AA & A youth hockey associations

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:26 am

old goalie85 wrote:I'm just repeating what was said last night. I don't think anyone knows yet what is going on.

Yes, I know.

That is why I am here, trying to figure out what is going on and then share it with everyone.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:29 am

old goalie85 wrote:How do they pick the 32 to go to regions then ???

Everyone will be placed in regions pretty much geographically, somehow the teams will be seeded (DD's, coaches, committee) and from that the bottom teams will playoff for the bottom seeds in the regions.

Team #1 and team #2 will advance to the state in a predetermined pairing such as R1 #1 vs R2 #2 etc...

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:39 am

The NORTH region will have
Duluth East, Hermantown and Cloquet from D11.
Grand Rapids and Hibbing from D12.
East Grand Forks, Roseau and Bemidji from D16.

Moorhead and Brainerd from D15 will compete in the WEST regions

The balance are from the metro plus Rochester.

They will be split as the 'A' associations into EAST, SOUTH & WEST.
For those regions with less than 8 teams - qualifying teams from other districts will play in to fill those spots.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:41 am

Thank you Elliott- We are hearing alot of B.S. right now. I know it is straight up coming from you.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:47 am

Congrats to the teams that have made (R)regions!!

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:49 am

old goalie85 wrote:Thank you Elliott- We are hearing alot of B.S. right now. I know it is straight up coming from you.

To the extent I can figure it out.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:50 am

MrBoDangles wrote:Congrats to the teams that have made (R)regions!!

The D16 teams like the idea of going through districts and saw little need for this, but all 3 are willing to give it a one year shot and go from there.

Flin Flon · Post by **Flin Flon** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:54 pm

Nice to know that the city big wigs have a enough pull to get some northern teams out of AA division.. Elliott what's the deal with that.. Im sure you put up a fight to deaf ears

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:26 am

Flin Flon wrote:Nice to know that the city big wigs have a enough pull to get some northern teams out of AA division.. Elliott what's the deal with that.. Im sure you put up a fight to deaf ears

Yes, but managed a small victory, but the fight may not be over.

MH would make a good daytime soap.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:41 am

elliott70 wrote:
Flin Flon wrote:Nice to know that the city big wigs have a enough pull to get some northern teams out of AA division.. Elliott what's the deal with that.. Im sure you put up a fight to deaf ears
Yes, but managed a small victory, but the fight may not be over.

MH would make a good daytime soap.

Keep up the good fight! Happy we still have a few good people representing us.

Bleed Maroon and Gold · Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:51 am

MrBoDangles wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
Flin Flon wrote:Nice to know that the city big wigs have a enough pull to get some northern teams out of AA division.. Elliott what's the deal with that.. Im sure you put up a fight to deaf ears
Yes, but managed a small victory, but the fight may not be over.

MH would make a good daytime soap.
Keep up the good fight! Happy we still have a few good people representing us.

Bo, I will answer your question from the other thread to keep it out of the scores thread. As I have stated a long time ago and have brought my points to the MN Hockey board. If this was truly to give the smaller associations the option to play at the A level then they should have kept as I have stated all along. If your high school is AA or A that is where your classified until you petiton either up or down. Then they decide if they will grant or reject that petition. After that you field either a AA or A team not a AA, A, B1, B2 team. That way the smaller associations are competing against like sizes and the bigger associations are competing against the same. I am still in favor of the AA playing the A teams in regular season much like the high school does it.

As you can see your point with the 1-17 playing the 18-34 of the same association is a mute point because I never once saw you complaining when associations fielded two B1 teams that were kids 18-34 and then 35-50. Can you explain to me how this is any different? When associations fielded two B1 teams they claim they were divided equally which we all know is not the truth.

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:20 am

Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:
elliott70 wrote: Yes, but managed a small victory, but the fight may not be over.

MH would make a good daytime soap.
Keep up the good fight! Happy we still have a few good people representing us.
Bo, I will answer your question from the other thread to keep it out of the scores thread. As I have stated a long time ago and have brought my points to the MN Hockey board. If this was truly to give the smaller associations the option to play at the A level then they should have kept as I have stated all along. If your high school is AA or A that is where your classified until you petiton either up or down. Then they decide if they will grant or reject that petition. After that you field either a AA or A team not a AA, A, B1, B2 team. That way the smaller associations are competing against like sizes and the bigger associations are competing against the same. I am still in favor of the AA playing the A teams in regular season much like the high school does it.

As you can see your point with the 1-17 playing the 18-34 of the same association is a mute point because I never once saw you complaining when associations fielded two B1 teams that were kids 18-34 and then 35-50. Can you explain to me how this is any different? When associations fielded two B1 teams they claim they were divided equally which we all know is not the truth.

True! The one B-1 team would then beat up on(you're making the point) the other B-1 team

.... And that was from just stacking a few of the best B-1 players on one of the teams, not a clear division of 18-34 and 35-50. The top end (Elite 1-6(9) players) players make this pilot even uglier in the AA/A setting.

Now do you see the problem with having 1-16 play 17-32?

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:59 am

Some AA vs A will be fine. Some will be blow outs.

Look at the AA vs AA and A vs A and B1 vs B1. I have seen 10-0 games at the same level? I have seen blows where shots on goal are 50-10 and others that are 25-25 but the losing team has a weak goalie.

I see no reason for AA vs A within the same association. But to say no AA team should ever play an A team is silly. Especially when you have some A teams that should have opted to AA. And as was the case for years, B1 teams that opted to A.

If associations placed their teams at the correct level, alot of your claims would disappear.

But I agree, no reason for 1-17 to play 18-34 within the same assocation.

Keep watching the Wayzata scores for their AA and A Bantam teams. Appears to me their A team is better than most AA teams? Or at least could be top 15? Maybe their PW "pilot" of having 2 A teams is paying off?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:27 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:Some AA vs A will be fine. Some will be blow outs.

Look at the AA vs AA and A vs A and B1 vs B1. I have seen 10-0 games at the same level? I have seen blows where shots on goal are 50-10 and others that are 25-25 but the losing team has a weak goalie.

I see no reason for AA vs A within the same association. But to say no AA team should ever play an A team is silly. Especially when you have some A teams that should have opted to AA. And as was the case for years, B1 teams that opted to A.

If associations placed their teams at the correct level, alot of your claims would disappear.

But I agree, no reason for 1-17 to play 18-34 within the same assocation.

Keep watching the Wayzata scores for their AA and A Bantam teams. Appears to me their A team is better than most AA teams? Or at least could be top 15? Maybe their PW "pilot" of having 2 A teams is paying off?

Wayzata is a very rare case because of size.

Tons of blowout games around MN because Wayzata's A's could beat some AA teams?

You're right in the idea that Wayzata probably COULD play two teams at the AA level. So MAYBE we should let Wayzata go with a 1-16 AA team and a 17-32 weaker AA team if the second team is looking for better competition...? But should we expect other, much smaller, associations 16-32 A teams to compete like the mega association Wayzata?

The proof will be in the scores. The 16-32 A teams that people thought would be competitive against AA teams in District 10................ Well, I've already heard that one team backed way off in one of the two games so far.

We'll have to keep track of the goal totals. 18-1 so far and one team being held back.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:04 pm

I agree with you. I've never said AA teams should be forced to play A teams. I've said the ones that match well should and will schedule non-league games though.

How many B2 teams are beating B1 teams?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:39 pm

This pilot is forcing AA teams to play A teams and A teams to play AA teams..

1-16"s against 17-32's

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:39 pm

In fairness, you should state that some districts are forcing AA vs. A. Not all. As I've said many times, some districts and associations did not do the right thing this year, but will get it right next year. And since your tunnel vision is on D10, you'd agree the people running D10 have done things wrong in the past.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:53 pm

BadgerBob82 wrote:In fairness, you should state that some districts are forcing AA vs. A. Not all. As I've said many times, some districts and associations did not do the right thing this year, but will get it right next year. And since your tunnel vision is on D10, you'd agree the people running D10 have done things wrong in the past.

Funny conversation. Last year, all top teams were "A" and every game they played was against other "A" teams, including intra-assocation games at the few associations that fielded more than one A team.

Now suddenly the sky is falling, just because a few mega associations added an A???

Generally, the nabobs around here argue that Mn hockey players need to play more high-level competition to stay sharp. Now we're saying that kind of competition is bad??? That As shouldn't play AAs???? I get so confused.

Bleed Maroon and Gold · Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:25 pm

Shinbone_News wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:In fairness, you should state that some districts are forcing AA vs. A. Not all. As I've said many times, some districts and associations did not do the right thing this year, but will get it right next year. And since your tunnel vision is on D10, you'd agree the people running D10 have done things wrong in the past.

Funny conversation. Last year, all top teams were "A" and every game they played was against other "A" teams, including intra-assocation games at the few associations that fielded more than one A team.

Now suddenly the sky is falling, just because a few mega associations added an A???

Generally, the nabobs around here argue that Mn hockey players need to play more high-level competition to stay sharp. Now we're saying that kind of competition is bad??? That As shouldn't play AAs???? I get so confused.

I agree with you that people are confusing. Some say its a bad thing for the mega associations AA teams to play the same associations A teams. They are having a hard time with that but it was ok when they played each other at the B1 level.

BadgerBob82 · Post by **BadgerBob82** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm not saying it's BAD in all cases for all associations or all districts.

I'm just saying in a District with 8-10 AA teams and 8-10 A teams, why would you force AA vs A games? They are free to schedule non-league games. For some associations it would be a good thing, for others bad.

I've been involved in "scrimmages" with B1 vs A teams and Boys vs Girls teams at various levels. But to force home-and-home league games that are certain to be lopsided doesn't make alot of sense.

Just like D9 didn't force teams to play Rochester Red before the AA/A thing. They would seed the Red team #1 without playing a league schedule and they would walk over everyone in Districts and then get pounded in Regions each year by Metro teams. D9 has 2 AA teams and they aren't forcing them to play A level league games. D8's RR created that fiasco but that's a different topic.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:20 pm

Bleed Maroon and Gold wrote:
Shinbone_News wrote:
BadgerBob82 wrote:In fairness, you should state that some districts are forcing AA vs. A. Not all. As I've said many times, some districts and associations did not do the right thing this year, but will get it right next year. And since your tunnel vision is on D10, you'd agree the people running D10 have done things wrong in the past.

Funny conversation. Last year, all top teams were "A" and every game they played was against other "A" teams, including intra-assocation games at the few associations that fielded more than one A team.

Now suddenly the sky is falling, just because a few mega associations added an A???

Generally, the nabobs around here argue that Mn hockey players need to play more high-level competition to stay sharp. Now we're saying that kind of competition is bad??? That As shouldn't play AAs???? I get so confused.
I agree with you that people are confusing. Some say its a bad thing for the mega associations AA teams to play the same associations A teams. They are having a hard time with that but it was ok when they played each other at the B1 level.

Of course it was okay because the B1 teams at many associations are drafted equally. 1-15 vs. 16-30 is quite a bit different.

DrGaf · Post by **DrGaf** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:57 am

Good concept, horrible implementation.

These AA vs. A games are ridiculous.

Can't wait to see how the tourney's end up shaking out. Could be on par with Benghazi.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:05 pm

DrGaf wrote:Good concept, horrible implementation.

These AA vs. A games are ridiculous.

Can't wait to see how the tourney's end up shaking out. Could be on par with Benghazi.

One of the more warped comparisons in the history of this board

the_juiceman · Post by **the_juiceman** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:21 pm

What happen to the Chisago Lakes A Bantam team? They are no longer listed on the D10 standings page. Anyone have any insight on this?

Trout · Post by **Trout** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:26 am

It looks to me like Woodbury has both AA and A teams at Bantams and then at Pee Wee then have AA and then 2 B1 Pee Wee. I thought this was not an option under the new system...What you do for one you do for the other. Can someone confirm this? Am I wrong? I got the info from their website.

Also, it looks to me like the single A bantam teams that have a AA brother are doing better than the A pee wee teams with a AA brother. With the Exception of Edina and Maybe Chaska in Pee Wee's it looks like it is tougher for the second A team to compete at the Pee Wee level. Just a quick observation some of you may have other observations. Thoughts on this?