HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I am fascinated by the discussion about the Squirt teams in associations like Edina with hundreds of Mites, and how the belief that a second Squirt A team might be nice.

Of course, I understand that it doesn't exactly serve the needs of the very top players, but agree that at Squirt age, the role of the association should be developing more kids instead of creating little superstars (a burden I'd place on the kid's parents, if they see fit.)

Girls hockey is still in its infancy, but based on what I saw this year at the U10 level in Edina, some thought should be put into either expanding into two A teams, or creating a third level of U10s. This year, there are probably three to five kids whose development will be hurt by having to return to U10b. They might not be in the Top 15, but they're a long way from #50. Next year, it'll be five-eight girls who will be hurt this way, and based on the excellent work being done in Girls Mites now, this problem will only get worse.

Why not create U10B1s? Some of the U10B teams that play are at such a low level that 11-0 games where the coach calls the kids off in the first period don't really help anyone. Why not let the U10B1's play against programs that don't field an A team, and are generally among the best U10b teams, or against other associations with big numbers who also have a U10B1 team? If it really is about developing players, let the girls who don't need to go back to the beginning play together.

It's a nice problem to have, too many good players and enough players where an association can field 4 U10 teams. I maintain that Associations are there to develop masses of players. Instead of ending up with a system that even casual observers see as somehow flawed on the boys' side, the girls can fix their problems now.

I live in an area with VERY LOW participation and that will not change. One theory on development (using your numbers) is that the players will benefit from seeing #16. Why tier it to where every kids plays with kids just like them? Someone has to be the best.

Since you are talking Squirts, it is likely that one (or many) will improve and someday be better than the girl that is best now.

Feel free to counter, I'm just sharing one school of thought. I know one very good 8-year-old whose parents said it motivated their son to see a boy that is now 9 or 10.

BlondeGirlsDad,

I wish every youth association had the challenges facing Edina. Please note that my comments are not a critique but only another viewpoint. In the past few years, Edina has had Peluso and Bellows coaching at 10UA. Wow, they would be BTA coaches in almost every other association.

Girls hockey is really more of a toddler rather than an infant. And, it has made huge strides in the past 5-6 years. Girls varsity hockey only began in 1995 whereas the boys have had teams since at least the 40's. I found the suggestion of U10B1 rather interesting but I think at this point a 10UB1 league would have only a couple of Edina teams and maybe a Cottage Grove or Lakeville team. Most of the programs are looking at their 10U girls and have to decide whether to hold back the top 4-5 girls (at the B level) or push up their bottom 7-10 skaters to a level (A level) that they are probably not ready to play. District 4 has been fairly successful when playing at 12UB and 14UB levels and in the past few years some of them have had the courage to try 12UA or 14UA (Owatonna, New Prague, Faribault).

start this discussion up on the MN Girls HS forum......you will get a lot of opinions.

It all comes down to numbers.