Leaderboard

If I am not mistaken, one of the things that RMU doesn't like about the Island facility is that it is off campus, and therefore not as easy for resident students to attend games at. This was one of the stated advantages that the on campus basketball arena had over the hockey arena. So I assume they hope they'll get more spectators at an on campus arena.

If you want to drive young girls away from hockey, this is a great mentality. Just let them play coed and it will be an "equal" playing field for all. Right now you have 8 PAHL organizations fielding 20 girls only teams from 10U thru 19U (with a 19U division that includes a 16U team). I know a lot of those organizations have to double roster kids on both the 12U and 14U teams in order to fill out entire rosters, so you can have *barely* enough teams to keep the divisions running. The rule change wording even acknowledges "this will likely be a step backwards in a few places and therefore could cost us a small number of girls teams." The rule about double rostering for girls to play on two teams is somewhat unfortunate necessity. It is not like these girls are taking roster spots away from other girls on those teams, there are just not enough players to go around. I suspect another onus for these proposed rule changes is parents on birth year PAHL teams being upset about talented girls who play 10U and 12U Pens Elite girls while also playing on the AA coed teams for the PAHL. Sometimes they may have to pick and choose which team they play for on a tournament or for a certain weekend, and that gets the other parents upset. Every person is different, but most girls I've seen and known playing hockey seem to thrive on the competition playing with and against the boys at their age plus enjoy the comradery and sense of fitting in with their girls teams as well. Limiting their choices and number of teams that organizations are even able to field for them as options to satisfy some legal sense of obligation of gender equality really goes against the mission and objective of making hockey fun, fair, and accessible to as many young people who want to participate as possible. If any of you have any influence on the organizations or people in organizations voting on these proposed rules, if you care about the present and future of girls hockey in the region, I would strongly urge you to vote "no" on these changes.

It’s holding them back recruiting wise. Think of how many prospective players would be enticed by brand new ON CAMPUS facilities. Bring in better talent, put a better product on ice, attract more fans.

well aren't you just a ray of sunshine. I did some research : The Colonials got off to their best start in program history in 2021 at 11-3 and saw themselves ranked within the USCHO Top 20 for much of the season, reaching a program-best #17 in January. At 15-9 overall and 10-5-0 in AHA play, the Colonials earned a West Division title while boasting the AHA Coach of the Year as well as conference MVP, Rookie of the Year, and Defenseman of the Year. The top offensive team in AHA and one of the most prolific in all of college hockey, RMU's 85 goals was one of the highest totals in all of NCAA DI, and their 25% success rate on the power-play was tops in the conference. - this happens to be the SAME year the program was ended by the President. Schooley's team has reached four AHA title games and raised three championship banners since the start of the decade. After making the program's first-ever trip to the NCAA Tournament via an AHA postseason title in 2013-14, the Colonials ruled the league during the grueling regular season in 2014-15 and 2015-16, winning 24 games in each of those years. Additionally - several players from RMU have gone on to play professional hockey on some level. Then let's talk about the women's program - 4 women played in the Olympics - 2 earning medals. 3 banners for winning CHA and several women drafted into Professional Women's hockey.

I’m happy to see that they appear to be planning to do a complete review of the current rules—with the antiquated rules theoretically being updated/modernized and the wording to be revised accordingly for clarity and to reduce misunderstanding. At least, I interpreted it as such. In my opinion, the very first step in solving a problem…is to acknowledge that there “may/might” be a problem. The troublesome thing that is apparent to me is that they’re still living in their fears and are motivated by reactionary thinking. But, I am encouraged by the direction that they’re taking with their actions.

I agree with the Teir one rule. I disagree with the double rostering on two girls teams. Some organizations would not be able to field some teams if they could not have girls on two teams.

What’s wrong with the 10u and 12u black team families at PPE doing what they’re doing? 4 years playing a combo of local games that they pick against generally similar competition and adding to it about 6 regional tournaments against other girls teams? Would you rather put these girls in the girls ‘PAHL pen’ where there are 4 teams in a division and 2 of them can barely skate? And play each other like 4 times and call it a season…?

Girls hockey in Pittsburgh and the District is in a far worse place than boys if you can believe that. One of the issues is this, the PPE program with their magical powers are somehow able to field not just one, but two "Tier 1" teams at both 12U and 10U. Yet as the players get older, no one else in Western PA is allowed to field a Tier 1 Girls program by declaration of the MidAm district. So by logic, there aren't enough of these players being developed properly to continue at the Tier 1 level past 12U..................................................... ORRRRRRRRRR There are some 12U and 10U families that have been sold a large dose of Kool-aid for their 4 years in the program.

That's called equity. If one goes, they all should be invited so as not to make anyone feel inferior.

Looks like the entire Pens Elite 2010 team was invited!