The end of the Titans?

[Puck Yeah]

take deep breath P.Y. and relax. you are going to have a nervous breakdown. you make some good points at times, but he was just pointing out your analogy didn't make any sense this time. you need to grow a thicker skin if you want to keep posting here.

I don't no where you get the impression that I am the least bit bothered but the post.  I was actually pointing out how over the top it was to use more than a dozen exclamation points.  Just like yelling doesn't improve ones point neither does it in the written word.

I stand by my position that is is silly to presume that you must be or have been a hockey player to be capable of managing an organization.   


Next thing you know you two will suggest you must be a politician to be President.......

And there in lies the problem. You just don't get it, as does the board of CAHA.  Do you think Philip Anschutz knows anything about putting a great hockey team together?  Or did he hire Rob Blake to make it work?  That is my analogy and it make far more sense than any argument you have made.  The upper, decision making board is made up on NON Hockey people trying to make Hockey sense.  Evidently you have never played the game or my point would make sense to you.  And no,  you do not have to be a politician to be President you have to be a politician to be Presidential  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry, I am just not that invested in the debate as it is pointless.  You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.  Bitching on a hockey forum has no effect positive or negative.  It is a futile waste of energy.   


Maybe you should become a board member and create a West Coast hockey empire with your knowledge of the game DTG?  Apparently a couple years of Bantam travel and you become a organizational mastermind.

[Racetonowhere]

DTG:Other than hiring Gretzky or Orr, what specific things should CAHA do to improve or promoteyouth hockey in California? BTW. Sam Pollock was the greatest GM in NHL history, and he never played at an advanced level.
Having said that, I don't see how limiting the number of AAA teams helps.  If an organization can't field a  competitive team, the other teams don't have to play it. More teams means more opportunities for kids who are still developing and want to pursue their dreams, or their parents' dreams.  I just read about a goalie drafted by NHL who played for Titans' 18U before juniors and college. Would he have had that opportunity if he hadn't played for Titans?

[Portent]

I have a question, what defines a "competitive team?" Wins and losses, +/-, GD, or the ever popular argument -"it is a development year".
The reason I ask is because like Puck Yeah said, people will complain regardless. Limit the teams and people will complain about less opportunity. Let the clubs choose and you dilute the market decreasing the competitiveness overall and people complain. A market with too many diluted teams means the higher teams have to go to more tournaments out of state to play "equal caliber" teams thus spending more money. Limiting the number of teams means not enough teams to play locally so now they have to spend more money to go out of state tournaments. Again, people will complain regardless. As I stated before, I don't care which way it goes. I do take issue with the CAHA board bashing though. Say what you want, but you are ignorant if you think the board members don't care or are not at least trying something different. Their decisions may be right or wrong for hockey, but they are trying something.
Go back on the CAHA standings page and look at the previous 7 years worth of history. Look at all the AAA levels and see competitive looks like.

[Hockey05]

I have a question, what defines a "competitive team?" Wins and losses, +/-, GD, or the ever popular argument -"it is a development year".
The reason I ask is because like Puck Yeah said, people will complain regardless. Limit the teams and people will complain about less opportunity. Let the clubs choose and you dilute the market decreasing the competitiveness overall and people complain. A market with too many diluted teams means the higher teams have to go to more tournaments out of state to play "equal caliber" teams thus spending more money. Limiting the number of teams means not enough teams to play locally so now they have to spend more money to go out of state tournaments. Again, people will complain regardless. As I stated before, I don't care which way it goes. I do take issue with the CAHA board bashing though. Say what you want, but you are ignorant if you think the board members don't care or are not at least trying something different. Their decisions may be right or wrong for hockey, but they are trying something.
Go back on the CAHA standings page and look at the previous 7 years worth of history. Look at all the AAA levels and see competitive looks like.

Coaches are always going to want to go out of state and parents buy in.  Plus either with or without the teams at AAA you have no choice.  The fact of the matter remains that the system is failing.  Almost all the very best kids leave.  Acadad summed it up best, the "CAHA board is out of step with USA Hockey and the more established youth hockey markets."  The argument that California doesn't have the players no longer holds up.  No we aren't MN, MI or MA, but we are a very large hockey market for USA Hockey. 

[CEO]

Is CA a large market for USA Hockey in terms of number of players or quality of players?  There is big difference, and this seems to be the issue of the debate as to how many AAA teams should be in CA.

[1hockeydad]

Is CA a large market for USA Hockey in terms of number of players or quality of players?  There is big difference, and this seems to be the issue of the debate as to how many AAA teams should be in CA.

Agreed, except there are still political games, snd favorites of coaches at the expense of other kids.  My kid had a bad experience with his coach who cut his time.  Yet two other coaches of AAA teams in the organization liked my son, and totally felt he was getting a bad deal.  He played on a Canadian tournament team,  yet his coach looked at him as not as worthy as the kids who had been on the team for years. So yes, what makes a kid "AAA"?  And who is to decide?  Now he is on another AAA team elsewhere, with a coach who looks forward to helping develop him as a player and young man.

[Puck Yeah]

Is CA a large market for USA Hockey in terms of number of players or quality of players?  There is big difference, and this seems to be the issue of the debate as to how many AAA teams should be in CA.

Agreed, except there are still political games, snd favorites of coaches at the expense of other kids.  My kid had a bad experience with his coach who cut his time.  Yet two other coaches of AAA teams in the organization liked my son, and totally felt he was getting a bad deal.  He played on a Canadian tournament team,  yet his coach looked at him as not as worthy as the kids who had been on the team for years. So yes, what makes a kid "AAA"?  And who is to decide?  Now he is on another AAA team elsewhere, with a coach who looks forward to helping develop him as a player and young man.

If you find this mythical place that lacks political games and favoritism let me know.  I want grab the pot of gold that awaits and ride a unicorn out of there.  It is human nature.  It can't be escaped. Life isn't fair and we all just have to try to make the best decisions under the circumstances as they present themselves.  Many times what we think is a raw deal turns out to be for the best in hindsight.

[socal03]

In 2015-16, USA hockey (per their website) had registered 364,500 total players that were 18 or under.  11,680 of these were from California, or 3.2%. 2016-17 numbers don't seem to be posted yet. Per the MHR tier 1 rankings for 2016-17:


four 18U teams out of 134 -> 3.0% CA based (#27, #50, #85, #114) average performing
five 16U teams out of 147 ->3.4% CA based (#21, #43, #68, #82, #102) over performing
four 15U teams out of 80  ->5.0% CA based (#23, #29, #41, #56) over performing
three 2002 teams out of 109 ->2.8% CA based (#36, #39, #57) over performing
four 2003 teams out of 97 ->4.1%  CA based (#3, #50, #60, #87) top heavy
four 2004 teams out of 92 ->4.3%  CA based (#11, #15, #32, #56) high performing
three 2005 teams out of 90 ->3.3%  CA based (#6, #15, #55) high performing


The numbers suggest California tends to be slightly over represented, while demonstrating the quality to back it up.  CAHA deserves at least some credit for that.  But it would seem there may be a little more room at a birthyear or two for perhaps one more AAA team, if the talent is available, ready, and willing.  Part of the problem may be that 1/3 of that remaining marginal AAA talent is in Norcal and 2/3 in Socal...maybe they could practice and play out of Bakersfield.

[Puck Yeah]

In 2015-16, USA hockey (per their website) had registered 364,500 total players that were 18 or under.  11,680 of these were from California, or 3.2%. 2016-17 numbers don't seem to be posted yet. Per the MHR tier 1 rankings for 2016-17:


four 18U teams out of 134 -> 3.0% CA based (#27, #50, #85, #114) average performing
five 16U teams out of 147 ->3.4% CA based (#21, #43, #68, #82, #102) over performing
four 15U teams out of 80  ->5.0% CA based (#23, #29, #41, #56) over performing
three 2002 teams out of 109 ->2.8% CA based (#36, #39, #57) over performing
four 2003 teams out of 97 ->4.1%  CA based (#3, #50, #60, #87) top heavy
four 2004 teams out of 92 ->4.3%  CA based (#11, #15, #32, #56) high performing
three 2005 teams out of 90 ->3.3%  CA based (#6, #15, #55) high performing


The numbers suggest California tends to be slightly over represented, while demonstrating the quality to back it up.  CAHA deserves at least some credit for that.  But it would seem there may be a little more room at a birthyear or two for perhaps one more AAA team, if the talent is available, ready, and willing.  Part of the problem may be that 1/3 of that remaining marginal AAA talent is in Norcal and 2/3 in Socal...maybe they could practice and play out of Bakersfield.

Nice analysis.

[#4BobbyOrr]

According to USA Hockey tier 1 roster spots  should be limited to 15% of the total players in an age group for the affiliate (CAHA).  So figure out what 15% of the total number of midget aged players there are in the CAHA, then divide that number by 20 (approximate roster size) and that will give you the answer to how many AAA midget teams there should be in California.

[Puck Yeah]

According to USA Hockey tier 1 roster spots  should be limited to 15% of the total players in an age group for the affiliate (CAHA).  So figure out what 15% of the total number of midget aged players there are in the CAHA, then divide that number by 20 (approximate roster size) and that will give you the answer to how many AAA midget teams there should be in California.

There were 1,700 Midget 16s in the 2015-16 season.


By comparison CO has 1250 members and and four 16UAAA and four 15UAAA.

[lcadad]

According to USA Hockey tier 1 roster spots  should be limited to 15% of the total players in an age group for the affiliate (CAHA).  So figure out what 15% of the total number of midget aged players there are in the CAHA, then divide that number by 20 (approximate roster size) and that will give you the answer to how many AAA midget teams there should be in California.

As I stated before, CAHA is out of step with USA Hockey on many levels and issues.  Thanks for providing such a simple formula.


I think it's actually far worse of a situation given that many people have been discouraged at AAA and AA from even considering it as an option due to the costs associated with extensive travel.  The midget numbers are decreasing as people choose High school as a low cost alternative, rather than a supplement.

[Puck Yeah]

According to USA Hockey tier 1 roster spots  should be limited to 15% of the total players in an age group for the affiliate (CAHA).  So figure out what 15% of the total number of midget aged players there are in the CAHA, then divide that number by 20 (approximate roster size) and that will give you the answer to how many AAA midget teams there should be in California.

As I stated before, CAHA is out of step with USA Hockey on many levels and issues.  Thanks for providing such a simple formula.


I think it's actually far worse of a situation given that many people have been discouraged at AAA and AA from even considering it as an option due to the costs associated with extensive travel.  The midget numbers are decreasing as people choose High school as a low cost alternative, rather than a supplement.

Actually midget membership is up 6% in 2016-17 or 2015-16.    I am not sure I would call HS a "low cost alternative" especially once the subsidies dry up.

[lcadad]

The big cost in AAA is not primarily the fees, but the cost of travel to compete with other AAA teams around the country and in Canada.  This is partially a function of CAHA and the geography involved, but it makes it an essential requirement when you have 2-3 teams in your AAA league. 

At just about any club around, you can see that hockey is in an echo-boom period following the Kings 2 stanley cups.  Hockey membership should be up, and you can see that the entry level programs are bursting with kids. 

While High school may not be free it's still cheaper than travel hockey, but again, in a lot of other hockey markets, kids are playing High school because they want that experience, but they are often also playing travel hockey as well.  That is my point. 

[coachbombay]

Just heard that CAHA is under pressure from JK and JD clubs to force the Titans to quit AAA.  The guise is that AAA hickey in CA is "too diluted. "  So, effort is underway to have CAHA ask NAPHL to kick the Titans out of their umbrella.


On so many levels I find this sick, sad, and disgusting.   No wonder in the youth hockey world that CA hockey is considered a joke and so bad politically.


I feel bad for kids in SD, and those who joined up with the Titans.  The organization and the kids deserve better.

does this have anything to do with them losing their AAA programs, because i don't see any other teams declared except for the two AAA teams.


from caha rules

b. Member Associations fielding Tier I teams shall maintain a minimum of two (2) teams at the Tier II level in the current and previous season. c. With Youth Council’s recommendation, the CAHA board has the