HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Have their been any A teams to knock off any AA teams?

Sibley Peewee A (2:2) over Farmington Peewee AA (0:5). Freddie picked Sibley the best team in district 8 (a and aa).

I think the better question would be whether or not any second tier A teams (skaters 16-30) have beaten first tier A or AA teams (skaters 1-15)

hockeyfan3133 wrote:Have their been any A teams to knock off any AA teams?

Its likely happening all of the time when you have associations like HC and Sibley, to name a few, playing down.

LowLight21 wrote:I think the better question would be whether or not any second tier A teams (skaters 16-30) have beaten first tier A or AA teams (skaters 1-15)

*ding

Class A Hermantown's AA Bantam and PeeWee teams are beating/playing with many 2A schools AA teams. The latest example is their sweep of Centennial in the Spirit of Duluth at the PeeWee and Bantam levels. In addition, they are now consistently beating Duluth East. Hermantown has beaten East in the past, but never like it happened last year and now this year. I believe it’s only going to get tougher for East to beat Herm at the youth level. A real shift in hockey power is occurring in NE Mn.

Class A Hermantown I would bet a reasonable amount of money Hermantown hockey has more players than DE does top to bottom. Especially, with the number of players who move in at middleschool. Sorry, I just think it is time they join DE (before the Red Plan), Cloquet, and Roseau. Move up and play with the big boy's. The program is good enough.

Stats compiled from district 10 website:

Bantam AA record vs A in D10 games - 13-0-1
AA has out scored A 89-15

Pee Wee AA record vs A in D10 games - 16-2-2
AA has out scored A 118-17
The two wins both belong to SLP A team and the same AA association has both of the ties on their record

Those involved in the decision to have a split schedule for D10 AA/A games should resign out of embarrassment.

What I find even more interesting is a review of D10 board meeting minutes from December meeting makes no mention of this ill decided disparity.... Lets just close out eyes and pretend this isn't happening...

Tonight at Bantams Elk River AA plays Elk River A, can anyone give me any rationale as to why this game makes any sense?????

helightsthelamp wrote:Stats compiled from district 10 website:

Bantam AA record vs A in D10 games - 13-0-1
AA has out scored A 89-15

Pee Wee AA record vs A in D10 games - 16-2-2
AA has out scored A 118-17
The two wins both belong to SLP A team and the same AA association has both of the ties on their record

Those involved in the decision to have a split schedule for D10 AA/A games should resign out of embarrassment.

What I find even more interesting is a review of D10 board meeting minutes from December meeting makes no mention of this ill decided disparity.... Lets just close out eyes and pretend this isn't happening...

Tonight at Bantams Elk River AA plays Elk River A, can anyone give me any rationale as to why this game makes any sense?????

But more importantly, who is winning the fair play points? Are these as lopsided? Maybe this is where the A teams can make up some confidence after getting pounded 12-1 on the ice.

As was stated earlier, there really is no great story if an "A" team beats a "AA" team if it is both association's 1-15 players. More interesting would be how many "A" teams in assocaitons that also fields a "AA" team, are going out and beating "AA" teams? Players 16-30 from an association beating another's 1-15 seems to be more "eye-opening" than 1-15 beating 1-15.

helightsthelamp wrote:Stats compiled from district 10 website:

Bantam AA record vs A in D10 games - 13-0-1
AA has out scored A 89-15

Pee Wee AA record vs A in D10 games - 16-2-2
AA has out scored A 118-17
The two wins both belong to SLP A team and the same AA association has both of the ties on their record

Those involved in the decision to have a split schedule for D10 AA/A games should resign out of embarrassment.

What I find even more interesting is a review of D10 board meeting minutes from December meeting makes no mention of this ill decided disparity.... Lets just close out eyes and pretend this isn't happening...

Tonight at Bantams Elk River AA plays Elk River A, can anyone give me any rationale as to why this game makes any sense?????

Don't wait too long by the phone for a response from the Crack D10 Department

One other equation to add to these games is the cost of money, parents are paying for these games, ice and refs to participate in these blowouts.

We really need better terminology for A teams. Maybe Tier 1 A (skaters 1-15) and Tier 2 A (skaters 16-30).

Minnesota Hockey only created the 'separate' AA/A levels... they did not require any association to field both AA and A teams. The decision by AA associations to also field an A team were decisions by each association, and my guess is each association was well aware of the challenges Tier 2 A (16-30) teams would have in district play.

Personally, I wish more associations had gone both AA and A. At the end of the year, I suspect the conclusions will be something like this:

-Tier 1 A (1-15) matched up okay against AA. This was basically the old A level.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) did not match up well against AA.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) sometimes matched up okay against Tier 1 A (1-15). There were blowouts in these matchups but also well-contested and productive games.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) matched up very well against Tier 2 A (16-30).

Next year I'd like to see Minnesota Hockey organize a league for Tier 2 A (16-30) teams to match up since many districts don't have enough Tier 2 A teams to match up equivalent competition.

By my count, there are 14 Tier 2 A teams in the state. Please let me know if I've left any teams off this list:

District 3 - 2 Tier 2 A teams (OMG, Wayzata)
District 6 - 4 Tier 2 A teams (Prior Lake, Minnetonka, Edina, Eden Prairie)
District 8 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Woodbury)
District 9 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Rochester)
District 10 - 3 Tier 2 A teams (Blaine, Elk River, Centennial)
District 11 - 2 Tier 2 A teams (Duluth East, Hermantown)
District 15 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Moorhead)

Forget all the "A" levels, this is going to end up looking like the state football tourney before we know it. The Edina 7A will be playing the Chaska 6A team at the Eden Praire 4A shoot-out. Ridiculous.

Basically the only thing I think changed is in place of associations making multiple balanced B1 teams, they are making a single B1 (now called A) team now with multiple B2 (Now called B1) teams. (last years definitions)

So if you break it down, D10 is forcing B1 to play A level.

If you extend this logic, should the B1 teams be forced up to play the new A level and so on?

Edina PWA beat Hermantown AA and Farmington AA.

LowLight21 wrote:We really need better terminology for A teams. Maybe Tier 1 A (skaters 1-15) and Tier 2 A (skaters 16-30).

Minnesota Hockey only created the 'separate' AA/A levels... they did not require any association to field both AA and A teams. The decision by AA associations to also field an A team were decisions by each association, and my guess is each association was well aware of the challenges Tier 2 A (16-30) teams would have in district play.

Personally, I wish more associations had gone both AA and A. At the end of the year, I suspect the conclusions will be something like this:

-Tier 1 A (1-15) matched up okay against AA. This was basically the old A level.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) did not match up well against AA.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) sometimes matched up okay against Tier 1 A (1-15). There were blowouts in these matchups but also well-contested and productive games.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) matched up very well against Tier 2 A (16-30).

Next year I'd like to see Minnesota Hockey organize a league for Tier 2 A (16-30) teams to match up since many districts don't have enough Tier 2 A teams to match up equivalent competition.

By my count, there are 14 Tier 2 A teams in the state. Please let me know if I've left any teams off this list:

District 3 - 2 Tier 2 A teams (OMG, Wayzata)
District 6 - 4 Tier 2 A teams (Prior Lake, Minnetonka, Edina, Eden Prairie)
District 8 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Woodbury)
District 9 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Rochester)
District 10 - 3 Tier 2 A teams (Blaine, Elk River, Centennial)
District 11 - 2 Tier 2 A teams (Duluth East, Hermantown)
District 15 - 1 Tier 2 A team (Moorhead)

It's the top association's 17-32 "A" teams that are getting pounded, but then you "wish more associations would have gone AA and A"......?

I'm saying that if more associations had gone AA and A then districts could have created schedules that have a higher percentage of games against equivalent competition. I like how D6 implemented this. Their A teams don't play any AA, and their A is made up of the following:

Tier 2 A Minnetonka
Tier 2 A Edina
Tier 2 A Eden Prairie
Tier 2 A Prior Lake
Tier 1 A Kennedy
Tier 1 A New Prague
Tier 1 A Shakopee
Tier 1 A Waconia

That, to me, seems like a good balance.

And to answer a previous posters' comment, yes, this AA/A pilot basically created a place for top associations stacked B1 teams (OMG, Wayzata, etc.).

Deep Breath wrote:As was stated earlier, there really is no great story if an "A" team beats a "AA" team if it is both association's 1-15 players. More interesting would be how many "A" teams in assocaitons that also fields a "AA" team, are going out and beating "AA" teams? Players 16-30 from an association beating another's 1-15 seems to be more "eye-opening" than 1-15 beating 1-15.

The tie at bantams was a 16-30 against a 1-15 as was one of the Pee Wee ties... 16-30 has not won a game in D10 when playing AA at either PW or Bantam. The two ties are by same association, which has the largest number of registered players in the district...

LowLight21 wrote:We really need better terminology for A teams. Maybe Tier 1 A (skaters 1-15) and Tier 2 A (skaters 16-30).

Minnesota Hockey only created the 'separate' AA/A levels... they did not require any association to field both AA and A teams. The decision by AA associations to also field an A team were decisions by each association, and my guess is each association was well aware of the challenges Tier 2 A (16-30) teams would have in district play.

Personally, I wish more associations had gone both AA and A. At the end of the year, I suspect the conclusions will be something like this:

-Tier 1 A (1-15) matched up okay against AA. This was basically the old A level.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) did not match up well against AA.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) sometimes matched up okay against Tier 1 A (1-15). There were blowouts in these matchups but also well-contested and productive games.
-Tier 2 A (16-30) matched up very well against Tier 2 A (16-30).

Next year I'd like to see Minnesota Hockey organize a league for Tier 2 A (16-30) teams to match up since many districts don't have enough Tier 2 A teams to match up equivalent competition.

Or they could just simply implement the original plan and only split AA/a for playoffs. Then you would have the top players always playing against each other.

Or they could just simply implement the original plan and only split AA/a for playoffs. Then you would have the top players always playing against each other.

But how would you fill a regular season district schedule for the District 3 Tier 2 A teams (OMG, Wayzata) and District 8 Tier 2 A team (Woodbury)?

LowLight21 wrote:

Or they could just simply implement the original plan and only split AA/a for playoffs. Then you would have the top players always playing against each other.

But how would you fill a regular season district schedule for the District 3 Tier 1 A teams (OMG, Wayzata) and District 8 Tier 1 A team (Woodbury)?

You don't need a district schedule if you are already into the regions based on the number of teams you have. Beating up on teams won't help you when you get to the real games at the end of the year.

Plus, you can go play any A or AA team you want. Join the Maroon and Gold groups, or VFW.

LowLight21 wrote:I'm saying that if more associations had gone AA and A then districts could have created schedules that have a higher percentage of games against equivalent competition. I like how D6 implemented this. Their A teams don't play any AA, and their A is made up of the following:

Tier 2 A Minnetonka
Tier 2 A Edina
Tier 2 A Eden Prairie
Tier 2 A Prior Lake
Tier 1 A Kennedy
Tier 1 A New Prague
Tier 1 A Shakopee
Tier 1 A Waconia

That, to me, seems like a good balance.

And to answer a previous posters' comment, yes, this AA/A pilot basically created a place for top associations stacked B1 teams (OMG, Wayzata, etc.).

You would obviously be taking more kids out of their correct level of play with wanting more AA and A teams. District 2 has no "A" teams.

LowLight21 wrote:

Or they could just simply implement the original plan and only split AA/a for playoffs. Then you would have the top players always playing against each other.

But how would you fill a regular season district schedule for the District 3 Tier 2 A teams (OMG, Wayzata) and District 8 Tier 2 A team (Woodbury)?

That's what B1 was created for. My view on this is MH was trying to create a two tier tournament not add a level. They have obviously failed miserably, if that was indeed their goal. If they just wanted to add a level, I don't think there would have been this confusion.

In previous years on this bored the calls at the B1 and B2 levels were to have the District Director force the better teams to play at the next higher level. No one and I repeat no one really complained when 2 teams from the same association played against each other and there were a number of blowouts at both the B1 and B2 Level.

Now this year you are upset that 1-15 has to play 16-32 when before 16-32 vs. 33-48 was not a problem. Remember that in District 10 there is an A Bantam and A Peewee, B1 Bantam and B1 Peewee, B2 Bantam and B2 Peewee leagues. Yes in the A Peewee and A Bantam leagues there are 2 divisions but there is also 2 divisions in the B2 Bantam League.

If anyone out there is under the impression that these associations (Centennial, Blaine, Elk River at both Peewee and Bantam and Andover at the PW level) were forced to place a second team at the A level show us your proof. These associations chose to place their teams at these levels knowing the scheduling process and how league play was to be done.

For those in the past years that wanted the larger associations and a few strong smaller ones to play at a higher level you now have it; however had the State not added the extra tournaments all these teams would be playing every team twice whether big or small 1-15 would be playing 16-33 and when some associations did field 2 teams at the A level you did not complain then. We are 30 days into the season.

For you who are that upset take your voice to your next association or District or State meeting and stand up for your position. I believe all 3 have a meeting in sometime in January, and rather than just complain take the time and present an alternative solution.

By the way if some want to keep calling people names and getting into crazy arguments will just keep these blogs at a low level of credibility to maybe those that can actually make changes. It does not help Elliott 70 when he brings these discussions to Mn Hockey and some of the really comments in very poor taste are present.

helightsthelamp wrote:Stats compiled from district 10 website:

Bantam AA record vs A in D10 games - 13-0-1
AA has out scored A 89-15

Pee Wee AA record vs A in D10 games - 16-2-2
AA has out scored A 118-17
The two wins both belong to SLP A team and the same AA association has both of the ties on their record

Those involved in the decision to have a split schedule for D10 AA/A games should resign out of embarrassment.

What I find even more interesting is a review of D10 board meeting minutes from December meeting makes no mention of this ill decided disparity.... Lets just close out eyes and pretend this isn't happening...

Tonight at Bantams Elk River AA plays Elk River A, can anyone give me any rationale as to why this game makes any sense?????

Greybeard, you must understand that the B level scores weren't anything like these last year. Maybe Eliot understood that nothing good would come from this and you didn't.........? Just a small chance? You were told before the season what the outcomes would be.

Good luck to the Elk River teams in the friendly scrimmage.

greybeard58 wrote:In previous years on this bored the calls at the B1 and B2 levels were to have the District Director force the better teams to play at the next higher level. No one and I repeat no one really complained when 2 teams from the same association played against each other and there were a number of blowouts at both the B1 and B2 Level.

Now this year you are upset that 1-15 has to play 16-32 when before 16-32 vs. 33-48 was not a problem. Remember that in District 10 there is an A Bantam and A Peewee, B1 Bantam and B1 Peewee, B2 Bantam and B2 Peewee leagues. Yes in the A Peewee and A Bantam leagues there are 2 divisions but there is also 2 divisions in the B2 Bantam League.

If anyone out there is under the impression that these associations (Centennial, Blaine, Elk River at both Peewee and Bantam and Andover at the PW level) were forced to place a second team at the A level show us your proof. These associations chose to place their teams at these levels knowing the scheduling process and how league play was to be done.

For those in the past years that wanted the larger associations and a few strong smaller ones to play at a higher level you now have it; however had the State not added the extra tournaments all these teams would be playing every team twice whether big or small 1-15 would be playing 16-33 and when some associations did field 2 teams at the A level you did not complain then. We are 30 days into the season.

For you who are that upset take your voice to your next association or District or State meeting and stand up for your position. I believe all 3 have a meeting in sometime in January, and rather than just complain take the time and present an alternative solution.

By the way if some want to keep calling people names and getting into crazy arguments will just keep these blogs at a low level of credibility to maybe those that can actually make changes. It does not help Elliott 70 when he brings these discussions to Mn Hockey and some of the really comments in very poor taste are present.

The difference in the disparity of scores from past years B levels is not even close to this years AA/A disaster... The other thing to remember, the change was promulgated by a rule change... Not associations deciding not to balance their B teams.

Your comment on two A level and two B2 level divisions makes no sense to me??? Not sure what the relevance is?

The three mentioned associations may not have been forced to field a team at the A level, but what was the guidance from the district?

If there wasn't the change in levels, 1-15 would not be playing 16-33.... When did that happen prior to this season? If an association is big enough and deep enough to field two A teams, that is a positive from a development perspective and based on talent of an association.. Getting slaughtered and having third period running time games is not good for development... Yes we are a 1/3 of the way into the season, do you expect the second third of the season to have a dramatic turnaround and these games are now competitive? Comments like "we are 30 days into the season" just confirms my comment of let's just close our eyes and pretend this isn't happening.

Take the time to present an alternative solution???? Really... How about take the time to think a rule change thru and implications of changes made instead of just making the change to see where the chips fall... I also will make you aware I am very vocal of my displeasure of this at many different levels and have provided many alternative one as simple as don't make these changes as there is no positive outcome...