In my poll I put Assocation size for a reason. take some associations that are listed as medium because they are over 200 players yet they are upside down in numbers. More in midgets then in Mites.

I personally feel that if you use then number of player registered with the association to help place them it should be registered in each age division. I know our mite team would have joined the BTHL if not for having to play AA. They had like 12 players show up for tryout and recuited a few more to get a team. Then would be a good B team. Since there are only 48 mites in our program they all play house too. 48 Mites first team selected in a assocation of about 375, more then 6 or 8 Second year players, sure does not mean AA team with division that have and choose from over 100 kids for a travel team this works. For team that choose from 17 kids but play in a assocation that is said to be medium it does not work.

With 48 mites you had 50% more than the number in Findlay. They had less than 30. The number of skaters in associations peaks at the PeeWee age group.

Mites have always been a problem because it's when everyone starts. Everyone feels they're inexperienced but the fact is (with a few exceptions) they're competing against other teams in the same situation.

48 mites tried out 12
52 Squirts----------17
75 Pee Wees---------34
35 Bantam-----------31 no house program
18 Midgets----------all the travel team is it
Highschool 6 teams do not know the number
One girls team
40 cross ice

around 108 tryed out total for travel. Not medium in my mind
Is Findley Small or Medium?

[This message was edited by HockeyFan on March 03, 2004 at 05:13 AM.]

[This message was edited by HockeyFan on March 03, 2004 at 05:14 AM.]

I agree that especially at the mite level it is impossible to know based upon association how things are going to work out. Last season Columbus (Ohio) had one mite travel team at CCYHA. This year each association fielded a mite team so the Columbus area went from 1 to 3. The kids with travel experience got split between two teams. While our team had mostly second year players, only three had played travel hockey before. At tryouts, not enough kids showed up to pick a team in May when tryouts occurred. Additional kids were asked to come out and enough kids were put together to finalize the team in August sometime.

Based upon the size of our organization were were a AA team. Based upon the way it worked however, it wasn't all that bad. There were probably only two real AA teams in the mite division. Cincy and the Gems who interestingly finished 1-2 in the standings and made it to the championship game--surprise, surprise. For the other four teams, I think the teams were fairly well matched. The Racers probably turned out to the class of the "other 4" but there were great games in the lower half of the bracket. Cincy and Dayton lost a couple of time to the "other 4" but it could usually be tied to missing players on that day.

I couldn't answer the poll question, because I have nothing to really base it against. We were maybe shell shocked early on when losing by 8-9 goals against these teams, but I think it probably made us a better team later in the season and at tournaments where we played A to have regular games against Cincy and Dayton.

If we go to a birth year team next year, the thought is to consider playing AA. My question with that is whether the league will try to limit teams playing up and getting regularly smoked. In age groups where there are separate divisions it would certainly impact results if too many of the first year AA teams were in one division.

For the most part the rules seemed to have worked though it did not work for a few teams. These teams where either forced up into a level where they were not competitive or where forced out not being able to play in the league. The biggest fall out was at the Midget level. Check out the GF / GA between top and bottom teams.

I guess if this is acceptable, then you might have your answer. No one set of rules will be able to cover all of the disparity between the different associations within the Buckeye league. If teams are truly formed to play at the best competitive level then you will see the inherent ranking that occurs in soccer.

The best interest of any team is to play at a level where they can be challenged and stretched to perform at their best possible level. Competitive games of scores that are close will do this but if you are getting beat by margins of more then 5 goals. What does this do to the moral of the team? It does no good for either team to be put in a situation like that.

What ever can be done to ensure that each level remains competitive should be the rule. What is in place currently is good but can not be used as an absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Len:
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".

---

Actually, Len, Columbus Stars are NOT forcing "birth year" teams. We're picking the "best players" for the first and second teams, and then try to distribute the 2nd year players on our 3rd/4th teams to comply with BTHL and CSHL rules. I think overall the BTHL rules are going in the right direction. I DO have a problem with the current rules, but it's not one of principle, just implementation. The current numbers for third teams in A are low enough that we would have to turn away older kids because we cannot form teams that would accommodate those numbers. That's just not
right. Fortunately, Cleveland's "Minor" division rules are a bit more liberal, so we
have our third teams play up there.

It is a difficult problem, and I see more issues with the "overlap" teams (Dayton, for instance) where the kids are able to move between organizations from year to year, and they can definitely manipulate the system if they want to. Fortuneately, I don't see anyone doing it yet.

-Scott Sharkey
Columbus Stars Board Member

quote:

---

Originally posted by Len:
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.

---

paragraph 3?????
When associations place their teams in a level, but doesn't look too good to some teams within that division, who makes the decision to eliminate that team?? Is it a ONE person decision or does the board actually "come together and vote?"

I would hope that teams and organizations would want to play a division up, if they've had previous success playing where they were slotted. Talent changes from year to year, and most organizations have birth years that are strong, and birth years that are weak. Look at Bloomington, for example. This is no knock on them...but it's obvious those teams were talented enough to at least play in the "A" division this season. All three (3) teams played "B" and led their divisions. My guess is they'll consider playing up a notch next year. I haven't looked, but chances are they supplemented their schedule with tougher non-conference competition, which is the right thing to do.