HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

A far north metro association is having a hard time deciding what to do. It sounds like they're going to go with one 16 player team and TRY(will be very tough now) to find another home for the other 5/6 players.

*They've lost players to this same thing in the past.

Thoughts? Ideas?

MrBoDangles wrote:A far north metro association is having a hard time deciding what to do. It sounds like they're going to go with one 16 player team and TRY(will be very tough now) to find another home for the other 5/6 players.

*They've lost players to this same thing in the past.

Thoughts? Ideas?

\

Honestly, I know you guys rail against this but if it is 22 players AND they have 2 goalies I'd go with two 11 man teams. At this age with them having taken out checking I think it's great development and great ice time. My association had 22 exactly last year and went with 2 teams of 11 (we happened to have 2 goalies at that age level as well...) There were other issues for my son's Pee Wee team last year hence why he is now playing elsewhere but the one thiing I did love was we had an 11 man Pee Wee team last year and you couldn't have asked for more in the way of playing time and skill development opportunities in games. If they still had checking I think 11 is a tall order but with no checking last year injuries weren't close to an issue, this is the second time he has been on a team with only 11 players (his squirt year the year before as well) and it's fantastic for players and parents in that regard. I think we had two out of 40 games where we had to skate with 10 players instead of 11 so we just did 6 forwards and 3 defense in those games and if a guy got tired rotated a forward back there for a shift or two but honestly it worked out great and we for sure had zero parental complaints about playing time and zero complaints from kids regarding where and how much they played etc....

MrBoDangles wrote:A far north metro association is having a hard time deciding what to do. It sounds like they're going to go with one 16 player team and TRY(will be very tough now) to find another home for the other 5/6 players.

*They've lost players to this same thing in the past.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Bo, What do their Bantams numbers look like??

Would it be possible to form a C bantam team that they could play up on??

Would keep them at home playing with their friends.

That's two teams.

Q, no Bntams. All 8th(12?) graders are moving up to JV to "save" the varsity program. Some of these 8th graders have never played Hockey with checking involved..

JSR, one main goalie and a few others that have played the position

MrBoDangles wrote:Q, no Bntams. All 8th(12?) graders are moving up to JV to "save" the varsity program. Some of these 8th graders have never played Hockey with checking involved..

JSR, one main goalie and a few others that have played the position

I think the rules allow for up to 22 kids on a roster in situations like this.

It's not the best for ice time, but it is a solution. I think there is also something about how many players can be on the bench..

I'll go take a look at the rule book.

EDIT:

VI. TEAM COMPOSITION A. The maximum number of players on a team roster is twenty. Up to eighteen of those players can dress as skaters for a single game. The maximum number of players that can dress for a single game is twenty. Exception: In situations where a player(s) would be denied opportunity to participate, teams may roster over twenty players to a maximum of twenty-three with approval of the cognizant District Director and the USAH Minnesota District Registrar. Such rosters will be approved only at the lowest competitive level the particu-lar association offers. A maximum of eighteen skaters and total of twenty players may dress for each game. Rostered players in excess of the dressed limit are not allowed on the players bench. Further, such rosters must be reduced to a final set of twenty players for District, Region, State and National tourna-ments if the team is participating at a level in which MH teams compete in USAH National Tournaments

Do you play with one team when you know that some of the families sent packing will probably quit?

All comments and thoughts will help this association..

Take a page from the NW part of the state...that is easily two teams worth.

MrBoDangles wrote:Do you play with one team when you know that some of the families sent packing will probably quit?

To do so is in direct opposition to the USA Hockey Code of Conduct for Administrators.

What is the argument against two teams? Goaltending? I know one that always comes up is that 'my son just wants to play with his buddies'.

Top 10 skaters and goalie on one team. Bottom 11 on the other. Find one to play goalie, or play 6 skaters.

11th hour co-ops are not likely. Association should have better handle on numbers and make arrangements during summer months. Unless mass exodus at last minute?

BadgerBob82 wrote:Top 10 skaters and goalie on one team. Bottom 11 on the other. Find one to play goalie, or play 6 skaters.

11th hour co-ops are not likely. Association should have better handle on numbers and make arrangements during summer months. Unless mass exodus at last minute?

Agree, top 10 skaters and top goalie on one team the rest on the second team. Rotate goalies through the handful that playerd or see if one is willing to step up and be full time goalie to keep team and players intact. You can easily share ice for practice time with teams of that size as well. Again with no checking in pee wee's, if it's 22 I don't see how two teams isn't the most reasonable viable solution

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Do you play with one team when you know that some of the families sent packing will probably quit?

To do so is in direct opposition to the USA Hockey Code of Conduct for Administrators.

What is the argument against two teams? Goaltending? I know one that always comes up is that 'my son just wants to play with his buddies'.

It might be about being able to compete in your district which includes large and small associations.

If you split the talent you have with two teams , one of them, or both, will get killed.. You could play them at a lower ranking, like say C... But how do you tell the 5 good kids to forget about playing B1 ??

I don't know if this is the situation, but it could be..

Quasar wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Do you play with one team when you know that some of the families sent packing will probably quit?

To do so is in direct opposition to the USA Hockey Code of Conduct for Administrators.

What is the argument against two teams? Goaltending? I know one that always comes up is that 'my son just wants to play with his buddies'.

It might be about being able to compete in your district which includes large and small associations.

If you split the talent you have with two teams , one of them, or both, will get killed.. You could play them at a lower ranking, like say C... But how do you tell the 5 good kids to forget about playing B1 ??

I don't know if this is the situation, but it could be..

Again that is even more of a reason to have two 11 man teams, much less stretch between top and bottom players and the 1st team would likely be alot more competitive game ina nd game out with the top 10 skaters on the ice without havign to go with the next 5 where a large drop may exist.....

Probably a B-1 and B-2 team. Last year the two teams had winning and .500 seasons at the same levels with full squads. Skill level would be about the same and maybe even better at the lower team, but would obviously be going in with much smaller teams..

I would still suggest communicating with neighboring associations as they may a player or two that would be interested in playing with your association for what could be considered an advantage of more ice and playing time. Maybe try and get to 13 skaters per team. Most players, and parents, feel badly about leaving their association but sometimes there are a few that are ok with it for a variety of reasons. It's most frequent at the C level.

It's a long season so I like the shared practice idea as you don't want even half ice practices with 5 players. But of course once games are scheduled that gets tough. Ice availability and cost can be an issue as well as finding additional coaches.

Hate to bring it up but 20 new mites for this small association will help avoid these problems in the future.

Bo: How many miles between this association's rink and the nearest rinks from neighboring associations fielding A-B-C level teams?

Contact our Pee-wee director/we may have odd # of goalies. Maybe FL can help out our" nabe to the north ".

BadgerBob82 wrote:Bo: How many miles between this association's rink and the nearest rinks from neighboring associations fielding A-B-C level teams?

12 miles. They're already set at numbers from a co-op to compete at the new AA level.

OK, so my question would be, why not expand the co-op to include 21 more players? At the end of the day, wouldn't that have added only one more team to their numbers? And the boast in depth might have allowed AA-A-B1-B2-C teams to be created?

Too late now?

Bob's right. There is no such thing as a partial co-op in my opinion. If you're co-oping do it with all the kids at the whole level. I know there will be some ruffled feathers because someone is always trying to protect a player or two that they've projected to be on a particular team already, before tryouts, but blow it up. All kids go into one basket, now, before tryouts. New name and new unis too.

I remember a guy bringing up district pooled teams.....

Heard they were set. Agree.

MrBoDangles wrote:Probably a B-1 and B-2 team. Last year the two teams had winning and .500 seasons at the same levels with full squads. Skill level would be about the same and maybe even better at the lower team, but would obviously be going in with much smaller teams..

Not so bad... Only problem I see with two short teams is running out of gas when playing against Andover, Blaine, Centennial etc..

I'm with you, pooled districts would solve the problem..

What would a District Pooled Team be? Kinda like a co-op but potentially different associations, at different levels? (AA-C and Boys-Girls?)

Quasar wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Probably a B-1 and B-2 team. Last year the two teams had winning and .500 seasons at the same levels with full squads. Skill level would be about the same and maybe even better at the lower team, but would obviously be going in with much smaller teams..

Not so bad... Only problem I see with two short teams is running out of gas when playing against Andover, Blaine, Centennial etc..

I'm with you, pooled districts would solve the problem..

Better to run out of gas against the big dawgs than not play at all or play on a much larger team.....

JSR wrote:

Quasar wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Probably a B-1 and B-2 team. Last year the two teams had winning and .500 seasons at the same levels with full squads. Skill level would be about the same and maybe even better at the lower team, but would obviously be going in with much smaller teams..

Not so bad... Only problem I see with two short teams is running out of gas when playing against Andover, Blaine, Centennial etc..

I'm with you, pooled districts would solve the problem..

Better to run out of gas against the big dawgs than not play at all or play on a much larger team.....

I agree ..and way better development if you can handle it !!