Calhockey.com
Hockey Discussions => Peewee Hockey => Topic started by: TheFourthA on January 08, 2019, 12:45:05 PM
-
Apparently, USA hockey will be considering the removal of checking from some [size=78%]or all of 14u hockey at its winter meetings next week. Anyone have any hard information about the options that are on the table?[/size]
-
Sorry can’t cut and paste it right now but the agenda actually refers to five options for checking. That sounds like a fairly focused discussion.
-
If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.
-
If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.
Definitely in Edmonton non-check for levels below A/B which would seem to be the equal to in-house here.
-
That makes sense...no checking for in-house would be ideal....for travel I think that at 14 and up there should not be an issue. I would hope that since it's travel the teams are being prepared and taught how to give and receive a hit...just as much of what type of situation to pull out of to avoid those issues.
If they have options for non-checking for 14U and up, it will keep kids in hockey. I think C level in Canada is non-checking but, I may be wrong.
Definitely in Edmonton non-check for levels below A/B which would seem to be the equal to in-house here.
-
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better
-
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better
More kids playing the sport the better, until there isn't any ice available for your team when you need it. Irvine is a start, but you can't grow the sport without the facilities.
-
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better
More kids playing the sport the better, until there isn't any ice available for your team when you need it. Irvine is a start, but you can't grow the sport without the facilities.
It is bad enough that Bantams (8th and 9th graders) practice at 8 or 9 pm and get home at 10 or 11 pm. Good point about scarcity of ice time. Non-checking travel may have a place in the menu of teenage sports but it would be equivalent to slow pitch softball in high school or 7 man high school flag football. Doesn't JV high school hockey fill that niche? Good teams that focus on speed and passing don't need to check heavily so let's put the emphasis on those virtues rather than trying to rewrite the rules of the game.
-
Ice time seems to be opening up. KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.
-
but with so few kids playing hockey in California, it would be nice to have a non check in house level that plays in a travel league. More kids playing the sport the better
This could be easily accomplished if there was demand for it. There are in-house leagues that operate at numerous rinks. Most of these leagues have a handful of teams at age group - anywhere from 2 -4. If they wanted to organize things so that teams played each other across the leagues, that could certainly be accomplished, but there is apparently very little demand for it. Many people choose to have their kids in in-house leagues precisely because it's local to them, a minimal investment and doesn't involve any travel. Depending on the age group and season, it's also not unusual for travel players to play in some of these leagues.
In house does matriculate kids up into Travel hockey but the no-check aspect is more a function of the rinks wanting to make a profit on the leagues and at the same time minimize their risk and any other baggage that might come along with checking rather than something being marketed as an alternative to travel hockey.
So in summary, for people calling for no-check/house league options, they already exist and have for as long as we've been participating in the socal hockey scene.
-
Ice time seems to be opening up. KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.
So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey? So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota. No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.
-
Ice time seems to be opening up. KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.
So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey? So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota. No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.
Icadad, you raise an important question for parents of Bantam players. Why would parents spend so much money to get their player ready to compete at a high level of Bantam play and beyond only to see the options dry up. 2x1 hour practice and a 20 game season is an absurd payoff for all the travel and expense of ice hockey. We do not want to send our son to prep school outside of CA but if he is to continue to develop, it may be the only option. He loves hockey and he and his best friend, on another team, were just assessing their future in CA hockey and coming away discouraged. There must be other options????
-
I get your lament. The options situation has not changed much in 10 years for the sole focused players. But to get a good number of games you have to enter tournaments. Your example of Bantam - AAA has 6 games so far, AA's have had only 13. So the point is that a 20 game HS season is an improvement and is typically augmented by a couple or more tournaments and scrimmages to bring the count to over 30 games. Many feel that this is plenty for high school where their child also participates in the many other important weekend activities or sports which do not have even half that game count.
-
Ice time seems to be opening up. KHS is advertising its open slots for the first time in memory and AD High School system is expanding to a 20 game season per team.
So, 2 x 1 hour practices a week and a 20 game season is supposed to supplant travel hockey? So long as it's something travel players can do in addition to their travel teams, it's following the same basic model that is used in most other youth hockey markets around the country, with the obvious exception of Minnesota. No matter how you look at it, it's a bare minimum approach to the sport, or for that matter any varsity sport.
Icadad, you raise an important question for parents of Bantam players. Why would parents spend so much money to get their player ready to compete at a high level of Bantam play and beyond only to see the options dry up. 2x1 hour practice and a 20 game season is an absurd payoff for all the travel and expense of ice hockey. We do not want to send our son to prep school outside of CA but if he is to continue to develop, it may be the only option. He loves hockey and he and his best friend, on another team, were just assessing their future in CA hockey and coming away discouraged. There must be other options????
I hear East coast prep school as a option for moving kids to a higher level. Besides the kids that went to Shattick, What CA kid playing currently playing for a D1 program has taken the east coast prep school route to get there?
-
I get your lament. The options situation has not changed much in 10 years for the sole focused players. But to get a good number of games you have to enter tournaments. Your example of Bantam - AAA has 6 games so far, AA's have had only 13. So the point is that a 20 game HS season is an improvement and is typically augmented by a couple or more tournaments and scrimmages to bring the count to over 30 games. Many feel that this is plenty for high school where their child also participates in the many other important weekend activities or sports which do not have even half that game count.
A simple step but not a solution is to get California kids more games. I'm not sure why minor AAA teams aren't offered the SCAHA scrimmage games anymore and are forced to find their games out of state or to arrange a few scrimmages. Also letting the flights scrimmage each other as part of SCAHA. The biggest issue CAHA has is the loss of players at the upper age groups. IMO, this is due to having a competitive place to play, convenience and costs. It is also due to education.
If you have 60-90, 2002's and 2003's that have left California then there is a big drop in the talent pool at both AAA & AA.
As I understand it all roads usually go through juniors. Most kids that go to prep are going to have to go the Jr route. Even if the player stays in CA through high school and then goes to prep for the extra year instead of straight to juniors.
If the system stays the same I look for a club or two to potentially forego CAHA AAA and consider to just to do it on there own if that is possible. What do you get out of it besides a few games against teams that you can scrimmage anyway.
-
CA has just under 40 kids playing D1. That’s means just under 10 kids a year from CA will move to D1. All of those kids had to play legitimate jrs first(USHL,NAHL,BCHL). Im guessing a few of the kids went from CA AAA to jrs to D1. My question is if 60-90 kids from 1-2 birth year are leaving CA for hockey where are they ending up when only 4-5 will make D1. And it’s not D3 because only about 20 kids a year from CA make D3. And some of those are coming from CA AAA.
-
My question is if 60-90 kids from 1-2 birth year are leaving CA for hockey where are they ending up when only 4-5 will make D1. And it’s not D3 because only about 20 kids a year from CA make D3. And some of those are coming from CA AAA.
Perhaps they are doing prep not for hockey but rather for prep school education and on to college.
-
My question is if 60-90 kids from 1-2 birth year are leaving CA for hockey where are they ending up when only 4-5 will make D1. And it’s not D3 because only about 20 kids a year from CA make D3. And some of those are coming from CA AAA.
Perhaps they are doing prep not for hockey but rather for prep school education and on to college.
Most kids going the prep school route don't pursue hockey afterwards. Apart from a handful of hockey factories, prep school isn't the best platform for that. They are mostly going to get a good education at a school where they can also play hockey, rather than vice versa, though in some cases their hockey ability will get them the $$ needed to make the education affordable.
-
So even though a previous poster said 60-90 CA hockey players went to east cost prep for development, reality is that they don’t go for the hockey but for schooling. That makes more sense because it doesn’t look like any CA move to D1 from eastern prep. Shattuck looks like the only prep school that moves CA kids on. Just confused me because prep school is always brought up here as a option for hockey development. So I was just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep.
-
So even though a previous poster said 60-90 CA hockey players went to east cost prep for development, reality is that they don’t go for the hockey but for schooling. That makes more sense because it doesn’t look like any CA move to D1 from eastern prep. Shattuck looks like the only prep school that moves CA kids on. Just confused me because prep school is always brought up here as a option for hockey development. So I was just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep.
It's a fantasy. The numbers don't lie.
-
So even though a previous poster said 60-90 CA hockey players went to east cost prep for development, reality is that they don’t go for the hockey but for schooling. That makes more sense because it doesn’t look like any CA move to D1 from eastern prep. Shattuck looks like the only prep school that moves CA kids on. Just confused me because prep school is always brought up here as a option for hockey development. So I was just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep.
It's a fantasy. The numbers don't lie.
its true, the numbers don't lie. here they are: over 150 midget-aged kids socal kids (2000-2003) are playing hockey elsewhere this season. about 2/3rds of the departed kids are playing at prep schools in new england, canada or the midwest, with the other third playing at aaa clubs. currently a dozen at shattuck.
about two dozen kids in recent years have taken the california-->prep school -->ncaa division 1 route, and are playing right now in division 1 (including boys and girls). approx half of that group attended shattuck. here are some of them: becker, o'donnell, weyrick, gavin nieto, tait, kozlowski, mcmanus, mcelhaney, mehr, demey, lown, johnson, bailey bennett, england, humphrey, cayla barnes (olympic gold medal, too). also are many now playing d3, and over a dozen playing junior who might eventually get to d1 or d3.
"just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep." about six weeks ago when a former jk currently at loomis chaffee committed to dartmouth.
new england prep obviously is not a guaranteed path to ncaa d1 hockey. duh. but in the past four years a LOT of families have decided the overall value proposition is better than staying here.
-
CA has just under 40 kids playing D1. That’s means just under 10 kids a year from CA will move to D1. All of those kids had to play legitimate jrs first(USHL,NAHL,BCHL). Im guessing a few of the kids went from CA AAA to jrs to D1. My question is if 60-90 kids from 1-2 birth year are leaving CA for hockey where are they ending up when only 4-5 will make D1. And it’s not D3 because only about 20 kids a year from CA make D3. And some of those are coming from CA AAA.
excellent question actually. the answer is still being written. the number of kids leaving the state didn't really ramp up until about five years ago with the classes of 1999 and 2000. the majority of kids who left for prep school in recent years actually are still there or just graduated a year or two ago. quite a few are playing junior (nahl and bchl), so too early to say whether they make it to ncaa hockey. majority will not, but some will. we'll see.
-
So even though a previous poster said 60-90 CA hockey players went to east cost prep for development, reality is that they don’t go for the hockey but for schooling. That makes more sense because it doesn’t look like any CA move to D1 from eastern prep. Shattuck looks like the only prep school that moves CA kids on. Just confused me because prep school is always brought up here as a option for hockey development. So I was just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep.
It's a fantasy. The numbers don't lie.
its true, the numbers don't lie. here they are: over 150 midget-aged kids socal kids (2000-2003) are playing hockey elsewhere this season. about 2/3rds of the departed kids are playing at prep schools in new england, canada or the midwest, with the other third playing at aaa clubs. currently a dozen at shattuck.
about two dozen kids in recent years have taken the california-->prep school -->ncaa division 1 route, and are playing right now in division 1 (including boys and girls). approx half of that group attended shattuck. here are some of them: becker, o'donnell, weyrick, gavin nieto, tait, kozlowski, mcmanus, mcelhaney, mehr, demey, lown, johnson, bailey bennett, england, humphrey, cayla barnes (olympic gold medal, too). also are many now playing d3, and over a dozen playing junior who might eventually get to d1 or d3.
"just wondering when the last time a CA kid made it to D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep." about six weeks ago when a former jk currently at loomis chaffee committed to dartmouth.
new england prep obviously is not a guaranteed path to ncaa d1 hockey. duh. but in the past four years a LOT of families have decided the overall value proposition is better than staying here.
Of course the JK player identified at the end of your post made a detour through one of the Canadian hockey factories, and plays east coast AAA at a high level in addition to playing for his prep school. Similar comments could be made about most of your examples (and by the way, Shattuck is not "east coast prep"), but it would take too long. Like I said, "making D1 by leaving CA for east coast prep" is a fantasy, but but that's not to say east coast prep schools aren't a great choice for lots of other reasons.
-
someone asked for names and numbers. i gave them. here's the college hockey commit list: http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php (http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php). anyone can compare commits from prep school to t1elite and decide for themselves who lives in fantasyland. reality is that its really really hard to earn a d1 scholarship regardless of which route your kid takes. cheers.
But they were asking for different numbers than the ones you gave, and different ones from those you are giving here. Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
-
someone asked for names and numbers. i gave them. here's the college hockey commit list: http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php (http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php). anyone can compare commits from prep school to t1elite and decide for themselves who lives in fantasyland. reality is that its really really hard to earn a d1 scholarship regardless of which route your kid takes. cheers.
But they were asking for different numbers than the ones you gave, and different ones from those you are giving here. Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Prep schools produce far more D1 players than T1Elite. Not sure what you're talking about. Sounds like Jr Kings/Jr Duck Midget propaganda.
-
someone asked for names and numbers. i gave them. here's the college hockey commit list: http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php (http://collegehockeyinc.com/commitments.php). anyone can compare commits from prep school to t1elite and decide for themselves who lives in fantasyland. reality is that its really really hard to earn a d1 scholarship regardless of which route your kid takes. cheers.
But they were asking for different numbers than the ones you gave, and different ones from those you are giving here. Everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Prep schools produce far more D1 players than T1Elite. Not sure what you're talking about. Sounds like Jr Kings/Jr Duck Midget propaganda.
Why would anybody expect to go from T1Elite to D1? That's just more magical thinking.
If you think the avenues to D1 are moving to new england prep or playing T1Elite, you've really lost the thread.
-
You're being evasive for some reason, acting like prep isn't good route for hockey. Not sure what your argument is at this point. Juniors are good. Prep is good. T1 is okay, but not the path most traveled. Regardless, if you're good, they'll find you.
-
You're being evasive for some reason, acting like prep isn't good route for hockey. Not sure what your argument is at this point. Juniors are good. Prep is good. T1 is okay, but not the path most traveled. Regardless, if you're good, they'll find you.
I don't have an "argument," just data about which paths work and which ones don't. Lots of good players are never found, but everyone should pursue their dream.
-
You're being evasive for some reason, acting like prep isn't good route for hockey. Not sure what your argument is at this point. Juniors are good. Prep is good. T1 is okay, but not the path most traveled. Regardless, if you're good, they'll find you.
I don't have an "argument," just data about which paths work and which ones don't. Lots of good players are never found, but everyone should pursue their dream.
Any movement to then next level after youth goes through Juniors. Which path your player takes prep, AAA, AAA league, AA really does not matter. If your player is good enough for Juniors they will find him or your player will try out and make a Junior team and then he will be found, it is as simple as that...
-
Agreed. Man of Straw is strangely grumpy these days. "Lots of good players are not found?" On what planet? Sure, there's a lot of luck involved in anything, but good is good. The best SoCal talent is obvious... and they move onto other places to get more recognition, better training, and more consistent competition.
But scouts/recruiters are still around through 18U to find ones that fell through the cracks or were late bloomers. Conspiracy theories are just that.
-
until about 5 or 6 years ago very few kids moved back east for aaa or prep school. typically it was maybe a half dozen each birth year, some being true superstars (names like grimaldi, balisy, etem come to mind) and a couple kids who leveraged their hockey talent and grades to get into some elite preps for the educational opportunity. the vast majority of kids with next-level hockey aspirations played here through 16aaa or 18aaa and then went to major juniors (or a few to ntdp). that path has hugely changed over the past five years; 150+ socal kids playing elsewhere was unimaginable. will this result in more socal-born kids getting to ncaa? maybe a few; too soon to tell. regardless, youth hockey leadership in cali needs to take a long hard look at themselves to see why so many families have stopped buying what they're selling. socal midget teams were competing for and winning aaa and aa national championships with regularity during the 00-decade; socal midget squads now are almost always also-rans at the national level (cj's 01s being lone recent exception). sad.
-
Let's see what has happened over the last 5-6 years?
- USA Hockey moving the checking age from 11 to 13. Then, CAHA allowing 8U and 10U to play up and thus destroying 10U and 12U hockey in California.
- High School hockey which has practically eliminated 16U A club hockey and the development path of late bloomers.
- Limiting AAA teams to 5 teams in the state which has resulted in only the NHL affiliates getting AAA teams.
- Flighting AA hockey
A good article https://seltytending.com/opinion/california-youth-hockey-is-a-step-in-the-wrong-direction/
They have done it to themselves...
-
First, good article, but it seems to touch just the tip of the iceberg. Second, absolutely hysterical that Tom Hancock, the President of CAHA, responds in the comments section.