1. usa hockey suggests roughly 15% of players in a region should be aaa
2. california youth hockey participation has recently increased approx 33%; shouldn't aaa numbers correspondingly increase, not decrease?
3. more teams means more high-level development opportunities for more kids
4. more teams means less need to travel to find competitive games = lower cost
5. more teams means fewer kids need to leave home to get #3&4 above
6. if a team clearly does not belong in aaa, caha already has power to drop them (see aa). why caha decided to impose far more restrictive rules, rather than just enforce the rule they already had to drop the weak wildcats squads a few years ago, i'll never know
7. there is sufficient talent to populate more aaa teams and maintain quality. enough aaa talent has have left the state to field *at least* one 18aaa, two more squads at 16aaa, 15aaa and almost enough for one at 14aaa, without even having having to dip into the top aa talent. but let's look at that top aa talent for a second: saints 05aa went 10-4-1 against aaa competition this year, and could move up. there also obviously is enough talent for another 06aaa in socal, as caha blessed ice dogs 06 for next season, and maybe two. i keep reading about the great depth of talent in the 06 birth year, including at aa; if those kids don't get chance to move up, won't many just move out?
cheers
ps i don't understand the hating on the sharks. all four of their 2002-2005 teams are respectable nationally, and their 05 would be better if two of their kids hadn't jumped to the jk. look at the overall records.