Bantam A myhockeyrankings

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:29 am

Most teams haven't played enough games to be ranked yet.

http://myhockeyrankings.com/rank.php?y=2010&a=b&v=166

5 For Fighting · Post by **5 For Fighting** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:45 pm

Way to early to put any kind of merit in the rankings. It will be interesting to see what shakes out of the Duluth tournament this weekend. If you look at the current ranking teams from #7 Wayzata through #12 North St. Paul have a 14-19 record with only one team above 500. I would be interested in the math behind Centennial...they have struggled both games I have seen them play. You will see Woodbury and OMG jump into the rankings once they qualify.

In my opinion, there is more parity this year than last year when we saw the #1 team change hands a couple of times throughout the year.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:42 pm

In my opinion, there is more parity this year than last year when we saw the #1 team change hands a couple of times throughout the year.[/quote]

There may be parity this year, but this years group is typically much stronger than the previous. This combined age group is tough across the state.

No doubt the top teams will bounce around for most of the year and have to see who keeps their kids, stays healthy and gets hot come the end of the year.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:13 am

Bronc wrote:In my opinion, there is more parity this year than last year when we saw the #1 team change hands a couple of times throughout the year.

There may be parity this year, but this years group is typically much stronger than the previous. This combined age group is tough across the state.

No doubt the top teams will bounce around for most of the year and have to see who keeps their kids, stays healthy and gets hot come the end of the year.

Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:20 am

muckandgrind wrote:
Bronc wrote:In my opinion, there is more parity this year than last year when we saw the #1 team change hands a couple of times throughout the year.

There may be parity this year, but this years group is typically much stronger than the previous. This combined age group is tough across the state.

No doubt the top teams will bounce around for most of the year and have to see who keeps their kids, stays healthy and gets hot come the end of the year.
Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.

No I am stating that this years A Bantams a combination of 95 & 96 (mostly) are stronger than the combination of 94 & 95's last year.

A

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am

Bronc wrote:
muckandgrind wrote:
Bronc wrote:In my opinion, there is more parity this year than last year when we saw the #1 team change hands a couple of times throughout the year.

There may be parity this year, but this years group is typically much stronger than the previous. This combined age group is tough across the state.

No doubt the top teams will bounce around for most of the year and have to see who keeps their kids, stays healthy and gets hot come the end of the year.
Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.
No I am stating that this years A Bantams a combination of 95 & 96 (mostly) are stronger than the combination of 94 & 95's last year.

A

OK - I can buy that.

5 For Fighting · Post by **5 For Fighting** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:19 pm

Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.

No I am stating that this years A Bantams a combination of 95 & 96 (mostly) are stronger than the combination of 94 & 95's last year.

A

OK - I can buy that.

Alright...it's only a few games into the season but based on what I have seen so far I would not agree with this. Teams seem to have some nice top end talent but then it falls off faster than the 94/95 blend. My take is that top end teams were deeper last year.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:39 pm

5 For Fighting wrote:
Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.

No I am stating that this years A Bantams a combination of 95 & 96 (mostly) are stronger than the combination of 94 & 95's last year.

A

OK - I can buy that.
Alright...it's only a few games into the season but based on what I have seen so far I would not agree with this. Teams seem to have some nice top end talent but then it falls off faster than the 94/95 blend. My take is that top end teams were deeper last year.

Yeah, I might tend to agree with you on that. That being said, I think the 1995 birth year is the strongest of the three (94, 95, 96) by a long shot. 1998 looks like it may be the next really strong one.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:58 pm

muckandgrind wrote:
5 For Fighting wrote:
Are you suggesting the 96 birth year is stronger and deeper than the 95 birth year. If so, then I'd disagree with you.

No I am stating that this years A Bantams a combination of 95 & 96 (mostly) are stronger than the combination of 94 & 95's last year.

A

OK - I can buy that.
Alright...it's only a few games into the season but based on what I have seen so far I would not agree with this. Teams seem to have some nice top end talent but then it falls off faster than the 94/95 blend. My take is that top end teams were deeper last year.
Yeah, I might tend to agree with you on that. That being said, I think the 1995 birth year is the strongest of the three (94, 95, 96) by a long shot. 1998 looks like it may be the next really strong one.

I agree the 95's are the deepest, but think the 96's are slightly better than the 94 group so you put them together this year and I believe the teams are deeper and stronger.

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:42 pm

Based on this discussion it seems that the strongest group is whichever your son is part of.

Bronc · Post by **Bronc** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:48 pm

observer wrote:Based on this discussion it seems that the strongest group is whichever your son is part of.

Could of been on both.

muckandgrind · Post by **muckandgrind** » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:24 pm

observer wrote:Based on this discussion it seems that the strongest group is whichever your son is part of.

I figured it would be only a matter of time before someone through this response out there.....

I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinion is based years of following youth hockey from 1991 to the present. And no, I don't have a 1995-born son.