Sandbagging??

hockeygoof1 · Post by **hockeygoof1** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:27 am

At what point would you consider an association is sandbagging? If a Mpls association fielded five teams at one level and played "A," three "B's" and a "C," would you consider that sandbagging or just being overly cautious?

DannyCalifornia · Post by **DannyCalifornia** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:34 pm

Don't know which assoc you are referring to in the example above, but........I will say that OMGHA should be embarrassed for fielding an AA peewee team and then NO A team but 2-3 B teams. An assoc this size should not be chasing B peewee trophies to put in the cabinet. Makes me wonder why? My only guess would be that last years A team didn't win enough games or tourneys. It's too bad for the kids really. I guess the old "play up if you want to get better" doesn't apply to OMGHA.
My prediction: A lot of games with scores of 7-0 8-0 and probably a few at 11-0 or 12-0.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:39 pm

Well it depends doesn't it.

Any objective effort to define sandbagging is going to come after the fact, when one of those B teams wins every game by a margin of X goals.

No one is happy about Wayzata and OMG wimping out at PWA, but I for one take them at their word when they claim it's a down year and they don't have enough A-level players to field two A-level teams.

We'll check back in December and see what those B1 teams are doing... "Trust... but verify," said old Ronald Reagan.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:55 pm

Maybe some of these associations have recognized that the "AA" and "A" designations were intended for post season play only, and that the original intent was for programs to field one "AA or A" team at the bantam and pee wee levels and not both. Unless OMGHA has two high schools of different sizes, they should be fielding one "AA" team (with the designation used for post season play only) and no "A" teams. Looks to me like they got it right. The associations that are fielding both "AA" and "A" teams are not following the spirit of the rule. Because of the varied methods of implementation at different Districts and Associations, I believe it should be done away with. Back to the drawing board.

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:18 pm

SECoach wrote:Maybe some of these associations have recognized that the "AA" and "A" designations were intended for post season play only, and that the original intent was for programs to field one "AA or A" team at the bantam and pee wee levels and not both. Unless OMGHA has two high schools of different sizes, they should be fielding one "AA" team (with the designation used for post season play only) and no "A" teams. Looks to me like they got it right. The associations that are fielding both "AA" and "A" teams are not following the spirit of the rule. Because of the varied methods of implementation at different Districts and Associations, I believe it should be done away with. Back to the drawing board.

I find it very interesting that associations that had both AA and A last year are moving away from it this year (OMG, Woodbury). And the two big associations that got ripped last year are moving to it this year (WBL, Stillwater).

Will be interesting to see over time if the actual desired playoff only designation will work itself out.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:43 pm

Maybe the whole pilot thing was a stupid idea to begin with.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:57 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:Maybe the whole pilot thing was a stupid idea to begin with.

Sometimes trial and error is the way to go. It's how we often learn, which can be hard to do when you have all the answers to begin with. I think you were right, and it caused some unintended situations. It also served part of it's purpose in giving some of the non powerhouse associations an opportunity to experience a bit of end of season success. Hopefully they can learn what worked, and what didn't and improve on it now that something has been tried. Hopefully teams aren't so trophy hungry that they opt down for the hardware.

hockeygoof1 · Post by **hockeygoof1** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:44 pm

One organization is Mpls. Last year's A peewee finished way up there. They had a good year. Now with five bantam teams they still play A. That's sandbagging.
How about this:
Six teams = At least two A's, two B's
Five teams = At least one A and two B's
Four teams = At least one A and one B
Three teams = At least two B's
Two teams = At least one B

No more AA designation. Nothing negative about A, B, C or even D. Finish in top five in state, that team moves up a class accordingly. Peewees finish in top five, bantams play up the next year -- unless they can prove hardship.

Just sayin

mnhockey2019 · Post by **mnhockey2019** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:56 pm

hockeygoof1 wrote:One organization is Mpls. Last year's A peewee finished way up there. They had a good year. Now with five bantam teams they still play A. That's sandbagging.
How about this:
Six teams = At least two A's, two B's
Five teams = At least one A and two B's
Four teams = At least one A and one B
Three teams = At least two B's
Two teams = At least one B

No more AA designation. Nothing negative about A, B, C or even D. Finish in top five in state, that team moves up a class accordingly. Peewees finish in top five, bantams play up the next year -- unless they can prove hardship.

Just sayin

Good statement about the job that MPLS is doing if someone is accusing them of sandbagging. Numbers continue to go up in the city. Minnesota hockey decides in December about who will play at what level for regions and state so the designation right now is meaningless.

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:34 pm

DannyCalifornia wrote:Don't know which assoc you are referring to in the example above, but........I will say that OMGHA should be embarrassed for fielding an AA peewee team and then NO A team but 2-3 B teams. An assoc this size should not be chasing B peewee trophies to put in the cabinet. Makes me wonder why? My only guess would be that last years A team didn't win enough games or tourneys. It's too bad for the kids really. I guess the old "play up if you want to get better" doesn't apply to OMGHA.
My prediction: A lot of games with scores of 7-0 8-0 and probably a few at 11-0 or 12-0.

the problem is that if a team in these assc. finish at .500 they think of it as a failure. if they can be competitive and win more than they lose they are at the right level. that many teams and only 1 AA/A team is BS

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:42 am

the_juiceman wrote:the problem is that if a team in these assc. finish at .500 they think of it as a failure. if they can be competitive and win more than they lose they are at the right level. that many teams and only 1 AA/A team is BS

This only holds true if the AA/A was meant to create a new level, then I agree with you.

The original intent was a post season only tournament that would mimic the HS classifications. This would give small associations a state tournament while allowing them to compete with the big associations during the regular season.

The issue really is in the implementation of the above. Ambiguity has led to a mess with scheduling and misunderstandings of what is the true intent. B1 was created for the large associations to deal with the 16-45 (or 60) players. AA/A split was created to give the small assocations best players a shot at some post season success. If viewed through that lens OMG going with AA/B1 makes more sense.

SimplyPut · Post by **SimplyPut** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:58 am

reading these posts the past couple of years dealing with the AA / A format. what should these Associations be doing? Lets use District 10 or District 2. I am most familiar with these teams. should these associations base their classification on Size of High school? Size of Association? number of kids trying out? expected talent level?

there are associations with AA high schools that choose Class A based on their tryout numbers and over all talent pool. There are also the AA high schools that still chose AA youth classifications but their over all talent level is at best a Class A level? is their a right or wrong in this ?

just curious if MN Hockey has given direction on how to classify an association.

ogelthorpe · Post by **ogelthorpe** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:18 am

In an ideal world all associations would be able to do it based on talent level. You may have a big association with a shallow talent pool, should they be forced to push kids up to AA level? On the flip side should a small association not opt up for 1 year if they have a really strong group.

In my view MH has been reluctant to put any guidelines out regarding placement of teams to levels. I believe their view is the associations should be evaluating their talent and making the correct decisions. After all, they are closer to the kids and should have the kids best interest at heart.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:44 am

hockeygoof1 wrote:One organization is Mpls. Last year's A peewee finished way up there. They had a good year. Now with five bantam teams they still play A. That's sandbagging.
How about this:
Six teams = At least two A's, two B's
Five teams = At least one A and two B's
Four teams = At least one A and one B
Three teams = At least two B's
Two teams = At least one B

No more AA designation. Nothing negative about A, B, C or even D. Finish in top five in state, that team moves up a class accordingly. Peewees finish in top five, bantams play up the next year -- unless they can prove hardship.

Just sayin

What we all call sandbagging can also be thought of as self-interest from the association's point of view. Nothing breeds success like success, just ask Edina.

Is it OK that small but historic associations like North Metro and Johnson/Como played their top 1-15 at B1 last year, and went to state? Or that a deeply weakened but recovering association like Minneapolis won state at A? (Meanwhile, BTW, Minneapolis high school was granted an opt down to single A this year, despite being a coop of six high schools with a student body of more than 10,000?)

There are reasons that go way beyond total numbers of players that an association or even Minnesota Hockey would allow what we are calling "sandbagging."

Is Edina "sandbagging" by having an AA and an A team at Peewee? Instead of two AA teams?

It's a delicate dance -- all associations want success, MN Hockey wants parity, nobody likes to lose, everyone has their own theory of "development."

Scout716 · Post by **Scout716** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:45 am

I think some associations have tried to select their level based on overall talent, however they are probably the ones getting bashed on this site. If a large high school AA chooses to drop to an A youth association level what percentage of games should they win to be considered an exceptable move? 50%? , 60%?.

I have heard families that have left associations just because they are "sick of losing" maybe if they skated one level down a few more wins could have kept some players home ? just a thought.

sagard · Post by **sagard** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:18 am

I call six PW teams at AA, B1, B2, C, C, C sandbagging.

Anything else is open for interpretation.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:11 pm

What is going wrong at Wayzata and Maple Grove? Eight teams at a level and you can't have an A team? Isn't Wayzata the biggest association in the state?

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:45 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:What is going wrong at Wayzata and Maple Grove? Eight teams at a level and you can't have an A team? Isn't Wayzata the biggest association in the state?

They both have an A team, that is classified AA for post season play.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:42 pm

SECoach wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:What is going wrong at Wayzata and Maple Grove? Eight teams at a level and you can't have an A team? Isn't Wayzata the biggest association in the state?
They both have an A team, that is classified AA for post season play.

And other associations are going both AA/A with only 4 or 5 teams at a level is the point I was making. Development?

AA ='s A
A='s B-1!!

Please don't tell me MNH is going to have the 1-17's play their own 18-34's again. And why would they play another association's 18-34?

iseepalms · Post by **iseepalms** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:24 pm

I talked to a few people at Johnson/Como and they have a total of 36 Squirts and their board decided to go with 11 skaters and 1 goalie at "B" and have two "C" teams of 12 each. They have one goalie at the Squirt level. If they would have went "A", "B" and "C" they would probably have a total of maybe 6 wins. Now is this "Sandbagging"?

57special · Post by **57special** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:02 pm

There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on the talent level within the association. One would think that the hockey people within their own association would know more about what talent they have available than a random poster on this forum.

Waconia chose to have a PWB2 team as their lowest level last year. They scored under 10 goals, and had approximately 170 scored against. Obviously they should've been playing at the C level.

This year's Bloomington Jefferson Bantams will only have two teams , an AA and a B1. They either have a very high talent floor in their association, or they are going to have a rough year. I don't know what the situation is there, but I do know that they have more knowledge of their situation than i do.