Another discussion on Tier 1 AAA teams

[wiscobad]

Many discussions have arisen on this forum regarding the status of Tier1 or AAA teams in Minnesota.

I found this on the National Ranking website: www.myhockeyrankings.com

AAA hockey is elite, high level hockey. Most accept the notion that AAA programs either have no geographic boundaries or have geographic boundaries that enable them to recruit or attract the best players from a large pool of players and a large number of less competitive (Tier 2 or AA) organizations. Coaching staffs tend to be paid, or paid more. The commitment level of players, parents and coaches is elevated. Still, what is AAA hockey? A quick sampling of the three M’s (Massachusetts, Michigan & Minnesota) pretty much gives you the entire spectrum of ideas around AAA hockey. The three M’s are all large enough to be classified as USA Hockey Districts and have relatively similar hockey player populations. MYHockey currently lists 35 Massachusetts Tier 1 or AAA programs. Just this past off-season a new AAA league and a number of new AAA clubs were born. In Michigan, there are five main AAA clubs and a few others fielding less than a full slate of teams. Minnesota has no official fall/winter AAA. Yes, Shattuck-St Mary’s (Faribault, MN) is rated the best Prep Development program in the country and often wins Tier 1 Nationals. Yes, Minnesota has about 30 summer programs that label themselves as AAA. And yes, the Fire Hockey Club teams of western Wisconsin have 60-90% Minnesota kids and often practice at places like the University of Minnesota. Still, it is generally accurate to say Minnesota requires that kids to play within what is essentially school district boundaries and that no AAA hockey exists. Clearly, different states and regions have different ideas on how to organize the most competitive teams in their area.

Thoughts?

[O-townClown]

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

He's right.

[jancze5]

What is he right about?

He seems to outline the landscape of hockey as it exists currently within the US and Ontario, nothing about Western Canada, doesn't even mention California, Colorado, Arizona (3 states producing serious top end talent). His version of Minnesota is spot on. Eventually the AAA summer thing is going to be the "I can't wait to play hockey" season, in Minnesota. Just wait. It's coming. I think still that Minnesota could support a small league of AAA in the winter, but you're all right, we don't need it. BUT, at the same time Minnesota and Wisconsin "could" share affiliation for AAA hockey and allow the Fire to have whoever they want from wherever they want, and let Bernie's Machine be year round, toss in Shattuck at the Bantam level and you have 3 avenues for players in and around Minnesota to play AAA "if" they "choose". Life is about choices.

speaking of choices, my wife is dragging me to the fair today..if you see a guy in a ping hat, that's me...choose to say HI!!!

O-town- met a guy from your woods yesterday, owns the Beach Bistro off of Tampa in Holmes Beach. Let me know how the bisque is..

[O-townClown]

What is he right about?


O-town- met a guy from your woods yesterday, owns the Beach Bistro off of Tampa in Holmes Beach. Let me know how the bisque is..

What is he right about? Let's see...the initial comments indicated that he finds it hard to answer the question "What is AAA hockey?" because it varies. He goes on to pick "the 3 M's" - which I didn't take to mean he considered them representative of Colorado, Arizona, and California at all. I suspect they were chosen because they are strongest states in terms of registered USA Hockey players and number of Division I college players (roughly 40-45% of all Americans and nearly 30% of the total).

Short summary - Massachusetts has many AAA clubs, Michigan has fewer and they are top heavy, and Minnesota doesn't have them in-season.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

Holmes Beach, according to Yahoo! maps, is near Bradenton on the SW side of Tampa Bay. I haven't really spent any time in the Sarasota/Bradenton area even though I've lived in Florida 16 years. We've been to St. Pete or Clearwater Beach (NW side) a few times on that coast, but never anywhere between there and Fort Myers. I'll let you know if we make it there.

[Tenoverpar]

I think he describes a variance that is evident and that no system is the right one. The 3 M's produce similar numbers in the end, and take 3 different roads to get there.

[breakout]

For those of you that believe AAA winter hockey is the answer you need to get out more. Minnesota hockey has a broad based appeal and is envied.

If you are looking for higher level hockey there are a lot of supplements in the "off season".

Herb Brooks talked about broadening the pyramid in terms of numbers. AAA hockey would shrink the pyramid and turn kids (athletes) to other sports.

Don't think so? I hear parents gripe about the cost of hockey today. A high end Bantam season can cost parents 2K plus per season. That leads to some parents discouraging their kids from playing hockey. I was told by a parent that Team Illinois had a paid coach and the parents paid 15K per player. That did not include parent T & E. Minnesota Hockey would lose a lot of athletes if we moved to AAA "in season" hockey.

As the saying goes "be careful of what you wish for".

[Bruins]

From what I have heard, I dont think that parents/players want to do away with association hockey, I think some just want the option to continue AAA hockey during the winter. We can easily have 3-5 teams (squirt-bantam) that play winter AAA. I dont see how this would hurt associations and it would be nice to show some of our states talent at the national level. Afterall this is the state of hockey.

[O-townClown]

I dont see how this would hurt associations and it would be nice to show some of our states talent at the national level. Afterall this is the state of hockey.

There are plenty of Minnesotans that play "at the national" level. They just aren't Pee Wees.

[Bruins]

O-town, does that mean you are not in favor of winter AAA hockey.

[breakout]

I dont see how this would hurt associations and it would be nice to show some of our states talent at the national level. Afterall this is the state of hockey.

There are plenty of Minnesotans that play "at the national" level. They just aren't Pee Wees.

You are correct. Good representation from the state of hockey.

[O-townClown]

O-town, does that mean you are not in favor of winter AAA hockey.

Bruins - I think the negatives outweigh the benefits for Minnesota. It is easy to talk in soundbites about "choice" and "a higher level". When you think it through the ripple effects are pronounced.

On another thread there is speculation some Machine players are frustrated about a lack of icetime in a recent tournament. Another post notes that smaller programs have trouble competing with the biggies...that problem certainly gets worse when the best player leaves town.

The starting point for any discussion needs to be figuring out whose needs are not presently met. Minnesota still produces the most college players. If there is room for improvement it is post-puberty and not in fielding uber-allstar teams of Pee Wees.

Once we've figured out who is not well served today it is possible to figure out how the Tier I model could look in Minnesota. Is it five Metro teams or is it more pervasive like the 30+ you might find in Massachusetts? Only then can we speculate about how this could erode the community-based model that has served Minnesota well for decades.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I just know I'd rather not have to drive 41 miles each way to our ice rink and think all measures should be taken to keep the sport as inclusive as possible. Holding the cost of participation in check is a good thing. I don't see how AAA does that.

Of course you can argue that little Johnny doesn't have to participate, but when his friend Ronnie (who may not be as good) already left the community program the draw is obviously there.

One poster in this thread says a goal is to have Minnesota players showcase their skills to others. I don't get it.

[breakout]

O-town, does that mean you are not in favor of winter AAA hockey.

Bruins - I think the negatives outweigh the benefits for Minnesota. It is easy to talk in soundbites about "choice" and "a higher level". When you think it through the ripple effects are pronounced.

On another thread there is speculation some Machine players are frustrated about a lack of icetime in a recent tournament. Another post notes that smaller programs have trouble competing with the biggies...that problem certainly gets worse when the best player leaves town.

The starting point for any discussion needs to be figuring out whose needs are not presently met. Minnesota still produces the most college players. If there is room for improvement it is post-puberty and not in fielding uber-allstar teams of Pee Wees.

Once we've figured out who is not well served today it is possible to figure out how the Tier I model could look in Minnesota. Is it five Metro teams or is it more pervasive like the 30+ you might find in Massachusetts? Only then can we speculate about how this could erode the community-based model that has served Minnesota well for decades.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I just know I'd rather not have to drive 41 miles each way to our ice rink and think all measures should be taken to keep the sport as inclusive as possible. Holding the cost of participation in check is a good thing. I don't see how AAA does that.

Of course you can argue that little Johnny doesn't have to participate, but when his friend Ronnie (who may not be as good) already left the community program the draw is obviously there.

One poster in this thread says a goal is to have Minnesota players showcase their skills to others. I don't get it.

Nicely stated, couldn't agree more.

[breakout]

From what I have heard, I dont think that parents/players want to do away with association hockey, I think some just want the option to continue AAA hockey during the winter. We can easily have 3-5 teams (squirt-bantam) that play winter AAA. I dont see how this would hurt associations and it would be nice to show some of our states talent at the national level. Afterall this is the state of hockey.

Let's say you have a Bantam A player from Centennial. The kid will play an NHL like schedule of 75 or so games. On top of that, you have at least a two to one practice/game ratio. That will put the player on the ice for more than 200 touches. Does that player need an in season AAA supplement? I am thinking the kid will get burnt out.

How about mixing in some other sports here and there? Help the talented young player become an athlete?

[SECoach]

O-town, does that mean you are not in favor of winter AAA hockey.

Bruins - I think the negatives outweigh the benefits for Minnesota. It is easy to talk in soundbites about "choice" and "a higher level". When you think it through the ripple effects are pronounced.

On another thread there is speculation some Machine players are frustrated about a lack of icetime in a recent tournament. Another post notes that smaller programs have trouble competing with the biggies...that problem certainly gets worse when the best player leaves town.

The starting point for any discussion needs to be figuring out whose needs are not presently met. Minnesota still produces the most college players. If there is room for improvement it is post-puberty and not in fielding uber-allstar teams of Pee Wees.

Once we've figured out who is not well served today it is possible to figure out how the Tier I model could look in Minnesota. Is it five Metro teams or is it more pervasive like the 30+ you might find in Massachusetts? Only then can we speculate about how this could erode the community-based model that has served Minnesota well for decades.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I just know I'd rather not have to drive 41 miles each way to our ice rink and think all measures should be taken to keep the sport as inclusive as possible. Holding the cost of participation in check is a good thing. I don't see how AAA does that.

Of course you can argue that little Johnny doesn't have to participate, but when his friend Ronnie (who may not be as good) already left the community program the draw is obviously there.

One poster in this thread says a goal is to have Minnesota players showcase their skills to others. I don't get it.

This is the question....who is not currently being served by the present system?....Minnesota Hockey currently allows for the highest level of participation in the country.....while providing great opportunities for advancement.

In my mind, the answer is clear....the EGO of parents is not being served. One need only travel to Detroit and talk to the parent of an 8 year old, and listen to the number of times they mention Little Caesars or Honey Baked....the kids in these programs are run ragged traveling to play what is perceived as a superior system of youth hockey. This system excludes most kids that would like to play hockey and is only perceived as superior by parents who cannot brag about what team their son has made.

The biggest misconception is that my child will only develop into the dream player if they are playing against the best talent in the country. This couldn't be further from the truth. Players with the talent to play into or beyond high school and fullfill their parents ego drives will do so whether they play in Owatonna, Cambridge or play for Little Caesars. or the Wisconsin Fire. The bottom line is that the kids wanna play and they wanna play a reasonable amount. Adults have turned a fun sport, where some excel to incredible levels, into a vision quest. This my friends is why players that were pegged to be NHL'ers often fade into the sunset, get a job, find a spouse, have some kids, and do a better job the next time around.

Machine players frustrated with a lack of ice time? I'd say there might be some Machine parents frustrated.

It's about time we started to stand up and defend the kids ability to just play their game, experience successes and failures, and learn to love the game. Allow a decent coach to get the most out of each kid that the kid has to offer, while maybe injecting a laugh or two to break things up before the ride home where mom or dad tell them how bad things are. It's about time we stood up to parents that think youth hockey is all about getting the the highest level, which will never be high enough for the kids to get their parents love, admiration, and respect.

[wiscobad]

[O-townClown]

Minnesota has 51,014 players registered with USA Hockey. Take out about 6,000 that are adults and 11,000 girls and you are left with 34,000 or so at the youth level.

"it's always the same arguments against" - yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Do you expect a distinctly different argument each week?

For someone characterizing valid concerns as lame, you've led off with a pretty 'lame' premise when you cite how other states are now developing more high-end hockey players. Why wouldn't they? The NHL move to the Sun Belt is about 15 years old and the players that started back then are just now hitting the upper ages. This has happened outside of anything Minnesota has done.

When your solution for the cost of gas is to tell families they need to buy a new car I can't help but laugh. I've seen this behavior in other sports. If we just mandate that it will be so costly that very few others can participate it will make my kid look better! Tennis and golf academies can run up to $100,000 annually. While you can play on the local public courts, like the Williams sisters, most kids lose interest in playing competitively at a young age when they are far behind the top kids their age. Academies have not grown tennis and they aren't going to grow golf. They hurt participation numbers. If the goal is to run participation in Minnesota to lower numbers it makes sense.

$1,000?? I spoke to a dad today that said sending his son up to Massachusetts for prep school is cheaper than his hockey would have been if he stayed home and joined a AAA team. Yes, he's on a partial scholarship, but my point is that we aren't talking about 1,000 bucks at all if you are talking about just a few Tier I clubs and expect them to play the AAA circuit in Chicago, Detroit, and Ontario. For a family it is $1,000 or more any tournament weekend. If they are like the Fire and play a bunch of community teams they obviously won't have as much travel.

It sounds like you are in a crap association. People regularly move so their kids can play in another community. Or they can wait until HS and go to a private. It isn't like kids are unable to escape the bad program.

Who will scholarship these AAA players? Will teams be sponsored like they are in Detroit? Man, I can't wait until some kid gets recruited to play one year and then his parents get pissed when he's recruited over the next year. I see this happen all the time in basketball and can't believe people are so naive. If YOU got asked to join them didn't you realize you were taking someone's spot!?

You mention Shattuck a few times. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They operate outside the Minnesota Hockey model becuase they should. It is a hockey boarding school that happens to be located in Minnesota. It could be anywhere.

I'm not deadset against Tier I hockey in Minnesota. From your post I gather that your answer for who isn't being well-served is the affluent family in a crap association that wants to escape by joining an all-star team. There is definitely a case that can be made. However, if this kid heads out to a Pee Wee team and gets aced out a few years later for whatever reason do you assume he just slots back in to his community? If so you seem to believe the community ideal should take a back seat to this animal that you've conceded touches a very low percentage of players.

Hockey is a team sport. Opening up mercenaries makes it more likely the me-first mentality flourishes.

Tonight me and a few other dads were talking about which kids are available and what rink they could play for in two years. I don't think anyone was in favor of this...we just have to think like that so we can have a team because participation numbers are abysmal. (They are actually robust in the Sun Belt wherever you have an NHL team, but we aren't close enough to either to benefit.)


I think far more than a handful of teams would pop up at each age group if the rules change to allow Tier I teams in Minnesota. So many first year kids can't make the A team in the strong associations that I'm sure you'd have a lot of interest in places like Eden Prairie, Centennial, and White Bear. Once these teams form it is likely they keep the core together from year to year.

We will see.

[jancze5]

The same dead horse gets beaten over and over by some of you. Tier 1 in Minnesota isn't about ego's, it's not about ice time, it's not about destroying community based hockey (Michigan has the big 5 AAA clubs, but 200 more lower level clubs, we just don't talk about those 30K plus kids), it's not about the NHL, it's not about going D-1, it's not about any of that stuff some of you feel the need to point out as your reasons for Tier 1, guys, it's about a CHOICE.

[muckandgrind]

The same dead horse gets beaten over and over by some of you. Tier 1 in Minnesota isn't about ego's, it's not about ice time, it's not about destroying community based hockey (Michigan has the big 5 AAA clubs, but 200 more lower level clubs, we just don't talk about those 30K plus kids), it's not about the NHL, it's not about going D-1, it's not about any of that stuff some of you feel the need to point out as your reasons for Tier 1, guys, it's about a CHOICE.

BINGO!!!!!!

Why is it that so many are against giving families an option during the winter. And no, moving is not really an option. People may like where they live, but the local association can be rotten as well.

[elliott70]

The same dead horse gets beaten over and over by some of you. Tier 1 in Minnesota isn't about ego's, it's not about ice time, it's not about destroying community based hockey (Michigan has the big 5 AAA clubs, but 200 more lower level clubs, we just don't talk about those 30K plus kids), it's not about the NHL, it's not about going D-1, it's not about any of that stuff some of you feel the need to point out as your reasons for Tier 1, guys, it's about a CHOICE.

BINGO!!!!!!

Why is it that so many are against giving families an option during the winter. And no, moving is not really an option. People may like where they live, but the local association can be rotten as well.

Its not about choice at the individual or local level.

Congress made a choice. Hockey will be handled by USA Hockey.
USA Hockey made a choice - pass it to the local affiliates (MN, MA, Rocky Mountain, etc...)
Most affiliates made their choice baased on what existed in their state(s).
Association hockey (community based) fit in MN.

MN Hockey needs to act and do it on a timely basis by providing definitions to what that (and other defining terms and directions to them) means.

MN Hockey needds to respond to what the membership (how is that term defined) wants and needs.
How many people are we talking about that want to play AAA in the winter?
MN Hockey does not know and most people do not know because they do not know what it will entail for their pocket book, their time, their kids time.

It is difficult, but should there not be serious discussions about developing some system to accomodate some people? And shouldn't this discussion involve people with players in this age group?

The discernment committee has (did have) this on their assignment agenda.

When will this get to the MN Hoceky board?
My guess is not anytime soon.
The 14U development (select) program (modified from that of USA Hockey) cannot get to the board.

[O-townClown]

The same dead horse gets beaten over and over by some of you. Tier 1 in Minnesota isn't about ego's, it's not about ice time, it's not about destroying community based hockey (Michigan has the big 5 AAA clubs, but 200 more lower level clubs, we just don't talk about those 30K plus kids), it's not about the NHL, it's not about going D-1, it's not about any of that stuff some of you feel the need to point out as your reasons for Tier 1, guys, it's about a CHOICE.

What would you say then if the choices that are provided are Tier II clubs? From your post you will certainly say that's okay.

Club hockey vs. community hockey.

For you to assume everyone knows everyone else's motivations is absurd. Sometimes you need to generalize, but sometimes it is flat-out wrong. You say it is only about choice, yet Wiscobad states a noble goal is to "showcase Minnesota talent at a national level". That's not about choice.

Others say it is so their kid can play "at a higher level". That's not about choice. And there aren't many teams nationally playing at a higher level than what you will find in District 6 or at one of the state's best youth Pee Wee or Bantam tournaments. (No doubt some people think of the sponsored Detroit teams. There are over 100 that aren't even close. Only when you outside the U.S. and add Ontario or other parts of Canada do you get past 10-20 really super teams.)

From Elliot's post it sounds like a serious discussion at the top level of Minnesota has not or will not take place. That's too bad. If the status quo remains in place it should be because voices were heard and explanations were given as to why the powers that be feel it is best to stay the course.

[muckandgrind]

The same dead horse gets beaten over and over by some of you. Tier 1 in Minnesota isn't about ego's, it's not about ice time, it's not about destroying community based hockey (Michigan has the big 5 AAA clubs, but 200 more lower level clubs, we just don't talk about those 30K plus kids), it's not about the NHL, it's not about going D-1, it's not about any of that stuff some of you feel the need to point out as your reasons for Tier 1, guys, it's about a CHOICE.

What would you say then if the choices that are provided are Tier II clubs? From your post you will certainly say that's okay.

Club hockey vs. community hockey.

For you to assume everyone knows everyone else's motivations is absurd. Sometimes you need to generalize, but sometimes it is flat-out wrong. You say it is only about choice, yet Wiscobad states a noble goal is to "showcase Minnesota talent at a national level". That's not about choice.

Others say it is so their kid can play "at a higher level". That's not about choice. And there aren't many teams nationally playing at a higher level than what you will find in District 6 or at one of the state's best youth Pee Wee or Bantam tournaments. (No doubt some people think of the sponsored Detroit teams. There are over 100 that aren't even close. Only when you outside the U.S. and add Ontario or other parts of Canada do you get past 10-20 really super teams.)

From Elliot's post it sounds like a serious discussion at the top level of Minnesota has not or will not take place. That's too bad. If the status quo remains in place it should be because voices were heard and explanations were given as to why the powers that be feel it is best to stay the course.

The problem is that there are A LOT of kids who don't live in District 6 or who play on teams in sub-par associations. Sometimes, not always, kids develop better when they are playing with other kids of equal to or better talent.

If both the parents and kids are unhappy playing for their local youth association, there should be more options for them. Whether that be AAA Club, or a more liberal waiver policy.

[O-townClown]

The problem is that there are A LOT of kids who don't live in District 6 or who play on teams in sub-par associations. Sometimes, not always, kids develop better when they are playing with other kids of equal to or better talent.

If both the parents and kids are unhappy playing for their local youth association, there should be more options for them. Whether that be AAA Club, or a more liberal waiver policy.

Agreed.

So walk this through and tell me how everyone is better in aggregate. The great kid at an iffy program wants to pursue this option and tries to get on a club team. The more chances this gives the more likely the AAA product is watered down to where it is not creating teams that are going head to head with the sponsored Detroit clubs.

The community he left is now even less competitive. Their team schedules accordingly and no longer faces Duluth, White Bear, Rochester, or Centennial. I thought this was so kids could "develop" against same or better kids!

Minnesota, perceived warts and all, does not have a problem developing players. Some people want to disagree with this. The area where there is room for improvement is at the upper ages. The Tier I argument seems to be made for 10-14...which sure looks to me like the time it isn't needed.

Just like there are A LOT of kids that aren't in District 6, there are also A LOT of kids that play Tier I and get thumped regularly. A dad on my team is the coach of a group that lost their first 4 games by a combined score of 34-5 or so. What's the point? To say your kid plays AAA instead of AA? To get "exposure" so you might make the USHL watch list?

I readily concede that there are some players that will be better off, by their parents' definition, with Tier I hockey in Minnesota. Why is it impossible for others to concede that it doesn't solve every problem and will undoubtedly create some new ones? If you disagree, then explain how these concerns about problems that could arise are wrong. I don't see anyone do that. I see them circle back to why "choice" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Kids REGULARLY move from the Sun Belt to other areas for hockey. If the Minnesota model isn't working for you there is an option to move. Nobody does this, of course, which should tell you that things aren't so bad in Minnesota.

[muckandgrind]

The problem is that there are A LOT of kids who don't live in District 6 or who play on teams in sub-par associations. Sometimes, not always, kids develop better when they are playing with other kids of equal to or better talent.

If both the parents and kids are unhappy playing for their local youth association, there should be more options for them. Whether that be AAA Club, or a more liberal waiver policy.

Agreed.

So walk this through and tell me how everyone is better in aggregate. The great kid at an iffy program wants to pursue this option and tries to get on a club team. The more chances this gives the more likely the AAA product is watered down to where it is not creating teams that are going head to head with the sponsored Detroit clubs.

The community he left is now even less competitive. Their team schedules accordingly and no longer faces Duluth, White Bear, Rochester, or Centennial. I thought this was so kids could "develop" against same or better kids!

Minnesota, perceived warts and all, does not have a problem developing players. Some people want to disagree with this. The area where there is room for improvement is at the upper ages. The Tier I argument seems to be made for 10-14...which sure looks to me like the time it isn't needed.

Just like there are A LOT of kids that aren't in District 6, there are also A LOT of kids that play Tier I and get thumped regularly. A dad on my team is the coach of a group that lost their first 4 games by a combined score of 34-5 or so. What's the point? To say your kid plays AAA instead of AA? To get "exposure" so you might make the USHL watch list?

I readily concede that there are some players that will be better off, by their parents' definition, with Tier I hockey in Minnesota. Why is it impossible for others to concede that it doesn't solve every problem and will undoubtedly create some new ones? If you disagree, then explain how these concerns about problems that could arise are wrong. I don't see anyone do that. I see them circle back to why "choice" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Kids REGULARLY move from the Sun Belt to other areas for hockey. If the Minnesota model isn't working for you there is an option to move. Nobody does this, of course, which should tell you that things aren't so bad in Minnesota.

For the average family, moving just so your kid can play hockey in a better association is not a realistic option. You know it and I know it.

Personally, I don't see the problem with a talented kid leaving a poor program to play for a better coached and run AAA club. If that association stunk with him, they will stink without him (or her). It might force that association to look at how they are running things and look for room to improve so kids will WANT to stick around. Competition at it's finest.

Right now, associations don't have to think about that. They know that the kids who live within their boundaries HAVE to play for them or not play at all. This is wrong in every sense of the word. Kids can choose which high school they want to go to (through open enrollment), but they have no choice of where they can play youth hockey.

And I find it hysterical that people think that it's always the "parents" who are leading this. You don't give kids enough credit (and when I'm talking about kids, I mean 12-15 year olds). They aren't stupid. Many are perfectly able to tell their parent that they aren't learning anything or having fun. When that happens, the parents SHOULD look into it and tell the kid to either "buck it up" or look for an alternative option. Unfortunately, there aren't too many alternative options available to families....and THAT is the problem.

[elliott70]

An average family may not be able to move to another association.
Can an average family afford AAA in-season?

[elliott70]

Above average math student is not getting what he needs from the local school district, do you move (can't afford it); send them to private school (can't afford it).
Look for after-school tutoring to the extent you can afford it?
And other possibilities that fall in the realm of reasonableness. But the kid still goes to math class.