BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: You have finally come to realize that the need exists for more levels of play so that you don't have "ugly" games.
AA-A-B1-B2-C does this perfectly. And it allows for crossing over at the AA-A and B1-B2 levels so teams can find good match-ups for better development. I also agree several associations with your lack of brains have messed up this season. But they will figure it out and get it right next year.
So I am glad you have put this topic to rest.
What are you even talking about? It's time for a few of us on here to do an intervention and get BB82's prescription doubled....
It's you just can't make up your mind Bo. You didn't like this AA-A thing from the start, yet you keep making up different reasons to not like it. Your argument now (not having AA play A teams within the same association or District) supports the reason why we now have the AA and A levels.
You have come full circle and now appear to support the AA-A thing!
I sure hope you do better voting today! Yes means No!
MrBoDangles wrote:I was looking at the D-10 website and still can't believe that associations have to play their 1-16 against their 17-32. Is anybody else able to see how ugly these games will get? Is there any good that can come from this? The hallway talk should be interesting monday mornings in school.
So what was wrong with this the last few years at the B1 and B2 levels. I know for certain some associations did not split there teams evenly, yes some did but most did not. So if this was last year and 17-32 played 33-48 why was this ok and no one ever complained about it. But now that we have AA and A it is totally wrong for 1-16 to play 17-32 that are not split evenly because they can do it that way now. So why is this any different than in the past?
How would a game go between your 1-16 and 17-32? How bout we hear you're prediction of a game score? 18-0, 12-2, 9-1?
Do you think things will be much different at Blaine or Centennial just because they went AA-A?
Even the Centennial's go 9-14 deep and drop off hard after that. And now they're going to play their #2 team? For what good?
Will these #1 against #2 games become contests where you change things up so they don't become ugly? I think they will! And what a waste of time and money then!
I figured you as being a guy with some common sense from your previous posts.....
BadgerBob82 wrote:It's you just can't make up your mind Bo. You didn't like this AA-A thing from the start, yet you keep making up different reasons to not like it. Your argument now (not having AA play A teams within the same association or District) supports the reason why we now have the AA and A levels.
You have come full circle and now appear to support the AA-A thing!
I sure hope you do better voting today! Yes means No!
Whaaa? Go back and read through some of the topics on the AA/A subject. Again, you agree with me all the time and then your confusion sets in...
BadgerBob82 wrote:When looking at larger associations with an AA and A team, it's hard to say if any "good" could come from a game. But. from what I have seen, many teams top 5-6 kids are clearly better than the rest of their team. The bottom (25-30) would probably be clearly the bottom. But I would think numbers 7-24 could easily play one another and benefit. So would only be bad if number 1-6 get "stupid" against number 25-30. The rest would probably be fine and benefit from the game.
Kinda like some people wanted B1's to be able to play A's in the past. For certain match-ups, the games would have been very good. For others, not so good. I'd view the possible AA vs. A match-ups the same way. Some will be good, others not. Which is nothing new, some A teams dominate all A teams and others were really B1 teams playing at the A level for some reason.
Which is why coaches should schedule games with this in mind. For District league play, not sure the answer as every District has different dynamics. But maybe this year will show how unimportant District league play really is. Maroon - Gold type leagues matching talent will take over and District league play will be diminished? Districts don't need league games to provide seeding for play-offs to send teams to Regions.
"1-6(or1-14) get stupid against 25-30"
You have no idea how idiotic you sound in this post... You're cut from the same mold that came up with this fiasco.
Clarify what you mean by "ugly" or "stupid"? What I mean by stupid is big, strong players trying to kill weaker players. If they just play hockey with skills, nobody gets hurt and only the score can be lopsided. Lopsided games happened under the old system and you love the old system. AA playing A teams under the new system don't need to happen unless both coaches think it's a good matchup.
You're the one who wanted B1's to play A's? Now you don't want AA's to play A's. Talk about stupid. You are as dumb as I've ever seen!
D16 rule regarding two (or more) teams at the same level within an association.
The local association decides whether the teams will play each other in league games.
They decide at the beginning of the year. If not playing then their position is determined by PCT (not total points).
also, all games are to be played (no forfeits or cancellation).
And here's how stupid you are. You can't figure out that in a typical AA vs. A matchup within the same association, if you removed the top 5 players from the AA team and the bottom 5 from the A team, you'd have a great game with 10 vs 10. It's the extremes that create the issue.
BadgerBob82 wrote:Clarify what you mean by "ugly" or "stupid"? What I mean by stupid is big, strong players trying to kill weaker players. If they just play hockey with skills, nobody gets hurt and only the score can be lopsided. Lopsided games happened under the old system and you love the old system. AA playing A teams under the new system don't need to happen unless both coaches think it's a good matchup.
You're the one who wanted B1's to play A's? Now you don't want AA's to play A's. Talk about stupid. You are as dumb as I've ever seen!
Sugar, spice and everything nice, fairy dust and hugs...... You're saying these athletically mutated(in your head) 1-8 have to take it easy on 25-30 for this new program? You're a laugher! It's not even what you meant.
I want 1-16's to play other 1-16's
I don't care to see Elk River's AA's piss pound Andover A's
I want associations to be able to choose what level is best for their kids.
I know that the regular season win/loss column means nothing now.
I see kids and parents in the same association being divided over ugly games between their 1-16 and 17-32.
I see nothing good....
BadgerBob82 wrote:And here's how stupid you are. You can't figure out that in a typical AA vs. A matchup within the same association, if you removed the top 5 players from the AA team and the bottom 5 from the A team, you'd have a great game with 10 vs 10. It's the extremes that create the issue.
You described perfectly why they shouldn't play. And most the time it's way more than just five. Great job!
I don't want anyone taking it easy on anyone. Just said that bigger stronger kids don't have to try to kill smaller weaker kids. Be it in AA vs AA games or AA vs A games. "Ugly" or "Stupid" only relates to physical play, i.e. trying to separate the head from the body mentality. Go ahead and play hard, score 20 goals! I agree AA vs A is likely a waste of time. But if District and Associations want to force that on teams, live and learn. Won't happen next year.
But how is AA vs A any different than in the past when B1 ability teams played at the A level for all the reasons you have supported? Real A teams killed them 20-0. And that was ok with you! Now with AA-A you want them separated? But earlier you didn't. And you were so concerned that B1 was 2 steps from AA? Must be you really want your kid to play B1's again?
BadgerBob82 wrote:And here's how stupid you are. You can't figure out that in a typical AA vs. A matchup within the same association, if you removed the top 5 players from the AA team and the bottom 5 from the A team, you'd have a great game with 10 vs 10. It's the extremes that create the issue.
You described perfectly why they shouldn't play. And most the time it's way more than just five. Great job!
Again, Could not have described it better myself! The "extremes" are too big. Great job describing!
BadgerBob82 wrote:And here's how stupid you are. You can't figure out that in a typical AA vs. A matchup within the same association, if you removed the top 5 players from the AA team and the bottom 5 from the A team, you'd have a great game with 10 vs 10. It's the extremes that create the issue.
You described perfectly why they shouldn't play. And most the time it's way more than just five. Great job!
Again, Could not have described it better myself! The "extremes" are too big. Great job describing!
DONE!
I prefer the term "incredibles" rather than "extremes"
