AAA teams for next season

[BladesofSteel66]

Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal!    Rumor is they convinced CAHA to give them the AAA bid by saying some of the best 06 AAA players in the state (currently at the Kings 05 AAA, Kings 06 AAA & Ducks 06 AAA) were committed to playing for them next year - even though the kids they named would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever play for them. Those players and parents haven't even had a conversation with the Ice Dogs about it. If the parents of these kids knew they were mentioned in their appeal/application their jaws would drop. God, I really hope this rumor is false. ]If it is true though and Ice Dogs knowingly lied to get their AAA status, they should not only lose their AAA bid, but should be banned from the playoffs. If the Ice Dogs did represent the above, a simple phone call to the parents they mentioned should clear this up. Hey, parent of ___________ , did you ever tell the Ice Dogs that you were planning on playing there next season? Did you have any conversations with the club that would make them believe that?

Hilarious if true.
All you hear on this board is that there should be more AAA teams (despite the ratio of AAA to AA teams in CA being higher than the country average). But two of the recent cases I see are GSE North where they presented a roster to CAHA with three or four 05's on their proposed 04 team, and then later withdrew it, and if the above is true, the Ice Dogs, using other teams non-committed players. It also sounds like one of the new 06 AAA teams basically crumbled mid season, right?
If we need more AAA teams, where are all these kids that are obviously AAA players both in talent and willingness to commit? They certainly aren't available up north. Or is it wishful thinking?

Where are they?  Ratio of player issues?


Well, help us understand, in these other states, how far/what are the travel commitments on a DAILY basis for those AAA teams and their players?  20 miles to the rink? 50 miles to the rink?


Well, if you have a kid who just might have what it takes, but live, I don't know, say, in San Diego, or Inland (not on the friggin coast), where is your closest opportunity?  65+ miles one way to Ana.... maybe you don't make it on Ducks... 105+ miles one way to LA....


In other words, I don't need to hear the overstated complaints of "not enough talent" and "roster moves" and "try-outs.make the team.get noticed.it's.automatic" blah Blah BLAH


Cost and school absences is one negative aspect, but FK me if more and more parents bend over for CAHA and continue to consider/commit to daily/regular practice travel that turns into a 2-3 hour commute.  That's absurd.  No other state and AAA program(s) force such a strain on its players unless it is their choice as a family (b/c they have other OPTIONS available).  Here, in CA, there is NO choice.  You take it or leave it.  That is garbage.  There is zero willingness of this state to grow player development numbers - they only want to make the big clubs look good. 
OMG... SHOCKING CONCEPT... player development?!?!? 
Most of you all sound as if AAA players are born that way and are plucked off of the apple tree and handed to god aka Kings/Ducks and that apple orchard is planted locally.  CAHA knows the talent is all over the state, but wants to continue to force the hand of those parents who are blindly willing to do everything they are told because they believe "It is the only way to play at the highest level."  Your little angel developed somewhere, then left for god's teams.  Do you think there might be a few more like your kid out there that might excel and even benefit from such an opportunity?  GASP!  UNHEARD OF!  That's right, AAA players are one-of-a-kind and no one else could EVER develop into that level of competition, ever.  Well, not in California. 

[notTHATdad]

Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal!    Rumor is they convinced CAHA to give them the AAA bid by saying some of the best 06 AAA players in the state (currently at the Kings 05 AAA, Kings 06 AAA & Ducks 06 AAA) were committed to playing for them next year - even though the kids they named would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever play for them. Those players and parents haven't even had a conversation with the Ice Dogs about it. If the parents of these kids knew they were mentioned in their appeal/application their jaws would drop. God, I really hope this rumor is false. ]If it is true though and Ice Dogs knowingly lied to get their AAA status, they should not only lose their AAA bid, but should be banned from the playoffs. If the Ice Dogs did represent the above, a simple phone call to the parents they mentioned should clear this up. Hey, parent of ___________ , did you ever tell the Ice Dogs that you were planning on playing there next season? Did you have any conversations with the club that would make them believe that?

Hilarious if true.
All you hear on this board is that there should be more AAA teams (despite the ratio of AAA to AA teams in CA being higher than the country average). But two of the recent cases I see are GSE North where they presented a roster to CAHA with three or four 05's on their proposed 04 team, and then later withdrew it, and if the above is true, the Ice Dogs, using other teams non-committed players. It also sounds like one of the new 06 AAA teams basically crumbled mid season, right?
If we need more AAA teams, where are all these kids that are obviously AAA players both in talent and willingness to commit? They certainly aren't available up north. Or is it wishful thinking?

Where are they?  Ratio of player issues?


Well, help us understand, in these other states, how far/what are the travel commitments on a DAILY basis for those AAA teams and their players?  20 miles to the rink? 50 miles to the rink?


Well, if you have a kid who just might have what it takes, but live, I don't know, say, in San Diego, or Inland (not on the friggin coast), where is your closest opportunity?  65+ miles one way to Ana.... maybe you don't make it on Ducks... 105+ miles one way to LA....


In other words, I don't need to hear the overstated complaints of "not enough talent" and "roster moves" and "try-outs.make the team.get noticed.it's.automatic" blah Blah BLAH


Cost and school absences is one negative aspect, but FK me if more and more parents bend over for CAHA and continue to consider/commit to daily/regular practice travel that turns into a 2-3 hour commute.  That's absurd.  No other state and AAA program(s) force such a strain on its players unless it is their choice as a family (b/c they have other OPTIONS available).  Here, in CA, there is NO choice.  You take it or leave it.  That is garbage.  There is zero willingness of this state to grow player development numbers - they only want to make the big clubs look good. 
OMG... SHOCKING CONCEPT... player development?!?!? 
Most of you all sound as if AAA players are born that way and are plucked off of the apple tree and handed to god aka Kings/Ducks and that apple orchard is planted locally.  CAHA knows the talent is all over the state, but wants to continue to force the hand of those parents who are blindly willing to do everything they are told because they believe "It is the only way to play at the highest level."  Your little angel developed somewhere, then left for god's teams.  Do you think there might be a few more like your kid out there that might excel and even benefit from such an opportunity?  GASP!  UNHEARD OF!  That's right, AAA players are one-of-a-kind and no one else could EVER develop into that level of competition, ever.  Well, not in California.

Nationwide the average is 1 AAA team for every 12 AA teams. Just look at MHR - 14's is a good example, with 104 AAA's and 1200+ AA's. If anything that understates the average, because it's REALLY unlikely any AAA teams are 'missed', and it includes teams that aren't traditional 'AAA' teams like Shattucks.


We have typically 3 AAA teams for 18 AA's. Next year it sounds like 4 for most levels.


As for distance? We aren't that unique, and when you travel the country to AAA tournaments and talk to parents you see that. Nashville area, Atlanta, Texas, Florida, Colorado, etc. It sucks everywhere but in the north east or Minnesota area. In some areas with significant hockey and even snow (I'm looking at you Seattle...) there is NO AAA. Hockey is niche in most of the country. I've spoken to many parents in other part of the country who's kids have to practice with local AA teams during the week and only join the AAA's on the weekends because of 2 hour drives.


You don't become a AAA player by being an under-qualified AA player on a AAA team, or even worse, a bad AAA team. You get recognized as being at the AAA level after working your ass off a lower levels, getting lucky with your genetics, doing extra practices on your own time, and proving it at tryouts.


(It's also amusing to me to hear people complain about the Sharks having AAA teams at every level despite "not being competitive", and then also complain that there are not enough AAA's in SoCal because of distance. LOL. )

[socalhockeydad]

(It's also amusing to me to hear people complain about the Sharks having AAA teams at every level despite "not being competitive", and then also complain that there are not enough AAA's in SoCal because of distance. LOL. )

Talk about selective reading...I would say most people want the Sharks to have a AAA program, the issue is more with them getting it every year while having a shit show of a tier program while other, more competitive teams / clubs not affiliate with an NHL team have to sell their soul to even get a bid opportunity.

[BladesofSteel66]

AAA teams nationally (MHR) may have more, but...


11U (84) 12U (91)
13U (97) 14U (105)
15U (122) 16U (150)


I guess my question is simply this: how does the number of available AAA teams SIGNIFICANTLY increase as players get older?  How could SO MANY amazing AAA level players simply come out of nowhere?  Were they hiding in AA?  Where were all these players at PW age?
USA Hockey tells us that the player development curve is MOST important/beneficial from ages 10-12 and after that, it is extremely difficult to improve at an accelerated rate (the challenge is greater to improve the older you get), YET three years after this window closes, the number of available AAA teams almost DOUBLES?!?? 


Am I missing something here?  Nope.  Numbers don't lie.


Should these numbers be flipped???  Should they be more balanced???  We should be looking to develop MORE players at younger ages when the window is open for greatest levels of improvement.  Player development is NURTURE, not NATURE.  Yes, some players have natural athletic talent, but will never reach their ceiling potential without the opportunity to compete in the proper environment (at the highest levels aka AAA). 

[notTHATdad]

(It's also amusing to me to hear people complain about the Sharks having AAA teams at every level despite "not being competitive", and then also complain that there are not enough AAA's in SoCal because of distance. LOL. )

Talk about selective reading...I would say most people want the Sharks to have a AAA program, the issue is more with them getting it every year while having a shit show of a tier program while other, more competitive teams / clubs not affiliate with an NHL team have to sell their soul to even get a bid opportunity.

Let me get this straight... We need more AAA clubs in SoCal because people in San Diego and Inland can't do 2 hour commutes (which I admit sucks).

But... we should kill the Jr Sharks for some years because they don't have enough AAA players to be good.

And those who ARE good enough should do what? Drive 6 hours to LA?

Not very consistent.

I'm not actually agreeing with either point of view though.  I just find it amusing that you see both at the same time on this forum from SoCal parents.

Personally I think you build the teams where you have enough AAA level players, along with the requisite coaching, support, and ice time.  I've seen no evidence of that in NorCal, and it looks form a distance like there is not a clear conclusion in SoCal either.

My take on CAHA (I have no involvement with CAHA) is they want consistency in teams from year-to-year. It helps with everything operationally, which is probably what they care about most. The NHL clubs provide that by making a commitment. And I agree that it is probably beneficial to have programs that last for years and build a track record.

[notTHATdad]

AAA teams nationally (MHR) may have more, but...


11U (84) 12U (91)
13U (97) 14U (105)
15U (122) 16U (150)


I guess my question is simply this: how does the number of available AAA teams SIGNIFICANTLY increase as players get older?  How could SO MANY amazing AAA level players simply come out of nowhere?  Were they hiding in AA?  Where were all these players at PW age?
USA Hockey tells us that the player development curve is MOST important/beneficial from ages 10-12 and after that, it is extremely difficult to improve at an accelerated rate (the challenge is greater to improve the older you get), YET three years after this window closes, the number of available AAA teams almost DOUBLES?!?? 


Am I missing something here?  Nope.  Numbers don't lie.


Should these numbers be flipped???  Should they be more balanced???  We should be looking to develop MORE players at younger ages when the window is open for greatest levels of improvement.  Player development is NURTURE, not NATURE.  Yes, some players have natural athletic talent, but will never reach their ceiling potential without the opportunity to compete in the proper environment (at the highest levels aka AAA).

They develop, and they mature. They increase their mastery of the sport over time.


In AA where at the time the competition is useful.


If you stuck them on AAA teams before that development occurred they would be boat-anchors. USAHockey also tells you that development at age 10-12 is almost entirely skill based. That does not require AAA. USAHockey's perspective on this is actually quite opposite to what you are claiming - they would tell you that if you have an A or AA player you should NOT chase an extra letter. Let them play locally for a lower level team. Spend the time and money on extra individual training.

[BladesofSteel66]

(It's also amusing to me to hear people complain about the Sharks having AAA teams at every level despite "not being competitive", and then also complain that there are not enough AAA's in SoCal because of distance. LOL. )

I argue one side of that point.  I do not care if Sharks suck, I think GSE should get a club too, why not?  I do not care if the CA AAA teams are only competitive nationally.  I do not need them to be all-star teams.  That is called SELECTS which is always 90+% AAA players. 
Also, distance, I get it... many, MANY states do not even have AAA teams at all.  Why?  Hmmm... maybe because there aren't many ice rinks in Alabama.  I don't know.  Do you know how many states are in the Southeast region?  Maryland to Florida and every state in between... they have like 8 teams to share.  Why?  Because they don't have stud athletes?!?!?  No.  They don't have the opportunity to play somewhat locally at high enough levels.  (FYI Alabama has like 2 AA clubs.)   

[notTHATdad]

(It's also amusing to me to hear people complain about the Sharks having AAA teams at every level despite "not being competitive", and then also complain that there are not enough AAA's in SoCal because of distance. LOL. )

I argue one side of that point.  I do not care if Sharks suck, I think GSE should get a club too, why not?  I do not care if the CA AAA teams are only competitive nationally.  I do not need them to be all-star teams.  That is called SELECTS which is always 90+% AAA players. 
Also, distance, I get it... many, MANY states do not even have AAA teams at all.  Why?  Hmmm... maybe because there aren't many ice rinks in Alabama.  I don't know.  Do you know how many states are in the Southeast region?  Maryland to Florida and every state in between... they have like 8 teams to share.  Why?  Because they don't have stud athletes?!?!?  No.  They don't have the opportunity to play somewhat locally at high enough levels.  (FYI Alabama has like 2 AA clubs.)

Consistency is good :-)


As for GSE, I agree they should field a team - it's a great org, but only when they have enough players. Their last attempt at an 04 AAA team with 3-4 05's probably wasn't an AAA team that should happen. Can players play 'up' on AAA? Yes, but it's super rare, and most clubs have a rule that those players must be in the top 3 or so of the team they are playing UP to (not the 'natural' team). But even then, CAHA granted them their wish and it was GSE that killed it. Unfortunately there aren't enough rinks in the north bay to develop enough players.


I go back to an earlier point. As a rule-of-thumb, if you can rank in the top, say, 90? or so in MHR on a consistent basis (there will always be bad years), then you probably have an AAA team. Otherwise you are probably spinning your wheels, potentially diluting talent, and the AAA's on your team would be better off elsewhere.

[BladesofSteel66]

"If you stuck them on AAA teams before that development occurred they would be boat-anchors."

I disagree.  Your statement assumes the skills gap is too huge to close.  Tryouts are for coaches to evaluate if a player is AAA caliber.  Our current system falsely exults winning as criterion for putting together AAA caliber teams at younger ages. What is being ignored?  The concept of "zone of proximal development."  Coaches guided by this process understand how to develop players.  That means roster players with close/similar abilities who have the minimum skill set to compete at the level of their peers, and with coaching, are able to develop at a greater rate pushing them  beyond their current skills set.  Winning or losing shouldn't matter - did your players get better at a rate you believed was acceptable for their maximum potential?

If you have morons coaching or give those coaches the privilege to simply roster an all-star team, well, then you don't have a coach engaged in player development - you have a manager managing the line-up.  There are many more coaches that want to manage an all-star line-up than there are coaches who truly want to develop players under our current CAHA system.  The worst kind are those who sell that extra letter to an entire team of parents.  Those are the ones you want to keep from coaching.
I guess the flip would be to ask then why do we have AAA at such young ages at all?  In what world do 11 year-olds need exposure and nation-wide competition so that it is actually "at their level"?  Maybe it shouldn't start until 14U?  You know, when players begin to specialize on a sport year-round (as in the way USA Hockey recommends). 

[BladesofSteel66]

Also, this board was WAY more fun than getting any work done today.  *high5

[notTHATdad]

"If you stuck them on AAA teams before that development occurred they would be boat-anchors."

I disagree.  Your statement assumes the skills gap is too huge to close.  Tryouts are for coaches to evaluate if a player is AAA caliber.  Our current system falsely exults winning as criterion for putting together AAA caliber teams at younger ages. What is being ignored?  The concept of "zone of proximal development."  Coaches guided by this process understand how to develop players.  That means roster players with close/similar abilities who have the minimum skill set to compete at the level of their peers, and with coaching, are able to develop at a greater rate pushing them  beyond their current skills set.  Winning or losing shouldn't matter - did your players get better at a rate you believed was acceptable for their maximum potential?

If you have morons coaching or give those coaches the privilege to simply roster an all-star team, well, then you don't have a coach engaged in player development - you have a manager managing the line-up.  There are many more coaches that want to manage an all-star line-up than there are coaches who truly want to develop players under our current CAHA system.  The worst kind are those who sell that extra letter to an entire team of parents.  Those are the ones you want to keep from coaching.
I guess the flip would be to ask then why do we have AAA at such young ages at all?  In what world do 11 year-olds need exposure and nation-wide competition so that it is actually "at their level"?  Maybe it shouldn't start until 14U?  You know, when players begin to specialize on a sport year-round (as in the way USA Hockey recommends).

It's America. If we didn't have a 'best plays best, winner takes all' league, someone would invent one ;-)


Seriously though, it gets to the 'why AAA' conversation. When I'm asked why I spend all this money for my kid to play AAA, I inevitably come back to 'Because it is super empowering and worthwhile for my kid to be able to say "I was one of the best in California" at something', regardless of whether he has a future in the sport. It's for the experience. And because he's frankly too good to enjoy AA. I don't particularly want that dumbed down.  Winning matters at AAA. At some level it HAS to matter. That doesn't mean 'shorten the bench and play 2 lines', but it does take on a much greater importance. My younger kids AAA team right now is about a 500 team. Nobody thinks that's good enough, though obviously that would be fine if it was just 'for development.'


I also think that there are excellent AA teams out there that provide plenty of development for great AA players, and I've seen very few AA players that are good enough to say 'Huh - that kid is wasting himself in AA'. The great players find their way to AAA. They get picked (in my experience). On the flip side, I've seen too many AA kids put on AAA teams because of short rosters/not-enough-players and seen how much damage it has done to the teams and more importantly THOSE kids.
 
Does that make more sense at 14, 16, 18 than 8, 10, 12? Yup. AAA at 11 and 12 is a bit sketchy if you ask me.


Sounds to me like the kids you are referring to are AA players, and need to be in a great AA program until they can make an AAA team.

[lcadad]

All you hear on this board is that there should be more AAA teams (despite the ratio of AAA to AA teams in CA being higher than the country average).

What kind of ridiculous stat are you talking about?  In a lot of the country there is literally no AA at all, or very few teams.  There is AAA and there is A.   Many eastern US clubs have AAA and AA (if they do have AA) across the board and at birth year.  It is not comparable to what CAHA has or does. 


People in Norcal have made it very clear that there is a smaller pool -- we get it.  We see it. 3-4 AA teams from Norcal and the Sharks AAA is what we see.  SoCal is an entirely different story.


I don't know if there is a huge turnout for Sharks AAA tryouts in Norcal, but that certainly isn't the case in SoCal.  This is why we have AA teams that have tied or beat AAA teams in scrimmages.  Bears1 were just there and played 2 games against the '05 Sharks  (3-3 tie 3-4 loss).  They had a close game vs the Sharks '06 AAA team as well (10-0).   Or maybe check out the Saints record where they have already beat 7 AAA teams. 

[notTHATdad]

All you hear on this board is that there should be more AAA teams (despite the ratio of AAA to AA teams in CA being higher than the country average).

What kind of ridiculous stat are you talking about?  In a lot of the country there is literally no AA at all, or very few teams.  There is AAA and there is A.   Many eastern US clubs have AAA and AA (if they do have AA) across the board and at birth year.  It is not comparable to what CAHA has or does. 


People in Norcal have made it very clear that there is a smaller pool -- we get it.  We see it. 3-4 AA teams from Norcal and the Sharks AAA is what we see.  SoCal is an entirely different story.


I don't know if there is a huge turnout for Sharks AAA tryouts in Norcal, but that certainly isn't the case in SoCal.  This is why we have AA teams that have tied or beat AAA teams in scrimmages.  Bears1 were just there and played 2 games against the '05 Sharks  (3-3 tie 3-4 loss).  They had a close game vs the Sharks '06 AAA team as well (10-0).   Or maybe check out the Saints record where they have already beat 7 AAA teams.

It's a very simple stat. The number of AAA teams in the country divided by the number of AA teams.


As for the Saints, I assume you are referring to Bantam. Using the #1 ranked AA team in the country (out of 1200!) as a 'typical' AA team here probably isn't the best model :-) Sounds like they are an exception to the rule. Nor really is using the Shark 06AAA as an example of anything (the team has always been a train wreck - 06 is a tough year up here). There are always good and bad years for any club.


The idea of San Diego having an AAA team is probably the most reasonable of the suggestions - you could make a good argument that a big city like that makes sense, plus the distance. But what I would ask (because I honestly don't know) is where are the feeder clubs? How many AA clubs would you have in SD? How many A's? If the sharks are somewhat borderline in some years, how would San Diego fare?


It would be a very odd (and I'd argue unsustainable) situation to have A and AAA, but nothing in between. That indicates a broken AA system or an oddball year.


(adding an edit here to avoid yet another post...) Seems like an oddball year since it looks like at just about every other AA year, the Gull rank significantly behind the Ducks, and I don't see anyone saying they should be fielding 2 AAA teams.


So... what to do with oddball years? Looks like CAHA is handling this by giving them a AAA birth.

[SkatingDad]

AAA teams nationally (MHR) may have more, but...


11U (84) 12U (91)
13U (97) 14U (105)
15U (122) 16U (150)


I guess my question is simply this: how does the number of available AAA teams SIGNIFICANTLY increase as players get older?  How could SO MANY amazing AAA level players simply come out of nowhere?  Were they hiding in AA?  Where were all these players at PW age?
USA Hockey tells us that the player development curve is MOST important/beneficial from ages 10-12 and after that, it is extremely difficult to improve at an accelerated rate (the challenge is greater to improve the older you get), YET three years after this window closes, the number of available AAA teams almost DOUBLES?!?? 


Am I missing something here?  Nope.  Numbers don't lie.


Should these numbers be flipped???  Should they be more balanced???  We should be looking to develop MORE players at younger ages when the window is open for greatest levels of improvement.  Player development is NURTURE, not NATURE.  Yes, some players have natural athletic talent, but will never reach their ceiling potential without the opportunity to compete in the proper environment (at the highest levels aka AAA).

They develop, and they mature. They increase their mastery of the sport over time.


In AA where at the time the competition is useful.


If you stuck them on AAA teams before that development occurred they would be boat-anchors. USAHockey also tells you that development at age 10-12 is almost entirely skill based. That does not require AAA. USAHockey's perspective on this is actually quite opposite to what you are claiming - they would tell you that if you have an A or AA player you should NOT chase an extra letter. Let them play locally for a lower level team. Spend the time and money on extra individual training.

I agree with notTHATdad.  I also would like to add



Most rational people without unlimited resources understand that there is no point in playing AAA until at least 14U. The cost for AAA is scientifically higher regardless of where you live. You do not know what type of player you have until they hit puberty and start checking and your money is better spent on sticktime, skating and off ice lessons.


Some of the kids that everyone thought was the next McDavid disappear at the older levels. It does not matter what level your player is at before 14U as long as they are playing competitive games and are practicing and developing as much as possible.  In California, a lot of people do not believe it is worth playing AAA until 16U mostly becuase of the cost.  Only 16U and above are scouted maybe the occasional 15O game. 

[lcadad]

This is always the way that people pushing this argument go.  If it's something that fits your status quo agenda, it's an important factoid that proves the CAHA system is exceptional.  If it's something that doesn't, then it's a meaningless anomaly.  People choosing to have their kids leave the state for better development opportunities?  AAA is watered down and 3 teams in the entire state of California is great (even when 1 of the 3 is rarely competitive).  AA teams able to play with and even beat AAA teams?  That's an exception that should be ignored. 


Here's the difference in a nutshell between California and the rest of the country (that isn't Minnesota).


Club/Association Programs:
B -> A, AA  ----> Develop kids to move to AAA


California:
B -> A -> AA   | Restrict entire pool of AAA to 3 teams (34 - 66 players by gender statewide, at an expense per player of 20-40k per year, with 15-20 missed school days)


Not all players make it up the ladder to AAA, but there is no reason that CAHA should be interfering or preventing clubs from building their programs around this model, yet there is and they do. 


These rules were put in place due to the misguided belief by individuals within CAHA that California needed to protect the reputation of state AAA teams in order to attract competition to the state.  At this point there is ample proof that if that was their goal, the plan has failed miserably. Each year 1-2 of the SoCal teams is very competitive (top 15 MHRankings).  Has this attracted all the best AAA teams to California tournaments? 


It speaks for itself that California teams have to travel to face other top ranked AAA teams, which is the only place they have a chance to be scouted for opportunities to pursue the sport beyond youth and high school.  No line has formed to come challenge the AAA teams, which is why it is so expensive to play AAA here.


It speaks for itself that there has been no repercussions positively or negatively in having a AAA franchise club that is consistently ranked well below the top 30 teams in the country.


It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state.