Would there really be any need for an affiliated "Single-A" league in hockey when a player pretty much has to start his pro career in "Triple-A" to have any real shot at the NHL (especially any type of long career)?
This is why I don't like superimposing baseball minor league level nomenclature on the much flatter hockey player development pyramid.
Really good point 'chuck.
I agree that hockey and baseball have two very different development systems and adopting the minor league baseball naming convention doesn't accurately reflect how hockey talent is cultivated. But, for better or worse, the powers that be have settled on the idea of using labels like AAA and AA when describing the AHL and ECHL. While I'm always down for new ideas and would love to see minor league hockey develop its own nomenclature (Gold, Silver, and Bronze leagues?), its unlikely to happen and really doesn't contribute to the larger conversation.
So what's the point of having a Single A hockey league?
Simply put, its all about pecking order. We already see this with the AHL and its relationship to the ECHL. The NHL parent calls up AHL talent. The AHL team then turns to their ECHL affiliate for help filling the gaps in their roster. At this point its up to the ECHL team to fill its roster gaps in whatever way it can. In our Single-A scenario the ECHL team would then pull talent from their lower affiliate.
Obviously its highly unlikely that a player at the Single A level would ever make the transition all the way up to the NHL, but given the sheer number of hockey players at the Junior, DIII, and DI levels I suspect a sufficient amount of talent could be found to stock a three tiered minor league system. I wont pretend that I know the hearts and minds of young hockey players, but I suspect there are enough out there who would love to have the opportunity to play a few years professionally even if the pay is low and the prestige is minimal.