Author Topic: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II  (Read 11752 times)

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • LR Justice +46/-11
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« on: February 17, 2019, 07:16:09 AM »
Coming to you Monday... for President's Day.  ;)
I'll be your Huckleberry

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • LR Justice +46/-11
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #1 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.
I'll be your Huckleberry

KickSave

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • LR Justice +15/-5
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #2 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.

lcadad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • LR Justice +125/-101
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #3 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 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. 


 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 01:19:48 PM by lcadad »

socalhockeydad

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • LR Justice +25/-56
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #4 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. 

PutYourFootOnTheGas

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • LR Justice +6/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #5 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.

Landshark

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • LR Justice +53/-37
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #6 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.

lcadad

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • LR Justice +125/-101
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #7 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.   

socalhockeydad

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • LR Justice +25/-56
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #8 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 :-(

Strawman

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • LR Justice +26/-29
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #9 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.

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • LR Justice +46/-11
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #10 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.   
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 08:34:12 PM by JackBender »
I'll be your Huckleberry

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • LR Justice +94/-106
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #11 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. 


« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 11:48:58 PM by #4BobbyOrr »

Knuckle Puck

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • LR Justice +40/-5
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 06:02:11 PM by Knuckle Puck »

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • LR Justice +94/-106
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2019, 11:51:17 PM »
LAJK 2017 Quebec Tourney 2nd place

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • LR Justice +94/-106
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #14 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.