HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

One of Edina's 4 PWB2 teams just took 3rd in the 32 team Peewee B1 Maple Grove tourney that ended today. Congrats to them and the Edina B1 Green team that won it. This tourney had many of the most sucessful pwb1 teams this year so a "B2" team going that far really struck a nerve with me though.

It's hard to be a small/mid size association team and see these same clubs win and win through what looks like sandbagging. The other 2 in the top 4: Maple Grove and Minnetonka. Should there not better system to place these teams at the right competive level? I cant imagine this B2 team's is being challenged in any way at that level. Fun games for those opponents I bet, its all about the kids, right?....

Year after year these clubs field teams that have 35+ wins and less than 10 losses. I bet city wide disaster would be declared if an Edina team went .500 on the year.


Edina: 12 peewee teams, 4 at the state tourament levels (4 C teams, wow!!, could probably field a good B1 team out of those alone)

Minnetonka: 8 peewee teams, 3 on state tourney levels (yes 8 teams, 5 of which are B2 or C)

Osseo Maple Grove: Exact set up as Tonka. I bet most associations with AA teams have less than 5 teams. These guys take that number of kids and play them B2 and C.

Congrats on those big numbers, recruiting youngsters and all but how are associations that have 3 to 4 peewee or Bantam teams and go AA, A or B1, B2 and C supposed to compete?

These big associations set themselves up to be dominant at every level every year. Their only competetive games are with themselves. Funny to, because I have heard complaining from these clubs parents when a small association skips a level because of small numbers then somehow beats them. Associations with 2 peewee teams and go B1 or A for their top team are the ones sandbagging...right.

And I'm not sure how the money works but does some of our MN hockey fee go to the state tournaments? Are we just yearly subsidizing Edina's annual sandbag trip to the state tournaments? Even if no $ goes there shouldnt we want new and different teams there yearly? Wouldn't that "grow the game".

Why no statewide or at least district suggested system for placing teams based on numbers??

... because it would make too much common sense to do so.

You are not the first person to suggest something like this. MN Hockey just doesn't seem interested in it.

The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

And... dont believe that this is just a big association issue. Associations of all sizes, all over the state make the same silly mistake.

MN Hockey could make it far easier on all of us to institute some guidelines to help ensure some semblance of competitive balance in the divisions.

zooomx wrote:... because it would make too much common sense to do so.

You are not the first person to suggest something like this. MN Hockey just doesn't seem interested in it.

The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

And... dont believe that this is just a big association issue. Associations of all sizes, all over the state make the same silly mistake.

MN Hockey could make it far easier on all of us to institute some guidelines to help ensure some semblance of competitive balance in the divisions.

I brought this up at the district directors meeting this past weekend. It was discussed at length with the realization that it is difficult to police, it is difficult to find the right solution. The important thing is that it IS being discussed so any ideas are appreciated.

elliott70 wrote:

zooomx wrote:... because it would make too much common sense to do so.

You are not the first person to suggest something like this. MN Hockey just doesn't seem interested in it.

The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

And... dont believe that this is just a big association issue. Associations of all sizes, all over the state make the same silly mistake.

MN Hockey could make it far easier on all of us to institute some guidelines to help ensure some semblance of competitive balance in the divisions.

I brought this up at the district directors meeting this past weekend. It was discussed at length with the realization that it is difficult to police, it is difficult to find the right solution. The important thing is that it IS being discussed so any ideas are appreciated.

Here are a couple of brainstorms that I think could be considered:

1) There is no good reason for 5 competitive levels at PeeWee and Bantams, are there?

2) Maybe teams playing at the wrong level should be re-assigned midway through the season? This happens during the offseason in 3 v 3 leagues. Dominant teams get moved up to tougher leagues to accommodate competition.

3) Maybe preseason tryouts could be standardized and include more scrimmages. Maybe those scrimmages could be used to look at the top 20 kids in an association that has self-classified to A and say, wait a minute, you should host a AA team, so we're moving you up.

4) Maybe all associations that feed into a AA program should host AA PeeWee and Bantam teams?

Maybe it is as simple as saying if you have X number of players in the association at a certain age level you will field Y number of teams that will play at a predetermined structure of classification. Some years the teams may excel, some years they may struggle, but isn't that what the smaller associations deal with annually?

Smaller associations know they have to develop the crap out of the players they have in order to compete. Under this predetermined structure the large associations would now be faced with having to develop players who are sometimes forced to "play up" as opposed to fielding teams down a level and using massive numbers to overwhelm the smaller associations.

Heck, I could argue doing this will make the big boys even better in the long run because it would force more competition on these B2 teams who should be B1, or the B1 teams who could easily play A. Are we sure we want to do that?

I really like what Edina did years ago by splitting their Squirt A team into two equal teams. Super big associations should follow their lead. Great question whether it should be "mandated" based on size or just let associations police it themselves. You'd hope these boards would just see the big picture and do it themselves. At the Pee Wee level, fair question whether a huge association should field one AA team or two... and how many A teams they should field. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to "make" them do anything at that level. And by Bantams things tend to equal out as big schools seem to lose more kids to the private schools. Thinking out loud. If Minnesota hockey got involved and came out with some sort of policy, will they then have to tackle the next topic which is "how many kids" per team? Do you solve the problem if a larger association is now forced to field say two squirt A teams so in response instead of putting 15 skaters on the roster they now just go with 10? If you're going to "mandate" how many teams at each level, do you also have to then mandate what the numbers are? Great topic though. Keep the ideas coming

zooomx wrote:The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

No doubt. I've lost this battle with my own association's board two years in a row. They can't seem to figure it out.

I know it's sacrilegious to even mention it, but I think the way we label the levels isn't helping much either. It's beaten into our heads that the "A" team or "AA" has to be the highest level team. I'd argue that it's a bad way to go about it. It forces us to create unnatural distinctions between AA, A, B1, B (in some districts), and C. That's rather silly.

The logical way to organize it would be how some associations organize their mites. Level 1 should be for beginners. Level 2 would be equivalent to B2. Level 3 would be equivalent to B1. 4=A and 5=AA. District games would have to schedule teams on the same level, but tournaments and independently scheduled games could play up or down one level.

Why is this a better system? Because, somebody from Edina, OMG, Minnetonka, Wayzata, etc will eventually make a case for a level higher than AA. Good for them. Call it level 6 and be done with it. It'll mean that the remaining teams at level five will have better parity. I also think it'll help associations make better leveling declarations in the future. Sorry if I offended any traditionalists with my suggestion.

The Exiled One wrote:

zooomx wrote:The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

No doubt. I've lost this battle with my own association's board two years in a row. They can't seem to figure it out.

I know it's sacrilegious to even mention it, but I think the way we label the levels isn't helping much either. It's beaten into our heads that the "A" team or "AA" has to be the highest level team. I'd argue that it's a bad way to go about it. It forces us to create unnatural distinctions between AA, A, B1, B (in some districts), and C. That's rather silly.

The logical way to organize it would be how some associations organize their mites. Level 1 should be for beginners. Level 2 would be equivalent to B2. Level 3 would be equivalent to B1. 4=A and 5=AA. District games would have to schedule teams on the same level, but tournaments and independently scheduled games could play up or down one level.

Why is this a better system? Because, somebody from Edina, OMG, Minnetonka, Wayzata, etc will eventually make a case for a level higher than AA. Good for them. Call it level 6 and be done with it. It'll mean that the remaining teams at level five will have better parity. I also think it'll help associations make better leveling declarations in the future. Sorry if I offended any traditionalists with my suggestion.

That level 6 you are speaking of, yeah its called AAA and pretty soon it will become the norm. City/Town based teams generate a AAA team to play on a national scale similar to what Shattuck does. Or they do it based on geography and have a few teams.

Survey wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:

zooomx wrote:The problem at the local levels is this: You cannot convince enough families that a really competitive .500-.600 season is better development for your skaters than a .900 season blowout after blowout. Leaders are not always bold enough to make the tough decision.

No doubt. I've lost this battle with my own association's board two years in a row. They can't seem to figure it out.

I know it's sacrilegious to even mention it, but I think the way we label the levels isn't helping much either. It's beaten into our heads that the "A" team or "AA" has to be the highest level team. I'd argue that it's a bad way to go about it. It forces us to create unnatural distinctions between AA, A, B1, B (in some districts), and C. That's rather silly.

The logical way to organize it would be how some associations organize their mites. Level 1 should be for beginners. Level 2 would be equivalent to B2. Level 3 would be equivalent to B1. 4=A and 5=AA. District games would have to schedule teams on the same level, but tournaments and independently scheduled games could play up or down one level.

Why is this a better system? Because, somebody from Edina, OMG, Minnetonka, Wayzata, etc will eventually make a case for a level higher than AA. Good for them. Call it level 6 and be done with it. It'll mean that the remaining teams at level five will have better parity. I also think it'll help associations make better leveling declarations in the future. Sorry if I offended any traditionalists with my suggestion.

That level 6 you are speaking of, yeah its called AAA and pretty soon it will become the norm. City/Town based teams generate a AAA team to play on a national scale similar to what Shattuck does. Or they do it based on geography and have a few teams.

You might also call it the Choice League.

SCBlue - I like your idea of MN Hockey dictating the number of teams associations field at each level based on the number of kids. I would add that you would need to tell the associations that equals even teams at that level not AA1 and AA2. I am starting to think if MN Hockey doesn’t mandate this we will see more associations dropping down a level to win. To me the poster child for this scenario this year is Rosemount.

Rosemount is very proud (see article) that they are growing and nearly a top 10 association in terms of numbers. They have chosen to skip A teams and go AA then have only one B1 at peewee and Bantams. No surprise their B1 teams are dominating….because they are actually A teams playing at B. The only reason I know this is a Rosemount parent at a tournament told me about it and how it was a conscience effort by the association to make a statement…..WIN. I am sure they are not the only association doing this. My guess other associations will follow suit to compete.

Why do so many associations think it’s best to push the majority of their kids to B2 and C? Edina has 10 Bantam and 12 Peewee teams (wow that’s a lot of teams). However, only 1 AA team and A team. The majority are B2 and C. Burnsville 4 Bantam teams, no AA (A, B1, B2, B2). Orono 5 Bantam teams and no AA. I think if I searched a little more I would find more teams trying to drop to win.

From Rosemount's front page:
Another tournament championship for Rosemount’s A team…I mean B1 team.
http://www.rosemounthockey.org/news_art ... _id=203137

Rosemount article talking about how big their association is...(not big enough to field A teams)
http://www.rosemounthockey.org/news_art ... _id=203137

[Rosemount is very proud (see article) that they are growing and nearly a top 10 association in terms of numbers. They have chosen to skip A teams and go AA then have only one B1 at peewee and Bantams. No surprise their B1 teams are dominating….because they are actually A teams playing at B. The only reason I know this is a Rosemount parent at a tournament told me about it and how it was a conscience effort by the association to make a statement…..WIN. I am sure they are not the only association doing this. My guess other associations will follow suit to compete.

Why do so many associations think it’s best to push the majority of their kids to B2 and C? Edina has 10 Bantam and 12 Peewee teams (wow that’s a lot of teams). However, only 1 AA team and A team. The majority are B2 and C. Burnsville 4 Bantam teams, no AA (A, B1, B2, B2). Orono 5 Bantam teams and no AA. I think if I searched a little more I would find more teams trying to drop to win. quote]

Great topic but CommunityBased, wouldn't Rosemounts B1 team really be there B team since it is there second group of kids or skaters 14-30 something? That is the problem with the AA system. Let's go back to A,B,C and be done with it.

Coming from an association that is a AA High School association but only has 4 PeeWee teams and 5 Bantam teams we are taking a beating at the AA level but keep going because we (not all) feel that since our kids will need to compete at that level at High School we need them to push them against the best. Right or wrong, well that's another discussion.

Look at MoundsView Irondale, they are killing everyone at the A level because they are two AA programs skating A. The system is flawed.[/quote]

Docs_88, your right the system is flawed. I thought SCBluline's idea might help fix it. I don't think the AA/A designation is working like it's sponsors hoped. I assume it was to provide opportunity for the smaller associations to compete.

In general I think MN Hockey wants to give autonomy to each association to evaluate what is best for their kids. Unfortunately the desire to win and win big sometimes gets in the way.

Survey wrote:That level 6 you are speaking of, yeah its called AAA and pretty soon it will become the norm. City/Town based teams generate a AAA team to play on a national scale similar to what Shattuck does. Or they do it based on geography and have a few teams.

Not exactly what I had in mind. They'd still be constrained by their association's footprint. Minnetonka, Wayzata, Eden Prairie, and Edina AA teams can already hold their own against top AAA club teams and there's nothing stopping them from scheduling those teams now. Edina played SSM bantams earlier in the year and Minnetonka is on their schedule a couple weeks from now.

What I would want to happen is for 8 or so metro teams to go Level 6. An association like Edina would probably STILL have a Level 5 (AA) team, a Level 4 (A) team, and a few more besides that. The result, hopefully, is that those teams will be closer to .500 and playing at a more appropriate level. The Level 6 teams would play each other as well as scheduling SSM, Team Wisconsin, and filling out the rest of their schedule with top Level 5 teams. I do NOT want them to expand the geographic footprints from which they draw.

Do I have any supporters for my reclassification plan or did I manage to offend everybody?

Docs_88 wrote:Look at MoundsView Irondale, they are killing everyone at the A level because they are two AA programs skating A. The system is flawed.

They knew it would happen too. Pretty blatant sandbagging. I could name the primary culprit, but the damage is already done and we can only focus on fixing it for next season.

There are at least four kids on that Peewee A team who are among the top players in the state including a 5th grader playing up!

Following SC’s idea here is a thought.
Mandate associations with:
30 or less players A, B1/B2
45 Players (3 teams) A, B1, B2
75 players (5 teams) AA, A, B1, B2, B2
90 plaeyrs (6 teams) AA, A, B1, B1, B2, B2
105+ players (7 or more teams) AA, A, A, B1, B1, B2, B2...

Another option:
Listening to Doc’s 88 if I understood…Teams who feed AA high schools should not field A teams.

Association’s feeding AA HS or Large Youth Coops (Mankato, Rochester, etc…) would field teams at the AA, BB, BB2 levels (BB being new levels similar to AA).
Association’s feeding an A school would field teams A, B, B2 levels

Teams could opt up like Roseau does in HS. This would keep the HUGE associations like Edina, Wayzata, etc.. from winning at AA, A, and B which I don’t think was the intent of the original sponsors of AA. At this point we have just created new levels for the large associations to win at.

The Exiled One wrote:

Docs_88 wrote:Look at MoundsView Irondale, they are killing everyone at the A level because they are two AA programs skating A. The system is flawed.

They knew it would happen too. Pretty blatant sandbagging. I could name the primary culprit, but the damage is already done and we can only focus on fixing it for next season.

There are at least four kids on that Peewee A team who are among the top players in the state including a 5th grader playing up!

Being a Board member has its benefits. Not hard to figure out what happened in this situation.

CommunityBased wrote:Following SC’s idea here is a thought.
Mandate associations with:
30 or less players A, B1/B2
45 Players (3 teams) A, B1, B2
75 players (5 teams) AA, A, B1, B2, B2
90 plaeyrs (6 teams) AA, A, B1, B1, B2, B2
105+ players (7 or more teams) AA, A, A, B1, B1, B2, B2...

Something like this makes sense. On top of that I think if an association has 2 or more teams at a level, the talent should be split evenly, not stacked. Teams should have to earn their success, not have it be the result of how teams were formed or manipulated.

Not sure what the hangup on enforcement would be. The district director audits team declarations at the beginning of the year and lets an association know when they fall outside the stated parameters.

My concern is development. There are too many blowouts all over. A blowout game does absolutely nothing for either team.

The underlying problem of this, is that these decisions are being made by association leaders who often do a 3 year term and leave. It is difficult to make the "right" decision when you are being hounded by the masses in your association.

I appreciate that it is being looked at by MN Hockey (thanks elliott), but this does need to be figured out. This whole issue also affects retention. I would argue the blowouts also cause attrition as families get tired of getting their butts handed to them by a handful of misplaced teams in their league.

All that being said... I am unsure why all the hate for the AA classification. We do have such a broad spectrum of association sizes. 3 classes with a road to state (AA, A, B1) makes sense, with 2 more classes (B2, C) for league play. This change allows an association with only one team (B1) to have a chance to advance. "A" is a fun fight between mid-sized associations and the second tier of a huge association. If teams are declared correctly, the system makes sense.

CommunityBased wrote:Following SC’s idea here is a thought.
Mandate associations with:
30 or less players A, B1/B2
45 Players (3 teams) A, B1, B2
75 players (5 teams) AA, A, B1, B2, B2
90 plaeyrs (6 teams) AA, A, B1, B1, B2, B2
105+ players (7 or more teams) AA, A, A, B1, B1, B2, B2...

Another option:
Listening to Doc’s 88 if I understood…Teams who feed AA high schools should not field A teams.

Association’s feeding AA HS or Large Youth Coops (Mankato, Rochester, etc…) would field teams at the AA, BB, BB2 levels (BB being new levels similar to AA).
Association’s feeding an A school would field teams A, B, B2 levels

Teams could opt up like Roseau does in HS. This would keep the HUGE associations like Edina, Wayzata, etc.. from winning at AA, A, and B which I don’t think was the intent of the original sponsors of AA. At this point we have just created new levels for the large associations to win at.

You are on the right track though you need to account for C teams. The details would need to be worked out as to how the structure would work but this is a good place to start.

CommunityBased wrote:Following SC’s idea here is a thought.
Mandate associations with:
30 or less players A, B1/B2
45 Players (3 teams) A, B1, B2
75 players (5 teams) AA, A, B1, B2, B2
90 plaeyrs (6 teams) AA, A, B1, B1, B2, B2
105+ players (7 or more teams) AA, A, A, B1, B1, B2, B2...

Another option:
Listening to Doc’s 88 if I understood…Teams who feed AA high schools should not field A teams.

Association’s feeding AA HS or Large Youth Coops (Mankato, Rochester, etc…) would field teams at the AA, BB, BB2 levels (BB being new levels similar to AA).
Association’s feeding an A school would field teams A, B, B2 levels

Teams could opt up like Roseau does in HS. This would keep the HUGE associations like Edina, Wayzata, etc.. from winning at AA, A, and B which I don’t think was the intent of the original sponsors of AA. At this point we have just created new levels for the large associations to win at.

Missing the C teams skews your table a bit. I'm going to revise your table a bit and sneak in my new classification plan.

< 30 players: L1 (C), L2 (B2)
31- 38 players: L1, L2 , L3 (B1)
39- 45 players: L1, L2, L4 (A)
46 - 53 players: L1, L2, L2, L4
54 - 60 players: L1, L2, L3, L4
61 - 68 players: L1, L1, L2, L3, L4
69 - 75 players: L1, L1, L2, L3, L5 (AA)
76 - 83 players: L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L5
84 - 90 players: L1, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5
91 - 105 players: L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L4, L5
106 - 120: L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L5
121 - 135: L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5
136 - 150: L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5
151 - 165: L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5
166+: L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5

Mandated declarations will tick off a lot of sandbaggers, but it would make the job of associations a LOT easier and hopefully increase parity across the state. Parity amongst teams at the same level in the same association would be mandatory.

Some teams would still get their behinds kicked, but giving teams the option to play up would hopefully mitigate that a bit. It's impossible to totally eliminate it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Expanded the table to get to 12 teams.

Everyone likes to pick on Edina...

nobody wrote:Everyone likes to pick on Edina...and at times they were extremely guilty.

Dang... 12 peewee teams! Looks like I have to expand my table!

EDIT: Here's how Edina's peewee declarations would changed based on my table...

Current: L1, L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L5
Proposed: L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L3, L4, L4, L5

They're definitely sandbagging based on optimal classification. They should have one less C team, one less B2 team, one more B1 team, and one more A team.

You start with the preface that every association should field at least one A team and work from there. To my knowledge there is no Class B high school hockey so why would we limit the small associations to a max level of B2 under any proposal. Their high school teams would suffer dramatically due to lack of forcing competition throughout the players' youth career by not playing A. Plus you would see mass exodus and avoidance of small programs because they cannot field an A level team.

<30 players = A & B2 or C
....work your charts from there.

nobody wrote:Everyone likes to pick on Edina...and at times they were extremely guilty.

So lets look at D6

Standings:http://www.d6hockey.net/page/show/92541-standings

Expected to by tops Edina, compared to New Prague, standings don't lie..

I scrolled down as far as 10UA and realized it was insane.

NP

12UA 0 wins 8 goals on the season?
10UA 0 wins 4 goals on the season?

No 10u or 12u b teams...HOW could anyone do that in a sane world? That must be a fun year....How could anyone be that far off?

The same thing runs thru the boys teams, almost as bad. The majority of teams are winless in D6. Who are the parity police?

Edina is EXTREMELY guilty of this, particularly at the PeeWee and Bantam B1/B2 levels. They dominate these levels every year and they nor D6 does anything to correct. Having seen these teams, they have some players playing easily 2 levels too low. I don't know why Edina parents put up with this and don't demand change. I wouldn't want my kid that's an A level player playing B2.

On the financial side, Edina B teams get free games at the expense of other associations in district playoffs. Edina teams will play 3-5 district playoff games while the New Prague/Waconia/Shakopee teams are lucky to play 2 games.

This could all easily be "fixed" with solutions like proposed above. Some type of percentile chart that associations look at and know which level their teams will be at based on numbers. Only exception would be an association opting UP for certain levels, not DOWN.

Regarding New Prague girls... they had a 10UB team last year, no 10UA. They went 15-1 and won district playoffs. Their only loss was to Waconia, who also had no A team and went 16-0. It's tough when you only have enough players for one team, there's a large difference between 10UA and 10UB.

SCBlueLiner wrote:You start with the preface that every association should field at least one A team and work from there. To my knowledge there is no Class B high school hockey so why would we limit the small associations to a max level of B2 under any proposal. Their high school teams would suffer dramatically due to lack of forcing competition throughout the players' youth career by not playing A. Plus you would see mass exodus and avoidance of small programs because they cannot field an A level team.

<30 players = A & B2 or C
....work your charts from there.

I strongly disagree. I think you work from the bottom up. Forcing an association with 28 players to find 14 players who can compete with Edina's 2nd best team is a recipe for disaster. Getting blown out 20-0 is not going to prepare them for HS. However, if they feel that they do have 14 players who can compete with Edina's second best team, they are welcome to opt up. Requiring them to do so is ridiculous.

To me the poster child for this scenario this year is Rosemount.

Rosemount is very proud (see article) that they are growing and nearly a top 10 association in terms of numbers. They have chosen to skip A teams and go AA then have only one B1 at peewee and Bantams. No surprise their B1 teams are dominating….because they are actually A teams playing at B. The only reason I know this is a Rosemount parent at a tournament told me about it and how it was a conscience effort by the association to make a statement…..WIN. I am sure they are not the only association doing this. My guess other associations will follow suit to compete.

From Rosemount's front page:
Another tournament championship for Rosemount’s A team…I mean B1 team.
http://www.rosemounthockey.org/news_art ... _id=203137

Rosemount article talking about how big their association is...(not big enough to field A teams)
http://www.rosemounthockey.org/news_art ... _id=203137[/quote]





You should probably get your facts straight a little bit when it comes to Rosemount! Over half the kids in the association are 3rd graders or younger. That means mites, Mini-mites and 8U. Tremendous job by the youth program at growing hockey in Rosemount!

We only have four Bantam teams (AA, B1, B2, C). To say they should have a AA and A team could be a stretch. At this level we have had success with our 8th grade group, first year bantam kids they could be one of the top group of kids in the state and ten of them are on the AA team. At the sametime our numbers are not huge at this level. I think the association did get it right at this level. This group when they where Peewees the B1 team was just a bit over .500.

Peewee numbers are a little bigger our AA team is fighting to be .500 and our B1 team has five losses and five ties. I do not see a ton of games against some of the better associations and would assume if the played Edina, OMG etc.. a little more their record would not be as good...

I'm sure Rosemount as the years go on and the numbers start increasing at each traveling level you will see a AA and A team. I know that will likely be the case next year at Bantams and Peewees.

As for a parent saying Rosemount is all about the wins that's a non-topic.. Some parent that has no-clue just spouting off!