AAA teams for next season

[notTHATdad]

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.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing for anymore.


You imply that there are more AAA players out there. OK. Where? The 04 kings lost 10 AAA players last year for various reasons, and they filled in with (I assume) the best AA players available. They have certainly improved over the year, but even with the returning AAA players, with all of LA to pull from, they went from being ranked in the 20's to #71, which according to you is unacceptable. (Personally I disagree with that. They are clearly better than a lot of AAA teams.  If you are out of the lowest 20 or 30 in the rankings, you are probably ok as an AAA team).


For an occasional team (an exception) I get it. Sounds like the 14AA's are great. And CAHA is doing that, and is doing it more. And I'd argue has been doing that (again, look at GSE last year.)


But on a wider basis, if the argument is that there should just be more teams at every level, I don't see it.  Based on geography? Ok, I can get behind that, but where would SD based AAA players come from? The other Gulls teams look like just good AA teams. At least in Norcal there are 5  other A and AA organizations. How many SD AA teams are there to pull from for an AAA team, or would you just be taking Ducks players? Wouldn't they now have the exact same commute issues (in reverse) that you have? 


Are there many other examples out there, of AA teams that are in the top 10 in the country? The 03/04 Bears were a few years ago. Again though, isn't that just an exception?


And as far as I can tell (from reading this board mostly!), there is so much infighting and angst between teams in SoCal, coming up with one more AAA team that made everyone happy might be a challenge.


BUT, bring it on. If it's possible, I'd love to see more closer competition. Right now though, I think I look to Vegas developing their program, and maybe the new Seattle NHL team starting something up.


One of other thing...


As for $30k to $40k per year, with 15-20 missed school days for AAA... No. Widely quoted and inaccurate. If you are spending that much or taking that much time off, fire your team manager. If my kid makes it all the way to Nationals (top 16AAA teams in the country) he MIGHT hit 12 days. Right now I think he's sitting at 4 or 5 missed days. No worse than getting a bad flu. My estimate is that unless you make nationals (which is a week),  for a smart team that does team travel (like all AAA teams should), AAA costs maybe $7k or so more than AA, once you add in the fact that all good AA teams also do road trips too.

[Hamacher Checking Camp]

Great thread.  I love it!!!



California players in NCAA Div I are down ~35% from highs


California players in WHL/CHL are down ~60% from highs


California players in NCAA DIII has never been higher


California players in various levels of Junior hockey has never been higher (mostly Tier 3 pay to play)


1)   If the "goal" is to promote the game and move players on, then that is happening statistically speaking. 


2)  If the "goal" is to produce higher level players worthy of Pro hockey, NCAA Div I hockey and WHL/CHL hockey, then we are going the wrong direction statistically speaking. 


When #1 above is the primary goal, #2 tends to suffer.  When #2 is the primary goal, then both #1 and #2 have the opportunity to succeed.  Money, season tickets, selling ice, uniform fees, registration fees, growing leagues, selling email lists, etc drives #1.  Fiercely competitive and unapologetic people drive #2


This thread seems a bit of a tug-of-war between these 2 objectives.  Can both happen?  Absolutely with the right strategy and culture and people.  And in my personal opinion and statistically speaking, we should be setting new highs annually in both #1 AND #2.  For what it's worth, my opinion is we are failing players and families and that 100% includes me. 


-Brad


 


 

[Strawman]

Great thread.  I love it!!!



California players in NCAA Div I are down ~35% from highs


California players in WHL/CHL are down ~60% from highs


California players in NCAA DIII has never been higher


California players in various levels of Junior hockey has never been higher (mostly Tier 3 pay to play)


1)   If the "goal" is to promote the game and move players on, then that is happening statistically speaking. 


2)  If the "goal" is to produce higher level players worthy of Pro hockey, NCAA Div I hockey and WHL/CHL hockey, then we are going the wrong direction statistically speaking. 


When #1 above is the primary goal, #2 tends to suffer.  When #2 is the primary goal, then both #1 and #2 have the opportunity to succeed.  Money, season tickets, selling ice, uniform fees, registration fees, growing leagues, selling email lists, etc drives #1.  Fiercely competitive and unapologetic people drive #2


This thread seems a bit of a tug-of-war between these 2 objectives.  Can both happen?  Absolutely with the right strategy and culture and people.  And in my personal opinion and statistically speaking, we should be setting new highs annually in both #1 AND #2.  For what it's worth, my opinion is we are failing players and families and that 100% includes me. 


-Brad


 


 

Great post.  If California's percentages are down for Pro/DI/CHL then, relatively speaking, some other states must be succeeding where we are failing.  What are your thoughts regarding what you see working elsewhere that we are failing at?

[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.

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.

That's correct. 15O definitely does get scouted fairly heavily at T1EHL tournaments, but at 14's? Almost never - only the cream of the crop (think maybe the top 4-8 kids in California get ANY notice? Maybe?). Below that? Absolutely Never. I spoke to a scout last year at the USHL 14's combine and he was personally tracking 180 Midget kids nation wide. Do you think that guy is spending ANY time on 14's? In California? Nope.


Exposure is NOT the reason to put your 11,12,13,14 in AAA. Unless you are seeking exposure to the AAA club itself. But my experience is there is %20-%25 turnover on AAA teams each year, so it's unlikely they will be 'shut out' later if they are truely good.


So I actually have a lot more issue with AAA 11's and 12's than AAA 13's and 14's.


The other factor I would include though is whether your kid has already advanced, more mentally than anything else. I know it will probably rile a lot of people on this board up, but for a kid that is really playing at the AAA level, AA is painfully slow and unsophisticated. It's just the truth.


My advice: It's over simplified, but play where your kid fits. Where they are playing with kids at their own level, or just slightly above if they can hack it. The old adage of teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the deep and just ends up drowning people ;-)

[Hamacher Checking Camp]

Great question.  European nations are picking up where others are falling off at all those levels listed.  Former NHLer just started NTDP equivalent in CZ as their results are falling off.  Sounds like the timeframe/action of that idea and decision was a quick one from looking at recent CZ results.  Nimble, quick, decisive changes.  Not some bureaucratic behemoth.  All Euro countries have a lotta bandy and floorball.  Lotta soccer.  In some countries the ice comes out in the spring and summer so no hockey and that allows them to focus on other sports and developing the athlete.  They are focused on widening the entry point of the funnel as many of these countries have smaller populations than SoCal (that is the #1 in my original post of growing the game).  BUT they are arguably even more focused on widening the exit point of the funnel (the #2 in my original post).  National pride and all that good stuff makes them fiercely competitive and willing to do what is necessary to produce world class players and teams that are on a worldwide pedestal.  I posted something last summer about NCAA Coaches asking me why California is limiting AAA teams and shrinking the exit point of the funnel.  They all want to see us with 10 or 20 AAA teams as that means 20-40 competitive and scouted goalies.  That means 10-20 #1 power play units. Etc, etc.  I agreed and agree with them.



They don’t separate in to 8 levels of players at U12.  They don’t “pick winners” early and push levels and “select” designation until much later in age (16+).  And even when they do at the older ages, they still have viable development paths for the later bloomers.  They laugh at our infatuation with MHR or anything like it.


Simply stated they major in the majors whereas we (USAH) major in the minors and get wrapped up in minutiae.


Changing The Game Project is deservedly popular and provides some excellent learning from my perspective.  I read most of what they put out and there is some pure GOLD there..... but the mindset perpetuated is also very mediocre and “sport is for healthy living” priority pervades.  That’s okay for many.  I love golf and was never fiercely competitive about it.  I play for fun.  I get it.  That grows the game.  That makes everyone happy go lucky.  But nothing they do or say demands excellence.  You want fiercely competitive and unapologetic about the pursuit of greatness, read the book “Relentless” by Tim Grover.  99% of USAH or many governing bodies is in lockstep with Changing The Game Project.  We need more Relentless.


Ultimately it’s all about priorities and culture, culture, culture


I could keep going on and on.  Cheers

[notTHATdad]

Great question.  European nations are picking up where others are falling off at all those levels listed.  Former NHLer just started NTDP equivalent in CZ as their results are falling off.  Sounds like the timeframe/action of that idea and decision was a quick one from looking at recent CZ results.  All Euro countries have a lotta bandy and floorball.  Lotta soccer.  In some countries the ice comes out in the spring and summer so no hockey and that allows them to focus on other sports and developing the athlete.  They are focused on widening the entry point of the funnel as many of these countries have smaller populations than SoCal (that is the #1 in my original post of growing the game).  BUT they are arguably even more focused on widening the exit point of the funnel (the #2 in my original post).  National pride and all that good stuff makes them fiercely competitive and willing to do what is necessary to produce world class players and teams that are on a worldwide pedestal.


They don’t separate in to 8 levels of players at U12.  They don’t “pick winners” early and push levels and “select” designation until much later in age (16+).  And even when they do, they still have viable development paths for the later bloomers.  They laugh at our infatuation with MHR or anything like it.


Simply stated they major in the majors whereas we (USAH) major in the minors and get wrapped up in minutiae.


Changing The Game Project is deservedly popular and provides some excellent learning from my perspective.  I read most of what they put out and there is some pure GOLD there..... but the mindset perpetuated is also very mediocre and “sport is for healthy living” priority pervades.  That’s okay for many.  I love golf and was never fiercely competitive about it.  I play for fun.  I get it.  That grows the game.  That makes everyone happy go lucky.  But nothing they do or say demands excellence.  You want fiercely competitive and unapologetic about the pursuit of greatness, read the book “Relentless” by Tim Grover.  99% of USAH or many governing bodies is in lockstep with Changing The Game Project.  We need more Relentless.


Ultimately it’s all about priorities and culture, culture, culture


I could keep going on and on.  Cheers

Good stuff.


The other interesting aspect of European clubs is that you are not assigned to a 'level' for the year. You move up and down. Playing at the equivalent of AAA and have a tough month? Welcome to AA. And the converse. But it takes a HUGELY different system. One with a lot more clubs that look like the Jr Ducks/Sharks/Kings than the smaller orgs we have here, and very different rules.


Teams are often funded by the local pro/semi-pro team, and there is actually some small expectation that if you grow in the organization that's where you may end up playing. (Imagine Jr Kings playing with the expectation they will play for the Ontario Reign).


It's not something that is going to happen here, at least any time soon. But it is cool, and a great different way to look at development.


But I also think we overstate the 'picking winners' here bit too. As I've mentioned, at the AAA level, there is typically %20-%25 turnover on rosters every year. Kids get cut. Kids move up. It's actually quite fluid. You can trace my kids AAA team back to Squirt, and there are only 2 kids left. Everyone else has changed.


I know a lot of parents don't see it that way, but let's face it, a lot of them are just disappointed 'little johnny' didn't make it again.


If coaches aren't picking the best available at tryouts, that's an organization problem, not a system problem.

[BladesofSteel66]

You know what, it's time to start pointing fingers at the right people...


Let's start blaming the kids!  Spoiled brats.  Spending all my money.  Get to miss school.  They grow long flowing hair and have thousands of followers on MySpace or whatever.  They have not a care in the world.  We should put 'em to work!


On a lighter note, growing the game has been an absolute, monster success in the state of CA in the last decade.  Youth hockey has the numbers now.  The next step in the progression should be player development ensuring the sport continues to grow and played at a highly skilled level.  Competition matters when it is happening daily.  The practice-to-game ratio matters.  The team you are on matters for competition at a position and for ice-time. 


If you want a hierarchy to prioritize player development it is regular/daily competition(practices), individual skills/clinics, off-ice work (gym/dryland, nutrition, hockey culture aka live, watch, eat, sleep, love the game), and finally.... games.  Players need to learn SPORT SPECIFIC skills at an early age.  (Here's what we all see all the time)  If that one fast kid at age 8 or 12 only gets to play on teams with kids he will always be faster than, he never learns the other skill sets required of a hockey player.  Having that kid play games at a higher level (AAA) is useless and that "competitive level" doesn't matter.  Put that kid on a AAA team that practices at his speed on a daily basis forces that player to reach outside his comfort zone and learn to improve/increase other ways/skills (than just speed) to become a better player. 


Some call it "watering down teams," but I call it providing opportunities to develop more highly skilled players.  Without those opportunities, the state of CA is limiting the potential of so many youth players.  The numbers are growing, it is time to grow the skill level as well.  If you only see national recognition for (2) clubs as a barometer of the highest skilled talent possible, then we will have reached a plateau and never grow the game equally at AAA levels that we have at the A/B levels. 


Don't just grow the game, increase the ceiling on skill potential and reach it. 

[Knuckle Puck]

good stuff here. i'll just add three points


1. i've never understood the point of flying 8-11 year old kids cross country to play a few games. play a local team of older kids if you're looking for challenge.


2. i wish i had notthatdad's team manager for my kids, lol. just back of envelope 16aaa/15aaa all-in cost (all approximate): $9k at signing + $5k dues + $8k travel (8 fly-away weekends @ avg. of $1k/weekend for flight, hotel, food, van) + $3k for privates + $1k equipment = $26k minimum, and that's without mom or dad going to any of the away games. 


3.  "It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state."  exactly. customers aren't buying what caha is selling. what parents want is quality hockey development, that doesn't sacrifice academics/school days, at a not insane price. the only way that happens in the southwest usa is the development of a competitive regional circuit that reduces travel time/cost. that requires building up more organizations, not limiting them. templates for this include csshl, hphl.  there's over 100 socal u16/u15 kids playing elsewhere this year; that's five teams' worth of kids. if that # of kids could be given a compelling reason to stay at home for two more years, and the associations in phoenix, vegas, norcal improve a bit, now you've got a competitive regional circuit. i'm a broken record on this.

[Strawman]

good stuff here. i'll just add three points


1. i've never understood the point of flying 8-11 year old kids cross country to play a few games. play a local team of older kids if you're looking for challenge.


2. i wish i had notthatdad's team manager for my kids, lol. just back of envelope 16aaa/15aaa all-in cost (all approximate): $9k at signing + $5k dues + $8k travel (8 fly-away weekends @ avg. of $1k/weekend for flight, hotel, food, van) + $3k for privates + $1k equipment = $26k minimum, and that's without mom or dad going to any of the away games. 


3.  "It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state."  exactly. customers aren't buying what caha is selling. what parents want is quality hockey development, that doesn't sacrifice academics/school days, at a not insane price. the only way that happens in the southwest usa is the development of a competitive regional circuit that reduces travel time/cost. that requires building up more organizations, not limiting them. templates for this include csshl, hphl.  there's over 100 socal u16/u15 kids playing elsewhere this year; that's five teams' worth of kids. if that # of kids could be given a compelling reason to stay at home for two more years, and the associations in phoenix, vegas, norcal improve a bit, now you've got a competitive regional circuit. i'm a broken record on this.

This ^^^^.  I will never understand why AAA teams from the western states fly across the country every few weeks for T1EKL weekends to play .... each other. 

[notTHATdad]

good stuff here. i'll just add three points


1. i've never understood the point of flying 8-11 year old kids cross country to play a few games. play a local team of older kids if you're looking for challenge.


2. i wish i had notthatdad's team manager for my kids, lol. just back of envelope 16aaa/15aaa all-in cost (all approximate): $9k at signing + $5k dues + $8k travel (8 fly-away weekends @ avg. of $1k/weekend for flight, hotel, food, van) + $3k for privates + $1k equipment = $26k minimum, and that's without mom or dad going to any of the away games. 


3.  "[size=0px]It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state."[/size]  exactly. customers aren't buying what caha is selling. what parents want is quality hockey development, that doesn't sacrifice academics/school days, at a not insane price. the only way that happens in the southwest usa is the development of a competitive regional circuit that reduces travel time/cost. that requires building up more organizations, not limiting them. templates for this include csshl, hphl.  there's over 100 socal u16/u15 kids playing elsewhere this year; that's five teams' worth of kids. if that # of kids could be given a compelling reason to stay at home for two more years, and the associations in phoenix, vegas, norcal improve a bit, now you've got a competitive regional circuit. i'm a broken record on this.

Wow.


Our dues (by recollection) are about $7k. I don't know what '$9k at signing' - is that for player travel?!. We'll have two or three cash calls of $1k. We've had 4 flyaways (Columbus, Phoenix, St Louis, Detroit) which entails cheap flights and shared rooms (3-4 players per room), and one tourney here over christmas.  We also have Blaine and hopefully districts/etc to go.  I don't count private lessons (frankly - that's < $500 for us) because that would also happen for AA (remember, I was contrasting AA to AAA). Nor equipment.


We drive vans instead of hiring expensive busses/drivers. There are 3-4 parents who come along and 'eat' more expense and act as drivers (Their only payment is they eat with the team). We have a parent that broadcasts over the internet.


That's pretty much it.


Of course we play fewer games up north - we'll probably play between 40 and 45, which is what USAHockey recommends (it's also a typical number of games for a college program - why would you play more?). We practice at least 3 times a week on average, so our practice/game ratio is excellent.


An observation - lot's of clubs talk about the costs of hockey. Very few do anything about it. You don't need 8 flyaways.


(Sorry... quick edit here - Who is insisting on all the trips? Most parents consider too many of them an expensive pain. Is it the club? What would happen is someone pushed back? There is zero justification for that much travel. Who is pocketing cash out of it ;-))

[notTHATdad]

good stuff here. i'll just add three points


1. i've never understood the point of flying 8-11 year old kids cross country to play a few games. play a local team of older kids if you're looking for challenge.


2. i wish i had notthatdad's team manager for my kids, lol. just back of envelope 16aaa/15aaa all-in cost (all approximate): $9k at signing + $5k dues + $8k travel (8 fly-away weekends @ avg. of $1k/weekend for flight, hotel, food, van) + $3k for privates + $1k equipment = $26k minimum, and that's without mom or dad going to any of the away games. 


3.  "It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state."  exactly. customers aren't buying what caha is selling. what parents want is quality hockey development, that doesn't sacrifice academics/school days, at a not insane price. the only way that happens in the southwest usa is the development of a competitive regional circuit that reduces travel time/cost. that requires building up more organizations, not limiting them. templates for this include csshl, hphl.  there's over 100 socal u16/u15 kids playing elsewhere this year; that's five teams' worth of kids. if that # of kids could be given a compelling reason to stay at home for two more years, and the associations in phoenix, vegas, norcal improve a bit, now you've got a competitive regional circuit. i'm a broken record on this.

This ^^^^.  I will never understand why AAA teams from the western states fly across the country every few weeks for T1EKL weekends to play .... each other.

Doesn't happen very much any more. We've played our CAHA games, and maybe one happened at a tourney? Maybe not even that.

[Knuckle Puck]

You don't need 8 flyaways. (Sorry... quick edit here - Who is insisting on all the trips? Most parents consider too many of them an expensive pain. Is it the club? What would happen is someone pushed back? There is zero justification for that much travel. Who is pocketing cash out of it ;-))

jk 16aaa have trips this year to dallas, boston, pittsburgh, detroit, st. louis, phoenix, chicago, san jose (x2) + districts (tacoma).

jd 16aaa has phoenix (x2), dallas, pittsburgh, detroit, san jose (x2), chicago + districts. 

the 15aaas take maybe one less trip.  14aaas take maybe two less trips (but i've heard that jk 05 has been to canada 3x this year + nyc?).

it starts with these kids at peewee -- not only are this year's jk 07s missing two weeks of school for quebec, they already this season have traveled to boston, detroit, dallas, sj, chicago and phoenix.  12 year olds.    
my experience in socal has always been that the coach/club basically decide the schedule, and there is little push back. if you don't like it, leave.

[Strawman]

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.

That's correct. 15O definitely does get scouted fairly heavily at T1EHL tournaments, but at 14's? Almost never - only the cream of the crop (think maybe the top 4-8 kids in California get ANY notice? Maybe?). Below that? Absolutely Never. I spoke to a scout last year at the USHL 14's combine and he was personally tracking 180 Midget kids nation wide. Do you think that guy is spending ANY time on 14's? In California? Nope.


Exposure is NOT the reason to put your 11,12,13,14 in AAA. Unless you are seeking exposure to the AAA club itself. But my experience is there is %20-%25 turnover on AAA teams each year, so it's unlikely they will be 'shut out' later if they are truely good.


So I actually have a lot more issue with AAA 11's and 12's than AAA 13's and 14's.


The other factor I would include though is whether your kid has already advanced, more mentally than anything else. I know it will probably rile a lot of people on this board up, but for a kid that is really playing at the AAA level, AA is painfully slow and unsophisticated. It's just the truth.


My advice: It's over simplified, but play where your kid fits. Where they are playing with kids at their own level, or just slightly above if they can hack it. The old adage of teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the deep and just ends up drowning people ;-)

Correction.  14's are actually pretty heavily scouted too, just not at T1EHL or in California.  Obviously the WHL combine happens at 14 so that league is scouting 14s actively.  OHL/QMJHL top prospect lists are generated by end of the 14 year.  NTDP is also drawing up its lists at that age.  Until this year DI was also going after "top" 14s.  But apart from some WHL scouting, none of that is happening here and not much at T1EHL either, so it is certainly correct that California 14's as a group don't get much love.

[Strawman]

good stuff here. i'll just add three points


1. i've never understood the point of flying 8-11 year old kids cross country to play a few games. play a local team of older kids if you're looking for challenge.


2. i wish i had notthatdad's team manager for my kids, lol. just back of envelope 16aaa/15aaa all-in cost (all approximate): $9k at signing + $5k dues + $8k travel (8 fly-away weekends @ avg. of $1k/weekend for flight, hotel, food, van) + $3k for privates + $1k equipment = $26k minimum, and that's without mom or dad going to any of the away games. 


3.  "It speaks for itself that there is an exodus of Tier I & II players from the state."  exactly. customers aren't buying what caha is selling. what parents want is quality hockey development, that doesn't sacrifice academics/school days, at a not insane price. the only way that happens in the southwest usa is the development of a competitive regional circuit that reduces travel time/cost. that requires building up more organizations, not limiting them. templates for this include csshl, hphl.  there's over 100 socal u16/u15 kids playing elsewhere this year; that's five teams' worth of kids. if that # of kids could be given a compelling reason to stay at home for two more years, and the associations in phoenix, vegas, norcal improve a bit, now you've got a competitive regional circuit. i'm a broken record on this.

This ^^^^.  I will never understand why AAA teams from the western states fly across the country every few weeks for T1EKL weekends to play .... each other.

Doesn't happen very much any more. We've played our CAHA games, and maybe one happened at a tourney? Maybe not even that.

I can't speak for this year, but last year we consistently found ourselves on the other side of the country playing teams like T-Birds, Dallas, Coyotes.  One T1EHL weekend on the east coast I think we played only 1 game against an east coast team and the rest against western teams, including 8 am teams.  It boggles the mind.

[Strawman]

You don't need 8 flyaways. (Sorry... quick edit here - Who is insisting on all the trips? Most parents consider too many of them an expensive pain. Is it the club? What would happen is someone pushed back? There is zero justification for that much travel. Who is pocketing cash out of it ;-))

jk 16aaa have trips this year to dallas, boston, pittsburgh, detroit, st. louis, phoenix, chicago, san jose (x2) + districts (tacoma).

jd 16aaa has phoenix (x2), dallas, pittsburgh, detroit, san jose (x2), chicago + districts. 

the 15aaas take maybe one less trip.  14aaas take maybe two less trips (but i've heard that jk 05 has been to canada 3x this year + nyc?).

it starts with these kids at peewee -- not only are this year's jk 07s missing two weeks of school for quebec, they already this season have traveled to boston, detroit, dallas, sj, chicago and phoenix.  12 year olds.    
my experience in socal has always been that the coach/club basically decide the schedule, and there is little push back. if you don't like it, leave.

I think jd14aaa last year had 9 flyaways