HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

in all the forums that people are predicting what teams will do good i never here of new ulm... y is it that were so underated?

nueagle09 wrote:in all the forums that people are predicting what teams will do good i never here of new ulm... y is it that were so underated?

I think it's the school system and how they teach English

New Ulm? Because nobody expect New Ulm to be any good in hockey. Ever.

Isn't it really because your schedule is relatively weak, so you rack up wins and stats against mediocre teams and then just can't beat the big boys.
When New Ulm comes through and starts beating the Edina's/Eden Prairie's/etc..then they'll get respect. Until then, they are a nice team with some good players, who compete.

yes well last year our bantam team beat hermantown 4-1 who was ranked 17th in state and North St. Paul 7-1 who was 21st in the state... and we played with burnsville but our goalie let in 3 wrap arounds and we only lost to the duluth lakers 3-1

Oreoslapper>

Here is how you get noticed:

Enter some tournaments that will put you up against some of the best competition in the state - if they will let you in. Beat that competition.

If you are tough and have proven it with some major victories early in the year; Edina, WhiteBear, Woodbury, Wayzata, etc. would be happy to scrimmage you. They want tough competition. But, they aren't going to waste their time on a bunch of wannabes that beat teams that are on the edge of falling off the top 20 chart.

Beating #17 or #21 won't get you there. Any mediocre team can do that on a day where they catch someone offguard. What was your overall record against top 25 teams?

Playing some teams tight, like the Duluth Lakers, doesn't mean much. Duluth may have played their third liners or weaker goalie against you. Shots may have been 50-6. Maybe Duluth's best players were sick. Perhaps they struggled to 'get up' for the game as teams that are largely better than another team tend to play down to the lower teams level, etc. etc.

Play top 15 ranked teams as much as you can and win 50% of the time and you will get noticed.

I am not writing this to knock you down. Its hard work to get noticed and break into the top 15 teams in the state at the level. Every game matters and you have to consistently 'bring it' every time you hit the ice ---- and win. Work hard and win and you will get noticed.

well ya no im sorry that we dont have 100 kids try out for an A team...adn we dont get to go very many places bc a lot of are parents dont have the money to

OreoSlaper09 wrote:well ya no im sorry that we dont have 100 kids try out for an A team...adn we dont get to go very many places bc a lot of are parents dont have the money to

And that's kinda why New Ulm stays 'underrated' and communities like White Bear Lake, Eden Prairie, and Wayzata always have good teams. My son plays in a program more like New Ulm at this point.

I think conditioningsucks has a very good point. How can people expect a team that has half of their games against teams that are ranked in the lower 50% of all the teams in the state? It just doesn't work. For New Ulm to get exposure they need to play more "cities" teams and contend with them. Its as simple as that.

Oreoslapper>

I am not trying to rip on New Ulm hockey. Your team had a nice year last year going 31-5-2.

The topic was why doesn't New Ulm get noticed.

Well, according to mnhockeyrankings.com, your team was rated 35th. This is respectable and quite generous for the schedule you played. Your weighted schedule was among the three lowest in the state at an 8.10 (only Saint Peter and Austin appear to have played weaker schedules).

Your record against top 25 teams was - 0-3 with 2 additional losses coming to Faribault (#29 in the power rankings).

So if you want to get noticed, rack up a 31-5-2 record while beating four or five top twenty teams.

Many times kids will knock off a top 20 team and then walk around saying they deserve to be in the top 20. But they never get ranked because they drop the ball against easy teams or collapse in the playoffs. It is consistant hard work and consistant winning against difficult opponents that gets a team ranked. You earn it.

So again, my message is simple - work hard and tell your association to schedule a more difficult schedule for you this year.

OreoSlaper09 wrote:well ya no im sorry that we dont have 100 kids try out for an A team...adn we dont get to go very many places bc a lot of are parents dont have the money to

I don't believe that Roseau and Warroad have 100 kids trying out for an A team, yet they still put together pretty good teams.

But you still make a good point. The system we have in Minnesota is set up to benefit the larger associations. There are ways they could tweak the system including mandating an A team for every X number of players. For instance, for if "Association ABC has less than 75 players, they get one A team. If they have between 76 and 100, they must form two A teams. More than 100, then three A teams, etc. You could tweak those numbers a bit, but I think you can catch my drift.

By moving to a system similar to that, you would create more competitive balance among ALL associations in the State.

muckandgrind wrote:By moving to a system similar to that, you would create more competitive balance among ALL associations in the State.

You could. Dragging the best back to the pack will certainly even the playing field. Not sure there will be a lot of buy-in from strong associations.

O-townClown wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:By moving to a system similar to that, you would create more competitive balance among ALL associations in the State.

You could. Dragging the best back to the pack will certainly even the playing field. Not sure there will be a lot of buy-in from strong associations.

I wouldn't call it "dragging the best back to the pack". Just creating a more competitive environment for everyone. In Little League baseball, they create "charters" for their traveling teams and the number of traveling teams is derived by the number of kids playing for that association. Hockey should follow suit, unless we want to always see the same group large associations go to and win the State tourney year after year after year.

Under the current system, an association that has 40-50 kids trying out for a traveling team has virtually little chance to compete with an association that has 100+ kids trying out. That's not right.

And as far as "buy in" goes. There are more smaller associations than there are larger ones. If put to a vote, I'm sure the smaller associations would prevail.

Just a thought...

Muck:

You actually don't have the same programs winning over and over. Here is the Bantam list over the last 20 years.

1988 (C) Bloomington Kennedy.....(R) Grand Rapids
1989 (C) Richfield........................(R) Grand Rapids
1990 (C) Bloom Jefferson.............(R) Moorhead
1991 (C) Moorhead......................(R) Anoka
1992 (C) St Paul Johnson..............(R) Moorhead
1993 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Duluth Perkins
1994 (C) Hibbing..........................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1995 (C) Anoka...........................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1996 (C) Duluth East....................(R) Osseo/Maple Grove
1997 (C) Osseo/Maple Grove........(R) White Bear Lake
1998 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) White Bear Lake
1999 (C) Rochester North..............(R) Brooklyn Park
2000 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) Alexandria
2001 (C) Centennial.....................(R) White Bear Lake
2002 (C) Wayzata........................(R) Roseville
2003 (C) White Bear Lake.............(R) Centennial
2004 (C) Moorhead.....................(R) Duluth East
2005 (C) Edina............................(R) Centennial
2006 (C) Centennial....................(R) Edina
2007 (C) Eden Prairie..................(R) Centennial

Pee Wees
1988 (C) Bloom, Jefferson............(R) Edina
1989 (C) Cottage Grove...............(R) Hibbing
1990 (C) Moorhead......................(R) White Bear Lake
1991 (C) Duluth Stewarts.............(R) Bloom-Jefferson
1992 (C) Hibbing.........................(R) Anoka
1993 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Anoka
1994 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) Duluth Staubers
1995 (C) Osseo/Mpl Grove...........(R) Elk River
1996 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) Wayzata
1997 (C) Rochester......................(R) Duluth East
1998 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Hastings
1999 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) Eden Prairie
2000 (C) Edina...........................(R) Roseville
2001 (C) Bloomington Jefferson...(R) Bloomington Kennedy
2002 (C) Duluth East...................(R) Bloomington Jefferson
2003 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) St Cloud
2004 (C) Edina...........................(R) White Bear Lake
2005 (C) Centennial....................(R) Chaska
2006 (C) Eden Prairie..................(R) Wayzata
2007 (C) Wayzata.......................(R) Apple Valley

Sure sounds like this would drag Wayzata, Centennial, Jefferson, Edina, Eden Prairie, White Bear Lake, and a few others down.

"That's not right"?? How about working on getting the programs that have 40-50 kids to have twice that?

Already you have a movement to introduce Tier I hockey to the state. Watering down A-level hockey will only flame that fire.

You are dead on. Moving in that direction would definitely make all games more "competitive". I can't imagine it ever happening. Socialist hockey.

O-townClown wrote:Muck:

You actually don't have the same programs winning over and over. Here is the Bantam list over the last 20 years.

Sure sounds like this would drag Wayzata, Centennial, Jefferson, Edina, Eden Prairie, White Bear Lake, and a few others down.

"That's not right"?? How about working on getting the programs that have 40-50 kids to have twice that?

Already you have a movement to introduce Tier I hockey to the state. Watering down A-level hockey will only flame that fire.

You are dead on. Moving in that direction would definitely make all games more "competitive". I can't imagine it ever happening. Socialist hockey.

Notice how that list is virtually ALL large programs?

I don't think my idea is any more "socialist" than the whole premise of MN Hockey is. The problem with getting the programs that have 40-50 skaters to increase their numbers is that many of these are in areas where the demographics prohibit that. Either culturally, financially, or just the number of kids.

Like I've said before, the system as it is currently set up, only favors the large associations. I would also be in favors of other solutions such as encouraging multiple association to merge into larger ones. A "Minneapolis" and "St. Paul" associations formed by all District 1 teams could certainly compete with the larger ones.

I'm all for Tier I hockey in Minnesota. It give the good players stuck in bad associations an outlet to play with kids of similar ability.

O-townClown wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:By moving to a system similar to that, you would create more competitive balance among ALL associations in the State.

You could. Dragging the best back to the pack will certainly even the playing field. Not sure there will be a lot of buy-in from strong associations.

All this would do is start the arguement on how one association didn't split their A team fairly and put all the good players on one team. Sad enough to say that even if the Edinas of the world did split their A team up evenly they would still continue to represent themselves well in the state championship. I don't remember what level it was or what year but recently was there not a champion and runner up from the same city in the state tourney?

Create a new level called the Giants, and let anyone in who wants to try and compete. Any association with a set number are automatically in that level, and others can opt in.

FREDFLINTSTONE wrote:Create a new level called the Giants, and let anyone in who wants to try and compete. Any association with a set number are automatically in that level, and others can opt in.

We have that now it is called A and B hockey. If your association can't compete at the A level, put them in the B league.

Bronc wrote:

FREDFLINTSTONE wrote:Create a new level called the Giants, and let anyone in who wants to try and compete. Any association with a set number are automatically in that level, and others can opt in.

We have that now it is called A and B hockey. If your association can't compete at the A level, put them in the B league.

Here's the problem with that statement. What about a team that can compete at the A level in their district...maybe even WIN the district, but when they play larger associations from other districts they get murdered every time?

There is no competitive balance whatsoever with the way things are set up.

muckandgrind wrote:There is no competitive balance whatsoever with the way things are set up.

And there never will be. That's how sports work.

O-townClown wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:There is no competitive balance whatsoever with the way things are set up.

And there never will be. That's how sports work.

I'm sorry, but that's BS. I hate to compare the professional game with the youth game, but since you say "that's how sports work"...I have to. Competitive balance is maintained in pro sports through the draft and free agency. In college sports, teams are allowed to recruit for players, that [gasp] might even be from other states!!!

Right now, the system is set up to favor associations that have big numbers in them. The smaller associations can never compete because they are hamstrung from attacting other players due to the geographic boundary set-ups.

Without, obviously, opening youth sports up to free agency and drafts, there are other ways the system can be brought more into balance than it is. IMO, competition with AAA clubs is one possible way.

muckandgrind wrote:

Bronc wrote:

FREDFLINTSTONE wrote:Create a new level called the Giants, and let anyone in who wants to try and compete. Any association with a set number are automatically in that level, and others can opt in.

We have that now it is called A and B hockey. If your association can't compete at the A level, put them in the B league.

Here's the problem with that statement. What about a team that can compete at the A level in their district...maybe even WIN the district, but when they play larger associations from other districts they get murdered every time?

There is no competitive balance whatsoever with the way things are set up.

Unfortunately life isn't always fair and nor is sports. To your point I would decide which is more important to your assoc. Winning state at a lower level or Districts at a higher. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it to.

That is the same as different football conferences (Big Ten vs Mountain West, etc).

This is a little off topic, but impressive none the less. Could these teams, although from large associations, also benifit from a strong "group of players" related to age. When I first looked at this list, I was surprised by the relationship of teams that participated in the championship game as Peewees, that returned to that game as Bantams.


1988 (C) Bloomington Kennedy.....(R) Grand Rapids
1989 (C) Richfield........................(R) Grand Rapids
1990 (C) Bloom Jefferson.............(R) Moorhead
1991 (C) Moorhead......................(R) Anoka
1992 (C) St Paul Johnson..............(R) Moorhead
1993 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Duluth Perkins
1994 (C) Hibbing..........................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1995 (C) Anoka...........................(R) Rochester John Marshall
1996 (C) Duluth East....................(R) Osseo/Maple Grove
1997 (C) Osseo/Maple Grove........(R) White Bear Lake
1998 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) White Bear Lake
1999 (C) Rochester North..............(R) Brooklyn Park
2000 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) Alexandria
2001 (C) Centennial.....................(R) White Bear Lake
2002 (C) Wayzata........................(R) Roseville
2003 (C) White Bear Lake.............(R) Centennial
2004 (C) Moorhead.....................(R) Duluth East
2005 (C) Edina............................(R) Centennial
2006 (C) Centennial....................(R) Edina
2007 (C) Eden Prairie..................(R) Centennial

Pee Wees
1988 (C) Bloom, Jefferson............(R) Edina
1989 (C) Cottage Grove...............(R) Hibbing
1990 (C) Moorhead......................(R) White Bear Lake
1991 (C) Duluth Stewarts.............(R) Bloom-Jefferson
1992 (C) Hibbing.........................(R) Anoka
1993 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Anoka
1994 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) Duluth Staubers
1995 (C) Osseo/Mpl Grove...........(R) Elk River
1996 (C) Eden Prairie...................(R) Wayzata
1997 (C) Rochester......................(R) Duluth East
1998 (C) Bloomington Jefferson....(R) Hastings
1999 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) Eden Prairie
2000 (C) Edina...........................(R) Roseville
2001 (C) Bloomington Jefferson...(R) Bloomington Kennedy
2002 (C) Duluth East...................(R) Bloomington Jefferson
2003 (C) White Bear Lake............(R) St Cloud
2004 (C) Edina...........................(R) White Bear Lake
2005 (C) Centennial....................(R) Chaska
2006 (C) Eden Prairie..................(R) Wayzata
2007 (C) Wayzata.......................(R) Apple Valley

Of the 20 years shown here of Peewee playoffs, 13 times one of the participating teams in the championship game played in the Bantam championship game two years later. It could possibly be 15 times if there is any correlation between the "Duluth Staubers" 1994 Peewee runner up, and the "Duluth East" 1996 Bantam Champion. Or, the "Duluth Stewarts" 1991 Peewee champion, and the "Duluth Perkins" 1993 Bantam runner up. Forgive me, I do not know my Duluth hockey history, and did not mean to offend anyone if these teams are in no way connected.
This was impressive to me, over the last 20 years of Peewee championship game participants, 65% (at least) of the time one of the two participants gets back to the championship game as Bantams. Looking good for EP and Wayzata in 09!!

Hey OreoSlapper09. you may not be from the cities, but you sound like it when you complain like that. you are complaing about small class sizes and money. there are teams like rapids, roseau, and I falls who are always competitive year in and year out, and are making regular trips to state. right now, the International Falls High school has less than 100 students in each grade. they dont even have a middle school. when you get down to 80 kids in a grade, you let me know.

uh wild hockey we dont have a middle school anymore either...

grades 7-12 are in a high school

and it isint that big we have one gym caferateria, one small weight room, and there is no add ons!