HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Hockey Districts ! Which team is under the radar and could make a run to state?

MAML Bantam A could make a run for a state apoerance and possibly a state Championship.

MAML Bantam A could make a run for a state apoerance and possibly a state Championship.

MAML may get a little taste of EGF in about 2 weeks

District 12 has a contender or 2 that could win it all. The greenway raiders and the Virginia blue devils. Virginia is very skilled up front and strong Defence.
Raiders are peaking at the right time.should make for an interesting regional tournament .

Greenway beat Virginia 3-2 in the championship game.

St Paul NSP, MV/Irondale need to move up.

Did anyone see any of the Bantam A/AA action in Stillwater over the weekend? Any takes?

Yes. My take is 2000's shouldn't be playing bantams like the rest of the world. The age disparity at bantams translates into a size and strength disparity. If Minnesota Hockey doesn't want 2000 playing high school yet that is fine. Then make a U15 division for that age and then have bantam majors be 01's. It is what USA hockey does, it allows kids to play at their own age level and would allow more kids to play AA and A hockey if there were more divisions. The difference in talent between those top kids who were almost all 00's and the rest of the field was way to big of a gap.

NotMinnesotan wrote:Yes. My take is 2000's shouldn't be playing bantams like the rest of the world. The age disparity at bantams translates into a size and strength disparity. If Minnesota Hockey doesn't want 2000 playing high school yet that is fine. Then make a U15 division for that age and then have bantam majors be 01's. It is what USA hockey does, it allows kids to play at their own age level and would allow more kids to play AA and A hockey if there were more divisions. The difference in talent between those top kids who were almost all 00's and the rest of the field was way to big of a gap.

There are Freshmen and even the occasional 8th grader that plays Varsity Hockey with 12th graders. I don't think the size and strength disparity between an 8th grader and a 9th grader is that big of a deal.

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:Yes. My take is 2000's shouldn't be playing bantams like the rest of the world. The age disparity at bantams translates into a size and strength disparity. If Minnesota Hockey doesn't want 2000 playing high school yet that is fine. Then make a U15 division for that age and then have bantam majors be 01's. It is what USA hockey does, it allows kids to play at their own age level and would allow more kids to play AA and A hockey if there were more divisions. The difference in talent between those top kids who were almost all 00's and the rest of the field was way to big of a gap.

There are Freshmen and even the occasional 8th grader that plays Varsity Hockey with 12th graders. I don't think the size and strength disparity between an 8th grader and a 9th grader is that big of a deal.

I disagree. The kids that are able to do that are normally early developers, and typically have skating and stick handling skills way above average allowing them to play at a faster pace. Programs like Minnetonka had 2000's on the ice that are done growing against some kids that have yet to hit puberty. Because their High School team is good enough to not need them to play up yet, they can stay back and play bantams. Also, you are talking about kids in certain grades. There are kids a full two years older at this age than other kids. Only in Minnesota do Bantams play this age group and when kids are in those normal years of puberty you see these kids with size and speed disparities. I just don't see why 2002's need to play against 2000's.

NotMinnesotan wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:Yes. My take is 2000's shouldn't be playing bantams like the rest of the world. The age disparity at bantams translates into a size and strength disparity. If Minnesota Hockey doesn't want 2000 playing high school yet that is fine. Then make a U15 division for that age and then have bantam majors be 01's. It is what USA hockey does, it allows kids to play at their own age level and would allow more kids to play AA and A hockey if there were more divisions. The difference in talent between those top kids who were almost all 00's and the rest of the field was way to big of a gap.

There are Freshmen and even the occasional 8th grader that plays Varsity Hockey with 12th graders. I don't think the size and strength disparity between an 8th grader and a 9th grader is that big of a deal.

I disagree. The kids that are able to do that are normally early developers, and typically have skating and stick handling skills way above average allowing them to play at a faster pace. Programs like Minnetonka had 2000's on the ice that are done growing against some kids that have yet to hit puberty. Because their High School team is good enough to not need them to play up yet, they can stay back and play bantams. Also, you are talking about kids in certain grades. There are kids a full two years older at this age than other kids. Only in Minnesota do Bantams play this age group and when kids are in those normal years of puberty you see these kids with size and speed disparities. I just don't see why 2002's need to play against 2000's.

Isn't that what the designations are for? If a kid isn't big enough or strong enough, why is he playing AA instead of A, B or C?

NotMinnesotan wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:Yes. My take is 2000's shouldn't be playing bantams like the rest of the world. The age disparity at bantams translates into a size and strength disparity. If Minnesota Hockey doesn't want 2000 playing high school yet that is fine. Then make a U15 division for that age and then have bantam majors be 01's. It is what USA hockey does, it allows kids to play at their own age level and would allow more kids to play AA and A hockey if there were more divisions. The difference in talent between those top kids who were almost all 00's and the rest of the field was way to big of a gap.

There are Freshmen and even the occasional 8th grader that plays Varsity Hockey with 12th graders. I don't think the size and strength disparity between an 8th grader and a 9th grader is that big of a deal.

There are kids a full two years older at this age than other kids.

Doesn't the two year age disparity at Bantams exist in every State? In Wisconsin, you have January 01's playing against December 02's, correct? This is the same as a July 2000 playing against a June 2002 in Minnesota. They just use different dates for cutoffs.

1. Because most teams have their strong 2000 players playing high school allowing other kids to play AA.
2. Because besides the top few teams most organizations don't have enough 2000's and fully developed 01's to play on their AA team. Even Edina had some 01's and 02's that were yet to hit puberty.

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote: There are Freshmen and even the occasional 8th grader that plays Varsity Hockey with 12th graders. I don't think the size and strength disparity between an 8th grader and a 9th grader is that big of a deal.

There are kids a full two years older at this age than other kids.

Doesn't the two year age disparity at Bantams exist in every State? In Wisconsin, you have January 01's playing against December 02's, correct? This is the same as a July 2000 playing against a June 2002 in Minnesota. They just use different dates for cutoffs.

For instance, in Michigan this year there is 2001 bantam major and 2002 bantam minor. They play their own birth year. There is also U15 for 2000's and the higher end 2000 play U16. The only age where kids are forced to play in a two year gap is U18. This year that would be 1997 and 1998. Mostly kids that have already graduated or seniors in high school.

NotMinnesotan wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:
There are kids a full two years older at this age than other kids.

Doesn't the two year age disparity at Bantams exist in every State? In Wisconsin, you have January 01's playing against December 02's, correct? This is the same as a July 2000 playing against a June 2002 in Minnesota. They just use different dates for cutoffs.

For instance, in Michigan this year there is 2001 bantam major and 2002 bantam minor. They play their own birth year. There is also U15 for 2000's and the higher end 2000 play U16. The only age where kids are forced to play in a two year gap is U18. This year that would be 1997 and 1998. Mostly kids that have already graduated or seniors in high school.

Okay, I follow you now. We don't have U15, U16 or U18 in MN during the winter other than Shattuck. We play Association and High School Hockey here. And single birth year wouldn't work at Bantams because too many Associations don't have enough kids to field teams from one birth year.

Jeffy95 wrote:

NotMinnesotan wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote: Doesn't the two year age disparity at Bantams exist in every State? In Wisconsin, you have January 01's playing against December 02's, correct? This is the same as a July 2000 playing against a June 2002 in Minnesota. They just use different dates for cutoffs.

For instance, in Michigan this year there is 2001 bantam major and 2002 bantam minor. They play their own birth year. There is also U15 for 2000's and the higher end 2000 play U16. The only age where kids are forced to play in a two year gap is U18. This year that would be 1997 and 1998. Mostly kids that have already graduated or seniors in high school.

Okay, I follow you now. We don't have U15, U16 or U18 in MN during the winter other than Shattuck. We play Association and High School Hockey here. And single birth year wouldn't work at Bantams because too many Associations don't have enough kids to field teams from one birth year.

I know they don't play that here. I think that with more kids playing hockey in Minnesota than any where else in the country they would be able to figure out a way to not have that big of age gap playing against each other.

They play that way all the way up. Squirt, peewee, bantam.

Summer AAA is birth year in MN.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic but let's try to bring it back around. My guess is you didn't watch the Bantam State tournament at all but just wanted to turn this into an indictment on Minnesota Hockey. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you watched the tourney.

If so, then I'm guessing your point is that Minnetonka won the tournament because their roster is full of 2000s. Let's go there. There were teams they played in the tourney that did well against them that have a few 2000s, mostly 2001s and a handful of 2002s. Seemed like that went fine since as was referenced earlier.....those kids wouldn't be playing AA if they hadn't earned the roster spot. So if a team with almost all 2001s and 2002s can compete very well with Minnetonka even though they are mostly 2000s.....what's the problem?

NotMinnesotan wrote:I disagree. The kids that are able to do that are normally early developers, and typically have skating and stick handling skills way above average allowing them to play at a faster pace.

By the way, the topic of discussion was the Bantam AA state tournament. Wouldn't you expect many/most of the kids playing in that tournament to be well above average skill wise?

I remember hearing about an EP bantam A team years ago that won a state title as bantams and in HS, included Kyle Rau, that had 11 players with birthdays after July 1 (old) and the entire team was second years.

Watched Champ game, and as member of D2 we worked clock/book on other games. Who cares about age this was a great tourny. Great job Mn hoc/ Jake/Dave from D2 and the kids and parents. Warroad WOW ! I didn't see that coming !!