small towns who dont have the talent wanting to play a?

jpiehl · Post by **jpiehl** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:01 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:Which successful high school hockey program is fed by an association playing only B hockey?

And which successful high school hockey program is fed by an association that routinely gets beaten 7-1 playing at the A level? The fact is that good teams and players at youth generally translates to good teams and players at high school. Simply playing at the A level in youth does not mean you will be successful at the high school level.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:12 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Inigo: There are no successful high school teams fed only by B1 level programs. Most programs fielding only B teams are small associations feeding Class A schools. Think of how many associations do not field an A team? My point is about 30-40 more than should.

My point is AA will truly be top level teams. The A level will be the old B1 level. So, my hope is MNHockey FORCES AA associations to field A level teams also. PLUS, I think smaller associations that formerly had an A and B1 team might now field two A teams.

So there might only be 30-50 AA teams, but maybe 100-120 A teams. That will be a win-win for the elite AA programs and will benefit the A programs. Plus they will all be classified as "A" level teams and can schedule games AA vs. A also.

HOWEVER, I know it will not be done "right" and will be fouled up so bad it will set MN back 10 years!

I believe most will agree with your last sentence.

Full steam ahead!!!!!

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:12 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Inigo: There are no successful high school teams fed only by B1 level programs. Most programs fielding only B teams are small associations feeding Class A schools. Think of how many associations do not field an A team? My point is about 30-40 more than should.

My point is AA will truly be top level teams. The A level will be the old B1 level. So, my hope is MNHockey FORCES AA associations to field A level teams also. PLUS, I think smaller associations that formerly had an A and B1 team might now field two A teams.

So there might only be 30-50 AA teams, but maybe 100-120 A teams. That will be a win-win for the elite AA programs and will benefit the A programs. Plus they will all be classified as "A" level teams and can schedule games AA vs. A also.

HOWEVER, I know it will not be done "right" and will be fouled up so bad it will set MN back 10 years!

I disagree . Class AA will be a whole different elite league, class A will be everyone else
In real life for most of the state, that group who has been special in squirts for their class a programming will lose their elite players to a AA program. Big picture is that this is another step in the progression to destroy Minnesota hockey. A progression started when they introduced two classes at the hs level.
Think of it like this: Brainerd goes AA, would anyone be surprised if the next Ben Jaworski in LF played in Brainerd? How about the other small towns within an hour of Brainerd?

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:36 pm

Using your logic, how it is possible that St. Thomas Academy, Breck, Blake, Totino, Hermantown and others have kids commuting great distances to play at the Class A level? Wouldn't they flock to AA schools, many of which could shave off 30+ minutes of commuting each way?

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:51 pm

Do You mean Ben Hanowski ???

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:07 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Using your logic, how it is possible that St. Thomas Academy, Breck, Blake, Totino, Hermantown and others have kids commuting great distances to play at the Class A level? Wouldn't they flock to AA schools, many of which could shave off 30+ minutes of commuting each way?

All high school programs would be sandbagging for a state tournament WITH YOUR LOGIC?

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:33 pm

old goalie85 wrote:Do You mean Ben Hanowski ???

Yes, auto spell check..stupid technology ......

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:35 pm

No one spells worse then an OLD goalie !!!

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:57 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Using your logic, how it is possible that St. Thomas Academy, Breck, Blake, Totino, Hermantown and others have kids commuting great distances to play at the Class A level? Wouldn't they flock to AA schools, many of which could shave off 30+ minutes of commuting each way?

Nope, now you're throwing schools into the mix, different story. Besides the fact that as time has moved along, more of those privates are indeed moving up. When they all do and class a is left with only the downtrodden and building small public schools, it will be the same. The kid everyone knows about from squirts, the rink rat who is being put on all star teams in the sunder......his parents will have a decision to make...and don't think the parents of the bigger program wont help them.
But for now I truly believe that the chance at a top notch education plays a role.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:15 pm

you should be happy i put some common sense in your mouth. playing at a level in which you are not competitive is not going to make you better.
hockeytalk

your right dumping the puck isnt a bad play if it has purpose behind it. your playing against a buzz saw team that has more skill than you i would say for the most part unless you have numbers coming through the neutral zone you get over the red line dump it and for check. to many times tho when teams are playing at level that is much to fast for them kids panic and just throw it away without purpose. in the defensive zone i dont think its a good idea to ring it around the boards unless you have a man on the side boards ready for it otherwise more times than not you are just feeding the other teams points. by the way i prefer centers high in the d zone around the tops of the circles most coaches dont use this method but thats how i would go about it.

defense · Post by **defense** » Thu May 17, 2012 6:20 pm

Nope, not with that attitude.

dlow · Post by **dlow** » Thu May 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Some points:

- youth hockey has to be about much more than just getting to the high school team. most kids have played at least 10 years by the time they get to 9th grade. 1000s of hockey hours but your high school team stinks (or is just not top 20) so you failed kid...

- enjoying sucess is something all youth players should experience. Getting beat bad can also be a good experience. The best experience is close and competitive games, no?

- if the aa/a idea is to put teams on more of a competitive balance, thats good but can't we find a way without adding a 5th division: c, b2, b1, a and now aa. What about requiring at least one a team at 50 players then 2 for 100, etc. If not requirements then how about guidelines or suggestions from mn hockey. Seems easier to me.

- defense: old school is neighborhood kids playing on a team together. That, for the most part, is long gone, but lets not try to say losing 10-1 to a team 40 miles from home is somehow old school.

- anyone want to describe a recent season where the team had a real poor record but you were pleased with it? Those seasons do happen, but are rare. Great coaching would be required and in my expierence once that losing culture sets in for the association it can be real difficult to break.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri May 18, 2012 8:55 am

Bo: Sandbagging? What are you talking about? I'd have to go back and read your prior posts to confirm, but I thought you said "good" players from A associations will be leaving to waiver into AA associations? My point is you have good players leaving good AA High School programs to go to Class A schools.

Now that is sandbagging, and STA is the king of trophy chasers.

But I certainly don't think good youth players from AA associations will be leaving Edina to go play for a Class A association.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri May 18, 2012 10:18 am

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: Sandbagging? What are you talking about? I'd have to go back and read your prior posts to confirm, but I thought you said "good" players from A associations will be leaving to waiver into AA associations? My point is you have good players leaving good AA High School programs to go to Class A schools.

Now that is sandbagging, and STA is the king of trophy chasers.

But I certainly don't think good youth players from AA associations will be leaving Edina to go play for a Class A association.

I think your problems run much deeper than a lack of comprehension.

HockeyTalk18 · Post by **HockeyTalk18** » Fri May 18, 2012 1:39 pm

I think within this topic you can see why communities offer the levels they do, because some people want it. Most offer different levels

the part I would like someone to explain to me on this aspect,

If you don't feel your son can compete or the Team can compete at the A level AND your association offers a lower level
A) Why don't you tell the association I would like my son to play at a lower level then you placed him?
B)If you don't offer A, those parents wont have the option of playing A (believe it or not, not every parent wants to move their kids just for hockey, they just want to play against the higher level), so right now you have the choice to play down, but that's not good enough? you don't want anyone to even have the option to play up?

you can see on this topic that some do and it does not matter why, you both have to make a choice which one is better for you and move on and TRY and make the best of it.

Defense is dead on

your attitude plays a big role, If you don't think, or Know it's not going to be good in any way, then it won't be for YOU, let others make there own choice and don't rain on their parade just because you didn't choose a lower level

this is not directed at any one person, just those who feel that others should not have a choice of which you already have

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Fri May 18, 2012 3:28 pm

HockeyTalk18 wrote:I think within this topic you can see why communities offer the levels they do, because some people want it. Most offer different levels

the part I would like someone to explain to me on this aspect,

If you don't feel your son can compete or the Team can compete at the A level AND your association offers a lower level
A) Why don't you tell the association I would like my son to play at a lower level then you placed him?
B)If you don't offer A, those parents wont have the option of playing A (believe it or not, not every parent wants to move their kids just for hockey, they just want to play against the higher level), so right now you have the choice to play down, but that's not good enough? you don't want anyone to even have the option to play up?

you can see on this topic that some do and it does not matter why, you both have to make a choice which one is better for you and move on and TRY and make the best of it.

Defense is dead on

your attitude plays a big role, If you don't think, or Know it's not going to be good in any way, then it won't be for YOU, let others make there own choice and don't rain on their parade just because you didn't choose a lower level

this is not directed at any one person, just those who feel that others should not have a choice of which you already have

It is not about one individual kid or the parents who feel its necessary to play at the highest level possible. It is about what level the TEAM can compete at. If a individual kid and his parents feel the need to play at a higher level than his team can compete at have him move up a level like if hes in peewees and the association only offers b1 and b2 move him up to bantams. I think it would be important for the kid to play with his friends. Like i said tho it is not about one individual kid not being able to compete it is about the team. Another thing i do not understand is why do the parents want their kid to play at a higher level than the kids team can compete that sounds very selfish. If the game is COMPETITVE, does it really matter what level your kid plays at in youth hockey?

Outoftowner · Post by **Outoftowner** » Fri May 18, 2012 3:33 pm

hellofellow89 wrote:you should be happy i put some common sense in your mouth. playing at a level in which you are not competitive is not going to make you better.
hockeytalk

your right dumping the puck isnt a bad play if it has purpose behind it. your playing against a buzz saw team that has more skill than you i would say for the most part unless you have numbers coming through the neutral zone you get over the red line dump it and for check. to many times tho when teams are playing at level that is much to fast for them kids panic and just throw it away without purpose. in the defensive zone i dont think its a good idea to ring it around the boards unless you have a man on the side boards ready for it otherwise more times than not you are just feeding the other teams points. by the way i prefer centers high in the d zone around the tops of the circles most coaches dont use this method but thats how i would go about it.

When have you seen a crappy team able to play a high center? Typically the center is needed in the corners to support the crappy D. If you have strong, quick Def that can handle the puck, then you can run a high center, IMO.

Outoftowner · Post by **Outoftowner** » Fri May 18, 2012 3:40 pm

Mn Hockey should run with Bo's plan of conglomerate A teams. 13-15 kids from several areas make up one competitive A team all supported by the area associations. Then the A players can play A and the B players play B. Everyone's happy.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Fri May 18, 2012 4:07 pm

When have you seen a crappy team able to play a high center? Typically the center is needed in the corners to support the crappy D. If you have strong, quick Def that can handle the puck, then you can run a high center, IMO.

[/quote]

how is a center supposed to get from corner to corner especially playing against a faster team. center is generally your best player if he is going corner to corner he is going to get gassed. one d in the corner along with one wing one. puck goes to the other corner the other d and other wing take that corner. center in the slot or the tops of the circles.

defense · Post by **defense** » Fri May 18, 2012 4:20 pm

[quote"]When have you seen a crappy team able to play a high center? Typically the center is needed in the corners to support the crappy D. If you have strong, quick Def that can handle the puck, then you can run a high center, IMO.

[/quote]
hellofellow wrote:
how is a center supposed to get from corner to corner especially playing against a faster team. center is generally your best player if he is going corner to corner he is going to get gassed. one d in the corner along with one wing one. puck goes to the other corner the other d and other wing take that corner. center in the slot or the tops of the circles.[/quote]

Very interesting, and ........just very interesting.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Fri May 18, 2012 5:01 pm

Wings play the point, Centers muck the corners !!!! Thats just the way it is. This is a different topic though.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Fri May 18, 2012 8:31 pm

old goalie85 wrote:Wings play the point, Centers muck the corners !!!! Thats just the way it is. This is a different topic though.

i know your rarely see this but it works. all American goalie for the Sioux ran this with the high school team he coached. who knows a defensive zone better than a goalie? wings covering the points is a fallacy. Does the puck spend more time down low in the corners or at the points? you dont need one guy on each point the battle down low is much more important. any decent goalie more times than not is gonna stop a outside shot unless the d man walks it in. like i said complete fallacy think about it. so while the offensive zone fwds are cycling the defensive wings are doing what? just standing out by the points? and the center is doing what wasting all of his energy going corner to corner lol its makes no sense but yeah most all teams have centers in the corners. centers high wings in corner and front of the net much more practical. Just another thing people have drilled into their heads

defense · Post by **defense** » Sat May 19, 2012 6:28 am

Wings up hi has little to do with defensive coverage.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Sat May 19, 2012 10:09 am

I will engage one more time w/this. Who does the break-out pass go to if the strong side wing is in the corner. Yes I know your going to say reverse the breakout., but every time, and then that [weak] wing needs to get thbere.

hellofellow89 · Post by **hellofellow89** » Sat May 19, 2012 1:21 pm

center or weak side wing, it is a read take whats open. you have to get possession of the puck before you can worry about a breakout pass the whole game is a read. 2 forwards standing high waiting for your team to get possession IN THE D ZONE?