A Teams v.s. B1 Teams

MNRinkRat · Post by **MNRinkRat** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:46 pm

Ok, I have a serious question. For a small town is it better for them to have an PEE WEE A team or an PEE WEE B1 team? I'm just wondering even if they lost all of the games at the A level, is it still doing some good for that town's programs? Will competing at the A level instead of a B1 level make these kids able to compete more at the high school level?

Just curious because I would like to see some small schools get better and have the power to just not exist but also the ability to be a threat at the high school level.

MoreCowBell · Post by **MoreCowBell** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:58 pm

I feel kids need to have some success, playing at higher level than they should is more about ego.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:51 pm

MoreCowBell wrote:I feel kids need to have some success, playing at higher level than they should is more about ego.

Totally agree. You can work on many needs in practice and try to correct the things you see from the game, but you are going from one speed of play in practice to a higher level of speed in a game. Those things you want corrected are not going to happen because the players get overwhelmed in the game and can't carry them out.

Teams need to be placed at the best level based on their talent pool for some success to take place.

It is also unfair for the competition that has to play this team. Beating a team 12-0 accomplishes nothing for either side at this level.

Maybe some sort of promotion/relegation system to keep associations from placing a team higher than it should. just a thought.

I only see this happen a few times each year

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:06 pm

tomASS wrote: Totally agree. You can work on many needs in practice and try to correct the things you see from the game, but you are going from one speed of play in practice to a higher level of speed in a game. Those things you want corrected are not going to happen because the players get overwhelmed in the game and can't carry them out.

Teams need to be placed at the best level based on their talent pool for some success to take place.

It is also unfair for the competition that has to play this team. Beating a team 12-0 accomplishes nothing for either side at this level.

Maybe some sort of promotion/relegation system to keep associations from placing a team higher than it should. just a thought.

I only see this happen a few times each year

Associations only request where they want to play.
The District Director assigns the level of play for each team.

In D16 each team starts with their first team as an A team. From their they make an appeal to the District Director who with advice from each association's district rep decide if that first team can be a B team... etc....

If that first team woul d like to 'test its metal' they can request to play some A teams that are willing and perhaps the right competition for them.
In D16 that could be D16, D15 or D12 or North Dakota teams as options.

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:18 pm

In the North, there really isn't a B1 and B2 league. I agree a small town team like Red Lake Falls, Baudette, or Hallock would be better off playing in a B1 league. We don't have that up north. We have A or B. To only play B1 teams there would even more travel involved than there already is. The only options are to play an A schedule and take your lumps or play a B schedule and give out the lumps. It is each associations choice as to which is going to be more benificial to each group of kids.

Air Force 1 · Post by **Air Force 1** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:36 pm

egf hockey1 wrote:In the North, there really isn't a B1 and B2 league. I agree a small town team like Red Lake Falls, Baudette, or Hallock would be better off playing in a B1 league. We don't have that up north. We have A or B. To only play B1 teams there would even more travel involved than there already is. The only options are to play an A schedule and take your lumps or play a B schedule and give out the lumps. It is each associations choice as to which is going to be more benificial to each group of kids.

Don't forget Bagley!

egf hockey1 · Post by **egf hockey1** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:51 pm

I apologize. Who could forget Bagley, when talking small town hockey

They are almost the model of the discussion.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:02 pm

egf hockey1 wrote:In the North, there really isn't a B1 and B2 league. I agree a small town team like Red Lake Falls, Baudette, or Hallock would be better off playing in a B1 league. We don't have that up north. We have A or B. To only play B1 teams there would even more travel involved than there already is. The only options are to play an A schedule and take your lumps or play a B schedule and give out the lumps. *It is each associations choice as to which is going to be more benificial to each group of kids.

Baudette and Hallock have an A team.
Baudette also has B level teams.
Red Lake Falls is playing B level but not dishing out lumps - at least not at the bantam level.
Bagley is playing B level but is aiming for the 5, 6, 7 year-old group to play A level.

*The associations request where they would like to play but it is not their choice.

Let-the-KIDS-play · Post by **Let-the-KIDS-play** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:20 am

I just dont understand why anyone would not want their kid to have a chance to play at the highest level.First off I think every youth hockey team should have a Squirt A team mandated by Minnesota Hockey!They could use that as a tool and help towns decide where to play from there.Squirts has no checking,every team makes the playoffs,and some of these kids would see better skilled players to see where they need to get to.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:44 pm

why would chasing other kids around for an hour and not touching the puck be seen as good for development? There are plenty of teams out there that need not be playing at the A level, look at some of the scores from way up north. There are a lot of 0's on the board, that means those kids aren't touching the puck much at all, and all you are doing is encouraging the better squirts to "end to end" it.

sorno82 · Post by **sorno82** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

I just dont understand why anyone would not want their kid to have a chance to play at the highest level.

I want my kids to play at a level where they have the most fun. Playing at a higher level than you are capable of contributing does more harm than good. There is an IIHF study out there that shows how even highly skilled players can be moved up too fast, which limits their potential in the sport. Herb Brooks stated that he has seen many players moved up too fast, but not anyone moved up too slow.

So playing at the highest level is not as important as playing at the right level.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:34 pm

DMom wrote: ...from way up north. There are a lot of 0's on the board...

Bottom teams in D16 are shut out 19+% of their games.
Bottom teams in D6 are shut out 19+% of their games.