Thoughts on Youth Hockey AA and A divisions...

[JaginCake]

To clarify coach

I am not a fan of AAA hockey
I am a huge fan of the High School Hockey in Minnesota
75-90% of most associations are B and C players put there by so called experts

I believe that most associations give parents little choice in where there kids will end up playing. We have to "trust" the experts.

AAA gives parents more choice because check book hockey means if you can pay someone will take you at a level a parent believes there child capable of playing

Associations need to take parent consideration into account (pro-active) vs. waiting until AAA has really done damage in the Fall and Winter, than it will be to late.

The underlying fight is High School and Association Hockey vs AAA Hockey.

Jag - I would hate to be in your association as it sounds terrible... Do you know who runs the associations? Parents! A good association has good parental involvement. You seem to have an issue with whoever the "experts" are... They are usually hired help. If they do a bad job get rid of them the next year.

I really have a problem with the defeatist attitude of "they" screw everything up... IF you aren't involved trying to make things better or at least shining light on corruption within - then you are equally culpable.

This focus on "High School Hockey" by Jag is troublesome... the focus of each and every hockey association should be player development - not "getting our public high school to the state tourney". What about the private schools within the boundaries?

A zealous focus on "High School Hockey" misses the mark... youth hockey should be about fun and development. Going 10-35 for the purpose of getting 1 or 2 kids "A" level talent so they can lead the charge on the varsity team someday disservices all the kids who should have been at different levels and missed out on learning how to have the puck on their stick and make plays.

Frustrating... GET OVER the HIGH SCHOOL hockey OBSESSION please...

Wow I love the lack of vision by the thoughtful hockey minds. My opinion on the AA vs A stuff again goes back to another bastian of individuals trying to make decisions based on where there kid is at. Having been involved in youth athletic associations, parents who are involved are typically involved about 90% of the time for the ability to try and "control" where or what level their kid will land. The argument of adding even more "elite" teams goes against the basic concepts of Community Associations trying to provide a hockey experience for the youth of that community and doing it under the protection of a non-profit corporation. The point of my rants of HS and Assoc vs AAA has to do with the notion that AAA and it's profit motive, which is why they love to tell you what is wrong with association hockey, is the competition to association hockey and it's progression to the High Schools. Adding another upper tier will only serve to frustrate more parents who want their kid to have opportunities but might not understand how associations work(politics) or how most use the same parent volunteers to do tryouts and assign teams. So large associations that might have one a team and 7 b and c teams may continue to watch as the AAA factory (MN Made) continues to slowly pull more kids in.

As a fan of hockey I favor association hockey. As a parent I am beginning to see that AAA gives more opportunity if I will pay because Bob down the Street who is the local pharmacist isn't also claiming to be a hockey expert at association tryouts.

[MrBoDangles]

Could you imagine if all the Minnesota kids had the opportunities like the power association's kids do. The percentages would be so much higher.

Great insight! Can you also imagine if every kid on the planet had a mommy and daddy who loved them??? Or if everyone would accept state-assigned jobs without pay in exchange for a flat and cable TV???

C'mon man... stay within the realm of possibility.... OR do you really think that Minnesota Hockey needs to start redistributing resources and players to make all associations equal?????[/quote]
You, should come back to the realm of reality....... Minnesota Hockey is GOING to lose everything unless they change things. People like you with their heads in the sand will be their downfall.

More good competition and kids not being held back is what you'll get. Paid for by the parents.

[MrBoDangles]

We'll use Blaine as an example. Blaine has developed around 22 D-1 and 3-5 NHL players the last 20 years. On the other hand, I could name you 15 small associations that that would quadruple Blaine's numbers that have not developed one D-1 player. Is Minnesota Hockey developing these small association kids?

Give me your theory on why this is.......

Here's one theory,
The serious hockey families that are willing to spend the time and money on what it takes to get little johnny to D1 tend to settle in or move to communities with hockey development reputations such as Blaine, Edina, Wayzata, etc.
In other cases, families in smaller associations that recognize that johnny may have extraordinary talent then move or open enroll in the better hockey associations.
The rich get richer.

Good theory! So what if we take a 3-5 A capable kids, from 3 close in proximity associations, and bring in a Blaine caliber coach....... My theory is that= 1. You would be developing more top end talent
2. More kids would strive to make this top team because currently in a small association they don't really have to try to make the team.
3. Small associations would be developing more A level players
4. Small associations would start to be able to form there own A teams after a while.
5. People won't have to move for Hockey.
6. Mega associations won't get stronger from move-ins
7. The current wide gap will get closer.
8. More top end teams for current A teams to play..... they will get better.
9. More parents would strive for their kids to make this team.
10. Less kids would leave for MM, Fire, etc.
11. Would end the 1 or 2 kids on the B team scoring 99% of the goals.
12. Would form new go to players on the B teams

And on, and on.

I think this would make Minnesota Youth Hockey a place that every player would want to play in. Just my opinion.

[spin-o-rama]

The difference between A - B and AA - A, would be that AA - A could play each other, allow large associatins to have multi A teams...
smaller associations to have an A team and still be competitive...

For those with a strong interest in winning tournaments including state it would make (hopefully) those events more competitive...

Is this something Minensota Hockey should consider?

What are the various problems that the mega level will correct? Can't A currently play B with DD approval? Make a simple change to allow it all the time and the quote would read:

There is no difference between A - B and AA - A, A - B could play each other, allow large associatins to have multi B teams...
smaller associations to have an B team and still be competitive...

The only difference I can see is there will be a rush to print more A merchandise. Although the new found pride will die when all the AA bellied sneetches start prancing around.
There are currently 4 levels of play. A, B1, B2, C. How many levels and what limits of cross-play are ideal?

[elliott70]

I don't know what it will solve.

D16 does not have a problem currently and yes, we allow A vs B where appropriate.
Across District lines it is more difficult.

But, this is an agenda item and the sooner people get a chance to discuss the possibilities and present the problems the easier it is for me (selfish on my part but I like to hear as much as possible about the pros and cons from people involved).

[goldy313]

The MSHSL used to classify football teams as AA, A, B, C, and 9-man. Because someone, gasp, decided "B" wasn't as good a name as "A" so they changed to AAAAA, AAAA, AAA, AA, A, and 9-man and will soon add a AAAAAA. I can barely tell how many A's there are now and figure out which class is which without my bifocals or risking a pounding headache.

The point is; A teams, or however you designate them, are still up from B teams. Wouldn't it be easier just to have a "B" state tournament? After all that's all this would accomplish.

FWIW Rochester already does this, fields 1 all-star A team then 2 A teams in District 9.

[elliott70]

The MSHSL used to classify football teams as AA, A, B, C, and 9-man. Because someone, gasp, decided "B" wasn't as good a name as "A" so they changed to AAAAA, AAAA, AAA, AA, A, and 9-man and will soon add a AAAAAA. I can barely tell how many A's there are now and figure out which class is which without my bifocals or risking a pounding headache.

The point is; A teams, or however you designate them, are still up from B teams. Wouldn't it be easier just to have a "B" state tournament? After all that's all this would accomplish.

FWIW Rochester already does this, fields 1 all-star A team then 2 A teams in District 9.

No, we have a B state tournament.
The idea is to have an A level - with the ability for teams to play against each other (AA vs A), but with a second state tournament and (hopefully) everyone able to identify that some programs will have two (or more) A teams - one of which is a better team (in theory, anyway).
All A's can play each other in the year.
How they differentiate who is an A and AA is open for discussion, but something on the lines of big programs have AA, A. Smaller programs have an A but still have the opportunity to take on a bigger program.

But it is all open for discussion.

[goldy313]

I don't know; HS football is adding a 7th class, one for either the top 16 or 24 enrollments, it hasn't been decided yet, however there still will be no class restrictions on who you can play. This is driven by the schools #20-#48 who feel they can't compete with Eden Prairie or Wayzata for a state title. The fact Brainerd beat EP this year is forgotten. At some point we need to realize life isn't always fair and being a state champ or even particiant shouldn't be why you started playing or got your child involved anyway.

If it (adding AA) gets kids to play or keeps them playing then I'm all for it, if it's just to "level" a playing field then don't. My fear would be you would end up with places like Rochester sandbagging and staying in A and other places, like Wayzata, with their "A" team will still beat Albert Lea's or Detroit Lakes "A" team pretty handily and in the end accomplishes nothing.

As for ideas to seperate levels...size of the program, availability of year around ice, and geographic concerns should all play a part.

[defense]

Leave them how they are. Ya, it was tough never beating Moorhead, so??
In the 4 years that it was needed in order to advance I don't think my or my teamates' development as players or people were hurt. You have to beat the best to be champion. Period.

[DMom]

Someone already pointed out that that 'big' associations already play themselves repeatedly during the season. I think you could consider the Maroon and Gold league to be near a AA league, although there are some perennial powers getting their butts handed to them there this year.

If it would encourage some of the mega-associations to allow more kids to play at a higher level than I would be all for it. I'm not optimistic that would be the result.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

The MSHSL used to classify football teams as AA, A, B, C, and 9-man. Because someone, gasp, decided "B" wasn't as good a name as "A" so they changed to AAAAA, AAAA, AAA, AA, A, and 9-man and will soon add a AAAAAA. I can barely tell how many A's there are now and figure out which class is which without my bifocals or risking a pounding headache.

The point is; A teams, or however you designate them, are still up from B teams. Wouldn't it be easier just to have a "B" state tournament? After all that's all this would accomplish.

FWIW Rochester already does this, fields 1 all-star A team then 2 A teams in District 9.

Goldy, Rochester shows why this may work... they fielded the "A All Star team" that is not even in the top 30 teams in "A"... they over reached and next year something will change... this would be the result of AA - A in the early goings... it would take a few years to get going but in the end, the associations who care about development will make sure that they only field an AA team if they can compete with the top 25 or so teams...

The key that's being forgotten here is that AA and A can still scrimmage. That's the key difference between the current A/B1 split... I would add that an A team should be allowed to "declare up" for the end of the year playoffs should they so choose. No declaring down however.

Just ideas... keep the focus on development please at the youth level and not high school!

[Mnhockeys]

Sounds like it is the Canadian model we should look at, not some east coast states. So what does Canadian youth hockey do differently?

[JaginCake]

The AA v A debate is just an afront to the real issue. Having a AA class at the youth level is putting earings on the pig. Parents want options and choice and in larger associations there is none it is all about who knows who. Mn Hockey needs to mandate as pointed out earlier you have 100 skaters you have 2 A teams 3b and 3c. If Mn hockey will not do that in the real world of parent checkbooks going AAA and forgoing association hockey will become the best "Choice"

[royals dad]

Sounds like it is the Canadian model we should look at, not some east coast states. So what does Canadian youth hockey do differently?

Hockey in Canada is in a tailspin, the numbers are shrinking annually at an increasing rate. There are many reasons but the primary one seems to be the cost at what would be our pee-wee level and above. See the report "Is Hockey Dying in Canada" in The Hockey News.

No system keeps costs lower than the Winter Minnesota Association system (in my opinion I have no data to back that claim). We have summer hockey and various in season training programs to supplement the association system, really you can buy as much hockey as you want. What we need to look at is how we can keep Minnesota Hockey affordable otherwise 1st ring suburbs and out state hockey will go the way of city hockey. I don't think AA would really address any problems we really have or satisfy those who believe we need to evolve towards Tier 1 and 2. I think it is the kind of proposal that distracts from the real issues.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

The AA v A debate is just an afront to the real issue. Having a AA class at the youth level is putting earings on the pig. Parents want options and choice and in larger associations there is none it is all about who knows who. Mn Hockey needs to mandate as pointed out earlier you have 100 skaters you have 2 A teams 3b and 3c. If Mn hockey will not do that in the real world of parent checkbooks going AAA and forgoing association hockey will become the best "Choice"

Jag - Hate to call you out yet again... but OMG, what association has screwed you so badly??? Where are the large associations that offer "no choice?" I see an A, two B1's and plenty of B2 and C teams in those larger associations. Does "no choice" mean that your kid didn't make the A team and this is your way of whining?

For the larger associations that have 1 A team and two B1 teams, the issue is that the best players will ALWAYS go where they are with the best players possible in the organizational model of their choice. Thus, they will insist on one "A" team usually OR and A1 and A2 split at worst. IF an association does not offer this to its best players than POOF - we have AAA/Tier 1 hockey prop up in winter hockey... its that simple. (Jag, you already said how you "love high school hockey" so if any response is based on that, please think to yourself that I need to respond with a focus on youth development - both for the best players and for the other various skill sets).

Lastly, people who complain that the B1 kids are being disserviced by not having a second A team are only right in the rare instance that an association decides to have 2 B1 teams that end up being mediocre to below average against top 25 B1 talent. The B1 level is very competitive at the elite end and does a great job at developing players who would be third liners on their "A" team but now are touching the puck 50 times more per game than they would have been. I know of several instances that several hockey-savvy parents have purposefully withheld their kid from an A team in the name of the kid's development... smart parent.

Jag, in closing, what association has so wronged you that you think we need to MANDATE that local associations should not be able to choose what's best for their association and force two A teams???

[JaginCake]

Concerned Hockey Coach

Check out the login and see if you can decipher it from there. Either way being involved in multiple athletic associations with my kids there is an "air" about how it is for the kids. The underlying point of a AA vs A tier in Minnesota hockey associations is pushing towards creating another level of elitism. As a coach myself it is always easiest to "coach" the best. The hard part is bringing those who are not as skilled to the game and helping them to be successful. I personally understand how the "better players" want to play the best and that competition will push those kids to be better or that is the attitude of their parents and it flows downhill. Youth Associations are about "promoting and facilitating" a particular sport in a particular area. They are run by volunteers. 80 to 90% of those volunteers are there to "control" where there kid lands. You name the sport and community and it is nearly universal. That being said, are the associations there to foster their respective sport or are they there to create D1 and Pro players? It's there to foster the sport. The Stewards of a sport should want to grow the sports. Bring more participants and overall satisfaction. My opinion--most football association don't cut or have A and B teams. Funny that sport is growing by huge numbers and those who reach the upper levels are found and that game is still growing. Hockey should not think itself no different.

You state that the top 10% will run off and go AAA. So the other 90% won't run out of the associations and join the AAA since they are a business and well they got to make money so I'll tell you the problem with association hockey so you write the check. When your kid doesn't succeed it wasn't the coaching it was there lack of talent? oh well there are a few thousand more out there waiting to be told by there association not good enough I'll take you check and give you a "Choice" for MN MADE HOCKEY. Don't forget however the great ones work hard but they are born with most of their ability.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

It makes total sense to go AA and A since there are a lot of kids in big associations on the bubble who are not good enough to make the A team, but are good enough to make many other A teams in the state. If the big associations were truly about developing all their players, then we would not have to worry about it since they would have enough A teams to support all their A level players. However, it is about pride and they do not have the courage to take a hit in the W-L column for the betterment of all the kids.

The Edina experiment of a few years ago was flawed since D6 is a tough district and it was the wrong group of kids. The current first year Bantams in Edina are the group to go with two or Three A teams. Balanced is best, but you need to compromise with the "upper crust" and go A1 and A2. I would envision having 16 AA teams in state with the rest A. Edina, Wayzata, and possibly Woodbury could have A2 teams, but the rest of the state would just go AA and B1 or A and B1. The Current 2nd year PeeWees in Wayzata could pull it off- teams 1,2 and 9 in state at B1. Maple Grove 1st yr Bantams could also support a second A team next year.

If there was a "Super 16" or some variation of that, it would balance the competition across the state at the A level, without taking away from the top end player in the top associations.

I would also be in favor of neighboring smaller districts combining to form a AA team to serve those kids that can compete.

Time to get creative to better serve the whole. This isn't elitism, its about finding the proper balance. Since the mega associations will not form a second A team at the detriment of a good chunk of kids, then Minnesota Hockey should create an avenue for those kids, and for the rest of Minnesota that has a built in disadvantage to the Megas.

With this plan, Chisago can have an A team instead of going B1 and dominating a lot of competition. Wayzata does not need to have 3 teams in PW B1 in the top ten, with Edina having 2. Cottage Grove can also compete at the A level without getting wacked by the big guys. A big chunk of outstate A teams will have a chance to compete for a championship.

The distortion comes from Edina, Wayzata, Maple Grove et al having the numbers to support multiple A teams, but refusing to take the chance due to W-L pride. Provide the option and see what happens.

At the end of the day, it is the right thing to do.

[trippedovertheblueline]

how about minnesota hockey allows the same age level teams to play each other statewide. If a B team from Edina wants to enter a A trny in Rochester let it be.

[MnMade-4-Life]

It makes total sense to go AA and A since there are a lot of kids in big associations on the bubble who are not good enough to make the A team, but are good enough to make many other A teams in the state. If the big associations were truly about developing all their players, then we would not have to worry about it since they would have enough A teams to support all their A level players. However, it is about pride and they do not have the courage to take a hit in the W-L column for the betterment of all the kids.

The Edina experiment of a few years ago was flawed since D6 is a tough district and it was the wrong group of kids. The current first year Bantams in Edina are the group to go with two or Three A teams. Balanced is best, but you need to compromise with the "upper crust" and go A1 and A2. I would envision having 16 AA teams in state with the rest A. Edina, Wayzata, and possibly Woodbury could have A2 teams, but the rest of the state would just go AA and B1 or A and B1. The Current 2nd year PeeWees in Wayzata could pull it off- teams 1,2 and 9 in state at B1. Maple Grove 1st yr Bantams could also support a second A team next year.

If there was a "Super 16" or some variation of that, it would balance the competition across the state at the A level, without taking away from the top end player in the top associations.

I would also be in favor of neighboring smaller districts combining to form a AA team to serve those kids that can compete.

Time to get creative to better serve the whole. This isn't elitism, its about finding the proper balance. Since the mega associations will not form a second A team at the detriment of a good chunk of kids, then Minnesota Hockey should create an avenue for those kids, and for the rest of Minnesota that has a built in disadvantage to the Megas.

With this plan, Chisago can have an A team instead of going B1 and dominating a lot of competition. Wayzata does not need to have 3 teams in PW B1 in the top ten, with Edina having 2. Cottage Grove can also compete at the A level without getting wacked by the big guys. A big chunk of outstate A teams will have a chance to compete for a championship.

The distortion comes from Edina, Wayzata, Maple Grove et al having the numbers to support multiple A teams, but refusing to take the chance due to W-L pride. Provide the option and see what happens.

At the end of the day, it is the right thing to do.

well stated and correct in my sometimes humble opinion.

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

JagInCake - Jaguar in Hornet country??? I guess I just disagree with your premise that more A teams = more development and more success for the organization. For me, kids develop best when they are playing (AND PRACTICING more importantly) with kids of their same skill set who both challenge and support them. Right now, splitting your most talented 15 players up so that you can have two A teams is not the answer in my book. The elite must play with the elite. I think you disagree with this. Second, I disagree completely with your premise that MN hockey should be "ruled from above" with mandates about how many teams an association should have. You whine about "politics" in associations, why do you assume that all the associations together will elect a "benevolent nobility" who will cast wisdom down on everyone else? Leave it to the local associations. If they screw up, the kids will move elsewhere or they will lose players in the short term... until the ass'n kicks them out and fixes things.

One more point I want to make... people forget that the Wayzata's, Eden Prairies and Edinas are not "destined" to have great numbers and great teams. The two go hand in hand. Success breeds success. If someone thinks that Edina could switch to a model that results in their teams being .500 year in and year out AND keep its success in numbers, well I own this magical tree that will grow money and I'll give it to you for $20...

[MrBoDangles]

JagInCake - Jaguar in Hornet country??? I guess I just disagree with your premise that more A teams = more development and more success for the organization. For me, kids develop best when they are playing (AND PRACTICING more importantly) with kids of their same skill set who both challenge and support them. Right now, splitting your most talented 15 players up so that you can have two A teams is not the answer in my book. The elite must play with the elite. I think you disagree with this. Second, I disagree completely with your premise that MN hockey should be "ruled from above" with mandates about how many teams an association should have. You whine about "politics" in associations, why do you assume that all the associations together will elect a "benevolent nobility" who will cast wisdom down on everyone else? Leave it to the local associations. If they screw up, the kids will move elsewhere or they will lose players in the short term... until the ass'n kicks them out and fixes things.
"The elite must play with the elite" How about the "elite" player in an association that only plays B Hockey? I agree with some of what you say, but you really seem to contradict yourself on this..... If the elite "must" play with the elite, then the small association elite player should play elite too, right?

One more point I want to make... people forget that the Wayzata's, Eden Prairies and Edinas are not "destined" to have great numbers and great teams. The two go hand in hand. Success breeds success. If someone thinks that Edina could switch to a model that results in their teams being .500 year in and year out AND keep its success in numbers, well I own this magical tree that will grow money and I'll give it to you for $20...

OOPS! Middle paragraph is my comment..........

[MrBoDangles]

The AA v A debate is just an afront to the real issue. Having a AA class at the youth level is putting earings on the pig. Parents want options and choice and in larger associations there is none it is all about who knows who. Mn Hockey needs to mandate as pointed out earlier you have 100 skaters you have 2 A teams 3b and 3c. If Mn hockey will not do that in the real world of parent checkbooks going AAA and forgoing association hockey will become the best "Choice"

Jag - Hate to call you out yet again... but OMG, what association has screwed you so badly??? Where are the large associations that offer "no choice?" I see an A, two B1's and plenty of B2 and C teams in those larger associations. Does "no choice" mean that your kid didn't make the A team and this is your way of whining?

For the larger associations that have 1 A team and two B1 teams, the issue is that the best players will ALWAYS go where they are with the best players possible in the organizational model of their choice. Thus, they will insist on one "A" team usually OR and A1 and A2 split at worst. IF an association does not offer this to its best players than POOF - we have AAA/Tier 1 hockey prop up in winter hockey... its that simple. (Jag, you already said how you "love high school hockey" so if any response is based on that, please think to yourself that I need to respond with a focus on youth development - both for the best players and for the other various skill sets).

Lastly, people who complain that the B1 kids are being disserviced by not having a second A team are only right in the rare instance that an association decides to have 2 B1 teams that end up being mediocre to below average against top 25 B1 talent. The B1 level is very competitive at the elite end and does a great job at developing players who would be third liners on their "A" team but now are touching the puck 50 times more per game than they would have been. I know of several instances that several hockey-savvy parents have purposefully withheld their kid from an A team in the name of the kid's development... smart parent.

Jag, in closing, what association has so wronged you that you think we need to MANDATE that local associations should not be able to choose what's best for their association and force two A teams???

Sorry, but once again you say one thing and then contradict it saying something else......

[MrBoDangles]

Where's the common sense here, folks? Think about it!

Now we have 15-20 associations playing AA Hockey!!!!! Guess what!!!???? Now we will have all the other players/parents wanting to play this new AA Hockey. There are only two things that will happen........ A mass exodus to these 15-20 programs or all the current A programs will simply opt up to AA.

You can't fix stupid...

[Concerned Hockey Coach]

Where's the common sense here, folks? Think about it!

Now we have 15-20 associations playing AA Hockey!!!!! Guess what!!!???? Now we will have all the other players/parents wanting to play this new AA Hockey. There are only two things that will happen........ A mass exodus to these 15-20 programs or all the current A programs will simply opt up to AA.

You can't fix stupid...

BoDiddley - I disagree... you're over looking the feature that "A" teams will be able to scrimmage/play with "AA" teams... that's the missing link here. Right now B1 teams don't scrimmage A teams. That needs to change in some instances... and let teams be the decision makers, not arbitrary categories.

By your logic there would not be any "single A" hockey teams in high school because they would all declare "AA"...

Lastly, care to explain where in my earlier post I said one thing and then contradicted it? With all sincerity, I'd like to know the specifics of my hypocrisy so I can clarify or reconcile (with myself mostly!)... my apologies if you can point that out.

**UPDATE** Didley, I see that you said:

""The elite must play with the elite" How about the "elite" player in an association that only plays B Hockey? I agree with some of what you say, but you really seem to contradict yourself on this..... If the elite "must" play with the elite, then the small association elite player should play elite too, right?"

I agree, although the "must" is only meant to be an ideal, as if hockey was the only thing that mattered... which is absolutely not the case. Schools, family, etc... people make decisions for lots of reasons. BUT I will say that if you're an elite player playing on a team that is 10-25 and has 7-10 players on it who wouldn't make most "A" teams, then yes, for hockey development sake, I would advise that player to look somewhere else if that's his priority. Doesn't mean he has to or that he still couldn't develop... but the odds would point to leaving as a better hockey option. (Of course if that kid is playing on a great AAA team 6 months out of the year then playing on a winter ass'n hockey where he has to carry the load may be a good thing... lots of factors.)

[MrBoDangles]

"Kids develop BEST when they are playing with kids of their OWN skill set who both challenge and support them." ~

"The elite MUST play the elite." ~

"would be A players playing B-1 does a great job of developing players..... they get to touch the puck 50 TIMES MORE." ~ Conformed Hockey Coach






So what is it?????????

Think about what you are saying with the AA-A

What will it change........? Nothing! A will just become AA.

Just put another A in front of your kids team heading if you want, I guess. They will still be playing the same teams and nothing will change.

Do you really disagree with my last post?