Run up the Score to facilitate "Rightsizing"

gohawk4 · Post by **gohawk4** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:51 am

Maybe the large associations are getting more ice time than the smaller associations. I know at Wayzata, most teams are on the ice 5 nights a week minimum. Wayzata uses the 3 Plymouth sheets, 1 wayzata sheet, Victory Memorial, Blake, occasionally Orono and others. Maybe the issue is the small associations are sharing 1 sheet and therefore are not getting the quality ice time. This would explain why Roseau is an exception and why the large associations are more talented.

GreekChurch · Post by **GreekChurch** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:58 am

The size of an association is definitley the biggest factor, along with demographics of the area. Why would anyone dispute this when the numbers clearly show it. ( Not including Roseau ) If competition is the biggest issue here, why would there be resisitence to three neighboring Associations merging to form A teams. In reality their numbers would be simular to the Mega associations in some cases 1100+, not to mention their geographical area woudn't be that much different either. I believe this would be fair, other will not, only because of their vested self interest.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:14 am

gohawk4 wrote:Maybe the large associations are getting more ice time than the smaller associations. I know at Wayzata, most teams are on the ice 5 nights a week minimum. Wayzata uses the 3 Plymouth sheets, 1 wayzata sheet, Victory Memorial, Blake, occasionally Orono and others. Maybe the issue is the small associations are sharing 1 sheet and therefore are not getting the quality ice time. This would explain why Roseau is an exception and why the large associations are more talented.

Ice time is part of it. Obviously, more ice time is critical to the development of a hockey player. But let's break down some numbers here:

If association "ABC" has 35 skaters trying out for Bantams, they are pretty much required to take the top 50% for their A team.

If association "XYZ" has 185 skaters trying out for Bantams, they will take the top 10% for their A team.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that association "XYC" will have, statisically speaking, more elite-level athletes among their 10%, than "ABC: will have in their top 50%.

THAT is the main reason why the large associations are, for the most part, more succesful year in and year out.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:28 am

And, I believe an even more important factor, they work harder to try and make the top team.

5 year olds are all alike. A small association can do it with a good pool of kids, coaches and parents, that understand there are no shortcuts. The families and players in large associations are driven to work hard otherwise their kids won't make the top team. It's not that their 150 bantams started out better than another associations 15 but they're generally outworking you through the years. Then they pick a team made up entirely of 15 hard workers because they had to be or they wouldn't have been selected. Some of the kids aren't working as hard in the association of 35 as they're already on the team.

Watch a good team. Puck turns over and you have 5 players sprinting the other way. Creating odd man situations, applying pressure to the D and scoring. Watch a middle ranked team and the puck turns over and you only have 1 or 2 players getting their ass down and hustling.

I'll add, to stay on subject, youth hockey is about developing kids for the next level. I believe some of the mega associations should have more than one A team and they'd be successful. I don't think you'll ever convince them to balance the two A teams nor should they have to. They still want to win championships which is fine. But a second A team would likely be pretty successful. Wayzata's top Bantam B team would be over .500 if they played as an A2 team. Edina has similar top Bantam B and PeeWee B teams that would do just fine at the A level. The main difference between A & B is speed. Let more kids play at that level, against the speed of A players, and you'll develop more, better, players. Might cost them some B level championships but hopefully that's not the goal.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:31 pm

observer wrote:And, I believe an even more important factor, they work harder to try and make the top team.

5 year olds are all alike. A small association can do it with a good pool of kids, coaches and parents, that understand there are no shortcuts. The families and players in large associations are driven to work hard otherwise their kids won't make the top team. It's not that their 150 bantams started out better than another associations 15 but they're generally outworking you through the years. Then they pick a team made up entirely of 15 hard workers because they had to be or they wouldn't have been selected. Some of the kids aren't working as hard in the association of 35 as they're already on the team.

Watch a good team. Puck turns over and you have 5 players sprinting the other way. Creating odd man situations, applying pressure to the D and scoring. Watch a middle ranked team and the puck turns over and you only have 1 or 2 players getting their ass down and hustling.

Great point.

GreekChurch · Post by **GreekChurch** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:37 pm

observer wrote:And, I believe an even more important factor, they work harder to try and make the top team.

5 year olds are all alike. A small association can do it with a good pool of kids, coaches and parents, that understand there are no shortcuts. The families and players in large associations are driven to work hard otherwise their kids won't make the top team. It's not that their 150 bantams started out better than another associations 15 but they're generally outworking you through the years. Then they pick a team made up entirely of 15 hard workers because they had to be or they wouldn't have been selected. Some of the kids aren't working as hard in the association of 35 as they're already on the team.

Watch a good team. Puck turns over and you have 5 players sprinting the other way. Creating odd man situations, applying pressure to the D and scoring. Watch a middle ranked team and the puck turns over and you only have 1 or 2 players getting their ass down and hustling.

First of 5 year olds are not all a like - not even close. I have seen many 5 year olds take to the ice - some with skills beyond their years, and others who sit on the back of the net and cry. You can't teach genetics, and you can't teach desire. We have all seen it even in the same families. One has the desire, and nothing is going to stop him, and the other is more worried if they're going to get a treat or not. To say that those kids in the large associations try harder is a joke. In smaller to medium associations you can have pockets of kids that come together every 5 years or so that can compete at the highest level. The lack of numbers year in year out prevent this from happening every year like the large associations. Yeah, watch a game in the 3rd period, one team is winning 6- 0, guess which one - the one with all five kids trying to pad their stats. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that either, it's just reality. No matter what you say it's all about size, and numbers. You pick a team from the metro area, and I'll pick one from the world, and we will see who has the deeper team - or maybe your kids will just have to work harder

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:49 pm

GreekChurch wrote:
observer wrote:And, I believe an even more important factor, they work harder to try and make the top team.

5 year olds are all alike. A small association can do it with a good pool of kids, coaches and parents, that understand there are no shortcuts. The families and players in large associations are driven to work hard otherwise their kids won't make the top team. It's not that their 150 bantams started out better than another associations 15 but they're generally outworking you through the years. Then they pick a team made up entirely of 15 hard workers because they had to be or they wouldn't have been selected. Some of the kids aren't working as hard in the association of 35 as they're already on the team.

Watch a good team. Puck turns over and you have 5 players sprinting the other way. Creating odd man situations, applying pressure to the D and scoring. Watch a middle ranked team and the puck turns over and you only have 1 or 2 players getting their ass down and hustling.

First of 5 year olds are not all a like - not even close. I have seen many 5 year olds take to the ice - some with skills beyond their years, and others who sit on the back of the net and cry. You can't teach genetics, and you can't teach desire. We have all seen it even in the same families. One has the desire, and nothing is going to stop him, and the other is more worried if they're going to get a treat or not. To say that those kids in the large associations try harder is a joke. In smaller to medium associations you can have pockets of kids that come together every 5 years or so that can compete at the highest level. The lack of numbers year in year out prevent this from happening every year like the large associations. Yeah, watch a game in the 3rd period, one team is winning 6- 0, guess which one - the one with all five kids trying to pad their stats. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that either, it's just reality. No matter what you say it's all about size, and numbers. You pick a team from the metro area, and I'll pick one from the world, and we will see who has the deeper team - or maybe your kids will just have to work harder

I don't think Observer is disputing that fact that numbers play a huge role...in fact, what he is saying (I think) is that BECAUSE you have larger numbers, kids who want to make that A team have to work harder due to all the other competition for those roster spots, whereas the kids from the smaller associations who have any sort of talent at all already know what team they will be making and don't have to work as hard in the offseason (or any other time) to improve their chances of making that team.

GreekChurch · Post by **GreekChurch** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:39 pm

muckandgrind wrote:
GreekChurch wrote:
observer wrote:And, I believe an even more important factor, they work harder to try and make the top team.

5 year olds are all alike. A small association can do it with a good pool of kids, coaches and parents, that understand there are no shortcuts. The families and players in large associations are driven to work hard otherwise their kids won't make the top team. It's not that their 150 bantams started out better than another associations 15 but they're generally outworking you through the years. Then they pick a team made up entirely of 15 hard workers because they had to be or they wouldn't have been selected. Some of the kids aren't working as hard in the association of 35 as they're already on the team.

Watch a good team. Puck turns over and you have 5 players sprinting the other way. Creating odd man situations, applying pressure to the D and scoring. Watch a middle ranked team and the puck turns over and you only have 1 or 2 players getting their ass down and hustling.

First of 5 year olds are not all a like - not even close. I have seen many 5 year olds take to the ice - some with skills beyond their years, and others who sit on the back of the net and cry. You can't teach genetics, and you can't teach desire. We have all seen it even in the same families. One has the desire, and nothing is going to stop him, and the other is more worried if they're going to get a treat or not. To say that those kids in the large associations try harder is a joke. In smaller to medium associations you can have pockets of kids that come together every 5 years or so that can compete at the highest level. The lack of numbers year in year out prevent this from happening every year like the large associations. Yeah, watch a game in the 3rd period, one team is winning 6- 0, guess which one - the one with all five kids trying to pad their stats. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that either, it's just reality. No matter what you say it's all about size, and numbers. You pick a team from the metro area, and I'll pick one from the world, and we will see who has the deeper team - or maybe your kids will just have to work harder
I don't think Observer is disputing that fact that numbers play a huge role...in fact, what he is saying (I think) is that BECAUSE you have larger numbers, kids who want to make that A team have to work harder due to all the other competition for those roster spots, whereas the kids from the smaller associations who have any sort of talent at all already know what team they will be making and don't have to work as hard in the offseason (or any other time) to improve their chances of making that team.

M&G - I reread the post, and see what you're saying. From what Ive seen it's not the top kids - # 1-5 , they generally work hard all year in hockey, and other sports. It's the next group ( above the bubble) 7-12 that I think we're talking about. I would have to agree -these kids would benefit greatly if being pushed by kids with like or better abilities - the kids just aren't there, year in year out.

DKS1962 · Post by **DKS1962** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:54 pm

Out state vs Metro...huge disparity

Outstate small association struggling to have enough skaters for 2 teams
at each level.
Metro just merges with another association

outstate..Ice in mid October ...out next week even if you qualify for state. Must travel to find ice
Metro..Tons of ice all year long

Outstate..We don't start hockey until football & soccer are done and move on to baseball in March. Less 1 sport specialization
Metro..longer season more 1 sport specialization

Outstate. 120 mile trip for a Saturday game
Metro. hey.Tuesday night game 15 min drive

I'm not complaining just pointing out disparities..Thats why I support a
2 Tier format like high school.

HockeyReality · Post by **HockeyReality** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:09 pm

puckboy wrote:hockeyreality- what large associations are not succesful?

First you need to define success. If you look at Associations that sends teams at the A level to regions and state consistently. There are about 10.

How about Forest Lake, Woodbury, Stillwater, Blaine? Look at region participation, state tournaments, and their HS programs. Blaine has been successful at the HS level but not so much at the youth level. At the District Level, they are successful. Woodbury recently has gotten much better. I am looking back at the last 15 years or so. Stillwater is usually above average but not sure how many times they have had success at the state level. Forest Lake?? Maybe they should not be classified as a large association. They have one of the largest school districts. Have they ever produced a D1 player?

I do think numbers is a factor but not the only one. Economics is the biggest factor. As someone pointed out, Roseau gets free ice time. If hockey was a cheaper sport, participation would go up. If you could skate when ever you wanted, this would help. The St. Paul City teams use to be very good back in the day. Now most areas do not even field teams. It is about the money. But it is also about supporting the program and creating the legacy.

Statistics aside. Take the top three players off of any team. Edina's top three are better than St. Micheals top three (usually). I do not think the only reason is because there are 150 kids behind the Edina players. There are many reasons. The answer is not to have MN Hockey come in and force multiple A teams to try to dilute the talent pool so all areas can compete at the A level. This would only hold the top players back.

Associations should make their own decisions. But yes, the large associations should lower the emphasis on winning at the B level and field more teams. Focus on skill development. Not at the A level.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:18 pm

HockeyReality wrote:
puckboy wrote:hockeyreality- what large associations are not succesful?
First you need to define success. If you look at Associations that sends teams at the A level to regions and state consistently. There are about 10.

How about Forest Lake, Woodbury, Stillwater, Blaine? Look at region participation, state tournaments, and their HS programs. Blaine has been successful at the HS level but not so much at the youth level. At the District Level, they are successful. Woodbury recently has gotten much better. I am looking back at the last 15 years or so. Stillwater is usually above average but not sure how many times they have had success at the state level. Forest Lake?? Maybe they should not be classified as a large association. They have one of the largest school districts. Have they ever produced a D1 player?

I do think numbers is a factor but not the only one. Economics is the biggest factor. As someone pointed out, Roseau gets free ice time. If hockey was a cheaper sport, participation would go up. If you could skate when ever you wanted, this would help. The St. Paul City teams use to be very good back in the day. Now most areas do not even field teams. It is about the money. But it is also about supporting the program and creating the legacy.

Statistics aside. Take the top three players off of any team. Edina's top three are better than St. Micheals top three (usually). I do not think the only reason is because there are 150 kids behind the Edina players. There are many reasons. The answer is not to have MN Hockey come in and force multiple A teams to try to dilute the talent pool so all areas can compete at the A level. This would only hold the top players back.

Associations should make their own decisions. But yes, the large associations should lower the emphasis on winning at the B level and field more teams. Focus on skill development. Not at the A level.

A couple of things...15 years ago both Woodbury and Forest Lake were cornfields...more so Woodbury. With the building boom in Wyoming and Columbus Township, the Forest Lake association has gotten bigger and I see them eventually becoming a real contender. 15 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Centennial, than they build the big development in Lino Lakes, all of sudden they are a annual contender. Coincidence? I think not.

"A" teams, especially Bantam and PeeWee, are not successful because of their top 3 players. Rather they are successful due to their bottom 3-5 players. The best teams are the deepest teams.

HockeyReality · Post by **HockeyReality** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:35 pm

A couple of things...15 years ago both Woodbury and Forest Lake were cornfields...more so Woodbury. With the building boom in Wyoming and Columbus Township, the Forest Lake association has gotten bigger and I see them eventually becoming a real contender. 15 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Centennial, than they build the big development in Lino Lakes, all of sudden they are a annual contender. Coincidence? I think not.

"A" teams, especially Bantam and PeeWee, are not successful because of their top 3 players. Rather they are successful due to their bottom 3-5 players. The best teams are the deepest teams.[/quote]

Good Point but I am not sure if Forest Lake has grown that much in hockey numbers over the last 15 years. Some areas have very large school district numbers but their hockey association numbers have not increased. IE Champlin Park. It would be interesting to see association size numbers because you can not go off of the school district size.

I agree on the depth for a team to be successful. My point was, why are the top three players at the traditional hockey powers usually better than the top three at other associations. And does that in the long run bring those bottom players up. Therefore creating depth.

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:37 pm

muckandgrind wrote:
HockeyReality wrote:
puckboy wrote:hockeyreality- what large associations are not succesful?
First you need to define success. If you look at Associations that sends teams at the A level to regions and state consistently. There are about 10.

How about Forest Lake, Woodbury, Stillwater, Blaine? Look at region participation, state tournaments, and their HS programs. Blaine has been successful at the HS level but not so much at the youth level. At the District Level, they are successful. Woodbury recently has gotten much better. I am looking back at the last 15 years or so. Stillwater is usually above average but not sure how many times they have had success at the state level. Forest Lake?? Maybe they should not be classified as a large association. They have one of the largest school districts. Have they ever produced a D1 player?

I do think numbers is a factor but not the only one. Economics is the biggest factor. As someone pointed out, Roseau gets free ice time. If hockey was a cheaper sport, participation would go up. If you could skate when ever you wanted, this would help. The St. Paul City teams use to be very good back in the day. Now most areas do not even field teams. It is about the money. But it is also about supporting the program and creating the legacy.

Statistics aside. Take the top three players off of any team. Edina's top three are better than St. Micheals top three (usually). I do not think the only reason is because there are 150 kids behind the Edina players. There are many reasons. The answer is not to have MN Hockey come in and force multiple A teams to try to dilute the talent pool so all areas can compete at the A level. This would only hold the top players back.

Associations should make their own decisions. But yes, the large associations should lower the emphasis on winning at the B level and field more teams. Focus on skill development. Not at the A level.
A couple of things...15 years ago both Woodbury and Forest Lake were cornfields...more so Woodbury. With the building boom in Wyoming and Columbus Township, the Forest Lake association has gotten bigger and I see them eventually becoming a real contender. 15 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Centennial, than they build the big development in Lino Lakes, all of sudden they are a annual contender. Coincidence? I think not.

"A" teams, especially Bantam and PeeWee, are not successful because of their top 3 players. Rather they are successful due to their bottom 3-5 players. The best teams are the deepest teams.

I fully agree with m&g's last statement. It is the last couple of players that make the difference, and that's why some would play shorter bench or field a smaller team.

Forest Lake has produced Division 1 hockey players, the most obvious being the current head high school varsity (mastermind of the recent playoff run) coach, Aaron Forsythe, who played at Minnesota State. We have others who have coached or are coaching at the youth and high school level in the last few years and I believe that has contributed a great deal to the recent success the area has had. Just as it has in Roseau, Moorhead, Edina, Centennial and White Bear, either currently or in the past.

Follow hockey from the inner city out, Maple Grove, Forest Lake, Lakeville have all added facilities in the last few years, while there are arenas being shuttered in the cities. It isn't that there aren't kids to play the game in the inner cities, the game is following the money. Isn't it money (the subsidization of ice) that makes Roseau successful?

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:44 pm

HockeyReality wrote:A couple of things...15 years ago both Woodbury and Forest Lake were cornfields...more so Woodbury. With the building boom in Wyoming and Columbus Township, the Forest Lake association has gotten bigger and I see them eventually becoming a real contender. 15 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Centennial, than they build the big development in Lino Lakes, all of sudden they are a annual contender. Coincidence? I think not.

"A" teams, especially Bantam and PeeWee, are not successful because of their top 3 players. Rather they are successful due to their bottom 3-5 players. The best teams are the deepest teams.

Good Point but I am not sure if Forest Lake has grown that much in hockey numbers over the last 15 years. Some areas have very large school district numbers but their hockey association numbers have not increased. IE Champlin Park. It would be interesting to see association size numbers because you can not go off of the school district size.

I agree on the depth for a team to be successful. My point was, why are the top three players at the traditional hockey powers usually better than the top three at other associations. And does that in the long run bring those bottom players up. Therefore creating depth.

For the first time Forest Lake, in the last ten years, fielded 6 Squirt teams. The association is just under the 500 skater mark for the season. Forest Lake is a traditionally strong wrestling and cross country ski school. It's hard to compete for athletes when you have coaches that are known for producing dominating athletes at the state level in other sports.

I think the reason the top three players at the traditional hockey powers are usually better than the top three at other associations is because the traditional hockey powers attract extremely good coaching, and when physical ability is equal the coaching will be the deciding factor.

I would add Rogers and Blaine and maybe St. Michael as up and coming associations (I knwo Blaine has been for awhile but there has been a lot of growth in Blaine and Ham Lake).

youngblood08 · Post by **youngblood08** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:01 pm

Look at the players that Woodbury, Stillwater, Cottage Grove, White Bear, Mounds View and Tartan have developed for the private schools. Blaine has no competition for talent at the high school level. Where the others mentioned have lost the top players for years.

ANother thing to look at is not only the players to chose from but the coaching. You get a good coach in at an early age with kids and it will follow through to the high school level. Look at the former NHL players and D1 college players over in Edina now coaching. Guentzel did a lot over at Woodbury, never head coach but always helping banatm levels.