CAHA Tier 2 Peewee/Bantam/U16 changes for 2017-2018

[Hamacher Checking Camp]

Some really good points and discussion.  Both sides of this are correct and it comes down to clarity and word choice.  The WSHL is a very good league that opens many doors to play college hockey.  The stats bear it out to mean DII, DIII, ACHA and Club college hockey.  Making reference to College hockey is extremely vague and I would say not a good word choice.  That is like saying Youth hockey and trying to understand if that is in-house, B, A, AA, or AAA.  There is a distinct difference.  The one WSHL player listed in 2015-16 as a DI commit to AFA did not make the roster this season so he clearly got in based on a myriad of other great attributes and good for him.  No matter how much you want it to be true, the WSHL has no/minimal foundation as a historical path to NCAA Div I hockey.  It can be a stepping stone to get to higher levels of Junior hockey and then on to NCAA Div I hockey like Erich Jaeger who played in Missoula, then two years in WFs in the NAHL, then at AFA this past season.  He is a rare exception (may be the only player in WSHL history but others would know more) and the historical stats bear that out.

There are clear and distinct paths to NCAA Div I hockey and #4BO is right in that regard.  I have all of the data from the last several years of where players came from and the paths that got them to NCAA DI hockey.  It is not some nebulous mystery.  We in hockey need more clarity and specificity.  That means eliminating vague words and unfounded claims.  Players and parents deserve and need it.

Maybe the better questions is how can we do a better job of exposing the talent we have to higher levels?  With 80 players in T2 Junior and above and another 40-75 (changes year to year) playing NCAA Div I, why do CA players only make up 2.5% of the USHL PH1 draft, 1.2% of the USHL PH2 draft, and 0.87% of the WHL draft in 2017?  From a percentage standpoint, there is a significant disconnect between actual participation rates and draft rates.  Hopefully the tide will swing in our favor during the upcoming NAHL draft next month and I hope all of the eligible players have done the right things to position themselves for the NAHL draft and the newly established NCDC (USPHL free-to-play level) draft.   

[CahaMama]

Great post! I have an 02 goalie so we are trying to learn as much as we can about this process to get to D1

[#4BobbyOrr]

Great post! I have an 02 goalie so we are trying to learn as much as we can about this process to get to D1

you should think about hiring a hockey adviser.  a good one will have all the info you need and many contacts to get your goalie in front of the right people.  Also will help you avoid wasting money on the wrong camps and avoiding the wrong leagues or teams.  There are a lot of shady people out there that will tell you anything if they think they can get in your wallet (including hockey advisers).  But there are also a lot of great people out there so do your research and ask a lot of questions before you write any checks.

[coachbombay]

listen to BO, it sounds like it's not his first rodeo.

[CahaMama]

Thanks CoachBB and BO4!

[Numuvs]

Some really good points and discussion.  Both sides of this are correct and it comes down to clarity and word choice.  The WSHL is a very good league that opens many doors to play college hockey.  The stats bear it out to mean DII, DIII, ACHA and Club college hockey.  Making reference to College hockey is extremely vague and I would say not a good word choice.  That is like saying Youth hockey and trying to understand if that is in-house, B, A, AA, or AAA.  There is a distinct difference.  The one WSHL player listed in 2015-16 as a DI commit to AFA did not make the roster this season so he clearly got in based on a myriad of other great attributes and good for him.  No matter how much you want it to be true, the WSHL has no/minimal foundation as a historical path to NCAA Div I hockey.  It can be a stepping stone to get to higher levels of Junior hockey and then on to NCAA Div I hockey like Erich Jaeger who played in Missoula, then two years in WFs in the NAHL, then at AFA this past season.  He is a rare exception (may be the only player in WSHL history but others would know more) and the historical stats bear that out.

There are clear and distinct paths to NCAA Div I hockey and #4BO is right in that regard.  I have all of the data from the last several years of where players came from and the paths that got them to NCAA DI hockey.  It is not some nebulous mystery.  We in hockey need more clarity and specificity.  That means eliminating vague words and unfounded claims.  Players and parents deserve and need it.

Maybe the better questions is how can we do a better job of exposing the talent we have to higher levels?  With 80 players in T2 Junior and above and another 40-75 (changes year to year) playing NCAA Div I, why do CA players only make up 2.5% of the USHL PH1 draft, 1.2% of the USHL PH2 draft, and 0.87% of the WHL draft in 2017?  From a percentage standpoint, there is a significant disconnect between actual participation rates and draft rates.  Hopefully the tide will swing in our favor during the upcoming NAHL draft next month and I hope all of the eligible players have done the right things to position themselves for the NAHL draft and the newly established NCDC (USPHL free-to-play level) draft.

So, 2.5%, 1.2%, 0.87% is a clear NCAA pathway...  To me, it seems like 97.5%, 98.8%, and 99.13% California Players see no pathway! Here's a great article in the NY Times on what's really happening, Article or https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/sports/hockey/ncaa-college-teams.html?_r=0

"According to College Hockey Inc., a record 82 Europeans played in Division I last season. “The real beneficiary is Division III,” American International College Coach Eric Lang said. “There are about 40 to 50 players who spill over into D-III who are D-I players.”

On Jan. 13, the top three teams in the USCHO.com poll all lost, including then-No. 2 Harvard 4-0 to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which entered the game 3-19-1. Of the top 20 teams in the Jan. 16 poll, only six avoided a loss or tie in the following week, and No. 1 Boston University lost its two games to a Hockey East colleague, Merrimack, which had won only two league games at the time. Yet it is almost expected in college hockey, said Hastings of Minnesota State."
West Coast players are filling the "Pay-to-Play" NA3HL, NAPHL, USPHL and East Coast Prospect leagues which are used to recruit for the NCAA Division III, DII and East Coast ACHA Schools.
The WSHL pathway exist if you use it as a means... Jeremy Langlois (WSHL Phoenix Polar Bears) signed a one-year entry-level contract with the San Jose Sharks (NHL), split seasons between the AHL and ECHL. Prior to going pro, he played for Quinnipiac University NCAA DI from 2009 to 2013, where he helped the Bobcats reach their first ever NCAA Championship Game in 2013.

[Numuvs]

Great post! I have an 02 goalie so we are trying to learn as much as we can about this process to get to D1

you should think about hiring a hockey adviser.  a good one will have all the info you need and many contacts to get your goalie in front of the right people.  Also will help you avoid wasting money on the wrong camps and avoiding the wrong leagues or teams.  There are a lot of shady people out there that will tell you anything if they think they can get in your wallet (including hockey advisers).  But there are also a lot of great people out there so do your research and ask a lot of questions before you write any checks.

[Hamacher Checking Camp]

Like I said.  Clarity and specificity.  Langlois commited to Qpac out of the EJHL so he used the WSHL as a stepping stone to a higher level of Junior hockey.  Good for him.  Also, there was no AAA hockey in Phoenix for Langlois until 2006 when PF Changs began the program under Jim Johanson.  A lot has changed in 10/11 years in hockey and I expect the same for the next 10.  18AAA looks to be the next death spiral unless USAH decides to artificially prop it up by changing the Junior age rules.


And I had seen that article when it was released and agree with it fully.  We need more Pegula's to fund new NCAA Div I programs.  Until then, the clear and distinct paths to NCAA Div I are well established with a few outliers.

[Hornet-hky]

OK...so I don't have a horse in the youth game anymore, he is now playing D1 hockey and we went through all of this stuff.... It seems like history repeats itself for sure.  And after writing this.... I can totally understand if you skip it, but in reading this I feel like I've been there, done that..... and got lucky.   


I will leave out the parts about some great coaches and some crazy ones.... too off topic.


Here is a bit about our path:

early days - "Hey this is fun, my kid is decent"... not super star.  Played on A, B teams Squirt, locally.
PW - played A and AA..... travelled far for AA (looking back, can't believe I did that)
  -- (I do have to say this is where I met Hamacher hockey and really appreciated his breakdown of the path to college hockey back then... and thought this is something that cannot be an assumption and cannot be the main plan --
BTM - M16 played locally again and was fortunate to have very good teams form.
U18 / USHL kid was fortunate at the right times.
**note-AA was pretty strong at the time** 

I remember thinking that after u16 everything would be free and he would play juniors etc..... not the case.  And this is where many parents don't have solid perspective (I was one of them).  I remember when the phone was not ringing with opportunities near the end of u16, I was freaking out.   I had seen some of his colleagues get opportunities to play Juniors and get invited to camps and combines etc...... nada for my kid.

He was not a high profile kid.  He was just pretty good.  He made it through to district camp for 15, 16, 17 and was extremely fortunate to make Nat. Camp for u17.  I would say no politics when he did not make it, and when he did, I of course thought he had a good camp, but you can never be sure.

He ended up playing u18 (out of the area on a strong team), had a very good season and ended up in the USHL.   

This seems great, but I can say the main difference maker for my kid was his work ethic.  I did not know if it was me encouraging (pushing) him or his own until he left home.  But, I can also say he was training on and off the ice more than anyone in his age group, and worked hard all the time.  I tried to take advantage of every opportunity possible to help him develop as an individual.  However, we really did not have the budget to play top tier SoCal hockey so we invested in local training.  When approached me about increasing his training before u16, we supported it (locally) and he improved dramatically.

I have to say a couple of things overall.  I NEVER counted on the investment ending up in anything but his wellness as a kid, athlete and competitor.    We were confident that he had a good head on his shoulders and would land in a good place regardless of hockey. 

Advisors: I am not convinced that paying for an advisor = D1

Conclusions (because this is too long already)
Hard work can pay off - you get better, but does not guarantee success.
Hard work only in team practice most likely won't get you there if your goals are high.
What level did my kid play? A/AA hockey mostly.  One year AAA at u16 in SoCal.  One year u18 AAA outside state
He also very good mentors along the way which I think helped him as well.
The whole will "They will find you".... I am not convinced that "they" found my kid. 
We "found" them with hard work and learning to find the right fit at the right time.....

Worry about what you can control, opportunities for improvement as a player....it's not necessarily what team he plays on.

Our journey is not over by far but I vividly remember the stress of what many of you are going through. 

This is just my story as a crazy hockey parent, and I agree that there are many paths.

[Hockey05]

Some great posts this thread. 


What percentage of Cal players that made it to college hockey left California prior to age 18?

[Numuvs]

Like I said.  Clarity and specificity.  Langlois commited to Qpac out of the EJHL so he used the WSHL as a stepping stone to a higher level of Junior hockey.  Good for him.  Also, there was no AAA hockey in Phoenix for Langlois until 2006 when PF Changs began the program under Jim Johanson.  A lot has changed in 10/11 years in hockey and I expect the same for the next 10.  18AAA looks to be the next death spiral unless USAH decides to artificially prop it up by changing the Junior age rules.

And I had seen that article when it was released and agree with it fully.  We need more Pegula's to fund new NCAA Div I programs.  Until then, the clear and distinct paths to NCAA Div I are well established with a few outliers.

Langlois used AA as a "stepping stone", WSHL as a stepping stone, College Hockey as a stepping stone, ECHL as a stepping stone, but he didn't use NAHL and BCHL as a "stepping stone". So, there is a pathway less traveled, but it exist... is "Outliers" the new buzz word?

Yes, the obvious NAHL and BCHL is the main pathway, but historically "California" players make up less than a 3% of those stepping on the pathway. So, the other 97% (An organic customer base) need another pathway, a "stepping stone", an "outlier" if they intend to play NCAA College Hockey.

In my last post, we agree "the article" establishes that NCAA DIII and ACHA are benefiting from the influx of too much DI talent. More talent then teams... and money $$$ being the primary reason for not expanding NCAA DI... NOT TALENT!

So, making an NCAA DIII team doesn't mean you suck at Hockey, it means there is more talent than DI spots available.

It takes $$$ to expand the NAHL Franchise. The NAHL created the NAPHL and NA3HL (pay-to-play model). They have an organic customer base, the NAHL pipeline and brand are already established, and now they can charge instead of expand!

Which proves the WSHL pay-to-play model works (30 Teams) and the NCAA DIII and ACHA schools are showing up to recruit.

Why? Imports, a few years ago, the WSHL created a pathway for Elite Foreign Born Talent (up to 12 Non-US born players and unlimited Canadians per team). The Level of play rose immediately. There is no doubt the Bombers, Flyers, and Avalanche are far superior in Talent than those prospect NAPHL and NA3HL teams.

There is a pathway to NCAA College Hockey from the West Coast for the 97% of Californians that get rejected by the NAHL... the cost is cheaper than the NAPHL and NA3HL teams, and the talent level is much higher.

[Xfactor_56]

.. I can say the main difference maker for my kid was his work ethic. ..  I tried to take advantage of every opportunity possible to help him develop as an individual. 

..  I NEVER counted on the investment ending up in anything but his wellness as a kid, athlete and competitor.     

Hard work can pay off - you get better, but does not guarantee success.
Hard work only in team practice most likely won't get you there if your goals are high.
The whole will "They will find you".... I am not convinced that "they" found my kid. 
We "found" them with hard work and learning to find the right fit at the right time.....

Worry about what you can control, opportunities for improvement as a player....it's not necessarily what team he plays on.
 [/size]

Thanks for the post.  It is always helpful to read the stories of those that have been through it.  Some great lessons for parents just starting the youth hockey experience.

[islandhockey]

Sooooooo.....after reading all these great threads, what is the bottom line?  Is the investment of paying $30-40K a year for So Cal AAA hockey and missing dozens of days of school, pulling down your kid's GPA and affecting their SAT/ACT scores really worth it?  I get the impression that in the end, you can play either AA or AAA and if you are good, you will wind up in the same place, working your way up the juniors ladder in hopes of fulfilling the dream of DI, DIII and beyond. If you are GREAT, you might make it to the top faster...

[1hockeydad]

Sooooooo.....after reading all these great threads, what is the bottom line?  Is the investment of paying $30-40K a year for So Cal AAA hockey and missing dozens of days of school, pulling down your kid's GPA and affecting their SAT/ACT scores really worth it?  I get the impression that in the end, you can play either AA or AAA and if you are good, you will wind up in the same place, working your way up the juniors ladder in hopes of fulfilling the dream of DI, DIII and beyond. If you are GREAT, you might make it to the top faster...

Really great questions.  There is a lot to consider for youth hockey options for kids in California.   As some have noted, what us the real end game?  We want to try to provide the best possible experience for our kids.   As for ourselves,  we see California hockey as a mixed bag.  We have seen our kid play exceptionally well with kids not of the area.  He has also been offered a roster spot on a team from the greater New England area, but has had an issue with a local team.


Billet or not.  Home or away?  What level?  I think that what  matters at the end if the day is incredibly personal.   So much to consider for any family.   Thank you all for input here!

[Xfactor_56]

Sooooooo.....after reading all these great threads, what is the bottom line?  Is the investment of paying $30-40K a year for So Cal AAA hockey and missing dozens of days of school, pulling down your kid's GPA and affecting their SAT/ACT scores really worth it?  I get the impression that in the end, you can play either AA or AAA and if you are good, you will wind up in the same place, working your way up the juniors ladder in hopes of fulfilling the dream of DI, DIII and beyond...

..what  matters at the end if the day is incredibly personal.   So much to consider for any family...

I completely agree that there is no right or wrong answer to all of these very personal family decisions.  I can tell you that plenty of players have had success coming out of AA, so I wouldn't be concerned as much about what level my kid plays as much as whether he has a good Coach that is teaching good life lessons and he/she is having fun.  As far as what is a good investment, I think you answered your own question.  If you are paying $30k+ per year for 6+ years so that your kid might get accepted to a DI or DIII school, why not save that money and spend it on the school instead.  The investment, in my opinion, is hopefully teaching the value of hard work, learning how to be a responsible part of a team and having fun playing a great game.  Of course, they can probably learn those same lessons for the fraction of the price, but I am an idiot who loves watching my kid play...