HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

With a A/AA option most small associations with less than 4 teams will declare A. Would this then allow players from the small association to tryout at a neighboring association that had an AA designation for their level?

BoJangles - What did I say there that was contradictory???????

And yes, I do support the creation of a AA level with the A teams being able to scrimmage AA teams AND declare AA eligibility for the playoffs.

The goal here is to have the Edina/EP/Wayzata B1 teams playing the presently average/mediocre (whatever word you want to call the present A teams that will repeatedly lose to the top 20 teams by 2+ goals and be held to under 15 shots) A teams.

I admit that the OTHER way of doing it is to have Edina choose to have an A2 team... BUT the reason they don't do that is because no association enjoys having their A2 team having to play their A1 team in districts. Each team wants a chance to be the best at their level without having to play a Superior team in their own association by design (A1/A2).

Again, the focus is on keeping the top talent playing winter association hockey rather than AAA... I think that can only be done if you offer elite level play to elite players.

I repeat, Edina's player numbers and their success on the ice are not coincidental... kids want to play on winning teams. Its not always possible, but an association should strive to have winning teams at most levels for the sake of recruiting and making it fun!

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...

MrBoDangles wrote:"Kids develop BEST when they are playing with kids of their OWN skill set who both challenge and support them." ~

"The elite MUST play the elite." ~

"would be A players playing B-1 does a great job of developing players..... they get to touch the puck 50 TIMES MORE." ~ Conformed Hockey Coach






So what is it?????????

Think about what you are saying with the AA-A

What will it change........? Nothing! A will just become AA.

Just put another A in front of your kids team heading if you want, I guess. They will still be playing the same teams and nothing will change.

Do you really disagree with my last post?

Like I said........... Go with AA and all the current A teams will just become AA teams. luckily, I believe Minnesota Hockey has more common sense than you.

I thought the idea of having co-op/ disrict A teams was a good progam for smaller towns.

Concerned coach you write

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.

So who were the other Elites that the Brotens, Michelleti's and Christoff in Richfield played and practiced with? Might be old school?? But if I use a Hudson Fasching I will get the summer program song and dance??

To be the best, you have to play the best. In order to be the best you can be, you have to challenge yourself.
Forming two classes in youth hockey will take competition away from all teams. Yes, even if they are allowed to play eachother in the regular season. Eventually the game against the team from the giant association doesn't matter anyway because it is not a district game. And soon after that it doesn't make any sense to play them anyway.
If you take a look at the big picture, this is not the direction you want your association to go. Big picture meaning both the career of a given player and his teamates and the future of the association. Not having that team from the bigger association as a "carrot" is one less incentive to work harder, man up, toughen up, hone your skills...both as a player and a team.
It seems as we are not only trying to let everyone win, but let eveyone win BIG. Learning to lose is just as important as learning to win. they go hand in hand. How do you know how big an achievment is if it has always been given.
As a society we seem to be forgetting that in the end it doesn't matter win, lose, or tie as long as you have done your best.

And as far as Broten etc. goes, they became the best because they played the best. Not because they weren't allowed to play against the bigger schools.

I think the participants in this conversation are making assumption below the surface. Under the current A-B-C system, are we all in agreement with:

In a top 10 program, kids 21-30 have no business being on the same ice as kids 1-10.
Follow up: those 21-30 kids have no business being on the same ice as the 21-30 kids from the other 90% of associations.
Follow up: those 21-30 kids from the lower 90% have no business on the ice with the 21-30 kids from the top 10%.

Associations that cannot field at least 4 teams at each level have no business fielding an A team.
Follow up: with less than 50 kids to pick from, there is no way that 10 of them could really play (or be taught to play).

If only Shakopee, New Prague, etc. would move from D6 to D5 or D4, then the state championship could be decided by D3 v D6, and everyone else could fight it out for consolation.
Follow up: 'everyone else' would be happy with that.
Follow up to the above: The top 24 teams in the state would be happy as punch to play each other 3 times during the year, and nobody else.

If only we had AA and A there would be no more 10 goal blow outs.
Follow up: there would be no reason to complain about playing a bad A team.
Follow up: there'd be no reason to complain about the association with no A team beating our B teams.

Defense wrote:

And as far as Broten etc. goes, they became the best because they played the best. Not because they weren't allowed to play against the bigger schools.

Well who did they practice with? According to Concerned Hockey Coach that is just as important??

I know for the Hockey folk like "Towlie" out there they don't like other sports but good thing Football which has become the dominant sport in this country at the youth level is no cut and no A or B in most communities. I wonder if there is a correlation???

The debate Between AA/A is for about 10% of the hockey playing community in MN. What does the remaining 90% want?? The paying customers?? An opportunity to have their kids play where there parents believe they should play at. If they are not given those options the free market will take over and MN MADE and "Choice" and AAA will become a viable option. If the pool of players shrinks will the AA players really be AA players????

JaginCake wrote:Defense wrote:

And as far as Broten etc. goes, they became the best because they played the best. Not because they weren't allowed to play against the bigger schools.

Well who did they practice with? According to Concerned Hockey Coach that is just as important??

I know for the Hockey folk like "Towlie" out there they don't like other sports but good thing Football which has become the dominant sport in this country at the youth level is no cut and no A or B in most communities. I wonder if there is a correlation???

The debate Between AA/A is for about 10% of the hockey playing community in MN. What does the remaining 90% want?? The paying customers?? An opportunity to have their kids play where there parents believe they should play at. If they are not given those options the free market will take over and MN MADE and "Choice" and AAA will become a viable option. If the pool of players shrinks will the AA players really be AA players????

FYI
The AA/A request originally came from NE rural MN.
And continues to be brought up by central and southern rural MN and some metro, small associations.
This is not coming from the Edina's of the world.

elliott70 wrote: FYI
The AA/A request originally came from NE rural MN.
And continues to be brought up by central and southern rural MN and some metro, small associations.
This is not coming from the Edina's of the world.

No, no elliott, everything evil in MN hockey comes from Edina, didn't you know that? You must not read this board much.

C-dad wrote:

elliott70 wrote: FYI
The AA/A request originally came from NE rural MN.
And continues to be brought up by central and southern rural MN and some metro, small associations.
This is not coming from the Edina's of the world.

No, no elliott, everything evil in MN hockey comes from Edina, didn't you know that? You must not read this board much.

Oh...is poor little old Edina feeling picked on?!

FYI
The AA/A request originally came from NE rural MN.
And continues to be brought up by central and southern rural MN and some metro, small associations.
This is not coming from the Edina's of the world.[/quote]

It is always good to look for ways to improve our game. My concern is we create a new level and then have no integrity in managing who plays in it (ie; smaller assoc like Roseau opts up for the competition that they can compete with, who do they petition to, who decides? Then who tells the next assoc that is small and not as competitive no? Or do they let them in and water it down).

I want local assoc to control their own detiny, unfortunately just like the A, B, C system we have now, teams will not play at the level they can compete at, rather they will opt for the level "THEY WISH THEY COULD COMPETE AT" and then the new system becomes completely watered down all under the guise of development for them (heck with everyone else) and water down the competition and development of others.

Changing it to section type competition like the HS Football league is discussing may be the way to go.

JaginCake wrote:Concerned coach you write

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.

So who were the other Elites that the Brotens, Michelleti's and Christoff in Richfield played and practiced with? Might be old school?? But if I use a Hudson Fasching I will get the summer program song and dance??

The players you mentioned will ALWAYS be ok... the "elite" does not imply the Gopher bound (at least that's how it used to be so I'm using it for meaning!) players... its the remainder of the top 5-10% of kids, who can and should continue to play hockey past high school if they want to, who benefit from playing with like skilled players. Also, newsflash - these kids THRIVE on one another in practice.

A little perspective is in order. I coach PeeWee A hockey right now, and have for several years. I have had some of the best players on a team with players who had no business playing A hockey. The best players definitely could have been better developed by not feeling like they couldn't pass to the B players (who didn't want them to either cause kids know who can make plays and these kids don't want the attention that screwing up brings). Likewise, the worst players did not develop because they were constantly deferring to the better players and did not have the puck on their stick in any drill or game that involved something other than a 1 on 1/1 - 0 situation type drill. At the B1 level, they would have been playing similar skilled players (or in theory they would have - hence the discussion here about getting the best B1 teams playing the majority of present "A" teams).

The goal is getting the majority of players playing at levels they can thrive at... the present system isn't 100% broken, and for most everything is fine... but the smaller associations are the reason for the A/AA talk - they are tired of having no chance at success.

And I repeat again (something that no one has attacked me for saying btw), success breeds numbers. Hockey needs numbers... Each and every association should strive to be successful on the ice for the good of all MN hockey. Some will fail, but that has to be the goal.

InigoMontoya wrote:...

In a top 10 program, kids 21-30 have no business being on the same ice as kids 1-10.
Follow up: those 21-30 kids have no business being on the same ice as the 21-30 kids from the other 90% of associations.
Follow up: those 21-30 kids from the lower 90% have no business on the ice with the 21-30 kids from the top 10%.

...

This is brilliance. Anyone disagree? Seriously, brilliant. Makes exactly the right points.

Oh so the AA/A debate is the small associations or 97% of the world wanting a chance to be competitive?? So they are saying there kids don't like going to tourneys and getting waxed. Seeing the brackets and when they see they have to play EP or Edina or Wayzata in the first game that there are isn't much of a chance so their best players won't gain anything by competing? Oh I see I always wondered why those teams stop going to certain tourneys. Well for the 97% if MN hockey mandated #s of teams in levels than maybe there would be more parody. The large associations would have to live with 600 or 650 win pcts. instead of 900. There top players would be required to work harder and practice harder as well. I didn't realize the talent is all about numbers. The more you have the better chance you have of having "true" talent. I mean it's not like when the Edina's of the world have .999 win percentages at squirts and Peewees that they always win at the older HS level?? Oh that goes back to talent is born and than cultivated so there are 1 to 2 real talents in a birth year per community the rest are just caddies to those players. They will get spotted so what is the problem with having NFL style parody in youth hockey?

This is an interesting discussion.

The recent St. Louis Park/Mpls Coop that was busted up may make an interesting case study for those who want to explore it.

My primary argument in opposition to the split was that SLP did not have the players at PeeWee A this year to justify the split. Go back to my earlier posts for more info and I will let others draw their own conclusions about the season thus far. I know they are fortunate to have two great coaches doing their best to develop the kids and that they have a team that battles every game I've seen them.

In my opinion, St. Louis Park would have jumped at the chance to play "A" and not "AA" this year. I was told by several people that they felt they could compete with the lower teams in D3 and then scrimmage the bottom teams in PWA. I can't speak for SLP, but allowing them to scrimmage B1 teams that now are A and not having to play the Wayzatas of the world would have been bonuses to all involved, both Wayzata and SLP.

JaginCake wrote:Oh so the AA/A debate is the small associations or 97% of the world wanting a chance to be competitive?? So they are saying there kids don't like going to tourneys and getting waxed. Seeing the brackets and when they see they have to play EP or Edina or Wayzata in the first game that there are isn't much of a chance so their best players won't gain anything by competing? Oh I see I always wondered why those teams stop going to certain tourneys. Well for the 97% if MN hockey mandated #s of teams in levels than maybe there would be more parody. The large associations would have to live with 600 or 650 win pcts. instead of 900. There top players would be required to work harder and practice harder as well. I didn't realize the talent is all about numbers. The more you have the better chance you have of having "true" talent. I mean it's not like when the Edina's of the world have .999 win percentages at squirts and Peewees that they always win at the older HS level?? Oh that goes back to talent is born and than cultivated so there are 1 to 2 real talents in a birth year per community the rest are just caddies to those players. They will get spotted so what is the problem with having NFL style parody in youth hockey?

I'm done with you. You clearly have not addressed the main arguments here and believe that kids develop equally on teams with wide variety of skill levels. I'm starting to understand why you sound like your association did not go with your advice and hence the bitter tone in your references and your desire to have MN hockey serve as a dictatorship to the local associations.

Concerned Hockey Coach wrote:[I'm done with you. You clearly have not addressed the main arguments here and believe that kids develop equally on teams with wide variety of skill levels. I'm starting to understand why you sound like your association did not go with your advice and hence the bitter tone in your references and your desire to have MN hockey serve as a dictatorship to the local associations.

I'm trying to figure out how I have not stated the same thing over and over. So if Minnesota hockey mandates a AA class. It is the same as mandating large Associations to have 2 or 3 a teams especially if the associations are allowed to have an A1 and A2 as you so well put it?

I don't buy that the elite get better buy themselves. If they want to be the best they have to take on all comers and beat them. If your model of keeping the best together all the time worked Edina would win every thing every year since there squirts win at about a .99% every year. How do the others who are not praciticing with those kids manage to win at the HS level???

JaginCake wrote: I'm trying to figure out how I have not stated the same thing over and over. So if Minnesota hockey mandates a AA class. It is the same as mandating large Associations to have 2 or 3 a teams especially if the associations are allowed to have an A1 and A2 as you so well put it?

I don't buy that the elite get better buy themselves. If they want to be the best they have to take on all comers and beat them. If your model of keeping the best together all the time worked Edina would win every thing every year since there squirts win at about a .99% every year. How do the others who are not praciticing with those kids manage to win at the HS level???

"take on all comers and beat them?" Its called tryouts... and the A teams can declare themselves AA if they want to. No one is disallowing any association the ability to declare themselves AA and play with the top teams. That being said, no team has a right to play any team.

Again with the HS focus... good gosh. Get off it pls.

Btw, interesting how you haven't responded to my quote from InigoMontoya guy... cause you can't deny what he said.

Concerned Hockey Coach
Again with the HS focus... good gosh. Get off it pls.


on that point why than do the best have to be with the best??? You are trying to look at a sport with blinders!!! Only for the moment. Tryouts??
Remember i'm Mr. Jaded. Hockey players at times are in the eyes of the beholders. I watch the fabulous kids who don't pass and won't can't use the back side of a stick and hear them called phenoms. Watch other kids who one "expert" says can't skate, the next that they skate better than everyone and finally the 3rd go oh middle of the road. So talent and performance are based on your observations. Many great players have never been able to see talent in others or especially coach! They see why they are better than that guy and they should just know that.

AA hockey allowing the associations the choice? Remembering 80 to 90% are involved to determine where their kid will fall will choose to go with it. Heck we already have been getting pounded by Wayzata so why shouldn't we continue to do it?? Now the difference is OMG/Edina/Wayzata's B1 or B1-1 teams would be A teams with the chance of playing the AA teams. Like the old Edina East/West rivalry. So what happens and it may not happen often but it will if an A team beats the AA team? Your spllitting hairs. I'm for adding A teams, you want to add them as well by letting some call themselves AA. My label just says A team and A team. Will the associations have the option of only having a AA team and no A team. Or if you have one do you have to have both? Would that not be mandated??

In regards to the number thing honestly i'm even more restrictive.

In any city out of 100 kids in a class (all of one sex) you will only have one "gifted athlete." The next 9 are above average
the next 15 are average
the next 25 are happy to be there
the next 50 don't even play because they are below average and they figure it out pretty quickly.

Your community is getting 50% of the kids out for hockey? I think most would be happy getting 20-25%; some are trying to figure out how to get more than the 10% that currently participate.

And unless the definition of "average" has changed, 25 of them are above average.

the_juiceman wrote:

C-dad wrote:

elliott70 wrote: FYI
The AA/A request originally came from NE rural MN.
And continues to be brought up by central and southern rural MN and some metro, small associations.
This is not coming from the Edina's of the world.

No, no elliott, everything evil in MN hockey comes from Edina, didn't you know that? You must not read this board much.

Oh...is poor little old Edina feeling picked on?!

Nope. Just noting the continued childish obsession, as evidenced by your post.

Well, this all gets me spinning the wheels again. I have been around MN youth and HS hockey for a while now. And as I see it the goal of MN hockey and the associations is to create a place for everyone to play. There needs to be recreational hockey for the recreational player, competitive hockey for the growing player and finally the opportunity for advanced hockey for the advanced athlete.

I know what I am about to say is blasphemy on this board but, I gotta say how I feel.

This idea starts at minor bantam and major bantam. Anything younger should remain at the community level working on player development.

In September every year each association should send the top 10-15 players (through a nomination and invitation process) to compete for their districts advanced teams for their age groups. Each district would support a minor and major bantam team, which would compete with the other districts major and minor teams along with other teams of the same ilk across the U.S. The teams would be eligible to compete at the national level and gain experience and exposure at its highest level.

Players would go back to HS to play HS hockey in MN. Youth teams at the bantam level (where it is most uneven) would have more parity as the elite hockey players would be out of the mix. While still allowing for the elite in the smaller associations to be recognized.

This allows for hockey for all, and still develops the top end kids for top end competition.

Let the roast begin, come on I can handle it. And yes I know $ and travel are the biggest obstacles here.

Jagger - So you want A1 and A2 teams from Wayzata competing in the same district to go to the same regional tourney... OR you want two equal A teams from Edina/Wayzata/EP/Mtka/Woodbury and all teams with more than an arbitrary number...

Again, I am so surprised why your association has given you the impression that they don't listen to you.

Like a broken record, the focus should be on development. If you were in charge AAA would reign because your system breeds mediocrity... which in turn would breed lower hockey numbers, which in turn makes everyone equal, just like you want.