This Community is For Sale - For more information contact: admin@calhockey.com

Author Topic: AAU  (Read 82780 times)

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #75 on: December 15, 2016, 09:13:38 AM »
Informal poll, how much are the fees for the mite travel program at your rink (not including uniforms and extras, just the basic fees)?


The Jr Ducks fee information is available on their website (for all levels).
http://www.jrducks.com/abbbmite


For mites (Track 1 or 2), cost was $2215 this season
For squirt, cost was $3485
Does not include jerseys or tournaments

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2016, 09:41:55 PM »
USA hockey has its head so far up its ass it is a joke. every major hockey market - MI, IL, NY, and New England has developed a sizeable AAU full ice mite league since USA HOCKEY mandated cross ice.  if you don't give the customer what they want they hey will get it elsewhere.


A pretty bold statement. The ADM model (or similar) is now being used by a number of other countries who see the benefits of each level of progress. I highly suggest reading some articles by Dave Starrman, he's currently doing play by play at the World Juniors. His insight on the ADM model, especially cross ice, might make you change your mind a little bit.


Hockey is a game of trial and error. The more opportunities you have to find out what works and what doesn't, the more successful you will become. A good mite player playing full ice has to make very few decisions over the course of a game. A good mite playing cross ice has to make dozens and dozens more decisions, both with and without the puck. It's all about the touches no matter what level your kid is playing. Enjoy the ride, it goes by way faster than you think!


My statement is not a critique of the ADM philosophy so much as it is a critique of USA Hockey instituting a top down, one size fits all, rigidly mandatory system which is causing thousands of families to leave USA hockey for AAU.  That combined with SCAHA locking out 8 year olds at the squirt level is a recipe for losing participants.  At the end of the day, it is the parents who pay the ice bills and the USA Hockey membership dues.  The parents in other markets are voting with their wallets and USA Hockey and SCAHA and soon probably CAHA are all deluding themselves when they should be facing reality and adapting their program to take into consideration what the people who pay the bills actually want.  They need to face the reality that they have lost thousands of kids at the mite level.   
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 09:42:41 PM by #4BobbyOrr »

Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2016, 11:28:34 PM »
USA is very successfully increasing their membership.  10% since 2010.  Well over a half million now.  I couldn't even find stats on AAU total membership.  I don't think USA Hockey is overly concerned about a handful of parents that insist the only way to johnny's NHL Career is full ice by 8 years of age.  Kids in Northern climates stake out a piece of ice on a public rink or a section of pond smaller that ADM and seem to play the game fairly well.


#4BO I would say that USA is not a mandatory system.  You have the option of AAU.  It is a free market, if full ice is in that high of a demand for mites then the market will provide the option.  I think most parents are just fine with the ADM model.  The exception is the mite that skates a little better than the new kids and Dad thinks that his Son is destined. It means nothing by Bantam...Nothing.

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2016, 02:44:52 PM »

#4BO I would say that USA is not a mandatory system.  You have the option of AAU.  It is a free market, if full ice is in that high of a demand for mites then the market will provide the option.


That's my whole point PY!  All of the traditional hockey markets have booming AAU mite leagues! Michigan, Illinois, New England, New York, there is obviously a demand.  On just a cursory search of the Chicago United Hockey league website I just counted 68 AAU travel teams.  That's probably close to a thousand kids.  Just in Chicago.  There is no way that USA hockey isn't feeling the pinch in those markets. As a matter of fact you can read the state by state USA hockey report, see link below.  Massachusetts total boys 8U participation dropped 7% from 14-15 to 15-16 and their number of new participants dropped 17.5% in that same year!  Do you think that almost 20% fewer kids are taking up hockey in Massachusetts, or do you think they are playing somewhere other than USA hockey?

http://www.2and2challenge.com/page/show/2578887-2015-2016-affiliate-reports

Puck Yeah

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
  • LR Justice +110/-51
Re: AAU
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2017, 12:00:03 PM »
I am not sure the charts are reflecting what you suppose they are.  There are other factors.  Most would consider MN a hockey traditional market and it seems unaffected.  The charts don't express birth year populations.  Not every years has the same amount of kids available to join or a heavy birth year could age out.


MN is losing High School teams.  Why?  It isn't USA Hockey.  Hockey participation for MN boys is down 12%.


I believe this trend is specialization.  Kids don't play 2 or 3 sports anymore.  I also believe it is for a couple of different reasons.  Hockey doesn't end anymore.  It is nearly nonstop year round.  Expense is another.  It is now an economic decision if Johnny can play hockey and baseball.  Both cost a ridiculous amount of money compared to years past.  I also think it is a difference in parenting.  Parents never even used to show up to a practice.  Now they are emotionally invested in Johnny making a top team, there is no time for a 2nd sport.  Off Season scrimmages and private lessons are the norm.  Hockey is now a business like any other.  You don't buy a weeks worth of groceries at Von's and then go to Ralphs and buy another weeks worth of groceries. 

Deuce

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • LR Justice +6/-4
Re: AAU
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2017, 02:25:13 PM »
Informal poll, how much are the fees for the mite travel program at your rink (not including uniforms and extras, just the basic fees)?


We paid $1,950 for Track 2. That doesn't include the "Jersey" package. That ran another $450 or so. Game, practice and warm-up stuff.


We get 2 practices a week and we are supposed to get 1 off-ice session a week. Our coach has been very hit and miss with the off-ice sessions.

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2017, 10:26:41 AM »
So, with SCAHA still stalling around with addressing the 09 mites playing-up rule, has the AAU group made any progress in establishing an alternative league?  It looked like Aliso Viejo had a lucrative monopoly for full ice mites play, and was set to cash in on large groups of 09s defecting from SCAHA, but then they flipped and created Gold Rush SCAHA teams. 


Apparently the SCAHA folks made some mild effort at addressing the rule at their March meeting:
Commissioner’s Report Chris Carcerano opened the discussion on reviewing the No Mite Player-up SCAHA rule that will take effect starting in the 2017-2018 season. No motion presented, therefore rule remains as is, no Mite player-up.

Who wants my money for next season?

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #82 on: April 28, 2017, 09:27:01 AM »
So, with SCAHA still stalling around with addressing the 09 mites playing-up rule, has the AAU group made any progress in establishing an alternative league?  It looked like Aliso Viejo had a lucrative monopoly for full ice mites play, and was set to cash in on large groups of 09s defecting from SCAHA, but then they flipped and created Gold Rush SCAHA teams. 


Apparently the SCAHA folks made some mild effort at addressing the rule at their March meeting:
Commissioner’s Report Chris Carcerano opened the discussion on reviewing the No Mite Player-up SCAHA rule that will take effect starting in the 2017-2018 season. No motion presented, therefore rule remains as is, no Mite player-up.

Who wants my money for next season?


Apparently they have changed Mite Track ! and 2 back to Mite A and B and Mite A will only play half ice, no cross ice. So I guess that is a small change in the right direction. 

B-Real

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • LR Justice +1/-0
Re: AAU
« Reply #83 on: May 17, 2017, 05:43:38 PM »
 Just wondering if I'm dyslexic.  As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements.  Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible.  Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #84 on: May 17, 2017, 07:57:58 PM »
It's 8 and under as of 12/31/17. 8u is inclusive of 8 yr olds ( 8 AND under) u8 is exclusive (under 8 ).  USA Hockey defines mites as 8u (8 and under). So unless your kid turns 9 in 2017 you are SOL
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 07:59:30 PM by #4BobbyOrr »

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2017, 08:52:29 AM »

This is my interpretation of the clear language of Rule 19.04 as well.  At all other places in the SCAHA, CAHA, and USA Hockey rules, the age groups are referred to as 8U, 10U, etc (meaning age 8 and under, 10 and under, etc.)


But, in new Rule 19.04, the good folks at SCAHA specifically reverse that universally-used language.  The Rule says "starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (u8) may play up." 


They could have (a) just said no mite aged player can play up, or (b) said no might aged player (8U) can play up -- but they did not. 
Instead, they used the "u8" language, meaning "under 8" which is certainly different than 8U for an eight year old kid. 
We all have to assume that they chose their words carefully and are not just using words/rules willy-nilly, right?


So, the CLEAR interpretation of their chosen words is ... if your kids is 8 by the time of tryouts, your kid can play squirts.  They are no longer "under 8."


   

Just wondering if I'm dyslexic.  As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements.  Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible.  Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2017, 09:32:16 AM »

This is my interpretation of the clear language of Rule 19.04 as well.  At all other places in the SCAHA, CAHA, and USA Hockey rules, the age groups are referred to as 8U, 10U, etc (meaning age 8 and under, 10 and under, etc.)


But, in new Rule 19.04, the good folks at SCAHA specifically reverse that universally-used language.  The Rule says "starting in the 2017-18 season, no Mite aged player (u8) may play up." 


They could have (a) just said no mite aged player can play up, or (b) said no might aged player (8U) can play up -- but they did not. 
Instead, they used the "u8" language, meaning "under 8" which is certainly different than 8U for an eight year old kid. 
We all have to assume that they chose their words carefully and are not just using words/rules willy-nilly, right?


So, the CLEAR interpretation of their chosen words is ... if your kids is 8 by the time of tryouts, your kid can play squirts.  They are no longer "under 8."


   

Just wondering if I'm dyslexic.  As I read the rule it states that no mite (u8) can play up. Seems to me if your child is 8 years old he/she can tryout for a Squirt team privided they meet all other requirements.  Now if your child is under 8 years old then they are ineligible.  Pretty clear to me .If SCAHA has a different rule written, I haven't been able to find it.


it still says "mite aged player"  and a kid that doesn't turn 9 in 2017 is a mite aged player.  it's a little wonky the way they worded it, but the likelihood of getting around that on what they will perceive as a technicality will be slim to none and slim just left the building, as Chick Hearn would say.

09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2017, 10:43:14 AM »
Well, that's the issue, right?
The Rule does NOT say "no mite aged player may play up"
Instead, it says "no mite aged player (under 8) may play up"


I see a difference there.


In fact, it might actually be a smarter rule.  By age 8, the kids are skating better, passing better, and ready to play competitive games -- let's try keeping score and not using the mini nets.  Or at let the kids/parents have the option to do so.  At the same time, it keeps some of the smaller/younger kids down in Mite (through a rather arbitrary age cut-off, but it is no less rational than a Dec 31 cut off)








09 Dad

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • LR Justice +5/-20
Re: AAU
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2017, 10:46:07 AM »

ha, automatically turned (under 8) into a sunglasses face -- good grief.

Well, that's the issue, right?
The Rule does NOT say "no mite aged player may play up"
Instead, it says "no mite aged player (under 8 ) may play up"


I see a difference there.


In fact, it might actually be a smarter rule.  By age 8, the kids are skating better, passing better, and ready to play competitive games -- let's try keeping score and not using the mini nets.  Or at let the kids/parents have the option to do so.  At the same time, it keeps some of the smaller/younger kids down in Mite (through a rather arbitrary age cut-off, but it is no less rational than a Dec 31 cut off)

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: AAU
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2017, 02:10:16 PM »
I agree with you that 8 year olds may be ready to move up, but the fact is that no matter how they worded it until last year 8 year olds could play up.  Now they changed the rule.  If they were still allowed to play up then what would be point of making a new redundant rule that mirrors the rule already in place? If they wanted to continue to do what they have always done then they didn't need to change any rules.