AAA Teams

[Hockey247]

I’m new to this forum, but I’m hoping to get some information.  Although I know not everyone is in favor of the AAA teams, I am looking to get some sort of comparison between the teams.  There seems to be more discussions that include Esmark, but I haven’t seen too much said about Vengeance.  Can anyone throw out some pros/cons?  Thoughts or knowledge about the new Aviators AAA?

[Rewster]

This ought to be good…

37 minutes ago, Hockey247 said:

I’m new to this forum, but I’m hoping to get some information.  Although I know not everyone is in favor of the AAA teams… Can anyone throw out some pros/cons? 

I will start by answering part of the question: Pittsburgh Penguins Elite are usually 1 or 1A in the region and Esmark Stars are 1B or 2…historically speaking.

Edited March 27 by Rewster
Grammar

[hockeyisgreat]

And according to most folks here they are the only ones that are true AAA!  Everybody else (which is almost every organization) is just a money grab and a Faux AAA team!  

[nemesis8679]

1 minute ago, hockeyisgreat said:

And according to most folks here they are the only ones that are true AAA!  Everybody else (which is almost every organization) is just a money grab and a Faux AAA team!  

So when you figure out how Pittsburgh supports the amount of supposed AAA teams it does, while cities with double or triple the population have half as many or less... maybe you'll understand. 

[Hockey247]

1 minute ago, hockeyisgreat said:

And according to most folks here they are the only ones that are true AAA!  Everybody else (which is almost every organization) is just a money grab and a Faux AAA team!  

So are you including Vengeance in the faux AAA category?  Is this why there isn’t much discussion about them?  I really haven’t seen much negativity around them, but again, I can’t find much discussion at all.  

[hockeyisgreat]

In my opinion (isn't worth much) there are good players on almost all AAA teams. Just not enough of them. Once again most folks here will tell you that if your team isn't ranked in the top 25 of Tier 1 it's a Faux AAA team.   I didn't know that the Aviators were trying to put together a AAA team.  What age group?  I'm guessing they had a good AA team they think can move up! Most likely they will end up in the bottom of AAA!

[Pucks11]

24 minutes ago, Hockey247 said:

So are you including Vengeance in the faux AAA category?  Is this why there isn’t much discussion about them?  I really haven’t seen much negativity around them, but again, I can’t find much discussion at all.  

They had 1 team that was really good for 2yrs and then the whole team blew up. They are average and fall in line with the other AAA teams. Supposedly their prices are going up this season after taking over another organization and kicking everyone else out of their arena. For your kid depending on what you expect the best would be to go to your closest rink and work your way out as you get  feel for said organization.

[kid310050]

45 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

In my opinion (isn't worth much) there are good players on almost all AAA teams. Just not enough of them. Once again most folks here will tell you that if your team isn't ranked in the top 25 of Tier 1 it's a Faux AAA team.   I didn't know that the Aviators were trying to put together a AAA team.  What age group?  I'm guessing they had a good AA team they think can move up! Most likely they will end up in the bottom of AAA!

So they claim they are playing an "AAA" independent schedule but are declaring for the Tier 2 National Championship so AAA but not really I guess?

[Saucey]

Aviators can't put together a good AA team let alone AAA. Since losing home ice, they struggled to put together any team. That's a good one. But they are trying something new. They have a home ice now? Who knows, roll of the dice.

Some of these programs end up occasionally having some success, but it's a flash in the pan success. Usually it's a highly invested dad coach who heavily recruits and makes one good team. Then that kid ages out or moves on and the team falls apart. 

Vengeance is pretty much all new now. People who started it are gone. Who knows.

You kind of have to be connected to that crew of talent to know where to go 

It's hard to recommend AA anymore. Most AAA is basically AA now. If I had a young player, I would not even know where to have them play these days.

Coaching. At this point the best advice is to get good coaching. Fits into your schedule. Easy rink to get to. You can afford it. Good non drama to families.

[sadday4hockey]

1 hour ago, nemesis8679 said:

So when you figure out how Pittsburgh supports the amount of supposed AAA teams it does, while cities with double or triple the population have half as many or less... maybe you'll understand

Provide some factual data on this please. Not your opinion above, but actual facts with the cities which you believe this happening. And please use actual USA hockey registration data and not the entire population of say Philadelphia.

 

[zam]

Each birth year is slightly different depending on who is coaching and which organization the strongest players gravitate toward.  I'm assuming you are asking about the younger ages based on your question.  Generally speaking Pens Elite is always going to field the strongest team in the area. You can look at all the birth years for the last number of years at My Hockey Ratings.com and see they are typically in the top 12 teams in the country.
Historically Esmark was their closest rival, and they take most of the Pens cast offs and add some foreigners. They are typically strong only at 16u and 18u. They only started having younger teams a couple years ago, one of them was ridiculously bad last season. 
A couple years ago Vengeance put together a successful 2008 team that was equal to Pens for a few years, but since then fell apart and most of their best players went to pens or left town. They never really got traction on any other birth year besides that one.
Any of the other "AAA" teams your results will vary.  This is the first I heard the Aviators fielding a "AAA" team.  A couple years ago their organization consistent of like 2 A minor teams and didn't have home ice anywhere. So better watch out, You are definitely playing the role of guinea pig on that one.

My suggestion for any team you are considering, find out who the coach is, find out what their reputation is and how long they've been coaching. Look up how successful they were last year.  If they have an open skate or a tune-up go to that. If your kid is the best kid there, go somewhere else. If your kid is the worst one there play single A Pahl hockey.

[pickle]

Tier I and Tier II are the only designations that USA Hockey recognizes.  AAA, AA, etc. are skill levels typically applied by leagues to distinguish their different levels and groupings.  Independent teams are outside of league designations and can say they are whatever they want.  The problem is that people always use these terms interchangeably when technically they are not.  Tier I does not automatically mean AAA and Tier II does not automatically mean AA, etc.  These AAA/AA skill designations generally were a factor of age level, but were more about team depth.  The AAA/AA skill designations only mean something when they are given by respective leagues and tournaments and used for separating team levels.  You now of the "AAA-Elite" designations to separate the top AAA teams from everyone else.     

Tier I means that teams can and do recruit and billet players from all across the country/world to assemble the best possible team they can regardless of where the players come from.  Tier II requires that players generally reside within 50 miles of the teams home rink (varies by region) with some exceptions.  Tier II was generally just the top AA programs from the respective local leagues (PAHL) and used to be happy playing each other to be the best local team.  Tier I was reserved for the best teams who typically played outside of the local area and basically were "independent" or played in "AAA" level leagues and competed with the best of other regions.  They used to be better/higher than the top "AA" teams from the local leagues.  

Tier I and Tier II officially only applies to 14U teams and up (now 13U at Tier I) and only those teams officially competing for the respective Tier I or Tier II National Championship, although associations emerged as "Tier I Programs" and typically refer to all their teams as Tier I, while other programs try to field both Tier I and Tier II (and all other level) teams.  My understanding was that USA hockey was cracking down on programs fielding only 1 or 2 "Tier 1" teams.  You basically had to have a full Tier I (14U, 15O, 16U, 18U) program.  This limits the teams actually eligible to compete - but this doesn't mean teams can't call themselves whatever they want, whether it means anything or not.

Obviously it is always about money and teams can charge more and make more money the higher level they call themselves and try to compete - whether they are at that level or not.  The thing about MyHockeyRankings is that it gives a rating and teams are ranked accordingly regardless of what they call themselves. 

[kid310050]

18 minutes ago, pickle said:

Tier I and Tier II are the only designations that USA Hockey recognizes.  AAA, AA, etc. are skill levels typically applied by leagues to distinguish their different levels and groupings.  Independent teams are outside of league designations and can say they are whatever they want.  The problem is that people always use these terms interchangeably when technically they are not.  Tier I does not automatically mean AAA and Tier II does not automatically mean AA, etc.  These AAA/AA skill designations generally were a factor of age level, but were more about team depth.  The AAA/AA skill designations only mean something when they are given by respective leagues and tournaments and used for separating team levels.  You now of the "AAA-Elite" designations to separate the top AAA teams from everyone else.     

Tier I means that teams can and do recruit and billet players from all across the country/world to assemble the best possible team they can regardless of where the players come from.  Tier II requires that players generally reside within 50 miles of the teams home rink (varies by region) with some exceptions.  Tier II was generally just the top AA programs from the respective local leagues (PAHL) and used to be happy playing each other to be the best local team.  Tier I was reserved for the best teams who typically played outside of the local area and basically were "independent" or played in "AAA" level leagues and competed with the best of other regions.  They used to be better/higher than the top "AA" teams from the local leagues.  

Tier I and Tier II officially only applies to 14U teams and up (now 13U at Tier I) and only those teams officially competing for the respective Tier I or Tier II National Championship, although associations emerged as "Tier I Programs" and typically refer to all their teams as Tier I, while other programs try to field both Tier I and Tier II (and all other level) teams.  My understanding was that USA hockey was cracking down on programs fielding only 1 or 2 "Tier 1" teams.  You basically had to have a full Tier I (14U, 15O, 16U, 18U) program.  This limits the teams actually eligible to compete - but this doesn't mean teams can't call themselves whatever they want, whether it means anything or not.

Obviously it is always about money and teams can charge more and make more money the higher level they call themselves and try to compete - whether they are at that level or not.  The thing about MyHockeyRankings is that it gives a rating and teams are ranked accordingly regardless of what they call themselves. 

This was a good explination!

[pickle]

Take a look at the 14U (2009) this season.  There were 8 teams in Mid-Am playing Tier 1 - 4 from Western PA (Pittsburgh), 2 from Ohio and 2 from Indiana.  The two teams from Indiana did not qualify.  Two Ohio teams are from Columbus and Cleveland, with home rinks separated by a 2-hour drive from each other and thus typically have their respective areas top players with little to no competition.  Aside from PPE (which as pointed out on the board is generally the 1 or 1A team from the region), the other three teams were all from Pittsburgh (Predators, Vengeance and SHAHA) with home rinks all seperated by less than 50 miles (most 10-20 miles).  Did these teams not deserve to be there?  Should they have played and competed for Tier II?  Looking at the rankings and final standings and such, if any of these teams would have dropped out and played for Tier II instead, they would certainly been playing for the Tier II National Championship next week, and would have been odds on favorite to be Tier II National Champions.  So which is better?  Being a top Tier I team and making districts with little to no chance of winning or being Tier II National Champions?  If you surveyed all the players and parents on these teams, I would guess almost all would say they would rather be on a Tier I team and not win (as many probably somehow believe they can win).

On the other hand, look at 16U (2007).  There are now 12 teams competing for Tier I.  Here you start getting competition from the Prep Schools - Culver and Gilmour, also Esmark which is also known to recruit from out of town for 16U and 18U, or otherwise get some PPE players when PPE does additional recruiting.  But now you also add Icemen in locally.  If you look at the six teams who did not qualify for Mid-Ams, locally you have Vengeance (89.51), Icemen (87.01), and Predators (86.22) - compared to the top Tier II local teams Armstrong (87.84), Steel City Renegades (competing for national championship) (86.84).  Would these Tier I teams been better served playing Tier II and competing for the National Championship?  What about getting to play local high school as well?

Another factor everyone brings up is that it is about getting to and advancing to higher levels, particularly junior teams and college teams.  A lot of the problem comes down to, and has already been addressed on this board, is that Tier II just doesn't get same level of recognition regardless of team strength, individual skill, etc.

[fafa fohi]

32 minutes ago, pickle said:

If you surveyed all the players and parents on these teams, I would guess almost all would say they would rather be on a Tier I team and not win (as many probably somehow believe they can win).

Preds parents from the U18 AAA 105th ranked Tier 1 team and Icemen parents from the U18AAA 120th ranked team might respond with "hold my beer."  Both teams were out of MidAms consideration by December.

No way in hell would I pay for the extra A just to say my kid played AAA on a horrible team with no shot at playing in MidAms and would rather have a realistic chance of going to MidAms and Natty's on a top AA team.  Hell, the Preds AA U18 team was ranked higher than their U18 AAA team.

Edited March 27 by fafa fohi

[TeamRamRod]

I completely agree that the AAA teams ranked 100+ who can't even smell the 6th seed at MidAms should be AA.  I think the debate is the AAA teams ranked in that 60 or so range that can only hope to make MidAms as a low seed and maybe win a game vs being a Tier 2 team and compete for a national championship.  The 2009s were brought up and that's a good example.  Shaha could've won MidAms at Tier 2 but went 0-3 at Tier 1 MidAms.

[Hockey247]

1 hour ago, pickle said:

Tier I and Tier II are the only designations that USA Hockey recognizes.  AAA, AA, etc. are skill levels typically applied by leagues to distinguish their different levels and groupings.  Independent teams are outside of league designations and can say they are whatever they want.  The problem is that people always use these terms interchangeably when technically they are not.  Tier I does not automatically mean AAA and Tier II does not automatically mean AA, etc.  These AAA/AA skill designations generally were a factor of age level, but were more about team depth.  The AAA/AA skill designations only mean something when they are given by respective leagues and tournaments and used for separating team levels.  You now of the "AAA-Elite" designations to separate the top AAA teams from everyone else.     

Tier I means that teams can and do recruit and billet players from all across the country/world to assemble the best possible team they can regardless of where the players come from.  Tier II requires that players generally reside within 50 miles of the teams home rink (varies by region) with some exceptions.  Tier II was generally just the top AA programs from the respective local leagues (PAHL) and used to be happy playing each other to be the best local team.  Tier I was reserved for the best teams who typically played outside of the local area and basically were "independent" or played in "AAA" level leagues and competed with the best of other regions.  They used to be better/higher than the top "AA" teams from the local leagues.  

Tier I and Tier II officially only applies to 14U teams and up (now 13U at Tier I) and only those teams officially competing for the respective Tier I or Tier II National Championship, although associations emerged as "Tier I Programs" and typically refer to all their teams as Tier I, while other programs try to field both Tier I and Tier II (and all other level) teams.  My understanding was that USA hockey was cracking down on programs fielding only 1 or 2 "Tier 1" teams.  You basically had to have a full Tier I (14U, 15O, 16U, 18U) program.  This limits the teams actually eligible to compete - but this doesn't mean teams can't call themselves whatever they want, whether it means anything or not.

Obviously it is always about money and teams can charge more and make more money the higher level they call themselves and try to compete - whether they are at that level or not.  The thing about MyHockeyRankings is that it gives a rating and teams are ranked accordingly regardless of what they call themselves. 

I really appreciate you breaking it down like that!  We are looking for somewhere where he can get good coaching and development.  I think it is true, in hockey, that you get what you pay for.  I haven’t found that there is much, for a goalie, at A/AA.  He can definitely compete at that level and would benefit from the added focused coaching.

[James Gatz]

1 minute ago, Hockey247 said:

I haven’t found that there is much, for a goalie, at A/AA.  He can definitely compete at that level and would benefit from the added focused coaching.

Goalie development is unique and lonely journey.  I am a big proponent of supplementing with private lessons.  There are a handful of people out there offering private goalie instruction in all four cardinal directions from downtown.  Some of the organizations also offer 2x/month goalie clinics.  They are okay, but not as useful as private lessons from my experience.  

When it comes down to the individual teams, much less the different organizations, your mileage will vary greatly when it comes to what the coaching staff knows and does when it comes to goalie coaching.  Some do provide coaching during practice and others provide virtually zero instruction.  It is a position where the kid has to be a self-motivated, dedicated individual to coach themselves a fair amount.  It can be a struggle to apply what you learn in private lessons/clinics to practice and a battle to reinforce good habits vs. forgetting all they learned in the lessons/clinics.  I don't think there is any one organizatoin that does it best; the individual team/coaching staff matter most.

[Hockey247]

12 minutes ago, James Gatz said:

Goalie development is unique and lonely journey.  I am a big proponent of supplementing with private lessons.  There are a handful of people out there offering private goalie instruction in all four cardinal directions from downtown.  Some of the organizations also offer 2x/month goalie clinics.  They are okay, but not as useful as private lessons from my experience.  

When it comes down to the individual teams, much less the different organizations, your mileage will vary greatly when it comes to what the coaching staff knows and does when it comes to goalie coaching.  Some do provide coaching during practice and others provide virtually zero instruction.  It is a position where the kid has to be a self-motivated, dedicated individual to coach themselves a fair amount.  It can be a struggle to apply what you learn in private lessons/clinics to practice and a battle to reinforce good habits vs. forgetting all they learned in the lessons/clinics.  I don't think there is any one organizatoin that does it best; the individual team/coaching staff matter most.

I agree!  He does receive private lessons in Dek and inline. We have looked into private for ice but it’s been hit or miss if you even receive a reply. So far, these AAA teams all seem to have goalie specific coaches, along with team coaches.  I like the idea of someone familiar with him and the team being able to work with him, not just “hey, stand here and take the shots”.  I was hoping for some insight into the differences among the teams.

[forbin]

5 hours ago, nemesis8679 said:

So when you figure out how Pittsburgh supports the amount of supposed AAA teams it does, while cities with double or triple the population have half as many or less... maybe you'll understand. 

4 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

Provide some factual data on this please. Not your opinion above, but actual facts with the cities which you believe this happening. And please use actual USA hockey registration data and not the entire population of say Philadelphia.

 

The numbers are actually pretty even. Lets look at Pittsburgh VS Detroit. 16U and 150 Tier 1 specifically from this past season.

Pittsburgh (Western PA):

1,483 registered players aged 15-16

11 total teams with approx 17 players on each (187 total)

That's 12.6% of registered players on AAA teams

 

Detroit (Michigan):

2,662 registered players aged 15-16

16 total teams with appox 17 players on each (272 total)

That's 10.2% of registered players on AAA teams.

 

[Happy Hockey Fan]

16 minutes ago, forbin said:

The numbers are actually pretty even. Lets look at Pittsburgh VS Detroit. 16U and 150 Tier 1 specifically from this past season.

Pittsburgh (Western PA):

1,483 registered players aged 15-16

11 total teams with approx 17 players on each (187 total)

That's 12.6% of registered players on AAA teams

 

Detroit (Michigan):

2,662 registered players aged 15-16

16 total teams with appox 17 players on each (272 total)

That's 10.2% of registered players on AAA teams.

 

Good research is appreciated.

[hockeydadx3]

16 minutes ago, forbin said:

The numbers are actually pretty even. Lets look at Pittsburgh VS Detroit. 16U and 150 Tier 1 specifically from this past season.

Pittsburgh (Western PA):

1,483 registered players aged 15-16

11 total teams with approx 17 players on each (187 total)

That's 12.6% of registered players on AAA teams

 

Detroit (Michigan):

2,662 registered players aged 15-16

16 total teams with appox 17 players on each (272 total)

That's 10.2% of registered players on AAA teams.

 

Looks like parents in Detroit are burning their money as well. Glad @fafafohi and the crew have it figured out or what would we all do??

[fafa fohi]

On 3/27/2024 at 3:34 PM, hockeydadx3 said:

Looks like parents in Detroit are burning their money as well. Glad @fafafohi and the crew have it figured out or what would we all do??

LOL I never told you what to do now did I?  I stated what I WOULD DO.  And I also said "to each his own."

Make your own decision - I don't really care what you do.  Preds and Icemen AAA coaches are always looking for that diamond in the rough and parents with a thick wallet, maybe you and your player fit the bill.

Edited March 29 by fafa fohi

[nemesis8679]

1 hour ago, forbin said:

The numbers are actually pretty even. Lets look at Pittsburgh VS Detroit. 16U and 150 Tier 1 specifically from this past season.

Pittsburgh (Western PA):

1,483 registered players aged 15-16

11 total teams with approx 17 players on each (187 total)

That's 12.6% of registered players on AAA teams

 

Detroit (Michigan):

2,662 registered players aged 15-16

16 total teams with appox 17 players on each (272 total)

That's 10.2% of registered players on AAA teams.

 

That's interesting. I'm curious about something, though. At 16u in Michigan, no teams are labeled AA- only A or AAA. And there's less than half the amount of total teams than there are in PA. I never paid attention before, but just seems odd. 

[sadday4hockey]

And it will be the same in Eastern PA/South Jersey, North Jersey/NYC/LI, Western NY, and countless pockets of places all throughout the New England area.

If I recall correctly, USA hockey has in the past referenced the 15% mark as the percentage whom should be playing Tier 1.

Like it or not (or not believe it) but we have good solid hockey around here and because of that we should expect there to be some impressive showings by our local teams at Nationals.