Leaderboard

Agreed, I would love to see those two associations put out a cost structure and what you get for the cost. i.e. how many 50 minute half ice practices do you get a year?

So now with the Finals set, are we going to start the annual complaint that UPMC Lemieux is too small to host the finals?

While jumping organizations sometimes is for petty reasons, also sometimes it's 100% warranted.

Still beating the victim drum? Maybe call Rachel Maddow to plead your case. I'll keep playing this for you.

I hate seeing programs disappear and feel for the Vipers, but continuing to hang on without a home is a huge problem imo, like Aviators. Give it up at some point. The kids will find a home. I feel that it should be a requirement that your program has an ADM program in order to compete at Nationals or PAHL playoffs. Having all these programs just take the work of what other organizations are doing just isn't right. It might curb the I am going to spring up my own team over here because I am butt hurt you didn't put my super star on team 1 problem, too.

No, this monopoly is definitely not a good idea for the consumer. They never are. Notice how they buy up a bunch of rinks in an area so they have enough market control. Then, they move on to the next area. After they buy enough there they will head to the next area,.... Not good in my opinion. Seems they usually come in and raise prices. If you look at their older rinks out towards Philadelphia, they are in rough shape after years of ownership. I would rather have hockey people that care come in and buy the rinks and actually mamagi them. Great example is Baierl and Jim Black. Hockey guy came in, bought a rink that was going into shambles. He really did amazing things there and I do appreciate it. The current ownership of Frozen Pond also put a lot of time and money into that rink as well. It has come a long way. Some of the BB rinks in Philly I have been to look like they get minimum to maintenance.

Everyone associates ADM with just with 8U (Mites) because that is where it started, but it was designed and applicable to go all the way up to 18U and beyond. Here are the guidelines for the different age levels. https://www.admkids.com/page/show/910488-what-is-the-american-development-model- I believe it started around the 2009 timeframe and it was intended that it would start with the 8U and then would progress to 10U in like 2011 and 12U by 2013, etc. by the time those players who went through it in 8U got to each development level, etc. The model was to dictate the number of players on teams, number of practices, number of games teams can play, amount and focus of off-ice training, etc. 8U (Mites) was intended to be strictly in-house. Only UPMC, North Pittsburgh and RMU seemed to go with the model as associations put up more pushback. The 10U level was still designed to be primarily in-house, with balanced teams, but I do believe it included transitioning to full ice and also allowed for inter-club play. At the same time, I don't know what stalled the initiative as everything seemed to just remain "guidelines" and were never required or formally implemented at the older ages like they were at the 8U level. I don't know if there was too much pushback from associations and the fact that not all associations are equal and perhaps could not meet all the criteria or just didn't like the model. Whatever it was, it just seems to have died. There is a part of me that believes that USA hockey kind of had to give up on it because they saw the threat of teams and players moving to AAU and if they perhaps kept pushing it and enforcing things at higher age levels it could lead more and more transition to AAU. With the program starting in 2009 at 8U, all the players who started going through it should be moving onto college by now. I don't know where the numbers are at as far as measuring success, but I know when they implemented it they were talking about things like increasing the number of US born players in the NHL Draft - 1st round and overall, number of US players in the NHL, etc. I can't really say the model has been implemented as it was intended across all ages to be able to evaluate whether it was successful or not. I know that when associations are to declare if they will be fielding any Tier 1 or Tier 2 teams (i.e. competing for National Championships) - there is a question on the application that asks "Is your club fully ADM compliant - Yes/No" and "If not, why not?". I think a lot of the time this is taken as "Do you have an 8U (Mite) ADM program" but I don't think that is the intention. It is more about - Do your teams have enough practices - with respective mixes of full ice/half ice/etc.? Do you limit number of games in the target ranges for respective age levels? Do you have appropriate off-ice training? Etc. I would argue many of the programs in the area - including many fielding Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams - do not adequately meet the ADM model criteria, but this is not enforced for being able properly roster Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams.

$2650! (Yellow helmet not included)…. The 66ers play as the Pittsburgh Knights AAU, there was a team called Rampage, and a team called Whalers last year. It’s happening here kind of under the radar (for now) until BB makes it a thing here like they are in the east. I think USA Hockey does a poor job of transitioning mites to squirts in regards to full ice play. I think that all final year mites should switch to full ice for the second half of their last mite season. Instead they offer “transition camps” and try to teach the entire game in like 4 hours. Then you have first year squirt teams who spend the first half of their season learning the game. It’s kind of a mess in my opinion.