HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Of course, the super player from Detroit Lakes whose parents are unable or unwilling to drive great distances so their Squirt can play on a "AAA" (not USA Hockey registered though, which is a point worth mentioning). However, changes to the present system cannot possibly "solve" this "problem".

O-townClown wrote:

sorno82 wrote: No- I would say no "A" team unless you have 60 kids (for arguments sake). You cannot have a "AA" team unless you have 100 kids (again for aguments sake).

But if they'd go with a small roster size a program with 80 kids could easily compete at AA.

.

Supposing there was a AA league that was sponsored by the 12 MNH districts.

Tenoverpar wrote:same old same old...

Minnesota faithful..."we produce more"

AAA faithful..."that's only because we HAVE MORE"

Minnesota faithful..."take pride in your community"

.....

I'm gassed, the end.

DMom wrote:The only problem with this is that if you go to Pee Wee and Bantam games in the cities in say Dec. or Jan., you'll see three to four players lined up on the bench in their helmets. Seperated shoulders, broken wrists, concussions, etc, are the norm now, and not exceptions. If you only carry 13 you can still be down to 9 kids for a lot of games and if you go down to 9 or 10, you'll be forfeiting a lot of games.

observer wrote:One of the reasons to carry 15 skaters and 2 goalies, or more, is to reduce ice costs per team.

Also coaches prefer to run practices, and they're significantly better, if they have at least 15 skaters present. 3 units of 5. Teams with 13 skaters can have 8 show up and not have productive practices.

observer wrote:One of the reasons to carry 15 skaters and 2 goalies, or more, is to reduce ice costs per team.

Also coaches prefer to run practices, and they're significantly better, if they have at least 15 skaters present. 3 units of 5. Teams with 13 skaters can have 8 show up and not have productive practices.

sorno82 wrote:If Minn Hock wants to be a viable entity 5-10 years from now, they need to undergo major restructuring. There are so many issues that effect each association differently that going with the one size fits all mentality does not work anymore. Common sense prevails somewhat at high school level. For example, don’t expect Cambridge to compete with Edina since there is usually a big discrepancy in size and resources (Hence 5 or more classes in football, 2 in Hockey). Also, don’t think that Wayzata and Edina’s youth hockey success on the ice is a direct result of how well the board runs the program, but rather a result of the numbers and resources of the people who belong to those associations. These associations are volunteer organizations and should not be expected to run like a fortune 500 company, however, they do have a lot of great coaches who happen to have kids that play in the program, which raises the level of every kid who works hard. That is what separates these programs from the rest. I foresee a possible revolt occurring in the near future, most likely initiated from a large association.

Here is how Minn Hock can be true to their mission, and allow more associations to have successful programs.

- Set hard limits based on participation numbers for number of teams at each level- exceptions allowed based on quality of program like high school (Roseau)
o for example, need at least 60 kids to field an “A” team (exception on a case by case basis). For associations that do not meet this number, they can merge with another association to get to that number or waive out a legitimate “A” player if that player desires.
o If a program has multiple “B” teams, let them determine the number of B1 and B2 unless they have a history of having a lot of B2 level players playing B1 or lot of B1 level players playing B2. Enforce competitive balance at this level.
- Create a 2A level for associations over 100 players at a given level. Let them have a B1 team play at the A level if they choose (allow a play up option for quality programs).
- Allow kids to play for their school. If Blake wants to have a squirt or PeeWee team, let them as long as the kid is enrolled in that school – no restrictions on level.

You can either take the approach of knocking down the big associations or bringing up the small. If North Metro wants to play Wayzata at the “A” level, then merge with Osseo or Armstrong if you cannot compete on your own. I say bring up the small if they want to compete. If you want to stay small, then play at the level MinnHock sets for you.

The harsh reality is that I think Minnesota Made would be a major threat to Association hockey in the winter if they were not such A-holes. Having dynamic leadership with a good product with a private organization funding will make association hockey in the Metro obsolete in the near future. The seeds have been planted with the proliferation of the summer AAA teams. This will have an impact outstate also as the competitive landscape will be severely altered.

The harsh reality is that I think Minnesota Made would be a major threat to Association hockey in the winter if they were not such A-holes. Having dynamic leadership with a good product with a private organization funding will make association hockey in the Metro obsolete in the near future. The seeds have been planted with the proliferation of the summer AAA teams. This will have an impact outstate also as the competitive landscape will be severely altered.

puckeyone wrote:Got to Laugh my a-- off on some of these, to all the parents with the GREAT 7 year olds that want AAA hockey , take you kid and get out of hockey Please!!!!!!, You will never be happy, If you get AAA then all you will do is complain about the travel you have created.
Yes there are always ways to improve but you dont have to reinvent the wheel it has always been round as square wheels just dont work, tweak and improve But AAA hockey in youth is just plain crazy. What will you do when the other kids dont go that way , sit and complain some more. sit back and take a deep breath and ask could this actully be supported in the Dollars,

Well said - enough said. They don't even know enough to understand what they are asking for.

ilike2score wrote:I believe the intent of the original post was to level the playing field for most and allow more kids to play at a level more conducive to their current local associations. To do this you would essentially create an A and an AA levels modeled after the current system used by High Schools. The difference in class would be based on participation/enrollment numbers...very similar to the enrollment numbers the Minnesota State High School uses currently to seperate the classes in all sports in Minnesota High School. So essentially In stead of having an A tournament and a B tournament at youth levels...you would have a large association and a small association classification. I can still see 8 regions at each levels. This would help with the parity of play as large associations would play large and small small. Of course the small organizations with a solid history such as Roseau would have the option to opt up. I realize there is alot more details that would need to go into this...but the overall concept I see is very good.....thanks for putting this one out there sorno,.