It seems anytime someone points out a flaw in the system they get jumped on for bashing Minnesota Hockey. Let's start a post where people can post some ideas that will help get people talking.
No Bashing- Just some of your ideas to make Minnesota Hockey better.
1- Be more involved in each district to insure consistancy from district to district. Right now there are to many rule differences like game times,waiver policies, ect. There needs to be stronger main leadership.
2- Stop trying to fight the AAA or Tier1 wave and find a way to incorporate it into Minnesota Hockey. A lot of the top kids are leaving already to play Juniors, Tier 1 or other programs. Why fight it. Find a way to give them what they are looking for right here.
Others?
Ideas for Minnesota Hockey
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
54fighting
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm
- Location: The sin bin
I like the topic...
Disagree with your first point....
game times are geared around what is best for each district...
D16 we play 17 minute, stop-time,periods (3)... no matter what MN Hockey says we will continueto do this as this is what is best for us.
In districts where ice time is not as available they do what they can....
Waivers ... D16 has a rule based on community based. Moving about is not possible (for the most part). What D6 does ... well that pretty much is their concern from our view, but MN Hockey is community based.
Point 2 is very good... MN Hockey planning committee does have this on their agenda... anyone wishing to contribute can submit ideas or sit on teh committee.... contact Dennis Green or Dave Bakke.
Point 3....
Recently MN Hoceky board etal tried to prioritize ideas, concepts,programs...
We did the same in D16 on what we tought MN H should prioritize...
My question, What do people on this board feel MNH top priority, top 5 priorites be...
such as region/state tournaments
training coaches/refs
select 15 etc...
recruitment
playing rules
Disagree with your first point....
game times are geared around what is best for each district...
D16 we play 17 minute, stop-time,periods (3)... no matter what MN Hockey says we will continueto do this as this is what is best for us.
In districts where ice time is not as available they do what they can....
Waivers ... D16 has a rule based on community based. Moving about is not possible (for the most part). What D6 does ... well that pretty much is their concern from our view, but MN Hockey is community based.
Point 2 is very good... MN Hockey planning committee does have this on their agenda... anyone wishing to contribute can submit ideas or sit on teh committee.... contact Dennis Green or Dave Bakke.
Point 3....
Recently MN Hoceky board etal tried to prioritize ideas, concepts,programs...
We did the same in D16 on what we tought MN H should prioritize...
My question, What do people on this board feel MNH top priority, top 5 priorites be...
such as region/state tournaments
training coaches/refs
select 15 etc...
recruitment
playing rules
I think MN Hockey should sanction AAA sooner rather than later. I get tired of reading how some associations feel their program will be ruined by this level of hockey. They seem to think they have draft rights to these players. You do not own these players and who gave you the right to decide what they do. They pay the money to play not you. Your time is greatly appreciated by everyone, but if a player wants to travel a different path then so be it.
The community associations provide a good opportunity for kids to play hockey. If a kid wants a different experience don't take it personal.
How many MN kids are on the '94 Fire? I'm not looking for my kids to play AAA, I just think it should be a viable option for youth hockey in MN.
The community associations provide a good opportunity for kids to play hockey. If a kid wants a different experience don't take it personal.
How many MN kids are on the '94 Fire? I'm not looking for my kids to play AAA, I just think it should be a viable option for youth hockey in MN.
-
Johnsonpres
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:28 pm
Another possibility is to have some of the areas that have large numbers start a "AA" so they can compete at a higher level. I know here at Johnson with the numbers we have we might shock some of the good teams once in a great while but most years we are middle to lower "A" level teams. I say let the haves play the other haves not the have-nots. No one likes to get blown out. This way maybe those good players will stay at Minnesota hockey.
-
54fighting
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 pm
- Location: The sin bin
A and AA teams
Maybe MH should try to set up a system to label the top teams from each association as A or AA. Similar to the High School set up. They keep telling us that they are structured to support our HS programs so this should fit in.
They could come up with a way to determine who plays A or AA. Maybe registration numbers.
Then they could allow AA and A teams to play each other during the year but divide them up come playoff time and have a A and AA state tournament and get rid of the stupid B tournament. That way they would eliminate some of the so called "trophy hunting associations" that like to play at the B level so they can win. This way they would have to compete against all the other associations of similar size.
Thoughts?
They could come up with a way to determine who plays A or AA. Maybe registration numbers.
Then they could allow AA and A teams to play each other during the year but divide them up come playoff time and have a A and AA state tournament and get rid of the stupid B tournament. That way they would eliminate some of the so called "trophy hunting associations" that like to play at the B level so they can win. This way they would have to compete against all the other associations of similar size.
Thoughts?
1) Take more control of the A level and also allow AAA hockey in some form. In all A and AAA levels move the birthdate to reflect the one used by USA Hockey. Let each association determine how many A teams they want to have, 0 through what ever; if Winona doesn't feel like they have an A team they don't need to field one, if White Bear Lake wants to field 5 let them. Run these A programs like they are now with district and state tournaments, with the change in age cut off they would be eligible for National tournaments as well. This keeps the high end players and parents satisfied, and having try outs in early October allows for kids who aren't on A teams to get on a team while allowing the age cut off change to not hurt anyone.
2) Do away with all other levels of A, B, and C classification, all non A teams are just that, teams. Take these teams out of USA Hockey and run a parallel hockey organization that is basically just organized hockey. No fees to USA Hockey which will keep costs down, no district committments, meaning less travel. Bigger associations can then go back to neighborhood hockey so kids are playing with neighbors and classmates instead of thrown together hodgepodge by someones judge of talent or lack thereof. Let associations work together to form "conferences" or what have you to help get games and allow smaller associations to develop kids without having to go out and get drubbed by larger ones.
Kids want to have fun and play with their friends, parents want everyone to be a winner, why else have a B or C district tournament? We need to get back to catering to the kids not the parents, not USA Hockey, not egos. The A/AAA level allows those who so desire to play at that level, doing away with lower levels allows kids to compete with their friends and classmates, let kids develop by playing against different talent levels, and takes away the beurocracy that is taking over kids sports. The very fact that 1 assocuiation threatens lawsuits over what district they are assigned to just shows how badly we've taken the game away from kids. It should be less about developing talent and more about having fun. Hockey is a game, too many people forget that. Retention stinks, why? Kids aren't having fun.
2) Do away with all other levels of A, B, and C classification, all non A teams are just that, teams. Take these teams out of USA Hockey and run a parallel hockey organization that is basically just organized hockey. No fees to USA Hockey which will keep costs down, no district committments, meaning less travel. Bigger associations can then go back to neighborhood hockey so kids are playing with neighbors and classmates instead of thrown together hodgepodge by someones judge of talent or lack thereof. Let associations work together to form "conferences" or what have you to help get games and allow smaller associations to develop kids without having to go out and get drubbed by larger ones.
Kids want to have fun and play with their friends, parents want everyone to be a winner, why else have a B or C district tournament? We need to get back to catering to the kids not the parents, not USA Hockey, not egos. The A/AAA level allows those who so desire to play at that level, doing away with lower levels allows kids to compete with their friends and classmates, let kids develop by playing against different talent levels, and takes away the beurocracy that is taking over kids sports. The very fact that 1 assocuiation threatens lawsuits over what district they are assigned to just shows how badly we've taken the game away from kids. It should be less about developing talent and more about having fun. Hockey is a game, too many people forget that. Retention stinks, why? Kids aren't having fun.
Here is my suggestion:
Dont do a thing.
We dont need anymore bleepin ideas.
It aint broke, dont fix it.
It has worked for decades. It has produced some phenominal hockey players...thousands of them.
People will always stick up their noses at it. The Wisconsin Fire exist because Wisconsin cant do what MN Hockey has done. They dont have the players. Same goes for all AAA.
AAA isnt an improvement , its the result of a thin talent pool. If we go the AAA route there will eventually be as many AAA teams in MN as there are A teams now.
MN Hockey programs provide a competitive, instructive and developmental experience for a broad base of children and have for decades. I wouldnt tinker with it too much.
Dont do a thing.
We dont need anymore bleepin ideas.
It aint broke, dont fix it.
It has worked for decades. It has produced some phenominal hockey players...thousands of them.
People will always stick up their noses at it. The Wisconsin Fire exist because Wisconsin cant do what MN Hockey has done. They dont have the players. Same goes for all AAA.
AAA isnt an improvement , its the result of a thin talent pool. If we go the AAA route there will eventually be as many AAA teams in MN as there are A teams now.
MN Hockey programs provide a competitive, instructive and developmental experience for a broad base of children and have for decades. I wouldnt tinker with it too much.
Do nothing and hockey will become a fringe sport, that's the problem. If kids quit in the numbers that they are there is something wrong. Rochester has nearly 100,000 people and is growing yet the numbers of kids playing hockey continues to fall, not just as a % of kids but in total numbers. 200 less than last year was the intial estimate this year. When there aren't enough kids playing something has got to change. Maybe not at the top, but somewhere.
Its family economics, not the lack of AAA hockey teams that get to go to Nationals.
Taking all teams below A out of USA Hockey will save what, 40.00 dollars? Is that enough to make parents pull their kids out of hockey?
If you want more kids playing hockey, stop the squrt aged kids from all the traveling that they are currently doing. Get the kids and parents hooked on hockey before the travelling begins, thats where the expenses add up and deters parents from getting their kids involved.
If the squirt aged kids want to travel and compete, then there is always summer hockey and traveling tournaments for them.
Just my two cents
Taking all teams below A out of USA Hockey will save what, 40.00 dollars? Is that enough to make parents pull their kids out of hockey?
If you want more kids playing hockey, stop the squrt aged kids from all the traveling that they are currently doing. Get the kids and parents hooked on hockey before the travelling begins, thats where the expenses add up and deters parents from getting their kids involved.
If the squirt aged kids want to travel and compete, then there is always summer hockey and traveling tournaments for them.
Just my two cents
There was a time in the city of St. Paul that all the rec. Centers had hockey teams (Phalen, Conway,Prosperity, Hayden Heights, Lockwood, Duluth& Case, Wilder, Arlington, Eastview, Hazel Park) and that was only on the East Side of the city. Now out of the ten mentioned not one offers playground hockey above Mites. Now the cost of the sport is only one of the reasons. Other reasons could be you can't let your kids just go down to the rec. center anymore with all the creeps in the world. Saint Paul has just as many kids just none that play sports. If you don't think cost is a factor my friend just told me for his two kids to play in Stillwater it is costing $2900 dollars. I can't afford that and I don't know of many people other those in triple figures that can. Basketball shoes or volleyball is an option.
Last edited by tunavichy on Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
goldy, I dont know anyhting about the demographics of Rochester and I dont know why your numbers are down. But I thnk state wide our raw numbers are up.
I dont believe in being an ostrich but some of the stuff that is inherent in hockey cant change or it wont be hockey anymore. If we make it so it isnt hockey, it will become a fringe sport...maybe it always has been anyway.
I dont believe in being an ostrich but some of the stuff that is inherent in hockey cant change or it wont be hockey anymore. If we make it so it isnt hockey, it will become a fringe sport...maybe it always has been anyway.
The more discussion, whether we agree or disagree, the better.
I have asked, since 1994, for MN HOckey to have an open conference for people to come together and discuss issues, shares methods and try to make things better, just as we are doing here. No feelings hurt, egos left at the door, ideas, ideas, ideas and then change or like packer says, no change.
Ideas and opinions, that is why I come here. Some are misinformed opinions, but that's okay, too.
I have asked, since 1994, for MN HOckey to have an open conference for people to come together and discuss issues, shares methods and try to make things better, just as we are doing here. No feelings hurt, egos left at the door, ideas, ideas, ideas and then change or like packer says, no change.
Ideas and opinions, that is why I come here. Some are misinformed opinions, but that's okay, too.
I agree elliott but the best place to have change of the kind needed might be in our own backyards.
If associaitons are puttuing on hockey programs that cost $2,900 for 2 kids, MN Hockey isnt the culprit. People need to go to the associaition and complain.
We need to have some self control. There is no need to be in a tournamnet every other weekend , for example.
I suppose MN Hockey could legislate those things but wouldnt we be better off doing it ourslves.
If associaitons are puttuing on hockey programs that cost $2,900 for 2 kids, MN Hockey isnt the culprit. People need to go to the associaition and complain.
We need to have some self control. There is no need to be in a tournamnet every other weekend , for example.
I suppose MN Hockey could legislate those things but wouldnt we be better off doing it ourslves.
-
nickel slots
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:24 pm
- Location: Northern Southern Minnesota
This is NOT the NHL
elliot,
I have seen approximately 20 games that have been played using the new "Standard of Play" rules. My first reaction is "we already have enough problems related to getting quality referees at the youth level, why would we want to subject them to the criticism that will accompany the new rules?"
I like the concept, but in reality what we're doing is making the pee wees, bantams, midgets and high schoolers play with the same rules as the squirts. The game loses all flow and becomes very boring. No offense to the girls, but what we are doing is trying to make the boys play girls hockey. The boys are afraid to use their bodies. When that happens, the game loses it's integrity. I was at a bantam game the other day, and I swear there weren't two rushes up and down the rink without some sort of penalty being called. Ridiculous. I don't go to youth hockey games to watch referees. Neither does anybody else. I've already heard a thousand times over that coaches are going to concentrate on their special teams because they don't expect to play much 5 on 5 hockey.
Doesn't that concern USA Hockey?? Instead of the coaches teaching the kids how to avoid the infractions, they are teaching them how to cope with them. Why? Because they know that no matter how disciplined their kids play, they are still going to be penalized for something.
I agree that the product that the NHL was delivering had deteriorated. The players are all so big, strong and talented, with the clutch & grab there was no offense being generated. The whole idea behind the new rules system at the NHL level was to increase scoring and thus improving the product and putting butts back in the seats. That has never been a problem in the youth levels. I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. The Standard of Play and the HEP are counterproductive. The idea behind HEP is to give the fans, players and coaches motivation for good sportsmanship. I don't expect too many teams will ever get their Fair Play Point due to the quantity of penalties. Once teams lose their FPP, they won't have anything holding them back, and we are going to have more incidents of unruly fans, coaches and players this year than we've ever had before. I fear for the refs.
I don't see how that makes the game better or more exciting.
I have seen approximately 20 games that have been played using the new "Standard of Play" rules. My first reaction is "we already have enough problems related to getting quality referees at the youth level, why would we want to subject them to the criticism that will accompany the new rules?"
I like the concept, but in reality what we're doing is making the pee wees, bantams, midgets and high schoolers play with the same rules as the squirts. The game loses all flow and becomes very boring. No offense to the girls, but what we are doing is trying to make the boys play girls hockey. The boys are afraid to use their bodies. When that happens, the game loses it's integrity. I was at a bantam game the other day, and I swear there weren't two rushes up and down the rink without some sort of penalty being called. Ridiculous. I don't go to youth hockey games to watch referees. Neither does anybody else. I've already heard a thousand times over that coaches are going to concentrate on their special teams because they don't expect to play much 5 on 5 hockey.
Doesn't that concern USA Hockey?? Instead of the coaches teaching the kids how to avoid the infractions, they are teaching them how to cope with them. Why? Because they know that no matter how disciplined their kids play, they are still going to be penalized for something.
I agree that the product that the NHL was delivering had deteriorated. The players are all so big, strong and talented, with the clutch & grab there was no offense being generated. The whole idea behind the new rules system at the NHL level was to increase scoring and thus improving the product and putting butts back in the seats. That has never been a problem in the youth levels. I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. The Standard of Play and the HEP are counterproductive. The idea behind HEP is to give the fans, players and coaches motivation for good sportsmanship. I don't expect too many teams will ever get their Fair Play Point due to the quantity of penalties. Once teams lose their FPP, they won't have anything holding them back, and we are going to have more incidents of unruly fans, coaches and players this year than we've ever had before. I fear for the refs.
I don't see how that makes the game better or more exciting.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
It's all small stuff.
It's all small stuff.
-
SLP/SW Coach
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:13 pm
If an Hour of Ice Time did not run about $150 per hour, then the costs would not be so high. Inflation and the cost to run a program are way up too.
Get more people to volunteer their time in certain programs and the initial costs will be lowered.
Also, work on fund raisers for the program and those should help keep cost down too.
You can't just say - lower the price. Figure out ways to lower the prices/costs.
*Youth Snow Shovel Program
*Try to sell more "Spirit Gear" association clothing etc
*Pull Tabs can be GREAT
*Fundraiser Association Poker Tourney (Buy In to WIN - give away prizes, not cash)
*Open your minds, not just your mouths
Get more people to volunteer their time in certain programs and the initial costs will be lowered.
Also, work on fund raisers for the program and those should help keep cost down too.
You can't just say - lower the price. Figure out ways to lower the prices/costs.
*Youth Snow Shovel Program
*Try to sell more "Spirit Gear" association clothing etc
*Pull Tabs can be GREAT
*Fundraiser Association Poker Tourney (Buy In to WIN - give away prizes, not cash)
*Open your minds, not just your mouths
RL Stars: Taking kids below A level out of USA Hockey/MN Hockey can save much more than $40; for a number of reasons:
Eliminate districts, the fact you're forced to play someone far away kills programs. People can't all afford to drive 200+ miles round trip to play 1 game, for example Austin plays Redwood Falls and Luverne because both are in district 4 and they're seperated by 170 miles 1 way. 6 hours of driving, $40 in gas for a 1 hour game, or you can make a weekend of it and play a few games but then you have to add the cost of a hotel. If you're struggling as an association or even as a parent trying to decide whether to sign up to play as it is this can be a killer. Ice time is expensive but it's the unforseen ancillary costs that get people. Austin isn't alone with this problem, many associations have to deal with it. District 8 wants Rochester out so they can cut down on travel costs, Rochester is fighting like crazy because SSP and Woodbury are a heck of a lot closer than most of District 4 where they once were, not to mention the competition aspect of it all.
Eliminate the beurocracy; Coaching certification, HEP, Fair play, helmet rules, has it really made any difference in the quality of play? In my opinion the level of play has actually gone down the past 10 years. Let local associations run this kind of stuff, they have more of a pulse on their community and how things are working than somebody in Michigan does. Some guys sitting in a room telling a volunteer what they have to do to coach just rubs me the wrong way. (The MSHSL did away with coaching certification years ago)
If your association wants to run 100 A programs fine, but I don't see how forcing travel in its current state on everyone benefits most programs.
Once upon a time Football and Basketball were dominated by the white kids, times change and those sports adapted to allow inclusion. That's hockey's biggest challenge; how to allow more kids of all backgrounds a chance to play. Start with lowering costs for as many as possible, lessen indoor ice time and lessen travel. This trend of becoming an upper class white sport isn't a good one. I wish somone would go do a survey on the average income of your PeeWee A family and compare that to the median income of that community, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts its at least 2X higher.
There's no reason to not cater to the elite player, but treating everybody like they are or even want to be an elite player hurts the recreational player which is the majority. I'd be hardpressed to believe most kids want to get in a car on a Saturday afternoon, drive a couple of hours to get an actual 15-20 minutes of ice time then drive 2 hours home; for that matter I hated wasting a weekend diving all over the state for a couple of hockey games every weekend. Yet that's what is being done and it's getting worse.
The point of any youth sport should be for kids to have fun but nobody takes the time to actually ask the kids what they want. I'm sure over bearing parents whom live their lives through their kids sporting events are at the top of their wish list though. Sit through most any hockey game and watch parents make complete morons of themselves day after day year after year hollering at kids, officials, and each other. Working at a hockey rink for many years I have seen this and it's getting worse, problem is we used to just blame it on alcohol, nowadys these people are sober.
Eliminate districts, the fact you're forced to play someone far away kills programs. People can't all afford to drive 200+ miles round trip to play 1 game, for example Austin plays Redwood Falls and Luverne because both are in district 4 and they're seperated by 170 miles 1 way. 6 hours of driving, $40 in gas for a 1 hour game, or you can make a weekend of it and play a few games but then you have to add the cost of a hotel. If you're struggling as an association or even as a parent trying to decide whether to sign up to play as it is this can be a killer. Ice time is expensive but it's the unforseen ancillary costs that get people. Austin isn't alone with this problem, many associations have to deal with it. District 8 wants Rochester out so they can cut down on travel costs, Rochester is fighting like crazy because SSP and Woodbury are a heck of a lot closer than most of District 4 where they once were, not to mention the competition aspect of it all.
Eliminate the beurocracy; Coaching certification, HEP, Fair play, helmet rules, has it really made any difference in the quality of play? In my opinion the level of play has actually gone down the past 10 years. Let local associations run this kind of stuff, they have more of a pulse on their community and how things are working than somebody in Michigan does. Some guys sitting in a room telling a volunteer what they have to do to coach just rubs me the wrong way. (The MSHSL did away with coaching certification years ago)
If your association wants to run 100 A programs fine, but I don't see how forcing travel in its current state on everyone benefits most programs.
Once upon a time Football and Basketball were dominated by the white kids, times change and those sports adapted to allow inclusion. That's hockey's biggest challenge; how to allow more kids of all backgrounds a chance to play. Start with lowering costs for as many as possible, lessen indoor ice time and lessen travel. This trend of becoming an upper class white sport isn't a good one. I wish somone would go do a survey on the average income of your PeeWee A family and compare that to the median income of that community, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts its at least 2X higher.
There's no reason to not cater to the elite player, but treating everybody like they are or even want to be an elite player hurts the recreational player which is the majority. I'd be hardpressed to believe most kids want to get in a car on a Saturday afternoon, drive a couple of hours to get an actual 15-20 minutes of ice time then drive 2 hours home; for that matter I hated wasting a weekend diving all over the state for a couple of hockey games every weekend. Yet that's what is being done and it's getting worse.
The point of any youth sport should be for kids to have fun but nobody takes the time to actually ask the kids what they want. I'm sure over bearing parents whom live their lives through their kids sporting events are at the top of their wish list though. Sit through most any hockey game and watch parents make complete morons of themselves day after day year after year hollering at kids, officials, and each other. Working at a hockey rink for many years I have seen this and it's getting worse, problem is we used to just blame it on alcohol, nowadys these people are sober.
Great Point's
Goldy, You are accurate on many count's, except the dist. change for Roch. The proposed dist. line-up went no futher West than Albert Lea (50 min. away), and the competition is better than you give it credit for.
How many kids will you retain when you take the games away from them and their parents? Take away the games against other towns and watch the kids leave. Is HEP, Coaching Certification, coaches wearing helmets and fair play points really causing kids to quit or not participate?
I think that at mites and maybe squirts, HEP (the testing aspect) should be fun for the kids. They get to see proof of how they are doing and be able to tell that they are getting better as time goes by.
As for travel distances, there are things that the district could do to help that. I fully understand how large some districts are and the travel would really cause problems, but they've always been there. One idea would be to have four team at one location on a Saturday. Two games played in the morning and two games in the afternoon. Each team would get two games in one day and go home.
Its also up to your district to decide how many games each level is going to have. If it helps, don't have so many league games and play more tournaments were you can get three or four games in a weekend.
As for asking the kids what they really want, I coached PW B a few years back and it never ceased to amaze me how some kids would miss practice during the week, but NEVER missed a game. Those kids are not playing today because they didn't have the skill to keep up with the kids that made it to practice everyday.
I think that at mites and maybe squirts, HEP (the testing aspect) should be fun for the kids. They get to see proof of how they are doing and be able to tell that they are getting better as time goes by.
As for travel distances, there are things that the district could do to help that. I fully understand how large some districts are and the travel would really cause problems, but they've always been there. One idea would be to have four team at one location on a Saturday. Two games played in the morning and two games in the afternoon. Each team would get two games in one day and go home.
Its also up to your district to decide how many games each level is going to have. If it helps, don't have so many league games and play more tournaments were you can get three or four games in a weekend.
As for asking the kids what they really want, I coached PW B a few years back and it never ceased to amaze me how some kids would miss practice during the week, but NEVER missed a game. Those kids are not playing today because they didn't have the skill to keep up with the kids that made it to practice everyday.
Jackstraw, you're right and that's my whole point. In Rochester there is no reason to not play Austin, Albert Lea, Owatonna, Kasson, etc. All are less than an hour away and all give good games. The competitive aspect referred to all of district 4, specifically the years when everyone fielded an A team. I'm all for the new proposal, I think it's a win win for everyone.
Tavel has not always been a problem, the creation of districts, especially for B and C teams created that problem. You can't play more than 2 games a day anymore and even then you have to find something for the kids to do betwen games which is 6 hours or so I believe. Try doing that on a Sunday in many towns. What exactly is the purpose of districts for B and C teams?
Tavel has not always been a problem, the creation of districts, especially for B and C teams created that problem. You can't play more than 2 games a day anymore and even then you have to find something for the kids to do betwen games which is 6 hours or so I believe. Try doing that on a Sunday in many towns. What exactly is the purpose of districts for B and C teams?
-
wtbearlk1111
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:10 pm
I would say that Austin, Albert Lea , Owatonna don't have the talent
to field an A Team. They should field good competitive B teams.
If an Associations only has 25 players at a given level should they be allowed an A team?
Then we can make all the big associations split 2 or 3 ways so we are all competitive, I don't think so.
to field an A Team. They should field good competitive B teams.
If an Associations only has 25 players at a given level should they be allowed an A team?
Then we can make all the big associations split 2 or 3 ways so we are all competitive, I don't think so.
wtbearlk1111
wtbearlk1111, I am guessing you are from WBL, and no, Austin, AL and Owatonna are not going to beat WBL's A team's. You are wrong in your premise though that they shouldn't have A team's as year in and year out AL and Owatonna (and Austin until a couple year's ago) compete very well with top 25 team's in the state. I am pretty sure FL A bantam's beat WBL a year ago and AL had a good 1 goal game with FL, outshooting them 2 to 1. Unless you think there should only be 12 or 15 A bantam team's in the state then you are wrong on this one.
JACKSTRAW. Have you lost your mind? You are talking out of your REAR END saying that you Albert Lea can compete with the top 25 team's in the state. If that was a true statement you would be ranked in the top 20 rankings. Yes, on a really good day you might beat some of the top team's but not very often. Example of this is last year when you played the Orono team and lost by about 10 goals. I will give you credit at least you had the courage to play them. Owatonna last year finished in the top 20 rankings at 19th. They must of had a solid team last year to finish in the top 20. Yes you can beat Owatonna last year maybe 1or 2 times out of 5 games. Please don't sugar coat thinks to go your way, see it and say it and stay in reality. LET'S TALK WHEN YOUR IN THE TOP 20 RANKINGS.
Same 'ol, same 'ol
Read my post clearly. Top 12, no way. Up to 25, definitly. AL compete's very well from top 12 on down. Orono last year moved up and down but easily were a top 8 team. Just on Sun. the AL PW's beat Farmington 5-2. Not a top 15 team but an A team none the less.
-
wtbearlk1111
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:10 pm