[quote="keepyourheadup"]A word of thanks for " REALLY?" Your very right in many ways, it does offer my son the chance to learn how to deal with some adversity and also to realize that we have no conrtol over decisions other people make. The tough part is when you've gotten use to winning so much its going to be a true challenge to help him stay positive with whats coming. I guess thats part of having kids in sports in the first place....it aint always fair and somebody has to win and somebody has got to lose. I appreciate your honesty...Thanks[/quote]
Hey - No problem! It's all in "Hoosiers" actually...and a little bit of "Bad News Bears" I just sense this is the part where we are all supposed to get past what we can't control and get behind the team we've got. Fairy tale endings may be the stuff of Hollywood - we can't count on those, but the lessons all ring true. Time to build ALL these kids up at every opportunity and teach them to do the same for each other.
keepyourheadup wrote:A word of thanks for " REALLY?" Your very right in many ways, it does offer my son the chance to learn how to deal with some adversity and also to realize that we have no conrtol over decisions other people make. The tough part is when you've gotten use to winning so much its going to be a true challenge to help him stay positive with whats coming. I guess thats part of having kids in sports in the first place....it aint always fair and somebody has to win and somebody has got to lose. I appreciate your honesty...Thanks
Hey - No problem! It's all in "Hoosiers" actually...and a little bit of "Bad News Bears" I just sense this is the part where we are all supposed to get past what we can't control and get behind the team we've got. Fairy tale endings may be the stuff of Hollywood - we can't count on those, but the lessons all ring true. Time to build ALL these kids up at every opportunity and teach them to do the same for each other.
Exactly....teach them to by happy for their friends who decide to do something else....possibly leaving their own comfort zone. They will not always be together. Respect, support and loyalty for a friend goes both ways...with decisions you agree with and disagree with. Why is it more complicated than this?
These boys are not leaving associations for political reasons or to be in the NHL tomorrow. They are merely seeking to play at the highest level possible. They form new friendships and continue their current friendships with their grade school buddies.
In my humble opinion the FIRE provides a similiar hockey opportunity that Shattuck provides their boys, the chance to play TIER I hockey. The difference is that the FIRE boys still go to school and play other sports with their grade school buddies ... in my opinion that is the best of both worlds.
Shattuck Tier I and the '93 FIRE Hockey Team play a 3 game series the weekend of October 19-20.
It's all about one's perspectives and values isn't it?
This thread began with a post lamenting the fact that people no longer seem to value loyalty to friends, teams, communities. I see nothing wrong with that perspective. I value the same things.
So maybe things are changing - fine, we'll see how it all turns out. From my perspective, I really don't care why they left. They're gone. I respect those family's and their rights to make whatever decisions they want but I don't have to respect the decision itself. (There's a difference there).
In any event I'm not going to spend much time worrying about these guys leaving their "comfort zone". They were the ones with the choices and they made 'em. My concern will be with the team they left behind who are also well out of their "comfort zones" - but, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want my kid trading places with any one of those "lucky guys" - not for a second. None the less, I wish all of them good luck.
These boys are not leaving associations for political reasons or to be in the NHL tomorrow. They are merely seeking to play at the highest level possible. They form new friendships and continue their current friendships with their grade school buddies.
Bingo, yahtzee....thank you!!!!!!!!
By the way...some do leave for political reasons...more power to them for not putting up with the "madness".
These boys are not leaving associations for political reasons or to be in the NHL tomorrow. They are merely seeking to play at the highest level possible. They form new friendships and continue their current friendships with their grade school buddies.
Bingo, yahtzee....thank you!!!!!!!!
By the way...some do leave for political reasons...more power to them for not putting up with the "madness".
the grass may only look greener on the other side of the fence because of how the sun currently reflects off it. It always looks different once you get to the other side.
I have no problem with choices once a kid is old enough/ mature enough to really decide what is important to them.
The problem is, if you are running from a situation because of problems (politics) make sure that the problem isn't coming with you.....if you know what I mean.
as we know kids are not the problem...it's the vision of grandjure the parent has and by getting 'recruited' to the Fire it is their belief that they are getting one step closer. There will always be justifications for actions and teams like the Fire thrive on it
- My son is not getting the training he needs to compete
- Tougher schedule
- Opportunity to get scouted
etc etc
Additionally, let's face the facts...hometown associations and playing with your friends is definately not as common as it once was...aka...I just witnessed a bantam practice where the kids looked they hated each other...
It is too bad hockey has become this far removed from the 70's and 80's...look at it like pro sports...everyone is a free agent
Last year's SSM Tier 1 team was not to their normal caliber of excellence. Thus not a very good representative example of a top Tier 1 vs. MN Bantam A. Looks like a weaker Tier 1 team was on par with some of the best teams in MN Hockey.
Last year's SSM Tier 1 team was not to their normal caliber of excellence. Thus not a very good representative example of a top Tier 1 vs. MN Bantam A. Looks like a weaker Tier 1 team was on par with some of the best teams in MN Hockey.
you know someone will come back and say the same thing about the Bantam level of play that competed against this less than normal caliber for SSM. It's all subjective at this point except for the records posted.
Agree with HOF'r assessment of Fire. Saw the '93 Fire play last year, VERY mediocre bantam team as Mn bantam's go. Perhaps they have recruited well enough to improve, HOWEVER, I know 2 of last year's better players aren't with them, 1 is with H.A., the other with Matohmedi. Granted, these were for the most part first year bantams last year, but not even close to what I would consider tier 1 hockey.
observer: Am I missing something? My point is that SSM Tier 1 fared better overall against Tier 1 competition than they did against Mn Bantam A teams. Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that the Mn Bantam teams were stronger competition as a whole than SSM's Tier 1 competition.
gerryodrowski wrote:observer: Am I missing something? My point is that SSM Tier 1 fared better overall against Tier 1 competition than they did against Mn Bantam A teams. Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that the Mn Bantam teams were stronger competition as a whole than SSM's Tier 1 competition.
I agree but then justanobserver came back saying SSM was down last year from a talent point of view. Always excuses when the argument is turned back against you.
What people tend to forget that when Minnesota sent teams to the Tier 1 Tournament every year except one, our association based teams made it to the semi-finals and one year to the finals only to loose to a team they had beat in pool play. There was only one year a team did not advance from pool play.
By the way the parents really get a little crazy at this level.One year at the National tournament the parents were fighting in the lobby of the arena.
gerryodrowski wrote:To each his own...however, here's a bit of perspective relative to the competitiveness of Tier 1 vs. Mn Bantam hockey.
Last season Shattuck Tier 1 played 15 games against Mn Bantam A teams. Here are Shattuck's results against these opponents (Win-Loss-Tie).
Eden Praire 0-2-0
Centennial 1-0-1
Duluth East 0-1-0
Wayzata 1-1-0
Edina 1-1-0
Jefferson 0-0-1
White Bear 2-0-1
Lakeville So. 1-0-1
Shattuck Tier 1 record vs. Mn Bantam A - 6 wins, 5 losses , 4 ties.
Shattuck Tier 1 record vs. all others - 30 wins, 17 losses, 5 ties.
Draw your own conclusions about the competitiveness of Tier 1 vs. Mn Bantam A.
Gerry, Minnesota Bantams are in most cases a year older than the Tier 1 and SSM teams. USA Hockey goes by birthyear not a 2 year window like MAHA does, maybe that's why the record looks a little deceiving.
gerryodrowski wrote:observer: Am I missing something? My point is that SSM Tier 1 fared better overall against Tier 1 competition than they did against Mn Bantam A teams. Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that the Mn Bantam teams were stronger competition as a whole than SSM's Tier 1 competition.
Your stats can also work the other way.
"Premier" Bantam A teams vs Shattuck Tier I 5W 6L 4
"Premier" Bantam A teams vs all MH Bantam A teams a very dominant record.
e.g. Edina was 1-1-0 vs Tier I and about 45-8 vs MN Bantam A.
With this outlook you could come to an opposite conclusion.
Minnesota Bantams are in most cases a year older than the Tier 1 and SSM teams. USA Hockey goes by birthyear not a 2 year window like MAHA does, maybe that's why the record looks a little deceiving.
In reality USA Hockey is also a 2 year window 8U,10U,12U,14U,16U,18U for both youth and girls. The birth date is different. In previous years Mn Hockey was the same as USA Hockey, then they changed the birth day to Sept 1 and we ended up younger then USA Hockey changed to July 1 and Mn Hockey rather then fight over 2 months went back 2 months and then started going to the tier 1 14U tournament then USA changed again and Mn Hockey did not.
My point has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not SSM was up or down. It was merely an observation of how a "weak" SSM team fared against 8 of the top 20 Mn Bantam A teams. Obviously every Mn Bantam A teams does not measure up to every one of these teams. Would any of you consider SSM's Tier 1 schedule to be "weak". They compiled their stronger record against approximately 20 different Tier 1 teams. If SSM was weak, how weak was their competition? Also, age is irrelevant. I'm not comparing Mn vs. Tier 1, only comparing the relative competitiveness of top bantam teams vs. top Tier 1 teams. The choice made by Fire players is whether to play Mn Bantams (older) or Tier 1 (younger). I just think a case can be made that the Tier 1 schedule played by SSM is not stronger than the bantam schedule they played.
I've stood on the sidelines awhile and this has been a good honest discussion..thanks, I'll now through in my view point as it relates to Bantam A , Tier 1 and what happened at Lakeville South. Tier 1 can indeed be a good choice for the right player in the wrong association, if your truly alone or your community fields no A team I can see this as a reasonable alternative. This year Shattuck and the Fire will be teams composed of all 93 born players. Bantam A will have the younger half of the 92 class mostly 93's and the very best half of the 94 class. You want competition? Play the Edinas, White Bears, Wayzatas and Eden prairies. These teams will be dominated by a strong group of 92's. Now I realize not all associations choose or are able to play these teams by choice or not, so yes, if your stuck in a weak district or on inferior team I can understand the choice to leave strictly from a hockey perspective. Here is the rub, Lakeville South was going to be an extremely good club, they proved it when they played in the EP 3 on 3 tourney. Shattuck was to be our first game, all touneys had been set against the highest level of competiton. Evidently this wasn't good enough, once the top three kids bailed the rest crumpled like a house of cards, This even included the coach who attended the 3 on 3 tourney and was subsequently promoted at work and no longer able to fulfill his commitment (how convienient) after the first 3 bolted. From that point it really got ugly as politics over the coach replacement, the realization that team depth after the first 10 was marginal at best and a rats off a sinking ship mentality took over. NO SINGLE PERSON OR ENTITY IS TO BE BLAMED HERE..ITS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE WHILE REACTING TO WHAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS CHOSEN TO DO. At least half of the defections would never have occured if it hadn't been for what they saw happening right in front of them. Its a shame to watch frienships fracture both with the kids and the parents and all just because of Hockey..now that is madness.
I just sense this is the part where we are all supposed to get past what we can't control and get behind the team we've got. Fairy tale endings may be the stuff of Hollywood - we can't count on those, but the lessons all ring true. Time to build ALL these kids up at every opportunity and teach them to do the same for each other.