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

Author Topic: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II  (Read 65179 times)

Landshark

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • LR Justice +77/-47
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 03:21:25 PM by Landshark »

Hamacher Checking Camp

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • LR Justice +40/-8
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #46 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.........

#4BobbyOrr

  • Midget
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • LR Justice +98/-106
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #47 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.   



JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #48 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?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 09:17:34 AM by JackBender »
I'm your Huckleberry

Racetonowhere

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • LR Justice +11/-14
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #49 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? 

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #50 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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 12:41:09 PM by JackBender »
I'm your Huckleberry

Racetonowhere

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • LR Justice +11/-14
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #51 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. 

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #52 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?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 02:55:15 PM by JackBender »
I'm your Huckleberry

OCHOCKEYDAD

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • LR Justice +5/-2
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #53 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?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 04:40:38 PM by OCHOCKEYDAD »

TheFourthA

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • LR Justice +13/-5
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #54 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. 

OCHOCKEYDAD

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • LR Justice +5/-2
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #55 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????

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #56 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.  ;)
I'm your Huckleberry

rmackintosh

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • LR Justice +10/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #57 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...

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #58 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.
I'm your Huckleberry

805hockey

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • LR Justice +4/-1
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #59 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)?