HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

JaginCake wrote: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...

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:

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.

MrBoDangles wrote:

nofinish wrote:

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.

elliott70 wrote: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?

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...

goldy313 wrote: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.

goldy313 wrote: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.

Mnhockeys wrote: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 wrote: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"

Toomuchtoosoon wrote: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.

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote: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...

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:

JaginCake wrote: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???

MrBoDangles wrote: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...