USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
- Thread starter NoGo
- Start date
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Did Mass really figure out a way to send a 19U Tier I team to the Tier II in Lansing to represent the district? Is this just a rumor?
Did Mass really figure out a way to send a 19U Tier I team to the Tier II in Lansing to represent the district? Is this just a rumor?
JosephPSchmoe
I'll say it if you won't
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
What are girls's?
What are girls's?
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
What Golum chased before he lost his ring.
What Golum chased before he lost his ring.
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
There's at least one other district that is sending a team that for years has competed at the Tier 1 level (and gone to National's a time or 2). So it's not just 1 team probably multiple ones. Those teams should dominate the play.
There's at least one other district that is sending a team that for years has competed at the Tier 1 level (and gone to National's a time or 2). So it's not just 1 team probably multiple ones. Those teams should dominate the play.
Last edited:
girlshockeyfan
Registered User
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Tier 1
U12 - East Coast Wizards, Assabet Valley
U14 - Assabet Valley, East Coast Wizards
U16 - Assabet Valley
U19 - Assabet Valley
Tier 2
U12 - Bay State Breakers
U14 - Bay State Breakers
U16 - Massachusetts Spitfires
U19 - Massachusetts Spitfires
There was only one National Bound state tournament held in Massachusetts. The winners (and finalists in the case of U12 and U14) qualified for Tier 1 and the finalists (3rd place in the case of U12 and U14) qualified for Tier 2. The caveat was that if a program qualified a team in one age group at Tier 1 then it could not send a team in another age group to Tier 2.
I agree that this is a bit of a sandbag job. All 4 teams going to Tier 2 Nationals played a "Tier 1" schedule (top division of the NEGHL and Polar Bear tournaments). Bay State even won the top tier of the Polar Bear tournament which included more than half of the field that will be in Green Bay (Assabet, Wizards, Mid-Fairfield, CT Northern Lights, Anaheim Lady Ducks, Buffalo Bisons, Montgomery Blue Devils)!!
Anything less than a sweep of the Tier 2 nationals will have to be considered a disappointment...
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that "Tier 2" is so loosely defined and unclear...Massachusetts has the opposite problem at Nationals on the boys side, routinely getting pounded by 7-10 goals (no exaggeration, especially at U12 and U14) by sending pure town teams.
I'm not sure what the answer is for Massachusetts girls, but two options would be:
1. Send town teams
2. Send the best "2" team from the club programs
The first scenario would result in the blowout losses the boys experience. The second scenario would likely be no different than what we will likely see in Lansing...
Tier 1
U12 - East Coast Wizards, Assabet Valley
U14 - Assabet Valley, East Coast Wizards
U16 - Assabet Valley
U19 - Assabet Valley
Tier 2
U12 - Bay State Breakers
U14 - Bay State Breakers
U16 - Massachusetts Spitfires
U19 - Massachusetts Spitfires
There was only one National Bound state tournament held in Massachusetts. The winners (and finalists in the case of U12 and U14) qualified for Tier 1 and the finalists (3rd place in the case of U12 and U14) qualified for Tier 2. The caveat was that if a program qualified a team in one age group at Tier 1 then it could not send a team in another age group to Tier 2.
I agree that this is a bit of a sandbag job. All 4 teams going to Tier 2 Nationals played a "Tier 1" schedule (top division of the NEGHL and Polar Bear tournaments). Bay State even won the top tier of the Polar Bear tournament which included more than half of the field that will be in Green Bay (Assabet, Wizards, Mid-Fairfield, CT Northern Lights, Anaheim Lady Ducks, Buffalo Bisons, Montgomery Blue Devils)!!
Anything less than a sweep of the Tier 2 nationals will have to be considered a disappointment...
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that "Tier 2" is so loosely defined and unclear...Massachusetts has the opposite problem at Nationals on the boys side, routinely getting pounded by 7-10 goals (no exaggeration, especially at U12 and U14) by sending pure town teams.
I'm not sure what the answer is for Massachusetts girls, but two options would be:
1. Send town teams
2. Send the best "2" team from the club programs
The first scenario would result in the blowout losses the boys experience. The second scenario would likely be no different than what we will likely see in Lansing...
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Who are you talking about? The Ducks? Alliance Bulldogs?
Just because teams may have gone to the Tier I in the past does not mean that they should not be in Tier II now. When there is no other option then those teams have gone Tier I.
Take the 19U Alliance Bulldogs from Texas for example. This team was the Ice Jets 2004-2006, Texas Attack 2006-2008, Dallas Stars 2008-2009. This has been the same head coach, same group of players and same association with different names. Here is the history…
2005 12U First and only trip to Tier I
Ice Jets defeated Co Selects AA team at Districts in AZ’ defeated the Texas Blaze in Championship game. Went on to go 1-2-1, made the final 8, and were beat by Assebet 4-1 in the first game on Saturday morning. By the way…Co Selects were the host and sent their AAA straight to districts…
2006 14U minor…Loss to AZ Selects and Co Selects AAA in pool play in Denver. Beat the Co Selects AA and Texas Blaze in pool play. All players were 13 or younger.
2007 14U Loss to Co Selects AAA Championship game 3-1 down in Houston. Darn near tied it up with less than a minute but gave up a empty netter with <30 secs, After this game they loss a top defender to NAHA and 2 players to SSM
2008 16U minor Loss to Co Selects AAA team in AZ 8-0 in pool play and 8-1 in the Championship game. #2 goal point scorer for 2 consecutive years moved to Baltimore after this season.
2009 Loss to Co Selects AAA in Denver in a best of 3 series, with very close games. The best Co Selects ’92s (Fry, Turgeon, Gross etc) were all on the 19U AAA, so they had a better chance.
2010 19U team with 2 -’91, 6 - ’92, 5 – ’93, 4- ’94 & 1 – ’95. 55% of the team is 16 or under…
There were 24 girls who tried out for this team in May 2009. The team played a Tier I schedule when they went to Nike Bauer & Polar Bear. In games against top Tier 1 teams the scores were:
Loss to New Jersey Rockets 8-2
Loss to CT PB 6-1
Loss to CT PB 3-0
Loss to Chicago Mission 8-0
On a friendship weekend to Chicago where they played the Mission, they also played against Chicago Young American (0-0 tie & 4-2 win) and Naperville Highs School (Bulldogs won - Naperville won the Girl's Illinois State High School Championship this past weekend...)
This team has NEVER beaten the top team out of Colorado. Most likely they never will be able to. Colorado routinely has 60+ girls try out for their top teams. They have AAA, AA, & A teams. Yes Alliance did win the district tournament and played strong there. The games were a little closer then the final scores show. At the end of the second period in 3 pool play games the score was difference was 1. The biggest lead after 2 periods was in the championship game were the score was Alliance 3 Co Sel 0, with the final being Alliance 4 Co Sel 2. The Alliance Bulldogs 19U is a solid Tier II team and average to less than average Tier I team.
In looking at the other districts they seemed to figure it out. If you are talking about the Ducks I can see why they went Tier II at 19U. They had a 12U team win a Tier I championship a few years back..the 19U lost a top ’92 forward to prep school. The association made a good call here. They will be a solid team in Tier II, but based on their record this tear they are not sandbagging. They did send their 16UAAA, 14UAAA & 12UAAA to Tier I.
Who are you talking about? The Ducks? Alliance Bulldogs?
Just because teams may have gone to the Tier I in the past does not mean that they should not be in Tier II now. When there is no other option then those teams have gone Tier I.
Take the 19U Alliance Bulldogs from Texas for example. This team was the Ice Jets 2004-2006, Texas Attack 2006-2008, Dallas Stars 2008-2009. This has been the same head coach, same group of players and same association with different names. Here is the history…
2005 12U First and only trip to Tier I
Ice Jets defeated Co Selects AA team at Districts in AZ’ defeated the Texas Blaze in Championship game. Went on to go 1-2-1, made the final 8, and were beat by Assebet 4-1 in the first game on Saturday morning. By the way…Co Selects were the host and sent their AAA straight to districts…
2006 14U minor…Loss to AZ Selects and Co Selects AAA in pool play in Denver. Beat the Co Selects AA and Texas Blaze in pool play. All players were 13 or younger.
2007 14U Loss to Co Selects AAA Championship game 3-1 down in Houston. Darn near tied it up with less than a minute but gave up a empty netter with <30 secs, After this game they loss a top defender to NAHA and 2 players to SSM
2008 16U minor Loss to Co Selects AAA team in AZ 8-0 in pool play and 8-1 in the Championship game. #2 goal point scorer for 2 consecutive years moved to Baltimore after this season.
2009 Loss to Co Selects AAA in Denver in a best of 3 series, with very close games. The best Co Selects ’92s (Fry, Turgeon, Gross etc) were all on the 19U AAA, so they had a better chance.
2010 19U team with 2 -’91, 6 - ’92, 5 – ’93, 4- ’94 & 1 – ’95. 55% of the team is 16 or under…
There were 24 girls who tried out for this team in May 2009. The team played a Tier I schedule when they went to Nike Bauer & Polar Bear. In games against top Tier 1 teams the scores were:
Loss to New Jersey Rockets 8-2
Loss to CT PB 6-1
Loss to CT PB 3-0
Loss to Chicago Mission 8-0
On a friendship weekend to Chicago where they played the Mission, they also played against Chicago Young American (0-0 tie & 4-2 win) and Naperville Highs School (Bulldogs won - Naperville won the Girl's Illinois State High School Championship this past weekend...)
This team has NEVER beaten the top team out of Colorado. Most likely they never will be able to. Colorado routinely has 60+ girls try out for their top teams. They have AAA, AA, & A teams. Yes Alliance did win the district tournament and played strong there. The games were a little closer then the final scores show. At the end of the second period in 3 pool play games the score was difference was 1. The biggest lead after 2 periods was in the championship game were the score was Alliance 3 Co Sel 0, with the final being Alliance 4 Co Sel 2. The Alliance Bulldogs 19U is a solid Tier II team and average to less than average Tier I team.
In looking at the other districts they seemed to figure it out. If you are talking about the Ducks I can see why they went Tier II at 19U. They had a 12U team win a Tier I championship a few years back..the 19U lost a top ’92 forward to prep school. The association made a good call here. They will be a solid team in Tier II, but based on their record this tear they are not sandbagging. They did send their 16UAAA, 14UAAA & 12UAAA to Tier I.
Last edited:
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
These two comments seem to contradict each other…
The second one is the one that makes it look like the folks that run girl’s hockey in Mass are focused on collecting up championships…I am trying to figure out if you are trying to be funny, or sarcastic or if this is just a display of smug hubris…
You said:
So are you indicating that the folks in Mass cannot figure that out? So if Assebet Valley has a 19U Red team and 19U White team then would the better team be the Tier 1 team? The next team the Tier II team? The Spitfires have a top 19U team and #2 19U team correct? That is what their web site says. In following score this year I see where the 19U Spitfires played well against the top team from Assebet Valley, and routinely beat the #2 team by 3 or more goals. Perhaps that is part of the growing pains with the Tier II program.
The answer to your question will be # 2…
Really? Well we will have to wait and see what the powers that be in Mass determine for next year.
What Mass appears to have done for this year is to twist the sprit and intent of the new USA Hockey Tier II Girl’s Championship in an effort to claim a perceived birth right of Mass girl’s players…
Sad part is that the girls that play on Spitfires will get the blame for winning. That is wrong. It is not their fault that district officials display smug hubris…
May be wrong, but here is my prediction…
Final Four
Alliance Bulldogs
Lady Ducks
Mass Spitfires
Saint Claire Shores
Any of those three teams has a chance to disappoint you. That is why they play the games, correct?
These two comments seem to contradict each other…
The second one is the one that makes it look like the folks that run girl’s hockey in Mass are focused on collecting up championships…I am trying to figure out if you are trying to be funny, or sarcastic or if this is just a display of smug hubris…
You said:
So are you indicating that the folks in Mass cannot figure that out? So if Assebet Valley has a 19U Red team and 19U White team then would the better team be the Tier 1 team? The next team the Tier II team? The Spitfires have a top 19U team and #2 19U team correct? That is what their web site says. In following score this year I see where the 19U Spitfires played well against the top team from Assebet Valley, and routinely beat the #2 team by 3 or more goals. Perhaps that is part of the growing pains with the Tier II program.
The answer to your question will be # 2…
Really? Well we will have to wait and see what the powers that be in Mass determine for next year.
What Mass appears to have done for this year is to twist the sprit and intent of the new USA Hockey Tier II Girl’s Championship in an effort to claim a perceived birth right of Mass girl’s players…
Sad part is that the girls that play on Spitfires will get the blame for winning. That is wrong. It is not their fault that district officials display smug hubris…
May be wrong, but here is my prediction…
Final Four
Alliance Bulldogs
Lady Ducks
Mass Spitfires
Saint Claire Shores
Any of those three teams has a chance to disappoint you. That is why they play the games, correct?
Last edited:
96IllinoisDad
New member
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
It is not without precedent. Districts make their own rules on who goes. Last year, I know at least one boys district that did this (New England?).
Last year, Mid-Fairfield Blues Tier I U16 (boys) team unexpectedly lost the District Championship game to a team they pounded all year. As the #2 team, they went to the Boys U16 Tier II Championships and promptly pounded everyone there winning the quarter, semi and final games 9-1, 6-2 and 6-1.
It is not without precedent. Districts make their own rules on who goes. Last year, I know at least one boys district that did this (New England?).
Last year, Mid-Fairfield Blues Tier I U16 (boys) team unexpectedly lost the District Championship game to a team they pounded all year. As the #2 team, they went to the Boys U16 Tier II Championships and promptly pounded everyone there winning the quarter, semi and final games 9-1, 6-2 and 6-1.
goaliedad35
Registered User
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
My understanding in Mass is that teams registered as National bound and no distinction was made as to Tier level. Losing finalist teams were then considered eligible for Tier 2 Nationals as long as no other team from that program was going to Nationals at the Tier 1 level.
My understanding in Mass is that teams registered as National bound and no distinction was made as to Tier level. Losing finalist teams were then considered eligible for Tier 2 Nationals as long as no other team from that program was going to Nationals at the Tier 1 level.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Hmmm...I find this comical in several ways.
Up here in Canada each team must declare its caliber (AA, A etc) at the start of the season. There is even a classification process where a team that declares itself as A and is found too strong early in the season, gets bumped up to AA. Eligibility for things like playoffs and Provincials are based on letters.
Seems to me with USA hockey anything goes. In one district the best AA team is not even allowed to competed for a berth while in the next door district losers of finals get conveniently classified to be send to Tier 2. It's almost like having your cake and eat it too.
Sounds to me USA hockey central should establish some clear and consistent guidelines.
Hmmm...I find this comical in several ways.
Up here in Canada each team must declare its caliber (AA, A etc) at the start of the season. There is even a classification process where a team that declares itself as A and is found too strong early in the season, gets bumped up to AA. Eligibility for things like playoffs and Provincials are based on letters.
Seems to me with USA hockey anything goes. In one district the best AA team is not even allowed to competed for a berth while in the next door district losers of finals get conveniently classified to be send to Tier 2. It's almost like having your cake and eat it too.
Sounds to me USA hockey central should establish some clear and consistent guidelines.
notfromaroundhere
A visitor in any town!
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Would be nice, wouldn't it.
USA Hockey, serving a country with a "varying" hockey culture has left the different districts much freedom in developing hockey in their area. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of consistency of rules for national competition. This not only rears its ugly head here, but in other discussions which I won't bring up in this thread.
Would be nice, wouldn't it.
USA Hockey, serving a country with a "varying" hockey culture has left the different districts much freedom in developing hockey in their area. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of consistency of rules for national competition. This not only rears its ugly head here, but in other discussions which I won't bring up in this thread.
goaliedad35
Registered User
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
As this was the first season that offered Tier 2 Nationals for the girls I was under the assumption that the protocols would be better established for next season. The boys situation brought up by 96ID is surprising and I wonder if the rules will indeed be tightened for next season.
As this was the first season that offered Tier 2 Nationals for the girls I was under the assumption that the protocols would be better established for next season. The boys situation brought up by 96ID is surprising and I wonder if the rules will indeed be tightened for next season.
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
The way it works here is that using the USA Hockey Cybersport software, girls' teams are rostered as "girls/women." In the "youth" (ie. boys) side, teams must roster as house/rec, tier 2 or tier 1. But, this was the 1st year that girls had tier 1 or tier 2 so most teams still rostered as "girls/women." The districts, as always, are given the flexibility to determine their representative at the National tournament. Some districts have a best of 3 series, some have a 1-game "championship," some have an actual "tournament" when there are multiple teams. USA Hockey doesn't interfere with "how" the districts pick their district representative.
Having said that, yes, USA Hockey should establish some clear and consistent guidelines for what constitutes tier 1 or tier 2! On the one hand we criticize Mass for sending their u16 and u19 Tier 1 "runner up" to the tier 2 nationals (because they are going to crush the other legitimate tier 2 teams in the tournament), but in reality do those teams even want to go? They are spending THOUSANDS of dollars per family to fly to Michigan, stay 5 nights in a hotel, and all the other expenses that go with it. But, they cannont decline or there are severe punishments for their entire organization. What good do the teams/players get out of it? There are SEVERAL national camp attendees and D-1 prospects on those teams. The goalie from the Spitfires u-19 team even attended the USA Hockey invite-only goalie camp last summer and she is playing D-1 next year for one of the USA Hockey National Team Coaches (who will I am sure be in Green Bay scouting the tier 1 teams). These teams are certainly not at fault and are put in a bad situation.
USA Hockey should have some control over what constitutes a "tier 2" team and give guidelines to the districts. While I will be in Green Bay, I will be checking the website because I will be shocked if I don't see double-digit wins in all of these Mass games, u12 on up to u19.
The way it works here is that using the USA Hockey Cybersport software, girls' teams are rostered as "girls/women." In the "youth" (ie. boys) side, teams must roster as house/rec, tier 2 or tier 1. But, this was the 1st year that girls had tier 1 or tier 2 so most teams still rostered as "girls/women." The districts, as always, are given the flexibility to determine their representative at the National tournament. Some districts have a best of 3 series, some have a 1-game "championship," some have an actual "tournament" when there are multiple teams. USA Hockey doesn't interfere with "how" the districts pick their district representative.
Having said that, yes, USA Hockey should establish some clear and consistent guidelines for what constitutes tier 1 or tier 2! On the one hand we criticize Mass for sending their u16 and u19 Tier 1 "runner up" to the tier 2 nationals (because they are going to crush the other legitimate tier 2 teams in the tournament), but in reality do those teams even want to go? They are spending THOUSANDS of dollars per family to fly to Michigan, stay 5 nights in a hotel, and all the other expenses that go with it. But, they cannont decline or there are severe punishments for their entire organization. What good do the teams/players get out of it? There are SEVERAL national camp attendees and D-1 prospects on those teams. The goalie from the Spitfires u-19 team even attended the USA Hockey invite-only goalie camp last summer and she is playing D-1 next year for one of the USA Hockey National Team Coaches (who will I am sure be in Green Bay scouting the tier 1 teams). These teams are certainly not at fault and are put in a bad situation.
USA Hockey should have some control over what constitutes a "tier 2" team and give guidelines to the districts. While I will be in Green Bay, I will be checking the website because I will be shocked if I don't see double-digit wins in all of these Mass games, u12 on up to u19.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: Tier I & Tier II MA Girls's to Nationals?
Ok, here is the deal.
1) USA Hockey did not have clear rules, just a guideline. As such Mass Hockey constructed what they felt was the best way to send an appropriate team to Tier 2 Nationals.
2) There was minimal interest at the 16 and 19 levels in participating in the Tier 2 tourney. A number of programs have multiple teams at each level (U14 Major 1, Major 2, Minor 1 etc. Basically A, B, C teams, plus some have U13 teams that are as strong or stronger than the Major 1 team) and the intent of the rule put in place (see #3) was to prevent a U17, 15 or 13 team from going Tier 2 and cleaning house.
3) The "Runner Up" rule was put in place under the assumption that the three strongest programs would qualify a team for Tier 1 at one of the four levels (12s, 14s, 16s, & 19s) thus invoking the "no Tier 2 if any team in the program is qualified for Tier 1" provision. As such it was highly probable that the fourth place team would end up, by default, as the "runner up" and would be appropriate for Tier 2.
At the 19 level, the second place team (Spitfires) qualified as the runner up because there were no other teams in the program that qualified at Tier 1.
4) This season there was no true Tier 2 National Bound level in Mass Hockey, (See #2) and those teams that did apply for Tier 2 played up at the Tier 1 level, as they have every season. Next season there will be a requirement to declare and then play at the Tier 2 level for the course of the season.
Ok, here is the deal.
1) USA Hockey did not have clear rules, just a guideline. As such Mass Hockey constructed what they felt was the best way to send an appropriate team to Tier 2 Nationals.
2) There was minimal interest at the 16 and 19 levels in participating in the Tier 2 tourney. A number of programs have multiple teams at each level (U14 Major 1, Major 2, Minor 1 etc. Basically A, B, C teams, plus some have U13 teams that are as strong or stronger than the Major 1 team) and the intent of the rule put in place (see #3) was to prevent a U17, 15 or 13 team from going Tier 2 and cleaning house.
3) The "Runner Up" rule was put in place under the assumption that the three strongest programs would qualify a team for Tier 1 at one of the four levels (12s, 14s, 16s, & 19s) thus invoking the "no Tier 2 if any team in the program is qualified for Tier 1" provision. As such it was highly probable that the fourth place team would end up, by default, as the "runner up" and would be appropriate for Tier 2.
At the 19 level, the second place team (Spitfires) qualified as the runner up because there were no other teams in the program that qualified at Tier 1.
4) This season there was no true Tier 2 National Bound level in Mass Hockey, (See #2) and those teams that did apply for Tier 2 played up at the Tier 1 level, as they have every season. Next season there will be a requirement to declare and then play at the Tier 2 level for the course of the season.