HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Just because there are issues/disadvantages with not having a state tourney at the National level of JGB doesn't mean that the solution is to make sure one gets added. First, Minnesota Hockey won't do it, second, there are other levels in all age brackets that get by fine without state. Neither B2 o...

I like it. However, one potential problem I see is that because the Nationals will not have a state tourney (and since it will be where all the low-end non-16 eligibles will end up), most, JG16-eligible players who don't make their American team will likely opt/prefer to play JG16 instead of for the...

Word is that a non-partial observer (from Edina) said it was one of the best youth hockey games he's ever seen.

I guess it's a matter of perspective on the relative priorities. I'd argue that at the JG level and below, PP and PK development shouldn't be a key point of emphasis; there's enough work to do in other areas. Sure, at HS and above (especially with longer periods) there's value in making sure teams h...

If in a typical JG game, each team gets six or seven minors (even if some of those overlap) that's at least half the game played something other than 5 on 5. It makes sense to have as much 5 on 5 as possible in youth hockey. And reduced penalty time won't be any less a deterrent to incurring them.

It's a smart change. Much better for player development (especially for those who don't get PP and PK time) when we can proportionally get more 5 on 5 game time. Better flow to the game too. Should have been done years ago by Minn. Hockey.