HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

D6 I get the pain, just think of the USA women's olympic team losing the gold medal to Canada. It would be impossible to get the best 8 teams to state, there will always be some teams making it that are perceived as not top 8. What if Blaine beat Tonka in the first round of some new format, then what?
Other than the top 2-3 teams there is some parity in girls hockey and looks like lot's of talented Freshman and Sophmores coming through.

alcloseshaver wrote:D6 I get the pain, just think of the USA women's olympic team losing the gold medal to Canada. It would be impossible to get the best 8 teams to state, there will always be some teams making it that are perceived as not top 8. What if Blaine beat Tonka in the first round of some new format, then what?
Other than the top 2-3 teams there is some parity in girls hockey and looks like lot's of talented Freshman and Sophmores coming through.

They changed the format in the Olympics so USA would play Canada (and the other top teams) in pool play and still have a chance to meet for the gold medal game. Has made the tourney better and the rivalry better. I disagree with you on the parity, if anything there is consolidation and the rich have gotten richer.

royals dad wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:D6 I get the pain, just think of the USA women's olympic team losing the gold medal to Canada. It would be impossible to get the best 8 teams to state, there will always be some teams making it that are perceived as not top 8. What if Blaine beat Tonka in the first round of some new format, then what?
Other than the top 2-3 teams there is some parity in girls hockey and looks like lot's of talented Freshman and Sophmores coming through.

They changed the format in the Olympics so USA would play Canada (and the other top teams) in pool play and still have a chance to meet for the gold medal game. Has made the tourney better and the rivalry better. I disagree with you on the parity, if anything there is consolidation and the rich have gotten richer.

Olympic women's ice hockey is 2 country tournament, prepare for 4 years to play Canada. Would have been sad but the sport was almost eliminated from the Olympics like softball. Agree to disagree on Parity. For a money sport like hockey there will always be players gravitating to the power programs of the day. Still lot's of hard working programs out there competing and experiencing the sport.

The section semis and finals should be tough if there is any parity at all. Sometimes that parity is regional, but is still works. Unranked and/or lower seeded teams reaching state - good for them, the top team(s) in that region lost the wrong game.

Sure there are a few soft teams that reach state each year (especially at the A level). A few quarterfinal games are full one-sided, but the semi final and final games are usually great games to watch.

These outstate teams fill hotels and the city of St Paul benefits from that.

Olympic comparison is not a bad one. Are many teams even worthy of being at the Olympics - no, but they have the chance to participate because of the way the system is set up. If there was USA 2 and Canada 2 (like bobsled) ... these teams would crush most other Country teams.

There are a lot of young American and Canadian women who are far more talented than Olympians from other parts of the world. If the world cannot catch up to the USA and Canada in hockey - then it probably should be eliminated as an Olympic sport.

How long has the Class A girls tourney been 8 teams? Didn't it used to be a 4 teamer? I see Hutch did not get a shot on goal the last 2 periods as Blake edged them.

This is a problem with Blake's athletic director not the tournament. No small town is going to have four or five division 1 hockey players on the same team. The high school league should encourage Blake to do the right thing and move up the next couple of years.

Bulldog3489 wrote:This is a problem with Blake's athletic director not the tournament. No small town is going to have four or five division 1 hockey players on the same team. The high school league should encourage Blake to do the right thing and move up the next couple of years.

So it's Blake's fault?

imnotwearingacup wrote:

Bulldog3489 wrote:This is a problem with Blake's athletic director not the tournament. No small town is going to have four or five division 1 hockey players on the same team. The high school league should encourage Blake to do the right thing and move up the next couple of years.

So it's Blake's fault?

I agree that Blake is clearly an AA team. But having watched this entire game, they clearly backed off in the third and only one goal that period. Still felt sorry for the Hutch goalie but Blake certainly relented early.

imnotwearingacup,

Yes it is The Blake School of 1900's fault! I wouldn't blame the players, but the coach and AD need to step up and play with the big girls. It's pretty obvious to most of the state!

Congrats on winning the small 'town" state championship AGAIN.

imnotwearingacup wrote:

Bulldog3489 wrote:This is a problem with Blake's athletic director not the tournament. No small town is going to have four or five division 1 hockey players on the same team. The high school league should encourage Blake to do the right thing and move up the next couple of years.

So it's Blake's fault?

Blake's administration not the kids. When you win about half of the class A girls state tourneys it's time to think about it.

Follow the lead of the other privates that have made the right decision like Benilde, Hill Murray and St. Thomas.

Blake would be appropriately ranked as a top 3 team in AA immediately. It's naive to think this is solely an administrative decision. There's likely a discussion each year with administration, coaches (and parents) to talk about what level to play at. Until there's a collective decision to move up, they probably won't. Personally, it's a bit surprising to me that they haven't made the move up. They're well coached and consistently have an extremely competitive team that's full of very skilled players.

St. Thomas moved up after reporters started writing about it. If Blake wins again, maybe someone will write about it.

Until Blake boys are ready for AA,
they will continue playing A and winning , period.

nu2hockey wrote:Until Blake boys are ready for AA,
they will continue playing A and winning , period.

That could be a while, their boys team is 8-16-1 and not ranked. Nor have they ever won a state title.

Here's a list of Class A State Tournament Champions, dating back to when they went to two classes:

2014 - Blake
2013 - Blake
2012 - Breck
2011 - Warroad
2010 - Warroad
2009 - Blake
2008 - Alexandria
2007 - Blake
2006 - South St. Paul
2005 - Holy Angels
2004 - Benilde-St. Margaret's
2003 - Blake
2002 - Benilde-St. Margaret's
2001 - Bloomington Jefferson (Single Class Tournament)

There's some good tournament history, including rosters and photos of all the participating teams going way back, at this site:

http://history.vintagemnhockey.com/page ... ar-by-year

Kudos to BSM for making the leap to AA. I'm guessing it's due to competition, not size, but someone here probably has the stats to refute or back that up. (I'll retract the kudos if it was indeed due to enrollment.) Blake would land in AA Top 20 nearly every year, top 10 many years, visit the top 5 occasionally. It appears it's time that Blake grew up.

nu2hockey wrote:Until Blake boys are ready for AA,
they will continue playing A and winning , period.

Stupid question maybe, but are you saying the girls and boys have to play at the same level? Both move up or neither?

Blake and BSM girls should both move up in soccer too as they've met in the finals the last three years.

Agree, Blake should move up but also think Breck needs to move too if you are going to solve the Class A tourney imbalance every year.

In reality I don’t think Blake would make the move next year especially when they graduate their two best players on the team this season. Without those two power forwards, Blake will be decent, but might not have enough to compete successfully at the top 10-to-15 AA level (what BSM is going through this year). Also means it would look less attractive to players/prospects looking at the school. My guess is the school/coaches are very deliberate in their decisions about moving classes. BSM is rebuilding just like many other teams, and will do fine down the road.

But from what I saw in last week’s section 5a final, both Blake and Breck were very impressive teams even by top 10 AA standards. If both schools had (and should) to make the move, Breck would likely fair better than Blake in AA next year given their roster. But that shouldn't matter, both SHOULD take the leap and build from there. BSM and St. Thomas did and it worked just fine.

It appears the consensus votes for Blake to move to AA (and Breck too for that matter). My question is WHY is Blake or Breck still at A? What are the reasons - and don't tell me it's because it's due to class size. Not an acceptable answer. We all know that's B as in B, and S as in S.

sk8 wrote:Agree, Blake should move up but also think Breck needs to move too if you are going to solve the Class A tourney imbalance every year.

In reality I don’t think Blake would make the move next year especially when they graduate their two best players on the team this season. Without those two power forwards, Blake will be decent, but might not have enough to compete successfully at the top 10-to-15 AA level (what BSM is going through this year). Also means it would look less attractive to players/prospects looking at the school. My guess is the school/coaches are very deliberate in their decisions about moving classes. BSM is rebuilding just like many other teams, and will do fine down the road.

But from what I saw in last week’s section 5a final, both Blake and Breck were very impressive teams even by top 10 AA standards. If both schools had (and should) to make the move, Breck would likely fair better than Blake in AA next year given their roster. But that shouldn't matter, both SHOULD take the leap and build from there. BSM and St. Thomas did and it worked just fine.

Blake still has Carly with a C next season and she's a game changer day in and day out. They also have some pretty serious talent from the 00 Machine who are on the stat sheet more often than not. I guess I don't see the roster gaps you do or where Breck gets an advantage. I think it is Blake's to lose this year and next.

As a Hill fan, I've never been in favor the Class A private schools once they start to dominate. HM has always played AA in boys hockey and might have played one or possibly two years of A hockey in Girls long before they were a .500 team. There is no reason for Blake and Breck to be sitting at A. Blake would have had as good a chance as anyone to win AA this very year. I'll be cheering for Thief River, but I don't see them winning.

I'm glad STA finally moved up to AA, but it took them too long to do it. How many A titles do you need?

tarasov wrote:imnotwearingacup,

Yes it is The Blake School of 1900's fault! I wouldn't blame the players, but the coach and AD need to step up and play with the big girls. It's pretty obvious to most of the state!

Congrats on winning the small 'town" state championship AGAIN.

Why is Blake getting bashed now? Blake can choose to stay at A if they want. In HS Hockey it is the coaches job to win, not worry about what others may say, or what may be fair to the other teams especially ones that only get 3 shots on goal for an entire game.

The coach and AD are doing everything to win, just like shortening the bench, there is nothing wrong with this approach as long as you win.

As a coach and AD they can do everything and anything they want as long as they win, this is HS hockey now and at this level it is all about winning and not fairsy.

Posters should not be hypocrites and say Blake needs to move up to AA because they are winning too much at A. Isn't it all about the trophies and how many Championships they can accumulate? As long as they continue to win, they can coach and stay at the level they choose. And you just need to accept that and move on, life isn't fair. Blake does not have to move up so other teams get a chance to win the A Championship.

I wish schools could move more easily from AA to A. BSM was down this year, and I personally would've preferred playing in A, but you can't just go up & down just because you're so young. Heck if we would've played 6A, we could've made another tournament. Blake was as good as anyone we played this year, A or AA. Beat us worse than any other opponent. They should walk through this tournament.

I kind of agree that in the end, titles matter. If you feel good about the A title, and why shouldn't you, keep playing in A. Maybe all the squads whose enrollment dictates they play A should be a regardless of skill level. You'd certainly have a better A field than you do now.

PondHockeyChampion wrote:

tarasov wrote:imnotwearingacup,

Yes it is The Blake School of 1900's fault! I wouldn't blame the players, but the coach and AD need to step up and play with the big girls. It's pretty obvious to most of the state!

Congrats on winning the small 'town" state championship AGAIN.

Why is Blake getting bashed now? Blake can choose to stay at A if they want. In HS Hockey it is the coaches job to win, not worry about what others may say, or what may be fair to the other teams especially ones that only get 3 shots on goal for an entire game.

The coach and AD are doing everything to win, just like shortening the bench, there is nothing wrong with this approach as long as you win.

As a coach and AD they can do everything and anything they want as long as they win, this is HS hockey now and at this level it is all about winning and not fairsy.

Posters should not be hypocrites and say Blake needs to move up to AA because they are winning too much at A. Isn't it all about the trophies and how many Championships they can accumulate? As long as they continue to win, they can coach and stay at the level they choose. And you just need to accept that and move on, life isn't fair. Blake does not have to move up so other teams get a chance to win the A Championship.

We all grasp your passion with regards to playing time, and are aware you are going to continue to beat that drum. However, do you really believe that this subject is the same as your gripe with short benches?! I hope the comparison is just another sarcastic rant and not an example of your reasoning, at least if you want to have any credibility on future posts.

Pondhockeychampion - maybe you should buy your daughter a 4th line for life shirt. I hear they sell them at Minnetonka for $9.99. Move on and enjoy life more.