Anyone know who the 2000 Attack in the Easton cup is?

crzyhkymom · Post by **crzyhkymom** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:22 am

Since the Machine is out of the Easton cup invite, anyone know who the 2000 Attack team is? Is it a throw together Machine team?

crzyhkymom · Post by **crzyhkymom** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:29 am

And why is the Monopoly called "Monopoly North America"? and not simply the Monopoly?

Benito Juarez · Post by **Benito Juarez** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:19 pm

crzyhkymom wrote:And why is the Monopoly called "Monopoly North America"? and not simply the Monopoly?

The biggest reason is to drive people crazy........

hotsauce · Post by **hotsauce** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:47 pm

Benito Juarez wrote:
crzyhkymom wrote:And why is the Monopoly called "Monopoly North America"? and not simply the Monopoly?
The biggest reason is to drive people crazy........

it's because they didn't want to falsely advertise the team. They have kids from a few places in north America and the Chicago brick coach was involved in putting the team together and he is running a camp with the monopoly guys. It is not the normal monopoly team.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:54 pm

Does anybody know if it is it the same "Monopoly North America" team that played in the Winnipeg tournament, or is this a different version of "Monopoly North America"?

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:03 pm

Deep Breath wrote:Does anybody know if it is it the same "Monopoly North America" team that played in the Winnipeg tournament, or is this a different version of "Monopoly North America"?

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I've been told that the "Monopoly North America" team is called as such because it is not s developmental team but rather a "tournament team" so to speak and while there are some kids who probably take part each time that the roster is different (to varying degrees) at each tourney they attend depending on who they pull in to play at that particular tourney. Hope that run-on sentence made some sense.

crzyhkymom · Post by **crzyhkymom** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:12 pm

Makes sense about the Monopoly. Thanks for the clarification. Any ideas on the "Attack" team?

Task Force 34 · Post by **Task Force 34** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:21 pm

In the past "The Attack" was a loosely assembled Machine team. Not all Machine players but some. Usually because the entire team was not available for the tournament. The 99 Machine and Deuce teams have played under the Attack name in prior years.

Not sure if it is the same situation or not.

crzyhkymom · Post by **crzyhkymom** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:31 pm

Thanks Task Force. I was thinking maybe Machine teams, but wasn't sure.

DonnyHockey · Post by **DonnyHockey** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:18 pm

whoever they were I just heard they litterally got blown out big time in all the pool play games. This was supposed to be an invite tourney and Showcase allows a low quality open team to play with the big boys? These tourney's need a better screening process to make sure the appropriate teams are playing in the appropriate tourney's. Makes for a better product for the players and fans. I bet the players and parents on this Attack team didn't have the best of time losing by the margins the did in this invite tourney. I think this also speaks volumes on the quality of these local tournaments. Seems to me the quality and competition are down big time.

silentbutdeadly3139 · Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:27 pm

DonnyHockey wrote:whoever they were I just heard they litterally got blown out big time in all the pool play games. This was supposed to be an invite tourney and Showcase allows a low quality open team to play with the big boys? These tourney's need a better screening process to make sure the appropriate teams are playing in the appropriate tourney's. Makes for a better product for the players and fans. I bet the players and parents on this Attack team didn't have the best of time losing by the margins the did in this invite tourney. I think this also speaks volumes on the quality of these local tournaments. Seems to me the quality and competition are down big time.

I'm guessing showcase knew exactly what caliber of teams they were "letting in". But they can't make the invite teams play and it appears as though the higher caliber teams are choosing not to play in showcase tournaments but in other tournaments like the Caribou Cup instead.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:46 pm

DonnyHockey wrote:whoever they were I just heard they litterally got blown out big time in all the pool play games. This was supposed to be an invite tourney and Showcase allows a low quality open team to play with the big boys? These tourney's need a better screening process to make sure the appropriate teams are playing in the appropriate tourney's. Makes for a better product for the players and fans. I bet the players and parents on this Attack team didn't have the best of time losing by the margins the did in this invite tourney. I think this also speaks volumes on the quality of these local tournaments. Seems to me the quality and competition are down big time.

I undertand what you're trying to say, but I just can't get past the fact that you use the term "big boys" when referring to 9 and 10 year olds....

DonnyHockey · Post by **DonnyHockey** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:17 pm

Point taken, that was a bad anology. I just shake my head what people pay to play in thee tournaments and the competition is a box of chocolates.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:43 pm

DonnyHockey wrote:Point taken, that was a bad anology. I just shake my head what people pay to play in thee tournaments and the competition is a box of chocolates.

6-0
7-1
9-0
8-1

Actual game scores from the NHL this past season

12-0
9-0
8-2
10-0
6-0
8-1 (this was a Frozen Four score mind you)

Actual game scores from D1 College games this past season

Some teams match up better than others, some teams are just having a bad weekend, some teams aren't quite as good as they thought they were when they signed up and some teams are lookign for a higher level of competition to help them understand what's needed to get better. Point being, let's not call a bunch of talented kids a box of chocolates when even the highest levels of the sport have blowouts

DonnyHockey · Post by **DonnyHockey** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:58 pm

box of chocolates was in terms of competition you get at the tourney's, not the kids themselves.

That attack team got more blown out 7-0, 8-1, etc. Those tourney's usually have a maximum score they report. I heard they had a few games where it was over a 10 goal deficit and one team had 20+ goals on them. I'm just saying it does no player any good getting blown out like that in a tourney. Does more harm than good. Rarely touching the puck, morale, etc.

Just saying it woudl be nice to match the teams up better especially this late in the AAA season when most teams have a track record to go off of.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:34 pm

DonnyHockey wrote:box of chocolates was in terms of competition you get at the tourney's, not the kids themselves.

That attack team got more blown out 7-0, 8-1, etc. Those tourney's usually have a maximum score they report. I heard they had a few games where it was over a 10 goal deficit and one team had 20+ goals on them. I'm just saying it does no player any good getting blown out like that in a tourney. Does more harm than good. Rarely touching the puck, morale, etc.

Just saying it woudl be nice to match the teams up better especially this late in the AAA season when most teams have a track record to go off of.

I see what you are saying and 20+ goals is a little different. I just know my sons AAA spring team played a team twice in the same tourney and the first game it was 4-3 the second time they played it was 14-1. My observation from the tourney in total (that game plus the other scores etc...) was that both teams were probably closer to being the 4-3 game they played initially than the 14-1 score they ended with. Scores aren't the whole story everytime is all. But I would agree that you'd like to see a certain levelness of competition for everyone involved