Meltdown: alot of missing 12U Teams

endtoend · Post by **endtoend** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:01 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:
I say that, individually, any of the STE Red, the IceCats (who won the CLASH), 98OS (who lost to the Ice Cats 3-2 in the semi's before beating the Ice Edge 2-0 for third) and Ice Edge would have made it to the Championship game of the 2011 Meltdown. Obviously, all the teams who accepted an invitation to play in the CLASH wanted to compete against the best in a true tournament atmosphere.

Two STE teams played this weekend; they finished 5th and 8th. WOW
The teams that finished 1st and 3rd at the Meltdown won their respective tourneys.

My point on early posts was that there were in fact good teams at the Meltdown; the only good teams were not either STE or at the clash. Simply attending a tournament and stating that it is elite doesn't make a team better than others. As I said before, if the Ice Cats, OS, and Ice Edge (Team Reebok) choose to play 12U tourneys in the area, they will be challenged (and beaten) by teams from the Meltdown (including teams of 99s). There are more than 4 good 12U teams in the state.

Congrats to the 99 Velocity and MN Saints for winning their divisions. That being said, Inigio, are you honestly calling out the Ice Cats, OS and Edge for playing up? Are you upset that they decided to play up in the 14U Maroon division, (the upper division of 14's). They did very well and in fact 2 of the three teams took second and third in the tournament. 98 Ice Cats took second and the 98 O.S. took third. The Ice Cats had a 2-2-1 record and the O.S went 4-1. Quite an accomplishment playing up against some teams with roster's of 96 birth years only. So they want to play the best competition they can, and they found it at the 14U level.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue May 24, 2011 7:53 am

No. I am sure the girls work very hard and are very nice young ladies. My point is...again...simply going to a limited field tournament and saying you're the best, doesn't make it so - strictly for the parents. If you believe in your heart of hearts that those 96 girls they played against are head and shoulders above the 98 (and 99) girls they chose not to play, then bully for you. The mad rush will now begin to have more 12U teams play at the 14U level, and 10U teams to play at the 12U level, until there is absolutely no sense to the arrangement. It seems to me a better situation would be to have elite and open, rather than east and west or maroon and gold. I suppose that wouldn't work for the parents that want to tell other parents their kids aren't any good if they played in a lesser tournament or a lower age group - while their kids are 2-2-1.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Tue May 24, 2011 9:59 am

InigoMontoya wrote:No. I am sure the girls work very hard and are very nice young ladies. My point is...again...simply going to a limited field tournament and saying you're the best, doesn't make it so - strictly for the parents. If you believe in your heart of hearts that those 96 girls they played against are head and shoulders above the 98 (and 99) girls they chose not to play, then bully for you. The mad rush will now begin to have more 12U teams play at the 14U level, and 10U teams to play at the 12U level, until there is absolutely no sense to the arrangement. It seems to me a better situation would be to have elite and open, rather than east and west or maroon and gold. I suppose that wouldn't work for the parents that want to tell other parents their kids aren't any good if they played in a lesser tournament or a lower age group - while their kids are 2-2-1.

A better goal might be games decided by one or two goals. We should be working to stay away from 10+ goal differentials in summer tourneys. If the games were close hard fought battles with a goalie pulled at the end, everybody was at the right level. Stop worrying about what summer team was/is best. The last few years there have been a lot of girls playing at different levels, I think it is great people are not so worried about winning trophies and looking instead for competitive games.

redarmydad · Post by **redarmydad** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:16 am

Royals, could not agree with you more. It is truly great to see teams searching and playing for competition rather than a trophy. Great for girls hockey.

Inigo, I don't think it is something new. I know that this has been happening for a while, 10's 12's and 14's carrying a few girls in each level who choose to play up, and I don't feel as though you will see a "mad rush" as you say of teams clamoring to play up. I get what you are saying though, and true to point, just simply attending a tournament does not make you the best. I know for our team, (98 OS) we chose to play at the 14U level because of the speed and physical challenge of the game. The girls really enjoyed it and so did I. No disrespect was intended to the 12U level at all, we were meerely seeking a different game. In my observation of the play of our team in this tournament as well as in the 14U mash league we played in for the spring session, they really thrive and enjoy playing the older girls, something about that idea seems to get them going. I am not saying it is the best way, I am just saying that our team really enjoyed the competition and it did help to instill great confidence in our team.

Also the open/invite is a great format, and I agree the political correctness has got to go, call it what it is and let m' play.

Finally, ENDTOEND! It is more than obvious that you are bragging and it is tiresome and old so stop. Nobody here likes or respects it. PEACE!

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed May 25, 2011 12:02 pm

endtoend wrote: Congrats to the 99 Velocity and MN Saints for winning their divisions. That being said, Inigio, are you honestly calling out the Ice Cats, OS and Edge for playing up? Are you upset that they decided to play up in the 14U Maroon division, (the upper division of 14's). They did very well and in fact 2 of the three teams took second and third in the tournament. 98 Ice Cats took second and the 98 O.S. took third. The Ice Cats had a 2-2-1 record and the O.S went 4-1. Quite an accomplishment playing up against some teams with roster's of 96 birth years only. So they want to play the best competition they can, and they found it at the 14U level.

You're kidding yourself in more than one way. But the biggest way is if you think there were teams with "96 birth years only" in this tournament. Besides a couple super-fantastic EP girls who play for Pens4, none of the top 160 '96s would have bothered to be at this tournament. Ho-freakin'-hum. In fact, very few of the top 102 '96s are still playing U14 this spring. They, like the '98s you are talking about, are playing "up" at U16 or even U19. Their parents are just as insane and delusional as you guys are. Your '98s would get a real shock if they actually played a team made up of '96s who had played varsity, or JV, hockey all winter. In fact, I'd bet a paycheck that even the Edina U14A Green team would have won this tournament easily.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Wed May 25, 2011 12:34 pm

Were any of the 14U Maroon teams made up of 14 year olds?

Cut Above · Post by **Cut Above** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:26 pm

Delete

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:32 pm

(not so) Jolly,

Not sure how you have so perfectly diagnosed my delusional insanity but I don't think many of the 95-96 girls who skated U19 this weekend looked above there heads. All had won U16 tourneys last year and were ready to play at that level. Yes SSM and the blue devils (Decker) had them spinning in their skates a bit but other than that they held their own just fine. I didn't see any parents who had stars in their eyes or any strange ideas about what it showed. The U19 Ice Cats and U17/U19 Whitecaps were not in the tourney so many of the top girls in Minnesota from 92 to 95 were gone from U19 as well.

To be honest it seems like the parents get less and less insane and delusional as the girls get older. Once they have HS stats and Advance 15, 16, 17 tryouts, parents are getting out of the bragging business. However, the refs were down right punchy after working U10 games. Just listening to the screaming from the stands and benches during the younger kids games made that crystal clear. Yuck, I'm glad my U10 is to busy with soccer for summer hockey.

Cut Above · Post by **Cut Above** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:32 pm

jollyroger wrote:
endtoend wrote: Congrats to the 99 Velocity and MN Saints for winning their divisions. That being said, Inigio, are you honestly calling out the Ice Cats, OS and Edge for playing up? Are you upset that they decided to play up in the 14U Maroon division, (the upper division of 14's). They did very well and in fact 2 of the three teams took second and third in the tournament. 98 Ice Cats took second and the 98 O.S. took third. The Ice Cats had a 2-2-1 record and the O.S went 4-1. Quite an accomplishment playing up against some teams with roster's of 96 birth years only. So they want to play the best competition they can, and they found it at the 14U level.
You're kidding yourself in more than one way. But the biggest way is if you think there were teams with "96 birth years only" in this tournament. Besides a couple super-fantastic EP girls who play for Pens4, none of the top 160 '96s would have bothered to be at this tournament. Ho-freakin'-hum. In fact, very few of the top 102 '96s are still playing U14 this spring. They, like the '98s you are talking about, are playing "up" at U16 or even U19. Their parents are just as insane and delusional as you guys are. Your '98s would get a real shock if they actually played a team made up of '96s who had played varsity, or JV, hockey all winter. In fact, I'd bet a paycheck that even the Edina U14A Green team would have won this tournament easily.

Agree completely with the Varsity comment. However, disagree completely with the JV (unless a EP/Edina or similar). It's just harder to score against bigger kids! I think HS rosters with 8th graders prove this point. I also agree that an Edina U14A team would have won this tournament. Apples and Oranges comparing EP and Edina Varsity, JV and 14's to the rest of the state or sizing them up against 98's. The 97 and 98 crop is very strong (I'll throw 96 in there too)! Somewhere in there is the APEX.

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:37 pm

Were any of the 14U Maroon teams made up of 14 year olds?

Summer hockey is played at the level where the players will find themselves in the fall. 14U means 14 and under for the winter season. That will include before July 1 12 year olds, all 13 year olds and after July 1 14 year olds. So, many girls that played 12U last winter are playing 14U this summer. Most would not be 14 years old today, as you ask.

Minnesota coaches and managers should have a pretty good sense where their teams belong. I mentioned in an earlier post that if all tourneys had even strength teams playing open level in your teams first year at a new level and invite the second can be a good approach. I will mention that it's hard for a team from Canada, Wisconsin, etc. to know what level they should play at and likely sign up for the appropriate age level because talent level from tourney to tourney is hard to guesstimate by an outsider.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed May 25, 2011 4:01 pm

observer wrote:
Were any of the 14U Maroon teams made up of 14 year olds?
Summer hockey is played at the level where the players will find themselves in the fall. 14U means 14 and under for the winter season. That will include before July 1 12 year olds, all 13 year olds and after July 1 14 year olds. So, many girls that played 12U last winter are playing 14U this summer. Most would not be 14 years old today, as you ask.

Minnesota coaches and managers should have a pretty good sense where their teams belong. I mentioned in an earlier post that if all tourneys had even strength teams playing open level in your teams first year at a new level and invite the second can be a good approach. I will mention that it's hard for a team from Canada, Wisconsin, etc. to know what level they should play at and likely sign up for the appropriate age level because talent level from tourney to tourney is hard to guesstimate by an outsider.

U14 AAA means '96 and '97 birth years, period. That's the USA Hockey rules.

Here's a typical scenario (you can call it the Icecat's model):
A group of '98 parents gets together in the Holiday Inn in St. Cloud during the first weekend of April. They decide to put a AAA team together with all their 'elite' daughters. A big part of the deal is that they'll only sign up for tournaments at the U14 level, meaning they will be playing teams who are two years older than their own players, which to them sounds about right. Bob and Ted will coach it, and Maureen will be the manager. Then they get to their first tournament and find out they're playing in a pool with 2 other '98 teams and a '97 team. In the opposite pool is a '97 team, two '98s and a 'developmental' U14 team with some '96s and '97s who are playing off-season hockey for the first time. They're miffed. Then they win the tournmament, and claim to be the best U14 team around, even though they'll go all spring, summer, and fall without playing an actual U14 team. What they don't realize, you knuckleheads, is that us '96 parents went through the exact same thing two years ago! And now, this year, the last thing we care about is U14AAA hockey. We got them in the OS spring league and a couple tournaments on a U16 team and a U19 team and watched them safely make the cut to get to Mankato (Whew!). When they get back from Mankato they'll already be deep into their HS STP 2 or 3 days a week and pick up a couple more tournaments with U16 or U19 teams and work out on their own to get ready for captain's practices. I'd bet that just about any '96 parent that I know could make 4 phone calls and put together a U14-eligible team that would make these '98 teams wish they were back playing U12. But it would mean nothing and nobody cares.

Cut Above · Post by **Cut Above** » Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 pm

Delete

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu May 26, 2011 7:49 am

So again I'll ask, wouldn't it be better to have these 6-8 12U teams play 12U Elite with the 4-6 12U teams that are doing well, the other 16 or so 12U teams that were at the Independent could have played open hockey?

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu May 26, 2011 9:44 am

Yes, but...

Some tourneys don't offer both invite and open levels. And, the organizers of these supposed high level girls AAA teams don't want the perceived stigma of entering their team in the open level of a tournament. Maybe a better place for them to play but they feel they'll be criticized and could affect their recruiting. Lots of parents are nutty. Single birth year, when organizing teams, is the way to go as it cuts down on shuffling players over the next 3-4-5 years. Playing open the first year and invite the second is also a nice solution but it requires everyone is onboard.

I'm also curious, where's the problem? Teams organize and attempt to play at the right level. Nobody wants to play at the wrong level. Summer hockey is a bit of a crapshoot, certainly at the younger levels, but teams learn their place and settle in as they get to be 12U and 14U teams.

endtoend · Post by **endtoend** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:45 am

Jolly/Inigo how dare you take anything away from these girls. They worked there butts off all weekenmd and here you both come and sweep it aside like its nothing. Get over yourself, I know I could call a numerous amount of top end 96's and destroy whatever you could throw trogether. So where is the justice in that., Just like I could call a numerous amount of 98's in and destroy any 99 team, or 97's to destroy any 98 team! What the hell!! No doubt a year makes a difference. And as far as you are concerned, the Lake Superioir Stars were a team of ALL 96's. 4 of which were advanced 15's. So go ahead, keep ripping on them, keep justifying your teams success, and all will be decided in the International Cup because everyone will get a chance to come at them because they are all playing in it at the 12U level. Ohhhh wait, that is if your teams are good enough to be considered to play in the INVITE LEVEL OR THE OPEN LEVEL. STOP THE HATE!! Earn respect! Don't assume anyone is giving it to you. And stop chewing on the bench!

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:39 pm

Senor Montoya,
I believe Mr Endtoend just answered your question.

jackdaw · Post by **jackdaw** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:56 pm

jollyroger wrote:
observer wrote:
Were any of the 14U Maroon teams made up of 14 year olds?
Summer hockey is played at the level where the players will find themselves in the fall. 14U means 14 and under for the winter season. That will include before July 1 12 year olds, all 13 year olds and after July 1 14 year olds. So, many girls that played 12U last winter are playing 14U this summer. Most would not be 14 years old today, as you ask.

Minnesota coaches and managers should have a pretty good sense where their teams belong. I mentioned in an earlier post that if all tourneys had even strength teams playing open level in your teams first year at a new level and invite the second can be a good approach. I will mention that it's hard for a team from Canada, Wisconsin, etc. to know what level they should play at and likely sign up for the appropriate age level because talent level from tourney to tourney is hard to guesstimate by an outsider.
U14 AAA means '96 and '97 birth years, period. That's the USA Hockey rules.

Here's a typical scenario (you can call it the Icecat's model):
A group of '98 parents gets together in the Holiday Inn in St. Cloud during the first weekend of April. They decide to put a AAA team together with all their 'elite' daughters. A big part of the deal is that they'll only sign up for tournaments at the U14 level, meaning they will be playing teams who are two years older than their own players, which to them sounds about right. Bob and Ted will coach it, and Maureen will be the manager. Then they get to their first tournament and find out they're playing in a pool with 2 other '98 teams and a '97 team. In the opposite pool is a '97 team, two '98s and a 'developmental' U14 team with some '96s and '97s who are playing off-season hockey for the first time. They're miffed. Then they win the tournmament, and claim to be the best U14 team around, even though they'll go all spring, summer, and fall without playing an actual U14 team. What they don't realize, you knuckleheads, is that us '96 parents went through the exact same thing two years ago! And now, this year, the last thing we care about is U14AAA hockey. We got them in the OS spring league and a couple tournaments on a U16 team and a U19 team and watched them safely make the cut to get to Mankato (Whew!). When they get back from Mankato they'll already be deep into their HS STP 2 or 3 days a week and pick up a couple more tournaments with U16 or U19 teams and work out on their own to get ready for captain's practices. I'd bet that just about any '96 parent that I know could make 4 phone calls and put together a U14-eligible team that would make these '98 teams wish they were back playing U12. But it would mean nothing and nobody cares.

Knucklehead Example #1

We very much enjoy sitting in St. Cloud at the Holiday Inn with our "elite" daughters who happen to enjoy playing hockey while attempting to plan how they can continue to be "elite" players by playing only in U14 tournaments. Oh wait-the Clash tournament was a U12 tourney, Maureen must have hit the wrong button when signing up. One good game(3-2), other four not so close (27-2), but by your definition it was the right group to be in-sure was fun for the team that lost 8-1 in championship and our kids learned a lot, we sat in the locker room and counted how many point we had for the weekend-typical IceCats Model!

Knucklehead Example #2

2-2-1, lost in Championship U14 game to 96/97 "elite" team from WI 3-1, close enough game-WI team did not have a problem playing an "elite" 98 team and they said it was good competition. We should have played in the Meltdown so we could score more than one goal in a championship to make our "elite" players feel better- they know beating someone by 8 goals and not letting them out of their zone is much better for development than a 3-1 loss-typical IceCats model!

Knucklehead Example #3

USA Hockey does not govern over tournaments liked the Clash, it might follow the rules though.

All teams would love to have great competition at their respective levels, but it is not always the case- so teams who have a feel for the competition choose to play at levels that will give them the best chance at being competitive-not just to say their "elite" players are playing at a level above. I think we are trying to play in U10 tournaments in the fall to run up the stats more for our "elite" players, instead of having good competition.

Signed,
"Elite" Dad, or can I be called "St. Cloud Selects Dad", I like that better.

P.S. Please make your four phone calls and put together a team, we need to be put back to U12 levels-oh wait, that would be U14's we would be playing and you are not for that, but wait again: will you be able to find U14 player because based on your comment "We got them in the OS spring league and a couple tournaments on a U16 team and a U19 team and watched them safely make the cut to get to Mankato (Whew!)" are they not playing at a higher level, I am confused, why are you ripping the IceCats for playing up, but it is fine for you to do? Knucklehead/Jollyroger please change your user name to Doorknob!

Bighead · Post by **Bighead** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:55 pm

In the offseason, players should play at the level they will be playing in the fall. If you are a '98 that will be playing 14's, JV, or Varsity, why are they playing on a 12U team? You can play up in tournaments or scrimmages, but are you really playing up?

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri May 27, 2011 1:36 pm

jollyroger wrote:Senor Montoya,
I believe Mr Endtoend just answered your question.

JR,
I also believe Mr. Jackdaw is making your point for you.

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri May 27, 2011 1:47 pm

Yah, but...

Now that everyone started these independent teams no one wants to play what was formerly call open level even thought 60% are just that. An independent organization feels they can't risk getting categorized as open level. It's caused problems as now they shuffle players in and out of lineups for tournaments, at the expense of some of their regular players in some instances, to make their team more invite like. By the old standards there can't be more than 3-4-5 invite level teams at any level. 3-4-5 more would come from out of town for the tournaments and there was your field. Now there 15 organizations at every level claiming to be invite level when they are not. So, tourney organizers are in a tough spot and trying to go with two pools, all invite of course, with proven or older teams in one pool and younger or new teams in the weaker pool.

Geez, can I say weaker without hurting feelings? Remember, which also ruffles some feathers, no invite team, at any level, had more than 1 or 2 players with birthdays after July 1, ever.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Fri May 27, 2011 2:58 pm

all will be decided in the International Cup because everyone will get a chance to come at them because they are all playing in it at the 12U level.

Great. That sounds like fun.

capitalist · Post by **capitalist** » Fri May 27, 2011 4:21 pm

Hmmmm....
The spring/fall season is haphazard for girls hockey. It's tough to figure out what kind of team to join and still harder for the coaches to make sure they're getting lined up to play against similarly skilled teams. If you put together a very talented '98 team, for instance, it makes perfect sense to figure you'll be better off in the U14 level of a tournament. You can't blame the parents or coaches for that. There are so many spring/fall teams at each level now that you have to assume most of them are middle of the road instead of all-star teams like they were when there were only 3 or 4 of them.
I believe that the majority of parents are truly concerned about the kids and their development. Of course, there's always going to be some 'silly' behavior--for instance, what was mentioned above about the U14 Ice Cats and '96 Prospects moving up to U16 last fall. I witnessed that and it was ridiculous and did the girls an injustice. Anybody who saw the games in the spring U14 and U16 tournaments knew it was a stupid move.

Northland Cannon · Post by **Northland Cannon** » Mon May 30, 2011 9:24 am

Capitalist, I love your wild uninformed comments. Both the ice cats and prospects did excellent last fall and the 96 prospects won the u16 tourney. Love to hear the "injustice".

quote="capitalist"]Hmmmm....
The spring/fall season is haphazard for girls hockey. It's tough to figure out what kind of team to join and still harder for the coaches to make sure they're getting lined up to play against similarly skilled teams. If you put together a very talented '98 team, for instance, it makes perfect sense to figure you'll be better off in the U14 level of a tournament. You can't blame the parents or coaches for that. There are so many spring/fall teams at each level now that you have to assume most of them are middle of the road instead of all-star teams like they were when there were only 3 or 4 of them.
I believe that the majority of parents are truly concerned about the kids and their development. Of course, there's always going to be some 'silly' behavior--for instance, what was mentioned above about the U14 Ice Cats and '96 Prospects moving up to U16 last fall. I witnessed that and it was ridiculous and did the girls an injustice. Anybody who saw the games in the spring U14 and U16 tournaments knew it was a stupid move.[/quote]

capitalist · Post by **capitalist** » Tue May 31, 2011 9:31 am

Yes, that's the point. They had much better competition in the U14 brackets with the Blades, LS Stars, and WI Jr Badgers (minor and major) than they did in the U16. For the International in August the Westman Wildcats were also in the U14. There was nothing in U16 except the 96 Prospects and U14 Ice Cats. That was my point, moron, if you want to start name-calling.

royals dad · Post by **royals dad** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:30 pm

capitalist wrote:Yes, that's the point. They had much better competition in the U14 brackets with the Blades, LS Stars, and WI Jr Badgers (minor and major) than they did in the U16. For the International in August the Westman Wildcats were also in the U14. There was nothing in U16 except the 96 Prospects and U14 Ice Cats. That was my point, moron, if you want to start name-calling.

No one was calling you a name, he just said your comments were ill informed. I think your next post confirmed that. No offense to the U14 Blades (2010 Fall) but when most of their 96s moved over to form the Prospects a few years ago that age group went down quite a bit. The LS Stars had a team in the U16 bracket that was stronger then the one in the U14 bracket, and U16 Polar Express was a better team then either the ice cats or prospects. You are correct that they missed playing the Jr Badgers but they did a neutral site scrimmage fest to play them outside of the tourney.

As I said before I think most all the teams are all looking for the right level of competition, staying away from games that will be 10+ to 0. I don't see teams chasing trophies or trying to prove points. Not really looking to get in a debate about specific teams but if your hearing parents talking about how great their daughter is because she plays up levels, then your right that is silly, I just haven't heard parents or coaches talking like that, and I talk to many of them on both those teams.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Meltdown: alot of missing 12U Teams

Knucklehead-sounds like you are jealous