclusion. As with everything, to me, what's most interesting is establishing the premise that is the true argument.

I guess I agree with your concept Quasar but disagree with your logistics. For example, each district is vastly different and D8's AA team would not be favorably compared with D9 or D15, for example.

As I know many of you have heard from me before, I am a big believer in local association control. To me, they know the kids and they know their district AND assuming that good people are involved, they should make the correct decisions regarding whether to have an A team, and A1, A2 or whether to have a tiered B team program (B1 and B2's) or to have an equal talent level.

So having said all of that, I think that the present system is doing a fine job, and will continue to do a fine job - UNTIL the elite kids have the local means to play with one another on a AAA team AND they are motivated to join it. Thus, I'm open to the idea of forming a AA level, with the purpose to have a place for the top 25-30 A1 teams to congregate and play one another.

In my mind, the elite kids are not the primary kids who would benefit from this... for example, a PeeWee A team I saw this year that would fit the mold I'm talking about is Apple Valley. They are 5-29-3. I'm sure they knew that they weren't going to be competitive with the Farmington's or Rosemount's of D8, but they certainly are good enough to field an A team when there's only a choice between A and B1. Apple Valley doesn't benefit from playing top 30 teams on a regular basis when they don't have a chance to - not "win", but "compete". Rather, Apple Valley did in fact what they should have done, scheduled good scrimmages that lead to 1 or 2 goal games. In my perfect world, Apple Valley would have played at an "A" level where 60-75% of associations' top team would lie. IF, at the end of the season they wanted to CHOOSE to compete at a new AA level, then great, let them choose. Also, if they want to scrimmage and A team and the AA team agrees, perfect.

Choice and flexibility should be the goal so that as many games as possible are 1 or 2 goal games...

Interesting subject... I know these are scattered thoughts and I don't have a "system" completely set up, but hopefully this can be helpful to others interested in it.

[Quasar]

Quasar -

Interesting discussions. It's so fascinating to me to see how I can agree with 90% of what a poster says and then come to a different conclusion. As with everything, to me, what's most interesting is establishing the premise that is the true argument.

Now your talking.. I might come to a different conclusion myself. That's why were having the discussion.

I'm not some hockey guru, just interested

[jancze5]

So basically an elite league for Pee Wee's and Bantams?

How is this different than a AAA league in the state?

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

So basically an elite league for Pee Wee's and Bantams?

How is this different than a AAA league in the state?

Are you referring to a district "super team" as proposed by Quasar? He threw that out there to start the discussion.

I'm confused though if your comment is toward my post. By the rationale implicit in your questions, I feel like the same would be said of, "how is "A" hockey different than a AAA league in the state?"

[jancze5]

yes, talking about the AA league, sorry....and no, A hockey and AAA hockey have nothing in common can't see your connection on that one.

[Quasar]

So basically an elite league for Pee Wee's and Bantams?

How is this different than a AAA league in the state?

In my eyes it's not... Just using the Minnesota hockey terminology..

[jancze5]

I like the idea, I know the districts have had in the past 2 years discussions on a league like this at the Bantam level..personally, if a kid is that good at Pee Wee, then have him play Bantams...if he's such a good Bantam, play high school....but there's a missing piece, the U16 or Midget minor level...if the state would promote this level and keep it back in the association, get rid of JV hockey..then there is always a level up and not one that requires an adjustment to play kids 4 years older than you. Of course there are the exceptions (see Fasching) who can, but most can't.

[Quasar]

I like the idea, I know the districts have had in the past 2 years discussions on a league like this at the Bantam level..personally, if a kid is that good at Pee Wee, then have him play Bantams...if he's such a good Bantam, play high school....but there's a missing piece, the U16 or Midget minor level...if the state would promote this level and keep it back in the association, get rid of JV hockey..then there is always a level up and not one that requires an adjustment to play kids 4 years older than you. Of course there are the exceptions (see Fasching) who can, but most can't.

Ah...the old fall back ..Satire

[scrapiron]

The point that is being missed is the ice. If there were 8 teams at the Peewee and 8 Teams at the Bantam level. We have 16 teams.

If each of these AA teams took 125 hours of ice that would mean that 2000 hours of ice that would have to be taken from some other teams. 125 hours still a little light for an elite team when you consider that the MM Choice Squirts get 145 hours per season.

If the average mite team acrossed the metro gets 35 hours of ice shared indoor ice (2 teams on the ice at the same time). That would be the equivalent of the ice needed for 114 Mite teams acrossed the city.

If you have tried to buy or find ice during the season you would find that there is no extra ice out there. With the average cost to build an ice arena around 8 million per sheet with city donated land, the ice is the biggest problem.

[Quasar]

The point that is being missed is the ice. If there were 8 teams at the Peewee and 8 Teams at the Bantam level. We have 16 teams.

If each of these AA teams took 125 hours of ice that would mean that 2000 hours of ice that would have to be taken from some other teams. 125 hours still a little light for an elite team when you consider that the MM Choice Squirts get 145 hours per season.

If the average mite team acrossed the metro gets 35 hours of ice shared indoor ice (2 teams on the ice at the same time). That would be the equivalent of the ice needed for 114 Mite acrossed the city.

If you have tried to buy or find ice during the season you would find that there is no extra ice out there. With the average cost to build an ice arena around 8 million per sheet with city donated land, the ice is the biggest problem.

Never thought about the ice. Your right. It would present a problem. There must be a solution..

I confess at this time I don't know what it is. Anyone have an answer?

[hocmom]

Is this a solution looking for a problem?

[InigoMontoya]

I can't believe I'm going to agree with hocmom:


First, the 240 kids playing AA would be taken out of the association system, leaving fewer teams and less need for ice. It's a wash.

I would hope all 8 teams would not practice and play in the metro. That doesn't really help the kids from Rochester, or EGF, or Duluth, or the one kid from Luverne. Unless someone offers a different take, this is sounding a little metro-centric.

District all-star teams have been brought up before, and an earlier poster is correct - there'd be kids in D6 etc that'd be left out of the program, and kids from D4 etc that would struggle to compete.

There is already flexibility built into the peewee and bantam system in Minnesota. Most teams will play 16-20 district games - for those exceptions at the top and the exceptions at the bottom, 6-8 of those games may result in lopsided scores. (What a great time for the 2nd and 3rd lines from Farmington get a great opportunity to play solid PP and PK minutes agains Apple Valley's 1st line.) Outside of district games peewee and bantam teams can schedule whomever they choose to scrimmage or attempt to compete at tournaments of their choosing. Therefore, a bantam team playing 70 games gets to pick 50 of them, and 8-10 of the 20 they don't get to choose will be pretty competitive. I, as always, fail to see what we're complaining about.

[Quasar]

I know what all the regulars think. How about some input from the lurkers. This subject is not going away. One way or another it will be resolved. As I stated in my original post, one A team in Rochester caused an incredible amount of conversation.

If your kid is an average player, the system is working for you and him or her. If your kid is exceptional and your happy to see him be the stand out player on his association team, the system is working for you. If your kid is a C player and he's having fun, the system is working for you.

If on the other hand your kid is an exceptional player and you don't have the money to send him to a prep school, or to play AAA in some other state, then the system is not working for you.

As I understand the situation at present Minnesota hockey is discussing A and AA teams.. Just forming AA teams and filling them up with A players is a waste of time. Just another B1.. B2..B3
This is important for parents of mites and squirts as your kids will be there before you know it..

So .... what do you think?

[hocmom]

As I stated in my original post, one A team in Rochester caused an incredible amount of conversation.

A bazillion kids play hockey in MN. 8 guys on the internet, 99% not from district 9, commented on the Rochester thing. It is a none issue.

This is a message board, not a board room.