|
|
|
 |
Go  | New  | Find  | Notify  | | Reply  | | Admin  | New PM!  |
Beginner
| 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? | | | |
"Forum Moderator" Squirt

| quote: Originally posted by Len:
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
| | | | Posts: 361 | Location: Columbus, Ohio | Registered: February 02, 2004 |  
IP
|
|
Beginner
| 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? | | | |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|
 
|