Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:59 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm

I like it too, but I'd argue it would likely make things worse.

The top teams would forever stay the top teams because the best players aren't going to go to a shit team to "try to get them into the league above"

also, these teams are one year at a time. How do you track this one year to the next?

This scenario: "U10 Minor Hockey Talks assholes" are AAA this year, they suck balls, so they get moved to AA...

Does U10 move down to AA or does U11?

How do you decide where U10 starts given there is no U9 for them?

You nailed it with this analysis

I think you might be overthinking it. the whole idea would be to get teams to the elite division, those few teams would be basically removed from the rest of us. At AAA you might have to play them a couple of times, but they would have their own Champions League and playoff, look how soccer works over in Europe. Imagine how much better the rest of the system will be when you remove the 30-40 families that have unlimited budgets and put them all on a couple of teams.

Everything would be tied to birth years. Teams go into their first year and sign up for a division, and guess where they fit(think summer hockey). You could schedule half the season, After the first half you could re-align or request to be moved. Then finish out the season. Maybe in the first couple of years you move 3 or 4 teams up and down a division. By u12 to u13 things would sort itself out.

Also, don't forget there will still be oversight and a governing body keeping things in check, they could make slight adjustments as time goes on.

uh huh...and when your three best players leave while you are in the top division. Then what? lol Thats a rough season ahead!

But it would be only 1 rough season, you would get demoted. Now if your 3 best leave what happens? As a coach or an organization, the idea should be to improve your players and teams. Your best players should be able to move on and play with and against better competition.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:10 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:59 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm

I like it too, but I'd argue it would likely make things worse.

The top teams would forever stay the top teams because the best players aren't going to go to a shit team to "try to get them into the league above"

also, these teams are one year at a time. How do you track this one year to the next?

This scenario: "U10 Minor Hockey Talks assholes" are AAA this year, they suck balls, so they get moved to AA...

Does U10 move down to AA or does U11?

How do you decide where U10 starts given there is no U9 for them?

You nailed it with this analysis

I think you might be overthinking it. the whole idea would be to get teams to the elite division, those few teams would be basically removed from the rest of us. At AAA you might have to play them a couple of times, but they would have their own Champions League and playoff, look how soccer works over in Europe. Imagine how much better the rest of the system will be when you remove the 30-40 families that have unlimited budgets and put them all on a couple of teams.

Everything would be tied to birth years. Teams go into their first year and sign up for a division, and guess where they fit(think summer hockey). You could schedule half the season, After the first half you could re-align or request to be moved. Then finish out the season. Maybe in the first couple of years you move 3 or 4 teams up and down a division. By u12 to u13 things would sort itself out.

Also, don't forget there will still be oversight and a governing body keeping things in check, they could make slight adjustments as time goes on.

uh huh...and when your three best players leave while you are in the top division. Then what? lol Thats a rough season ahead!

But it would be only 1 rough season, you would get demoted. Now if your 3 best leave what happens? As a coach or an organization, the idea should be to improve your players and teams. Your best players should be able to move on and play with and against better competition.

Good coaches and good organizations would/should recognize that they will lose players and develop 17 players instead of 3. I still haven't heard a good argument to keep kids as property or to be owned by an organization.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:10 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:59 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm

I like it too, but I'd argue it would likely make things worse.

The top teams would forever stay the top teams because the best players aren't going to go to a shit team to "try to get them into the league above"

also, these teams are one year at a time. How do you track this one year to the next?

This scenario: "U10 Minor Hockey Talks assholes" are AAA this year, they suck balls, so they get moved to AA...

Does U10 move down to AA or does U11?

How do you decide where U10 starts given there is no U9 for them?

You nailed it with this analysis

I think you might be overthinking it. the whole idea would be to get teams to the elite division, those few teams would be basically removed from the rest of us. At AAA you might have to play them a couple of times, but they would have their own Champions League and playoff, look how soccer works over in Europe. Imagine how much better the rest of the system will be when you remove the 30-40 families that have unlimited budgets and put them all on a couple of teams.

Everything would be tied to birth years. Teams go into their first year and sign up for a division, and guess where they fit(think summer hockey). You could schedule half the season, After the first half you could re-align or request to be moved. Then finish out the season. Maybe in the first couple of years you move 3 or 4 teams up and down a division. By u12 to u13 things would sort itself out.

Also, don't forget there will still be oversight and a governing body keeping things in check, they could make slight adjustments as time goes on.

uh huh...and when your three best players leave while you are in the top division. Then what? lol Thats a rough season ahead!

But it would be only 1 rough season, you would get demoted. Now if your 3 best leave what happens? As a coach or an organization, the idea should be to improve your players and teams. Your best players should be able to move on and play with and against better competition.

Good coaches and good organizations would/should recognize that they will lose players and develop 17 players instead of 3. I still haven't heard a good argument to keep kids as property or to be owned by an organization.

Good organizations and good coaches will be currency. The VP of hockey will no longer be able to give his buddy a AAA coaching job he has no idea how to manage. Now little jimmy can leave and go play for a real coach. This will be great for the sport

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:10 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:59 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm

I like it too, but I'd argue it would likely make things worse.

The top teams would forever stay the top teams because the best players aren't going to go to a shit team to "try to get them into the league above"

also, these teams are one year at a time. How do you track this one year to the next?

This scenario: "U10 Minor Hockey Talks assholes" are AAA this year, they suck balls, so they get moved to AA...

Does U10 move down to AA or does U11?

How do you decide where U10 starts given there is no U9 for them?

You nailed it with this analysis

I think you might be overthinking it. the whole idea would be to get teams to the elite division, those few teams would be basically removed from the rest of us. At AAA you might have to play them a couple of times, but they would have their own Champions League and playoff, look how soccer works over in Europe. Imagine how much better the rest of the system will be when you remove the 30-40 families that have unlimited budgets and put them all on a couple of teams.

Everything would be tied to birth years. Teams go into their first year and sign up for a division, and guess where they fit(think summer hockey). You could schedule half the season, After the first half you could re-align or request to be moved. Then finish out the season. Maybe in the first couple of years you move 3 or 4 teams up and down a division. By u12 to u13 things would sort itself out.

Also, don't forget there will still be oversight and a governing body keeping things in check, they could make slight adjustments as time goes on.

uh huh...and when your three best players leave while you are in the top division. Then what? lol Thats a rough season ahead!

But it would be only 1 rough season, you would get demoted. Now if your 3 best leave what happens? As a coach or an organization, the idea should be to improve your players and teams. Your best players should be able to move on and play with and against better competition.

No, it wouldn't be 1 bad season. That would be the end of you EVER getting into AAA again.

because now that you've been relegated, no one wants to be on the loser team that is in AA. All because you over performed one year, and couldn't repeat the next year.

I get what people are getting at. but with open boarders, this isn't required.

the best players will be playing in the top division. Because there are more spots now.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:10 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:59 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm

I like it too, but I'd argue it would likely make things worse.

The top teams would forever stay the top teams because the best players aren't going to go to a shit team to "try to get them into the league above"

also, these teams are one year at a time. How do you track this one year to the next?

This scenario: "U10 Minor Hockey Talks assholes" are AAA this year, they suck balls, so they get moved to AA...

Does U10 move down to AA or does U11?

How do you decide where U10 starts given there is no U9 for them?

You nailed it with this analysis

I think you might be overthinking it. the whole idea would be to get teams to the elite division, those few teams would be basically removed from the rest of us. At AAA you might have to play them a couple of times, but they would have their own Champions League and playoff, look how soccer works over in Europe. Imagine how much better the rest of the system will be when you remove the 30-40 families that have unlimited budgets and put them all on a couple of teams.

Everything would be tied to birth years. Teams go into their first year and sign up for a division, and guess where they fit(think summer hockey). You could schedule half the season, After the first half you could re-align or request to be moved. Then finish out the season. Maybe in the first couple of years you move 3 or 4 teams up and down a division. By u12 to u13 things would sort itself out.

Also, don't forget there will still be oversight and a governing body keeping things in check, they could make slight adjustments as time goes on.

uh huh...and when your three best players leave while you are in the top division. Then what? lol Thats a rough season ahead!

But it would be only 1 rough season, you would get demoted. Now if your 3 best leave what happens? As a coach or an organization, the idea should be to improve your players and teams. Your best players should be able to move on and play with and against better competition.

Good coaches and good organizations would/should recognize that they will lose players and develop 17 players instead of 3. I still haven't heard a good argument to keep kids as property or to be owned by an organization.

Don't disagree.

but I don't think you need relegation for this to be the desired outcome.

your best bet is just doing open boarders. Then all AAA teams have access to ALL players. So the best run programs will be the best teams. It might take a year or two to prove you are a great organization. But you can do it.

if you relegate teams, then they are pushing teams into taking short cuts for one good season because they can't afford to have a single bad season.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:18 pm

Don't disagree.

but I don't think you need relegation for this to be the desired outcome.

your best bet is just doing open boarders. Then all AAA teams have access to ALL players. So the best run programs will be the best teams. It might take a year or two to prove you are a great organization. But you can do it.

if you relegate teams, then they are pushing teams into taking short cuts for one good season because they can't afford to have a single bad season.

Something needs to be done for the teams that lose or dominate their division every year. What do you suggest they do? They will close up because everyone will leave to find something that works for them. Moving teams up and down is an easy solution that would be very clear. There are teams in every age group and at every level that hardly win any games. Does that organization get to keep their AAA status just because? It's not going to solve bad organizations from being bad because they will still get kids because of the AAA name beside it. Why not let a coach/organization doing all the right things to attract all the right players with the ability to move up?

The great thing about sports is there are winners and losers, there is the best and then everyone else. We have the freedom to take our losses wake up the next day, go back to the drawing board, work hard and try again. It's ok to lose or have a bad season, you take the loss as a lesson, work on any issues and do better next time. This applies, to players, coaches and organizations.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:45 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:18 pm

Don't disagree.

but I don't think you need relegation for this to be the desired outcome.

your best bet is just doing open boarders. Then all AAA teams have access to ALL players. So the best run programs will be the best teams. It might take a year or two to prove you are a great organization. But you can do it.

if you relegate teams, then they are pushing teams into taking short cuts for one good season because they can't afford to have a single bad season.

Something needs to be done for the teams that lose or dominate their division every year. What do you suggest they do? They will close up because everyone will leave to find something that works for them. Moving teams up and down is an easy solution that would be very clear. There are teams in every age group and at every level that hardly win any games. Does that organization get to keep their AAA status just because? It's not going to solve bad organizations from being bad because they will still get kids because of the AAA name beside it. Why not let a coach/organization doing all the right things to attract all the right players with the ability to move up?

The great thing about sports is there are winners and losers, there is the best and then everyone else. We have the freedom to take our losses wake up the next day, go back to the drawing board, work hard and try again. It's ok to lose or have a bad season, you take the loss as a lesson, work on any issues and do better next time. This applies, to players, coaches and organizations.

Could you imagine if one of the Big Dogs lost their AAA status at a division? Heads would roll. How long do you think it would take them to get it back? There would be investigations, Alumni would get involved. It would be fixed immediately, they would come back stronger than ever.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:18 am The reason OHF is worried is Klevr threat of expansion into U10 and beyond. Some people wont agree based on the posts earlier..but hey look at facts. OHF is aware of what has happened in Alberta. Look at HSL: https://hockeysuperleague.ca/content/ab ... per-league

This is a defense move. Hope it comes early enough to influence the 25-26 season.

Correct, up until this started happening the OHF, OMHA and others have refused to listen to their customers. They continued to abuse their power and protect bad organizations/coaches all in the name of fairness. It's BS and I am so glad that these private leagues are pushing the change. I just hope they can act quickly enough so that the whole thing doesn't go private and nobody can afford to play. The elite and rich won't have to worry, they will be taken care of, it will be the hard-working families in the house and local leagues that will pay the price.

One big problem with unsanctioned hockey. They can't get ice from the cities.
Unless they start building rinks, they can't run full programs at all ages due to lack of securing ice.

If OMHA teams were to start folding rapidly, thus reducing ice contracts, then the unsanctioned leagues would have a better chance to get more established.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:38 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:18 am The reason OHF is worried is Klevr threat of expansion into U10 and beyond. Some people wont agree based on the posts earlier..but hey look at facts. OHF is aware of what has happened in Alberta. Look at HSL: https://hockeysuperleague.ca/content/ab ... per-league

This is a defense move. Hope it comes early enough to influence the 25-26 season.

Correct, up until this started happening the OHF, OMHA and others have refused to listen to their customers. They continued to abuse their power and protect bad organizations/coaches all in the name of fairness. It's BS and I am so glad that these private leagues are pushing the change. I just hope they can act quickly enough so that the whole thing doesn't go private and nobody can afford to play. The elite and rich won't have to worry, they will be taken care of, it will be the hard-working families in the house and local leagues that will pay the price.

One big problem with unsanctioned hockey. They can't get ice from the cities.
Unless they start building rinks, they can't run full programs at all ages due to lack of securing ice.

If OMHA teams were to start folding rapidly, thus reducing ice contracts, then the unsanctioned leagues would have a better chance to get more established.

There are enough private rinks scattered around that the unsanctioned leagues are having a much easier time now getting ice than back when they first started.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:51 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:45 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:18 pm

Don't disagree.

but I don't think you need relegation for this to be the desired outcome.

your best bet is just doing open boarders. Then all AAA teams have access to ALL players. So the best run programs will be the best teams. It might take a year or two to prove you are a great organization. But you can do it.

if you relegate teams, then they are pushing teams into taking short cuts for one good season because they can't afford to have a single bad season.

Something needs to be done for the teams that lose or dominate their division every year. What do you suggest they do? They will close up because everyone will leave to find something that works for them. Moving teams up and down is an easy solution that would be very clear. There are teams in every age group and at every level that hardly win any games. Does that organization get to keep their AAA status just because? It's not going to solve bad organizations from being bad because they will still get kids because of the AAA name beside it. Why not let a coach/organization doing all the right things to attract all the right players with the ability to move up?

The great thing about sports is there are winners and losers, there is the best and then everyone else. We have the freedom to take our losses wake up the next day, go back to the drawing board, work hard and try again. It's ok to lose or have a bad season, you take the loss as a lesson, work on any issues and do better next time. This applies, to players, coaches and organizations.

Could you imagine if one of the Big Dogs lost their AAA status at a division? Heads would roll. How long do you think it would take them to get it back? There would be investigations, Alumni would get involved. It would be fixed immediately, they would come back stronger than ever.

HC had a dinosaur mentality towards the management of youth sports, but they are well meaning. That being said their apathy and laisser fair attitude towards working with volunteer based local associations, is pathetic, and we are now left with a mess. Sure there are individual examples of excellent associations and/or coaches, but it's not nearly as good as it could be. Closed centers have literally removed ANY AND ALL MOTIVATION for "anyone" involved to be better. Those involved will deny this, but the proof is there for all to see. The perceived advantage of closed centers is to have 'so called" home grown/grass roots hockey, but inevitably, even at the HL of praise for merely being there, regardless of the quality of work they do. Enough.

Open borders, has it's built in problems such as the formation of all star teams. This is a reality I'm willing to accept for the "possibility" of Associations/coaches, being motivated to provide the best product/service that they can! They should be highly motivated to be the best in the EVERY aspect of youth hockey though, and every level as well. What I fear is the AAA crowd, and wanna be AAA crowd, will merely focus on that level. Let's face it, youth sports is driven by volunteers, and for the most part those volunteers are the parents of the participants. These parents are inevitably focused almost 100% on their own kid's interests. The other reality is that these parents, as seen in my debates with the guy trying to sell KLVR over HC, is that they aren't really experts, have no longer term plan, have zero resources to get more informed, and have little desire to get more informed because they think they already know it all. A true "competing" approach to youth hockey, to actually rival HC, would need to do what volunteer parents can't do.

I'll take soccer as an example. Where I'm at top level soccer clubs have a full time paid "technical director." This is for a regular club team. They also have 2 other full time, highly qualified and experienced in both coaching and playing, employees, who direct the program and are active coaches. They provide specific practice plans to coaches, much like the HC model of LTAD for player development, and club coaches regardless of ability or playing experience MUST follow these plans. They are progressive curriculum based plans, that ALL age groups, and levels of play follow.

Hockey, we have dads, and finally at AAA, depending on the area, get a guy getting a few bucks on the side to run things. He has at best his personal plan, that isn't in any way connect to anyone else's plan in his own association. It's Mickey Mouse in comparison.

A quality alternative would combine choice, with quality coaching, long term and informed plans that are cohesive throughout that association at all ages and levels. The coaches would also be quality communicators with BOTH the players AND parents, and provide a product that people WANT to be part of! This isn't happening now, BUT perhaps and open border system will drive people and motivate them to continued progress to provide the best product we can for our youth.