Calhockey.com
Hockey Discussions => Bantam Hockey => Topic started by: TheFourthA on January 13, 2020, 06:53:25 PM
-
Anyone have any info in what clubs (apart from Ducks, Kings and Sharks) are seeking AAA status for next season? Heard rumors about Saints 05 and Bears, but the latter would be a paradigm shift for that club.
-
Also heard a rumor that 06 Gulls have applied...
-
Ice Dogs have a 06 AAA so possibility that they keep that team.
-
Despite the changes over at the kennel, I think the Dogs are a lock to keep AAA status since they have out performed the Sharks.
-
Out performing the Sharks is a pretty low bar.
If CAHA was smart, they would deny Bears, Gulls and Ice Dogs at 06.
Bears only have 8 AA 06 kids now between two AA teams! (Not sure how many of those are even AAA quality players.) Bears can't field a full team without stripping other programs of their better players. The only way the Bears would even be remotely competitive at AAA is by successfully luring SEVERAL kids from either Kings or Ducks. And when they don't, the couple of decent kids at the Bears who might have entertained playing there will bolt for other programs.
At least Ice Dogs had a full team in tact last year, as well as another team to draw from and a double a state championship to boast when they applied. That said though, the Dogs best win this season was over a team ranked 35th and that was the 3rd game of the year and before losing a bunch of kids. Beyond that, they don't have a win over a team ranked higher than 54th this season! Ice Dogs have bled players this season and will continue to do so making them even worse next year if they retain AAA status.
Gulls have no business applying either. They recently lost to the Ice Dogs! Adding another mediocre AAA team for the sake of an extra A doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for California hockey. They would currently be ranked 78th on MyHockeyRankings in AAA. That far down is still AA hockey. Even the "AAA tourneys" they would go to would have them relegated to playing AA teams.
All three of those teams should play AA next season and duke it out for a state championship.
-
Has CAHA ever denied a current AAA team AAA status for the next year? And how could CAHA in good faith approve the Sharks but deny the Dogs?
-
Has CAHA ever denied a current AAA team AAA status for the next year? And how could CAHA in good faith approve the Sharks but deny the Dogs?
Didn't they do that to the Titans? And Wave?
-
Sounds like the 4th is nervous
-
Not nervous at all. We have no involvement with the Dogs. But the decision there and on the Gulls and Bears shapes the profile of AAA for next year. For example, with 5 teams would CAHA move to a CAHA weekend type of format for league play? Five teams would also make the regular season mean something other than play off seeding.
Personally, I think growing the game favors having an AAA presence in San Diego. But talent starts to leave the state at Bantam Major and it may be the wrong time to further dilute the talent base with an additional AAA team.
The Dogs are a tough decision. They didn’t combine their AA rosters last spring into an upper level team and lost several important players to the Ducks at tryouts. Since tryouts, they lost their best defenseman, their head coach, and three or four other players. They even pulled out of a tournament in Toronto at the last minute because of the turmoil. They will have a smaller presence at Select Camp than the Gulls. On the other hand, they have won two (lesser) tournaments, took the Kings to a shootout and have been a mid pack AAA team in the rankings. Decent results
For a first year AAA team, but I wonder if CAHA would feel better served if the Dogs made a run at an AA national championship instead?
-
Competition is key....The Kings and Ducks have gotten lazy, just as the Sharks have become lazy. Clearly let the best club and more importantly coaching win! The Bears and Dogs have the best coaching and easily the best net working for moving your childs hockey career forward.
At Bantam AAA the parents are expecting a professional product. Parents are spending approximately 25-35k a year! Let the market determine what the best product is.
The worst thing CAHA has done is anoint clubs without any performance criteria. In any market this is a mistake.....just look at NorCal....parents are driving 5-6 hours each way every week not to play on the Sharks. This is a joke.
I say let all the applying clubs be AAA and then let the Market decide who is best. Parents and Kids win there.
-
The Bears and Dogs have the best coaching and easily the best net working for moving your childs hockey career forward.
No one can argue how Torsson (Bears) move kids forward in their hockey career...no one has a Prep pipeline like he has. But, and this is just pure lack of knowledge or awareness, who brings that kind of impact at the Dogs?
-
Mention AAA hockey in California and look who comes out of the woodwork!!
Let the market decide. 100%. Offer opportunity. 100%.
Gulls have the kids and a long history of AAA. Ice Dogs have tons of kids, two sheets of ice and Konstantin, one of the best hockey guys in SoCal running the ship. And, well... the Bears have Peter the Great. They have kids, and they'll get a ton more (where you at Valley?!).
Don't be afraid of progress... embrace it. Competition, baby.
-
(https://cdn-media-1.freecodecamp.org/images/1*lczk5cwMcnRm-MrIUp9trg.png)
-
Identify yourself 4th Liner
-
Saints 15U in. Gulls 14u in. Jr reign 16u and 18u. No ice dogs (surprised). No bears. No idea if the latter 2 applied.
Nice job Saints building their program the right way.
-
Saints 15U in. Gulls 14u in. Jr reign 16u and 18u. No ice dogs (surprised). No bears. No idea if the latter 2 applied.
Nice job Saints building their program the right way.
Fully support Gulls 06 getting it... but Ice Dogs 06 got TOTALLY screwed. They should be furious with CAHA... especially with the Jr Sharks getting the rubber stamp once again. This is after, of course, the Ice Dogs beating the Jr Sharks all three times they've played this year. And, ironically, the Ice Dogs beating the Gulls 06 team 4-2 just last week. Way to go CAHA, you've proven your bias, favoritism and utter moral corruptness once again.
Let's start the count on how many 13-16 year-old kids prematurely leave California starting this May because of this continued nonsense...
Tom. Dunderheads. All of CAHA. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
-
Kudos to the Saints 05 and Gulls 06, but agree Ice Dogs 06 got screwed by CAHA. First year team that showed they could beat Jr Sharks any time they'd meet, and the Jr Sharks keep right on putting out crap in the name of AAA (and AA and A and... Got to keep supporting that crappy AAA team!). At least the Ice Dogs seem to be building a good program. They weren't happy with the direction of the 06 team, so they chose to make some tough choices in December. Fourth A, if memory serves me correct, the Ice Dogs lost a couple of their best players to Ducks AAA due to being unhappy with that coach that was removed. That should have made replacing the coach in December a huge plus for CAHA, trying to make their program better. Nice job once again, CAHA, making California hockey worse by the minute. In fact, why don't we just cut even more AAA programs or eliminate it altogether in CA? We're losing many of the best players in this age group already anyway. Might as well put that nail in the coffin, CAHA.
-
Bears only have 8 AA 06 kids now between two AA teams! (Not sure how many of those are even AAA quality players.) Bears can't field a full team without stripping other programs of their better players.The only way the Bears would even be remotely competitive at AAA is by successfully luring SEVERAL kids from either Kings or Ducks. And when they don't, the couple of decent kids at the Bears who might have entertained playing there will bolt for other programs.
Great point. Only the Kings, Ducks and Sharks should be allowed to pull kids from other programs. ::)
-
Players and parents flee and jump ship not only mid-season, but each and every year as well. It's spoiled-brat syndrome. Until you cure that aspect, you will always have players leaving any and every club to go play for the holy anointed Jr. Ducks/Jr. Kings AAA programs. CAHA fears "diluting" their AAA product and will never allow more teams in LOCAL areas.
One needs to ask, why do the Sharks perpetually suck as worst team year after year? It is the only show in town, doesn't that mean they should get the best players in NorCal? Are NorCal players not as good? Is the Sharks program not as good? Is it too far away for families to commute? What is the answer? If you put more AAA teams in NorCal, would the teams be better as a group? We are arguing for that here in SoCal. The SD area absolutely should be able to have AAA teams at each age division, so should Riverside. Maybe if there were more options, this state would have fewer, occasional "national champions" and more solid, competitive teams (spreading out talent and encouraging more to join).
-
Bears only have 8 AA 06 kids now between two AA teams! (Not sure how many of those are even AAA quality players.) Bears can't field a full team without stripping other programs of their better players.The only way the Bears would even be remotely competitive at AAA is by successfully luring SEVERAL kids from either Kings or Ducks. And when they don't, the couple of decent kids at the Bears who might have entertained playing there will bolt for other programs.
Great point. Only the Kings, Ducks and Sharks should be allowed to pull kids from other programs. ::)
A great point you clearly missed, Straw Man.
Bears have a whole bunch of AA state championships from recruiting from other programs. I never said they shouldn't. I said it would be the only way for them to be competitive at AAA next season.
-
Players and parents flee and jump ship not only mid-season, but each and every year as well. It's spoiled-brat syndrome. Until you cure that aspect, you will always have players leaving any and every club to go play for the holy anointed Jr. Ducks/Jr. Kings AAA programs. CAHA fears "diluting" their AAA product and will never allow more teams in LOCAL areas.
One needs to ask, why do the Sharks perpetually suck as worst team year after year? It is the only show in town, doesn't that mean they should get the best players in NorCal? Are NorCal players not as good? Is the Sharks program not as good? Is it too far away for families to commute? What is the answer? If you put more AAA teams in NorCal, would the teams be better as a group? We are arguing for that here in SoCal. The SD area absolutely should be able to have AAA teams at each age division, so should Riverside. Maybe if there were more options, this state would have fewer, occasional "national champions" and more solid, competitive teams (spreading out talent and encouraging more to join).
Can't speak for every birth year...but as for the 03-05 years....there FLAT OUT is not enough quality players in the north to form a second AAA team--end of story.
GSE was going to do it a few years ago and scratched the idea due to lack of said quality players....
Are there a handful of players who go GSE instead of the Sharks, because they don't like the Sharks...yes...there are, but not enough to form a second team. Are there kids who leave because of lack of opportunity that does not involve the Sharks...again yes...but just a very minor few...
-
A great point you clearly missed, Straw Man.
Bears have a whole bunch of AA state championships from recruiting from other programs. I never said they shouldn't. I said it would be the only way for them to be competitive at AAA next season.
Nonsense. You stated that CAHA should deny their application for AAA because that is the only way the Bears could roster a AAA team. Your words. Meanwhile, there are 3 clubs with a FRANCHISE to recruit from all the other California clubs, which of course they do because they are the only game in town for AAA.
The Bears haven't "won a whole bunch of championships by recruiting from other programs" either. Last season, they certainly got a large group of players from the Ducks, and the same thing could be said about the team this year. So that's one AA championship, whereas this season, they are the 2nd place AA team in the state, even with the recruiting, and another championship is far from assured. Their '05 PWAA group was a group who developed at the club, and PT's '03 team was developed by him starting at the squirt level. Some very good players from that '03 team ended up leaving the Bears for the Kings and Ducks AAA as a matter of fact, but we wouldn't want to get that in the way of your narrative.
-
So did the ID loose their 06 AAA for next year?
-
Nonsense. You stated that CAHA should deny their application for AAA because that is the only way the Bears could roster a AAA team.
Nope. Read closer next time. You are conflating what I said. (Notice how I used a separate paragraph in my earlier post?) But since you're confused, allow me to be more clear. The Bears do not have enough kids currently in their program for a COMPETITIVE 06 AAA team. Do you deny that? As stated, they only have 8 playing AA this season. The only way they would be competitive nationally is by recruiting. I never said they CAN'T recruit, did I?
The Bears haven't "won a whole bunch of championships by recruiting from other programs" either. Last season, they certainly got a large group of players from the Ducks, and the same thing could be said about the team this year. So that's one AA championship, whereas this season, they are the 2nd place AA team in the state, even with the recruiting, and another championship is far from assured. Their '05 PWAA group was a group who developed at the club, and PT's '03 team was developed by him starting at the squirt level. Some very good players from that '03 team ended up leaving the Bears for the Kings and Ducks AAA as a matter of fact, but we wouldn't want to get that in the way of your narrative.
Sorry I tried to give them more credit than they were actually due. But great to know that the Bears' recruiting efforts are going well and not being inhibited by anyone!
My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level. I don't think spreading the AAA talent among even more teams is a good thing for those kids or Southern California hockey. At the 06 birth year, there are 2 teams inside the top 12. Ice Dogs AAA team is really just a very good AA team. Same for the Gulls (but are actually playing in the right division). Sorry that I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to add an extra A to make everyone feel good, be my guest!
Yes, it sucks that there are only a few AAA teams and geographically it makes life very difficult for a lot of people. But as parents, we chose this sport. If you want lots of opportunities for your kid to play a sport at the highest level close to your house, you should have had them play baseball.
I'm fully aware that there are some AA kids who could play AAA if it weren't for location, politics, money or a whole bunch of other reasons. It's unfortunate some don't have the opportunity, but I believe if they're truly good enough and want to continue, they'll have that chance. The answer however is not watering down AAA and having several mediocre teams who get their ass kicked nationally.
-
its pretty sad that some people think a team needs to be ranked above a certain number on mhr.com to validate the developmental benefits that the kids on that team get from participating in aaa, with the extra ice time, higher level of competition and exposure that typically provides. ice dogs are doing fine for a first year aaa program. the kids surely would benefit from a multi-year sustained program, so why does the umbrella organization have to go muck it up? if the jk and jd don't want to play anyone else, fine, change the 300% rule and go spend every other weekend flying out of town. if they'd just give one or two of the ice dogs, gulls, saints, (wave, reign, bears, titans, goldrush, whoever) a couple years to actually build up their programs, you'd see a lot fewer kids leaving the state, overall quality of the circuit would improve, and everyone would benefit.
you know what would be "good for those kids and southern california hockey"? i mean, like the *best* thing? not having dozens of kids leave home when they are 13, 14 or 15 years old, that's what.
-
"My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level. I don't think spreading the AAA talent among even more teams is a good thing for those kids or Southern California hockey. At the 06 birth year, there are 2 teams inside the top 12. Ice Dogs AAA team is really just a very good AA team. Same for the Gulls (but are actually playing in the right division). Sorry that I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to add an extra A to make everyone feel good, be my guest! "
If the criterion for having AAA teams is whether the state has more than 2 teams in the top 12 nationally in a given age group, then only Michigan would be allowed to have AAA teams most years.
-
"My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level. I don't think spreading the AAA talent among even more teams is a good thing for those kids or Southern California hockey. At the 06 birth year, there are 2 teams inside the top 12. Ice Dogs AAA team is really just a very good AA team. Same for the Gulls (but are actually playing in the right division). Sorry that I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to add an extra A to make everyone feel good, be my guest! "
If the criterion for having AAA teams is whether the state has more than 2 teams in the top 12 nationally in a given age group, then only Michigan would be allowed to have AAA teams most years.
Classic, Strawman. Why is reading comprehension so hard? I didn't say that to be AAA in California teams needed to be ranked inside the top 12. "My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level." That's what I said. I then proceeded to state where California teams currently rank.
The Ice Dogs have 1 win this entire season over a team ranked higher than 54th. And that was BEFORE they lost several players! If you think that makes them competitive nationally, great! The Sharks are 73rd. Gulls current roster would be 78th. If you think they are playing AAA hockey, that's your prerogative. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Just don't put words in my mouth.
-
Sorry I tried to give them more credit than they were actually due. But great to know that the Bears' recruiting efforts are going well and not being inhibited by anyone!
Seems likes the opposite is true. They won 2 recent state championships, where the teams were not the product of mass recruiting. Even if they did have an influx of players this season and last, the PDR rules apply.
[size=0px]My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level. I don't think spreading the AAA talent among even more teams is a good thing for those kids or Southern California hockey. At the 06 birth year, there are 2 teams inside the top 12. Ice Dogs AAA team is really just a very good AA team. Same for the Gulls (but are actually playing in the right division). Sorry that I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to add an extra A to make everyone feel good, be my guest![/size]
Gotcha. Kids who could play AAA but don't have the opportunity need to play for Ducks, Kings or Sharks whether that be the right location, coaching staff or organization. One size fits all, get in line, wait your turn, whatever. Same arguments made for years. At the end of the day, AAA hockey isn't free. It's an expensive product people are paying for. When people are paying for something, they should be free to pursue the situation that is best for them, and not have to conform to a highly restrictive and artificially limited market.
-
"My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level. I don't think spreading the AAA talent among even more teams is a good thing for those kids or Southern California hockey. At the 06 birth year, there are 2 teams inside the top 12. Ice Dogs AAA team is really just a very good AA team. Same for the Gulls (but are actually playing in the right division). Sorry that I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to add an extra A to make everyone feel good, be my guest! "
If the criterion for having AAA teams is whether the state has more than 2 teams in the top 12 nationally in a given age group, then only Michigan would be allowed to have AAA teams most years.
Classic, Strawman. Why is reading comprehension so hard? I didn't say that to be AAA in California teams needed to be ranked inside the top 12. "My larger point is that So Cal can only support so many competitive AAA teams on a national level." That's what I said. I then proceeded to state where California teams currently rank.
The Ice Dogs have 1 win this entire season over a team ranked higher than 54th. And that was BEFORE they lost several players! If you think that makes them competitive nationally, great! The Sharks are 73rd. Gulls current roster would be 78th. If you think they are playing AAA hockey, that's your prerogative. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Just don't put words in my mouth.
Just pointing out logically fallacious arguments when they are presented. If you intended to make a completely different argument than the one you made, there is an "edit" button.
-
wtf does it matter where a team is ranked on mhr, especially one on which your kid does not play???
flipside, here's why having more aaa teams is worthwhile: go to the caha website and poke around the rosters of the '00 wildcats and '00 gulls from the 2014-15 season. that's the oldest year available on mhr. those teams were ranked 40th and 60th -- "unworthy" of aaa according to some. yet, now five years later, three kids from those teams committed to or are currently playing for ncaa d1 programs, one playing ncaa d3, one major junior (ushl), four playing junior "a" (bchl/nahl), three playing college acha level, and a half dozen still in the ncdc or usphl. and that's from the two "weakest" teams in one of the weaker recent birth years.
those kids got a bantam aaa opportunity which i believe helped their development. would all those kids have gotten to the next level without the benefit of aaa development at that age? we'll never know for sure, but reducing the # opportunities, while the number of kids participating at the bantam ages is increasing, makes no sense to me. none. does anyone today remember or care where the bantam 00 kings or ducks "ranked"? smh
-
Without specific citations of previous posts... dammmmmmmn this thread is getting to the real-deal nitty-gritty issue(s)! AND I like it!
-
wtf does it matter where a team is ranked on mhr, especially one on which your kid does not play???
flipside, here's why having more aaa teams is worthwhile: go to the caha website and poke around the rosters of the '00 wildcats and '00 gulls from the 2014-15 season. that's the oldest year available on mhr. those teams were ranked 40th and 60th -- "unworthy" of aaa according to some. yet, now five years later, three kids from those teams committed to or are currently playing for ncaa d1 programs, one playing ncaa d3, one major junior (ushl), four playing junior "a" (bchl/nahl), three playing college acha level, and a half dozen still in the ncdc or usphl. and that's from the two "weakest" teams in one of the weaker recent birth years.
those kids got a bantam aaa opportunity which i believe helped their development. would all those kids have gotten to the next level without the benefit of aaa development at that age? we'll never know for sure, but reducing the # opportunities, while the number of kids participating at the bantam ages is increasing, makes no sense to me. none. does anyone today remember or care where the bantam 00 kings or ducks "ranked"? smh
Okay, you won me over. Every club in California should field a AAA team.
-
Just pointing out logically fallacious arguments when they are presented. If you intended to make a completely different argument than the one you made, there is an "edit" button.
The only thing you pointed out is that you inferred something I didn't write.
-
"A DAY AT THE RINK"
A One-Act Play by Jack Bender
RANDOM ASS HAT: Hey, Jack. How's it going?
JACK: Pretty good, Random Ass Hat.
RANDOM ASS HAT: Gee, Jack. Can you tell us the purpose of CAHA?
JACK: Sure, Random Ass Hat. Let's go look at the CAHA bylaws, shall we?
CAHA 2019-2021 Guidebook
Pg. 73
Part 5: Bylaws and Addendums
Section 20.3 Purpose
The purpose of CAHA, in addition to any purposes set forth in the Articles of Incorporation of the organization, is as follows:
1. To encourage, foster and promote the development and growth of the sport of amateur ice hockey within the State of California.
2. To conduct certain affairs of USA Hockey, to assist in the governance of the Registered Participant Members and Member Teams of USA Hockey and to regulate the sport of amateur ice hockey within the State of California.
3. To encourage and develop the mental knowledge, skills, ability and sportsmanship of all participants with respect to the sport of amateur ice hockey.
4. To conduct State ice hockey tournaments and to select representative Member Teams to participate in USA Hockey District, Regional, and National Tournaments.
5. To carry out all other responsibilities, duties and obligations imposed on CAHA pursuant to the Affiliated Agreement with USA Hockey.
RANDOM ASS HAT: Gee, that first bylaw is interesting, isn't it?
JACK: Yes, it is, Random Ass Hat.
RANDOM ASS HAT: It doesn't really sound like CAHA is following their own bylaws, though, does it?
JACK: No, Random Ass Hat.
RANDOM ASS HAT: And, correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't say CAHA's purpose is to protect the sanctity of AAA hockey in California or to make sure California clubs are competitive at a national level, does it?
JACK: No, Random Ass Hat.
RANDOM ASS HAT: In fact, it really seems like CAHA has been abusing their power, overreaching, playing favorites, limiting opportunity, suppressing competition, and manipulating amateur hockey for all these years?
JACK: Yes, Random Ass Hat. Yes.
RANDOM ASS HAT: Holy crap. What a bunch of assholes.
JACK: Now you're learning, Random Ass Hat. Nice job.
THE END
-
2. To conduct certain affairs of USA Hockey, to assist in the governance of the Registered Participant Members and Member Teams of USA Hockey and to regulate the sport of amateur ice hockey within the State of California.
Hey Jack, but what about #2? "To regulate the sport of amateur ice hockey within the State of California."
-
regulate
verb
Definition:
- control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
Used in a Sentence:
- Yes, CAHA should regulate the rules of USA Hockey... which doesn't say anything about protecting the sanctity of AAA hockey in California or making sure California clubs are competitive at a national level.
Now stop bothering me. I'm working on my next one-act play. It's about Vacaville and flighting.
-
Just pointing out logically fallacious arguments when they are presented. If you intended to make a completely different argument than the one you made, there is an "edit" button.
The only thing you pointed out is that you inferred something I didn't write.
Please. I quoted exactly what you wrote. Whether you have enough neurons to figure out what it implies is the only question.
-
Sick burn, bro! Gosh, got me so good with that one.
-
AAA discussions on the board center around national rankings and "competitiveness". The problem is that most people do not really understand what youth hockey is meant to accomplish. Nobody, and I mean nobody cares where you were ranked or how many titles you won playing youth hockey. The purpose of youth hockey is to develop your player so they can play Juniors and then move on the College and/or Pros. Youth hockey is meant to develop your player and only for that purpose. Limiting the AAA teams limits development opportunity for good players to become good enough to play Juniors.
The NHL affiliates in California did not like the fact that they where not competitive on a national level because it looked back on their namesakes, so they changed the rules to favor them. The NHL teams and affiliates only care how they look and forcing people to play for bad clubs and coaches or to leave the their parents at 14,15 and 16 because of lack of opportunity is not the way to develop kids or players.
Remember the best coaches rarely have the best records. The best coaches love the game and honor it by developing kids and are not consumed by national rankings and championships. Winning is more fun than losing but, the end goal should not be sacrificed for winning. There will be plenty of time for winning at all cost in Juniors. Just ask anyone who has played Juniors and has observed people or have been cut and fired at the Junior level.
-
Players and parents flee and jump ship not only mid-season, but each and every year as well. It's spoiled-brat syndrome. Until you cure that aspect, you will always have players leaving any and every club to go play for the holy anointed Jr. Ducks/Jr. Kings AAA programs. CAHA fears "diluting" their AAA product and will never allow more teams in LOCAL areas.
One needs to ask, why do the Sharks perpetually suck as worst team year after year? It is the only show in town, doesn't that mean they should get the best players in NorCal? Are NorCal players not as good? Is the Sharks program not as good? Is it too far away for families to commute? What is the answer? If you put more AAA teams in NorCal, would the teams be better as a group? We are arguing for that here in SoCal. The SD area absolutely should be able to have AAA teams at each age division, so should Riverside. Maybe if there were more options, this state would have fewer, occasional "national champions" and more solid, competitive teams (spreading out talent and encouraging more to join).
Riverside (wildcats) is the reason we have the AAA rule. GSE was approved for 14U AAA last season and they couldn't field a team that they thought was a true AAA team. They dropped to AA and had a great season, but not all clubs do the right thing. People bitched and complained for years about too many AAA teams, now every on bitches and complains about not enough AAA teams. AAA isn't for everyone, it's a big commitment as a family and if that's what you want to do, you'll make the commute. If your kid can't make one of the two or three AAA teams in SoCal, then it's probably not where little johnny belongs.
-
Riverside (wildcats) is the reason we have the AAA rule.
You do hate the Reign / Wildcats :) You have held a grudge since mites. That was not the reason for the rule change. The rule was put into place to favor the NHL affiliate teams. If the purpose was to remove Reign / Wildcats from AAA they would not have teams at 18U and 16U.
-
I wouldn't say I hate the Reign, but I would tell anyone asking me advice to stay away. And they are the reason we have these rules. Pretty much every one of there teams were playing in the wrong division and they would do it year after year. And how in the hell did they get approved for a 16U AAA team next season? Where are the players coming from? oh wait, that's right, BF likes to suck up to the big boys!
-
AAA discussions on the board center around national rankings and "competitiveness". The problem is that most people do not really understand what youth hockey is meant to accomplish. Nobody, and I mean nobody cares where you were ranked or how many titles you won playing youth hockey. The purpose of youth hockey is to develop your player so they can play Juniors and then move on the College and/or Pros. Youth hockey is meant to develop your player and only for that purpose. Limiting the AAA teams limits development opportunity for good players to become good enough to play Juniors.
I think the purpose of youth hockey is to foster a love of the game. One of the first things you read on USA Hockey's website is about promoting a lifelong love of the sport. As kids and parents get older and begin to take it more seriously, then you can have a conversation about junior, college or pro. But man, that's so far down the road. I certainly hope that's not what you were thinking when you took your kid to "Lean to Skate."
To your other point, nobody cares about where you were ranked and titles you won in youth hockey. Totally agree. 100 percent.
My point about the rankings in AAA hockey and being competitive is so there is parity in the division around North America. True AAA hockey players and teams should be playing against other true AAA players and teams. The 06 Sens are the best team in North America. They don't want to play the Sharks. It's a waste of time and money for everyone involved. Even if the Sharks do have several true AAA players - it's still a waste of time. The Sharks can't call them and say let's play, we're both AAA! They know they would be laughed at. The Sens want and should be playing other teams who will be competitive. That's true of every level. The Saints AA team does not want to play the Ducks 2 AA team this season. The Ducks 2 probably doesn't really want to play the Saints either. There is no point having those teams playing despite both being AA teams.
The majority of good tournaments ensure there is a competitive balance through these rankings. When the Ice Dogs went to Mo Town this year in Detroit, they didn't play in the top division despite being a "AAA team." They played against AA teams and similarly ranked AAA teams.
If there are more AAA teams in the state, when they travel they're going to be relegated to lower divisions that are on par with AA hockey. Just because a kid is on a "AAA Team" doesn't mean he's playing AAA hockey. And what's so wrong with AA hockey anyways? It's like suddenly tier 2 is awful or something and that it's not a place for development. If your kid isn't dominating or couldn't absolutely dominate AA hockey, he has no business being in AAA hockey. And if a kid is dominating AA hockey, AAA teams are going to come calling. They will say that kid is too good for that division.
The NHL affiliates in California did not like the fact that they where not competitive on a national level because it looked back on their namesakes, so they changed the rules to favor them. The NHL teams and affiliates only care how they look and forcing people to play for bad clubs and coaches or to leave the their parents at 14,15 and 16 because of lack of opportunity is not the way to develop kids or players.
It's the AAA kids who are leaving the state for better opportunities, more exposure, less travel, juniors or whatever. The bulk of kids leaving are not AA studs who are getting screwed over because they can't play AAA. Interestingly, the AAA kids leaving provides more AAA spots for kids who didn't play otherwise. And guess what? The older teams at the AAA level with the addition of AA players making the jump up aren't very good. Do the math on why that might be.
Remember the best coaches rarely have the best records. The best coaches love the game and honor it by developing kids and are not consumed by national rankings and championships. Winning is more fun than losing but, the end goal should not be sacrificed for winning. There will be plenty of time for winning at all cost in Juniors. Just ask anyone who has played Juniors and has observed people or have been cut and fired at the Junior level.
Might be a reach here. I don't want the topic to change course, so I'll just leave this alone.
-
]Riverside (wildcats) is the reason we have the AAA rule. GSE was approved for 14U AAA last season and they couldn't field a team that they thought was a true AAA team. They dropped to AA and had a great season, but not all clubs do the right thing. People bitched and complained for years about too many AAA teams, now every on bitches and complains about not enough AAA teams. AAA isn't for everyone, it's a big commitment as a family and if that's what you want to do, you'll make the commute. If your kid can't make one of the two or three AAA teams in SoCal, then it's probably not where little johnny belongs.
THIS!
-
Yes... We all know about the Wildcats debacle. Instead of condemning them and ripping away opportunities for more players to develop, maybe CAHA should have stepped in and hit them with a club suspension (deny them AAA for a season). What CAHA did by eliminating more opportunities for AAA clubs did not treat the problem of that club.
Wildcats aka Jr. Reign, STILL put teams up into higher levels that DO NOT BELONG. It happens at that club at every age and level. Just look at the standings. That club didn't learn its lesson and that is the problem (regulating club/team declarations).
Great post by SkatingDad. There is an assumption that players only develop if the AAA team they are on is "competitive" and highly ranked nationally. That elitism limits opportunities for OTHER athletes in CA to develop at the AAA level and get the EXPOSURE needed to advance to higher levels in the sport (juniors/college).
It is another way to keep it a "good 'ol boys club" and honestly an abuse of power by CAHA. "Abuse of power" is actually defined as oppression. FYI. We are being oppressed.
-
]Riverside (wildcats) is the reason we have the AAA rule. GSE was approved for 14U AAA last season and they couldn't field a team that they thought was a true AAA team. They dropped to AA and had a great season, but not all clubs do the right thing. People bitched and complained for years about too many AAA teams, now every on bitches and complains about not enough AAA teams. AAA isn't for everyone, it's a big commitment as a family and if that's what you want to do, you'll make the commute. If your kid can't make one of the two or three AAA teams in SoCal, then it's probably not where little johnny belongs.
THIS!
It's not about making the team. It is about not living anywhere near those TWO clubs or the facilities. Get over it.
-
Yes... We all know about the Wildcats debacle. Instead of condemning them and ripping away opportunities for more players to develop, maybe CAHA should have stepped in and hit them with a club suspension (deny them AAA for a season). What CAHA did by eliminating more opportunities for AAA clubs did not treat the problem of that club.
Wildcats aka Jr. Reign, STILL put teams up into higher levels that DO NOT BELONG. It happens at that club at every age and level. Just look at the standings. That club didn't learn its lesson and that is the problem (regulating club/team declarations).
Great post by SkatingDad. There is an assumption that players only develop is the AAA team they are on is "competitive" and highly ranked nationally. That elitism limits opportunities for OTHER athletes in CA to develop at the AAA level and get the EXPOSURE needed to advance to higher levels in the sport (juniors/college).
It is another way to keep it a "good 'ol boys club" and honestly an abuse of power by CAHA. "Abuse of power" is actually defined as oppression. FYI. We are being oppressed.
Wait, so the Reign don't belong? They should be playing a lower level? Got it! That's the point. They should play the level where they are competitive!
Why is there an assumption that kids can't develop playing AA hockey? I don't believe adding an extra letter somehow advances development. Nor does chasing teams significantly better than yours around. Exposure doesn't matter if your kid isn't the elite of the elite. And if he is the elite of the elite, they're going to be seen. Because at a certain point, talent is undeniable.
-
USA hockey and their research and development efforts have presented a wealth of information on player development. Your misunderstanding that elite players stand out and eventually get seen is a contradiction to everything USA hockey has documented and shared.
Player development happens not only at different ages/stages with different rates, but also due to the environment in which they are exposed aka the level of play and resources available.
Again, as for Riverside, the club needed (needs) scolded for what it did, but then it needs guided on how to implement AAA procedures properly or continue to lose the opportunity.
-
USA hockey and their research and development efforts have presented a wealth of information on player development. Your misunderstanding that elite players stand out and eventually get seen is a contradiction to everything USA hockey has documented and shared.
Can you please provide some documents that support this? Everything I have read and people I have spoken to who played at the highest levels maintain, if you are good enough, you will be seen. I think that's especially true if you are ELITE.
https://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/978573
https://www.mahockey.org/news_article/show/920699
https://www.admkids.com/news_article/show/960481
https://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/807853
https://myhockeyrankings.com/news.php?b=550
Again, as for Riverside, the club needed (needs) scolded for what it did, but then it needs guided on how to implement AAA procedures properly or continue to lose the opportunity.
Yes! I agree! Play the correct level!
-
Regarding the Dogs: it was the club and not CAHA that screwed the pooch(es). Last
Spring, the Dogs had a wealth of 06 talent on two clubs, including 5 of the top 7 point producers. Had they consolidated the top players onto one AAA team, they would have been a top AAA team. Not only did they NOT consolidate talent, they bled talent and today none of those 5 kids are on the Dogs AAA team. Neither is their best defenseman. In December, they fired the coach and lost 4 players as a result. Losing so many players so late in the season raised serious questions about whether or
not the team was in compliance as of the decision with rules governing minimum rosters, minimum games played and Tier 1 eligibility. Don’t blame CAHA on this one, because the Dogs are a textbook case of how to throw away a great opportunity. Does anyone even know if they reapplied?
-
It's the AAA kids who are leaving the state for better opportunities, more exposure, less travel, juniors or whatever. The bulk of kids leaving are not AA studs who are getting screwed over because they can't play AAA.
incorrect. less than half of the 2003s and 2004s who have left the state (or gone to tahoe) over the past two seasons were aaa players. many (over 20) of those departed aaa players are kids whose aaa teams at bears or gulls got purged by caha. yes, many very good aaa kids also have departed to shattuck and the like. the truth is that kids at all levels of aaa and aa are leaving in droves by midgets because the aaa options are so limited and a terrible value.
And guess what? The older teams at the AAA level with the addition of AA players making the jump up aren't very good. Do the math on why that might be.
i agree 100% that midget aaa is suffering. the "math" for why that has happened is the 50 or more kids per birth year who leave. imho, a few more options/competition in the market would keep more kids home, and motivate all clubs to be better. that usually is the case where market forces rather than monopoly (or duopoly) rule. of course, immediately adding 3-4 aaa clubs at midget won't work now, because the kids are already gone. the way to build this up is to develop more aaa at peewee and bantam, allowing kids/programs to grow for a few years, and then add a legit "academy" program or two here in socal starting at middle school age. caha needs to stop micro-managing the process.
-
Regarding the Dogs: it was the club and not CAHA that screwed the pooch(es). Last
Spring, the Dogs had a wealth of 06 talent on two clubs, including 5 of the top 7 point producers. Had they consolidated the top players onto one AAA team, they would have been a top AAA team. Not only did they NOT consolidate talent, they bled talent and today none of those 5 kids are on the Dogs AAA team. Neither is their best defenseman. In December, they fired the coach and lost 4 players as a result. Losing so many players so late in the season raised serious questions about whether or
not the team was in compliance as of the decision with rules governing minimum rosters, minimum games played and Tier 1 eligibility. Don’t blame CAHA on this one, because the Dogs are a textbook case of how to throw away a great opportunity. Does anyone even know if they reapplied?
Well, to be fair... the three most productive Forwards from Riley's team are still on the AAA team following his firing. And the five most productive kids from Semenov's team from last year never joined Riley's team this year because they wanted to play for Semenov. So, with Riley fired, you'd assume Konstantin was "fixing" the internal problem so that he could bring both groups together.
Ironically, after the firing, the Ice Dogs almost beat the mighty Jr Kings, losing in a shootout. They also went to a AAA tourney over MLK and won. And that 06-heavy AA Semenov team just won Silver Sticks... so the Ice Dogs more than have the kids. That is undeniable.
I hope the Ice Dogs have appealed. CAHA can be reasoned with. Perhaps CAHA didn't have all the info or they were influenced by something else. Who knows. But the Ice Dogs have the kids. They have the facilities. They have the resources and organizational support... so they should also have AAA if they truly want it. Citing the lowly Sharks and the newly added, less-talented Gulls 06 team, there's no reasonable explanation as to why the Ice Dogs should be stripped of AAA.
CAHA. My dear friends. Do the right thing.
-
You all seem to have a better understanding of how AAA in California works than I do so I am asking this question in the hopes your opinions can help me navigate this very confusing world of youth hockey. I have been told that unless your child plays AAA they will not advance. I have been told by others if they are good enough they will be noticed. If they are not playing AAA then who exactly is going to notice them if nobody pays attention to AA? This question is actually specifically for Goalies. With only 2 spots per team, and now only 2 teams in the Los Angeles area at the 06 level it appears that there is no room for advancement. As hard as it is for the skaters, it is even harder for the goalies to break in to AAA. Would a coach even consider replacing "a known" with an "unknown" even if they are thriving at the AA level? It is very discouraging that the Ice Dogs have been removed as an option and The Bears were denied. That leaves only 4 openings. 6 was bad enough but 4 is really tough. Even if a kid is not as good as those top 4 it doesn't mean that they are not more than capable of playing and thriving at the AAA level. What are the options? It seems to me that having a few more AAA options helps everyone. I really don't want to have my son leave CA at such a young age to pursue his passion.
-
IceDogs has 2 players make the silver stick bantam aa all tournament team including the goalie.
-
You all seem to have a better understanding of how AAA in California works than I do so I am asking this question in the hopes your opinions can help me navigate this very confusing world of youth hockey. I have been told that unless your child plays AAA they will not advance. I have been told by others if they are good enough they will be noticed. If they are not playing AAA then who exactly is going to notice them if nobody pays attention to AA? This question is actually specifically for Goalies. With only 2 spots per team, and now only 2 teams in the Los Angeles area at the 06 level it appears that there is no room for advancement. As hard as it is for the skaters, it is even harder for the goalies to break in to AAA. Would a coach even consider replacing "a known" with an "unknown" even if they are thriving at the AA level? It is very discouraging that the Ice Dogs have been removed as an option and The Bears were denied. That leaves only 4 openings. 6 was bad enough but 4 is really tough. Even if a kid is not as good as those top 4 it doesn't mean that they are not more than capable of playing and thriving at the AAA level. What are the options? It seems to me that having a few more AAA options helps everyone. I really don't want to have my son leave CA at such a young age to pursue his passion.
The concept of AAA is required to get noticed is false. My son never played higher than AA as a youth, and now he is the starter for his team going into his senior year in DIII. The important key is he needs to play, and where he plays he needs to play well. 85 to 90% of college commits do not decide on their college until they are 18 or 19 so you have plenty of time. Puberty and other factors affect their development, but THE MOST IMPORTANT is he needs to play in meaningful games. In my case my son left home at 17 to go play Juniors, where he led his team to the league championship and then continued his development from there.
-
USA hockey and their research and development efforts have presented a wealth of information on player development. Your misunderstanding that elite players stand out and eventually get seen is a contradiction to everything USA hockey has documented and shared.
Can you please provide some documents that support this? Everything I have read and people I have spoken to who played at the highest levels maintain, if you are good enough, you will be seen. I think that's especially true if you are ELITE.
https://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/978573 (https://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/978573)
https://www.mahockey.org/news_article/show/920699 (https://www.mahockey.org/news_article/show/920699)
https://www.admkids.com/news_article/show/960481 (https://www.admkids.com/news_article/show/960481)
https://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/807853 (https://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/807853)
https://myhockeyrankings.com/news.php?b=550 (https://myhockeyrankings.com/news.php?b=550)
Again, as for Riverside, the club needed (needs) scolded for what it did, but then it needs guided on how to implement AAA procedures properly or continue to lose the opportunity.
Yes! I agree! Play the correct level!
I am only going to address the FIRST article you shared on Ben Bishop. That title refers to a player in a position from PREP SCHOOL looking to play USHL. He went to tryouts. Didn't make it and went to other leagues and made it...
That is NOT PW, Bantam, or Midget.... That is not in anyway nearly the same nor does it provide evidence for your point "elite players are found regardless." It DOES prove my point that players develop at different ages AND based on the ENVIRONMENT they are coached. Not arguing here, just point out an obvious misconception. (I will look at the other articles in a bit. Thanks for sharing. I will dig up the research presented to all the coached at the level 3, 4, and 5 symposiums etc.)
-
You all seem to have a better understanding of how AAA in California works than I do so I am asking this question in the hopes your opinions can help me navigate this very confusing world of youth hockey. I have been told that unless your child plays AAA they will not advance. I have been told by others if they are good enough they will be noticed. If they are not playing AAA then who exactly is going to notice them if nobody pays attention to AA? This question is actually specifically for Goalies. With only 2 spots per team, and now only 2 teams in the Los Angeles area at the 06 level it appears that there is no room for advancement. As hard as it is for the skaters, it is even harder for the goalies to break in to AAA. Would a coach even consider replacing "a known" with an "unknown" even if they are thriving at the AA level? It is very discouraging that the Ice Dogs have been removed as an option and The Bears were denied. That leaves only 4 openings. 6 was bad enough but 4 is really tough. Even if a kid is not as good as those top 4 it doesn't mean that they are not more than capable of playing and thriving at the AAA level. What are the options? It seems to me that having a few more AAA options helps everyone. I really don't want to have my son leave CA at such a young age to pursue his passion.
The concept of AAA is required to get noticed is false. My son never played higher than AA as a youth, and now he is the starter for his team going into his senior year in DIII. The important key is he needs to play, and where he plays he needs to play well. 85 to 90% of college commits do not decide on their college until they are 18 or 19 so you have plenty of time. Puberty and other factors affect their development, but THE MOST IMPORTANT is he needs to play in meaningful games. In my case my son left home at 17 to go play Juniors, where he led his team to the league championship and then continued his development from there.
So by meaningful games do you mean maybe trying to get on a tournament team that plays in the major tournaments, or to just be on a really good team during the season that plays in some higher level tournaments? On a local level are there things kids can do that get them noticed? Do coaches look at stats, SCAHA and CAHA camp results, word of mouth? Just curious how one gets noticed without being one of those parents pushing their kid on people.
-
You all seem to have a better understanding of how AAA in California works than I do so I am asking this question in the hopes your opinions can help me navigate this very confusing world of youth hockey. I have been told that unless your child plays AAA they will not advance. I have been told by others if they are good enough they will be noticed. If they are not playing AAA then who exactly is going to notice them if nobody pays attention to AA? This question is actually specifically for Goalies. With only 2 spots per team, and now only 2 teams in the Los Angeles area at the 06 level it appears that there is no room for advancement. As hard as it is for the skaters, it is even harder for the goalies to break in to AAA. Would a coach even consider replacing "a known" with an "unknown" even if they are thriving at the AA level? It is very discouraging that the Ice Dogs have been removed as an option and The Bears were denied. That leaves only 4 openings. 6 was bad enough but 4 is really tough. Even if a kid is not as good as those top 4 it doesn't mean that they are not more than capable of playing and thriving at the AAA level. What are the options? It seems to me that having a few more AAA options helps everyone. I really don't want to have my son leave CA at such a young age to pursue his passion.
There are many paths to Juniors and College hockey. Even the WHL drafts players from American AA ranks. If a player is good enough, they will get noticed.
-
There are many paths to Juniors and College hockey. Even the WHL drafts players from American AA ranks. If a player is good enough, they will get noticed.
AA kids can certainly go to Junior camps and get noticed. However, this is an edge case and does not really happen often. AA is not scouted. I have never heard of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Juniors club wasting a draft pick on an AA kid (would love an example). They will give tenders to AA kids but, that does not really mean anything. If you are targeting Tier 1 Juniors USHL or CHL (WHL, OHL, QMJHL) or even Tier 2 Juniors NAHL or CJHL (BCHL, AJHL, SJHL, MJHL, SIJHL, NOJHL, OJHL, CCHL, LHJQ, MHL) you need to be on their radar. The scouts/coaches need to have already seen you or your player and be interested or he will get lost in the hundreds of kids that come to these camps.
-
Not as simple topic. And Norcal seems to be different than Socal. In Norcal there still aren't enough players to field 2 AAA teams in most/all the age groups. It's been tried. Which really sucks, because competition would be good for all clubs involved, and the geography of the bay area makes some commutes almost impossible.
Probably different in Socal, but I don't know.
Where should your kid play? At the highest level that they will actually get ice time. I've had kids in AA and AAA and the hockey is definitely different. Most AA kids cannot be successful at AAA. When they are put in that situation (due to short rosters, bad choices, etc), it is typically a miserable experience of failure, ridicule from team mates (remember, they are kids), and sitting on the bench. It usually ends up being a short stay at AAA, with lots of unhappiness and hurt feelings.
AAA kids playing down in AA typically hate it too. It's not just about skill, speed, or size. It's about hockey sense and understanding the game. An actual AAA player stuck in AA will complain about teammates that can't catch passes, don't take it seriously enough, and are constantly in the wrong place.
If your kid didn't make an AAA team it's almost certainly because they aren't playing at that level. Don't worry about it - play AA where they will actually hit the ice, and let them develop. Tell them they need to try harder and put in more time - that's usually the honest truth.
It's like the old adage at most workplaces - no boss ever gives someone a promotion because they think they can do the job. They give them a promotion because they actually ARE doing the job and deserve it. Same with advancement from AA to AAA. And the reality is most AAA coaches have years or decades of experience looking at players and are motivated to succeed. They do remarkably well picking out the right kids at tryouts.
An AA player won't magically become a AAA player by being on an AAA team. It doesn't work like that.
As for getting seen, I actually disagree with some of the statements above.
Level does make a difference for kids that want to be picked up early. AA kids are not typically going to get drafted into the WHL. An example: Jr Sharks had 4 players (or in one case ex-players) drafted in the WHL Bantam draft last year. All of them played AAA. I think that's very typical. AAA teams will also be at tournaments with scouts like Tier 1 Elite tournaments. Much less so for AA as they simply can't get in to those tournaments.
Most scouts have a very limited number of trips they can take (in NCAA it's actually mandated to 1 per year), so they are going to focus on AAA tournaments. That's also why prep schools can be good - they are typically on the east coast where the scouts are. And prep schools are essentially commercial ventures - to a large degree you pay your way in.
Does that mean an AA player is never going to go anywhere? No, not at all. It will just take longer, and the 'route' to playing in college might be a bit less 'sexy' than getting drafted, etc. Most colleges are looking for 19 year olds. There is lots of time. The most important things are:
- Figure out where your kid will develop
- Don't put them in a place where they will sit on the bench or be miserable
- Encourage them to put in the extra time. Shoot 100 pucks a day. Do extra on ice practices. Work out off ice. Keep your marks up. It's a huge commitment. There are very few successful AAA players that "just show up for the practices."
-
The most important things are:
- Figure out where your kid will develop
- Don't put them in a place where they will sit on the bench or be miserable
- Encourage them to put in the extra time. Shoot 100 pucks a day. Do extra on ice practices. Work out off ice. Keep your marks up. It's a huge commitment. There are very few successful AAA players that "just show up for the practices."
If they want to play D1 or D3 college they also need to focus on academics. Colleges are going to be more interested in a kid with a high GPA and SAT/ACT scores. These kids can get partial academic scholarships so the athletic scholarships can be used elsewhere.
-
The most important things are:
- Figure out where your kid will develop
- Don't put them in a place where they will sit on the bench or be miserable
- Encourage them to put in the extra time. Shoot 100 pucks a day. Do extra on ice practices. Work out off ice. Keep your marks up. It's a huge commitment. There are very few successful AAA players that "just show up for the practices."
If they want to play D1 or D3 college they also need to focus on academics. Colleges are going to be more interested in a kid with a high GPA and SAT/ACT scores. These kids can get partial academic scholarships so the athletic scholarships can be used elsewhere.
Absolutely. It's actually in the NCAA rules. The higher their GPA is, the more spots on a team are available. A kid with a lousy GPA is fighting for one of 1-2 spots per school (over 4 years... so they are likely filled). A kid with a great GPA is fighting for one of 25 spots (again, over 4 years, so on average 1 of 6 spots in any given year, per school).
That's why I get super pissed off at coaches that don't take academics into account in planning schedules or scheduling road time.
-
Regarding the AA goalie. My wisest hockey friend gave me, along the way, two great pieces of advice. First, figure out where you want your kid in two years time, and start working with that as your goal. Second, he used to think there was only one path forward, but there are many.
It’s pretty important to get to AAA. Opportunities multiply with success at the AAA level, and as far as I can tell, the primary opportunity that success at AA gets you is a better shot at AAA. Anyway, if I were you, I would get my kid in front of the AAA coaches at spring clinics and see where you stand. You might be surprised that there is an opportunity where you didn’t think there was one, or may be you get exposure that helps win your kid a spot on the 15u team next spring. A lot of spots open up soon.
And work on your plan B (well, your plan AA). There are programs that will sell you that there AA team is a vehicle for exposure. Two of them just lost AAA bids. I’m
Sure there are others. Figure out who can do it and go for it.
Also, put your inquiry out as a separate topic on this board and on the midget thread. I’ve
done that in the past and received very helpful direct messages from Veteran hockey parents.
-
Thank you all for the responses! It has been very helpful.
-
Tier I Team Selections for 2020-21 Season
Jan 29, 2020 5:10 PM
On January 25 the CAHA Board of Directors approved the applications for the following Tier I Divisions/teams for the 2020-2021 Playing Season:
Boys
11U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
12U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
13O - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
14U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, Anaheim Jr. Ice Dogs, LA Jr. Kings, San Diego Jr. Gulls, San Jose Jr. Sharks
15O - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Diego Saints, San Jose Jr. Sharks
16U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, Ontario Jr. Reign, San Jose Jr. Sharks
18U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, Ontario Jr. Reign, San Jose Jr. Sharks
Girls
12U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
14U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
16U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
19U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls* (Sharks subject to approval by USA Hockey)
-
Woof!
-
"If your kid didn't make an AAA team it's almost certainly because they aren't playing at that level. Don't worry about it - play AA where they will actually hit the ice, and let them develop. Tell them they need to try harder and put in more time - that's usually the honest truth.
It's like the old adage at most workplaces - no boss ever gives someone a promotion because they think they can do the job. They give them a promotion because they actually ARE doing the job and deserve it. Same with advancement from AA to AAA. And the reality is most AAA coaches have years or decades of experience looking at players and are motivated to succeed. They do remarkably well picking out the right kids at tryouts."
Correct, but every year I also see guys on AAA teams who should be playing AA, and vice versa. Not tons but quite a few, more than anybody would like. Way more than merit goes into whether you get into AAA especially here in California where the opportunities are so limited. There's politics, daddy coaches, and favoritism. Some AAA coaches get lazy about scouting after the initial AAA cohort gets anointed at age 9 or 10. There's also a lot of subjectivity: two coaches attending the same tryout are usually going to pick two different teams.
The main thing is for your kid to block out all the things over which he has no control, stay the course, out-work his peers every day, and have patience. If you have a bunch of coaches and knowledgeable hockey folks consistently telling you that your kid should be playing AAA but it still isn't working out for him, then consider moving him somewhere else where there's more opportunity, once he's mature enough to handle it.
-
Tier I Team Selections for 2020-21 Season
Jan 29, 2020 5:10 PM
On January 25 the CAHA Board of Directors approved the applications for the following Tier I Divisions/teams for the 2020-2021 Playing Season:
Boys
11U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
12U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
13O - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Jose Jr. Sharks
14U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, Anaheim Jr. Ice Dogs, LA Jr. Kings, San Diego Jr. Gulls, San Jose Jr. Sharks
15O - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, San Diego Saints, San Jose Jr. Sharks
16U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, Ontario Jr. Reign, San Jose Jr. Sharks
18U - Anaheim Jr. Ducks, LA Jr. Kings, Ontario Jr. Reign, San Jose Jr. Sharks
Girls
12U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
14U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
16U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls
19U - Anaheim Lady Ducks, San Jose Jr. Sharks Girls* (Sharks subject to approval by USA Hockey)
5 teams for the 06 division! Thats a good start, hopefully CAHA treats this as an experiment to expand all levels if there are enough kids that are capable and want to play AAA.
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o 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? 8)
-
I’m sure everyone will be up front and not hide their true intentions.
-
"If your kid didn't make an AAA team it's almost certainly because they aren't playing at that level. Don't worry about it - play AA where they will actually hit the ice, and let them develop. Tell them they need to try harder and put in more time - that's usually the honest truth.
It's like the old adage at most workplaces - no boss ever gives someone a promotion because they think they can do the job. They give them a promotion because they actually ARE doing the job and deserve it. Same with advancement from AA to AAA. And the reality is most AAA coaches have years or decades of experience looking at players and are motivated to succeed. They do remarkably well picking out the right kids at tryouts."
Correct, but every year I also see guys on AAA teams who should be playing AA, and vice versa. Not tons but quite a few, more than anybody would like. Way more than merit goes into whether you get into AAA especially here in California where the opportunities are so limited. There's politics, daddy coaches, and favoritism. Some AAA coaches get lazy about scouting after the initial AAA cohort gets anointed at age 9 or 10. There's also a lot of subjectivity: two coaches attending the same tryout are usually going to pick two different teams.
The main thing is for your kid to block out all the things over which he has no control, stay the course, out-work his peers every day, and have patience. If you have a bunch of coaches and knowledgeable hockey folks consistently telling you that your kid should be playing AAA but it still isn't working out for him, then consider moving him somewhere else where there's more opportunity, once he's mature enough to handle it.
I agree on the advice - to some degree, but I haven't seen much of what you discuss. Again, maybe that's a Norcal versus Socal difference. At the risk of identifying my kid, he's had the unusual experience of starting in A, winning Norcal, then making AAA, But then being dropped to AA. He then worked his ass off to get back to AAA where he has been for a couple of years now and has now climbed to the first line. It's given him and us a pretty broad set of experiences across the talent level available up here.
We obviously didn't spend time with everyone out there, but in that experience we didn't see any other AA's that should have been on the AAA team (including my kid, until he improved his game). We saw some with talent, but there were always issues (locker room or attitude problems, size, crazy parents, etc). And conversely the few AA's that were on the AAA teams were there because of a shortage of qualified kids, not politics (and as I mentioned above, had miserable times of it).
I actually give the coaches the benefit of the doubt. I think they usually get it right (and even thought that when my kid and a bunch of his talented friends were cut.) I think there is much less politics than people imagine, but sometimes the 'political' angle goes in the same direction as the fundamentals at work, and unhappy parents usually jump to the wrong conclusions.
I try VERY hard not to blame politics for anything when I deal with my kids. And that's hard some times. The best message is to take a setback as an indication that to make that goal you simply have to work harder and play smarter. The good news (and indicator of the lack of politics) is there is more turnover on AAA teams than people assume - I know up here it's about %20-%25 per year.
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o 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? 8)
Can you even have those kind of conversations "legally" in season?? Are there not any kind of tampering rules during the year while the LOI is in place. I know happens all the time but would think it would be not allowed in season.
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o 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? 8)
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?
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o
Yes, CONGRATS to the '06 Ice Dogs!
Mullet4,
You seem to be a wealth of information, may I please bother you to share with us less informed but inquring minds:
1) Who will be the Head Coach of the '06 Ice Dogs?
&
2) Do you think that Head Coach will give the owner of the club his cell phone #? Because, history shows with this Club, that it is alot easier to communicate with and fire / dismiss a Coach via text message then actually a face to face meeting, just saying
-
How the fuck did BF get a 16AAA team ???
Im willing to bet that there were some back room negotiations on other issues. Either that or some sort of vidio was involved. Were not these AAA team rules labled the Wildcat rules ??
Question to Benny....with your new AAA team, will i finally get paid $$ that's owed to me ?
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o 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? 8)
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.
-
Congrats to the Ice Dogs on their successful appeal! :o 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? 8)
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. )
-
(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.
-
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).
-
(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.
-
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.
-
(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.)
-
(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.
-
"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).
-
Also, this board was WAY more fun than getting any work done today. *high5
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great thread. I love it!!! :D
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 thread. I love it!!! :D
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?
-
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 ;-)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;-))
-
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.
-
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. :o
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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............
-
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.
-
Straw: we aren’t talking normal distribution of wins and losses. This is the math:
06 Sharks have won 0 of 29 regular season CAHA games. They have been outscored 251-25. And their mhr rating is better than the San Diego group. And that’s assuming there isn't the almost 2 point regression that the Ice Dogs experienced when they (a much deeper
Group), jumped to AAA. I hope I am wrong and that they have great success.
-
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?
What an asinine argument. First of all, you left out the 2-0 and 3-2 scores. Second, Ducks have beat and tied the #3 team in the country. Sometimes match-ups just make a fight. And perhaps, the Kings are superior to the Ducks this season. That's okay. They're a great team. But to try and act like the Ducks and the Sharks are on par because neither can beat the Kings is just stupid. And you know it.
-
You missed the point by a country mile THEN called him stupid. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
-
Hey, good luck with your stupid podcast! I’m sure your kid’s AA experience in a non traditional hockey market is something the world is just dying to hear about!
-
Another stupid. Damn son. You are on fire.
If you think that demeaning my son by labeling his level is a great way to make your point, I would rather not enjoy your company. Even if it’s just you listening to me spout stupid shit.
-
Another stupid. Damn son. You are on fire.
Haha. I'll just leave that there.
If you think that demeaning my son by labeling his level is a great way to make your point, I would rather not enjoy your company. Even if it’s just you listening to me spout stupid shit.
Darn. I was really hoping we could hang out at your kid's CAHA weekend.
-
IcaDad,
Lots to cover here. First, there is nothing funny about my math regarding the expense of adopting a CAHA weekend system for AAA (which CAHA has expressly reserved the right to do). We did two seasons of those, and I am painfully familiar with which venues are commutable and under what circumstances, as well that most other similarly located families made the same decisions. Escondido and Valencia, for example, are commutable for a one-off game for us, but not for a three day weekend of games. We have suffered through 615 am start times at CAHA weekends, so forgive me if I think it is absurd to suggest that I drive my kid home by 11:30 and then have to get him up at 330am to drive back. Now, who knows where CAHA would schedule the weekends, but if it were a 6 team division, I am pretty sure Escondido, NorCal and Valencia would host at least 1 each. Maybe I get lucky and they are all at KHS. But I’m assuming 4-6 hotel nights, CAHA weekends fee, coaches fees/expenses, food and for many, air fare and rental cars for the NorCal trip. $1500 actually sounds conservative to me.
With regard to competition, it wasn’t too long ago that you argued that there were AA teams that were going to be non competitive and should drop for the benefit of their own players based on 4 games at the jamboree. We have three seasons worth of data on the Sharks. We have the fact that the Sharks and Kings actually had a tournament game count at a CAHA game to avoid playing each other again. So when I see CAHA adding a team which looks to project to be similar to (and probably worse than) the Sharks it’s a huge issue.
I am also happily aware that there are some elite players as well as merely AAA ready players who happen to be playing AA. And they are doing just what you would expect them to - standing out. IF G2 were ready to compete at AAA, I think I should see more of their players at the top end of the leader boards.
And at least the Gulls have a pure 06 team. The Bears don’t, and would have to “Build-AAA-Bear†almost from scratch in seven weeks. They aren’t permitted to talk to out of club kids yet so they can (legitimately) have no idea who would come over.
I would argue that having expanded AAA to the Dogs last year, it would have been prudent to consolidate gains and have the scattered AAA players find homes with existing teams. The Dogs have had some turmoil and turnover so getting a few of those kids is/has been and would be a shot in the arm.
I think we owe it to our best players to do our best for them. Teams not competitive at AAA should be in AA and teams not competitive in AA should be in A. Maybe the answer here is to fix AA rather than damage AAA.
-
The smart money is on Sharks 06 being 0-12 next year. 8)
-
Safe word?
DRACARYS!
-
Lots to cover here. First, there is nothing funny about my math regarding the expense of adopting a CAHA weekend system for AAA (which CAHA has expressly reserved the right to do).
Nice strawman argument there. Adding 2 AAA teams does not require converting AAA to the CAHA weekend system.
I think we owe it to our best players to do our best for them. Teams not competitive at AAA should be in AA and teams not competitive in AA should be in A. Maybe the answer here is to fix AA rather than damage AAA.
All depends on your definition of competitive. The more this is discussed the more obvious it is that the definition of "competitive" is what those that only want to preserve the status quo think it is, no matter how many times others point out the clear hypocrisy obvious in the claim that CAHA AAA is a model of competitiveness when it often isn't even close. And when you have 3 frigging team, that's a pretty low bar.
When you can explain how the prospect of playing 6 more games in California is going to harm AAA teams, you might have an argument. Don't pretend that the AAA teams aren't filling in their meager "local" schedule with scrimmages, and regularly playing some of the upper echelon AA teams already.
-
Hey, good luck with your stupid podcast! I’m sure your kid’s AA experience in a non traditional hockey market is something the world is just dying to hear about!
Stay classy Fourthliner. I guess that only Hockey parents in Canada should be allowed to get in front of a mic and talk about Hockey -- or at least Minnesota or Boston. Why bother to read or post on Calhockey either? Shouldn't we all be reading the Michigan youth hockey boards instead?
It says a lot about you that your petty personal attack would involve mentioning the level of hockey a kid plays at in a demeaning way. BTW, LS has a kid playing AAA, just so ya know.
I don't believe I know you personally, nor do I know what team(s) your kid(s) are on, but as you seem to have failed at following my previous arguments, let me be as clear as I can. I was in no way seriously suggesting that the '06 Ducks AAA team should be dropped from AAA. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument being made by a number of people in this thread, that the Gulls, Bears and ID should not be allowed to field '06 AAA teams next year because they might not be "competitive". You seem to be the only person who missed the argument and took it literally.
-
I will just address the scheduling issue for now. AAA is scheduled differently than AA. Presumably because there are so few teams and the need to preserve flexibility for AAA travel, CAHA does not issue a schedule. It falls upon the managers to work out games. That’s workable when there are three teams and a manager only needs to get three ice slots and negotiate out six total games and the league schedule is all of 9 games. But expanding to 6 teams
means a league schedule of 45 games, and each team has to coordinate 15 games. That’s not feasible.
-
You seem to be the only person who missed the argument and took it literally.
Says the guy who constantly puts words in my mouth and then proceeds to make straw man arguments.
And I understood full well what you wrote and the exaggerated point you were trying to make. I thought it was a weak argument. I think it's you who has actually misunderstood my argument from jump street.
People are advocating for more AAA hockey teams and for them to be closer to their homes. And I wish unicorns existed too. The fact is, we were all dealt a hand, but we chose to sit at the table. (The people with daughters who play hockey have it really hard.)
Many people seem to be against a system that filters kids to a few programs with AAA hockey. It works in Texas. It works in Chicago. If you think that's unfair, fine. I think having just a few AAA teams in the state would be better than adding another team that rivals the Sharks. I don't think having a team like Meijer AAA hockey club is good for anyone. I think the Sharks would have benefited from playing AA this season. They would have played more games, been more competitive and had more fun. And lastly, if your kid is dominating AA, there will be AAA teams who want them. I'm sorry if that club isn't close to your house. I want kids to earn their AAA spot, not turn AAA into participation trophies because they think it will magically lead to their kid's improvement and a college scholarship.
-
Straw: we aren’t talking normal distribution of wins and losses. This is the math:
06 Sharks have won 0 of 29 regular season CAHA games. They have been outscored 251-25. And their mhr rating is better than the San Diego group. And that’s assuming there isn't the almost 2 point regression that the Ice Dogs experienced when they (a much deeper
Group), jumped to AAA. I hope I am wrong and that they have great success.
There's nothing wrong with MHR for what it is, but unless teams are playing each other regularly, it can only predict so much. It also segments AAA from AA, so the relative rankings are irrelevant in the case of the Gulls.
The ID team for various reasons did not generate a consolidated AAA team. Considering the factions and how that came together, it looks like the ID iced a solid team for much of the season, which only goes to show that there is more talent and kids able to reach the AAA level than naysayers will ever admit.
-
Straw: we aren’t talking normal distribution of wins and losses. This is the math:
06 Sharks have won 0 of 29 regular season CAHA games. They have been outscored 251-25. And their mhr rating is better than the San Diego group. And that’s assuming there isn't the almost 2 point regression that the Ice Dogs experienced when they (a much deeper
Group), jumped to AAA. I hope I am wrong and that they have great success.
I get it. Historically the Gulls and Sharks suck. Really. Badly. And that helps explain why the Gulls AAA program imploded before. But the overwhelming majority of AAA games that California AAA teams play are outside the state. And in many birth years the Kings and Ducks suck too. There are plenty of equally bad AAA teams for them all to play. It’s a big continent with lots of “bad†AAA teams. I just don’t see why California has to pick the winners and losers every year before they even hit the ice. It doesn’t seem to work very well.
-
All SoCal teams are feeder programs for Ducks and Kings and they have the votes on the CAHA board.
-
All SoCal teams are feeder programs for Ducks and Kings and they have the votes on the CAHA board.
While the net effect of the current rules certainly benefit the Ducks and Kings as you stated, at least in SoCal, Every member club has a vote. The current CAHA board has heavy NorCal representation. Unfortunately, even when there have been contentious issues some of the member clubs don't participate or vote.
-
NorCal=Sharks
-
Ugh...
I might have to draw a picture for some people to understand how player development works and what talent, potential, and the "ceiling" concept. Maybe I will use numbers for now:
I will just use ONE age group for an example.
CAHA only allows (typically) for 50 11UAAA players. Kids with similar skill level. As players grow and mature and even improve during a season, some will improve and excel at a rate faster than others. Then there will be a group that is outside of the chosen 50 players who play AA or A etc. How do you anticipate or measure the potential for skill improvement or max out a players ceiling of potential if they do not get the opportunity to develop on the same curve/path as the chosen 50?
What I am saying is that I/anyone could personally hand-pick 50 players not 11UAAA in this state and put together an ADDITIONAL three EQUALLY competitive teams AAA teams. (That is essentially what the system allows ONLY the Ducks/Kings to do.) I guarantee it. Equally, that would enhance and grow the number of AAA level, caliber players all challenging to get better meaning CA will have more players training at those higher levels.
The problem with this dream world? No one has a private jet to fly these additional players all over the state back and forth to practice. In other words, offer more opportunities evenly spread out locally. Grow the game at the highest skill level. The system now LIMITS opportunity and player development.
A 4 star player might never make the top 50 for the big 3, but what if that player got to train on a team of AAA 5 star players... I bet you would make another 5 STAR PLAYER!!!
What if that 4 star player is limited to playing on his team with 3 and 4 star players. Together, there is a chance one might become a 5 star, but more likely these players will plateau and hit a lower ceiling than they actually had potential for achieving.
-
You seem to be the only person who missed the argument and took it literally.
Says the guy who constantly puts words in my mouth and then proceeds to make straw man arguments.
You keep stating this, but never provide anything to back it up, so I will continue to ignore your claims to that effect.
And I understood full well what you wrote and the exaggerated point you were trying to make. I thought it was a weak argument. I think it's you who has actually misunderstood my argument from jump street.
People are advocating for more AAA hockey teams and for them to be closer to their homes. And I wish unicorns existed too. The fact is, we were all dealt a hand, but we chose to sit at the table. (The people with daughters who play hockey have it really hard.)
People are advocating for removing the restrictions that make it impossible for there to be more teams. In the past there were more teams, and the restrictive rules have shrunk the pool.
Many people seem to be against a system that filters kids to a few programs with AAA hockey. It works in Texas. It works in Chicago. If you think that's unfair, fine. I think having just a few AAA teams in the state would be better than adding another team that rivals the Sharks. I don't think having a team like Meijer AAA hockey club is good for anyone. I think the Sharks would have benefited from playing AA this season. They would have played more games, been more competitive and had more fun.
What was stopping the Sharks from playing AA though? Oh yeah, the CAHA system you keep defending. Neither Chicago (a city btw) nor Texas are anything like California. There are also many other highly successful regions that get along fine without rules limiting AAA to 3 teams in the entire state. Nice touch bringing up Meijer '06 ::)
And lastly, if your kid is dominating AA, there will be AAA teams who want them. I'm sorry if that club isn't close to your house. I want kids to earn their AAA spot, not turn AAA into participation trophies because they think it will magically lead to their kid's improvement and a college scholarship.
Musical chairs is a shitty game, even at a kids birthday party. In California AA is not a feeder program for AAA. It is an alternative system that is unusually full of kids who are very capable of playing AAA. The sad thing to me is that so many people see that this lack of opportunity for AAA teams damages the entire system. The result is that lots of people move their kids out of state which waters down the CAHA system across the board.
-
You keep stating this, but never provide anything to back it up, so I will continue to ignore your claims to that effect.
Feel free to go back several pages and read again. I'm not going to do the work for you.
There are also many other highly successful regions that get along fine without rules limiting AAA to 3 teams in the entire state. Nice touch bringing up Meijer '06 ::)
Yeah, usually the states where there are a lot more kids playing hockey and plenty of rinks to choose from.
Also, what's wrong with bringing up Meijer? They're a AAA team. Are you suggesting they aren't? That they shouldn't be playing AAA?
In California AA is not a feeder program for AAA. It is an alternative system that is unusually full of kids who are very capable of playing AAA.
If you truly believe this, we will just have to agree to disagree. Even though that's totally wrong.
-
Just so we're all on the same page... Chicago isn't a state. The Chicagoland area, however, is 10,857 square miles with a population of 9.5M. They have 4 AAA teams (TI, Fury, Mission, CYA).
By comparison, Southern California is 56,505 square miles with a population of 24.1M. For next season, we will have 4 AAA teams at 06 (Kings, Ducks, ID, Gulls).
Texas has 6,321 registered USA Hockey members under the age of 18... while California has 15,468.
The world of youth hockey in SoCal will be fine with a bit more competition at the top. And if next season is a blazing disaster at 06, we can always go back to the draconian days of 3 teams for an area of 163,696 square miles and population of 40M.
That said, great teams can still exist. No one said they couldn't. Teams don't have to be diluted of talent. No one dictated they needed to be. CAHA merely offered more opportunity at 06. I think that's good for everyone. So, now, in a more competitive environment, it's up to the clubs to recruit the best team they can and offer something the other clubs can't. People want choices, and CAHA is beginning to support that.
-
Ah, Calhockey... you will never disappoint me.
Of all the things I've read in this (often interesting and enjoyable) thread, this is the one that is the most audaciously hilarious "What I am saying is that I/anyone could personally hand-pick 50 players not 11UAAA in this state and put together an ADDITIONAL three EQUALLY competitive teams AAA teams." ... offered completely without evidence, like it should just be assumed.
I know nothing about the 11's, but a few things to consider...
- The 04 Jr Kings lost 10 players this year (for a lot of reasons, one contributor no doubt being some issues you may have read in the press last year, and because a couple are playing up at 16's.) I will assume they picked up the best AA players they could get. They went from MHR in the 20's to #71. So much for "Anyone can find 3 more teams of equally competitive AAA players!" Given the fact that AAA teams like the Kings would expect to turn over %15-%25 of the kids any year anyways, you are talking about finding an additional 5 or 6 kids at the same level. And they failed at staying at the same level competitiveness. In frigging LA.
- A couple of years ago the Jr Sharks DID drop one of their AAA teams (at the time 14s I believe) to AA. As you can imagine, the parents hated it, it was controversial, there was an exodus, etc. So, it can happen. They have done it. It's problematic though and no club drops levels lightly. As I've mentioned, every club has bad years.
- In the case of the 06 Jr Sharks, I believe they were hit mid season a year or two with an exodus which caused a lot of problems, but I have no inside info. All clubs get faced with the decision occasionally to either drop or muscle through a bad year, and there is no easy answer. They are MHR #71 too - ironically just like the Kings 04's. Are they competitive in CA? No, and the rest of their record is pretty bad too. But the CA games are 6 games out of a schedule of 35 or 40 travel games. Judging a CA AAA team based solely on CA results is silly.
- The other repeated assertion is that somehow putting AA players on AAA teams in the CA system will 'develop' them. Again, offered with no evidence, while a number of actual AAA parents have said how they have seen that tried and really, really NOT work. Personally, everything I've seen is that, though all teams have better and worse players, playing a kid beyond their abilities hurts them and the team - it makes for a miserable year with no development. And AAA is very, very different than AA in ways that honestly a lot of AA parents don't see. And again, I'll point out that %15-%25 turnover DOES happen, every year, and those kids are often (but not always) coming up from AA. The best of the AA's, those ready to step up, are grabbed. The time for your kid to prove they are a AAA player is tryouts. They happen every year. The coaches have a lot more experience picking the right kids out than the parents.
My sense is that CAHA is doing the right thing here. For clubs that have a feeder area, play at every level, and have shown stability, they are giving them AAA teams with few questions asked, for the sake of that stability. Right now that is the Sharks, Ducks, and Kings. Then for other exceptional situations where an org can show a 'real' roster, they are doing that as a one-year-one-off. And frankly that has been offered for at least a year or two - witness the GSE North AAA attempt that was abandoned by GSE themselves. CAHA bent over backwards in that instance.
And who knows, maybe some of those one-offs become part of the set of stable teams that have fewer questions asked. That would be great - we all want more actual AAA orgs and teams. But being a stable AAA org takes a track record.
It's very hard not to see a lot of this as 'Butt-hurt AA parents who's little Johnny's didn't make AAA again'. ;-)
-
"Many people seem to be against a system that filters kids to a few programs with AAA hockey. It works in Texas. It works in Chicago. If you think that's unfair, fine. I think having just a few AAA teams in the state would be better than adding another team that rivals the Sharks. I don't think having a team like Meijer AAA hockey club is good for anyone. I think the Sharks would have benefited from playing AA this season. They would have played more games, been more competitive and had more fun. And lastly, if your kid is dominating AA, there will be AAA teams who want them. I'm sorry if that club isn't close to your house. I want kids to earn their AAA spot, not turn AAA into participation trophies because they think it will magically lead to their kid's improvement and a college scholarship."
I think by "Chicago" you probably meant "Illinois." Anyone who thinks the AAA system works well in Illinois has no clue what they're talking about. Their system makes ours look really well-run.
-
rewind to 2014-15, back in the days when caha did not impose restrictions on who could field aaa teams. there were 28% fewer kids playing in california according to usa hockey, yet there were 26% *more* aaa teams than today. for those bad at math, that means today we have a lot more kids, but a lot fewer aaa slots for them.
wave, gulls, ochc, titans, wildcats and avalanche each had teams at one or more of the 14aaa/16aaa/18aaa levels. none of those teams were abjectly terrible. all the teams travelled back east less, because they had more local games. aaa cost less for everybody.
most important thing -- *all* of the 14aaa/16aaa/18aaa teams (with titans 16 being the lone exception) rostered *multiple* kids who have since advanced to ncaa d1, d3, and/or major junior. all of them! even gulls! dozens more kids still playing at college acha level. many of the kids who have advanced were not viewed as "superstars" at the time, and may not have developed the same way if they had only two club options at 14/16/18.
more teams = more development opportunities = more kids advancing. the evidence is there for anyone who cares to look for it. why is this so hard to understand?
-
Raise your hand if you were a full scholarship D-1 athlete. Oh, ok. If you want "evidence" and full APA documentation for sources, are you offering a CEP Lv 5 also? Last place I had to post sources on a board post, I earned another throwaway Master's degree. If you know, you know. If not, stay in your bubble.
My #1 goal: hope my kids don't live in my basement in a few years as "adults" because they didn't make the local 3v3 mall tournament team.
-
The “more AAA team means less travel†argument only works if the current and prospective AAA teams provide an equivalent level of competition. The system already doesn’t provide that - again, the Kings and Sharks actually agreed to have a tournament game count as a CAHA game so they could avoid playing each other. No one will argue that games against the Sharks are a substitute for top end East and Mid West competition. CCM Bauer Chicago not putting Dogs into its top division is strong evidence that the Dogs aren’t there yet, either. And I haven’t heard anyone argue that the Gulls project to be.
-
Ugh...
A 4 star player might never make the top 50 for the big 3, but what if that player got to train on a team of AAA 5 star players... I bet you would make another 5 STAR PLAYER!!!
What if that 4 star player is limited to playing on his team with 3 and 4 star players. Together, there is a chance one might become a 5 star, but more likely these players will plateau and hit a lower ceiling than they actually had potential for achieving.
Nice thought, but that's just not how it works. In practice, that 4 star player is going to :
- Play on the third line. At best. Where on most AAA teams he's going to get half the ice time that he would on the AA team.
- Not get PP or PK time.
- Be last up on the drills as the coach focuses on the top 2 lines.
- Potentially be ridiculed by his teammates. Never get passed to ("because that guy can't take a pass").
- Not get the fundamentals training he needs because everyone else is past him.
- Basically feel like crap the whole year.
- Fall further behind
And after all that, there is a good chance that they simply won't make it. Because they aren't big enough, or strong enough, or have enough hockey sense, which is the biggest difference between AA and AAA. They will be part of that %20 turn over next year.
Compare that to:
- Being on the first line of an AA team.
- Getting more ice time than anyone else
- Being on PK, PP, maybe both
- Getting more drill time
- Getting more coach focus
- Spending the saved money on private coaching
- Feeling like a star.
Which seems like a better development environment? Unless your kid is bored or not learning anything because they are just that good, if they are an AA player, they will develop better on an AA team. On the other hand, if they are that far above everyone else, why aren't they getting picked for AAA? Examine that.
The crazy thing I see here is people thinking somehow that 'adding an A' will change things. As far as I can tell, the complaints are about wanting the same AA coaches and organizations to have AAA teams. How would that change anything apart from making everything more expensive? Most of these teams aren't going to end up in Tier1Elite, where the rest of the western AAA teams play, so what tournaments are they going to be in? All in Canada? All east coast? That sounds crazy expensive to me.
There was a good argument a few yeas ago with the 03/04 Bears that they needed better competition. Is there really such a standout team anywhere in AA now?
In the last few years Socal AAA teams have had Norcal players commute. They've had Norcal players move and billet. One team had multiple pieces of their roster living in Nashville and just showing up for tournaments. Do you think they would do that if a plethora of 'obvious AAA' players were lying around in AA?
If your kid is in AA, there is a reason your kid was not picked for AAA. Stop whining and work on that. Prove them all wrong. Next year, get picked. Unless your kid is in the top 1-3 of your AA team, they have a lot of work to do. The kids that are AAA ready stand out. You will see them at the top of the scoring charts. They will posses the puck more than anyone else on their team. They will typically have developed earlier, and be larger and faster.
Sorry. That's the hard truth. And as Dads and Moms we have very little influence on any of it.
-
Raise your hand if you were a full scholarship D-1 athlete. Oh, ok. If you want "evidence" and full APA documentation for sources, are you offering a CEP Lv 5 also? Last place I had to post sources on a board post, I earned another throwaway Master's degree. If you know, you know. If not, stay in your bubble.
My #1 goal: hope my kids don't live in my basement in a few years as "adults" because they didn't make the local 3v3 mall tournament team.
You have a basement ?
-
Raise your hand if you were a full scholarship D-1 athlete. Oh, ok. If you want "evidence" and full APA documentation for sources, are you offering a CEP Lv 5 also? Last place I had to post sources on a board post, I earned another throwaway Master's degree. If you know, you know. If not, stay in your bubble.
My #1 goal: hope my kids don't live in my basement in a few years as "adults" because they didn't make the local 3v3 mall tournament team.
but when your kid comes back early from college and is living in your basement, will you be paying for his Beer League fees?
-
Bears beat kings 05 aaa according to MHR. Anyone see it?
-
I know nothing about the 11's, but a few things to consider...
- The 04 Jr Kings lost 10 players this year (for a lot of reasons, one contributor no doubt being some issues you may have read in the press last year, and because a couple are playing up at 16's.) I will assume they picked up the best AA players they could get. They went from MHR in the 20's to #71. So much for "Anyone can find 3 more teams of equally competitive AAA players!" Given the fact that AAA teams like the Kings would expect to turn over %15-%25 of the kids any year anyways, you are talking about finding an additional 5 or 6 kids at the same level. And they failed at staying at the same level competitiveness. In frigging LA.
Lots of reasons players do not want to join the Jr Kings 15O AAA team. Club, Coach, driving distance, previous bad reputation, etc... I know many people that would rather play HS than paly there. The fact that they are struggling is more a reflection of this than available players.
-
Ugh...
A 4 star player might never make the top 50 for the big 3, but what if that player got to train on a team of AAA 5 star players... I bet you would make another 5 STAR PLAYER!!!
What if that 4 star player is limited to playing on his team with 3 and 4 star players. Together, there is a chance one might become a 5 star, but more likely these players will plateau and hit a lower ceiling than they actually had potential for achieving.
Nice thought, but that's just not how it works. In practice, that 4 star player is going to :
- Play on the third line. At best. Where on most AAA teams he's going to get half the ice time that he would on the AA team.
- Not get PP or PK time.
- Be last up on the drills as the coach focuses on the top 2 lines.
- Potentially be ridiculed by his teammates. Never get passed to ("because that guy can't take a pass").
- Not get the fundamentals training he needs because everyone else is past him.
- Basically feel like crap the whole year.
- Fall further behind
And after all that, there is a good chance that they simply won't make it. Because they aren't big enough, or strong enough, or have enough hockey sense, which is the biggest difference between AA and AAA. They will be part of that %20 turn over next year.
Compare that to:
- Being on the first line of an AA team.
- Getting more ice time than anyone else
- Being on PK, PP, maybe both
- Getting more drill time
- Getting more coach focus
- Spending the saved money on private coaching
- Feeling like a star.
This is more dependent on coaching. If you have a development focused coach the 3rd line player will get plenty of development and game time. A good coach will be able to see if your player is at a point where they can play AAA and develop at that level regardless of the "line" they are on.
However, players do not develop in games they develop in practice. Games are just for fun. If you do not believe me then, calculate how much time your player has the puck on their stick during a game versus practice. The problem is that Clubs and Parents egos are too big to accept that development is more important than winning.
-
Ugh...
A 4 star player might never make the top 50 for the big 3, but what if that player got to train on a team of AAA 5 star players... I bet you would make another 5 STAR PLAYER!!!
What if that 4 star player is limited to playing on his team with 3 and 4 star players. Together, there is a chance one might become a 5 star, but more likely these players will plateau and hit a lower ceiling than they actually had potential for achieving.
Nice thought, but that's just not how it works. In practice, that 4 star player is going to :
- Play on the third line. At best. Where on most AAA teams he's going to get half the ice time that he would on the AA team.
- Not get PP or PK time.
- Be last up on the drills as the coach focuses on the top 2 lines.
- Potentially be ridiculed by his teammates. Never get passed to ("because that guy can't take a pass").
- Not get the fundamentals training he needs because everyone else is past him.
- Basically feel like crap the whole year.
- Fall further behind
And after all that, there is a good chance that they simply won't make it. Because they aren't big enough, or strong enough, or have enough hockey sense, which is the biggest difference between AA and AAA. They will be part of that %20 turn over next year.
Compare that to:
- Being on the first line of an AA team.
- Getting more ice time than anyone else
- Being on PK, PP, maybe both
- Getting more drill time
- Getting more coach focus
- Spending the saved money on private coaching
- Feeling like a star.
This is more dependent on coaching. If you have a development focused coach the 3rd line player will get plenty of development and game time. A good coach will be able to see if your player is at a point where they can play AAA and develop at that level regardless of the "line" they are on.
However, players do not develop in games they develop in practice. Games are just for fun. If you do not believe me then, calculate how much time your player has the puck on their stick during a game versus practice. The problem is that Clubs and Parents egos are too big to accept that development is more important than winning.
No doubt true. Practice is critical. And most AAA teams have a poor practice/game ratio. But there will always be a 'top level' where winning is important. If it didn't exist, it would be invented. That level is AAA.
So... where do these magical new AAA coaching staffs come from? AA? Ok, if it's the same people, then what does being a bad AAA team do for you then, apart from allowing you to spend more money? Again, aren't you really just talking about taking the same clubs, with the same coaching staffs, and the same players, and sticking another A in front? And paying more, traveling more, and being less competitive?
Seems kinda dubious, at least beyond what CAHA is already doing.
-
notthatdad, your paternalistic lecture is uninformed. dozens of kids in the 01/02/03 years who the jk and jd didn’t “pick†left the state and made rosters of high-end aaa and prep school squads. two recently made ncaa d1 commits. there used to be a lot more aaa slots; when caha forcefully eliminated those slots, kids went elsewhere to pursue those opportunities. pretty simple. i am guessing your kid is younger, otherwise you’d be well aware of what happened after caha forced gulls, wave, titans and bears out of the aaa business. there is zero evidence that despite the participation numbers increasing every year, the quality of the kids below the 35 picked by jd and jk is declining and not “worthy†of aaa.
^^^^^ TRUTH ^^^^
Here are some numbers for you that I have been working on and not quite ready to share on my FB page.
5 3 ~34
5 0 ~71
Those numbers are NCAA DI, WHL and pool of AAA players at U12 and U14 (only 2 AAA back then and ONLY major BY. Minor played AA)
The bottom row numbers are NCAA DI, WHL and pool of AA players at U12 and U14
These numbers vary BY to BY and I am looking at the numbers that I will share on my FB later but my older son's year is an interesting study
Hockey people I respect are 100% convinced "the best at 10 are the best at 18." It is nice to believe and project on to hockey culture and there is some truth to it for sure. BUT, if it's only 50% true, then what?
-
Of all the things I've read in this (often interesting and enjoyable) thread, this is the one that is the most audaciously hilarious "What I am saying is that I/anyone could personally hand-pick 50 players not 11UAAA in this state and put together an ADDITIONAL three EQUALLY competitive teams AAA teams." ... offered completely without evidence, like it should just be assumed.
I know nothing about the 11's, but a few things to consider...
- The 04 Jr Kings lost 10 players this year (for a lot of reasons, one contributor no doubt being some issues you may have read in the press last year, and because a couple are playing up at 16's.) I will assume they picked up the best AA players they could get. They went from MHR in the 20's to #71. So much for "Anyone can find 3 more teams of equally competitive AAA players!" Given the fact that AAA teams like the Kings would expect to turn over %15-%25 of the kids any year anyways, you are talking about finding an additional 5 or 6 kids at the same level. And they failed at staying at the same level competitiveness. In frigging LA.
- In the case of the 06 Jr Sharks, I believe they were hit mid season a year or two with an exodus which caused a lot of problems, but I have no inside info. All clubs get faced with the decision occasionally to either drop or muscle through a bad year, and there is no easy answer. They are MHR #71 too - ironically just like the Kings 04's. Are they competitive in CA? No, and the rest of their record is pretty bad too. But the CA games are 6 games out of a schedule of 35 or 40 travel games. Judging a CA AAA team based solely on CA results is silly.
- And AAA is very, very different than AA in ways that honestly a lot of AA parents don't see. And again, I'll point out that %15-%25 turnover DOES happen, every year, and those kids are often (but not always) coming up from AA. The best of the AA's, those ready to step up, are grabbed. The time for your kid to prove they are a AAA player is tryouts. They happen every year. The coaches have a lot more experience picking the right kids out than the parents.
And who knows, maybe some of those one-offs become part of the set of stable teams that have fewer questions asked. That would be great - we all want more actual AAA orgs and teams. But being a stable AAA org takes a track record.
It's very hard not to see a lot of this as 'Butt-hurt AA parents who's little Johnny's didn't make AAA again'. ;-)
Please no more about the sage GSE decision not to go '04 AAA. We all know that Norcal has far less players to draw from than SoCal. Even with the relative competitive disparity between the SoCal and NorCal AAA teams in most of the age groups over the last few years, they manage to produce some very good players. What continues to amuse me is how the "funnel to AAA" believers conveniently choose to excuse this disparity and claim that the system works in gathering ALL the best players into AAA.
The old adage "exceptions don't make the rule" is highly applicable to these arguments. You seem to think that the mass rebuild of a decimated Kings '04 team, and that team's not surprising struggles says something profound about the pool of talent. That team may indeed have some players who are not up to the current challenge of AAA, although I have not seen them play. Either way, a team that has been playing together for a several years under the same coaches (and again assuming competent coaching) with all things being equal, is going to have a significant advantage over a comparable team that was thrown together for the first time that season. This same thing happens in AA and even A.
Here's some things you glossed over about that team. There are 3 former "AA" players on that team, that I happen to know or know of and my kid has played with or against in AA. None of the 3 ever tried out for AAA previously. All 3 were chosen as '04 SCAHA selects. Of the 3, 2 are forwards. Those 2 forwards are leading the team in scoring and are both in the top 8 in CAHA division scoring. Interesting that the team also managed to beat both the Ducks and Sharks in an actual CAHA game. What a disgrace for a team that had to be entirely reconstituted from scratch. :o You say these kid wouldn't have made AAA if they weren't replacements, and to that I say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, and people who know the '04 year have known that both those kids were really good for years now.
There are kids who most people know would walk onto the 1st line of either of the AAA teams if they were interested, but just aren't. Not everyone has the means, availability or interest in playing AAA. Some people bide their time, or choose a different path for their kid's development that's focused on a coach they want to play for, or the fact that they can't justify a 3 hour one way commute to practice.
Anecdotally, I know of a kid who went club -> 1st line AAA Kings (leading scorer) -> big name prep school -> 1st line of AAA Ducks. This kid did not even play on the 1st line of the club team he played for the year prior. Anecdotes are fun!
Even people who have kids who have played AAA often know of a kid or 2 in AA that would make either of the AAA teams if they ever tried out. Over the previous 3 years my kid played AA, we have 4 former teammates who joined either the Ducks or Kings. They all made the teams on their 1st attempt right off of a tryout. And that is JUST FROM 1 "MEDIOCRE" AA TEAM!!!
I know of kids that have moved back and forth between AAA and AA for various reasons. I only know of 1 or 2 kids who have tried out for AAA and didn't make it and one of those kids is a Goalie. Talk about a sucky situation for that family. They travel a good distance to play AA at the club while they wait in line for the day that their kid will get the nod over one of the other 2 kids who have played for the AAA team for years. It's a gamble that may or may not ever pay off for them, but the clock is certainly ticking.
This idea that the AAA team tryouts are packed with AA's aspiring to join the AAA teams is a myth. Not surprisingly open slots are often pre-filled with kids in the club program who have played AA and are known to the coaches via workouts and privates. AA is in no way different from AAA in this regard. In the summer a "AA" coach commented to me that he knew the "AAA coach is going to take some kids from my team next year that he shouldn't be." This same coach had worked hard on recruiting an '06 for his '05 AA team who he had promised "will be the center of my 1st line all year". That kid ended up signing to play on an '06 team. Stories!
Now that the Ducks play out of Irvine there is going to be even less flexibility as the distance to Irvine makes it untenable for a lot of people to even consider the Ducks, or the Kings if you would need to be going South to north.
I could go on at length about the '05 year -- the 2nd place AA team has beat both the Kings and Ducks '05 AAA teams and tied the Sharks. I expect a fair number of players from AAA and AA will be leaving the state for prep schools next season if things go the way they appear they will. I'm willing to bet a few of the top '06 players will also leave.
There is more than enough evidence of the untapped potential of CA to roster AAA capable players in the '06 year. You are in some sort of serious denial if you can't admit that a brand new AAA team out of KHS that didn't even have ALL the best '06 kids AT THEIR CLUB, managed to have a pretty serviceable first year.
Personally I really find all this talk of winning and losing and records and MHR and the out of hand dismissal of lots of talented kids who are developing their game and getting some excellent coaching to be distasteful and unimportant. The belief that your team is superior to another team across the board, and that you're just far too good to get on the ice with some other group of kids of the same age can also come with unpleasant lessons, especially in the teen years. If you hold those beliefs, maybe look at your bias. It's a lot easier to prove that by limiting AAA to a couple of teams, so you don't have to play other californian kids I guess. Keep telling yourself that if they were any good, they would be lining up for spot on your team.
Don't admit that the AAA teams are full of kids who started at clubs and eventually migrated to the Kings and Ducks and Sharks. It speaks for itself that statistically there are a significant number of other kids who are just as capable and maybe even better than any number of current AAA players scattered throughout the 35+ AA and AAA teams who aren't going to line up. Only someone delusional or in deep denial would dismiss what is both historically evident and statistically likely.
-
I actually didn't say "these kid wouldn't have made AAA if they weren't replacements, " I've been adamant that AAA teams should have (and do have) %20-%25 turnover year to year. So of course you'd expect a few to step up, and that's great. The 04 kings have also improved over the year, and that's great too.
But they have also dropped 30-45+ points in MHR. That has to means something as well in terms of overall level of the team.
I'm still not sure what the whining is about. CAHA IS adding more teams next year - more than there have been in a few years. Let's see how it goes.
But are there entire teams of AAA players out there 'unfound'? I sure haven't seen it in the AA games I've watched.
(As an aside - does anyone else have issues with the board eating replies when you try to post? Sometimes all I get is random formatting)
-
And I gave some obvious reasons that explain exactly why the team should have been expected to struggle. That was not the point.
I also have never, nor have I seen anyone else, ever argue that there are whole AA teams that should just transfer to AAA. Most of the teams my kid has played on were close to 50/50 hybrids.
With that said, a couple of AAA teams have essentially emerged from AA. It took time and stability, and birth year play. What I believe is poor CAHA stewardship with rules that are limiting and disruptive, makes any new AAA teams less viable in the short and long term, in that that those teams will have to justify their existence every year when 3 other clubs do not.
What I have said repeatedly going on about 3 years now, is that there is enough AAA caliber players scattered throughout the large number of AA and A teams to support a few more AAA teams. Consolidation to those teams may or may not happen. I don't have a crystal ball, but what I do know is that currently, the CAHA Tier 1 system is a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. The teams haven't existed although I certainly will be rooting for the success of those that are wading through the red tape and fighting the uphill battle.
-
Raise your hand if you were a full scholarship D-1 athlete. Oh, ok. If you want "evidence" and full APA documentation for sources, are you offering a CEP Lv 5 also? Last place I had to post sources on a board post, I earned another throwaway Master's degree. If you know, you know. If not, stay in your bubble.
My #1 goal: hope my kids don't live in my basement in a few years as "adults" because they didn't make the local 3v3 mall tournament team.
but when your kid comes back early from college and is living in your basement, will you be paying for his Beer League fees?
ABSOLUTELY! Just so I could run him into the boards and not have CPS question my parenting methods.
-
Raise your hand if you were a full scholarship D-1 athlete. Oh, ok. If you want "evidence" and full APA documentation for sources, are you offering a CEP Lv 5 also? Last place I had to post sources on a board post, I earned another throwaway Master's degree. If you know, you know. If not, stay in your bubble.
My #1 goal: hope my kids don't live in my basement in a few years as "adults" because they didn't make the local 3v3 mall tournament team.
You have a basement ?
He can live underground. Yes. *The world needs ditch-diggers too, Danny.
-
"Hockey people I respect are 100% convinced "the best at 10 are the best at 18." It is nice to believe and project on to hockey culture and there is some truth to it for sure. BUT, if it's only 50% true, then what?"
From what I've seen thats really untrue, and I'd question anyone that claimed it apart from in a few special cases. Again... %20-%25 yearly turnover for most AAA teams. Teams at 16's are unrecognizable from teams at 10's. Many of the superstars at 10 (with a few exceptions) are gone completely by 16's. Sometimes hockey related, sometimes not. Other sports, other interests. You just have to look at the rosters. I know my kids AAA team has 2 players left from when it was originally put together.
There is a ton of opportunity to step into roles. The teams change significantly every year.
-
Lots of stuff here. I knew posting late after golfing (and a frost delay which equals more drinking) would light a match...
I will never be mad my kid didn't make AAA because I have never once bothered to take him. I have never even considered it as an option. Does it strike you odd and rare that a parent would be arguing for a case that he has no personal gain or investment towards? I only see what is the right thing to do and that is call out the BIAS and "boys club" traditional in the sport of ice hockey. I stand for opportunity, youth sports, and player development that someday leads to the players having a choice on how important hockey is to their futures.
AAA coaches must be Level 5 certified to coach at the Tier 1 level. The next symposium is in Duluth Aug. 2020. That's where you get these coaches from. Find Level 4 guys and send 'em. Give them a reason to go.
I was using simplistic numbers in my example, but it is the truth - players with the potential to become a level 5 talent must be pushed and challenged by that same talent. No one wakes up one day the best of the best. Equally, if you have that potential, but are never pushed or challenged by better (level 5 worthy) competition on a regular basis (in practice on and off the ice) you will eventually plateau as a level lower than 5. The fact that this is not common knowledge is due to the lack of personal experience on the behalf of many, many parents. Did you NOT read my post about ROB BROWN!!?!!?
There is another board talking about 09AAA and I love the group-region idea. I will personally slice up SoCal, group clubs, and provide my list of AAA opportunities locally. STAND BY FOR THAT AMAZING POST!!!
-
AAA coaches must be Level 5 certified to coach at the Tier 1 level. The next symposium is in Duluth Aug. 2020. That's where you get these coaches from. Find Level 4 guys and send 'em. Give them a reason to go.
You mean all I had to do, all these years, to become a AAA coach was upgrade my level 4 to a level 5? Four days work? What have I been waiting for!!!
You are kidding right? USAHockey training is a bare minimum to become any coach. It's a joke. Certainly not enough to be any kind of AAA coach. When Sullivan coached the Penguins to the Stanley cup, he was asked what level USAHockey training he had: "Level 2".
-
Too often, USA Hockey claims to be learning from the greatest European hockey programs, but are they actually using the "best strategies" when it comes to player development?
Here is an excerpt from an article written by - Victor Hedman:
To a lot of people, this might seem strange. I hear stories about youth hockey in America and Canada, and kids jumping around from team to team. There’s all kinds of travel teams you have to try out for, and expensive camps, and coaches to impress.
But in Sweden, it’s more of a family atmosphere. At least when I was young. I know it has changed a bit lately. Until I was 14, there were no “tryouts.†If you’re born in O-vik, you play for MoDo or one of the other local teams. In fact, the Sedin twins and Markus Naslund played for a team called Järved, on an outdoor rink. There are different levels, but you are never cut. When people talk about Swedish hockey, they often mention the “chemistry†of the players. But really, it’s a total philosophy of community that starts when you’re young.
The rest of the article is here if you want to grow your mind... the rest will follow.
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/victor-hedman-lightning-sweden-hockey (https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/victor-hedman-lightning-sweden-hockey)
-
IcaDad, looking through your posts here, you are creating strawman arguments. I don’t read any of the posts arguing against radical expansion of AAA as seeing AA as so talent deprived that it can’t produce kids each year capable of being impact players at AAA. What I see them as arguing, is that AAA can’t be expanded greatly without changing the level of the competition it provides. I also read them as adopting a different standard - it’s not just can a player make the back end of the AAA roster, but how many players would succeed at AAA. Players don’t develop by failing at AAA and decent AAA teams are not put together with 15 average or back end players. So the real question isn’t whether there are back end, average (or even impact) AAA players scattered throughout AA in California, it’s whether there are critical masses of a mix of good and average AAA players concentrated in the likely areas of expansion. And we can dream about the days of the Old Republic, but we can’t seriously argue that formerly great clubs like OC should have an AAA team
When they can’t put together a good AA team.
The closest thing I watched to an expanded AAA division was the CAHA pre select camp with 6 teams of 06s. The overall level of play wasn’t anywhere close to AAA or
Even top AA. I think it’s what AAA parents wish to avoid AAA becoming.
There’s another argument you made that I wish to address as well. You argued that the AAA teams are regularly scheduling scrimmages against AA teams. I can only speak definitively about the 06 Ducks, and tell that’s just not accurate. The Ducks scheduled two pre-season or early season scrimmages against O5 AA teams. Apart from that,they have sought out AAA competition, even flying to Detroit to play Michigan AAA teams. Trust me when I say that AAA parents wish that AA here was as strong as you think.
-
Let’s face it though. The Ducks 06 team isn’t in the conversation of being a real AAA team either. It’s the kids who couldn’t make the Kings team and AA players. Same thing actually.
-
IcaDad, looking through your posts here, you are creating strawman arguments. I don’t read any of the posts arguing against radical expansion of AAA as seeing AA as so talent deprived that it can’t produce kids each year capable of being impact players at AAA. What I see them as arguing, is that AAA can’t be expanded greatly without changing the level of the competition it provides. I also read them as adopting a different standard - it’s not just can a player make the back end of the AAA roster, but how many players would succeed at AAA. Players don’t develop by failing at AAA and decent AAA teams are not put together with 15 average or back end players. So the real question isn’t whether there are back end, average (or even impact) AAA players scattered throughout AA in California, it’s whether there are critical masses of a mix of good and average AAA players concentrated in the likely areas of expansion. And we can dream about the days of the Old Republic, but we can’t seriously argue that formerly great clubs like OC should have an AAA team
When they can’t put together a good AA team.
The closest thing I watched to an expanded AAA division was the CAHA pre select camp with 6 teams of 06s. The overall level of play wasn’t anywhere close to AAA or
Even top AA. I think it’s what AAA parents wish to avoid AAA becoming.
There’s another argument you made that I wish to address as well. You argued that the AAA teams are regularly scheduling scrimmages against AA teams. I can only speak definitively about the 06 Ducks, and tell that’s just not accurate. The Ducks scheduled two pre-season or early season scrimmages against O5 AA teams. Apart from that,they have sought out AAA competition, even flying to Detroit to play Michigan AAA teams. Trust me when I say that AAA parents wish that AA here was as strong as you think.
Of course the elephant in the room here is that there is a long history of AAA teams playing AA teams (typically minor vs major) and not doing as spectacularly well as those high-paying and very demanding AAA parents expect.
-
It’s not an elephant in this discussion. IcaDad was arguing that there wouldn’t be any harm in playing against additional AAA teams (which are birth year) because they were already scheduling those games against the AA analogues, at least that’s how I interpreted it. As far as major AA v minor AAA in my experience the major year team usually wins (but my player’s teams have only been involved in that sort of match up a few times).
-
Let’s face it though. The Ducks 06 team isn’t in the conversation of being a real AAA team either. It’s the kids who couldn’t make the Kings team and AA players. Same thing actually.
No dog in this fight, but I assume you are being an idiot troll. Saying the #16 ranked team out of 100 AAA teams in the country 'isn't a real AAA team' because they are in the same area as the #4 ranked team is beyond asinine.
-
By the way, just feeling compelled to add this to the conversation, given it's late Saturday night, and how much Jr Sharks bashing there has been on this thread, but the CAHA AAA finals for 14AAA's, 15AAA's, 16AAA's and 18AAA's are happening this weekend, and all FOUR Jr Sharks teams are in the finals. No other club managed more than 2.
No idea what will happen tomorrow - maybe none of them get through, as all the finals teams are deserving, and the Jr Sharks are probably underdogs in all of them - though it does mean they are all going to districts.
As someone threw at me earlier in this thread, maybe some others should "embrace the suck" a bit.
-
I don't think you know what a Strawman argument is.
This comes down to either, you think clubs other than the Ducks, Kings & Sharks should be able to have AAA teams the same way those teams do, or you don't. After that, there are only facts, opinions and anecdotal evidence.
You either think all the kids who could play AAA are already playing AAA or you don't. After that, there are only facts, opinions and anecdotal evidence.
I don't really care if you believe that there are other kids who would be strong AAA players, who currently play AA or even A. It's an irrefutable fact, and we could make a list of those kids from the last 3 years, but we won't because it's the policy of this board not to list names or talk about individuals in anything other than vague reference. Every year there is turnover at the AAA teams. Kids rise and fall in favor. Kids leave the state for brighter horizons. Some kids that weren't even on the radar of the AAA teams come and take a top position at one of the 3 AAA teams. It's in the historic record of CAHA AAA over the course of the existence of the current CAHA system.
I'm not going to debate what you personally experience as a parent of one kid on one of the socal teams at one birth year, because it's irrelevant, and also something that is personal to you, and not in any way personal to me.
There’s another argument you made that I wish to address as well. You argued that the AAA teams are regularly scheduling scrimmages against AA teams. I can only speak definitively about the 06 Ducks, and tell that’s just not accurate. The Ducks scheduled two pre-season or early season scrimmages against O5 AA teams. Apart from that,they have sought out AAA competition, even flying to Detroit to play Michigan AAA teams. Trust me when I say that AAA parents wish that AA here was as strong as you think.
Ah, so you admit that you scrimmaged some '05 AA teams. You got smoked by the Bears and tied the '05 AA Ducks2 team, who came in 7th of 10 in flight1, and had a lot of turnover. Why weren't you able to handle a couple of '05 AA teams? You are the 11th ranked '06 AAA team in the US right now, right?
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone points out as evidence. All the best '06 kids play AAA, yet a team this year which came essentially from Siberia (well KHS) was able to get within a goal or 2 of your longstanding 11th ranked team in league play on multiple occassions, in its first year of existence. That's not a strawman, it's a fact. It happened. Deal with it.
-
Let’s face it though. The Ducks 06 team isn’t in the conversation of being a real AAA team either. It’s the kids who couldn’t make the Kings team and AA players. Same thing actually.
No dog in this fight, but I assume you are being an idiot troll. Saying the #16 ranked team out of 100 AAA teams in the country 'isn't a real AAA team' because they are in the same area as the #4 ranked team is beyond asinine.
Landshark trolling? Never. :D
-
[/size][size=78%]At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone points out as evidence. All the best '06 kids play AAA, yet a team this year which came essentially from Siberia (well KHS) was able to get within a goal or 2 of your longstanding 11th ranked team in league play on multiple occassions, in its first year of existence. That's not a strawman, it's a fact. It happened. Deal with it.[/size]
And that Siberia team even does not have all the best 06s on their roster as couple of them actually playing for AA for variety of reasons.
-
And that Siberia team even does not have all the best 06s on their roster as couple of them actually playing for AA for variety of reasons.
Almost an exact quote from one of my prior posts when I first brought this up in the thread. 8)
-
Sorry about that then; discussion got so long can't keep up with everything...
-
Sorry about that then; discussion got so long can't keep up with everything...
No apologies needed. Nice to see a relevant fact reiterated really.
-
This comes down to either, you think clubs other than the Ducks, Kings & Sharks should be able to have AAA teams the same way those teams do, or you don't. After that, there are only facts, opinions and anecdotal evidence.
There's one easy way to 'prove' you are a AAA player. Make a AAA team. Otherwise you are by definition suggesting 'dumbing down' AAA and diluting the existing talent pool. (Unless you are some conspiracy parent who thinks 'the fix is in' for certain players... in which case, we have nothing to discuss really.)
Yes, there are exceptions due to geography which need to be dealt with (like Norcal, or the plight of SD folks), and exceptions occasionally from year to year where you get a cluster of players that can compete at AAA as a 'one off'.
Could the SoCal talent pool withstand being diluted in general though? Maybe. Maybe not. It's not clear in my mind. Maybe one in 10 AA players could be playing AAA. Take the top 1-2 from all the SoCal AA teams who WANT to play AAA, and do you have another AAA team? Maybe you have the numbers, maybe not, and then you get into geography, etc, and maybe it doesn't come together. Remember you need about 18 players that can commute to a single rink 4 times a week, that WANT to do AAA.
Again, it probably depends on the year. Which is how CAHA is handling it.
Like I said, my suggestion to any kid (or dad) who's frustrated they aren't on AAA is simply prove it. Do the work, and Make. The. Team. It's what tryouts are for. They happen every year.