AAA teams for next season

[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.

[size=78%]Doesn't happen very much any more. We've played our CAHA games, and maybe one happened at a tourney? Maybe not even that.[/size]

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.

T1EHL teams have a minimum number of tournaments they have to attend (3 or 4?) and then the others are optional. If you are flying out to the east coast all the time, or up to Canada multiple times, that's your coaches fault for going 'tournament happy'.


If you look at the 15's for instance, the Sharks have played 25 games, the ducks 35 games, and the kings 43 games, and that does not include any 'unofficial scrimmages'. All these team will play at least another 8 games, and for the two that make districts, likely more. And it bears no relationship to the standings (ducks then sharks then kings).


45 games per season is probably a good goal. Personally I think the Sharks should probably do a few more local games, but if you get up close to 60 (which the kings would if they were successful), that's too much.


Remember that the average kid plays about 16 minutes per game, and has the puck for less than 60 seconds for the whole game combined. T1EHL showcases are 4 games. So you are flying across the country for 60 minutes of ice time and less than 5 minutes of puck handling.


Flying all over the country for tournaments is not a good way to develop players. And if you are looking for exposure and you don't develop them, the scouts don't care anyways. Practice more, fly less.

[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.

[size=78%]Doesn't happen very much any more. We've played our CAHA games, and maybe one happened at a tourney? Maybe not even that.[/size]

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.

T1EHL teams have a minimum number of tournaments they have to attend (3 or 4?) and then the others are optional. If you are flying out to the east coast all the time, or up to Canada multiple times, that's your coaches fault for going 'tournament happy'.


If you look at the 15's for instance, the Sharks have played 25 games, the ducks 35 games, and the kings 43 games, and that does not include any 'unofficial scrimmages'. All these team will play at least another 8 games, and for the two that make districts, likely more. And it bears no relationship to the standings (ducks then sharks then kings).


45 games per season is probably a good goal. Personally I think the Sharks should probably do a few more local games, but if you get up close to 60 (which the kings would if they were successful), that's too much.


Remember that the average kid plays about 16 minutes per game, and has the puck for less than 60 seconds for the whole game combined. T1EHL showcases are 4 games. So you are flying across the country for 60 minutes of ice time and less than 5 minutes of puck handling.


Flying all over the country for tournaments is not a good way to develop players. And if you are looking for exposure and you don't develop them, the scouts don't care anyways. Practice more, fly less.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about how things "should" be.  Just reporting on the reality for many of our aaa teams, which is one of the factors driving them out of state. 

[TheFourthA]

I’m not optimistic about the expansion of AAA to 5 (or more?) teams, and particularly skeptical about the outlook for San Diego.  At the 30,000 foot level it looks great. CAHA gets a statewide AAA presence, the club can market itself as a pathway to AAA, and parents can continue to enjoy local practices while being lulled into a (false) sense of security.  But the facts are more alarming.  Start with this: apart from the Gulls roster, there is no AA 06 group in San Diego and the clubs are not excelling at A.  Apart from a handful of local kids with AAA experience on other clubs, the pipeline of talent is bone dry.  So what you see on the roster is what you get.


There are two obvious comps: the Sharks and the Dogs.  Right now, the Gulls have a lower MHR rating number than the Sharks, that is, they project as a bottom quartile team if their rating stayed the same.  The Dogs rating number actually fell from last year to this, and that’s after adding a significant number of players with Tier experience, including the AA scoring leader from the prior season.  The Gulls are not likely to see an influx of talent.  And being a mid pack team almost resulted in the Dogs losing their AAA status.

I don’t see how this helps the development for the Gulls.   If it’s the same roster, there is no boost by practice against better players.  Playing against the Ducks and Kings hasn’t accelerated the development of the Sharks.  And AA would have provided more games against teams similar
To the Sharks.


What am I missing here?  How does this work out?

[keepdrinkinthekoolaid]

TheFourthA - IMO you've missed nothing and how it works out remains to be seen, obviously.

Hearing the Bears have appealed also and will need/want to rewrite current CAHA ByLaws for Bantam Major, next year, and do see that you also referenced 5 or more AAA clubs next season

Remember when JackBender was fighting for the CA Wave club to be 14U AA Flt 1 and was warned, be careful what you wish for? 

A way that we could actually make change is:
(copied and pasted directly from CAHA.com - to show misspelling x 2)
"CAHA Board of Directors information letter and nomination form for CAHA Director Positon for the 2-year term beginning June 20, 2020 (CAHA Annual Meeting).  All nominations are due April 20, 2020 via email or by mail per the instructions conntained therein."

If the current governing body allows the incorrect spelling of position and contained on their website for this is the 8th day now, what should we expect from their decisions?!  As well as, linked docs from the CAHA page contain information to years gone by, just saying.

Kangaroo Jack, are you currently in good standing with USA Hockey and CAHA?
Would you accept the nomination?
HELP, please! I will proofread for you

[notTHATdad]

I’m not optimistic about the expansion of AAA to 5 (or more?) teams, and particularly skeptical about the outlook for San Diego.  At the 30,000 foot level it looks great. CAHA gets a statewide AAA presence, the club can market itself as a pathway to AAA, and parents can continue to enjoy local practices while being lulled into a (false) sense of security.  But the facts are more alarming.  Start with this: apart from the Gulls roster, there is no AA 06 group in San Diego and the clubs are not excelling at A.  Apart from a handful of local kids with AAA experience on other clubs, the pipeline of talent is bone dry.  So what you see on the roster is what you get.


There are two obvious comps: the Sharks and the Dogs.  Right now, the Gulls have a lower MHR rating number than the Sharks, that is, they project as a bottom quartile team if their rating stayed the same.  The Dogs rating number actually fell from last year to this, and that’s after adding a significant number of players with Tier experience, including the AA scoring leader from the prior season.  The Gulls are not likely to see an influx of talent.  And being a mid pack team almost resulted in the Dogs losing their AAA status.

I don’t see how this helps the development for the Gulls.   If it’s the same roster, there is no boost by practice against better players.  Playing against the Ducks and Kings hasn’t accelerated the development of the Sharks.  And AA would have provided more games against teams similar
To the Sharks.


What am I missing here?  How does this work out?

I don't think the Sharks are a good comparison. They draw from multiple A and AA clubs in the bay area. They have strong years and weak years. Again, I ask, how many hockey clubs are in the SD area? That is key to whether this is sustainable. It probably isn't, so this becomes yet another one-off.


Which is FINE as long as the orgs realize that and don't complain when next year they don't automatically get a team.

[BladesofSteel66]

Uh-oh.  I think I read someone one said it without saying it...


One issue where CAHA is not comparable to the rest of the country is its lack of districts.  The club system here allows for yearly player movement.  Those who are interested in casing that dream will pay whatever it takes.  The monopoly in SoCal ducks/kings have allows them to charge what they want and fly where they want because it's their way or no-way. 


Ironic that the great Coach Gordon Bombay used the boundary lines of District-5 to claim stud PW AAA talent Adam Banks, yet here in Cali, it is the Jr. Ducks who are hoarding all the great players like those dirty Hawks and Coach Riley. 

[keepdrinkinthekoolaid]

Ironic that the great Coach Gordon Bombay used the boundary lines of District-5 to claim stud PW AAA talent Adam Banks, yet here in Cali, it is the Jr. Ducks who are hoarding all the great players like those dirty Hawks and Coach Riley.

That movie was from '92, and the team was the Mighty Ducks, not the Jr Ducks.

In '19/'20, it is the Jr Kings that went 9-0 in CAHA Season

But good story and don't let the facts get in the way.  Also, IMO an excellent reference because there definitely will be more than one resident "P", Charlie Conway, in Bantam Major next season.  ie: with 5 teams of 17 players = 85 players

[6607]

Dogs, Sharks, Gulls, Bears ... please tell me that someone at CAHA thought they were creating Flights for AA hockey.  And are the Bears using the same “List” as the Dogs? 

[lcadad]

In SD, you have the Gulls, Saints and SDIA.  You could argue that Riverside/Reign is also a competitor in and for this market. 

I fail to see what the big concern is.  At worst, the other AAA teams get 2 more games to play, and must rise to the occasion in those games to insure they get their playdown berth.  If they are a weak AAA team nationally, what difference does it make to anyone but the coaches, players and parents of that team? 

Newsflash, but losing most of your games is not the catastrophe that some people seem to think it is.  There are quite a number of tier teams that have a group of very competitive players, but just don't have the overall team parity and composition to beat other teams.  Many of these kids hone their skills and will find success in the future.  It's a marathon not a sprint.

Given time and continuity, teams can improve together, and attract new players.  There is no better example of this than the '05 Saints who benefitted from consolidation, and the continuity of having the same coaches over a number of seasons.  They are a AAA caliber team playing AA thanks to CAHA's rules and regulations.   

Their success could be replicated elsewhere, but the CAHA rules makes this difficult for the other clubs.  Unlike the Kings/Ducks and Sharks, they have to compete for players on an uneven playing field and fill out paperwork and justifications just to secure a AAA option at a point in the season where most coaches are still focused on the culmination of the current season, and technically at a time when recruiting is prohibited.  It's ridiculous. 

Teams come and go. Programs provide the framework and basis for long term development, and this is where CAHA has damaged the marketplace and angered its customers, and failed the participants it is supposed to be supporting.

[TheFourthA]

IcaDad:


So the reason for adding these teams is that there are a few kids in each of those groups that are ready to play AAA?  That’s really the best argument against adding those teams.  The kids who aren’t ready aren’t going to develop because they (i) will not have success against the elite players or (ii) will be spending a lot of time watching the kids who are ready to compete at this level.  I’ve watched this happen and it’s horrible watching a kids love for the game die on the bench. 


As for the few who are ready, they better come in neat packages of 3 forwards and 2 defensemen because otherwise you are doing a disservice and limiting the
Development of kids who are ready by putting them out with kids who aren’t.  That’s also not a pretty thing to watch.


And what about developing the kids on the existing teams?  Don’t they have the same right to competition that will push their development?  If there is no harm to playing against lesser competition, why are teams trying to escape AA?


And it’s not a matter of two games.  AAA teams have to play each other 3 times a season.  Start with the 3 non competitive games against the Sharks, add in three more for the Gulls and potentially 3 more for the Bears.  That’s 9 games and probably an investment of three school days and over 1500 per family for the existing teams.  That’s too much of an investment to (maybe) foster the development of a few kids on the team.

[BladesofSteel66]

In SD, you have the Gulls, Saints and SDIA.  You could argue that Riverside/Reign is also a competitor in and for this market. 

I fail to see what the big concern is.  At worst, the other AAA teams get 2 more games to play, and must rise to the occasion in those games to insure they get their playdown berth.  If they are a weak AAA team nationally, what difference does it make to anyone but the coaches, players and parents of that team? 

Newsflash, but losing most of your games is not the catastrophe that some people seem to think it is.  There are quite a number of tier teams that have a group of very competitive players, but just don't have the overall team parity and composition to beat other teams.  Many of these kids hone their skills and will find success in the future.  It's a marathon not a sprint.

Given time and continuity, teams can improve together, and attract new players.  There is no better example of this than the '05 Saints who benefitted from consolidation, and the continuity of having the same coaches over a number of seasons.  They are a AAA caliber team playing AA thanks to CAHA's rules and regulations.   

Their success could be replicated elsewhere, but the CAHA rules makes this difficult for the other clubs.  Unlike the Kings/Ducks and Sharks, they have to compete for players on an uneven playing field and fill out paperwork and justifications just to secure a AAA option at a point in the season where most coaches are still focused on the culmination of the current season, and technically at a time when recruiting is prohibited.  It's ridiculous. 

Teams come and go. Programs provide the framework and basis for long term development, and this is where CAHA has damaged the marketplace and angered its customers, and failed the participants it is supposed to be supporting.

Nailed it. 

[SkatingDad]

Newsflash, but losing most of your games is not the catastrophe that some people seem to think it is.  There are quite a number of tier teams that have a group of very competitive players, but just don't have the overall team parity and composition to beat other teams.  Many of these kids hone their skills and will find success in the future.  It's a marathon not a sprint.

Exactly

[Strawman]

IcaDad:


So the reason for adding these teams is that there are a few kids in each of those groups that are ready to play AAA?  That’s really the best argument against adding those teams.  The kids who aren’t ready aren’t going to develop because they (i) will not have success against the elite players or (ii) will be spending a lot of time watching the kids who are ready to compete at this level.  I’ve watched this happen and it’s horrible watching a kids love for the game die on the bench. 


As for the few who are ready, they better come in neat packages of 3 forwards and 2 defensemen because otherwise you are doing a disservice and limiting the
Development of kids who are ready by putting them out with kids who aren’t.  That’s also not a pretty thing to watch.


And what about developing the kids on the existing teams?  Don’t they have the same right to competition that will push their development?  If there is no harm to playing against lesser competition, why are teams trying to escape AA?


And it’s not a matter of two games.  AAA teams have to play each other 3 times a season.  Start with the 3 non competitive games against the Sharks, add in three more for the Gulls and potentially 3 more for the Bears.  That’s 9 games and probably an investment of three school days and over 1500 per family for the existing teams.  That’s too much of an investment to (maybe) foster the development of a few kids on the team.

Arithmetic teaches us that 50% of AAA teams are going to lose 50% or more of their AAA games.  It's not the end of the world.

[BladesofSteel66]

IcaDad:


So the reason for adding these teams is that there are a few kids in each of those groups that are ready to play AAA?  That’s really the best argument against adding those teams.  The kids who aren’t ready aren’t going to develop because they (i) will not have success against the elite players or (ii) will be spending a lot of time watching the kids who are ready to compete at this level.  I’ve watched this happen and it’s horrible watching a kids love for the game die on the bench. 


As for the few who are ready, they better come in neat packages of 3 forwards and 2 defensemen because otherwise you are doing a disservice and limiting the
Development of kids who are ready by putting them out with kids who aren’t.  That’s also not a pretty thing to watch.


And what about developing the kids on the existing teams?  Don’t they have the same right to competition that will push their development?  If there is no harm to playing against lesser competition, why are teams trying to escape AA?


And it’s not a matter of two games.  AAA teams have to play each other 3 times a season.  Start with the 3 non competitive games against the Sharks, add in three more for the Gulls and potentially 3 more for the Bears.  That’s 9 games and probably an investment of three school days and over 1500 per family for the existing teams.  That’s too much of an investment to (maybe) foster the development of a few kids on the team.

A few things...


1 - Yes, a few kids that can play at the AAA level deserve the OPPORTUNITY.  CAHA system bias does not provide that opportunity. 


2 - You argue the kids NOT ready to play AAA (in May/Aug) get put on AAA teams and watch other players (who deserve it) get the ice time. 
(a) games are NOT where your player will develop the skills to play AAA level.
(b) you assume that the player not ready in (May/Aug.) will NEVER be ready all year.  That spits in the face of player development.  You are essentially agreeing with the argument CAHA provides and that is national recognition through WINNING!


If a player loses the love of the game because he gets no ice time, it is one or a blend of these things:
(a) reached too high/parents wanted another letter
(b) was told he was good enough/needed to fill a roster spot - in this situation, the player is never valued and rarely coached to develop


A "solid" to "high-end" AA player can and will raise their skill level and abilities if committed to the process at the AAA level.  This aspect of player development is mislead by the notion "play at the level where your player is going to play the most."  Again, games do not develop players at the rate practice, off-ice training, and competition does at the highest levels.  Staying at a lower level and being the best player on a team leads to a plateau in skill development eventually (no one is on the team to compete with your player and challenge him to get better).  Why would anyone want that?


Limiting players by their line-mates?  Shame on this concept.  A great player is great because he makes his line-mates better.  Ever heard of Rob Brown?  His greatest season statistically (and his ONLY all-star appearance) happened the year he scored 49 GOALS in the NHL.  You know how hard that is to do?  In the whole 100+years of NHL history.... only 94 men can claim to have had seasons with 50+ goals.  That's it. 
So, Rob Brown...  do you know who his line-mate in '88-'89 was during his greatest NHL season?  Here's a clue...  #66.  In fact, that was Lemieux's greatest single season statistically (199 pts).  FYI Brown was 5th that year with 115 pts.  I don't recall Super Mario ever complaining about his line-mate that year............

[lcadad]

And it’s not a matter of two games.  AAA teams have to play each other 3 times a season.  Start with the 3 non competitive games against the Sharks, add in three more for the Gulls and potentially 3 more for the Bears.  That’s 9 games and probably an investment of three school days and over 1500 per family for the existing teams.  That’s too much of an investment to (maybe) foster the development of a few kids on the team.

It seems to me that what you expect is that AAA guarantees insulation against ever winning a game that isn't a life and death battle.  It's absurd because it doesn't exist and has never existed within the CAHA system or hockey in general.    Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the games won't end up being more competitive than expected.

I do find your math hysterical.  Let's just say that you are a Kings or Ducks parent.  You have a drive of perhaps an hour and a half to play the gulls at worse, and something less for the Bears.   The Sharks have a bit more of a travel dilemma, but that is no different than the one that currently exists, and historically, the Sharks have lagged behind the Ducks and Kings.

Then there are some simple facts regarding this season.  The Kings have emerged this season as the superior team.  They have yet to lose a game, and a +42 GD in 9 games.    Well surely that is because they are nipping the #2 Ducks, right?  Sorry, but you did ask for this:

Kings 4 - Ducks 1
Kings 6 - Ducks 0
Kings 7 - Ducks 2


The Sharks are in last place behind the ID, so I won't bother to post their scores.  I suppose that CAHA ought to drop the Ducks and the Sharks from AAA next year, as neither team seems to be able to compete with the Kings team this year? 

So the reason for adding these teams is that there are a few kids in each of those groups that are ready to play AAA?  That’s really the best argument against adding those teams.  The kids who aren’t ready aren’t going to develop because they (i) will not have success against the elite players or (ii) will be spending a lot of time watching the kids who are ready to compete at this level.  I’ve watched this happen and it’s horrible watching a kids love for the game die on the bench.

I have never heard nor seen a kid's dream of playing hockey die because they were beaten soundly by players on a better team.  If anything it's often motivation to work harder.  Adults in charge of playing time and opportunity can be quite good at killing a kid's dreams, but then the history of hockey if full of stories about players who were told they weren't good enough to play, at various times, in various ways, and yet they persevered. 

You keep bringing up "the elite players" like they are a different breed of human.  Scattered throughout the AA teams are kids who would have no problem at AAA.  At '06 the best 2 offensive AAA players don't even play at their birth year currently, and there are any number of '06 players in AA who are playing up and facing '05 players and teams who are more than capable of beating the '06 AAA teams, in some cases routinely. 

I'm sure the calculus for the Bears and ID are the same, and that is that in order to attract a quorum of these kids, AAA is the best way to do it, at least for the coming season.  The problem is that, it should be simpler and easier for them to do so.  Hockey programs are not unlike the field of dreams:  you have to build it for them to come.


The "franchised" AAA clubs have had all the advantages of the system for years, so it might take some time for the clubs to catch up, but given the opportunity, history shows they probably will, unless CAHA continues to actively prevent it.