'B' teams in towns that don't skate an 'A'

[hudini3]

I was just wondering how many people think it's fair to skate a 'B' team and not an 'A'.
Give me your comments.

[muckandgrind]

I think it's completely fair and should be done in more cases. If 'Program A' has 30-35 players trying out for a particular level and 'Program B' has 150 kids trying out for a particular level, how can 'Program A' ever compete with 'Program B'? They can't, and that's why they shouldn't be criticized for not having an A team.

[hudini3]

But if a program has 30-35 players... shouldn't they play an 'A' and a 'B' team. I know of a lot of programs that either have two teams of 13-14 players, or have only a 'B' team(had to cut). the ones with two teams do fairly well! And the the one 'B' team is dominating the 'B' level with 'A' skaters!

[muckandgrind]

But if a program has 30-35 players... shouldn't they play an 'A' and a 'B' team. I know of a lot of programs that either have two teams of 13-14 players, or have only a 'B' team(had to cut). the ones with two teams do fairly well! And the the one 'B' team is dominating the 'B' level with 'A' skaters!

Again, how is a program with 30-35 skaters supposed to compete with other metro associations that have 3 and 4 times the number of skaters they have?

Each association is a different story, there are various factors you have to consider like which district you play in. If you can field an A team that can compete, then do it. But if you don't think you will be able to be competitive, then you should go with a B team as your top team and play a B-1 schedule. Believe me, a program with 30-35 skaters will not necessarily dominate the B-1 level.

[pro2b@3]

But if a program has 30-35 players... shouldn't they play an 'A' and a 'B' team. I know of a lot of programs that either have two teams of 13-14 players, or have only a 'B' team(had to cut). the ones with two teams do fairly well! And the the one 'B' team is dominating the 'B' level with 'A' skaters!

Well, with these numbers, the same should happen at the larger associations for every 30-35 kids, they should have an “A” team. For instance Wayzata’s, Edina, EP, Blaine, Centennial, WBL, ETC. All these associations have over 100 kids per level and ALL but Edina’s A Squirt finally went with 2 A Squirts; and I applaud Edina for doing that. So what the 2nd team won’t go undefeated… when you have 8 or more teams per level you should go at least 2 A Teams.

Also, the Smaller association’s best players do leave for the Fire(s) for better development because they are “true” A player, skating with Association’s roster fillers (non- A Players). Typical association mentality, protect the weaker skaters and not take care of the TOP players…

Thought, MN Hockey and\or Districts should come up with a formula where they decide what each associations play depending on the numbers that register per level. I.e. less than 45 KIDS (A-B-C) Over 90 kids (A-A-B-B-B-C). Help Associations from making this decision and have it the same across the state…

[elliott70]

It is up to the district director to determine what is best for the local association and the district.

[muckandgrind]

But if a program has 30-35 players... shouldn't they play an 'A' and a 'B' team. I know of a lot of programs that either have two teams of 13-14 players, or have only a 'B' team(had to cut). the ones with two teams do fairly well! And the the one 'B' team is dominating the 'B' level with 'A' skaters!

Well, with these numbers, the same should happen at the larger associations for every 30-35 kids, they should have an “A” team. For instance Wayzata’s, Edina, EP, Blaine, Centennial, WBL, ETC. All these associations have over 100 kids per level and ALL but Edina’s A Squirt finally went with 2 A Squirts; and I applaud Edina for doing that. So what the 2nd team won’t go undefeated… when you have 8 or more teams per level you should go at least 2 A Teams.

Also, the Smaller association’s best players do leave for the Fire(s) for better development because they are “true” A player, skating with Association’s roster fillers (non- A Players). Typical association mentality, protect the weaker skaters and not take care of the TOP players…

Thought, MN Hockey and\or Districts should come up with a formula where they decide what each associations play depending on the numbers that register per level. I.e. less than 45 KIDS (A-B-C) Over 90 kids (A-A-B-B-B-C). Help Associations from making this decision and have it the same across the state…

I agree 1000% and have posted the same thing on this forum. MN Hockey should follow USA Little League's example when it comes to creating 'charters' based on city/association size. Larger associations have more charters, thus more All-Star (A) teams. This helps create more of a competitive balance.

[elliott70]

Again, the district director has the power to put teams at the level they should be.

Mandatory by numbers is not always the answer.

D16 rule is your first team is an A team regardless of numbers, 10 peewees or 50 peewees. Then the association can ask for a play-down.
Bagley, Red Lake Falls, Hallock are teams that may end up with a B team and no A team. But we make the decision at the district level based on input from everyone.

[muckandgrind]

Again, the district director has the power to put teams at the level they should be.

Mandatory by numbers is not always the answer.

D16 rule is your first team is an A team regardless of numbers, 10 peewees or 50 peewees. Then the association can ask for a play-down.
Bagley, Red Lake Falls, Hallock are teams that may end up with a B team and no A team. But we make the decision at the district level based on input from everyone.

I understand that the current decision-making process is at the District level, but I believe it should be the State level. I would like to see them come up with a uniform way of creating more of a competitive balance. The current system is heavily tilted in favor of large associations. Maybe if there was more of a competitive balance, there wouldn't be so many of us clamoring for Tier I AAA hockey.

The large associations like Edina, Wayzata, and OMG should be forced to have multiple A teams and have the teams formed through a draft (like baseball) instead of stacking one team over the other.

Either that, or be more flexible in allowing smaller associations to not have A teams.

[hudini3]

D16 rule is your first team is an A team regardless of numbers, 10 peewees or 50 peewees. Then the association can ask for a play-down.
Bagley, Red Lake Falls, Hallock are teams that may end up with a B team and no A team. But we make the decision at the district level based on input from everyone.

I like that rule! but it is different betwenn districts. In some districts, it is up to the association to decide whethetr or not they want to play an A team or not. You are right there should be input from other teams to decide if thhat team should be moved from an A team down to a B team.

[jackstraw]

In the districts with smaller associations, here is the problem; some teams field just B teams then end up dominating district play with other true B teams, (teams that have an A team above them). What sucks for the true B teams is at the end of the year if they don't make districts. I would like to see our district, (D4) eliminate the teams that go only with B teams from the district tourney.

[hockeyboys]

Elliott - Question for you:

I believe we all agreee that the best development at any level - A, B, C, etc. happens when players are placed with like skilled players. So, if an association decides to opt down to a B level instead of playing A because they can not compete at that level, and therefor their players will not develop, what happens to their 1 player who is truly an A level player? From what i understand, it is up to the association and District to allow that player to waive to another association that has an A team.

What if the association declines the waiver? Is there any contingency to take care of that A player? I realize that MN hockey's job is to look out for the vast majority of players - and they do a great job at that, but is there a responsibility to take care of players in this situation?

Is there any talk at the state level to make any changes (besides going to a AAA type program) that would help these players?

Thank you for your respoonse.

[gohawk4]

Associations need to understand that you do not develop players by losing 10-0. If your teams can not compete at the A level they should be a B team. The argument against this is that the B team is then "dominating" the B level. I disagree, top B1 teams would be competitive with the lower A teams. Forcing associations into having 2 A teams is also a problem. Why should a competitive team have to lower their talent pool at all levels because they are winning games against bad teams. I hear a lot of talk about Wayzata, Edina and others moving to 2 A teams. Wayzata has done this and the second team was about .300 and lost a lot of games by large margins. So all this does is cause less development for those kids. If only the top programs had A teams then we would have the same A state champion and we would have a very competitive B1 league. This creating a stronger development for all players involved.

Further, I have a problem with people complaining about associations having a top B program. B league is not for everyone. B1, especially, is for the best players that were unable to be on an A team. If a team is stacking their C teams, then I have a problem with that as it is more about fun and not as much about winning.

Also, Many large associations forget the fact that chemistry is important in development also. If kids can develop chemistry with a line over many years, even if it is only at the B level, I believe the future teams will be stronger. This can be seen in associations like Roseau and Warroad who develop teams much better than most city associations.

Also, Keep kids of equal playing ability on the same team. If 3 kids are not as good as the other 12, those 3 kids will watch as the other 12 control the game. This does those 3 kids no favors. Put these kids on the next level down and let them develop and grow with their skill level.

[muckandgrind]

Associations need to understand that you do not develop players by losing 10-0. If your teams can not compete at the A level they should be a B team. The argument against this is that the B team is then "dominating" the B level. I disagree, top B1 teams would be competitive with the lower A teams. Forcing associations into having 2 A teams is also a problem. Why should a competitive team have to lower their talent pool at all levels because they are winning games against bad teams. I hear a lot of talk about Wayzata, Edina and others moving to 2 A teams. Wayzata has done this and the second team was about .300 and lost a lot of games by large margins. So all this does is cause less development for those kids. If only the top programs had A teams then we would have the same A state champion and we would have a very competitive B1 league. This creating a stronger development for all players involved.

Further, I have a problem with people complaining about associations having a top B program. B league is not for everyone. B1, especially, is for the best players that were unable to be on an A team. If a team is stacking their C teams, then I have a problem with that as it is more about fun and not as much about winning.

Also, Many large associations forget the fact that chemistry is important in development also. If kids can develop chemistry with a line over many years, even if it is only at the B level, I believe the future teams will be stronger. This can be seen in associations like Roseau and Warroad who develop teams much better than most city associations.

Also, Keep kids of equal playing ability on the same team. If 3 kids are not as good as the other 12, those 3 kids will watch as the other 12 control the game. This does those 3 kids no favors. Put these kids on the next level down and let them develop and grow with their skill level.

How did Wayzata split up the two teams? Was one stacked? Or did they allow each coach to take turns picking players (i.e. draft). If they drafted, then you would think both teams would be similar in ability and record...assuming that each coach was a good judge of talent.

We already have some large association running multiple A teams: St. Cloud, Rochester, and Edina (squirts). I applaud them for that and wish others would follow suit. Like I said, baseball provides a model that works, hockey should follow suit.

[elliott70]

Elliott - Question for you:

I believe we all agreee that the best development at any level - A, B, C, etc. happens when players are placed with like skilled players. So, if an association decides to opt down to a B level instead of playing A because they can not compete at that level, and therefor their players will not develop, what happens to their 1 player who is truly an A level player? From what i understand, it is up to the association and District to allow that player to waive to another association that has an A team.

What if the association declines the waiver? Is there any contingency to take care of that A player? I realize that MN hockey's job is to look out for the vast majority of players - and they do a great job at that, but is there a responsibility to take care of players in this situation?

Is there any talk at the state level to make any changes (besides going to a AAA type program) that would help these players?

Thank you for your respoonse.

There is no curretn language about the A level player moving.
D16 rules for waiver are limited to certain stiuations but most will allow a player to move even if not per our policy.
But for a player to move up here it is usually difficult based on distance.
In the metro area, fro an A player to move is easier if the association will give up the player, and if they are received.
These are not easy questons AND questions MH should address by hearing from people, coaches, assn reps and finding a way to accomodate this situation.

Sometimes the whole takes presednt over the one, which is the case here, but to not investtigate (head in the sand) is wrong.
Right now MH moves to slow with too much emphasis put on systme of finding its way rather thatn just finding its way.

It is frustrating.

[elliott70]

Associations need to understand that you do not develop players by losing 10-0. If your teams can not compete at the A level they should be a B team. The argument against this is that the B team is then "dominating" the B level. I disagree, top B1 teams would be competitive with the lower A teams. Forcing associations into having 2 A teams is also a problem. Why should a competitive team have to lower their talent pool at all levels because they are winning games against bad teams. I hear a lot of talk about Wayzata, Edina and others moving to 2 A teams. Wayzata has done this and the second team was about .300 and lost a lot of games by large margins. So all this does is cause less development for those kids. If only the top programs had A teams then we would have the same A state champion and we would have a very competitive B1 league. This creating a stronger development for all players involved.

Further, I have a problem with people complaining about associations having a top B program. B league is not for everyone. B1, especially, is for the best players that were unable to be on an A team. If a team is stacking their C teams, then I have a problem with that as it is more about fun and not as much about winning.

Also, Many large associations forget the fact that chemistry is important in development also. If kids can develop chemistry with a line over many years, even if it is only at the B level, I believe the future teams will be stronger. This can be seen in associations like Roseau and Warroad who develop teams much better than most city associations.

Also, Keep kids of equal playing ability on the same team. If 3 kids are not as good as the other 12, those 3 kids will watch as the other 12 control the game. This does those 3 kids no favors. Put these kids on the next level down and let them develop and grow with their skill level.

I am not sure that losing games equates to non-development.

I do know that the one thing in development that at times is overlooked is to teach the team and the individual to be winners.
Winning is the reason you play AND yes success can be found in many forms, but first and foremost is winning.
That soes not mean playing 5 kids the whole game but it does mean playing 5 particular kids at some point.

Learning to win as a team is important.

Forcing anyone to do something they do not feel is right usually is the wrong thing unless they aer using the wrong logic to do it (wrong in the sense that it conflicts with the gola of the organizations involved).

[gohawk4]

I never said losing games equates to non-development. In fact I think if you lose all your games by a close margin you are actually developing more than a team winning by a lot. However, I said the team was .300 and had many losses by large margins. These games do not develop any of the players on the ice.

The second team was a second team, but everyone was saying they were good enough to play A because the B teams were the best the year before.

My question to you muckandgrind, why should all these teams have multiple A teams? Why do we need every association to have an A team?

An A team is a priviledge as is a B team. The top players should be playing A against other top players. The 30th best kid at Wayzata, in my experience, is not strong enough to play A hockey. If your team has 2 A players and 13 B players, you should be a B team and if the 2 want to play A, let them. If your association has 13 A players, they should only take 13 players on the A team. Forget about little Johnny feeling bad because he didn't make the A team. Disappointment is part of life. I was cut from teams, including multiple times as the last kid cut. I was not ready for the A team and I thank the coaches for pointing it out. Why do we push kids into playing at levels they are not strong enough to play?

Hockey is supposed to be fun. Playing good hockey (3-2) games are fun. The way to play good hockey games is putting players at the level they belong. Winning 10-0 isn't fun and should not be happening.

[muckandgrind]

I never said losing games equates to non-development. In fact I think if you lose all your games by a close margin you are actually developing more than a team winning by a lot. However, I said the team was .300 and had many losses by large margins. These games do not develop any of the players on the ice.

The second team was a second team, but everyone was saying they were good enough to play A because the B teams were the best the year before.

My question to you muckandgrind, why should all these teams have multiple A teams? Why do we need every association to have an A team?

An A team is a priviledge as is a B team. The top players should be playing A against other top players. The 30th best kid at Wayzata, in my experience, is not strong enough to play A hockey. If your team has 2 A players and 13 B players, you should be a B team and if the 2 want to play A, let them. If your association has 13 A players, they should only take 13 players on the A team. Forget about little Johnny feeling bad because he didn't make the A team. Disappointment is part of life. I was cut from teams, including multiple times as the last kid cut. I was not ready for the A team and I thank the coaches for pointing it out. Why do we push kids into playing at levels they are not strong enough to play?

Hockey is supposed to be fun. Playing good hockey (3-2) games are fun. The way to play good hockey games is putting players at the level they belong. Winning 10-0 isn't fun and should not be happening.

And it's no fun losing 10-0, either.

I don't think EVERY association "needs" to have multiple A teams, but the very largest should. You have to admit that the current system is HEAVILY favored to the biggest associations. Associations like Wayzata, Edina, and OMG have darn close to 200 players trying out for any particular level....then you have other Metro associations who have 30-50 players trying out for any particular level.

We all know that the cream will always rise to the top, and when you have a huge pool, you will have alot more cream.

If you mandate that associations that have 150-200 players trying out form two A teams via a draft, you will create a more competitive balance among all the teams. This will give the 'A' players who are forced to play in the smaller associations a better chance to compete. And you can't tell me that those "second" A teams wouldn't be competitive. My bet is that Wayzata, Edina, and OMG B-1 teams could ALSO beat most A teams in this state. But regardless, if these teams were picked via a draft instead of just renaming the B-1 team to "A", these should be pretty similar in talent.

I'm not against the idea of teams dropping down to play 'B', the problem with that is that these associations can (and do) lose their best players via waivers to other associations that run an 'A' team. Not to mention the pressure put on these associations by the HS programs to keep putting A teams on the ice, many HS coaches believe the best way to get their best Bantam players ready for HS is to make sure they play at the A level. The problem is that a team is only as good as their bottom 5 players. IMO, unless you keep your top players on the ice at all times, losing 8-0 or 10-1 is not a good way to develop your players.

By creating more balanced environment, more players would probably decide to stick with their associations because they know that on most nights when they step on the ice, their team will have a chance to be competitive.

I don't believe this move would lower the overall quality. Quite to the contrary, I think the overall quality would be improved because you would create a more competitive environment with teams constantly having to battle it out instead of just rolling over the weaker "competition".

The way it's set up right now, there are about 10 teams at every level that have a chance at competing with each other at the top level, everyone else be damned. This is what creates the environment by which people are clamoring for Tier I. Many good players are stuck in lousy associations and have the talent and desire to play on a competitive team and can't because under the current system their address determines where they have to play. It's because of this disire to play on a competitive team, my son has more fun playing AAA in the summer than he does playing association hockey in the winter.

[gohawk4]

The only reason the current system is heavily favored to large associations is because large associations can put together a top A team and also have top b teams. Other associations put together an A team and have few players left, but put them on a B team. Then they complain about large associations beating them 10-0. If you are sick of losing 10-0 then either 1)Don't play them or 2)move your A team to B1 and move your B1 team to B2 or C. Why complain that a team that is better than you should do something different, why don't you do something different? The only fight I ever hear is then what do the A players at other associations do. Well they play A elsewhere or they help develop their team at the B level and get them ready for the A level.

Don't make large associations lower their talent at the A level, so you can compete. It is the top level for a reason. Can't handle it, play B or C.

[muckandgrind]

The only reason the current system is heavily favored to large associations is because large associations can put together a top A team and also have top b teams. Other associations put together an A team and have few players left, but put them on a B team. Then they complain about large associations beating them 10-0. If you are sick of losing 10-0 then either 1)Don't play them or 2)move your A team to B1 and move your B1 team to B2 or C. Why complain that a team that is better than you should do something different, why don't you do something different? The only fight I ever hear is then what do the A players at other associations do. Well they play A elsewhere or they help develop their team at the B level and get them ready for the A level.

Don't make large associations lower their talent at the A level, so you can compete. It is the top level for a reason. Can't handle it, play B or C.

You are completely missing the point. No one is asking the larger associations to lower their talent. They HAVE enough talent. When you have a pool of 175 players to choose from, the odds are that you have enough "A" players to fill 6 lines. When you have 35 players, you probably have enough talent to fill 1 or 2 lines at the most. Those large association HAVE 'A' PLAYERS PLAYING AT THE 'B' LEVEL!!!! I can guarantee you that just about every player on Wayzata's top B-1 team would make the roster on about 80% of every other A team in the state. I just read in another thread that Wayzata Blue Bantams are 27-0-1, with their tie coming against Wayzata Gold....I mean C'MON!!!! Do you really think that is a B team??? I'd venture to guess, if that Blue team played A, they would be a Top 20 team. Are the players on that Blue team really benefitting by walking through their season with virtually no one challenging them?

You make it sound like Wayzata is doing something right versus smaller associations are doing something wrong. The only thing Wayzata is "doing right" is fielding an association in a wealthy community with lots of young families that have kids. It's all about demographics. Many other associations like North Metro, Como, Johnson, Mounds View, Irondale, etc. are older and less afluent communities and simply don't have the numbers that Wayzata, Edina, and OMG has and there is nothing that can be done about that.

Like I said before, when you create a more competitive environment, EVERYONE benefits. When companies become monopolistic what does the government do? They bust them up into smaller companies (see: Ma Bell). Why do they bust them up? To create a more competitive environment.

Everyone wins if the largest associations field multiple A teams, including them in the long run. Every one of their players will be pushed a bit harder. Other associations benefit as well knowing that when they step on the ice, there is a chance that they can compete. Little League Baseball does this and it works just great. Minnesota teams are always competitive when it comes to sending teams deep into the LLWS tournament. This is not just a "feel good" remedy, I really believe that all kids will improve if they are tested more often.

The only other alternative is to open the state up to Tier I AAA and give the talented players who aren't fortunate enough to live in the association boundaries of Wayzata, OMG, Wayzata et. al. a chance to compete at a higher level as well.

I'm for either solution.

[elliott70]

Muck
You should volunteer on the MH Disernment Committee.

[Toomuchtoosoon]

The question comes down to this-which is better for the kids who want to be the best player they can be-win 90+% of the games against inferior competition, or win 30% of the games against superior competition? I am sure most would choose the 30% number because at the end of the year, you will be a better player. Go A1 and A2 and give it a few years to see what happens. The problem is that one year of losses is too much for these big associations to handle. One major factor is that there may be enough A level skaters, but not enough A level goalies. That needs to be factored in. One way to work with it is go with one goalie for each team, and have a liberal goalie substitution rule if one gets sick or injured.

Also consider there is usually one or two top players on the A team that make the difference. The A2 team would not have those players, so they will have to use more of a team approach.

Go with two A teams and give it a few years to see how it works. THe kids will not be forever scarred by losing, just some parents.

[hudini3]

But what about those teams that only have one team that they play at B level? Should they play A or B. For instance... Waseca (D4) has played only one bantam team for many years as a B team. And each year they just dominate the true B teams during district games and the district tournaments. I don't really think that is helping the players get better walking through districts.
This year District 4 east has 4 out of 7 teams do not skate A teams. And 2 of those teams are in the top 3.
I just don't think that's fair!!!

[muckandgrind]

But what about those teams that only have one team that they play at B level? Should they play A or B. For instance... Waseca (D4) has played only one bantam team for many years as a B team. And each year they just dominate the true B teams during district games and the district tournaments. I don't really think that is helping the players get better walking through districts.
This year District 4 east has 4 out of 7 teams do not skate A teams. And 2 of those teams are in the top 3.
I just don't think that's fair!!!

I think it should depend on the overall talent level of the players on the team. How many top end (A) players are there compared to low end (C) players? If you have more low end players, then that team should probably play B. If you have more top end players, then you should probably play A. Just remember, how much can the low end players really develop game sense if they will never see the puck in a A game?

My philosophy is that at PeeWee and Bantam, a team is only as good as their bottom 5-7 players. If you're bottom players are really weak, then you should play down a level.

[hocmom]

If you have only one team and choose to play B in order to give some of the weaker players a place to play, it would be best if you actually play them.