Cinderella stories

REalhockey17 · Post by **REalhockey17** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:57 pm

I'd like to hear about teams that have had bad ratings, records, etc. that have been making some noise these past few weeks, maybe with a shot at state. Any teams fit the bill?

Night Train · Post by **Night Train** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:35 am

Minneapolis Storm Squirt A finishing 2nd in Fargo.

This is only the 2nd or 3rd time they've ever been to the tournament and a few years ago a top 20 finish would have been considered a success. Incredible result.

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:22 pm

Princeton Bantam A, they have been playing really well and won the D10 Championship as the #6 seed (out of 7) which puts them into the West Region as D10 #1 seed.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:59 pm

Another Pilot Program success story! Princeton got better playing a mixed AA/A schedule and pulled off a 4OT semi and 1 goal final!

Looks like North Branch Pee-Wees go to regions for 1st time in their history too!

Several regions have new faces too!

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:08 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Another Pilot Program success story! Princeton got better playing a mixed AA/A schedule and pulled off a 4OT semi and 1 goal final!

Looks like North Branch Pee-Wees go to regions for 1st time in their history too!

Several regions have new faces too!

Not sure I would link playing a mixed AA/A schedule as what improved this team... Any evidence to support your theory? A win for AA/A end of year tournament playing other A teams which are competetive games, yes I can agree with that.... Wouldn't your theory sugjest that all of the D10 A teams would have improved a similar amount by playing AA teams as each of their schedules accounted for one game against each AA team...

The team is playing well and had a very nice D10 tournament... How about giving credit to the players on the team instead of some format????

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:36 pm

I thought I did give credit to the success Princeton and North Branch, in addition to about 25 other programs that have shown success at the District level?

I viewed Princeton's game schedule and the scores would suggest they beat opponents in the 2nd half of the season that had beaten them the 1st half. Also, AA vs Princeton scores were a bit lopsided early, but had some close games at the end.

It is fairly obvious Princeton improved throughout the season. Would they have improved without playing AA teams? Probably. Did playing the better teams help them? Probably. Would they have been better off playing under the old format at the A level or at the B1 level under the old format? Well, their season would have been over, that's pretty obvious.

REalhockey17 · Post by **REalhockey17** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:29 pm

Hermantown bantam A's are a team that is generally thought of as easy wins. However, they have beaten greenway(#7), eveleth 2x(#19), along with some other good teams such as spring lake park, coon rapids, and cloquet AA. Also played tight with cottage grove, Hutchinson, Hibbing AA and princeton

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:32 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:I thought I did give credit to the success Princeton and North Branch, in addition to about 25 other programs that have shown success at the District level?

I viewed Princeton's game schedule and the scores would suggest they beat opponents in the 2nd half of the season that had beaten them the 1st half. Also, AA vs Princeton scores were a bit lopsided early, but had some close games at the end.

It is fairly obvious Princeton improved throughout the season. Would they have improved without playing AA teams? Probably. Did playing the better teams help them? Probably. Would they have been better off playing under the old format at the A level or at the B1 level under the old format? Well, their season would have been over, that's pretty obvious.

Under the old system they would have either won the B1 tournament or been done in the A tournament . The new system did what it was suppose to do in this case, allowed a small association to play the big boys during the regular season and win a district tournament at the level they are competitive at. This was the reason the AA/A split was a tournament only and not a new level.

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:05 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:I thought I did give credit to the success Princeton and North Branch, in addition to about 25 other programs that have shown success at the District level?

I viewed Princeton's game schedule and the scores would suggest they beat opponents in the 2nd half of the season that had beaten them the 1st half. Also, AA vs Princeton scores were a bit lopsided early, but had some close games at the end.

It is fairly obvious Princeton improved throughout the season. Would they have improved without playing AA teams? Probably. Did playing the better teams help them? Probably. Would they have been better off playing under the old format at the A level or at the B1 level under the old format? Well, their season would have been over, that's pretty obvious.

I see a different story line... They have not played a AA team since January 12th in losing to Centennial AA 4-0... YES they improved, not convinced they improved from losing all 8 games they played against AA teams by a combined score of 52-11 (three of the games they were shut out and two they had one goal )... My opinion is they improved more by playing against other A teams in which their record was 4-8 instead of 0-8... I agree 100% the new A level has provided a great opportunity for teams like Princeton to advance and I think it is awesome! What I don't agree with you on is the split schedule of A being forced to play AA is even remotely linked to their improvement.. Pilot program sucess story, yes... Mixed AA/A schedule NO

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:16 pm

While I agree that FORCING A teams to play AA teams isn't logical.

But many people would complain that B1 teams were not allowed to play A teams under the old system. Yes, they could get approval, but for the most part those games didn't happen often, except in "outstate" areas.

And, I think under the old system, far too many teams were of B1 ability, yet wanted to play at the A level, for whatever reasons.

This system allows the "big boys" to continue battling for the AA title. And it now allows the rest of the state to battle for the State titles at the A and B levels. In the old system, the same core metro associations dominated A and B1 play. (And B2 and C for that matter)

I have looked at the A and B regional brackets. There are more new names at regional play than ever before. Look at the AA brackets, and it's the same old names.

Work out the flaws in District league play. Work out the flaws in District and Regional play-off formats.

But, the AA-A-B1-B2-C "pilot program" has created just what was intended.

(And in many blow out games, the losing team will say, we hung with them for 2 periods, Was 4-1 going into the 3rd but ran out of gas and it ended 10-1) Nobody's confidence was destroyed! Except the cry baby parents!

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:03 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:While I agree that FORCING A teams to play AA teams isn't logical.

But many people would complain that B1 teams were not allowed to play A teams under the old system. Yes, they could get approval, but for the most part those games didn't happen often, except in "outstate" areas.

And, I think under the old system, far too many teams were of B1 ability, yet wanted to play at the A level, for whatever reasons.

This system allows the "big boys" to continue battling for the AA title. And it now allows the rest of the state to battle for the State titles at the A and B levels. In the old system, the same core metro associations dominated A and B1 play. (And B2 and C for that matter)

I have looked at the A and B regional brackets. There are more new names at regional play than ever before. Look at the AA brackets, and it's the same old names.

Work out the flaws in District league play. Work out the flaws in District and Regional play-off formats.

But, the AA-A-B1-B2-C "pilot program" has created just what was intended.

(And in many blow out games, the losing team will say, we hung with them for 2 periods, Was 4-1 going into the 3rd but ran out of gas and it ended 10-1) Nobody's confidence was destroyed! Except the cry baby parents!

We could of simply added a state tournament at the B-2 level if it was about seeing new names. These current "new name" programs could have been playing B-1 in this newly condensed version in the old format. Currently they're just being fed that AA/A are the same and falling for it. It WILL morph back into the old format when associations wake up.

Four levels wasn't enough, Five is now awesome. Would six be even better than awesome?

A- those "regulars" that make it.

B-1- could have used this level for those "new names" that are in this years "A" regions.

B-2- should of created a state tournament at this level to give kids that really would have NEVER had a chance at something like this.

C- Another level of Hockey.... Is it really even needed?

It'll just take a little time for the fairy tale of A and AA being the same to wear off......

helightsthelamp · Post by **helightsthelamp** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:37 pm

(And in many blow out games, the losing team will say, we hung with them for 2 periods, Was 4-1 going into the 3rd but ran out of gas and it ended 10-1) Nobody's confidence was destroyed! Except the cry baby parents!

Clearly you did not have a child on a D10 A team..... If that is what you think you clearly do not get it......I DO and was at way to many of the blow out games when A teams faced AA teams... it was not hung with them for two periods, in more cases it was AA team took their foot off the gas... CRY BABY PARENTS, really... These were not a case of a team not showing up, kids not working hard and moving their feet and the puck, as a result getting blown out, it was that the AA team was that much better then the A team...

Again, I don't disagree that AA/A split for end of the year tournament has been bad (exception regional format in AA) In fact I agreed and stated I think it is awesome other teams are making it. A teams were FORCED to play AA teams, not only in district play but in tournaments. This has been bad. You acknowleged that they shouldnt be forced to play each other, but you also said Princeton got better playing a mixed AA/A schedule I don't see this to be the case.... If levels are kept the same, A should not play AA as part of league play, but should have the option to play AA teams that they match up well with....

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:37 am

I totally agree forcing A teams to play AA teams is not right. Totally agree it is good for A and AA teams to have the ability to play each other.

But there is no way to convince me that the old way was better.

The idea of creating upper and lower tiers of A is really no different than the summer hockey world of AAA hockey creating "Elite-Invite-Open". Works fine if anyone knows their relative ability level and schedules games/tournaments accordingly.

In the past, there were say 5-6 associations competing for state titles at the A and B levels. (And I can remember a few years where 2 Edina or 2 Wayzata teams were in the B1 state finals) These same associations mopped up at the B2 and C levels. The new names in A level regions would NOT be at the B1 regionals there because the same old associations would still be dominating there.

Fix the District league play and this program will work as intended.