With all due respect, this sounds like a way to beat the system. The AA division should have nothing to do with the A division.
Bottom line, Cincy had two teams in the A division.
According to the rules, with a Large organization, the first team should have had only 4 second year players and the second should have had only 8 second year players.
If this is a loophole, it needs fixed/closed. I don't mean to pick on Cincy, their team happened to be mentioned earlier and I used them as an example.
[This message was edited by Silver_Surfer on March 02, 2004 at 11:15 AM.]
Posts: 25 | Location: here | Registered: February 09, 2004
For the most part, it all seems fairly equitable. However, large markets, specifically Cincy in this argument, have an opportunity to "distribute" their players in such a way as to meet so-called criteria, while forming all good teams. (i.e., a player at tryouts may be qualified to make the #1AA team, but is put on an A team to strengthen that squad) This may or may not occur, and it all is within the criteria, but that is a fairly common perception out there...that tryout seasons are a little bit manipulated to balance the organizations strengths among all teams.
Question: there are references in BTHL to large markets having "overlapping" associations, and being judged as one area. Is Butler and Cincy counted together? Dayton and Centerville? TOYHA and SMAHL?
In reply to Len, The problem I see with Cincy's selection order, and Columbus next year, is that their 2nd team purposly excludes 2nd year players even though they may be better than the those selected for their 2nd team. My understanding is that they try to balance their 3rd and 4th teams, and from what I have seen for the most part they do.
Posts: 5 | Location: SWOHSHL | Registered: February 19, 2004
First let me say the system is not perfect and we're always looking for ways to improve it. There's no doubt that some things will be tweaked over the next few years.
We recognize that Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Columbus are all attempting to make their top teams "single year" teams. They want to put a group of players together and keep them together year after year. Smaller organizations don't have that luxury, that's why we have the sliding scale with the number of 2nd year players allowed.
It's true that by limiting their 2nd teams to strictly 1st year players that they are leaving stronger players on the table for lower teams to pick up. But they are also voluntarily placing those teams in the "AA" bracket (or in the case of Indy they're playing "AAA"). If they were just trying to "beat the system" those teams would be playing "A".
It's true that by limiting their 2nd teams to strictly 1st year players that they are leaving stronger players on the table for lower teams to pick up. But they are also voluntarily placing those teams in the "AA" bracket (or in the case of Indy they're playing "AAA"). If they were just trying to "beat the system" those teams would be playing "A".
Len, CCYHA is now considering birth year teams and so this topic is of great interest. When you say "they are also voluntarily placing those teams in the 'AA' bracket" which "those teams" do you mean? The second team selected of 1st year players exclusively or the third team selected which has the combination of 1st and 2nd year players?
CBJHockeyNut Forum Moderator cbjhockeynut@youthhockeyforum.com
Thanks Len. Having experience w both Little Caesers and BTHL, I would have to say that your organization is very well run, and moving in the right direction.
As the numbers increase (optimistically presuming they will), doesn't this all give some credence to bracketing teams ala the LC method, that is, single-year teams. Of course, teams always have the opportunity to play up, but no players could play down. Of course, given the numbers of some smaller associations, that would pose an obvious quandry. Perhaps, imposing single year teams for the large associations?
To CBJHockeyNut - I'm referring to the 2nd teams comprised entirely of "1st year" players. Under our rules they would be permitted to play "A".
To oldnumber9 - The single-year teams work fine in Michigan where you have so many teams. Each of those teams draw from a very large pool of players and it's easy to do that. The BTHL is in a much different environment; Athens, Lexington, Huntington, Bloomington, etc are all somewhat isolated and would be forced to place ALL their teams in our "AA" division. They don't want that any more than the quality "AA" teams already there. In Michigan it's no big deal to drive an hour or so for a blow out. Some of our trips are 3-4 hours, one way!
It's in everyone's best interest (small associations, large associations and league as a whole) to try to place teams where they belong. The problem is how do we do that and I feel we're on the right track.
