Calhockey.com

Hockey Discussions => Peewee Hockey => Topic started by: JackBender on February 17, 2019, 07:16:09 AM

Title: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 17, 2019, 07:16:09 AM
Coming to you Monday... for President's Day.  ;)
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 18, 2019, 08:59:21 AM
This is very long, and some of it is already known… but when compiled all together, the information creates an interesting picture that might be useful to parents and kids seeking to play hockey at the highest level.

Enjoy.


At a time when the NHL is aggressively trying to expand the game of hockey, CAHA is going in the opposite direction.  This is no more apparent when examining AAA hockey in California.  Following Peewee and Bantam, elite kids are leaving the state in record numbers because of low competition (only 3 AAA teams in the state), excessive travel costs (families forced to travel back East to play games), and an overall lack of opportunity (not enough elite teams for all the kids).

It wasn’t always like this… so how did we get here?  Let’s look at the numbers:

AAA in 2015-2016 season:
11U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
12U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Bears
13U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Wave
14U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Eagles
15U: NO DIVISION
16U: Ducks (2), Kings (2), Sharks (2), Gulls, Titans, Wave, Wildcats
18U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Wave (2), Titans, Gulls
TOTAL TEAMS: 35

And now here are the numbers for this season:

AAA in 2018-2019 season:
11U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
12U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
13U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
14U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
15U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
16U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
18U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Reign
TOTAL TEAMS: 22

In three seasons, the  total AAA teams in California has dropped by more than a third. That’s an abnormally large amount. So what happened?

In 2015, then CAHA President, Steve Laing, set out to “fix” Tier I hockey in California:

November 21, 2015 -
Steve Laing reported that USA Hockey is working on a document to define “Tier I Hockey” as well as multiple scenarios that may prohibit clubs from fielding Tier I teams without perimeters.  Steve would like the CAHA Board of Directors to take a close look at the status of Tier I programs and advise on ways to improve Tier I performance at the state and national level.

What followed was a “Special Meeting” in December, solely focused on Tier 1 hockey:

December 19, 2015  - Special Meeting to address Tier I hockey.
Missions Statement for Tier I hockey:
—Compete nationally
—Balance competition
—Prepare players to play at the highest level possible to represent our state.

A month later, CAHA enacted several new rules for Tier I hockey in California:

January 23, 2016
CAHA President, Steve Laing, introduces Scott Allegrini as the new CAHA Tier Program Committee Chair.
—The automatic bids for the three youth NHL-affiliated clubs.
—The limitation of up to 5 teams at each age division.
—Existing Tier I Programs that have proven longevity.
—Increase of PDR requirement.
—Deadline for declaration and submission of Tier I Application.

Additionally, Scott Allegrini discussed a “flight structure” and placement weekend for Tier II, which would set the stages for our current Tier II system.

Following the enactment of the new rules, and some slight tweaking, the bylaws were rewritten, and the most powerful of bylaws, 8.1.C, was introduced:

8.1.C. With Youth Council’s recommendation, the CAHA board has the authority to prohibit a club from fielding Tier I teams whose prior season’s collective performances was non-competitive.

As highlighted in other posts, this bylaw is subjective at best… and downright destructive at worst.  It gave the CAHA Board of Directors the ability to deny any Tier I application based on their perception, without explanation.

Case in point, the California Titans. Despite a long presence of AAA hockey in California at the 16U and 18U level, it only took two seasons for CAHA to totally strip the California Titans of their AAA status. The Titans appealed when they were completely denied in 2018, but their appeal was quickly rejected by new CAHA President, Tom Hancock, ending their existence as a AAA program in California.  The California Heat, California Wave and San Diego Gulls, three established hockey programs with many AAA teams over the past decade, didn’t even last that long. 

The #1 reason to limit AAA hockey in California was to compete nationally at the Tier I level. So has it worked?  No.

Here are the numbers:

USA Hockey Tier I National Champion or 2nd Place finishes:
2012 Jr Kings - 18U 2nd Place
2010 LA Selects - 14U 2nd Place
2008 LA Selects - 12U Champions

All these dates preceded the limitation of AAA teams in the State of California.   

The #2 reason to limit AAA hockey in California was to balance competition. So has it worked? Not really.

At the four Peewee and Bantam levels, the Ducks and Kings are balanced and competitive with each other, but the Sharks are not. Not even close.  Refer to previous posts on the subject. 

At the Midget levels, competition between these three teams increases, but much of the elite talent has already left the state by that point, which is an underlying result of a lack of competition for the first four years of AAA hockey.

It has been argued that there simply aren’t enough kids playing hockey in California to support more AAA teams. But that’s simply not true, especially as registration numbers in California are on the rise.

Let’s look at the numbers when compared with Massachusetts:

Massachusetts population 6.86 million
10,565 square miles
43,674 kids registered
11U: 16 teams
12U:17 teams
13U: 15 teams
14U: 15 teams
15U: 21 teams
16U: 26 teams
18U: 30 teams
140 total

California population 40 million
164,000 square miles
14,886 kids registered
11U: 3 teams
12U: 3 teams
13U: 3 teams
14U: 3 teams
15U: 3 teams
16U: 3 teams
18U: 4 teams
22 total

By comparison, MA has 3 times more kids under the age of 19 registered for hockey than California (43,674 to 14,886).  However, they have 6 times as many AAA teams (140 to 22). That doesn’t add up.

So will this change in the near future as the number of registered kids continues to rise?  Will CAHA remove the sanctions from AAA hockey in California and allow the highest level of hockey to grow organically and as the market demands?  Likely no.

Tom Hancock is the current CAHA President.  Steve Laing was the CAHA President before him.  And a man named Charlie Fuertsch was the CAHA President before him.  So where exactly are Steve and Charlie these days?

Well, Steve Laing is the USA Hockey Pacific District Director and Charlie Fuertsch is a USA Hockey Vice President.

As you can see, Tom has friends in high places, and it’s highly doubtful he would change an institutional philosophy authored by his predecessor and boss, USA Hockey Pacific Director Steve Laing.

But perhaps Tom has other plans? Perhaps Tom can see the talent leaving the state in droves and the lack of opportunity at AAA being a bad thing for the state at large?

Unfortunately, the answer again is no.

From his lone interview when taking the job as CAHA President, Tom Hancock had this to say in CA Rubber Magazine:

“As a state, neither the North nor the South has an actual structure for high school hockey, and that’s where I see the potential for significant growth,” said Hancock. “The high school hockey leagues are really growing, but it’s been offshoot leagues within the Jr. Sharks, Jr. Ducks, and Jr. Kings organizations. My vision is that we can transform that into a high school hockey league that could open the door for CIF recognition of high school hockey throughout the state, but with CAHA governance.  My ambition is that by the end of my tenure, I would like to be able to walk away with CIF having some formal recognition of hockey in California.”

So there you have it. High school hockey. 

Hancock’s goal is clear, increase high school hockey in California.  This is a noble enough desire, and it’s not a bad idea.  But it will take many years, the full support of the cities and high schools, and at least a dozen new rinks to be fully implemented.  This is not impossible, but it is definitely ambitious.  And, just for the sake of our discussion, what does growing high school hockey directly conflict with?

Yup. You guessed it, allowing more AAA hockey.

Perhaps that’s not what many of you want to hear, but we’ve come upon CAHA’s apparent endgame: increase high school hockey in the state of California at the expense of allowing more AAA hockey.  So if your kid has aspirations to play hockey at the highest level in the United States or Canada, you’re simply living in the wrong state and playing under the wrong governing body.  And with the current CAHA President and Board of Directors, this does not appear to be changing any time soon.

If your kid is lucky enough to be one of the 45 or so kids to make one of the 3 AAA teams in the entire state of California for any given birth year, then congratulations.  You’ve defied the odds and successfully navigated the muddy political waters of the Ducks, Kings and Sharks.

However, if your kid is not so lucky, and you ever want them to play at the Junior or college level, you’re shit out of luck... and you better start looking East.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: KickSave on February 18, 2019, 10:34:41 AM
Yup. We’re not so lucky and in the process of writing to a bunch of teams trying to find out where there may be openings. It sucks.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 18, 2019, 01:18:14 PM
Very informative post, thanks!

The Atlantic youth hockey league is another example with similar statistics.    In just the area in and around Philadelphia (including South NJ)  at the '05 birth year there are AAA teams ranked 1, 4, 14, 35, 65 & 79.  This is an area roughly the same as that of Metropolitan LA, and with many millions less in population. 

I would also point out, that Tier2 in the same regions is typically all birth year. 

Depending on the locale, you have AAA teams that aren't as good as AA teams from another more populous area, or even the occasional A team.  These teams routinely play each other in regional tournaments or home weekends.

There are also development leagues beyond the local USA hockey district & region leagues that teams can participate in like the EJEPL (https://www.ejepl.net/) which promotes regional competition and tournaments.  Only in California do you find a Tier2 Flight system, with an entire flight designed to discourage the participants and limit competition. 

In the same regions, the High school system is full of travel hockey players, and there is no discouragement of that, as the most successful teams are built around their core travel players.  I compare that to recent discussions of policy changes looking to force players to choose one or the other. 


 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: socalhockeydad on February 18, 2019, 03:40:16 PM
Wow....great post. I almost stopped reading once I read Scott Allegrini's name...


Going to throw out an alternate view...IMO, Tom's hangup on HS is the fact that its the only part of CA hockey that is "districted" and will eventually lead into all of CAHA going this route. I know I know...no way will the big clubs in Socal allow this but think about it. What would be the only way to make the Sharks competitive? Force players up North to play up north...so, basically the Sharks would be the ONLY CA AAA option. Granted, most of the best players would probably rather go play AA @ GSE but that is besides the point. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: PutYourFootOnTheGas on February 18, 2019, 04:06:52 PM
This is very long, and some of it is already known… but when compiled all together, the information creates an interesting picture that might be useful to parents and kids seeking to play hockey at the highest level.

Enjoy.


At a time when the NHL is aggressively trying to expand the game of hockey, CAHA is going in the opposite direction.  This is no more apparent when examining AAA hockey in California.  Following Peewee and Bantam, elite kids are leaving the state in record numbers because of low competition (only 3 AAA teams in the state), excessive travel costs (families forced to travel back East to play games), and an overall lack of opportunity (not enough elite teams for all the kids).

It wasn’t always like this… so how did we get here?  Let’s look at the numbers:

AAA in 2015-2016 season:
11U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
12U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Bears
13U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Wave
14U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Gulls, Eagles
15U: NO DIVISION
16U: Ducks (2), Kings (2), Sharks (2), Gulls, Titans, Wave, Wildcats
18U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Wave (2), Titans, Gulls
TOTAL TEAMS: 35

And now here are the numbers for this season:

AAA in 2018-2019 season:
11U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
12U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
13U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
14U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
15U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
16U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks
18U: Ducks, Kings, Sharks, Reign
TOTAL TEAMS: 22

In three seasons, the  total AAA teams in California has dropped by more than a third. That’s an abnormally large amount. So what happened?

In 2015, then CAHA President, Steve Laing, set out to “fix” Tier I hockey in California:

November 21, 2015 -
Steve Laing reported that USA Hockey is working on a document to define “Tier I Hockey” as well as multiple scenarios that may prohibit clubs from fielding Tier I teams without perimeters.  Steve would like the CAHA Board of Directors to take a close look at the status of Tier I programs and advise on ways to improve Tier I performance at the state and national level.

What followed was a “Special Meeting” in December, solely focused on Tier 1 hockey:

December 19, 2015  - Special Meeting to address Tier I hockey.
Missions Statement for Tier I hockey:
—Compete nationally
—Balance competition
—Prepare players to play at the highest level possible to represent our state.

A month later, CAHA enacted several new rules for Tier I hockey in California:

January 23, 2016
CAHA President, Steve Laing, introduces Scott Allegrini as the new CAHA Tier Program Committee Chair.
—The automatic bids for the three youth NHL-affiliated clubs.
—The limitation of up to 5 teams at each age division.
—Existing Tier I Programs that have proven longevity.
—Increase of PDR requirement.
—Deadline for declaration and submission of Tier I Application.

Additionally, Scott Allegrini discussed a “flight structure” and placement weekend for Tier II, which would set the stages for our current Tier II system.

Following the enactment of the new rules, and some slight tweaking, the bylaws were rewritten, and the most powerful of bylaws, 8.1.C, was introduced:

8.1.C. With Youth Council’s recommendation, the CAHA board has the authority to prohibit a club from fielding Tier I teams whose prior season’s collective performances was non-competitive.

As highlighted in other posts, this bylaw is subjective at best… and downright destructive at worst.  It gave the CAHA Board of Directors the ability to deny any Tier I application based on their perception, without explanation.

Case in point, the California Titans. Despite a long presence of AAA hockey in California at the 16U and 18U level, it only took two seasons for CAHA to totally strip the California Titans of their AAA status. The Titans appealed when they were completely denied in 2018, but their appeal was quickly rejected by new CAHA President, Tom Hancock, ending their existence as a AAA program in California.  The California Heat, California Wave and San Diego Gulls, three established hockey programs with many AAA teams over the past decade, didn’t even last that long. 

The #1 reason to limit AAA hockey in California was to compete nationally at the Tier I level. So has it worked?  No.

Here are the numbers:

USA Hockey Tier I National Champion or 2nd Place finishes:
2012 Jr Kings - 18U 2nd Place
2010 LA Selects - 14U 2nd Place
2008 LA Selects - 12U Champions

All these dates preceded the limitation of AAA teams in the State of California.   

The #2 reason to limit AAA hockey in California was to balance competition. So has it worked? Not really.

At the four Peewee and Bantam levels, the Ducks and Kings are balanced and competitive with each other, but the Sharks are not. Not even close.  Refer to previous posts on the subject. 

At the Midget levels, competition between these three teams increases, but much of the elite talent has already left the state by that point, which is an underlying result of a lack of competition for the first four years of AAA hockey.

It has been argued that there simply aren’t enough kids playing hockey in California to support more AAA teams. But that’s simply not true, especially as registration numbers in California are on the rise.

Let’s look at the numbers when compared with Massachusetts:

Massachusetts population 6.86 million
10,565 square miles
43,674 kids registered
11U: 16 teams
12U:17 teams
13U: 15 teams
14U: 15 teams
15U: 21 teams
16U: 26 teams
18U: 30 teams
140 total

California population 40 million
164,000 square miles
14,886 kids registered
11U: 3 teams
12U: 3 teams
13U: 3 teams
14U: 3 teams
15U: 3 teams
16U: 3 teams
18U: 4 teams
22 total

By comparison, MA has 3 times more kids under the age of 19 registered for hockey than California (43,674 to 14,886).  However, they have 6 times as many AAA teams (140 to 22). That doesn’t add up.

So will this change in the near future as the number of registered kids continues to rise?  Will CAHA remove the sanctions from AAA hockey in California and allow the highest level of hockey to grow organically and as the market demands?  Likely no.

Tom Hancock is the current CAHA President.  Steve Laing was the CAHA President before him.  And a man named Charlie Fuertsch was the CAHA President before him.  So where exactly are Steve and Charlie these days?

Well, Steve Laing is the USA Hockey Pacific District Director and Charlie Fuertsch is a USA Hockey Vice President.

As you can see, Tom has friends in high places, and it’s highly doubtful he would change an institutional philosophy authored by his predecessor and boss, USA Hockey Pacific Director Steve Laing.

But perhaps Tom has other plans? Perhaps Tom can see the talent leaving the state in droves and the lack of opportunity at AAA being a bad thing for the state at large?

Unfortunately, the answer again is no.

From his lone interview when taking the job as CAHA President, Tom Hancock had this to say in CA Rubber Magazine:

“As a state, neither the North nor the South has an actual structure for high school hockey, and that’s where I see the potential for significant growth,” said Hancock. “The high school hockey leagues are really growing, but it’s been offshoot leagues within the Jr. Sharks, Jr. Ducks, and Jr. Kings organizations. My vision is that we can transform that into a high school hockey league that could open the door for CIF recognition of high school hockey throughout the state, but with CAHA governance.  My ambition is that by the end of my tenure, I would like to be able to walk away with CIF having some formal recognition of hockey in California.”

So there you have it. High school hockey. 

Hancock’s goal is clear, increase high school hockey in California.  This is a noble enough desire, and it’s not a bad idea.  But it will take many years, the full support of the cities and high schools, and at least a dozen new rinks to be fully implemented.  This is not impossible, but it is definitely ambitious.  And, just for the sake of our discussion, what does growing high school hockey directly conflict with?

Yup. You guessed it, allowing more AAA hockey.

Perhaps that’s not what many of you want to hear, but we’ve come upon CAHA’s apparent endgame: increase high school hockey in the state of California at the expense of allowing more AAA hockey.  So if your kid has aspirations to play hockey at the highest level in the United States or Canada, you’re simply living in the wrong state and playing under the wrong governing body.  And with the current CAHA President and Board of Directors, this does not appear to be changing any time soon.

If your kid is lucky enough to be one of the 45 or so kids to make one of the 3 AAA teams in the entire state of California for any given birth year, then congratulations.  You’ve defied the odds and successfully navigated the muddy political waters of the Ducks, Kings and Sharks.

However, if your kid is not so lucky, and you ever want them to play at the Junior or college level, you’re shit out of luck... and you better start looking East.


Hate to break it to you but if the #1 reason CAHA limited AAA hockey was to make California more competitive nationally, than it has ABSOLUTELY worked. I've kept analysis to Southern California teams as in Northern California, only the Sharks and GSE teams have had AAA teams the past 4 years. If you think the Sharks are bad at AAA, you should see how GSE has done. It's worse so limiting their ability to field AAA teams has helped increase California's competitiveness. While not has highly ranked as the Ducks and Kings, the Sharks are also becoming more competitive nationally over the last 4 years (also covered separate posts). Anyway, the dashed line is in each age class is the off season where CAHA made the change you hate so much.


PEEWEE MINOR NATIONAL RANKING
15/16 - Kings 19, Ducks 30, Average 25
---------------------------------------------
16/17 - Ducks 6, Kings 15, Average 11
17/18 - Ducks 2, Kings 5, Average 4
18/19 - Kings 9, Ducks 16, Average 13


PEEWEE MAJOR NATIONAL RANKING
15/16 - Kings 3, Ducks 46, Bears 50, Gulls 68, Average 42
----------------------------------------------------------------
16/17 - Ducks 11, Kings 15, Gulls 56, Average 28
17/18 - Ducks 10, Kings 15, Average 13
18/19 - Kings 3, Ducks 5, Average 4


BANTAM MINOR NATIONAL RANKING
15/16 - Ducks 27, Gulls 43, Wave 46, Kings 76, Average 48
------------------------------------------------------------------
16/17 - Kings 3, Ducks 50, Gulls 87, Average 47
17/18 - Ducks 9, Kings 21, Average 15
18/19 - Ducks 10, Kings 12, Average 11


BANTAM MAJOR NATIONAL RANKING
15/16 - Ducks 12, Kings 29, Gulls 67, Average 36
-------------------------------------------------------
16/17 - Ducks 36, Gulls 39, Kings 57 Average 44
17/18 - Kings 4, Ducks 43, Gulls 96, Average 48
18/19 - Ducks 9, Kings 16, Average 13


You can dislike the approach all you want. You can argue it is not fair to some families that don't live close to the Kings or Ducks. Just don't try to say it has not made California more competitive nationally because the numbers simply don't back up your stance.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 18, 2019, 05:00:01 PM
Rankings don’t impress me. Please show the national championship banners for these new and better teams.  How many have they won and when?  I am honestly willing to be convinced here. I don’t know the answer.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 18, 2019, 05:22:52 PM
PutYourFootOnTheGas,

You are really using Average rankings to make a point about "competitiveness"?  That's some high level math!   Very cool how you cherry picked the socal teams too, only you can't do that, because it's CAHA rules that cover the entire state.  Throw the Norcal teams back in there, and do a recalc, then come back.

Maybe for a bunch of pencil pushing dipshits with fantasy hockey on their minds, this is great stuff.  For the rest of the US youth hockey system, it's about the experience and development of the participants.   
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: socalhockeydad on February 18, 2019, 05:53:36 PM
PutYourFootOnTheGas,

You are really using Average rankings to make a point about "competitiveness"?  That's some high level math!   Very cool how you cherry picked the socal teams too, only you can't do that, because it's CAHA rules that cover the entire state.  Throw the Norcal teams back in there, and do a recalc, then come back.

Maybe for a bunch of pencil pushing dipshits with fantasy hockey on their minds, this is great stuff.  For the rest of the US youth hockey system, it's about the experience and development of the participants.


yeah...100 percent agree. You cant talk about average rankings but leave out the sharks! Man, had me going with some serious logic :-(
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Strawman on February 18, 2019, 06:16:10 PM
PutYourFootOnTheGas,


Thank you for your post.  I always appreciate it when people back their views up with data instead of just venting.


However, I would be interested in seeing what the same trends show about team competitiveness above the Bantam level.  My overall sense is that the current AAA franchise system has been effective at making teams more competitive until about age 13, but starting at about age 14 there is a steady drop off in team competitiveness (with some individual exceptions).  One theory I keep hearing is that the current AAA franchise system is driving more kids out of California starting at around that age and leaves the local talent pool depleted at older age levels, instead of creating an environment in which the best players stay and continue developing and being challenged in California.  In other words, is increasing "team competitiveness" in Squirts and PeeWees good, or bad, for hockey in California over the longer term?  I don't know the answer but the question sure is important.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 18, 2019, 06:54:21 PM
Gas,
I don’t hate the changes.  I understand the changes.  I just don’t think an independent governing body should inorganically manipulate a market. It’s unnecessary, anti-competition, and it’s not what the consumer wants. The proof of this are the elite kids leaving in record numbers after Bantam… because of not enough competition, the high cost of travel, and a lack of opportunity

My post simply presented the facts, explaining how we got here… and I list “competitiveness on a national level” as the #1 reason why the limits were set. I understand that. 

However, the numbers are negligible from pre-limits to post-limits. The ranking system goes back to the 2013/2014 season. And here they are:

PEEWEE MINOR NATIONAL RANKING
13/14 - Ducks 12, Kings 27, (Sharks 35)
14/15 - Kings 2 (Sharks 57)

PEEWEE MAJOR NATIONAL RANKING
13/14 - Ducks 7, Kings 17, Wildcats 57 (Sharks 65)
14/15 - Ducks 15, Kings 38, (GSE 23, Sharks 74)

BANTAM MINOR NATIONAL RANKING
13/14 -Kings 6, Wildcats 22, Ducks 35, Wave 55
14/15 - Kings 25, (Sharks 52) 

BANTAM MAJOR NATIONAL RANKING
13/14 - Kings 5, Ducks 21, Gulls 54, Wildcats 92, (Sharks 44)
14/15 - Ducks 9, Kings 15, Wildcats 40, OCHC 50, Gulls 60, (Sharks 51)

As you can see, the Ducks and Kings are competitive nationally every year at every level.  Some years are better than others, but no team is EVER below 38.  Of nearly 100 AAA teams nationally at each birth year, the Kings and Ducks are ALWAYS close to the top 3rd in the country, if not higher, making them competitive every year. So your stance is flat out WRONG

For fun, I included the Sharks… and the one year GSE iced a team, they were higher than the Sharks.

So as everyone can see, any uptick in rankings post-limits is insignificant.  And as Landshark points out, having a good national ranking hasn’t resulted in what really matters… National Championships. Not even close. If you want to see National Championships, you'll have to return to the pre-limit days.   

I know you’re just doing your job and trying to be a good soldier… and I respect that, but the numbers DO NOT support the limits.  It was a political move to eliminate any competition for the Ducks, Kings and Sharks.  But instead of making them better, they’ve stayed the same, and it has sent the elite talent in California running for the border post Bantam.

There is nothing more American than a free market.  It is the foundation of our democracy.  And CAHA should take a note and allow the market to dictate the limits. 

Cheers.   
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 18, 2019, 10:12:20 PM
In MHR's Club rankings, there are 4 California clubs in the top 100 - Ducks (ranked 12) Kings(13) Sharks(63) GSE(86).  The list has 374 clubs on it, those 4 named above and the clubs listed below are the only California clubs that made the rankings.....You can't argue that the Kings and Ducks aren't competitive nationally.  They clearly are.....Also when they made this list they  overlooked the Heat - must be East Coast bias ::) . 


Wave (109)
GoldRush (156)
Gulls (160)
Bears (172)
OCHC (196)
Saints (239)
Jr Reign (288)
Empire (298)


Michigan has 8 AAA programs with about 25k boys playing , Illinois 4 AAA programs with about 21k boys playing.  Minnesota has ZERO AAA programs with about 49k kids, and New York has 16 AAA programs with about 37k kids. Wisconsin, which has a similar amount of kids as California (14k) has 4 AAA programs.  Colorado only has about 10k kids registered and they have 6 AAA programs.


AAA Programs per registered player (approximated)
 
Illinois 1 AAA program per 5200 players
California 1 per 5000
Wisconsin 1 per 3400
Michigan 1 per 3000
New York 1 per 2500
Colorado 1 Per 1700
Massachusetts 1 per 1600
Minnesota 0 per 49000


As you can see it's all over the map, local associations are obviously left to their own devices on deciding how many clubs can field AAA teams. USA Hockey should set guidelines around it.  Maybe cap the amount of AAA teams based on the number of participants so that between 3 and 5 percent of players are AAA.


Right now in bantam, CA has 2021 registered participants and 3 AAA programs.  At 17 kids per team (15 skaters and 2 goalie) that leaves us with 51 AAA roster spots (17 x 3 clubs) for 2021 kids compete for which means about 2.5% of the bantam aged kids are playing AAA.


By the same math:


Michigan is at 3.25% of bantams at AAA.
Massachusetts 6.6%
Colorado 6.6%
Illinois 1.7%

In California about 17% of bantam age kids are playing in Bantam AA (Flights 1 and 2 combined). 


Clearly if you plan to leave the state to go get an extra A for your kid, you should head to Massachusetts. Your odds are way better. 


Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Knuckle Puck on February 18, 2019, 11:46:43 PM

USA Hockey Nationals:
2018 none
2017 none
2016 none
2015 none
2014 none
2013 none
2012 Kings 18U Tier I runner-up; Wildcats 12U Tier II 3 A runner- up
2011 Heat 12U Tier II 3A Champs; Blackhawks 14U Tier II 3A runner-up
2010 LAHC 14U Tier I runner-up; OCHC 16U Tier II 1A Champs; LAHC 14U Tier II 4A runner-up
2009 LAHC 14U Tier II runner up
2008 LAHC 12U Tier 1 Champs
2007 LAHC 14U Tier 1 runner-up; California Stars 14UTier 2  Champs
2006 Wave 16U Tier 1 Champs; LAHC 14U Tier 1 Champs; LAHC 14U Tier II Champs;  Blackhawks 16U Tier II Champs


Iirc, only two Cali Aaa teams have even made it out of pool play in the last 5 years. Pretty lousy.

Im sure it’s a pure coincidence that the nattys drought and player exodus started the year JK took over LAHC and began trying to reduce/eliminate competition through mergers and rule making. Right?


lastly, it’s nice to have some “highly ranked” peewee squads, but realize that we’ve had excellent pw teams for almost two decades, and since pw nattys got discontinued, few folks care about rankings besides braggart parents and coaches wanting to charge more $$ for privates.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 18, 2019, 11:51:17 PM
LAJK 2017 Quebec Tourney 2nd place
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 18, 2019, 11:56:01 PM

USA Hockey Nationals:
2018 none
2017 none
2016 none
2015 none
2014 none
2013 none
2012 Kings 18U Tier I runner-up; Wildcats 12U Tier II 3 A runner- up
2011 Heat 12U Tier II 3A Champs; Blackhawks 14U Tier II 3A runner-up
2010 LAHC 14U Tier I runner-up; OCHC 16U Tier II 1A Champs; LAHC 14U Tier II 4A runner-up
2009 LAHC 14U Tier II runner up
2008 LAHC 12U Tier 1 Champs
2007 LAHC 14U Tier 1 runner-up; California Stars 14UTier 2  Champs
2006 Wave 16U Tier 1 Champs; LAHC 14U Tier 1 Champs; LAHC 14U Tier II Champs;  Blackhawks 16U Tier II Champs

Iirc, only two Cali Aaa teams have even made it out of pool play in the last 5 years. Pretty lousy.

Im sure it’s a pure coincidence that the drought started the year JK took over LAHC and started trying to impose its dominance via rule making and take it or leave it attitude. Right?



Please explain how adding AAA teams and diluting the talent will cause California teams to do better at Nationals.  You don't increase wealth by dividing it.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Knuckle Puck on February 19, 2019, 12:12:51 AM
Spoken like a true JK parent. You increase the quality of California hockey by developing more good players rather than pushing them to seek opportunities out of state. Pretty simple, actually. Look at how few “NHL affiliated clubs” (a comically arrogant phrase that surfaced a few years ago) are on that list of national champs above.  There always have been talented kids and coaches at many clubs. How about we let them do their things and see what happens, rather than forcibly consolidate into 2 SoCal clubs starting at age 11?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 19, 2019, 12:32:42 AM
A lot of the good AAA kids leave at 14u or 15u to go to prep school too. No one is pushing them or anyone else out.  The biggest driver of moving kids out of state is money - A lot people actually spend less money by sending their kid to prep school if they qualify for a financial aid package.  A $50k/yr hockey and prep school education for $25k all in? Who would say no to that? Some people are spending $35k/yr on private school here and another $25k on hockey.  Even if they don't qualify for aid at a prep school they can spend less by sending their and paying full boat. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 19, 2019, 12:35:49 AM
So, you’re saying that a system that has produced no results outside of a stunning single tournament almost victory is obviously better than the previous version which produced actual national results because you can’t imagine talent superior to the kids who live near the kings and ducks facilities accumulating in another place and flourishing?  Thanks for reminding us that Caha board members aren’t the only ones lacking basic cognitive functions.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Hamacher Checking Camp on February 19, 2019, 08:54:35 AM
Some great data here and it tells a story that maybe "consolidation is working".  If I was a casual observer, I would probably be convinced.   Here is a bit more data to try and complete the picture.  The number of Pro, NCAA Div I, and CHL players from California is decreasing and in my opinion, decreasing rapidly.  I will let you go mine your own data but some generic info to chew on.  NCAA Div I numbers are down 30%+ from a high of approximately 75 players.  The CHL numbers are more significant than that.  I am all for the team, but what are we doing for individual players?

A good series of questions in my mind are: do players dream about a state or youth national championship or playing in the NHL and scoring the game 7 winner?   Do players dream about themselves being in the NHL or about their team mate or their team being in the NHL?  And the question I ask myself every day is my team winning more or less important than developing all of my players and moving them onward and upward in pursuit of their dreams?  The last question has become easy for me as my players have all shared their dreams with me so the responsibility and priority is really clear.

Here are some additional thoughts on the data.





https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2093492214014514&id=1162141630482915 (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2093492214014514&id=1162141630482915)
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Pop on February 19, 2019, 11:55:40 AM
CA has 13 kids in the USHL and 40 in D1.  Only 2 in the USHL came from prep, SSM and CIH.  Where are all the kids heading to prep school ending up?  Being good in USHL and D1 coaches eyes are completely different then being good in parents eyes.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: CahaMama on February 19, 2019, 12:04:50 PM
So, lots of problem identification going on, but what is the solution? Bantam and midget aged kids are leaving the state in droves in search of a better alternative than what we have to offer here in California. How do we fix this? Or maybe it's ok to have "fun" and "development" through Peewee and then send 'em off somewhere else if they want to really develop. Or stay and continue with the "fun" in the various high school leagues. If you stay past Peewee, you have accepted your fate. After all, all roads lead to men's league.

Seriously, it's a train wreck in the making IMHO.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 19, 2019, 12:21:27 PM
CAHA, the governing body, should NOT be manipulating the system. There is no reason to try to consolidate talent. That is not their role. If the clubs want to try to do that, they can recruit all they want, but the independent governing body shouldn't be manipulating the system in the favor of particular clubs... but they are.     


The nonsense reason of "competing at a national level" has been debunked.  Kings/Ducks were competitive pre-limits, and they've been just as competitive post-limits.  It has made ZERO difference, as proved with the numbers. 


CAHA should allow teams to place teams as they please. Why is that so scary?  What is the worst that will happen?


The governing body should be supporting competitiveness between the clubs... because competitiveness is what weeds out incompetence (like the Sharks).
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: DEFENDERS on February 19, 2019, 01:40:20 PM
 Can we please stop with the numbers, for most us it’s about options (clubs and especially coaching staffs) and not just promoting the 3 NHL affiliated clubs. We as the cunsumer should have more options.  My kid is not going to a D1 school nor to the NHL but I would still like him to be given the opportunity to play at the highest level and compete. Even if this means his team would have a low national ranking.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: NotfromSoCal on February 19, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
Defenders, stop trying to be reasonable with Kings and Ducks dads.  It will never work.  Of course if you consolidate teams, the last ones standing stand a higher probability of being better than they were before.  A sirloin steak tastes pretty good too when there aren't any ribeye's on the BBQ.  It also makes the decision very easy for many of the most talented kids to NOT want to play on some of those teams and to play in AA.  Why won't the AAA Sharks scrimmage against any NorCal AA or even A teams?  I think you all know the answer but if you can't figure it out, let me know.  There is no arguing that the Kings AAA and Ducks AAA teams are good.  That's not the point.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 19, 2019, 10:41:50 PM
So, lots of problem identification going on, but what is the solution? Bantam and midget aged kids are leaving the state in droves in search of a better alternative than what we have to offer here in California. How do we fix this? Or maybe it's ok to have "fun" and "development" through Peewee and then send 'em off somewhere else if they want to really develop. Or stay and continue with the "fun" in the various high school leagues. If you stay past Peewee, you have accepted your fate. After all, all roads lead to men's league.

Seriously, it's a train wreck in the making IMHO.


The number one rated 03 in the US played u16 for the jr kings this year and has been there his whole youth "career". Already committed to high end D1 school and will most likely be on the USNTDP 16 team next year. Another teammate who also stayed may join him there. If yournkid is good he doesn't have to go anywhere.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 19, 2019, 10:51:44 PM
So, you’re saying that a system that has produced no results outside of a stunning single tournament almost victory is obviously better than the previous version which produced actual national results because you can’t imagine talent superior to the kids who live near the kings and ducks facilities accumulating in another place and flourishing?  Thanks for reminding us that Caha board members aren’t the only ones lacking basic cognitive functions.


The way they did it before any club or startup team even could announce they were going AAA at a level and poach all the best players from other clubs.  It's no different than the consolidation going on now except it was probably worse then.  Now instead of 1 really good team that could compete nationally and be in the top 10 you are seeing multiple teams in the top 20 from socal.  05 and 07 have 2 in the top 15 and 06 has 2 in the top 5. You wouldn't have had that under the old system. Under the old system at the 06 level you would probably have an Ice Dogs team at number 1, a ducks team at number 30, and a kings team at 60. Yeah they may win nationals (if they s had it at peewee) but it wouldn't do much for California hockey if there was no other team here that could compete with them.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 19, 2019, 11:07:06 PM
Bobby... we already debunked this myth over and over. Kings/Ducks always competitive nationally. Nothing has changed post-limits. Not sure why you’d be scared of more competition, more opportunities.... and LESS bureaucratic restrictions, but here we are.

And the 03 player you highlight would have been gone before but his entire team played up his Bantam Minor year... he’s playing up this year to 16U... and he will be gone next year. Just about every recognizable name from that 03 group will be gone. And I’d bet you that if there were still 10 16U AAA teams in California, a few would be staying. But there won’t be 10 teams. Or 8. Or 6.  There will be 3 teams. The same 3 teams the 03s have been amongst for the past 6 years... so the kids will all be gone.


Nice job, CAHA.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 20, 2019, 09:04:42 AM
Another Myth that can easily be debunked through the application of simple logic:

"The kids with AAA talent are already playing AAA.  There aren't other kids who can play at the AAA level."

And yet, year after year, kids leave these AAA teams for various reasons, and are replaced by other kids. 

Where did these other kids come from?  That's right they came from either non AAA teams in the organization OR no AAA clubs where they were playing previously.

As already established, the Kings & Ducks have managed to maintain a consistent level of relative national AAA competitiveness, while losing players, and not only players but at times top performers, and yet the teams do not fold or suffer precipitous drop offs.

HOW CAN THIS BE?????

Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Pop on February 20, 2019, 10:34:31 AM
Most kids nationally(except in MN) with talent will move on to USHL, NAHL, and BCHL after 16u.  There are replaced by the 16u bubble kids at 18u.  Check out how the JD and JK do at 18u against other 18u teams that also lost their top talent after 16u. Look and see how many kids move on from 18u compared to 16u.  You can’t say the high end kids leaving after 16u are being replaced with kids of equal talent. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 20, 2019, 10:43:24 AM
Pop... so what does this have to do with CAHA suppressing and rigging AAA hockey starting at 11U?


You're starting to make me think you belong on CAHA's "Distract & Deflect" Shill List... along with Gas and Race.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 20, 2019, 10:43:34 AM
The way they did it before any club or startup team even could announce they were going AAA at a level and poach all the best players from other clubs.  It's no different than the consolidation going on now except it was probably worse then.  Now instead of 1 really good team that could compete nationally and be in the top 10 you are seeing multiple teams in the top 20 from socal.  05 and 07 have 2 in the top 15 and 06 has 2 in the top 5. You wouldn't have had that under the old system.


There is a PDR rule that specifically exists to address poaching and movement of entire teams.  Whether or not those rules work, or should exist is another question entirely, but I understand the concern.   


The rest of your argument has already been debunked multiple times.  You keep stating it like it's fact when there was both historic results prior to the rule changes AND examples from other markets with similar geographic and population constraints that have 8+ AAA teams at an age group and still have ample representation in the top 20 rankings.   






Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 20, 2019, 11:45:43 AM
Bobby... we already debunked this myth over and over. Kings/Ducks always competitive nationally. Nothing has changed post-limits. Not sure why you’d be scared of more competition, more opportunities.... and LESS bureaucratic restrictions, but here we are.

And the 03 player you highlight would have been gone before but his entire team played up his Bantam Minor year... he’s playing up this year to 16U... and he will be gone next year. Just about every recognizable name from that 03 group will be gone. And I’d bet you that if there were still 10 16U AAA teams in California, a few would be staying. But there won’t be 10 teams. Or 8. Or 6.  There will be 3 teams. The same 3 teams the 03s have been amongst for the past 6 years... so the kids will all be gone.


Nice job, CAHA.


He will be gone next year because he will be playing Juniors at 16.  Isn't that called development?  Most of those other "recognizable" names will also be playing juniors.  You make it sound like it's a bad thing.


There will be 6 teams in midget AAA next year. The 15AAA division didn't exist until 2016.  They moved the minor birth year teams into their own division at the recommendation of USA Hockey.  Back in this supposed "Golden Age" of California youth hockey when they were making it to the Nationals final there were also only 6 or 7 midget aaa teams.  In 2010 there were 7, in 2011 there were 6, in 2012 there were 7. Now there are 6.  In the years 2013 through 2016 when there were a total of 9,7,10, and 9 midget AAA teams none of them made the finals at Nationals. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 20, 2019, 11:57:21 AM
Him/Them playing Juniors is an awesome thing.


For your second part... then nothing has changed.  So then we don't need restrictions?  It has done nothing.  Ducks/Kings will continue to do their thing.  They don't need outside help. They have the best facilities and top notch coaches.  So... the supposedly unbiased governing body doesn't need to be suppressing the rest of the state.  It's not CAHA's job to ice national teams.  That's up to the clubs.  Freedom now. 


Not sure why you would have a problem with that.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 20, 2019, 11:58:01 AM
Total PeeWee AAA teams by year:


2010 2
2011 3
2012 6
2013 6
2014 5
2015 8 (first year they added 11 u PeeWee minor separate division)
2016 7
2017 6
2018 6
2019 7


Doesn't strike me as rigged
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 20, 2019, 12:05:10 PM
Him/Them playing Juniors is an awesome thing.


For your second part... then nothing has changed.  So then we don't need restrictions?  It has done nothing.  Ducks/Kings will continue to do their thing.  They don't need outside help. They have the best facilities and top notch coaches.  So... the supposedly unbiased governing body doesn't need to be suppressing the rest of the state.  It's not CAHA's job to ice national teams.  That's up to the clubs.  Freedom now. 


Not sure why you would have a problem with that.


They're not being suppressed.  The top 16AA team in California wouldn't even be in the top 100 in AAA.  If these clubs were being suppressed there would be a bunch of California teams in the top 10 of the 16AA rankings. The highest ranked team is 32nd. Aren't they better off trying to win the Tier 2 nationals?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 20, 2019, 12:11:58 PM
Oh boy... whatever AA team you're referencing wouldn't be a AAA team.  Read the past posts.  Starting in 2016, smaller clubs applied to ice AAA teams and they were rejected. Based on nothing.  While the Kings/Ducks/Sharks were given automatic bids based on their names.   


That's the definition of suppression.  It's a monopoly.  It's why antitrust laws exist. 


As for number teams at Peewee, look at the initial post... and the whole picture. 35 AAA teams in 2015/16 season.  22 AAA teams today.  That's a 3rd less.  AAA hockey is shrinking when the NHL and the game nationally is EXPANDING.  It's going in the wrong direction... and NOT naturally.  CAHA is rigging the AAA application process.  Wake up.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Hockey sophist on February 20, 2019, 05:04:09 PM
Him/Them playing Juniors is an awesome thing.


For your second part... then nothing has changed.  So then we don't need restrictions?  It has done nothing.  Ducks/Kings will continue to do their thing.  They don't need outside help. They have the best facilities and top notch coaches.  So... the supposedly unbiased governing body doesn't need to be suppressing the rest of the state.  It's not CAHA's job to ice national teams.  That's up to the clubs.  Freedom now. 


Not sure why you would have a problem with that.


They're not being suppressed.  The top 16AA team in California wouldn't even be in the top 100 in AAA.  If these clubs were being suppressed there would be a bunch of California teams in the top 10 of the 16AA rankings. The highest ranked team is 32nd. Aren't they better off trying to win the Tier 2 nationals?
Hey Bobby Orr, that is a lame argument.   Considering 16AA teams now ignores the flight of 15 and 16 year olds to the east in the last few years.   Yes, of course, take a 100 or 150 players out of that age group and it will be diminished.   Why would that be noteworthy?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 20, 2019, 07:39:31 PM
I highly doubt 100 to 150 kids in one or two birth years have left to go play back east or elsewhere if you are going to make an argument based on that number you are going to have to prove you're not pulling it out of your ass.  You're saying enough midget aged players have left that we could fill up to 10 whole teams. C'mon!
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Knuckle Puck on February 20, 2019, 08:31:15 PM
it’s over 100 kids in the combined 2002/2003 birth years (at least, im prolly missing a few), over 150 if you add 01s and 00s eligible to play u18, about 18 bantams(!), and i cam direct message names/current team if you want to see it. approx 2/3rds at preps/academies, the rest at out of state aaa. cheers.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: NotfromSoCal on February 20, 2019, 10:39:44 PM
There are a LOT of kids in hockey prep schools that would never make the roster of a AAA team.  $20K/year will buy yo ua roster spot.  There are other talented kids that could make AAA that are choosing not to play AAA for various reasons.  If there were more options (AAA teams) it would actually be something to shoot for rather than a novelty.  There are kids that improve during the year, but when they could make AAA the next year, the roster is nearly full before tryouts.  Others simply choose to play AA for various reasons who could compete on AAA teams.  Players who play A and don't have an opportunity to play at a higher level reach a point they can never catch up with the speed which means if kids were given that opportunity, their game would naturally elevate.  I will never be convinced that having 3 teams is goods for anyone, not even the players on those 3 teams.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 20, 2019, 11:30:39 PM
There are a LOT of kids in hockey prep schools that would never make the roster of a AAA team.  $20K/year will buy yo ua roster spot.  There are other talented kids that could make AAA that are choosing not to play AAA for various reasons.  If there were more options (AAA teams) it would actually be something to shoot for rather than a novelty.  There are kids that improve during the year, but when they could make AAA the next year, the roster is nearly full before tryouts.  Others simply choose to play AA for various reasons who could compete on AAA teams.  Players who play A and don't have an opportunity to play at a higher level reach a point they can never catch up with the speed which means if kids were given that opportunity, their game would naturally elevate.  I will never be convinced that having 3 teams is goods for anyone, not even the players on those 3 teams.


There are at least 6 AAA teams in every age group except 18AAA. 6 midget, 6 bantam, 6 peewee. Next year there will be 7 bantam AAA teams
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 21, 2019, 08:03:59 AM

There are at least 6 AAA teams in every age group except 18AAA. 6 midget, 6 bantam, 6 peewee. Next year there will be 7 bantam AAA teams

So now you're trying to make your point by combining birth years?   
(https://media.giphy.com/media/10ZpFHGQczijeM/giphy.gif)


I'll jump ahead for you:  SOCAL AAA IS DOING GREAT WITH OVER ....ummm ...  20 TEAMS! 


This is getting dumber by the minute.  Why not just stick to your original assertion that the system is great as it is and we can all agree to disagree.  Otherwise you need to actually make an argument with some facts and analysis to elaborate on your points, as others have done. 



Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 5lap5hot on February 21, 2019, 08:24:43 AM
This whole thing is dumb.  To points that cannot be argued


1)  AAA teams are limited by CAHA.  Whether its a USA Hockey count of registered players or not they are limiting AAA team and the fact that the NHL jr teams get them is political and financial.  This decision may not be wrong because these teams aren't sitting with a worrisome budget.  They have the money and will draw the players.  I'm not saying I like it or that its right for the long term, but having a AAA team one year and losing it the next year seems to be a bad decision.


2)  California AA teams continue to show that they can compete with the AAA teams.  Look at the minor year teams playing against the combined teams.  There is talent and some come on later or choose not to drive make the drive. 


3)  AAA teams in California have to play 2 others teams only with 6-9 game season.  That is a joke so why would you want to play AAA.


4)  AA teams if they're good enough can do what the AAA teams do and fly to play in the tournaments up north and back east.


I suggest that the AAA people just agree that this is picked not because there are better players at the NHL jr teams, but simply those organizations have the $ to be there from year to year.  AAA teams are not necessarily the best teams that can be formed and that AA has kids that either choose not to play for the NHL jr teams or cannot afford the $25k, but are as good as some of the AA players.


CAHA is a problem when it comes to decisions like they did with the Wave team.  At PW spending $50k for two years plus the Quebec tournament costs is probably the biggest waste of money besides the Bullet Train. 

Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 21, 2019, 10:23:41 AM
It is dumb... not sure why CAHA has to restrict AAA teams when there is demand, past success, and current clubs desiring to organize teams, but they do. The harm comes as Hamacher points out... scouts/recruiters/preps don't look at AA kids the same way they look at AAA kids. They trust the system. If a kid plays AA, they assume he wasn't good enough to make AAA. He made this very clear, supported with data. They don't even look at the kid, and kids miss out on opportunities.


This is unnecessary, and for anyone to support the clearly laid out, systematic suppression of AAA hockey in California by CAHA, it's disappointing. These people have an agenda or a very cynical view of the world.  Smaller clubs should be afforded the same opportunities as the big ones.  And the point of an independent governing body is to create a level playing field for everyone.  Not just the wealthy.


Oh, and Bobby... come on, you know these are birth year teams... each age group has 3 teams. Don't be coy.   
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 21, 2019, 02:08:36 PM
I totally agree with many of your points, but I don’t want the Hockey governing boards to forget that it’s not all about aaa. It’s about more quality games for aa too. Maybe an all star game
For each birth year for every level. It’s about encouraging a players to move into tier.  Why not have the a teams in the top four slots play the aa teams in the bottom four?  The more vibrant the hockey community the better.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 21, 2019, 02:34:09 PM
Oh, and Bobby... come on, you know these are birth year teams... each age group has 3 teams. Don't be coy.


Not being coy before 2015 or 2016 the minor birthyear teams were in the same division as the major teams. There was no minor division. So these age groups didn't drop from 10 or 8 or 7 teams to 3 teams they dropped to 6. Or 7. It's not that drastic of a difference.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 21, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
AAA teams have dropped by more than 1/3 since the 2015-2016 season. That's drastic... especially when the sport is expanding everywhere else. It's not like less kids are playing hockey in California. More are. So the opportunities should be expanding as well. This isn't complicated. And whoever doesn't see that is either being stubborn or operating with an agenda.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 21, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
It's not that he can't understand.  It's slightly worse. 

He just wants to be right about something, so he keeps repeating things that he thinks are true until it becomes obvious that he is not informed on the subject and then moves on to another point.   In the educational community, he is what we call a bumper-car learner.  He keeps his foot on the gas and keeps running into things without acknowledging the part of his own thoughts and actions.  It's very easy to give up on this group.  They learn tediously slowly.  I'm saying this because it might help you through that initial visceral wave of nausea seeing that the B man didn't understand the point being made and moved on to another equally invalid one.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Hamacher Checking Camp on February 21, 2019, 03:21:55 PM
Or it could be the Pacific District Champion Ontario Avalanche 18AAA effect and destruction has still not worn off.........
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: #4BobbyOrr on February 22, 2019, 01:04:59 AM
It's not that he can't understand.  It's slightly worse. 

He just wants to be right about something, so he keeps repeating things that he thinks are true until it becomes obvious that he is not informed on the subject and then moves on to another point.   In the educational community, he is what we call a bumper-car learner.  He keeps his foot on the gas and keeps running into things without acknowledging the part of his own thoughts and actions.  It's very easy to give up on this group.  They learn tediously slowly.  I'm saying this because it might help you through that initial visceral wave of nausea seeing that the B man didn't understand the point being made and moved on to another equally invalid one.


Thanks for the psych eval there freud but I made my point about 12 posts ago try to keep up. That's a lot of words to make an ad hominem argument when you could have just called me a dick.  This isn't about being right or wrong, it's a subjective issue.  Should California have more AAA teams than we have now? Most likely.  I never argued that we shouldn't.  Should we have 35? Definitely not. At least not right now. I am sure CAHA would love to have a competitive 10 team AAA division at every level, minor and major birth years.  But should they manage the growth, to keep the relative level of hockey high compared to traditional hockey markets? Yes. Is the system they have now perfect? No. Is it better than the system they had before? Most definitely.  No matter if they have 20 or 200 AAA teams there will be kids on the bubble with some (parents) on the outside looking in and feeling slighted.  Every year at every level there are teams that overestimate their talent level and declare for a division that's beyond their skill set. It happens at AAA, AA, A, BB, and even B (some kids should stay in rec league longer).  I don't think it's a bad thing to not have to drive from Bakersfield to Escondido or Simi Valley to Cathedral City to play a team whose parents bit off more than they can chew and win 9-0.  If they have proven they have the skill to be competitive and that they can manage the club professionally while keeping their talent under their roof, then by all means, they should get to field a AAA team.  That's MY opinion. You're welcome to YOUR opinion.   


Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 22, 2019, 09:12:39 AM
But... this argument is about CAHA.  Not the overambitious parents. Not the kids feeling slighted.  Even in saying that you're being condescending.   


CAHA, the independent governing body, is actively and purposely shutting down programs (Titans), and they're restricting every other program not named Kings/Ducks/Sharks inorganically. But it's not their job to parent California youth hockey.  It's not their job to dictate what people "should" do.  They've created a monopoly through their biased policies, and it's not right.


Also, just curious... but how is it better now?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Racetonowhere on February 22, 2019, 12:12:17 PM
The 2017-18 Titans 16AAA team went 8-37. Most of their wins were against teams that are not household names  ("Pursuit of Excellence" , "Elite Hockey Program" ) or against their 18AAA team. They lost to the JK 9-1, 11-0, 7-1 and 7-1. They lost to JrDucks 10-0, 12-1 and 5-0. Who is benefitting from having a team like that besides the people making money off of it? 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 22, 2019, 12:30:24 PM
Why do you care?


By the same logic, every bottom 3 teams in every division should be shut down... and the Jr Sharks should be BANNED from ever icing teams again at PW and Bantam AAA.  You can't have it both ways, Race.  You wear your hypocrisy like a cheap cologne.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Racetonowhere on February 22, 2019, 01:00:15 PM
Wow! What a great argument!
I care because it diminishes junior hockey in California to have kids playing at levels at which they don't belong just because their parents want the extra A and somebody can charge them for that privilege.
I'm also tired of people blaming CAHA just because their kids didn't make whatever team their parents wanted them to be on. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 22, 2019, 02:05:34 PM
Goodness... you're such a moron it hurts.

You don't want more AAA teams because it "diminishes junior hockey in California."  Wow.  It's amazing you can breathe and walk at the same time.  Thank you for the input, Race aka The Protector of Quality Control in California Youth Hockey.  Unfortunately, that's not CAHA's job.

This thread has proven again and again and again that NOTHING has changed from pre-limits to post-limits.  It is the SAME success rate... if not worse now (especially at PW/Bantam).  All that has changed is that more and more kids are LEAVING the state after Bantam because California lacks the opportunity to play at the highest level and no one scouts AA.

Why is this hard to understand?  Why are you so against progress and opportunity?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: OCHOCKEYDAD on February 22, 2019, 04:39:53 PM
I guess my question is, what do you really think that more AAA clubs in CA is actually going to do?  I have been to every AAA tryout for the last 3 years and it's not like there is 100+ kids there.  I could really see the need if there were 80 kids that were just not quite good enough to make the "Big 3" but were tearing up AA.  So, what is the need to add 6 more AAA clubs if there aren't a ton of kids showing up to the AAA tryouts in the first place?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: TheFourthA on February 22, 2019, 04:50:11 PM
I tend to agree that there aren’t enough kids for tons of AAA teams, but using what you see at tryouts is a terrible metric. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: OCHOCKEYDAD on February 22, 2019, 04:55:46 PM
I tend to agree that there aren’t enough kids for tons of AAA teams, but using what you see at tryouts is a terrible metric.

Ummmm......what metric would be useful?  If you want your kid to play AAA and you think you kid is good enough shouldn't you attend a tryout?  Everyone makes sacrifices like travel and cost but if you are not willing to even show up then what's the argument about.  I could see the argument that CAHA is limiting opportunities if there were 50-60 kids showing up at all the AAA tryouts.  That might signal the need for expansion but if there doesn't seem like there is enough interest????
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 22, 2019, 05:12:13 PM
What metric? History.


35 teams three years ago. 22 teams this season. While registration goes up, opportunity goes down. And the drop came from institutional suppression from the top down. Clubs didn’t stop icing AAA teams because there was no demand... they stopped because CAHA shut them down.


Oh, and if you’re going to a tryout and you don’t know if your kid is making it or not... you’re not doing it right.  ;)
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 22, 2019, 05:18:10 PM
Goodness... you're such a moron it hurts.

You don't want more AAA teams because it "diminishes junior hockey in California."  Wow.  It's amazing you can breathe and walk at the same time.  Thank you for the input, Race aka The Protector of Quality Control in California Youth Hockey.  Unfortunately, that's not CAHA's job.

This thread has proven again and again and again that NOTHING has changed from pre-limits to post-limits.  It is the SAME success rate... if not worse now (especially at PW/Bantam).  All that has changed is that more and more kids are LEAVING the state after Bantam because California lacks the opportunity to play at the highest level and no one scouts AA.

Why is this hard to understand?  Why are you so against progress and opportunity?


Quick Question: you have been claiming the intellectual and ethical high ground for pages and pages now...in two near duplicate threads....my question is, have you ever made a post WITHOUT calling someone a name or attacking them? Because most people find it easier to get into a civil "discussion" with people to do NOT act in such a way...you might want to take a different approach is all I am saying....


You are single handedly turning this into a typical Facebook political post...which most reasonable folks avoid like the plague...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 22, 2019, 06:03:34 PM
Noted. 


Only people I've made fun of have been the CAHA shills (Race/Gas). They're plants doing the usual "distract & deflect" type of things to keep us all focused on the wrong things. I like Bobby. And I like Gas as well... but Race goes in circles. His name alone is very cynical, and his agenda is consistently transparent.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 805hockey on February 23, 2019, 06:48:50 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)? 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 23, 2019, 08:03:58 AM
I tend to agree that there aren’t enough kids for tons of AAA teams, but using what you see at tryouts is a terrible metric.

Ummmm......what metric would be useful?  If you want your kid to play AAA and you think you kid is good enough shouldn't you attend a tryout?  Everyone makes sacrifices like travel and cost but if you are not willing to even show up then what's the argument about.  I could see the argument that CAHA is limiting opportunities if there were 50-60 kids showing up at all the AAA tryouts.  That might signal the need for expansion but if there doesn't seem like there is enough interest? ???




Everyone knows that the teams are primarily picked before tryout.  Often the coaches are watching the actual tryout for 10 minutes at most.  This goes for most AA teams as well, although there are certainly teams that have a much smaller base to pull from then the Kings and Ducks.  I don't really blame the coaches for this, but realistically, when there isn't a noticeable difference between a number of kids, are you going to take the kid who already played for you for 1-3 years, and you know what you can expect from them in games and practices, or are you going to go with the kid who might be marginally better, but you're not really sure. 



I know of kids who played AAA for years, then were displaced, and now playing in AA didn't move the needle much.  Also seen AAA kids from one club, get cut, then call the other teams coach, and essentially walk onto that roster. 
Most of the bubble kids who make these teams have been auditioning for a number of years at the club.  They attend stick times and clinics and camps there, and they are already known. 


I think people have this idea that AAA players must truly be a notch above AA, but in California for the most part, the separation between kids at the top of their AA teams and a AAA isn't very far, if anything at all.   AAA and AA results, as with hockey in general, is often driven by the top few players from each team.  AAA teams certainly have more overall consistency of depth, but then again there are 3 of them at age group.


There are certainly kids who jump off the ice, and/or have the reputation as being offensive juggernauts.  Those come around from time to time and can make any roster they want, but for all the reasons previously discussed, the families want to stay with the clubs and coaches they are already at rather than join the hordes at the Ducks, Kings & Sharks.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 23, 2019, 08:04:29 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?


A lot of us certainly think so.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Strawman on February 23, 2019, 08:34:16 AM
One big problem is that our AAA teams are assembled when kids are 8 or 9 years old, long before the “AAA” title is even bestowed on them.  Not even the greatest hockey genius on the planet can look at a bunch of kids that age and figure out who will be a “top 5%” player at age 16 or 18. You might as well pick names out of a hat.  By age 13 or 14, a third of those kids are no longer even standout players when they drop to AA.  Yet that “elite” cohort spends the next 5 or 6 years walking back onto their AAA teams every spring at tryout time, or playing musical chairs with players who are on other AAA teams, while late bloomers and late starters toil away at the lower levels and can’t break in.  A lot of those other kids give up, or find other interests, or leave the state while they are “waiting their turn.”  The idea that California can fill multiple more competitive AAA teams at each age level seems exaggerated to me, but the current monopoly system is definitely not maximizing the potential of California’s talent pool. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 23, 2019, 09:27:14 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?


Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 23, 2019, 09:30:53 AM
I tend to agree that there aren’t enough kids for tons of AAA teams, but using what you see at tryouts is a terrible metric.

Ummmm......what metric would be useful?  If you want your kid to play AAA and you think you kid is good enough shouldn't you attend a tryout?  Everyone makes sacrifices like travel and cost but if you are not willing to even show up then what's the argument about.  I could see the argument that CAHA is limiting opportunities if there were 50-60 kids showing up at all the AAA tryouts.  That might signal the need for expansion but if there doesn't seem like there is enough interest? ???




Everyone knows that the teams are primarily picked before tryout.  Often the coaches are watching the actual tryout for 10 minutes at most.  This goes for most AA teams as well, although there are certainly teams that have a much smaller base to pull from then the Kings and Ducks.  I don't really blame the coaches for this, but realistically, when there isn't a noticeable difference between a number of kids, are you going to take the kid who already played for you for 1-3 years, and you know what you can expect from them in games and practices, or are you going to go with the kid who might be marginally better, but you're not really sure. 



I know of kids who played AAA for years, then were displaced, and now playing in AA didn't move the needle much.  Also seen AAA kids from one club, get cut, then call the other teams coach, and essentially walk onto that roster. 
Most of the bubble kids who make these teams have been auditioning for a number of years at the club.  They attend stick times and clinics and camps there, and they are already known. 


I think people have this idea that AAA players must truly be a notch above AA, but in California for the most part, the separation between kids at the top of their AA teams and a AAA isn't very far, if anything at all.   AAA and AA results, as with hockey in general, is often driven by the top few players from each team.  AAA teams certainly have more overall consistency of depth, but then again there are 3 of them at age group.


There are certainly kids who jump off the ice, and/or have the reputation as being offensive juggernauts.  Those come around from time to time and can make any roster they want, but for all the reasons previously discussed, the families want to stay with the clubs and coaches they are already at rather than join the hordes at the Ducks, Kings & Sharks.


This is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case in Northern California--I can assure you. Keeping kids names out of this as required, my son plays on the "joke of a team" from the north who most here refer to as evil and full of hacks. Before you call me a shill or a pawn or some other name I will tell you that I was no big fan of the NHL affiliate from the north...for my son's entire time in youth hockey...there is a reason my son played for GSE for years. After a year on the "evil" team I can tell you that the club and team has its share of warts...we can discuss if it was more or less warts than any other club/team out there if you like. But, I will say it is in the range of what I would call normal for hockey teams/clubs. There can discussion if they have more influence and "power" than the small clubs, and because of size and representation on the boards...they obviously do. But as far as large groups of players "ready" to step up to AAA that isn't even close to the truth up here...

The fact that there are a bunch of kids out there, at least in NorCal, that could field AAA teams is simply not the case. Our team/club is called a joke because of their performance year after year. Obviously, we would always like to improve. We have an AA team up here that will likely challenge, once again, for the state championship in AA this year--they have had a good year and are solid as usual. However, when we look at the kids on that team and think "hey, wouldn't it be great if XXX showed up at tryouts and played AAA next year for us", there are only 2 or 3 that we can actually say that they would have a good shot to make our "dismal" AAA team. And even so, they would be 3rd liners or grinders...even against our "third rate" AAA team. No, surplus of talent found. Your results down south may vary, but given how solid the Ducks and Kings are, I doubt you could field more that one or two teams that would be far below the Sharks in terms of success or in the rankings...

...most this is base on Bantam Major year info FYI...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 23, 2019, 09:42:29 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?


Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.

Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Deuce on February 23, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Congrats to the Jr Kings 06 on beating SKA today to advance to the semis vs MN in the Quebec tournament.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 805hockey on February 24, 2019, 09:39:17 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 24, 2019, 11:10:03 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.


Like I said, I am all for more QUALITY AAA teams. It would make life so much easier....less travel, more games, better opportunities, etc. However, the teams MUST meet a minimum standard. Nobody wants to trek up here to NorCal to play a new AAA team that you smoke 10-0 a few times a year. It does nobody any good--the true AAA players learn to play at 85% and get away with it and the "overextended" players learn frustration and dissappointment and are likely to struggle or fail because of it. There MUST be a bar set somewhere/somehow. I will agree our current system is clunky and needs a lot of work...but given what I see out there the "system" is not that far off in terms of how many teams there are...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 805hockey on February 24, 2019, 09:08:02 PM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.


Like I said, I am all for more QUALITY AAA teams. It would make life so much easier....less travel, more games, better opportunities, etc. However, the teams MUST meet a minimum standard. Nobody wants to trek up here to NorCal to play a new AAA team that you smoke 10-0 a few times a year. It does nobody any good--the true AAA players learn to play at 85% and get away with it and the "overextended" players learn frustration and dissappointment and are likely to struggle or fail because of it. There MUST be a bar set somewhere/somehow. I will agree our current system is clunky and needs a lot of work...but given what I see out there the "system" is not that far off in terms of how many teams there are...



Just curious as to how a "minimum standard" is defined.....and now this has come full circle for me as a prior fellow noted, in bold, the rules for AAA status and how to maintain it.  I forget who the guy was, but now that makes sense.  I did a cursory look at the standings for the 12-18 AAA major teams.  The standings show (when combined) the Sharks went 4-31?  Does that mean they will lose their AAA program?  That does not seem very competitive....I think other clubs could field AAA teams and do just as bad
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 24, 2019, 10:19:42 PM
The problem with focusing on Norcal and the Sharks is that it is the exception and not the rule.  There's less population, fewer teams and less kids to pick from.  I also don't think the Sharks are terrible -- just not capable of beating the Kings or Ducks 9 games out of 10.  Depending on the division, some teams are just a few goals away when you look at the results.


If the Sharks weren't part of the triad of teams that have the AAA franchise, there would be less animosity, because the rules that were used to deny other clubs a place at the AAA table are the same rules that don't get applied to the Sharks. 


Quote
Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.

What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


That's not the way it works.  You either leave the teams to the clubs or you don't.  Over time the viability of clubs will take care of itself, and if the cost of that is the occasional blow out, so be it.  Stop with the fantasy that there's perfect parity where every game is going to be a 50/50 coin flip. 

Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 07:15:47 AM
Remember the word opportunity? Well, it paid off in an interesting way this weekend.  Not for a player or parent or club... but for a coach.

The LA Jr Kings 06AAA team won the Quebec International Peewee AAA tournament this weekend.  Pretty great achievement.  It’s like the world championship for Peewee AAA.  It has only been done once before by a California team... several years ago by an LA Selects team (pre-limits, mind you 😉).

The interesting part is the coach, Brett Beebe.  He’s a young guy, with limited coaching experience, and this is his first year coaching the team.  Clearly, though, he’s a very gifted and terrific coach... and guess where his first AAA coaching opportunity came from?

The California Titans.  Opportunity.

Beebe coached the Titans 16U AAA team for a year, and it could be argued that without that opportunity, he wouldn’t have been considered to have enough experience to take over a AAA team for a big club like the LA Jr Kings.  The opportunity allowed him to check a box on his resume, and, sadly, that opportunity no longer exists in California for some other potentially great coach.

No parent, player, club or coach is wandering into AAA willy nilly.  That doesn’t exist.  It never did.  Everyone understands the stakes.  But if a club like the Wildcats isn’t being competitive and some parent feels taken advantage of... then CAHA should talk to that club directly.  Solve the issue directly. 

But don’t hamstring an entire state, and don’t inorganically suppress opportunity.

P.S. Sir 805… keep asking your questions.  You’re exactly right, it's not fair and doesn't make sense... but don’t expect the CAHA shills to answer.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 5lap5hot on February 25, 2019, 08:16:21 AM
With the win for the JK06 I think that proves that our state has talent.  I've watched that team play and they are good.  No arguement that for the vast majority of that team they've earned the big win in Quebec.  One would argue now that CAHA was right and has the best teams in their places, but then I'd argue that would mean there are some other teams that could be fielded from the AA ranks that could compete with many AAA teams around the country.


So all of you that want to play AAA are you willing to fork out $25k it takes to play?  That one tournament entry fee is $20k.  You're going to fork over $3-5K for your son to go play and may end up out before you know it.  All this talk of AAA remember you've got to go play in tournaments on the east coast, Chicago/Midwest or Canada.  Each trip is $2k for flights, hotel and rental car.  I don't care if you add three more AAA team per level you will still need to travel.


So I think the first thing you need to figure out is do you want to spend $25k?  (Post tax money)
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 08:38:14 AM
The problem with focusing on Norcal and the Sharks is that it is the exception and not the rule.  There's less population, fewer teams and less kids to pick from.  I also don't think the Sharks are terrible -- just not capable of beating the Kings or Ducks 9 games out of 10.  Depending on the division, some teams are just a few goals away when you look at the results.


If the Sharks weren't part of the triad of teams that have the AAA franchise, there would be less animosity, because the rules that were used to deny other clubs a place at the AAA table are the same rules that don't get applied to the Sharks. 


Quote
Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.

What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


That's not the way it works.  You either leave the teams to the clubs or you don't.  Over time the viability of clubs will take care of itself, and if the cost of that is the occasional blow out, so be it.  Stop with the fantasy that there's perfect parity where every game is going to be a 50/50 coin flip.


No...what you describe is NOT how it works. It has been shown that parents and clubs are all too willing to put their kids and teams up into levels they probably shouldn't belong. The entire reason the Flight system is in place is to avoid teams spending your precious travel dollars running all over the state to play a bunch of games that are blowouts. I am not saying the Flight system is right, but it IS an attempt to combat clubs/parents from fielding teams for the "extra A" or more dollars in terms of the clubs...it happens....it can be shown even today.


I already described why blowouts are not productive...for either the blowoutees or the blowouters...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: PutYourFootOnTheGas on February 25, 2019, 08:40:03 AM
“No parent, player, club or coach is wandering in to AAA willy nilly.”


JB, you make some argument worthy points and I honestly enjoy the back and forth but I totally disagree with your statement above. I’ve been around minor hockey for 10+ years. I can tell you that most parents don’t have a grip on reality. Hell, many of us are flying all over the country watching 11, 12, 13, etc. year old kids play hockey REGULARLY. It’s not sane. This drives clubs to offer anything and everything even if they are not positioned to do it (in my opinion) properly because they know there is always a group of crazies ready to buy in. Perhaps what all this boils down to is do you trust the CAHA shills or the Anaheim Wildcats of the world to do what’s right for little kid hockey??? I know your answer. I know mine.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 08:41:43 AM
Pretty new to this board here, and read the entire thread.  I'm from the Simi Valley area where the Titans played, and always wondered why they no longer exist....guess I can sort of understand now.  What I don't get is, at all of their tryouts they usually had kids lined up outside the door waiting to sign up and try out.  If they are able to field a team, why not let them?  If they end up doing poorly, but people still want to play for the Titans, should that not be a decision made by the parents (customers)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.


Like I said, I am all for more QUALITY AAA teams. It would make life so much easier....less travel, more games, better opportunities, etc. However, the teams MUST meet a minimum standard. Nobody wants to trek up here to NorCal to play a new AAA team that you smoke 10-0 a few times a year. It does nobody any good--the true AAA players learn to play at 85% and get away with it and the "overextended" players learn frustration and dissappointment and are likely to struggle or fail because of it. There MUST be a bar set somewhere/somehow. I will agree our current system is clunky and needs a lot of work...but given what I see out there the "system" is not that far off in terms of how many teams there are...



Just curious as to how a "minimum standard" is defined.....and now this has come full circle for me as a prior fellow noted, in bold, the rules for AAA status and how to maintain it.  I forget who the guy was, but now that makes sense.  I did a cursory look at the standings for the 12-18 AAA major teams.  The standings show (when combined) the Sharks went 4-31?  Does that mean they will lose their AAA program?  That does not seem very competitive....I think other clubs could field AAA teams and do just as bad


I am not saying a minimum standard is easy to define or regulate. If it was CAHA would have done it by now. Obviously, by requiring all the AA team rules in order to have an AAA team is an attempt to set a "bar". I would agree that the attempt here is probably not working. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer that is better either, which is why I normally keep my mouth shut.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 08:49:51 AM
The problem with focusing on Norcal and the Sharks is that it is the exception and not the rule.  There's less population, fewer teams and less kids to pick from.  I also don't think the Sharks are terrible -- just not capable of beating the Kings or Ducks 9 games out of 10.  Depending on the division, some teams are just a few goals away when you look at the results.


If the Sharks weren't part of the triad of teams that have the AAA franchise, there would be less animosity, because the rules that were used to deny other clubs a place at the AAA table are the same rules that don't get applied to the Sharks. 


Quote
Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.

What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....



I AGREE with you that the Sharks ARE an anomaly however. All of what you say in regards to that is true. There are much more limits in the north that prevent a free market from working well.


Yes, some rules may get bent in CAHA's system to allow SJ to have a AAA team year in and year out. But, for those of you who are only interested in opportunity for the kids, where would north players have the "opportunity" to play if there was no Sharks AAA? Given the climate, and situation up here, the Sharks make the most sense to have the AAA team given all of our differences to the south and other reasons--facilities, resources, etc. Now, if GSE, or any other team up here could field a competitive AAA team...I would welcome that in a heartbeat. Spending thousands on travel weekends to play ANY game gets old fast...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 08:54:49 AM
“No parent, player, club or coach is wandering in to AAA willy nilly.”


JB, you make some argument worthy points and I honestly enjoy the back and forth but I totally disagree with your statement above. I’ve been around minor hockey for 10+ years. I can tell you that most parents don’t have a grip on reality. Hell, many of us are flying all over the country watching 11, 12, 13, etc. year old kids play hockey REGULARLY. It’s not sane. This drives clubs to offer anything and everything even if they are not positioned to do it (in my opinion) properly because they know there is always a group of crazies ready to buy in. Perhaps what all this boils down to is do you trust the CAHA shills or the Anaheim Wildcats of the world to do what’s right for little kid hockey??? I know your answer. I know mine.


ABSOLUTELY....believing that parents are able to make rational decisions regarding is insanity...it just doesn't happen as a rule and can be shown in AA today...why make AAA as big a mess as AA is???
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 10:11:32 AM
Yeah, uh... I'm an adult, and I don't need a governing body telling me what I should be spending by time, money and energy on.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  But don't push your own agenda onto someone else.  Freedom and opportunity is the backbone to our society, so you can't let one club do as they please (the Sharks) and then not allow others.  That's hypocrisy.


Oh, and no one answered 805. He lives in Simi and is wondering why he'll have to drive three hours to Irvine to play AAA, even though there is a program in his backyard that has two sheets of ice, coaches, kids, and an organization ready to field AAA teams.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: TheFourthA on February 25, 2019, 10:18:38 AM
So a lot of venting about CAHA across multiple threads, age levels and tier levels, but not a lot of concrete ideas.  I don’t share all the concerns here, but this is my current take.


1.  At tier 1, allow the three “NHL” clubs’ automatic entries to continue, but allow up to three more teams per birth year based on a showing of demonstrated competitiveness  the prior season against AAA tournament competition and/or disparity with other CAHA AA teams/standard of play.  Eliminate artificial limitations so if one of these was an “NHL” team it is not trapped at AA and small clubs aren’t barred by the size of their club. Each tier 1 team would be required to play one home and one road game against each of the other teams. 


2.  At tier 2, move to major and minor year birth year divisions in place of Flighting.  (Major year teams could include minor year players). Provide state playoffs for both.  Eliminate artificial limitations on number of Tier 2 teams one club can have.


3.   Eligibility for tier 2 status to be determined on basis of demonstrated competitiveness against tier 2 level birth year teams and/or disparity with A level teams the prior season or during pre tryout spring tournaments.  Play-up teams would have to demonstrate success against older California teams or disparity against birth year teams on nationwide basis.  Consider the possibility of a challenge tournament for Labor Day weekend where A teams could compete for an AA bid.


4.   Prohibit recruitment of players outside of California, and establish regional residency requirements.


5.   Consider feasibility of standardizing the number of games per CAHA weekend per team or alternatively, allow teams within a certain distance of each other the option of relocating games between themselves to a more convenient rink on the Thursday, Friday or Sunday of that weekend.  For example, two Kings teams should have the option of playing each other at TSC instead of in Vacaville.


6.  Require tier teams to adhere to USAH program recommendations with regard to roster size, ice sessions and off ice training. 


7.  Require that all skaters receive a minimum Average TOI of 10 minutes a game or be eligible for release and refund.
















Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Strawman on February 25, 2019, 10:23:08 AM
Remember the word opportunity? Well, it paid off in an interesting way this weekend.  Not for a player or parent or club... but for a coach.

The LA Jr Kings 06AAA team won the Quebec International Peewee AAA tournament this weekend.  Pretty great achievement.  It’s like the world championship for Peewee AAA.  It has only been done once before by a California team... several years ago by an LA Selects team (pre-limits, mind you 😉).

The interesting part is the coach, Brett Beebe.  He’s a young guy, with limited coaching experience, and this is his first year coaching the team.  Clearly, though, he’s a very gifted and terrific coach... and guess where his first AAA coaching opportunity came from?

The California Titans.  Opportunity.

Beebe coached the Titans 16U AAA team for a year, and it could be argued that without that opportunity, he wouldn’t have been considered to have enough experience to take over a AAA team for a big club like the LA Jr Kings.  The opportunity allowed him to check a box on his resume, and, sadly, that opportunity no longer exists in California for some other potentially great coach.

No parent, player, club or coach is wandering into AAA willy nilly.  That doesn’t exist.  It never did.  Everyone understands the stakes.  But if a club like the Wildcats isn’t being competitive and some parent feels taken advantage of... then CAHA should talk to that club directly.  Solve the issue directly. 

But don’t hamstring an entire state, and don’t inorganically suppress opportunity.

P.S. Sir 805… keep asking your questions.  You’re exactly right, it's not fair and doesn't make sense... but don’t expect the CAHA shills to answer.


Good point regarding coaching opportunity. Remember that most of the "top" Jr Kings AAA coaches actually came from the Wave.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: 805hockey on February 25, 2019, 10:46:52 AM
Yeah, uh... I'm an adult, and I don't need a governing body telling me what I should be spending by time, money and energy on.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  But don't push your own agenda onto someone else.  Freedom and opportunity is the backbone to our society, so you can't let one club do as they please (the Sharks) and then not allow others.  That's hypocrisy.


Oh, and no one answered 805. He lives in Simi and is wondering why he'll have to drive three hours to Irvine to play AAA, even though there is a program in his backyard that has two sheets of ice, coaches, kids, and an organization ready to field AAA teams.


That is pretty much what I was thinking.  Most people in Ventura/Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo and North LA County are pretty much screwed from playing AAA, heck, even AA hockey.  The same argument mac made for the Sharks, applies to many kids in socal.  Mac does make a valid point about allowing the Sharks to keep fielding teams (even though they may stink some years and do better other years) due to travel constraints..... but let that happen at other rinks too.



Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 11:05:45 AM
Yeah, uh... I'm an adult, and I don't need a governing body telling me what I should be spending by time, money and energy on.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  But don't push your own agenda onto someone else.  Freedom and opportunity is the backbone to our society, so you can't let one club do as they please (the Sharks) and then not allow others.  That's hypocrisy.


Oh, and no one answered 805. He lives in Simi and is wondering why he'll have to drive three hours to Irvine to play AAA, even though there is a program in his backyard that has two sheets of ice, coaches, kids, and an organization ready to field AAA teams.


I could be like everyone else here and type "this has already been debunked" over and over....but, I don't know you, so, you may, in fact, be able to properly decide what level your kid is and where he should play. That would put you in the .01% of hockey parents who have this ability...congratulations! But...this has already been discussed and debunked  :o [size=78%]---sorry. Heck...why do we need limits??? Let's all sign our kids up for Division 1 NCAA right now!!! Our kids DESERVE the opportunity after all!!! I will be AMAZING!![/size]
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 11:08:34 AM
So a lot of venting about CAHA across multiple threads, age levels and tier levels, but not a lot of concrete ideas.  I don’t share all the concerns here, but this is my current take.


1.  At tier 1, allow the three “NHL” clubs’ automatic entries to continue, but allow up to three more teams per birth year based on a showing of demonstrated competitiveness  the prior season against AAA tournament competition and/or disparity with other CAHA AA teams/standard of play.  Eliminate artificial limitations so if one of these was an “NHL” team it is not trapped at AA and small clubs aren’t barred by the size of their club. Each tier 1 team would be required to play one home and one road game against each of the other teams. 


2.  At tier 2, move to major and minor year birth year divisions in place of Flighting.  (Major year teams could include minor year players). Provide state playoffs for both.  Eliminate artificial limitations on number of Tier 2 teams one club can have.


3.   Eligibility for tier 2 status to be determined on basis of demonstrated competitiveness against tier 2 level birth year teams and/or disparity with A level teams the prior season or during pre tryout spring tournaments.  Play-up teams would have to demonstrate success against older California teams or disparity against birth year teams on nationwide basis.  Consider the possibility of a challenge tournament for Labor Day weekend where A teams could compete for an AA bid.


4.   Prohibit recruitment of players outside of California, and establish regional residency requirements.


5.   Consider feasibility of standardizing the number of games per CAHA weekend per team or alternatively, allow teams within a certain distance of each other the option of relocating games between themselves to a more convenient rink on the Thursday, Friday or Sunday of that weekend.  For example, two Kings teams should have the option of playing each other at TSC instead of in Vacaville.


6.  Require tier teams to adhere to USAH program recommendations with regard to roster size, ice sessions and off ice training. 


7.  Require that all skaters receive a minimum Average TOI of 10 minutes a game or be eligible for release and refund.


FINALLY, someone with thoughts and ideas on how to move forward and not re-hash old wounds and call out names....a step in the right direction!
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 11:11:10 AM
Mac... you're conflating two different ideas. A 13 year old can't play D1... they have to play 13U.  And if a club has the coaches, kids and ice, they should be able to ice a AAA team if they want to. The Sharks do it... and everyone else should have the same opportunity.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 11:13:05 AM
Yeah, uh... I'm an adult, and I don't need a governing body telling me what I should be spending by time, money and energy on.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  But don't push your own agenda onto someone else.  Freedom and opportunity is the backbone to our society, so you can't let one club do as they please (the Sharks) and then not allow others.  That's hypocrisy.


Oh, and no one answered 805. He lives in Simi and is wondering why he'll have to drive three hours to Irvine to play AAA, even though there is a program in his backyard that has two sheets of ice, coaches, kids, and an organization ready to field AAA teams.


I could be like everyone else here and type "this has already been debunked" over and over....but, I don't know you, so, you may, in fact, be able to properly decide what level your kid is and where he should play. That would put you in the .01% of hockey parents who have this ability...congratulations! But...this has already been discussed and debunked  :o [size=78%]---sorry. Heck...why do we need limits??? Let's all sign our kids up for Division 1 NCAA right now!!! Our kids DESERVE the opportunity after all!!! I will be AMAZING!![/size]


I'll admit, I know next to nothing about SoCal's constraints on "getting to the club/rink" other than that it probably sucks REAL bad!!! So, there is probably an argument to "space out" the AAA teams down there better than they are...I'm sure you SoCal folks could figure that part out. I STILL don't think the "market" is as big as most here do however. Maybe one more team on average per age group down there would do it--NONE up here.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 11:19:09 AM
Mac... you're conflating two different ideas. A 13 year old can't play D1... they have to play 13U.  And if a club has the coaches, kids and ice, they should be able to ice a AAA team if they want to. The Sharks do it... and everyone else should have the same opportunity.


Sorry, it was frustration on how it is so hard to understand WHY we can't just all decide where our little Gretzky's should play. Bad analogy.


I AGREE with your second sentence entirely...but you left out the most important part "appropriate level" should be placed before "Coaches and kids".


The Sharks do it BY NECESSITY...like I have already have discussed. NO ONE would suggest that AAA level kids should be billetting in LA in order to have the "opportunity" to play AAA. And yes, because of this, the Sharks get to bend a rule or two and put out a team or two that gets beat worse than one would want due to the logistics of the North.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 12:01:25 PM
Appropriate level?  And who decides that?  You?  Or the unbiased, independent governing body known as CAHA?  Terrific.  We'll continue to get McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's... and we'll like it!!!  Because CAHA knows what's best for us!!!


Oh, and the Jr Sharks aren't just bending one or two rules... they're breaking the only rule (be competitive!).  If the 11U-14UAAA Jr Shark teams were forced to play at their "appropriate level" they'd be playing AA, chief.  Can't have it both ways.


Want some more rules?  How about not allowing NorCal kids to go down to SoCal?  If you live in a district... that's your district.  Bet those NorCal teams improve rather quickly and organically.  Same thing for San Diego.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 12:36:42 PM
Appropriate level?  And who decides that?  You?  Or the unbiased, independent governing body known as CAHA?  Terrific.  We'll continue to get McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's... and we'll like it!!!  Because CAHA knows what's best for us!!!


Oh, and the Jr Sharks aren't just bending one or two rules... they're breaking the only rule (be competitive!).  If the 11U-14UAAA Jr Shark teams were forced to play at their "appropriate level" they'd be playing AA, chief.  Can't have it both ways.


Want some more rules?  How about not allowing NorCal kids to go down to SoCal?  If you live in a district... that's your district.  Bet those NorCal teams improve rather quickly and organically.  Same thing for San Diego.


You DO realize there are levels in youth hockey correct? And teams have tryouts to determine which kids belong where?? You seem to be saying let it be a free for all. If I have a first year in house kid who can barely stand on his feet, but me, being an adult and all, can decide AAA is the only thing good enough for my little Gretzky--let's form us a TEAM!!!???


We already discussed why the Sharks have more issues, in fielding teams....you are just WRONG if you think if the Sharks were shut out of AAA and NorCal kids lost the "opportunity" NorCal teams would just "improve themselves" out of thin air. That is plain ignorance of the state of hockey in NorCal.


You talk about speaking out of both side of your mouth....then you postulate that we should just shut down AAA in Norcal and make the kids either get better or take your kids spots down there in LA...what happened to your big theory that this whole thing should be about the kids and opportunity for them???? "Can't be both way.  YOU MUST CHOOSE NOW!!!!!"
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 01:46:39 PM
Happily.  If a club wants to try and field a AAA team... they can.  No more political red tape.  Glad we finally solved that.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Knuckle Puck on February 25, 2019, 02:06:45 PM
1. usa hockey suggests roughly 15% of players in a region should be aaa
2. california youth hockey participation has recently increased approx 33%; shouldn't aaa numbers correspondingly increase, not decrease?
3. more teams means more high-level development opportunities for more kids
4. more teams means less need to travel to find competitive games = lower cost
5. more teams means fewer kids need to leave home to get #3&4 above
6. if a team clearly does not belong in aaa, caha already has power to drop them (see aa). why caha decided to impose far more restrictive rules, rather than just enforce the rule they already had to drop the weak wildcats squads a few years ago, i'll never know
7. there is sufficient talent to populate more aaa teams and maintain quality.  enough aaa talent has have left the state to field *at least* one 18aaa, two more squads at 16aaa, 15aaa and almost enough for one at 14aaa, without even having having to dip into the top aa talent. but let's look at that top aa talent for a second: saints 05aa went 10-4-1 against aaa competition this year, and could move up.  there also obviously is enough talent for another 06aaa in socal, as caha blessed ice dogs 06 for next season, and maybe two. i keep reading about the great depth of talent in the 06 birth year, including at aa; if those kids don't get chance to move up, won't many just move out?
cheers

ps i don't understand the hating on the sharks. all four of their 2002-2005 teams are respectable nationally, and their 05 would be better if  two of their kids hadn't jumped to the jk. look at the overall records.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 02:12:04 PM
Happily.  If a club wants to try and field a AAA team... they can.  No more political red tape.  Glad we finally solved that.


Well, there is nothing preventing you from choosing incorrectly...we shall agree to disagree then.


Sadly, there is much to discuss in your points, we agree more than you think. Its just your Black or White, it's My Way or your wrong approach that is going to prevent you from getting anywhere....and unfortunately, we will ALL get to enjoy these VERY SAME posts next year and the year after until such time that your kid ages out....not really looking forward to it I must say...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: PutYourFootOnTheGas on February 25, 2019, 02:20:22 PM
1. usa hockey suggests roughly 15% of players in a region should be aaa
2. california youth hockey participation has recently increased approx 33%; shouldn't aaa numbers correspondingly increase, not decrease?
3. more teams means more high-level development opportunities for more kids
4. more teams means less need to travel to find competitive games = lower cost
5. more teams means fewer kids need to leave home to get #3&4 above
6. if a team clearly does not belong in aaa, caha already has power to drop them (see aa). why caha decided to impose far more restrictive rules, rather than just enforce the rule they already had to drop the weak wildcats squads a few years ago, i'll never know
7. there is sufficient talent to populate more aaa teams and maintain quality.  enough aaa talent has have left the state to field *at least* one 18aaa, two more squads at 16aaa, 15aaa and almost enough for one at 14aaa, without even having having to dip into the top aa talent. but let's look at that top aa talent for a second: saints 05aa went 10-4-1 against aaa competition this year, and could move up.  there also obviously is enough talent for another 06aaa in socal, as caha blessed ice dogs 06 for next season, and maybe two. i keep reading about the great depth of talent in the 06 birth year, including at aa; if those kids don't get chance to move up, won't many just move out?
cheers

ps i don't understand the hating on the sharks. all four of their 2002-2005 teams are respectable nationally, and their 05 would be better if  two of their kids hadn't jumped to the jk. look at the overall records.


Where did you find the note that USA Hockey suggest 15% of players in a region should be playing AAA?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Knuckle Puck on February 25, 2019, 02:27:48 PM
page 138: https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0039/8240/Annual_Guide_1819_web.pdf?_ga=2.266267151.1022208558.1551133505-2128194330.1546984257 (https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0039/8240/Annual_Guide_1819_web.pdf?_ga=2.266267151.1022208558.1551133505-2128194330.1546984257)  iirc, the language in prior year guidebooks was a little different, suggesting 15% as a rough aspirational target rather than as a limit, but i cant find the older guidebooks. anyway, caha is at around 5% now.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: PutYourFootOnTheGas on February 25, 2019, 02:55:51 PM
page 138: https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0039/8240/Annual_Guide_1819_web.pdf?_ga=2.266267151.1022208558.1551133505-2128194330.1546984257 (https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0039/8240/Annual_Guide_1819_web.pdf?_ga=2.266267151.1022208558.1551133505-2128194330.1546984257)  iirc, the language in prior year guidebooks was a little different, suggesting 15% as a rough aspirational target rather than as a limit, but i cant find the older guidebooks. anyway, caha is at around 5% now.


Interesting stuff. Indeed the language now clearly states the 15% is a not to exceed amount. Interesting that they also only recognize Tier I at 14, 15, 16 and 18. I guess they don't care about the Superman pajama wearing 11, 12 and 13 year olds as I joked about in a previous post.


Anyway, thanks for passing along this info.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 03:25:15 PM
Mac... if being incorrect means being on the side of freedom and opportunity, I will always be incorrect in your opinion. Enjoy yourself with bias and suppression.


As for there never being change at the AAA level... don’t be so sure. No winter lasts forever.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 03:53:04 PM
Mac... if being incorrect means being on the side of freedom and opportunity, I will always be incorrect in your opinion. Enjoy yourself with bias and suppression.


As for there never being change at the AAA level... don’t be so sure. No winter lasts forever.


You REALLY are good at slanting stuff to make yourself feel good about your opinion and convincing yourself there really is no other opinion or idea worth discussing aren't you? Enjoy it....I hope my kid ages out before your in house kids are handed their "participation awards" and allowed the "opportunity" to play wherever they feel they want to...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 04:23:25 PM
You have opinion, I have facts.  This entire post began with facts being listed.  Numbers.  Names.  Dates.  Data.  My only opinion is that CAHA should be fair and consistent with every club. 


That’s not asking for a lot.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 04:50:16 PM
You have opinion, I have facts.  This entire post began with facts being listed.  Numbers.  Names.  Dates.  Data.  My only opinion is that CAHA should be fair and consistent with every club. 


That’s not asking for a lot.


 :o ....OK....you go on with your bad self! Make sure to take time to enjoy the hockey in all this...it will be over before this discussion is....I can assure you!


Peace!
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 25, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
Low shot at a persons kids. You kind of show your cards there.


I care about and respect my kids journey. 


I don’t care or respect others journey. 

My feelings on the subject are so secure and strong that I don’t need to convince or present a thoughtful response to my critics.


Do you see why this might make people discount your advice on the subject. You’ve shown that others best interest is not your concern.


Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 25, 2019, 05:28:34 PM
You have opinion, I have facts.  This entire post began with facts being listed.  Numbers.  Names.  Dates.  Data.  My only opinion is that CAHA should be fair and consistent with every club. 


That’s not asking for a lot.


 :o ....OK....you go on with your bad self! Make sure to take time to enjoy the hockey in all this...it will be over before this discussion is....I can assure you!


Peace!


Thanks for the opinion.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 05:47:02 PM
Low shot at a persons kids. You kind of show your cards there.


I care about and respect my kids journey. 


I don’t care or respect others journey. 

My feelings on the subject are so secure and strong that I don’t need to convince or present a thoughtful response to my critics.


Do you see why this might make people discount your advice on the subject. You’ve shown that others best interest is not your concern.


You apparently have the wrong idea about what I said. I told the man to not lose sight of the forest for the trees and get all wrapped up in this to the point he DOESN'T enjoy his kids last few years. Not sure how that is a low shot. You guys all have screennames so I have no idea who you are, what club you belong to, what team your kids are on or who they might be. It is a common refrain on this board that the ride is over before you know it...my own kids ride will be over before I know it...he is heading into Midget after all. This is a common saying among all hockey parents...no insult intended.

Also my last word was "Peace!" Meaning lets agree to disagree and have some...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 25, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
I read somewhere that his kids were playing in in house for
participation trophies. Does that sound familiar? 


I must have dreamt it.


Love and Joy.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 06:29:11 PM
I read somewhere that his kids were playing in in house for
participation trophies. Does that sound familiar? 


I must have dreamt it.


Love and Joy.


I said "in your system" it would lead to things like....


You really need to read a little closer before you accuse....

Read headlines and form opinions much???  Again...I have NO IDEA who he is...his kid could be the best hockey player in the state for all I know
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Landshark on February 25, 2019, 07:00:13 PM
“You REALLY are good at slanting stuff to make yourself feel good about your opinion and convincing yourself there really is no other opinion or idea worth discussing aren't you? Enjoy it....I hope my kid ages out before your in house kids are handed their "participation awards" and allowed the "opportunity" to play wherever they feel they want to”

Those are your words. The system might be thought to be implied, but it is not mentioned in the post. I’ll be kind. Clarity is something you can work on as is coherence. I can see you are not good at adapting to new information or the point of views of others. Perhaps it is something you should master before joining in a discussion of peers.

Bliss and twinkies.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: rmackintosh on February 25, 2019, 07:16:00 PM
“You REALLY are good at slanting stuff to make yourself feel good about your opinion and convincing yourself there really is no other opinion or idea worth discussing aren't you? Enjoy it....I hope my kid ages out before your in house kids are handed their "participation awards" and allowed the "opportunity" to play wherever they feel they want to”

Those are your words. The system might be thought to be implied, but it is not mentioned in the post. I’ll be kind. Clarity is something you can work on as is coherence. I can see you are not good at adapting to new information or the point of views of others. Perhaps it is something you should master before joining in a discussion of peers.

Bliss and twinkies.


Listen, this was a back and forth over several pages...you are pulling a "your" out of context in such an exchange that in no way meant his kid--it even says "kids". Enough...this is stupid and a waste of time for all involved.


I REALLY do hope we all get some sort of improvement for ALL of our kids in the coming few years. I don't completely agree with you and Bender, but I agree with some of your observations and the fact that they need to be worked on. For the kids sake, I hope it does.


I am out...peace to you and have a good one...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 26, 2019, 11:35:09 AM
You know… I’m beginning to wonder if the problem with Tier hockey in California doesn’t start in NorCal?

For whatever reason, CAHA is situated in NorCal.  A majority of the Board of Directors live in NorCal.  And the Progressive Resistance on CalHockey (Mac/Gas/Race) is from NorCal.

However… this weekend, the Tier I NorCal representative (Jr Sharks) for 11UAAA, 12UAAA,  and 13UAAA will descend upon SoCal for the State Finals, merely qualifying because, you know, there aren’t any other teams.  But it will be a miracle if the Jr Sharks win one game combined, let alone give up less than a half dozen goals in every game.

At Tier II, it’s actually worse.  While decently competitive throughout the year, not one NorCal team advanced to the State Finals for 12U or 14U.  Not one.

Yet, CAHA is run out of NorCal and a majority of the Board of Directors live in NorCal.  Stepping back, I can certainly now see why CAHA and the Progressive Resistance view AAA hockey as a barren wasteland void of talent, clutching their pearls in terror at the mere thought of more competition.

But, you know… that’s not the case down south.  From Bakersfield to Tijuana, we have more talent than highway interchanges.

For the record, it’s my opinion that clubs shouldn’t have to pass a CAHA vote to get a AAA team.  That opens the door to too much bias and shadiness.  Like AA, if a club can check the boxes for prerequisites, then they should be eligible.  That seems fair to me.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: PutYourFootOnTheGas on February 26, 2019, 12:25:56 PM
You know… I’m beginning to wonder if the problem with Tier hockey in California doesn’t start in NorCal?

For whatever reason, CAHA is situated in NorCal.  A majority of the Board of Directors live in NorCal.  And the Progressive Resistance on CalHockey (Mac/Gas/Race) is from NorCal.

However… this weekend, the Tier I NorCal representative (Jr Sharks) for 11UAAA, 12UAAA,  and 13UAAA will descend upon SoCal for the State Finals, merely qualifying because, you know, there aren’t any other teams.  But it will be a miracle if the Jr Sharks win one game combined, let alone give up less than a half dozen goals in every game.

At Tier II, it’s actually worse.  While decently competitive throughout the year, not one NorCal team advanced to the State Finals for 12U or 14U.  Not one.

Yet, CAHA is run out of NorCal and a majority of the Board of Directors live in NorCal.  Stepping back, I can certainly now see why CAHA and the Progressive Resistance view AAA hockey as a barren wasteland void of talent, clutching their pearls in terror at the mere thought of more competition.

But, you know… that’s not the case down south.  From Bakersfield to Tijuana, we have more talent than highway interchanges.

For the record, it’s my opinion that clubs shouldn’t have to pass a CAHA vote to get a AAA team.  That opens the door to too much bias and shadiness.  Like AA, if a club can check the boxes for prerequisites, then they should be eligible.  That seems fair to me.


I'm not even a WWE fan but The Rock's words keep coming to mind. . . . ."Know Your Role and Shut Your Mouth!" Lol.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 26, 2019, 12:32:23 PM
Yes, we're quite familiar with the CAHA slogan.  All too familiar actually... 


CAHA: Know Your Role and Shut Your Mouth.


It has a nice ring to it. You should make shirts for your fellow cohorts for next year's Tier II Jamboree.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: KickSave on February 26, 2019, 12:51:52 PM
Jack-I usually agree with you, but when it comes to the Tier results... this is just one year. Norcal has been very competitive in previous years, especially at Tier II.
People need to start voicing their concerns and questions directly to CAHA. This is a great channel for developing ideas, accumulating information, and hearing different voices, but I doubt board members read much of it. Better yet - folks outside of the club management need to start running for Board positions.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: lcadad on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM
As the old saying goes: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

3 Years ago (the 2016 AA season aka, the season with no CAHA weekends experiment), the Wave(2) got caught in PWAA cooking their sheets to meet minimum players and for this reason, OC got a playoff berth from 9th place. 

GSE 1& 2 that year were considered to be elite teams and given their records had won the majority of their games boasting robust goal differentials.  Everyone expected GSE2, considered by many to be the stronger of the 2 teams, to wipe up 9th place OC.  Only, it didn't go that way, as OC upset them 4-3.  GSE rebounded with a 10-3 drubbing of Ducks2 (Huh, how can this happen that in the playdowns a team wins by 7 goals, something must be DONE!!!!!)
Then in the final game, they got bounced by the Wave in an elimination game.  Sorry, no states for you, GSE2.

Well, then spring rolls around, low and behold we get the 1st cut of the Flighting system, including a bizarre stipulation that the 1st place Flight1 team would get an automatic bye through playdowns and automatic entry into States.  WTF?

There was a hue and cry, and that rule got axed, but questions have always remained as to who came up with that ridiculous rule in the first place, and what was their reasoning and agenda?   The paranoid amongst the hockey community wondered aloud if it might have come from an organization that had just suffered an embarrassing and surprising upset?
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on February 26, 2019, 07:16:32 PM
Kicksave... I was being sarcastic.  GSE is a great idea and a terrific program... and it's my opinion they should be striving to do more.  I don't think NorCal is as much of a mess as I might suggest, I just think the Jr Sharks could be a better run club.


Ideally, following the USA Hockey guidelines recently posted... CAHA should strive to have 2-3 AAA teams in NorCal.  Having one for every birth year might be too ambitious from year to year, but I certainly think striving for AAA at PW Major, Bantam Major, 16U and 18U are plausible. 


Jr Sharks and GSE could do this.  And if some other club were able to gather enough talent and wanted to try... then they should be able to as well.


As for SoCal, CAHA should strive to have 4-6 AAA teams.  Again, every birth year might be too ambitious from year to year, but I also think striving for AAA at PW Major, Bantam Major, 16U and 18U (these two divisions are especially important) are plausible.  There can be prerequisites to fulfill, but teams would NOT have to be voted upon by the CAHA Board of Directors to qualify.  There should be a AAA program in the Valley (Bears/Heat/Flyers/Titans?), San Diego (Gulls/Saints?), and somewhere between El Segundo and Anaheim (Ice Dogs/Wave/Red Wings?).  All these clubs have supported AAA hockey in the past.


In attempting to wrangle Tier I hockey three years ago, I think CAHA simply went too far in one direction.  They should course correct and attempt to make AAA more appealing and manageable for more kids on a statewide basis.  If there were more teams and more competition at the older divisions especially (16U/18U), I don't think as many kids would be looking to leave the state starting in Bantam.  This concept worked well in the past, and it can work again with adjustments.


AA hockey is great.  It requires less travel, less money and the teams are very competitive.  However, it's hard to get seen on a national level (no one scouts AA), and even for the best teams, it's hard to get into AAA tournaments.  AAA teams simply don't want to play AA teams.  They don't think they're good, and they don't want to risk losing to them.  So if CAHA really wants to help kids move on from California and play at the next level... they should be taking this all into consideration moving forward.
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: KickSave on February 26, 2019, 08:12:58 PM
Ahhhh we agree again
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Justabdad on March 04, 2019, 09:38:23 AM
This might be a case that sets a precedent.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/news/hockeys-surge-popularity-pushes-sports-gatekeepers-court

Who knows... there might be hope for more AAA teams yet. 
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: Justabdad on March 04, 2019, 09:40:07 AM
Darn URL blocking...


Just Google: Illinois lawsuit against AAA hockey.


This case might set a precedent.  Who knows...
Title: Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
Post by: JackBender on March 05, 2019, 11:40:05 AM
That's interesting.  Anti-trust lawsuit.  To summarize, one of the Illinois clubs is suing the Illinois CAHA equivalent for suppressing AAA and allowing 4 teams to monopolize the market.  It even made the Chicago Tribune. 


Here are the fixed links:


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/news/hockeys-surge-popularity-pushes-sports-gatekeepers-court (https://www.chicagobusiness.com/news/hockeys-surge-popularity-pushes-sports-gatekeepers-court)


https://www.courthousenews.com/illinois-hockey-org-accused-of-antitrust-conspiracy/ (https://www.courthousenews.com/illinois-hockey-org-accused-of-antitrust-conspiracy/)


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-illinois-youth-hockey-lawsuit-20190227-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-illinois-youth-hockey-lawsuit-20190227-story.html)