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

Author Topic: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II  (Read 64992 times)

lcadad

  • AHL
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • LR Justice +151/-121
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2019, 08:03:58 AM »
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? ???




Everyone knows that the teams are primarily picked before tryout.  Often the coaches are watching the actual tryout for 10 minutes at most.  This goes for most AA teams as well, although there are certainly teams that have a much smaller base to pull from then the Kings and Ducks.  I don't really blame the coaches for this, but realistically, when there isn't a noticeable difference between a number of kids, are you going to take the kid who already played for you for 1-3 years, and you know what you can expect from them in games and practices, or are you going to go with the kid who might be marginally better, but you're not really sure. 



I know of kids who played AAA for years, then were displaced, and now playing in AA didn't move the needle much.  Also seen AAA kids from one club, get cut, then call the other teams coach, and essentially walk onto that roster. 
Most of the bubble kids who make these teams have been auditioning for a number of years at the club.  They attend stick times and clinics and camps there, and they are already known. 


I think people have this idea that AAA players must truly be a notch above AA, but in California for the most part, the separation between kids at the top of their AA teams and a AAA isn't very far, if anything at all.   AAA and AA results, as with hockey in general, is often driven by the top few players from each team.  AAA teams certainly have more overall consistency of depth, but then again there are 3 of them at age group.


There are certainly kids who jump off the ice, and/or have the reputation as being offensive juggernauts.  Those come around from time to time and can make any roster they want, but for all the reasons previously discussed, the families want to stay with the clubs and coaches they are already at rather than join the hordes at the Ducks, Kings & Sharks.

lcadad

  • AHL
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • LR Justice +151/-121
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2019, 08:04:29 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)?


A lot of us certainly think so.

Strawman

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • LR Justice +49/-47
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2019, 08:34:16 AM »
One big problem is that our AAA teams are assembled when kids are 8 or 9 years old, long before the “AAA” title is even bestowed on them.  Not even the greatest hockey genius on the planet can look at a bunch of kids that age and figure out who will be a “top 5%” player at age 16 or 18. You might as well pick names out of a hat.  By age 13 or 14, a third of those kids are no longer even standout players when they drop to AA.  Yet that “elite” cohort spends the next 5 or 6 years walking back onto their AAA teams every spring at tryout time, or playing musical chairs with players who are on other AAA teams, while late bloomers and late starters toil away at the lower levels and can’t break in.  A lot of those other kids give up, or find other interests, or leave the state while they are “waiting their turn.”  The idea that California can fill multiple more competitive AAA teams at each age level seems exaggerated to me, but the current monopoly system is definitely not maximizing the potential of California’s talent pool. 

JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2019, 09:27:14 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)?


Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔
I'm your Huckleberry

rmackintosh

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • LR Justice +10/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2019, 09:30:53 AM »
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? ???




Everyone knows that the teams are primarily picked before tryout.  Often the coaches are watching the actual tryout for 10 minutes at most.  This goes for most AA teams as well, although there are certainly teams that have a much smaller base to pull from then the Kings and Ducks.  I don't really blame the coaches for this, but realistically, when there isn't a noticeable difference between a number of kids, are you going to take the kid who already played for you for 1-3 years, and you know what you can expect from them in games and practices, or are you going to go with the kid who might be marginally better, but you're not really sure. 



I know of kids who played AAA for years, then were displaced, and now playing in AA didn't move the needle much.  Also seen AAA kids from one club, get cut, then call the other teams coach, and essentially walk onto that roster. 
Most of the bubble kids who make these teams have been auditioning for a number of years at the club.  They attend stick times and clinics and camps there, and they are already known. 


I think people have this idea that AAA players must truly be a notch above AA, but in California for the most part, the separation between kids at the top of their AA teams and a AAA isn't very far, if anything at all.   AAA and AA results, as with hockey in general, is often driven by the top few players from each team.  AAA teams certainly have more overall consistency of depth, but then again there are 3 of them at age group.


There are certainly kids who jump off the ice, and/or have the reputation as being offensive juggernauts.  Those come around from time to time and can make any roster they want, but for all the reasons previously discussed, the families want to stay with the clubs and coaches they are already at rather than join the hordes at the Ducks, Kings & Sharks.


This is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case in Northern California--I can assure you. Keeping kids names out of this as required, my son plays on the "joke of a team" from the north who most here refer to as evil and full of hacks. Before you call me a shill or a pawn or some other name I will tell you that I was no big fan of the NHL affiliate from the north...for my son's entire time in youth hockey...there is a reason my son played for GSE for years. After a year on the "evil" team I can tell you that the club and team has its share of warts...we can discuss if it was more or less warts than any other club/team out there if you like. But, I will say it is in the range of what I would call normal for hockey teams/clubs. There can discussion if they have more influence and "power" than the small clubs, and because of size and representation on the boards...they obviously do. But as far as large groups of players "ready" to step up to AAA that isn't even close to the truth up here...

The fact that there are a bunch of kids out there, at least in NorCal, that could field AAA teams is simply not the case. Our team/club is called a joke because of their performance year after year. Obviously, we would always like to improve. We have an AA team up here that will likely challenge, once again, for the state championship in AA this year--they have had a good year and are solid as usual. However, when we look at the kids on that team and think "hey, wouldn't it be great if XXX showed up at tryouts and played AAA next year for us", there are only 2 or 3 that we can actually say that they would have a good shot to make our "dismal" AAA team. And even so, they would be 3rd liners or grinders...even against our "third rate" AAA team. No, surplus of talent found. Your results down south may vary, but given how solid the Ducks and Kings are, I doubt you could field more that one or two teams that would be far below the Sharks in terms of success or in the rankings...

...most this is base on Bantam Major year info FYI...

rmackintosh

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • LR Justice +10/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2019, 09:42:29 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)?


Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 10:00:03 AM by rmackintosh »

Deuce

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • LR Justice +6/-4
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2019, 10:08:31 AM »
Congrats to the Jr Kings 06 on beating SKA today to advance to the semis vs MN in the Quebec tournament.

805hockey

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • LR Justice +4/-1
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2019, 09:39:17 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)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.

rmackintosh

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • LR Justice +10/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2019, 11:10:03 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)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.


Like I said, I am all for more QUALITY AAA teams. It would make life so much easier....less travel, more games, better opportunities, etc. However, the teams MUST meet a minimum standard. Nobody wants to trek up here to NorCal to play a new AAA team that you smoke 10-0 a few times a year. It does nobody any good--the true AAA players learn to play at 85% and get away with it and the "overextended" players learn frustration and dissappointment and are likely to struggle or fail because of it. There MUST be a bar set somewhere/somehow. I will agree our current system is clunky and needs a lot of work...but given what I see out there the "system" is not that far off in terms of how many teams there are...

805hockey

  • Mite
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • LR Justice +4/-1
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2019, 09:08:02 PM »
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)?





Gas/Race/Bobby... waiting for an answer.  Heck, Mac can jump in as well.  Please explain. 🤔🤔🤔


Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.


What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


There has to be a bar....we can discuss whether or not CAHA has the bar set correctly or even measures the standard that the bar is based on correctly, but there has to be a bar.  My son would like to be a professional race car driver....but he doesn't know how to drive. Should he get a ride in a pro series just because I say that he deserves an "opportunity" to experience it for himself??? (actually this is EXACTLY how pro racing works...but that is another story ;-) ) This is NOT what we need or should want. Buying the kid a ride or another "A" does nothing but lighten your pocketbook and give the kid a false sense of how good they are....look at how many financed race car drivers struggle and dissappear when daddies money runs out...


LATE EDIT (Sorry) As for letting "parents (customers)" decide if there kids is AAA or not is absolutely silly. I know as many hockey parents as any of you, and if there is one thing I know 99% of parents think their little Gretzky is far better than he actually is...hence the problem we should all be acknowledging "buying the extra A" in hockey. I agree CAHA needs to set a bar and walk away...but coaches and clubs need to be deciding what level they should play at....at least coaches are somewhat more objective.




I understand, I looked back at other posts, and this seems like a very hot topic in the past.  I suppose there will never be agreement between and among the interested groups...I don't see how hockey is "hurt" by allowing other clubs to field AAA teams.  If the Kings/Ducks/Sharks have to play an extra game or two against the Titans (or any other club), I fail to see the collapse of California hockey.  Using the Titans as the example, they didn't always bottom feed.  There were season where they did quite well, which is pretty much how sports go.


Like I said, I am all for more QUALITY AAA teams. It would make life so much easier....less travel, more games, better opportunities, etc. However, the teams MUST meet a minimum standard. Nobody wants to trek up here to NorCal to play a new AAA team that you smoke 10-0 a few times a year. It does nobody any good--the true AAA players learn to play at 85% and get away with it and the "overextended" players learn frustration and dissappointment and are likely to struggle or fail because of it. There MUST be a bar set somewhere/somehow. I will agree our current system is clunky and needs a lot of work...but given what I see out there the "system" is not that far off in terms of how many teams there are...



Just curious as to how a "minimum standard" is defined.....and now this has come full circle for me as a prior fellow noted, in bold, the rules for AAA status and how to maintain it.  I forget who the guy was, but now that makes sense.  I did a cursory look at the standings for the 12-18 AAA major teams.  The standings show (when combined) the Sharks went 4-31?  Does that mean they will lose their AAA program?  That does not seem very competitive....I think other clubs could field AAA teams and do just as bad

lcadad

  • AHL
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • LR Justice +151/-121
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2019, 10:19:42 PM »
The problem with focusing on Norcal and the Sharks is that it is the exception and not the rule.  There's less population, fewer teams and less kids to pick from.  I also don't think the Sharks are terrible -- just not capable of beating the Kings or Ducks 9 games out of 10.  Depending on the division, some teams are just a few goals away when you look at the results.


If the Sharks weren't part of the triad of teams that have the AAA franchise, there would be less animosity, because the rules that were used to deny other clubs a place at the AAA table are the same rules that don't get applied to the Sharks. 


Quote
Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.

What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


That's not the way it works.  You either leave the teams to the clubs or you don't.  Over time the viability of clubs will take care of itself, and if the cost of that is the occasional blow out, so be it.  Stop with the fantasy that there's perfect parity where every game is going to be a 50/50 coin flip. 


JackBender

  • Peewee
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • LR Justice +49/-20
    • Tom's Chuckle Barn
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2019, 07:15:47 AM »
Remember the word opportunity? Well, it paid off in an interesting way this weekend.  Not for a player or parent or club... but for a coach.

The LA Jr Kings 06AAA team won the Quebec International Peewee AAA tournament this weekend.  Pretty great achievement.  It’s like the world championship for Peewee AAA.  It has only been done once before by a California team... several years ago by an LA Selects team (pre-limits, mind you 😉).

The interesting part is the coach, Brett Beebe.  He’s a young guy, with limited coaching experience, and this is his first year coaching the team.  Clearly, though, he’s a very gifted and terrific coach... and guess where his first AAA coaching opportunity came from?

The California Titans.  Opportunity.

Beebe coached the Titans 16U AAA team for a year, and it could be argued that without that opportunity, he wouldn’t have been considered to have enough experience to take over a AAA team for a big club like the LA Jr Kings.  The opportunity allowed him to check a box on his resume, and, sadly, that opportunity no longer exists in California for some other potentially great coach.

No parent, player, club or coach is wandering into AAA willy nilly.  That doesn’t exist.  It never did.  Everyone understands the stakes.  But if a club like the Wildcats isn’t being competitive and some parent feels taken advantage of... then CAHA should talk to that club directly.  Solve the issue directly. 

But don’t hamstring an entire state, and don’t inorganically suppress opportunity.

P.S. Sir 805… keep asking your questions.  You’re exactly right, it's not fair and doesn't make sense... but don’t expect the CAHA shills to answer.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 07:16:46 AM by JackBender »
I'm your Huckleberry

5lap5hot

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • LR Justice +9/-7
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #72 on: February 25, 2019, 08:16:21 AM »
With the win for the JK06 I think that proves that our state has talent.  I've watched that team play and they are good.  No arguement that for the vast majority of that team they've earned the big win in Quebec.  One would argue now that CAHA was right and has the best teams in their places, but then I'd argue that would mean there are some other teams that could be fielded from the AA ranks that could compete with many AAA teams around the country.


So all of you that want to play AAA are you willing to fork out $25k it takes to play?  That one tournament entry fee is $20k.  You're going to fork over $3-5K for your son to go play and may end up out before you know it.  All this talk of AAA remember you've got to go play in tournaments on the east coast, Chicago/Midwest or Canada.  Each trip is $2k for flights, hotel and rental car.  I don't care if you add three more AAA team per level you will still need to travel.


So I think the first thing you need to figure out is do you want to spend $25k?  (Post tax money)

rmackintosh

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • LR Justice +10/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2019, 08:38:14 AM »
The problem with focusing on Norcal and the Sharks is that it is the exception and not the rule.  There's less population, fewer teams and less kids to pick from.  I also don't think the Sharks are terrible -- just not capable of beating the Kings or Ducks 9 games out of 10.  Depending on the division, some teams are just a few goals away when you look at the results.


If the Sharks weren't part of the triad of teams that have the AAA franchise, there would be less animosity, because the rules that were used to deny other clubs a place at the AAA table are the same rules that don't get applied to the Sharks. 


Quote
Look...not gunna rehash pages of mud here...and years of posts actually. But to be quick...I AGREE there should be no Monopoly with the big three in terms of AAA teams. I AGREE that there should be as many AAA teams as the "market" can bear.

What I DON'T agree with is clubs should be able to field AAA teams willy nilly and put teams out there that lose 0-10 day in and day out. This helps no one and hurts everyone. I just disagree with how big the "market" actually is....


That's not the way it works.  You either leave the teams to the clubs or you don't.  Over time the viability of clubs will take care of itself, and if the cost of that is the occasional blow out, so be it.  Stop with the fantasy that there's perfect parity where every game is going to be a 50/50 coin flip.


No...what you describe is NOT how it works. It has been shown that parents and clubs are all too willing to put their kids and teams up into levels they probably shouldn't belong. The entire reason the Flight system is in place is to avoid teams spending your precious travel dollars running all over the state to play a bunch of games that are blowouts. I am not saying the Flight system is right, but it IS an attempt to combat clubs/parents from fielding teams for the "extra A" or more dollars in terms of the clubs...it happens....it can be shown even today.


I already described why blowouts are not productive...for either the blowoutees or the blowouters...

PutYourFootOnTheGas

  • Squirt
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • LR Justice +6/-18
Re: CAHA's biased leadership and AAA sham PART II
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2019, 08:40:03 AM »
“No parent, player, club or coach is wandering in to AAA willy nilly.”


JB, you make some argument worthy points and I honestly enjoy the back and forth but I totally disagree with your statement above. I’ve been around minor hockey for 10+ years. I can tell you that most parents don’t have a grip on reality. Hell, many of us are flying all over the country watching 11, 12, 13, etc. year old kids play hockey REGULARLY. It’s not sane. This drives clubs to offer anything and everything even if they are not positioned to do it (in my opinion) properly because they know there is always a group of crazies ready to buy in. Perhaps what all this boils down to is do you trust the CAHA shills or the Anaheim Wildcats of the world to do what’s right for little kid hockey??? I know your answer. I know mine.