D10 squirts
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
D10 squirts
I am told District 10 teams are going with B1, B2, C designations like we do for Pee Wee, Bantam, etc
How do they do B1 and B2 when Minnesota Hockey only does A, B and C?
How does this work for tournaments?
Seems like their B1 teams will be loaded and do great in tournaments as nobody else has B1 teams but rather even B teams and B2 teams are in for a long year for the opposite reason?
Why would they do something "outside" of MN Hockey?
How do they do B1 and B2 when Minnesota Hockey only does A, B and C?
How does this work for tournaments?
Seems like their B1 teams will be loaded and do great in tournaments as nobody else has B1 teams but rather even B teams and B2 teams are in for a long year for the opposite reason?
Why would they do something "outside" of MN Hockey?
Okay, I am told several districts do it. I had heard Minnesota hockey was looking into future changes like this but I didn't realize it was already in place in a lot of districts.MWS coach wrote:D10 has done this for as long as I can remember.... Other districts do this also...look at D3 and OMGHA
Its all good, carry on. If its been going on for a long time, I guess I just hadn't noticed.
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:40 pm
-
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm
Larger associations weren't the problem. Andover, Centennial and Elk River all had Peewee C teams, Becker-Big Lake was only "small" association that had a PWC team. If you look at the D10 PWB2 standings it's pretty obvious that Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids and Rogers should have had a C team and probably Spring Lake Park and Rum River as well. Actually, it kind of looks like Rogers had an "upper" and "lower" B2 team. If that's the case, that's pretty sad.observer wrote:With over 50 teams I think the District should suggest that the larger associations all field one or two C teams. Makes no sense that there are only 4 teams of 50 playing C.
From what I understand D10 did suggest more associations field C teams, but ultimately it's up to the associations. My guess is these associations are giving in to parent pressure over the stigma attached to the letter (B2 means my kid is better than C). It appears there may be even fewer PWC teams in D10 this year (who wants to play in a 4 team league?) and the District is effectively letting it's members kill PWC hockey in D10. Good news for other Districts, as the B1/B2 teams from D10 will be weaker.
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm
Why did the district only schedule 12 games per team for PWC teams last year? I realize playing the same team 6-7 times isn't optimal, but it's better than only playing 12 district games.blueline_6 wrote:Larger associations weren't the problem. Andover, Centennial and Elk River all had Peewee C teams, Becker-Big Lake was only "small" association that had a PWC team. If you look at the D10 PWB2 standings it's pretty obvious that Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids and Rogers should have had a C team and probably Spring Lake Park and Rum River as well. Actually, it kind of looks like Rogers had an "upper" and "lower" B2 team. If that's the case, that's pretty sad.observer wrote:With over 50 teams I think the District should suggest that the larger associations all field one or two C teams. Makes no sense that there are only 4 teams of 50 playing C.
From what I understand D10 did suggest more associations field C teams, but ultimately it's up to the associations. My guess is these associations are giving in to parent pressure over the stigma attached to the letter (B2 means my kid is better than C). It appears there may be even fewer PWC teams in D10 this year (who wants to play in a 4 team league?) and the District is effectively letting it's members kill PWC hockey in D10. Good news for other Districts, as the B1/B2 teams from D10 will be weaker.
Elk River apparently is planning to have 5 PW teams, but is strongly considering having no C team (and only one A/AA team, leaving two at B1 and two at B2).
-
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:05 am
So what happened was Rogers declared Peewee C and the coach of the team and all the parents went to the board and stated they did not want to play C. So they were allowed to opt up to play B2. In turn they did not have a good season. This was all done after tryouts were completed and teams were declared.
Not fun for the kids at all. Should have stayed at the C level and had more success and fun in my opinion.[/quote]
Not fun for the kids at all. Should have stayed at the C level and had more success and fun in my opinion.[/quote]
-
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am
Yeah, I didn't even realize that was a thing until recently, but it seems to be happening in our association too. We declared too many B1 teams at the bantam level. I asked around as to why this was the case and everybody told me it's because many of the board members' kids were bubble B1/B2 players and they wanted to make sure they'd get a chance to play B1. That can't be fun if they're chasing pucks and losing rather than carrying pucks and winning.puckulence wrote:So what happened was Rogers declared Peewee C and the coach of the team and all the parents went to the board and stated they did not want to play C. So they were allowed to opt up to play B2. In turn they did not have a good season. This was all done after tryouts were completed and teams were declared.
Not fun for the kids at all. Should have stayed at the C level and had more success and fun in my opinion.
Funny thing is, the opposite happens once you grow up and start playing beer league. Then everybody wants to sandbag!
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:23 pm